We have better than can COVER 6,7 and 9?
Care to name him?

Well we have Hodgson/Murrell who covers 9, Galea who can cover 6 and Murrell who can cover 7. Plus young Bell has been touted for good things who could also cover 6.

I didn't ask that.
Although I will ask if you actually saw Murrell at 7?
It would be very hard for Lee to be any worse.

The talk has been about REPLACING hasn't it, not a second rate utility to cover several positions, if thats the argument I suppose Lee might fit the bill.

It doesn't have to be one for one though. Though it is a harsh way of putting it, second-rate is what cover players generally are. In a small squad, a player that might more generously be described as 'half-decent' or 'competent', who can cover the halfs and hooker, and who doesn't take up a quota spot or a lot of cap is a decent option. With the NRL getting bigger and richer, we have to re-adjust our expectations. More academy, championship and what would have previously been fringe players will get a shot. We'll find out if there really are British Billy Slaters being overlooked, more quickly than the quota regulations would have done alone. Am I failing to hide my skepticism?

Anyway - it is often said that if you stand still you get left behind. I think that might not be the case in the next few years, and standing still would see us progress relative to most other clubs. The shelves are going to be pretty bare.

The actual talk is about 'Positions to strengthen next season' that includes squad depth.
The days of english clubs being able to wave a cheque book to aussies is over due to the change in exchange rates and the new wealth the NRL are suddenly going to have so we are going to have to look more and more towards our own youth and players we otherwise would have ignored.
We have also found out first hand that having no 6,7 COVER will screw us over.
Call Tommy Lee what you want but he would have been a damn sight better at that then Scott Murrell who is now far to big and slow for scrum half (Not having a go at Scott but its true he is now a 13 only IMHO).
We have Fisher and Hodgeson but very little behind that again Lee would do a job if we needed him to.

Couldn't agree more mate.

You won't get an argument from me on this, I have always said Murrell is a 13.

Tommy Lee would be an ok signing as a pure squad, fringe utility, not as a dedicated hooker. If we let Fisher go, we need to replace with an out and out modern hooker, someone in the mould of a Buderis or Roby (notice i said 'in the mould of' ).

I would advocate the signing of a full back as I think Briscoe has become average in the last two seasons and a decent winger. A ball handling, tackle busting prop would be good, but we have signed those and coached it out of them.

Seems a fair few of you dont like Murrell at 7, well IMO he aint done a bad job for us when asked to fill the role. The problems earlier in the season when Dobson was missing was not the lack of scoring points.

Watched the Wak v Cas game at the weekend and once again Lee showed me nothing to get excited about, just going through the motions with nothing to exciting. We have just had a problem with a player with off the field issues and now some are interested in signing another one.

TBF i thought Lee was behind everything good that Wakey did on Saturday, given better players around him he could look an even better player. He has a decent kicking game and is a better passer and defender than Dobson is imho. His only real weakness is his left to right pass isn't as good as his right to left, but that is nothing unusual. Very much in the Paul Cooke style but more rounded.