Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

Earl said:
This is such an ignorant assumption. You can be working on your game but not be able to implement that on game day due to ability.
Click to expand...

You could think that..... The amount of time I've seen him with a ball out in contact in the last....
"6 Seasons" with an offload clearly on - And someone there waiting for it...
Only for him to pull it back in and dominated in the tackle - Is a one of many clear indications,
He's not looking to add anything to his game...

How many Monday mornings you reckon he's spent watching teams tear us apart up the middle with a late offload from a forward?
Surely any player worth his salt - thinks (Even if only to himself) "I'm going to try that next week"

Not our beloved Alex....
 
teddy23 said:
If the Klemmer deal ultimately comes down to getting rid of Brooks then I’d do it….

Hastings back to 7
Joffa at 13
Click to expand...
Do you really think Joffa is the answer at 13?
As I’ve said before he’s solid but not a gamebreaker or a player with any real vision.
For mine he’s a prop at best or maybe off the bench.
I think Hastings can really grow into the 13.
Not sure about 6 and 7,but not Hastings imo.
I guess it’s all about knowing what jigsaw pieces we end up with, and then seeing how they fit.
 
InBenjiWeTrust said:
Sadly, "he cannot step, cannot break tackles, cannot offload, his hitups have amoeba's power, and come after a snail speed run"!"
Click to expand...
But there was that time at Leichhardt Oval where he broke through about the half way line, daylight in front, and went way down field.
Just need to regenerate this.
 
Stevec said:
Twal always high tackle count but he sure burns a lot of 5th tackles chasing that elusive try . Maybe coach a bit of a sidestep and an offload will help but he's a keeper
Click to expand...
He gets caught with the ball on the 4th tackle in the opposition 20m zone more than any other player in the competition I reckon.
 
aturkey said:
I feel the same but it won't happen. The club has made it's plan and backing away from it now would look so terrible and Sheens, Farah and Marshall genuinely think they can turn the club around, so I doubt they'd be willing to let it happen. If only Hasler was sacked a few months ago.
Click to expand...

teddy23 said:
If the Klemmer deal ultimately comes down to getting rid of Brooks then I’d do it….

Hastings back to 7
Joffa at 13
Click to expand...
Win/Win for WTs!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 851
The Wests Tigers thought they were facing a fight to keep Daine Laurie at the club after they were told that the Bulldogs were interested in the fullback.

It turns out they were being spun a line. After Confidential reported on the Bulldogs’ purported interest in Laurie, Canterbury head of football Phil Gould took to social media to slam the claims.

Gould sent this column a text saying Laurie had never been discussed and links to the Tigers No.1 were rubbish. He even suggested we owed the Tigers and Bulldogs an apology.

So here goes. Sorry guys. Won’t make that mistake again. Anyway, Gould’s proclamation is good news for the Tigers, who have tabled a one-year extension to Laurie in the hope of extending his stay at the club.

Laurie and his manager want a longer-term deal but they won’t be able to use the Bulldogs as leverage even though Gould admitted he loved Laurie. (DT)
 
tiger_one said:
But there was that time at Leichhardt Oval where he broke through about the half way line, daylight in front, and went way down field.
Just need to regenerate this.
Click to expand...
Well that’s what I call a oncer. It’s never happened again and not likely too.
Look, he seems like a good guy, and everyone got hyped during the season about him possibly scoring a try, but realistically he is the type of player that makes us so easy to read.
 
WT2K said:
The Wests Tigers thought they were facing a fight to keep Daine Laurie at the club after they were told that the Bulldogs were interested in the fullback.

It turns out they were being spun a line. After Confidential reported on the Bulldogs’ purported interest in Laurie, Canterbury head of football Phil Gould took to social media to slam the claims.

Gould sent this column a text saying Laurie had never been discussed and links to the Tigers No.1 were rubbish. He even suggested we owed the Tigers and Bulldogs an apology.

So here goes. Sorry guys. Won’t make that mistake again. Anyway, Gould’s proclamation is good news for the Tigers, who have tabled a one-year extension to Laurie in the hope of extending his stay at the club.

Laurie and his manager want a longer-term deal but they won’t be able to use the Bulldogs as leverage even though Gould admitted he loved Laurie. (DT)
Click to expand...

I like how it says "The Wests Tigers thought" Na mate - You thought....

No one else in the game said anything about it at all....
 
WT2K said:
The Wests Tigers thought they were facing a fight to keep Daine Laurie at the club after they were told that the Bulldogs were interested in the fullback.

It turns out they were being spun a line. After Confidential reported on the Bulldogs’ purported interest in Laurie, Canterbury head of football Phil Gould took to social media to slam the claims.

Gould sent this column a text saying Laurie had never been discussed and links to the Tigers No.1 were rubbish. He even suggested we owed the Tigers and Bulldogs an apology.

So here goes. Sorry guys. Won’t make that mistake again. Anyway, Gould’s proclamation is good news for the Tigers, who have tabled a one-year extension to Laurie in the hope of extending his stay at the club.

Laurie and his manager want a longer-term deal but they won’t be able to use the Bulldogs as leverage even though Gould admitted he loved Laurie. (DT)
Click to expand...
You can believe exactly the diametric opposite to anything self-serving Gould has to say...
..though wish we had him!
 
pawsandclaws1 said:
It doesn't appear to be the case. Why would the WTs be able to make an offer? The Knights don't want Klemmer but want Brooks in return! Some of this forum want to give Brooks away when it is not required. It doesn't seem logical.
Click to expand...
i didn't say to trade brooks off. the comment was if klemmer getting released for 23 hinged on brooks going to newcastle. we can sign klemmer for 24 on wards come nov 1, and we need him for 23 as well. taking him at full price is fine for 23 we have the funds, but if the full price and releasing brooks is the only way they release klemmer a year early then i would say hold off
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 619 (members: 43, guests: 576)
Back
Top