Should we pay overs for Peats?

It's clear now that Peats will go to the highest bidder otherwise he would have re-signed with the Titans by now. The match against the Roosters showed that our forward pack is badly lacking in size and strength which was raised as a concern before the season started. Personally I'd overhaul our entire middle forward rotation (except Brown) as that's where we're weakest. Improving the hooker position is the place to start. I'm not certain if Peats is the answer but he's an upgrade on Pritchard and we need his toughness and superior ruck control. We've already gone public in our interest in Peats and I'm wondering how far should we go to get him back? Would you be willing to pay 600K+? How much is too much? For such a vital position perhaps we need to be willing to fork out a bit more than we'd like. Thoughts?

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • This reply was deleted.
    • Totally agree.
      We need a quality hooker, unfortunately Cameron Smith, Jake Friend and Josh Hodgson aren't off contract, tell me, other than Nathan Peats who is the best hooker off contract? Nathan is aggressive and he is a competitor.
      If it wasn't for the Foran fiasco last year he would still be at our club.
  • He's likely to get the SOO spot so he is one of the better hookers available. Not sure what the going rate is but 600k would be about right, depending on how many minutes he is able to play.
    • I think you'll find the Robbie Farah will get the Origin spot and not Peats.
  • Kaysa biggest problem is how slow he plays the balls our forward pack in on the back foot before they catch the ball that is the biggest difference in line speed and forward metres this year
  • Definitely not overs, hes too injury prone to pay overs for

    • X2 snakey
  • No, there's a lot younger players with more the prove then peats
  • I'd stick with the team we have and allow Brad Arthur to build for the future and if that includes the signing of Nathan Peats then so be it. I however, personally wouldn't pay overs for him as he tends to be too injury prone for my liking although he's a gutsy player. I think that Brad Arthur with stick with Pritchard as he's getting better.
  • What we have now isn't good enough but the only way to lure good players is to offer more than what they're worth. If we get Peats we'll be paying more than he's worth but our team would be improved. How desperate are we to overspend on players? If we have cap space I say do it if it means winning more games.

  • I'd go after peats, we need his line speed in defence! We need some bigger angrier props to
This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Randy Handlinger replied to Hell On Eels's discussion Iongi: Recent Illicit Substance Scandals vs NRL Sanctions
"Got any priors for players done for weed. I don't recall any.
Unlike weed, everything on that list is a class A. drug.
 "
41 minutes ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Hell On Eels's discussion The Eels v Lomax: Timeline and Key Questions
"Thanks Pato. It's 4o4. Does it say Tripp has not been asked to appear on the first? They can't make him but they can tear him up without reply if he doesn't attend
 "
46 minutes ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Hell On Eels's discussion The Eels v Lomax: Timeline and Key Questions
"Yeah Super, that's what I thought.
Pato was saying "unavailable to appear until 13th March. So Lomax won't be playing for Storm until Rd3 at the earliest if they get a result in their favour."
I thought he was saying it had been moved to 13th
 "
49 minutes ago
ParraPride replied to Hell On Eels's discussion Iongi: Recent Illicit Substance Scandals vs NRL Sanctions
"He'll be fine it seems like an old picture."
52 minutes ago
More…