I would be keen to get the thoughts of Landers over what we have invested in.

The last questions surrounds that investment as I have my concerns over those who say that Clark is a back-up ruck/forward - I don't think that position requires such a massive investment.

It's not about the massive investment RPFC, it's about getting stability in our structure, and looking at what are our current strengths/weaknesses.

Our ruck division, made up of (in order) 1. Jamar 2. Martin 3. Gawn is healthy. Healthy doesn't mean elite, healthy means bloody healthy! When we need everyhing to be "elite", which will be 2013-onwards, I have no doubt our ruck stocks will achieve that level (we're not that bloody far from it!).

Our forward line structure is the most important "work in progress" for 2012. We start getting it right, we start winning more games than we lose. Clark is a massive + in this area.

Maybe we invest in a quality mid at the end of 2012, maybe we don't. A lot will be determined by what players step up next season. Imagine if Sylvia has the consistency we are crying out for, and if Trengove takes another step forward, and if Jones establishes himself as a true top 5 at the club. All of a sudden, we may not need to spend big on a quality mid - they may already be on our list.

Definate key forward with Martin to CHB. River too small to take the position and decision making / kicking is rubbish. Martin is athletic and powerful and would be well suited to defence. The extra big body we need to help out chip. Rivers is not key position.

If he's a ruck then we've wasted our time and resources. He's a forward, that's what he says he is, that's what Harrington and Neeld say he is, and that's what we need him to be. He can double as insurance if Martin or Jamar go down mid match, but that's just a fringe benefit and not his primary role. No Jamar/Martin injury = 0 minutes ruck time for Clark.

We still need a quality mid or two. Clearly the weakest area of our current structure and I can't see us progressing too much further in 2012 as a result.

However adding viney next year and two first rounders (maybe one or both as an experienced mid) and all of a sudden all of the pieces of the puzzle finally come together..

I don't think you can have it both ways - either Martin is a back up ruck and a sometimes forward and Clark is a permanent forward, or Clark is a back up ruck and a sometimes forward and Martin is a permanent fwd/back.

You have to have a permanent tall forward in there.

I vote Clark.

I also say he shouldn't ruck.

Definate key forward with Martin to CHB. River too small to take the position and decision making / kicking is rubbish. Martin is athletic and powerful and would be well suited to defence. The extra big body we need to help out chip. Rivers is not key position.

If he's a ruck then we've wasted our time and resources. He's a forward, that's what he says he is, that's what Harrington and Neeld say he is, and that's what we need him to be. He can double as insurance if Martin or Jamar go down mid match, but that's just a fringe benefit and not his primary role. No Jamar/Martin injury = 0 minutes ruck time for Clark.

I've always wondered why we don't introduce a strategy similar to this;

A forward ruck (perhaps Gawn) to ruck only when the ball is inside F50

A "middle"/main ruck (Jamar) to ruck at centre bounces and around the wings/in the guts

A back ruck (perhaps Martin) to ruck in D50

How fresh would that keep Jamar - especially late in the third/all of the last quarter when the opposition rucks are flat on their feet.

The parts about how it would work when the opposition ruck goes to a ruck contest outside of where Jamar goes, that's to be worked on...!!!

Seems to me we will have one of the best, if not the best, ruck combo using this strategy billy. I really do believe we will also have a gun forward line and backline. The only issue, as many others have stated is our midfield which lacks a motor, teamwork and mungrel (all of which I hope can come in time with this young group and our draft selections in next years draft).

We currently have 4 ruckman, Jamar, Martin, Gawn & Spencer.We have now 4 key developing forwards- Clark, Cook, Watts & Fitzpatrick.We have 4 Key defenders- Frawley, Rivers, T.McDonald , Davis. Whilst some may say Davis is a tad small-it shows me that we need to invest in another tall backman as well as midfielders.

I've always wondered why we don't introduce a strategy similar to this;

A forward ruck (perhaps Gawn) to ruck only when the ball is inside F50

A "middle"/main ruck (Jamar) to ruck at centre bounces and around the wings/in the guts

A back ruck (perhaps Martin) to ruck in D50

How fresh would that keep Jamar - especially late in the third/all of the last quarter when the opposition rucks are flat on their feet.

The parts about how it would work when the opposition ruck goes to a ruck contest outside of where Jamar goes, that's to be worked on...!!!

We used to have the Ox in the forward line. Damn good forward 50 throw in ruckman.

I think he's got to be a permanent forward. If the ball's not coming forward and he ain't getting a kick then he'd be good for a spell in the ruck to change the dynamics every now and then.

Bit of a no brainer this one in all honesty. Mitch was snitched to fulfill a Key forward role. Simple

Its quite possible at times depending on th egame that he might bring his very good rucking talents to bear as a relieiving ruckman or simply as he might be first on the scen in the forward line etc. . He facilitates Jamar to rest in the square if thats the want of the FD. Granted Marti could also but Martins not as much a real kepf as Clark.

What is does do is give us one hell of a lot of options we didnt have before. Money well spent

I think we paid top doallar for him becasue he is the right age, right body size, and can play forward.

Unfortunatley an out and out KPF wasnt available, so we recruited a versitle KPP who can play forward on in the ruck.

If J. Brown hadnt been injured as much as he has been in the last few seasons then im not sure clark would have been played as much as a forward?

But then again, speculating is a waste of time, becasue at the Dee's we will play him as a full forward IMO

We currently have 4 ruckman, Jamar, Martin, Gawn & Spencer.We have now 4 key developing forwards- Clark, Cook, Watts & Fitzpatrick.We have 4 Key defenders- Frawley, Rivers, T.McDonald , Davis. Whilst some may say Davis is a tad small-it shows me that we need to invest in another tall backman as well as midfielders.

personally i would be putting Garland ahead of T Mcdonald and Davis

If he plays ruck then it's an absolute waste of money and a good pick. martin and jamar were one of the best combos in the league and we have gawn in waiting. forward or nothing... which is what im sure will happen!

No doubt he's a fair lump of a lad but I can't help but think he needs to put on another 6 - 8 kilo's of muscle to be a real key forward, to have the mass which oppostion backmen find it difficult to move in a contest.

Am I on my own here?

personally i would be putting Garland ahead of T Mcdonald and Davis

I would put him in front of Rivers too.

I would be [censored] if we spent that much money to get someone who is going to play second ruck- a department we have a more than capable Stef Martin occupying currently.

He must play FF. End of story. This is the department we have lacked, and the department he will fix.

Now I guess we get to keep Martin/Jamar in the forward arc more often whilst the other does all the rucking around ground. Fun times ahead

We don't need another Ruckman....We needed a Target to kick to, to straighten us up....We got a 200 cm 99 kg one..

Cool.

Jamar in the ruck.

Martin as 2nd ruck and to spend time either forward or back depending on match ups. Forward preferable to stretch the opposition defence.

Clark FF.

To easy!

The clear intention of obtaining Mitch was for him to play a key position in the forward 50. And in 2011 Stef Martin was pretty reliable at the set shots. And he did very well in the ruck.

He plays forward. He only kicked 27 goals this year, but that was as the 2nd ruckman also. He could quite easily kick 50+ for us next year. Calculation below:

Mitch kicked 27 goals in 17 games. If he played 22 games, at this average he would've kicked 35 goals.

Now Mitch played 2nd ruck as well as forward, so lets assume that Mitch spent 70% of his game time forward, and 30% in the ruck. If he'd spent 100% of this time forward, at the average he had based on time forward he then kicks 50 goals.

Add another 10-20% from playing in the one position, and playing in a better team, and he kicks 55-60 goals. I think we'd all be happy with a return like that from Mitch, wouldn't we?

We're more than capable in the ruck, this sort of return from Clark doesn't seem ridiculous if he stays fit, and plays forward for the entirety of matches... Will make a big difference for us...

No brainer hes been drafted as a key forward . Jamar , Martin and Gawn to ruck gives us plenty of options there .

Surprised to see the investment question not weighted more towards the key ruck question. I'd pay 700k and pick 12 for any of the top ruckmen going round. Sandi, Leuie, Cox, Goldie, Mummy... even some of the better younger ones like Smith could ask that much I reckon as pure ruckmen.

Like most have already stated, key forward.

Given Neeld has said he will be key forward, and a few members of the heirarchy have said he will be key forward - even Mitch Clark himself - has said he had been head hunted for the Key Post.........I think that pretty much confirms it rp.

Being 200cm - any rucking duties will be a fringe benefit for the team and club.