Agree. The leeds team tends to evolve gradually and there never seems to be more than 1 or 2 additions from outside the club each season. But the need for top quality in the front row is a definite area to address with peacock and leuluai reaching the end of the line.

Going by some of the posts i take it those who have posted sarcastic replys or listed the years of success believe we dont need to recruit/promote from within to strengthen for 2014 then??

Promote from within? Yes. In progress. Ward will hopefully be back and ready to go. Sutcliffe has forced his way in this year. Singleton's maturing very nicely. A few others are around the fringes and no doubt a couple more will be more prominent next year.

Recruit? Yes, in principle. But not for the sake of it. We have to bring in better than we have. We could do with a hooker, but good ones are like rocking horse dung and clubs don't want to let them go. Other clubs have made signings for next year, but not many of those signings would have really added strength to our squad, the ones that would will have cost a fortune.

My sarcasm is at the panic button pushing (the OP was a particularly good example) not at the more rational discussion of our recruitment. Rumours of our demise have often been greatly exaggerated over the years.

On the plea to sign Shaun Lunt as our saviour and answer to our hooking problem next year.
Does anyone else think he was outplayed by McIllourum last night?

It's not a question of demise, which has been blown out of proportion with sarcastic comments form certain posters.

It's a question of the influence of certain players.

Answer these two questions honestly and you will see what is said. How fundamental is Peacock to what we do? How much longer can Peacock play for?

That is just the one example.

He's hugely important.
If our intention is to replace like-for-like then his replacement (if he can be replaced) needs careful consideration. I agree with you that the club should be looking at this now - though not necessarily making premature announcements about it. Peacock will be good for another season IMO and I'd rather the club used that time to line up someone top-notch (should they decide not to promote from within) rather than go into panic-buy mode.
Remember, there were some posters who claimed Peacock was finished two years ago.

I personally think that our mainline props function well as a unit. That whole situation is built around Peacock being a machine, and everyine else filling the gaps around him. When he retires, I think we could concievably see the whole 4 move on. Leuluai is of equal age as Peacock, Bailey adds some steel but no real go forward and Kirke is Kirke. However, as a unit they function. Take Peacock out and its a poor set of props. I'm not sure anyone is able to fill that role, so I would look at a more balanced set of props when Peacock retires.

From my own pov the ones who "fill the gaps" need replacing now or at the very least 2 of them otherwise we'll have asituation where we need 3/4 FR's at once and will end up with another Ben Cross or 2!!
For me Singleton is 1st choice 17 now and IF Bailey is going to be back 1st choice 17 then he needs to move back to FR also.
I dont see the point of Kirke OR Moore especially as the latter is a bit part FR for injuries which imo can be covered within the squad i.e Foster comes into the 17 and Jjb does a stint at prop or even Yates IF he can settle in.
I really dont want a situation when we lose JP and Kylie at the same time and at Least 1 (Kylie imo) should be replaced or have pressure on his spot for 2014.

So your point is correct, but then you are doing it from a position of weakness, rather than strength, thereby increasing the chances of a fall.

No reason why two of the props couldn't have been changed for next season, or at least one, thereby reducing that impact the year after.

Under the current regime there's always criticism that the club stands by its senior players too long. And, to some extent, that POV's a valid one. But there's another side to the coin: by showing loyalty (sometimes in the face of apparent logic) the club gives our top players (and the odd 2nd tier one, no names mentioned) a greater degree of security than they might experience elsewhere. This has to be a factor in persuading players to stick with us. I think Warrington behave similarly; perhaps it has helped avoid the recent, constant transition that Wigan and Saints seem to be experiencing, as players at their peak or with great potential, the likes of FGB, Eastmond, Tomkins x 2 etc. jump ship.

It would appear that Trinity are likely, and unfortunately for them, to have no choice but to off-load Kirmond. I think that both Gary and Brian should be thinking very seriously about going in for him and bringing him to Headingley. I think he has the next JP written all-over him and would actually like to see him come to play a dual-role as a back and front row, with a view to him taking a 'full-time' front row spot in the couple of seasons, possibly with Delaney also being used in a similar with a similar end-result.

If we are taking about strengthening the current squad then he is the only player I would to take in from outside the club and if we don't/can't get him then I am not sure we should be buying for the sake of it.

Thought Kirmond had or will be signing for Warrington?
And that is the point.
We are letting the likes of Walmsley, Amor, Lunt maybe and possibly Kirmond move on to teams that are competing with us at the top instead of signing them to fill the gaps eventually.
Because we are Leeds we tend to think everyone will sign for us at reduced terms.
Our recent signings be it for the first team or the U19`s have not been up to much apart from Moon.
McAvoy was hailed as the new Sam Burgess and Briscoe was a shoe in for international honours within no time at all.
If you were doing a risk assessment of the team you would be on high alert now as our pack and our props in particular are getting older each year.
It has worked up to now but at some time the bubble might burst and we will be up the creek without a paddle.