@airbus said:
The talking A320 is right, we should let him go if he wants overs. JLJ can do a reliable job for a fraction of the price.
The talking A320 is right, we should let him go if he wants overs. JLJ can do a reliable job for a fraction of the price.
Tiger_Watto
New member
What if JLJ has a contract clause that ensures he earns $800k if he players 20 NRL games?
@Tiger Watto said:
If that is what Brooks is asking we should not even tender an offer.
GNR4LIFE
Well-known member
@Cultured Bogan said:
I've heard we've offered him 650\. If true that's the absolute maximum id be offering him. Take it or leave it.
Tiger_Watto
New member
@Cultured Bogan said:
too late
Pawsandclaws
New member
@Cultured Bogan said:
Really? LJL has been with the Roosters, Sea Eagles and now us and has never looked like securing a NRL position permanently in the halves. I think we really overestimate our depth especially in the halves. We have no one of NRL quality outside of Brooks and Moses. Austim and TMM are gone for a reason. LJL stays for a reason.
@Tiger Watto said:
Jason learned under Brian Smith…to enact the Kurt Reynoldson clause before it even gets that far...
supercoach
Well-known member
the argument that you do not need two gun halves has some merit. Although I say what happens if your gun play maker goes down with a long injury and of course your team becomes a lot easier to defend if the one guy is calling all the shots. I look at the Cowboys and Thurston, they are more dangerous with Coote playing the second play maker role, it takes so pressure of JT.
Anyway in a ideal world I would love to keep him, but if there has to be a sacrificial lamb I guess Brooks would be reluctantly my choice, but fingers crossed it doesn't come to that
Anyway in a ideal world I would love to keep him, but if there has to be a sacrificial lamb I guess Brooks would be reluctantly my choice, but fingers crossed it doesn't come to that
@jirskyr said:
Off topic I know, but I'm glad to hear someone else say this. I completely understand that people think Moses has shown more than Brooks (though I'm not sure I totally agree even with that), but this emerging narrative that Moses is going to be worth whatever we can throw at him while Brooks is a borderline bust seems like a massive overreach to me.
I think you're right that there's a lot of recency bias involved in that Moses' best games have been more recent (and, arguably, closer together - so there might be a legit case that Moses is 'figuring it out' while Brooks 'hasn't come on'). Personally speaking, every time I think of Moses getting a contract of close to a million a year I contemplate the Raiders game at Leichhardt and shudder. If I was a recruitment manager elsewhere looking for a half and I thought Brooks might fall to me at 600k a year because the Tigers had to find Moses a million I'd be pretty excited.
Speaking of which, if we do end up losing Brooks and he goes on to better things elsewhere Moses had really, really better be worth it. Because in theory we could have Brooks and Te Maire Martin as our halves combination were it not for the club's devotion to Moses…
gotta keep in mind the salary cap will almost double in 2018, 2 mil players will become pretty common (superstars like JT, Hayne etc.)
i think 600-700k is an acceptable value for brooks, nothing more though. then try to get moses and teddy for 2-2.5mil between them.
would also be great to make a big play for liddle midway through this season and lock him up if he delivers on his potential. he would never have seen 6 figure contracts before so if we get in early we might be able to get him cheap for 3-4 years
i think 600-700k is an acceptable value for brooks, nothing more though. then try to get moses and teddy for 2-2.5mil between them.
would also be great to make a big play for liddle midway through this season and lock him up if he delivers on his potential. he would never have seen 6 figure contracts before so if we get in early we might be able to get him cheap for 3-4 years
GNR4LIFE
Well-known member
It isn't that Moses best games were the most recent, its that they were without Farah. He grew a leg once Farah got dropped. Brooks didn't.
@pHyR3 said:
Cap going to almost 14M 😕 ..not if Grant has his way
Squads will also increase from 25 to 30..
Tiger_Watto
New member
@Nelson said:
Cody looked way better in a Easts Tigers Jumper than he does in a Rabbits.
Wish he would come back!
Tim Sheens
Well-known member
@GNR4LIFE said:
But he did injure one of his legs and was probably only chosen to hobble around to finish the season because Teddy was missing. Whilst I have always stated that Moses will be the better, Brooks has been going okay and even at worst, still a first grader for the hardest of markers.
@jadtiger said:
You need a consistent partnership. Look at what happened with Benji when he didn't have a halves partner. He over played his hand and looked ordinary. when he had a partner in Lui we looked good and made the finals.
I think its important that we keep both all be it at the right price.
jirskyr
Well-known member
@Nelson said:
Of course FBs can be analysed through numbers, if your data is good enough. Any position and any facet of the game can be quantified and you can bet your bottom dollar every club does this both in-game and at training.
Thing about Tedesco's defence, and I realise I'm straying away from the Brooks topic, is that in looking at Brooks I realised that Tedesco posts fairly ordinary defensive numbers. So if there is something unique to FBs and you look across the line, you should find some consistency at least in comparing fullbacks.
And he doesn't compare well. He's not mid-pack, he's right down the bottom. Now sure there is a lot more to it, more than what NRL Stats record and things you have noted like shutting down plays rather than missed tackles. But if you are a struggling club, which we are, and you see some fair consistency of performance amongst top clubs and/or players, you should be asking yourself what are they doing differently and should we try to emulate this?
Maybe you are right, maybe other FBs do defend on wing or on line more than Teddy. Maybe you would find that clubs with high tackle-count FBs are more prone to concede tries from kicks inside the 20m. But more than anything it begs the question, or at least the consideration, that if other top FBs at top clubs are achieving certain types of numbers, why should our FB not be measured against that? Perhaps we should be putting Tedesco in the line more when defending the 20, if that is the reason he makes less tackle attempts.
Of course stats aren't everything, but the line "I don't care what the stats say" is a dangerous one. You care about stats in other areas but not in this instance? That's sort of cherry-picking isn't it?
