Yeah, there are a few things in his history which a clearly alcohol related behavioral issues, so it would be interesting to see how the bloke responds to being cut loose by the Dogs. Given the situation and the position he plays, I think he'd be less of a risk than Curtis Scott was.Cranky Old Man wrote:I don't remember much of his play, therefore probably neither particularly good nor bad.
I'm interested in the commentary regarding his behaviour. 1. He is caught "pashing" with a girl in or near a toilet apparently with full consent. 2. He was photographed by papparazzi in a private function room specifically hired to host a party which was always likely to be a bit risque and apparently was. The Paparazzi were actually acting like peeping toms, filming from the roof of a building across the street acts that were in no way visible to the ordinary public. They are more culpable than Elliott. 3. Apparently he likes a drink, and is reputed to not handle it too well. That in itself is not an insurmountable problem, but would require firm handling. 4. He is reputed to have raced off a team mates partner. Much more problematical as such behaviour can tear a team apart. Would need to know all the circumstances of the time to come to any realistic conclusion.
To me, points one, two and three should have no bearing on the decision the Raiders need to make, point four is a more serious consideration. Clarify point four and the decision comes down to his potential contribution to the squad, but taking a wowsers point of view is wrong in my opinion.
He's the kind of player that would look good in a team like the Storm. I don't at all see him has much of a ball playing middle though.
I don't have a particularly strong opinion of this either way. The situation reminds me a bit of Neville Costigan. Man that guy threw away a big opportunity.
Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk
