Rumoured Targets 3

[HarVeeGee]

Chammas reporting the Papali'i extension is done and Mooney has been granted his release.

 

[Apey]

Can we just acknowledge that someone at the club realised Cogger isn't very good (despite getting picked most weeks) and was keen enough to get rid of him that we're paying some freight to move him on a year early? Good on ya "Sully". The promised land does not involve the Cog.

 

[perverse]

Can we just acknowledge that someone at the club realised Cogger isn't very good (despite getting picked most weeks) and was keen enough to get rid of him that we're paying some freight to move him on a year early? Good on ya "Sully". The promised land does not involve the Cog.

I'm glad we're doing it, but it definitely is embarassing that we're paying Jack Cogger to play elsewhere next year.

 

[Woody90]

I would have been happy to pay his whole salary to get rid of him tbh.

 

[Woody90]

I'm saying it shouldn't be a lie, specifically. Fletcher has proven you need to find a spot for him in the team. He hasn't proven that spot should be in the halves. He doesn't understand how to play 6, not really, not at all. Having him at 6 puts a lot of pressure on Brown to kind of do everything at 7 and he's never proven he's that kind of 7 - of which there are like three in the entire sport right now who are actually good.

We also don't know what position the next coach thinks Fletcher should play.

It’s more the fact that the new coach could want Sharpe to play in the halves, so you can’t really BS Sandon that he could be a chance of playing regular halves and then he ends up playing hooker every week. He’d be understandably pissed off.

We’re doing the right thing telling him that as things stand now, he’d be playing hooker…so with that information he can make an informed decision about what he wants. If he wants to play regular FG halves, he can go to the Cowboys.

Also Smith would be nice, but he’s not so good of a player that I’d be lying to him to get him here.

 

[Loose Cannon]

I would have been happy to pay his whole salary to get rid of him tbh.

I’d find a way to pay it out of my own pocket, if it was allowed.

 

[HarVeeGee]

It’s more the fact that the new coach could want Sharpe to play in the halves, so you can’t really BS Sandon that he could be a chance of playing regular halves and then he ends up playing hooker every week. He’d be understandably pissed off.

We’re doing the right thing telling him that as things stand now, he’d be playing hooker…so with that information he can make an informed decision about what he wants. If he wants to play regular FG halves, he can go to the Cowboys.

Also Smith would be nice, but he’s not so good of a player that I’d be lying to him to get him here.

I reckon there’s a good chance nothing happens soon while the Roosters are in the hunt for finals and they need him to play, so by the time he’s been able to get some time off to go and visit the facilities in Townsville and come back to us again, we may already have said new coach. Who very well may not think Fletcher should be guaranteed a halves jersey, or may think Brown needs a genuine half supporting him.

 

[Knight Tales]

Sandon and Brown in the halves sounds killer on paper. So if we miss him cos we insist he plays hooker then it will likely
come back to bite us. Fletcher Sharpe will inherit the one jersey inevitably anyway. Key is convincing him he can be an equally dangerous wing or centre until KP potentially leaves in a year or two.

 

[Loose Cannon]

wrong thread

 

[Woody90]

Sandon and Brown in the halves sounds killer on paper. So if we miss him cos we insist he plays hooker then it will likely
come back to bite us. Fletcher Sharpe will inherit the one jersey inevitably anyway. Key is convincing him he can be an equally dangerous wing or centre until KP potentially leaves in a year or two.

Does it? Sandon isn’t much more of a half than Sharpe is. With Brown and Smith you still have 2 runners without a long kicking game.

If we want to run without a natural 7, I’d prefer to have Sharpe there who’s at least an individual threat. I’m ok with Smith coming to play 9 or bench utility but we can find a better half if the new coach doesn’t want to keep Sharpe there.

 

[HarVeeGee]

Probably can’t afford a better half though.

And I’m sorry if you think Sandon isn’t “much more of a half” than Fletcher, or he’s just a “runner”, this must be your first week watching footy, honestly.

Smith doesn’t have an elite long kicking game, but it’s not awful, and if long kicking game was the thing that differentiated a good or bad half then a combo of Matt Burton and Jake Clifford would be as good as it gets.

 

[Woody90]

Probably can’t afford a better half though.

And I’m sorry if you think Sandon isn’t “much more of a half” than Fletcher, or he’s just a “runner”, this must be your first week watching footy, honestly.

Smith doesn’t have an elite long kicking game, but it’s not awful, and if long kicking game was the thing that differentiated a good or bad half then a combo of Matt Burton and Jake Clifford would be as good as it gets.

I watch every single the Roosters game as my wife’s a chooks fan…so hardly my first week watching footy. I just don’t rate him as a half. I think he has poor game awareness and doesn’t read what’s in front of him so he regularly takes the wrong option. Seems the Roosters who know him best agree with me too as they’ve prioritised Savala who’s less experienced and an aging DCE over him. Also if he was that decent more clubs would be after him given the drought of good halves currently.

He also wouldn’t be any cheaper than someone like Pezet. FTR I’m not really sold on him either but at least he has a kicking game and more of a halfback than Smith so would be a better foil for Brown.

It’s all moot anyway, because unless Ponga leaves our remaining cap space will be going to a hooker not another half. If Smith doesn’t want to play hooker that’s fine, but we need to then still find another hooker, not bend to what Smith wants.

 

[HarVeeGee]

We offered Pezet over $700K, no way is Sandon getting an offer like that anywhere.

They also prioritised Savala due to his fit with Walker and DCE is a top 5 halfback of the NRL era, “aging” or not.

It’s not “bending to what Smith wants”. It doesn’t even make sense to sign him if they very specifically want a starting 9 and don’t anticipate ever needing him to play in the halves. In which case, why wouldn’t you say, if it’s clear it’s the best thing for the team for the guy to play in the halves, that’s where he’ll play. Not promising anything, but not ruling it out.

Especially since Sharpe has NFI how to play in the halves and they’re gonna end up putting someone else there anyway! I would be willing to bet money on this.

 

[HarVeeGee]

FWIW Barry was just asked whether the new coach might play Sandon in the halves and Sharpe elsewhere in the backline, and he just said "Will be totally up to the coach where anyone plays."

So it sounds like the versatility is a selling point at least, but he has to be okay with being asked to play hooker if that's what the coach wants. Vs the Cowboys saying they only consider him a half.

I'll add to that that when asked about the spine in 2026 on SEN a little while back, Parr said they view Brown as a marquee half, whether he's wearing 6 or 7 is up to the coach, and Sharpe as "a wonderful footballer who can play anywhere in the backline".

 

[Woody90]

FWIW Barry was just asked whether the new coach might play Sandon in the halves and Sharpe elsewhere in the backline, and he just said "Will be totally up to the coach where anyone plays."

So it sounds like the versatility is a selling point at least, but he has to be okay with being asked to play hooker if that's what the coach wants. Vs the Cowboys saying they only consider him a half.

I'll add to that that when asked about the spine in 2026 on SEN a little while back, Parr said they view Brown as a marquee half, whether he's wearing 6 or 7 is up to the coach, and Sharpe as "a wonderful footballer who can play anywhere in the backline".

Again, you’re missing the point. I didn’t say that the new coach will definitely want to play Sharpe in the halves, but they COULD (and it’s extremely likely that will be the case if Green’s appointed)…and in that case, Smith needs to be given full disclosure that there’s a very good chance he will be spending a lot of time at hooker. Doesn’t mean he definitely will, hell he could play in the halves, but he could also very well need to play mostly at hooker depending on what the new coach wants. Also if you signed Smith to play in the halves we then don’t have enough cap space to then go and sign a hooker.

Also I think you’re selling Sharpe fairly short. He got basically half a season in a new position and was starting to show good signs before his injury. He was never going to suddenly become a half with one off season and half a season. Obviously someone saw something in him though that suggested he could make a good half down the track so we chose to take the risk of developing him there. It’s far from a certain thing that the new coach won’t want to keep that going.

 

[HarVeeGee]

Again, you’re missing the point. I didn’t say that the new coach will definitely want to play Sharpe in the halves, but they COULD (and it’s extremely likely that will be the case if Green’s appointed)…and in that case, Smith needs to be given full disclosure that there’s a very good chance he will be spending a lot of time at hooker. Doesn’t mean he definitely will, hell he could play in the halves, but he could also very well need to play mostly at hooker depending on what the new coach wants. Also if you signed Smith to play in the halves we then don’t have enough cap space to then go and sign a hooker.

Okay I’m starting to think that this is one of those arguments where the one of the other person just isn’t understanding the other’s point lol. This is more or less exactly what I was saying, or at least what I thought I was saying.

My point was that the pitch sounds like it’s “we are signing you to play hooker, and also to be the back-up half if there are players out”. My point was that the pitch shouldn’t just foreclose on the prospect of him being picked in the halves as a first choice option if it appears clear that that’s the best option. I don’t think I at any stage said we should mislead him about whether there’s a very good chance he’d be picked at hooker.

“We see you as a very good, versatile player who can play hooker, halfback and five-eighth. Where you get picked out of those three positions will be up to what the coach thinks is best for the team” is how I would pitch it. That’s not misleading at all. We should absolutely make it clear that being picked at 9 is a very realistic possibility.

Especially since it’s totally plausible that the new coach would think him at 6 or 7 is the best thing.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about Sharpe, I thought the improvement came mostly when they sort of gave up on having him play like a half. I’m not going to say he couldn’t be good in that position one day, but I think it’d be a long transition. And I don’t think the team is good enough to carry a guy learning on the job at the same time Dylan Brown’s role is significantly changing at his new club. And it seems like there’s a good chance Kalyn leaves in a year or two and then Sharpe is playing fullback after that anyway…

 

[Woody90]

Okay I’m starting to think that this is one of those arguments where the one of the other person just isn’t understanding the other’s point lol. This is more or less exactly what I was saying, or at least what I thought I was saying.

My point was that the pitch sounds like it’s “we are signing you to play hooker, and also to be the back-up half if there are players out”. My point was that the pitch shouldn’t just foreclose on the prospect of him being picked in the halves as a first choice option if it appears clear that that’s the best option. I don’t think I at any stage said we should mislead him about whether there’s a very good chance he’d be picked at hooker.

“We see you as a very good, versatile player who can play hooker, halfback and five-eighth. Where you get picked out of those three positions will be up to what the coach thinks is best for the team” is how I would pitch it. That’s not misleading at all. We should absolutely make it clear that being picked at 9 is a very realistic possibility.

Especially since it’s totally plausible that the new coach would think him at 6 or 7 is the best thing.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about Sharpe, I thought the improvement came mostly when they sort of gave up on having him play like a half. I’m not going to say he couldn’t be good in that position one day, but I think it’d be a long transition. And I don’t think the team is good enough to carry a guy learning on the job at the same time Dylan Brown’s role is significantly changing at his new club. And it seems like there’s a good chance Kalyn leaves in a year or two and then Sharpe is playing fullback after that anyway…

I have no problem with the pitch because we’re recruiting for a hooker. Whether he’s a better half than Sharpe or not is actually redundant, because the roster gap we’re trying to fill is hooker, and if he signed with the view that he might end up somewhere else we’d still need to find space to sign a hooker.

He’s 22 and we’re offering him a 4 year contract. It’s a huge portion of his career. I’m happy we’re being upfront with him about what position he’d likely need to play if he signed with us so he can make an informed decision. If he signs banking on his ability to prove that he has to be picked in the halves forcing us to work something else out at dummyhalf that’s great, but he needs to know there’s a good chance he’ll be at hooker.

Yes Sharpe will likely end up at fullback when Ponga leaves, but that could be 2 years away at a minimum.

 

[macavity]

I have no problem with the pitch because we’re recruiting for a hooker. Whether he’s a better half than Sharpe or not is actually redundant, because the roster gap we’re trying to fill is hooker, and if he signed with the view that he might end up somewhere else we’d still need to find space to sign a hooker.

He’s 22 and we’re offering him a 4 year contract. It’s a huge portion of his career. I’m happy we’re being upfront with him about what position he’d likely need to play if he signed with us so he can make an informed decision. If he signs banking on his ability to prove that he has to be picked in the halves forcing us to work something else out at dummyhalf that’s great, but he needs to know there’s a good chance he’ll be at hooker.

Yes Sharpe will likely end up at fullback when Ponga leaves, but that could be 2 years away at a minimum.

I reckon Sharpe stays at 7. I honestly think he will make a go of it there. I reckon his floor and ceiling are Nico Hynes and Jerome Hughes (both fullbacks), and we would be very happy with either.

Hunt or another junior will take over at 1 eventually.

 

[Yosh]

Sharpe could play anywhere. Just stuck him in on position/role and let him develop.

 

[Loose Cannon]

I reckon Sharpe stays at 7. I honestly think he will make a go of it there. I reckon his floor and ceiling are Nico Hynes and Jerome Hughes (both fullbacks), and we would be very happy with either.

Hunt or another junior will take over at 1 eventually.

I like Sharpe as the 7 prospect. He is eyes up and energy. It feels like he can be taught. Kicking game maybe his weakness, but Crossland and (hopefully) Smith can shoulder plenty of that, along with Brown, and still Ponga as a fourth/fifth stringer.

Sharpe will tear up lazy marker defence if he is given free reign.