years deal , point to prove think be decent signing

Thought he did well today in attack and defence. One year deal as back up wouldn't be too bad for the club.

Still not overly sure about this one - feels a bit like the Howarth situation last year (though Smith is obviously a far better player than Howarth). We have Naughton to cover wings and full back, we have Lancaster to cover wings, both better long term prospects for us than Smith - we lack cover for Houghton which is where we should be looking if anywhere. And looking at Smith yesterday he's twice the size he was last season, what the hell have we been feeding him?

... I thought he'd lost some weight.

I agree about Smith,it also makes retaining Yeaman a total waste of money

A bit unsure on this one. There's obviously the fact he's had a good career before this and has played at the highest level, with a MOTM performance in a Grand Final to his name.

My concern is that we are looking to bring him in because of that, and also because of two other things. He's versatile, and is a competent goal kicker, which we quite noticeably lack should Sneyd get injured.

Positionally, we've got more than enough options to cover the back 5, with 2/3 people able to play in each position even before Smith. With regards to the potential of him being back-up at hooker, Danny Washbrook is the man already in line for this, with Litten in the wings for the odd appearance should he be required.

I can only think that we are signing him (or aiming to) because he'll be cheap, and can kick goals as a back up. Is there anyone else in the squad with goal-kicking experience/talent? From a very quick search (albeit on Wikipedia) I can only see Ellis (two goals kicked), Abdull (two goals kicked and Whiting (27 goals kicked) as those with goal kicking experience.

The young guys like Naughton, Logan and Lancaster shouldn't be held back by a signing like Smith, and I'd be confident that any of those three would be ahead of him in the pecking order anyway.

First choice 1-5 are likely to be:

Shaul
Fonua
Logan
Tuimavave
Talanoa

Backup:
Naughton
Michaels
Lancaster

I don't think that leaves us with a lot of cover for 1-5, and I think Smith does that across the backline to a high standard (both defensively and with the ball). Whilst Naughton & Lancaster are better long-term prospects I agree, Smith is better right now, and I'll feel a lot more reassured with him playing in the team than I would any of the three backup players I've mentioned (no disrespect intended to any of them).

Agree about Houghton. If he's injured long-term, we're screwed, but let's think positive . Washy is capable of spelling as we saw yesterday.

Smith's weight? He looked leaner than last season to me. Although could still do with losing a few lbs.

Why how mich are we paying him?

Yeaman should be no where near the threequarters this year. If and when he plays, it should be in the back row.

I didn't miss Yeaman off the list at all. He's a 2nd rower this year. He's said that himself and so has Radford.

The back 5 positions (excluding hooker) are the least covered in the squad at 60%. We wouldn't need all of them to be injured at once to run out of cover. There were times last year we were very short in the backs, as well as having to cover for Shaul being dropped.

Whether the cover of just Michaels, Lancaster & Naughton is of adequate quality, I'm not so sure. Take out their relative ages and sentiment, and I'd pick Smith of the four every time if given the straight choice. Sure, Lancaster and Naughton have loads of potential, but at this present time, Smith is better.

He's more than just a goal kicker too, or 'the singular reason' as you put it. He's a natural footballer, has a much better defence than those three, can cover all of 1-5, has bags of experience, and cheap.

All in all I'd sign him. But that's just my opinion though int it Bumpy.

Can't think of any other club that would have 4 back up backs ?

None will make the bench, so to me it is way too much cover, too much salary cap sat in the stands too often.

Would pass, he is solid at best.

It is all opinion, I realise that KY is supposed to be a back up SR but he IS a centre and can easily play there if required...as a back up so my point is valid.
I disagree on the point that Smith is a good defender, too slow and Micheals alone is far superior as is KY. SM was our best back last year in terms of tackling, he hardly ever misses has more gas than Smith (who doesn't to be honest).
if we lose Sneyd are you saying that we should juggle the whole backline to accommodate Smith as opposed to having Reece Dean in the 7 position, it's where he plays, he's a fantastic prospect and he's a recognised goal-kicker.
Signing Smith completely undermines the players coming through and doesn't fit what we need, again that's my opinion and I don't have to be snarky about it.

I think most would hope that we've seen the end of Yeaman at centre, such a contrast between him and Tuimavave at the weekend.

Michaels has pace and is a fairly decent tackler, but him & Yeamo superior to Smith? I wouldn't say superior. Smith's versatility could prove very useful.

Lose Sneyd? I didn't mention Sneyd - but to answer your question no i wouldn't juggle the team around to play Smith, Like you I'd give Reece Dean the opportunity.

Also sums up my view on it