Absolutely, every signing is a gamble - especially from the NRL.
But if every signing was a Goudemand rather than a Tetevano, it would show a distinct lack of ambition.

Said it before, Tetevano was exactly what we wanted on paper. Just didn't work out.
For all we know, his heart issues may have been holding him back for a while.
Goudemand may well be a very useful back up forward, but he's not the impact prop we need.

Tetevano was never an impact prop. He was a very reliable rotation prop - the NRL equivalent of Ian Kirke. Just because he was a Kiwi international doesn't change how he played. Goudemand is a like-for-like replacement for who Tetevano was in reality, not what anyone might have wanted him to be.

I don't disagree that we look light up front though, or that a big yardage forward would fill a gap. Aside from Lisone none of our props make enough yards, especially the bigger lads.

My point is that we shouldn't be replacing what Tetevano was.
We should be replacing what we expected him to be.

Couple of injuries up front (which is very possible) and we are up against it.

Id say every team maybe bar Wigan would be up against it with two injuries to their starting front rowers.

I don't disagree we look a bit light, although I wonder if Ruan could play up the middle. He's certainly big enough.

Heres hoping.

Led the way season before but I dont think the injury he picked up late in the season, then putting off surgery to play for England did him any favours and he looked a shadow of the player we know he can be last season.

Is signing a big metre making prop the way to go? Definite benefits this year but what about next when any tackle above the scrotum (ok, I exaggerate) will draw a penalty? These big men might be a total liability defensively if/when the game changes.

ive heard that tackling will be restricted to the scrotum only from 2025. Tackle bags will be replaced with ball bags in training.

Would Sam Kasiano be worth a punt? He’s just been released by Warrington. Might do a job for a season

If you want to have a player who will be pinged for high tackles a-lot and maybe banned a-lot, and is blowing hard after 10 minutes then yeah go for it.

Would have missed almost the entire season through injury which is why they paid him off. If the wire board counts as a reliable source.

Aside from him being a liability there's also the quota issue

100% no.
There`s a reason why Wire paid him off.
Chances are he could miss most of the season and he`s not that good anymore.

You just keep saying the same thing. We need a big meter making impact prop, we look light up front and if we get a few injuries we will be up against it.

Taking Wigan out of this conversation. Every single side is looking for a meter making impact prop, every side will be up against it if they get a couple of injuries up front. That is the reality of salary cap, if your players don’t play then you struggle, because what you bring in will never be as good as first choice.

We are realistically only going to play 4 props given our captain is our 13. Yes we are a bit light with Goudemand, Hudson and TNW as essentially our 5th,6th and 7th option. Ideally we would have burgess (who you consistently go on about) over one of those players. But Burgess costs a heck of a lot more than they do and probably every club in SL would want to sign him if he was available.
Most people agree we have done the best business in the off season. Addressing our whole spine with good quality players that fit the style our coach seems to want to play. Pressure is on him for sure. But this isn’t fantasy land football manager when you just sign who you want, when you want. For me next year we probably look at bringing in a different profile back row player to replace Martin and potentially a different profile prop depending on how we go this year. To me that is sensible and sustained. TNW May get game time as May Hudson and suddenly we have 3-4 home grown front row options which man our ability to go big on that further prop is enhanced.
Burgess or Ackers - I pick Ackers at the moment.
Burgess or Croft - I pick Croft at the moment.
I discount Frawley because we needed a second half back either way.
I can see your potential arguement of burgess over Miller but I would still take Miller. Myler is 33/34 has limited pace and I don’t think he fits the way we want to play with the new players we have brought in. So I can see you saying we should have signed a big impact prop. But I think the response of we have addressed bigger needs first carries more weight. Obv all opinions and untainted Rohan will live by the sword and die by the sword if we don’t perform.

Agree but I do think we could have gone hard for Eseh, for example. I think we felt there were better options with internal players and Hudson but time will tell.

I’m still not sure about Goudemand - he is a good player but I can’t see why we signed him.

We are gambling a little on fitness and form up front this year, most of our props seem to be under some kind of injury cloud. Said it before but our pack was undermined last year by consistent errors in the back line; I’m expecting us to look tighter this year and to apply more pressure.