Bringing in Hoffman at fullback and moving Tomkins to 6 would likely be good. The most effective fullbacks tend to be guys who create opportunities off the back of their strong runs (Hayne, Inglis, Slater, Tedesco, Dugan, Barba/Boyd at their best). Tomkins is not one of these - he's a playmaking fullback. Playmaking fullbacks can be very effective but rarely at the absolute top of the heap (Brett Stewart is probably the exception, although before his knee troubles he was more of a runner - in any case that guy is just a freak).
Tomkins' numbers read like a (very) good #6.. the only question for me is if Hoffman the fullback we need to shift him, or would our overall utility be greater with the Chad (who was quite promising before bizarrely being dropped for all of the last few games) playing 6 and Tomkins staying at the back? Personally I think it's worth signing Hoffman.
I don't really have an issue with Tomkins' defending in the line - his effective tackle rate is barely any higher than many top halves (Thurston, Foran, Johnson, Pearce) and after playing as a fullback this year his numbers are going to be negatively distorted (only 2 first string NRL fullbacks have effective tackle rates above 80% - Inglis & Boyd). That's not to say he will be a very good defender... just not nearly as poor as some might think.
As for the Roosters players rumours... RTS is no chance, I don't really want FPN and can't see JWH either - though I'd take him very quickly at this point (yes, he is overrated... but still would easily be a first team player for us).
Oh, and Tomkins was not a mistake... he's easily better than Locke at fullback (I'm judging Locke on the average of his whole career, not a couple of strings of games), a great option in the halves besides that (moving him doesn't negate either of those points), and frankly I'm very thankful it allowed us to get that poisonous little so and so Locke out of the club. It's pretty clear to see him for what he is by his behaviour this year IMO.
