Brooks on 700k for 4 years?

Would you have signed Luke Brooks for the Tigers on 700k per year for 4 years?

  • Total voters
    131
  • Poll closed .
These are my final words on the never ending Brooks discussion. Not many fair minded supporters are pinning all of the Tigers performance woes, over the last 10 years, on Luke. He was one of a myriad of weaknesses in the playing roster over the years. However, he was a common denominator in the Tigers sputtering, calamitous and, often impotent attack. True, he was playing behind marshmallow forwards a lot of the time and some of the coaching was questionable but...........he's had 10 years of opportunity and, this year, behind a solid pack. He simply hasn't evolved into a consistent, game managing first grade halfback and we need one. Actually, I'll correct that, all successful NRL teams need a a consistent, game managing half, whether it be with a 6 or 7 on their back and it's about time the Tigers had one.

Other people have said this but I really think Brooks is mentally shot from all the scrutiny and outside pressure. As a result, any footy IQ he might have had has been quashed. His 200th game man of the match performance was an exception to the rule and not likely to reappear often so it's time to go separate ways. I actually think that Luke and his manager made the right call for everyone concerned. He gets more money, the security of 4 years and a fresh start, we get a much needed change in direction and, potentially an opportunity to bring in a genuine organiser. Good luck Luke, you're a good bloke and deserve success. (Not sure if you quite deserve 700k for years 4 years but good luck!)

I know people on here will continue to go on and on about Brooks, especially if we don't sign a replacement quickly but, for me, this is a great result. We've got plenty of cash and time to make the right choice of replacement. It could take a bit of time but I'm prepared to wait, be patient and see what Fulton can come up with. There are options out there. This is a good article that summarises them.

https://www.sportingnews.com/au/rug...l-contract-news-2023/ihplwms3wgqi14zsorzwx1bc

Onwards and upwards. If we can get Latu Fainu and, maybe, Braydon Trindall, to partner him, the Tigers' fortunes could finally begin to turn.
 
Last edited:
stevied said:
These are my final words on the never ending Brooks discussion. Not many fair minded supporters are pinning all of the Tigers performance woes, over the last 10 years, on Luke. He was one of a myriad of weaknesses in the playing roster over the years. However, he was a common denominator in the Tigers sputtering, calamitous and, often impotent attack. True, he was playing behind marshmallow forwards a lot of the time and some of the coaching was questionable but...........he's had 10 years of opportunity and, this year, behind a solid pack. He simply hasn't evolved into a consistent, game managing first grade halfback and we need one. Actually, I'll correct that, all successful NRL teams need a a consistent, game managing half, whether it be with a 6 or 7 on their back and it's about time the Tigers had one.

Other people have said this but I really think Brooks is mentally shot from all the scrutiny and outside pressure. As a result, any footy IQ he might have had has been quashed. His 200th game man of the match performance was an exception to the rule and not likely to reappear often so it's time to go separate ways. I actually think that Luke and his manager made the right call for everyone concerned. He gets more money, the security of 4 years and a fresh start, we get a much needed change in direction and, potentially an opportunity to bring in a genuine organiser. Good luck Luke, you're a good bloke and deserve success. (Not sure if you quite deserve 700k for years 4 years but good luck!)

I know people on here will continue to go on and on about Brooks, especially if we don't sign a replacement quickly but, for me, this is a great result. We've got plenty of cash and time to make the right choice of replacement. It could take a bit of time but I'm prepared to wait, be patient and see what Fulton can come up with. There are options out there. This is a good article that summarises them.

https://www.sportingnews.com/au/rug...l-contract-news-2023/ihplwms3wgqi14zsorzwx1bc

Onwards and upwards. If we can get Latu Fainu and, maybe, Brayden Trindall, to partner him, the Tigers' fortunes could finally begin to turn.
Click to expand...
Great post, well said.
 
BAGNF05 said:
If Brooksy is a turd then the muppets who signed off on $1.15million for a season are raw sewerage blended up with Sulfur, mixed in with some cow manure and then fed from a used newborn baby’s nappy. They should have left well before the player.
Click to expand...
Did we really pay him that?
If so it was on a backended deal and , obviously, not worth it.
Brooks at Manly is getting more than he’s worth… if you can believe the $$$.
He’s a bloke who can run the ball and not much more.
We need a halfback and he’s not one.
Finally someone saw the light. 👍
 
A 4 day deal on $59.99 would have been too long and too much.
Why would anybody want him to continue with us for even one more game is beyond me.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BZN
gregjm87 said:
As I said I don't believe the 700k is overs, it's bang on where I evaluate him. Happy to simply agree to disagree on this point.
My argument is not only sign as there is noone better, however it is part of it. Another way to phrase that is sign the best available. That happens to be Brooks. The options discussed aren't a sideways move, they are a backwards ones.
I am well aware of our finals drought. I just don't attribute that to Brooks. There is some blame there that he hasn't been able to be the dominant half we need. But that imo is more on the club not recruiting one and we still need a dominant half without Brooks in the team.
My opinion is that it becomes even more difficult to find one if their likely half's partner will be Wakeham, or any other Reggie's half, than Brooks.
There is no evidence of players not wanting to sign to play alongside Brooks. You can speculate this all you like (and it might even be true) but zero evidence. There is evidence to the contrary in the recruits of last of season that we were all so pleased with came here despite Brooks being here.
Click to expand...
Well there is. The only half we have signed to play along with Brooks is Josh Reynolds.

Wakeham IMHO was always meant to be a reggie's half. He is also off contract so shouldn't factor into it. Doueihi does a little, but I suspect he will be chopped (and were mad if we don't).

The Evidence is with Brooks in our team we haven't made the top 8.

What we need to do now is look for a 5/8 and Halfback that have played a little together and are willing to come here. I am thinking something like the Bulldogs recruiting Kris Keating + Trent Hodkinson... not an ideal pairing but instead of thinking "lets get one flash half" we should look for a pair that have played together and willing to give us a go. Our team hasn't Gelled this year and I think that's been in part due to so many new players.
 
crazycat said:
Well there is. The only half we have signed to play along with Brooks is Josh Reynolds.

Wakeham IMHO was always meant to be a reggie's half. He is also off contract so shouldn't factor into it. Doueihi does a little, but I suspect he will be chopped (and were mad if we don't).

The Evidence is with Brooks in our team we haven't made the top 8.

What we need to do now is look for a 5/8 and Halfback that have played a little together and are willing to come here. I am thinking something like the Bulldogs recruiting Kris Keating + Trent Hodkinson... not an ideal pairing but instead of thinking "lets get one flash half" we should look for a pair that have played together and willing to give us a go. Our team hasn't Gelled this year and I think that's been in part due to so many new players.
Click to expand...
As previously stated, my opinion is that cap mismanagement and other issues meant we couldn't recruit him a partner. Not that players don't want to play alongside him. Again maybe they don't but no one actually knows this.

We've also never seen a season with Brooks in the team + a quality halves partner + a competent forward pack. I don't see how we could even hope to achieve anything without 2 halves and a forward pack.
Maybe yous are right and even with all those things we would still be anchored to the bottom of the table. Maybe I'm right and Brooks would succeed here with a decent team around him. We will never know.
Anyway he's gone now, let's see who we can find to take his place.
 
gregjm87 said:
We've also never seen a season with Brooks in the team + a quality halves partner + a competent forward pack. I don't see how we could even hope to achieve anything without 2 halves and a forward pack.
Maybe yous are right and even with all those things we would still be anchored to the bottom of the table. Maybe I'm right and Brooks would succeed here with a decent team around him. We will never know.
Anyway he's gone now, let's see who we can find to take his place.
Click to expand...
Yes we have.
Ivan Cleary with Russell Packer + Matalino + Robbie Roccow. Benji and Reynolds are quality partners.

Adam Blair + Taupau. Ok we missed a partner, but we still had something.

This year we had a totally quality pack of Paps, Klemmer, Bateman and Api. Honestly I reckon we have a top 8 front row. ... Were still bottom of the table.

I honestly think our biggest problem is Centre/wing pairings that can hold the line. But clearly Brooks has had bad sides from us and some pretty good sides from us. He hasn't performed.
 
crazycat said:
Yes we have.
Ivan Cleary with Russell Packer + Matalino + Robbie Roccow. Benji and Reynolds are quality partners.

Adam Blair + Taupau. Ok we missed a partner, but we still had something.

This year we had a totally quality pack of Paps, Klemmer, Bateman and Api. Honestly I reckon we have a top 8 front row. ... Were still bottom of the table.

I honestly think our biggest problem is Centre/wing pairings that can hold the line. But clearly Brooks has had bad sides from us and some pretty good sides from us. He hasn't performed.
Click to expand...
No we haven't. Weve seen him play in a team with a few good players but a whole lot of holes in the roster. Claiming someone like Rochow as a good player is evidence of this.

That side under Cleary may have had a couple of useful forwards but it, like every Tigers side, was littered with career fringies e.g Rochow, Sue, Eiso. Felise, Mikaele in the forwards, MWZ, Marsters. Fonua in the backs. I mean Thompson was a journeyman winger his whole career except at our club at the time he was the starting fullback.
These glaring holes were all the more obvious with many of our bigger names unable to string more than a few games together.
Weve simply never had a quality roster in all Brooks time here.
Maybe if we had some better luck with injuries or if you subbed an Origin level half for Brooks and otherwise had the same side, a couple of years we might have just snuck into the 8. But certainly there wasn't much hope for any more than that with the sides we had.

I agree we have a top 8 front row this year. But when there is no front row depth, no lock forward, few quality backs and only the one half those few good frontrowers don't mean a whole lot.
 
Brooks is gone right or wrong doesn’t matter anymore.

I don’t think the club has a plan and more importantly an achievable plan or the ability to achieve a plan to find a better replacement x2. If wakeham and douhie are a part of our 2024 plan then we are fcucked From a great height.
 
gregjm87 said:
I voted yes.
I value him at 700k, having been saying that for some time. But our club being in such a weak position we need to offer overs to sign talent. The 4 years is the overs. Pending current cap situation and other potential signings I might prefer more money less years as the overs. Either way we need the overs to sign him.
We need 2 good halves a 13 and some forward depth. Signing Brooks is one tick off that list and a 700k value doesn't prohibit us from further signings.
Not interested in a slanging match as to if others don't believe Brooks is a good half or not. Obviously in my opinion he is good (not elite, but better than anyone we will replace him with).
Click to expand...
Agree. Sheens was looking for a controlling half as he knew Brooks was & always has been a running 5/8. I dont get why we didnt keep Hastings though. While not spectacular, always did his job as the controller. With the forward pack we have this year would of been a recipe for success this year & into the future IMHO.
 
TCL said:
Brooks is gone right or wrong doesn’t matter anymore.

I don’t think the club has a plan and more importantly an achievable plan or the ability to achieve a plan to find a better replacement x2. If wakeham and douhie are a part of our 2024 plan then we are fcucked From a great height.
Click to expand...
I still think they plan to get an experienced half but to pair with an up and coming player as opposed to brooks
 
gregjm87 said:
No we haven't. Weve seen him play in a team with a few good players but a whole lot of holes in the roster. Claiming someone like Rochow as a good player is evidence of this.

That side under Cleary may have had a couple of useful forwards but it, like every Tigers side, was littered with career fringies e.g Rochow, Sue, Eiso. Felise, Mikaele in the forwards, MWZ, Marsters. Fonua in the backs. I mean Thompson was a journeyman winger his whole career except at our club at the time he was the starting fullback.
These glaring holes were all the more obvious with many of our bigger names unable to string more than a few games together.
Weve simply never had a quality roster in all Brooks time here.
Maybe if we had some better luck with injuries or if you subbed an Origin level half for Brooks and otherwise had the same side, a couple of years we might have just snuck into the 8. But certainly there wasn't much hope for any more than that with the sides we had.

I agree we have a top 8 front row this year. But when there is no front row depth, no lock forward, few quality backs and only the one half those few good frontrowers don't mean a whole lot.
Click to expand...
Then we have had to punt Brooks.
Were not Brisbane, Melbourne, Penrith or Manly that seem to have development depth growing in their fields. Our talent pool is good, but no where near those clubs.

We will always have gaps. If your argument that Brooks can only win when all the gaps are filled, then we needed to punt him.

Because clearly he cannot win with some of our best rosters.
 
crazycat said:
Then we have had to punt Brooks.
Were not Brisbane, Melbourne, Penrith or Manly that seem to have development depth growing in their fields. Our talent pool is good, but no where near those clubs.

We will always have gaps. If your argument that Brooks can only win when all the gaps are filled, then we needed to punt him.

Because clearly he cannot win with some of our best rosters.
Click to expand...
It is, but my argument is no one can win consistently unless (close to) all the gaps are filled.

I think you have room for 3 average players in your 13 and need at least 2 quality forwards on your bench.
And counting the 13 as part of the spine, you need 4 of the 5 to be good players to compete. Anything less you just aren't making the 8.

Brooks/Tigers have struggled because we've always had less than that. Every half who has failed to make the 8 has had less than that. Hunt has less than that for most his time at the Dragons and couldn't make the 8. DCE couldn't get Manly into the 8 without Turbo. Reynolds couldn't get Broncos into the 8 when he didn't have Walsh and a fit Carrigan.

So as I said its not just Brooks no one could have been successful with the teams he has had around him.

They may have been some of our best rosters, but they have never been some of the NRLs best rosters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 278 (members: 4, guests: 274)
Back
Top