interesting that your response was about me and not the topic, danny. I suppose that really speaks to the integrity of your opinion on this. And, also, your absolutisms.
I'm also a big fan of people responding to a post of mine with the "you're a hypocrite" line while being hypocrites themselves. Very comical.
"Indicative of history"... thats all well and good to be hysterical about it, but whats your alternative to the situation?
We don't have the luxury of a time-machine.
We don't have any kids on the list we can play the position (besides a very speculative prospect who still requires coaching-in to the role)
The guys who are 4cm taller are shit
There's no better ruck available in the PSD
We have a cache of ND picks to correct the situation with long-term, but they can't play next year (in all likelihood.... and even if one of them does, we generally play with 2 rucks and Ackland's better than McLaren so he's in the team...)
The incremental benefit of adding Ackland is obvious.. in the absense of a time machine.
Is the contract we offered him (ie the investment) worth that incremental return?
maybe... maybe not...
but realistically, player's salaries are like "dummy money". The money has to go somewhere. We might have offered Ackland a front-loaded deal while we have space (this year) and a low salary in the next 2 when we need the cash to re-sign our guns for all we know.
There's no perspective in these rantings. The only valid argument has come from Elwood and guys who say flat out he's shit and worse (I believe they're saying) than McLaren and Bryan/DeLuca. Thats a value call that may be right. I personally don't agree and the club don't seem to either. But we may be proven wrong.
but unless you have a time machine, you need perspective... or as Wolfe puts it, a "REALITY CHECK"... or at least wait till after the national draft if we don't pick a rookie ruck and then spout off.
I might be an arrogant arsehole but do you blame me? FFS!
Wolfe - good thread mate.