Brooks training

[GNR4LIFE]

I've said it a few times that you don't need two gun halves. Even the strong clubs go with one half who is serviceable. Chad Townsend at the Sharks is a perfect example. Save the money put aside for one of the halves and invest it in a quality back rower and this team will be set.

You dont need 2 top halves but it certainly helps.Sterling and Kenny where the best combo i have ever seen and kept parra at the top of the heap.Not saying our blokes are as good but i would persevere with them as long as it is not ridiculous money.

You're going back 30 years. The game has changed. Since 05, how many teams with 2 gun halves have won the comp? The only teams i can think of are Manly and the Roosters

 

[Tim Sheens]

I've said it a few times that you don't need two gun halves. Even the strong clubs go with one half who is serviceable. Chad Townsend at the Sharks is a perfect example. Save the money put aside for one of the halves and invest it in a quality back rower and this team will be set.

You dont need 2 top halves but it certainly helps.Sterling and Kenny where the best combo i have ever seen and kept parra at the top of the heap.Not saying our blokes are as good but i would persevere with them as long as it is not ridiculous money.

You're going back 30 years. The game has changed. Since 05, how many teams with 2 gun halves have won the comp? The only teams i can think of are Manly and the Roosters

And they were at the top for a good while, but have not gone well without a pair. Just an observation.

 

[2041]

The defensive ability of a fullback is just not something that really lends itself to statistical analysis. They are not a front line defender and if they're making a lot of tackles per game you'll probably find that they are either doing some defending on the wing, or they're defending on the line when the other team's inside the 10 (leaving the team exposed to a kick in behind).

His positional play and commitment in defence is phenomenal. Some of his missed tackles can probably be chalked up to him reading the play well enough to actually be there and try to stop the try when other fullbacks would be metres behind the play.

Missed tackles in broken play are also not a great indicator. His main goal is to shut the situation down. If he cuts down the attacker's options by his positioning and manages to slow the attacker down for cover defence to get him then even if he's missed the tackle he's done a stellar job.

This is one area where I don't care what the stats say - Teddy is a great defender.

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?

I think you've both got reasonable points. One is that very low-frequency stats might not be especially useful. If full backs generally make 4-6 tackles a game we want to be pretty certain that there is a real correlation between being at the higher end of that scale and good defensive performance before ascribing much weight to it.

On the other hand, it's also true that if there is a correlation between a piece of data and outcomes it bears consideration however minor the data itself might look. I certainly agree that if Tedesco's defensive numbers are the product of the Tigers' defensive tactics there's at least as much value in questioning whether the tactics are correct as whether Tedesco is in fact a good defender.

So I guess the question would be how many tackles are fullbacks in good and bad defensive teams making and missing, an is there a correlation between the data points. If we could say that Cameron Munster and Ben Barba were reliably making seven tackles a game in 2016 and missing none, while Jake Mamo was making three and missing two, we might have some useful evidence. We might also not be terribly surprised, shall we say - especially about the latter data point.

I do suspect tackles made and tackles missed are probably not great data points for fullbacks' defence - or at least that there are probably better ones that either could be used or are being used but are not available to the average fan. I'm thinking of things like linebreaks not converted, linebreaks not converted in the same play or plays 'influenced' (for instance breaking players forced to pass or kick). The question is whether tackles are the best data available to us as fans, or just useless.

 

[marzie]

I am like a few others on this forum who seem to be in the minority , I think Brooks is going okay and I expect him to have a massive year. As Watto said he is playing to the coaches instructions, Moses is the no1 playmaker and Brooks is a foil. His figures last year were good except for his D , but there were plenty others who fell down in the D department as well.

I keep saying it is a team game and when the team goes well individuals go well and the opposite can be said when the team goes badly. Anyway if Brooks went out there on the open market I am sure he would get some very big nibbles as a lot of better judges than us rate him

I also think Brooks cops a lot of unfair criticism from a lot of our supporters. I think he's going well and is improving each year, I'd be disappointed if we lost him.

Here is a direct comparison between Moses and Brooks 2016 stats for anyone interested.

**Mitch Moses**
Games played: 23
Tries: 6
Field goals: 3
40/20's: 1
Total kicks: 194
Kick metres: 4859m
Tackles: 386
Missed tackles: 92
Penalties conceded: 12
Hit ups: 115
Running metres: 1175m
Tackles breaks: 31
Try assists: 18
Line break assists: 13
Line breaks: 15
Errors: 27

**Luke Brooks**
Games played: 21
Tries: 5
Field goals: 0
40/20'S: 3
Total kicks: 175
Kick Metres: 4426m
Tackles: 271
Missed tackles: 98
Penalties conceded: 6
Hit ups: 136
Running metres: 1095m
Tackle breaks: 32
Try assists: 14
Line break assists: 19
Line breaks: 3
Errors: 13

I included stats that normally wouldn't interest anyone just to show that both perform very similarly in various aspects of the game

 

[Tigerdon]

I've said it a few times that you don't need two gun halves. Even the strong clubs go with one half who is serviceable. Chad Townsend at the Sharks is a perfect example. Save the money put aside for one of the halves and invest it in a quality back rower and this team will be set.

You dont need 2 top halves but it certainly helps.Sterling and Kenny where the best combo i have ever seen and kept parra at the top of the heap.Not saying our blokes are as good but i would persevere with them as long as it is not ridiculous money.

You're going back 30 years. The game has changed. Since 05, how many teams with 2 gun halves have won the comp? The only teams i can think of are Manly and the Roosters

And they were at the top for a good while, but have not gone well without a pair. Just an observation.

Manly fans are spewing that they threw everything at DCE and have no halves partner to take the pressure of him ….they didn't go too well this year when he was injured.

 

[Telltails]

I've said it a few times that you don't need two gun halves. Even the strong clubs go with one half who is serviceable. Chad Townsend at the Sharks is a perfect example. Save the money put aside for one of the halves and invest it in a quality back rower and this team will be set.

You dont need 2 top halves but it certainly helps.Sterling and Kenny where the best combo i have ever seen and kept parra at the top of the heap.Not saying our blokes are as good but i would persevere with them as long as it is not ridiculous money.

You're going back 30 years. The game has changed. Since 05, how many teams with 2 gun halves have won the comp? The only teams i can think of are Manly and the Roosters

And they were at the top for a good while, but have not gone well without a pair. Just an observation.

Have a feeling the Broncos will be looking for a better than "serviceable " replacement for Ben Hunt. The only thing that has prevented teams from having two gun halves is not being able to secure them.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

You dont need 2 top halves but it certainly helps.Sterling and Kenny where the best combo i have ever seen and kept parra at the top of the heap.Not saying our blokes are as good but i would persevere with them as long as it is not ridiculous money.

You're going back 30 years. The game has changed. Since 05, how many teams with 2 gun halves have won the comp? The only teams i can think of are Manly and the Roosters

And they were at the top for a good while, but have not gone well without a pair. Just an observation.

Have a feeling the Broncos will be looking for a better than "serviceable " replacement for Ben Hunt. The only thing that has prevented teams from having two gun halves is not being able to secure them.

The last time the Broncos won a comp, Shane Perry was halfback. They aren't adverse to the one gun half route.

 

[Telltails]

You're going back 30 years. The game has changed. Since 05, how many teams with 2 gun halves have won the comp? The only teams i can think of are Manly and the Roosters

And they were at the top for a good while, but have not gone well without a pair. Just an observation.

Have a feeling the Broncos will be looking for a better than "serviceable " replacement for Ben Hunt. The only thing that has prevented teams from having two gun halves is not being able to secure them.

The last time the Broncos won a comp, Shane Perry
was halfback. They aren't adverse to the one gun half route.[/quote

True - but I do believe he was the backup halfback when Brett Seymour got sacked and he took his opportunity. Ideally - I think all clubs would like to have two gun halves and the Broncos fortunately for them have had the the opportunity to mostly field better than average halves and have achieved a level of success in doing so - without ignoring the fact they have continually fielded strong teams right across the park
I guess the real question still goes back to if you
rate Brooks or not - and it's clear that its still divided among many supporters.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

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.

And lost it again after a few more games.
He started the season very ordinarily , improved for a while then finished as he started.
Strange as it may be, that was also without Farah, I'm not sure but I didn't see Farah on the field during those last games.

I said in an earlier thread that while Moses did improve somewhat during last year, I'm still not convinced that he's worth a lot more than Brooks,
I think that we'll see this year whether he deserves the hype, and if he can get some consistency in his game.
Maybe both of them will show more this year, maybe not
If they want the big money they will have to show a lot more in games and do it a lot more often.
The days of blaming others have long gone.

 

[Russell]

The defensive ability of a fullback is just not something that really lends itself to statistical analysis. They are not a front line defender and if they're making a lot of tackles per game you'll probably find that they are either doing some defending on the wing, or they're defending on the line when the other team's inside the 10 (leaving the team exposed to a kick in behind).

His positional play and commitment in defence is phenomenal. Some of his missed tackles can probably be chalked up to him reading the play well enough to actually be there and try to stop the try when other fullbacks would be metres behind the play.

Missed tackles in broken play are also not a great indicator. His main goal is to shut the situation down. If he cuts down the attacker's options by his positioning and manages to slow the attacker down for cover defence to get him then even if he's missed the tackle he's done a stellar job.

This is one area where I don't care what the stats say - Teddy is a great defender.

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?

You're obviously stats man "jirskyr" and that is good for you if you are into it.

Personally I am a watch man and tend to believe what my eyes see. You have named 7 or 8 FB's and given their stats which shows Teddy is near or at the bottom.

Well I reckon he is near the top - out of all those FB's I think he is the best defender and am very happy we have him as our last line of defence. Maybe Boyd is a close second.

Time to jump in stryker and call me some more names. Big opportunity here.

Teddy is only going to get better, Boyd isn't. (sorry being off topic here).

As I said in another post keep Brooks if we can but more than 6 or 650 is too much on the performances in 2016\. A graded contract, performance driven is the way to go I reckon.

 

[jadtiger]

Brooks is playing to coaches instructions in attack any criticism for not being more assertive should be directed at the coach,he is taking a back seat mostly.His defence is poor but where is his support?Any half getting isolated as he is will look bad,he needs a minder in defence and that is what coaches should be doing BOTH of our halves need support in D.
We get it right and our prospects will soar in 2017.

 

[Needaname]

The defensive ability of a fullback is just not something that really lends itself to statistical analysis. They are not a front line defender and if they're making a lot of tackles per game you'll probably find that they are either doing some defending on the wing, or they're defending on the line when the other team's inside the 10 (leaving the team exposed to a kick in behind).

His positional play and commitment in defence is phenomenal. Some of his missed tackles can probably be chalked up to him reading the play well enough to actually be there and try to stop the try when other fullbacks would be metres behind the play.

Missed tackles in broken play are also not a great indicator. His main goal is to shut the situation down. If he cuts down the attacker's options by his positioning and manages to slow the attacker down for cover defence to get him then even if he's missed the tackle he's done a stellar job.

This is one area where I don't care what the stats say - Teddy is a great defender.

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?

You're obviously stats man "jirskyr" and that is good for you if you are into it.

Personally I am a watch man and tend to believe what my eyes see. You have named 7 or 8 FB's and given their stats which shows Teddy is near or at the bottom.

Well I reckon he is near the top - out of all those FB's I think he is the best defender and am very happy we have him as our last line of defence. Maybe Boyd is a close second.

Time to jump in stryker and call me some more names. Big opportunity here.

Teddy is only going to get better, Boyd isn't. (sorry being off topic here).

As I said in another post keep Brooks if we can but more than 6 or 650 is too much on the performances in 2016\. A graded contract, performance driven is the way to go I reckon.

I don't know Russell, whilst I respect your opinion Teddy's last line of defence positioning is close to terible.
He excels in covering ground in open field ie from a kick or open field break.
But when he is defending close to our line his always caught up around the ruck and not back behind the line ready to defuse a grubber.
But he is young and it is an area of his game he is working on, watching his unfiltered interview he references Boyd alot so he probably sees him as the benchmark.
Whixh is what you want in a player.
So what I'm saying is the stats don't lie, Teddys got alot of improvement in him.

Back on topic and in relation to stats. It's hard to see the criticism on Brooks from anything other than perception.
As an observer myself I was surprised he posted those kind of stats last year.
What I do notice from just watching the game is that Brooks tends to play off motions and no longer instinct. maybe his been over coached a bit.
I do think he will have more time and look alot sharper this coming season with better and wider service from the ruck this year from either of the 3 hookers.
What you notice between the two halves is that moses makes his presence known.
He shouts, he throws everything into the game. His plays off instinct first.
Brooks doesn't, his quiet, his controlled, he creates the play using the space and players around him rather then being the runner first, react second. When the team is lacking any momentum Brooks struggles as he tends to take a back seat. He tends to look disinterested.
The stats back that up with Brooks / Moses having close to equal stats with Brooks having superior line break assists and Moses having alot more of his own line breaks.

Jirskyr could you please provide comparable stats as to how Brooks was placed with the rest of the leagues 15 halfbacks?

Bottom line and IMHO we need to keep both.
Keep just Moses the team will be too erratic.
Keep just Brooks and we will not have that X factor player.
They are the modern day Prince and Marshall.

 

[happy_tiger]

Cody Walker didn't even get a shot at first grade until he was 26 and he had a great 2016\. Sometimes players just need to be given a decent chance to prove themselves (just like Austin had the chance to do with us in 2014).

Cody looked way better in a Easts Tigers Jumper than he does in a Rabbits.

Wish he would come back!

We really need a vomit smilie

The only time an Easts jersey looks remotely good is if it is on fire or being run over by a car

1000 bonus points if a douche Brisbane Easts supporter or player is wearing it

 

[pHyR3]

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

Cap going to almost 14M 😕 ..not if Grant has his way

Squads will also increase from 25 to 30..

not quite 14mil, but 10-12 mil is definitely possible. i said almost double

fair point about squad increase, but the minimum wage wont double so most of that bonus income will go to star players not the fringe FGers

 

[innsaneink]

I wanna see Brooks in a team with a capable defense and a forward pack that's winning the ruck

 

[Tiger_Watto]

I wanna see Brooks in a team with a capable defense and a forward pack that's winning the ruck

I don't… I like Luke and hope he stays a Tiger

 

[TCL]

I wanna see Brooks in a team with a capable defense and a forward pack that's winning the ruck

I don't… I like Luke and hope he stays a Tiger

:roll

 

[supercoach]

I wanna see Brooks in a team with a capable defense and a forward pack that's winning the ruck

I agree 100% but as Happy eluded to in a post the club seems to be doing very little to fix the major problem…the backrow. Iam trying to be optimistic about our chances in 2017,but I guess I have some real doubts about us having a improved defence when we are trotting out the same personnel that have struggled for years.

When I look back on a few games last year,the two Raiders games come to mind,we could employ 25 defensive coaches and Bellyache and things probably would not change greatly without introducing one or two top line defenders.

Anyway I will be more than happy to have egg on my face, but from where I sit we are miles behind the better sides in the backrow stakes

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Not much we can do this year about the back row unfortunately. We need to be in the market for one in 2018, its non negotiable. Hell, maybe even two. If we keep who we want this year and strengthen our back row, i think we can be a top 4 side in 2018.

 

[Masterton]

I agree 100% but as Happy eluded to in a post the club seems to be doing very little to fix the major problem…the backrow. Iam trying to be optimistic about our chances in 2017,but I guess I have some real doubts about us having a improved defence when we are trotting out the same personnel that have struggled for years.

A year ago our biggest problems were backrow and centres. It looks like we've taken positive steps at centre. It may appear we've done less in the forwards, but I guess it depends on their confidence in our youngsters. For example, if Felise really steps up, it would allow Sue to swap positions. Plus, ET has been a major help.

Nothing major, but I feel like we're slowly improving our weaknesses.