Reynolds, Mbye, Packer etc got paid probably more, they deserved those checks huh. Newcastle were the only reported team that wanted him, they now have Clifford and Clune in the halves, so its safe to say they were scraping the bottom of the barrel, besides any other club (inc Newcastle) wouldn't touch brooks if not a large large proportion of his pay is handled by us. I get the point your coming from, but using brooks's salary and the amount of games hes played are very poor points to convey your opinion, those figures are the way they are because of the wests tigers.Brooks received the ball 60 times and Tigers completed 33 sets. So what are you talking about?
The wildly differing opinions about Brooks is caused by confirmation bias. Also I think that there is a certain type of person that feels better when they rant and blame someone, it doesn't have to be true, but they feel better.
You hobbo1, only see what you want to see. If Brooks was as bad as you think he is, why has he played 174 first grade games? Why do other teams want to buy him (now and in the past)? Why does he get paid an unknown but very large amount of money?
The choices are:-
1. hobbo1 knows far more than all the people that run and coach NRL clubs
2. hobbo1 is wrong about Brooks, and does not see reality when he/she watches a game.
I'm pretty sure its number 2.
Last edited: