Muffstar
Well-known member
God I hope not. Schuster is a slug.SEN radio (Sydney) today put up a rumour of a player swap:
Brooks and Schuster (Tigers and Manly).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
God I hope not. Schuster is a slug.SEN radio (Sydney) today put up a rumour of a player swap:
Brooks and Schuster (Tigers and Manly).
Agree but he’s gotta sign yet. I don’t see it getting done at $500kPretty happy with this, especially when you read that last paragraph...
Odd considering the think tank there has also been saying we’ve offered Brooks a 2 year deal…SEN radio (Sydney) today put up a rumour of a player swap:
Brooks and Schuster (Tigers and Manly).
Koroisau has been of huge benefit to Brooks. Having that quality in the 9 is outstanding for our team.Should just give Brooks the rumoured amount and say we want you as a running 6 that’s your job and we’ll do everything in our power to get a game managing 7 to pair you with. If we don’t within the 2 yrs he can move on still only will be 30 and will have another 3-4 yr contract still available to him.
Ours was given the debacle of a season.
I agree. Brooks and the second rower,I seem to recall that at the back end of 2018 Brooks formed a lethal combination with Garner on the left edge. Brooks was throwing great little no-look passes to Garner running an outside-in line. They terrorised the opposition in their red zone and, while it lasted, it was our most effective attacking play.
Madge assumed control in 2019 and moved Garner to the right and the combo was lost. This was a poor decision in my opinion because, as Warren Ryan might have said, it was the only feather we had to fly with.
I’m no expert on the subtleties of attacking play, but it seems to me that if two players are to form a good combination it requires both to play their part to make it work. If for example, a back rower is not a hole runner or a good line runner, then holding the half back responsible for the back rowers lack of line breaks is incorrect.
I’m simply pointing out that your comment above is incorrect. Perhaps the fact that Garner is the only back rower that Brooks has struck up this type of combo with is partly his fault. But I would suggest also that the back rowers he has played inside should shoulder some of the blame as well.
Yes.
I had a post a day or two ago about how we have been front loading and who I think we have frontloaded. Sheens very proudly claimed at the start of the year that they have already done some frontloading, still had a shit ton of money in the bank and how if we do not pick someone up we will continue to front load.
A bit of wishful thinking by the club I would think but worth a try.Reports today say we have offered 500-600k for Luke Brooks. I guess I am a lot closer to the mark than you are buddy.
As they said in Monty Python, "a slug? well it's scarcely a replacement then."God I hope not. Schuster is a slug.
Oh I definitely agree there. My original post yesterday stated "even if Brooks stays for around 550K" so I never said I thought it would happen, just that I think that is what we would offer.A bit of wishful thinking by the club I would think but worth a try.
What we offer and what we get are 2 different things.
At least you didn't call me CHAMP.
Nah he's back ending thoseHow about front loading some wins Sheens..?
Man we can't bend over to Brooks in a negotiation where he's played decently for the first time in years. Can you say he's been that much better than Wakeham? I mean he's been a bit better but not by a remarkable amount.
A 2 year deal for 450-500k a year would work. Anything more than that and we're entering overpay territory.
We have a game managing half, that kicks goals. His name is Wakeham.Should just give Brooks the rumoured amount and say we want you as a running 6 that’s your job and we’ll do everything in our power to get a game managing 7 to pair you with. If we don’t within the 2 yrs he can move on still only will be 30 and will have another 3-4 yr contract still available to him.
At $500k….Who are we really competing with for Brooks signature????
Not that I disagree with you, but who do you have in mind?Man we can't bend over to Brooks in a negotiation where he's played decently for the first time in years. Can you say he's been that much better than Wakeham? I mean he's been a bit better but not by a remarkable amount.
A 2 year deal for 450-500k a year would work. Anything more than that and we're entering overpay territory. Yes Canberra spoiled the ruck but we had 0 points in 70 minutes when they had 13 on the field. You can't back up 66 with a near 0. He's never been consistent and his game is still very flawed.
When you're flush with cash you overpay stars because they're the building blocks of your team, not average players.
Prioritise a true halfback and then make a call on whether Brooks is a fit with them.
Absolutely f’n no one - that’s how you hurl garbage like that out there…Not that I disagree with you, but who do you have in mind?
I like him, but his hands have been known to let him down at times.We signed him to help Roosters out and he’s a reserve grader. Can’t catch. Move on.
was waiting for someone to blame Brooks short ball for his drop on the weekend - he wasn’t even looking at the ball, didn’t have his hands up - and was 20m upfield before he even realised he’d knocked on…We signed him to help Roosters out and he’s a reserve grader. Can’t catch. Move on.
Nothing visible but I would imagine he moves in the shadows at night so probably won’t be supplying a weekly update.They’ll let you down. What’s Fulton done for us in a month?!