Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

Bob said:
Absolute potshot, but does anyone think with Brooks to manly we might get Brad Arthurcoming our way? He signed on with manly until 2024 a couple of months ago but they now have

DCE, Brooks, Schuster, Arthur, Cooper Johns, Fainu & Humphreys to cover the halves

4th and 5th pick is a lot lower in the totem pole than I would imagine.

I’d take both Brad Arthur and Cooper John’s over Wakeham.

Hunt, Pearce or even Townsend seems like a miracle now.
Click to expand...
I'd take the coach that's about it
 
tigermate said:
I am happy luke is gone

Bc Sheens wouldn’t play him in the position he is

A running 5/8

And yes he will to go Manly and kick on and probably shine outside DCE

And everyone will say we should never should’ve let him leave

But they are wrong

Bc by letting him go (by not giving him a decent offer that made him feel valued) - we finally don’t allow sheens and benji to play brooks as a half back

Sheens could’ve kept Jacko at 7 and Luke at 6

Which would’ve worked better than luke at 7

But sheens dug his heels in without even coaching him last year and said luke is a 7 and I can’t wait “to get my hands on him”

Well we lost the first 7 games and are now last

I applaud the club for being brave bc finally sheens and benji are forced to find an actual half back

But it’s their own fault

If we had signed brooks they would not be looking for a 7 for the next 3 years!!!

Now we have a chance of finding one if not now or next year but for 2025.

And to me that’s better than having brooks as a 7 for the next 3 years.

Which is sad but it’s their fault…

If you want to blame anyone Blame those idiots…

Look at what they did …

Let Jacko leave bc you don’t want him at 7, and put all your eggs in luke at 7 saying “he’s our halfback”, having seen for the last 10 yrs he’s not a half back but a running 6…

and then after 7 games of losing say we are looking for a controlling 7, having not even secured luke for another year, knowing he was off contract now, despite letting Jacko leave, and then realizing he’s not a 7, but are too stubborn to admit you were wrong… and ended up with NOTHING!

That is typical WT Sheens at his worst

I like some of Tim Sheens but picking a controlling half has always been his issue at Wests Tigers for some reason …

For example - Sheens spouts things like - “all the spine contribute equally” and “7 or 6 they’re just numbers on a Jersey” …

Well, after 2005, we never recovered after Scott prince left bc he didn’t buy a controlling half back until we got Robert lui and made the finals in that run of 2010-11…

Sheens doesn’t know how to pick a 7.

Bc he in that tinkering brain of his it’s his biggest short coming

He tries to be too clever

He tries to make the Hooker the most important piece - like he did with Robbie and like he tried with Api… which is ok but you still need a controlling 7

And I can fathom how he can’t see it

But it is what it is

Now Sheens can’t play Brooks at 7 and I’m Fcking glad about it - but also sad that he didn’t play him at 6 bc I think we could’ve excelled.

Once he let Jacko go at 7, and chose brooks to wear 7, he could never put a 6 on his back without looking like he stuffed up!

Now you watch Sheens and benji kick stones if we can’t buy anyone and brooks plays well at Manly

The club will be wrong and they’ll play the blame game

But it’s their blame!

There’s a scene in Moneyball with Brad Pitt where he trades their best player bc the coach won’t pick him in the position Pitt wants… well that just happened to Benji and Sheens…

They created the problem guys

That’s the truth

And you know what’s more messed up (now that I think about it) … Justin and Lee put sheens there… so they’re both at fault… one created the monster and the other is the monster … who’s to blame for the monster? (That’s a question for everyone)…. I was talking to an ex CEO and GM from another club last week and I asked them - “would any other team replace their coach with our coaching setup of Sheens and Benji - and they said no. And I agree. The problem with our club is the mgmt and the coaches. They are equally to blame.
Click to expand...
Releasing Hastings was a decision the club got right.

The club was correct in not matching the 4 year deal offered by the Eagles for Brooks.

If we can acquire George Williams and or Welsby the club can still be in a good place. I don't know what their contractual obligations are now.
 
pawsandclaws1 said:
Releasing Hastings was a decision the club got right.

The club was correct in not matching the 4 year deal offered by the Eagles for Brooks.

If we can acquire George Williams and or Welsby the club can still be in a good place. I don't know what their contractual obligations are.
Click to expand...
don't agree on Jacko but agree on the rest.

I'm not saying Jacko is the best 7 in the game -- but he was a better option at 7 than playing Brooks there.

thats the point i was making

if you think playing brooks at 7 over jacko at 7 is a better option than i disagree with you on that.

and if we now get a player worse than Jacko at 7 -- like theyre trying to do with Madden again -- then i will still be right.

your argument is only on point -- if they get a better 7 than Jacko, bc we had him.

Hope they can do it.

cheers
 
tigermate said:
don't agree on Jacko but agree on the rest.

I'm not saying Jacko is the best 7 in the game -- but he was a better option at 7 than playing Brooks there.

thats the point i was making

if you think playing brooks at 7 over jacko at 7 is a better option than i disagree with you on that.

and if we now get a player worse than Jacko at 7 -- like theyre trying to do with Madden again -- then i will still be right.

your argument is only on point -- if they get a better 7 than Jacko, bc we had him.

Hope they can do it.

cheers
Click to expand...
The club did not need Hastings and the baggage which came with him.
 
pawsandclaws1 said:
The club did not need Hastings and the baggage which came with him.
Click to expand...
thats a fair point

but they then thought that his "baggage" was worth more than putting up with it and winning more games.

I don't know what the right answer is...

but we are last.

if the point is to win more games than you lose -- than if we win more games with hastings but have to deal with his sh*t... is that better than letting him go and losing more games?

i don't know... but my problem is they didnt have an answer -- and they still didn't play brooks at 6.

after ten years they couldn't see it.

well now they can deal with it...
 
tigermate said:
thats a fair point

but they then thought that his "baggage" was worth more than putting up with it and winning more games.

I don't know what the right answer is...

but we are last.

if the point is to win more games than you lose -- than if we win more games with hastings but have to deal with his sh*t... is that better than letting him go and losing more games?

i don't know... but my problem is they didnt have an answer -- and they still didn't play brooks at 6.

after ten years they couldn't see it.

well now they can deal with it...
Click to expand...
Hastings wanted to go to Newcastle. The club's decision was best for both parties as Hastings received a very good contract and a chance to re-establish his career in Newcastle.

We were always on a poor trajectory this year and perhaps next. That was admitted. The umbilical cord to the past has been cut now with Brooks' departure.

We must have plenty of money to either buy the very best young halves waiting for an opportunity - Walker or Sanders or, buy Williams and Welsby plus a young half or two.
 
Tucker said:
Latrell killed it at the Roosters at centre winning back to back GFs. He has been ok at Souths but nowhere near as effective. All his rep footy has been at centre.
GI was an absolute weapon as a centre for many years at club level and rep level winning a Clive Churchill, RLIF centre of the year, 2 x Dally M rep player of the year awards, the Wally Lewis Medal, Harry Sunderland Medal, Ron Macauliffe Medal and a Golden Boot playing there.
I’ve seen you say you coach footy before. I pray it’s not kids, they don’t deserve such an unknowledgeable boofhead poisoning their formative years.
Click to expand...

I could delve into an analysis as to why Inglis was in the centres at the Storm (Slater fullback) and Latrell centre at the Roosters (Tedesco), but I know it will fall on deaf ears. Instead, since you mention my coaching, I will ask one simple question. When Latrell comes back for souths, would you play him in the centres and keep Taafe at fullback or would you put Latrell back to fullback?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 851
pawsandclaws1 said:
Hastings wanted to go to Newcastle. The club's decision was best for both parties as Hastings received a very good contract and a chance to re-establish his career in Newcastle.

We were always on a poor trajectory this year and perhaps next. That was admitted. The umbilical cord to the past has been cut now with Brooks' departure.

We must have plenty of money to either buy the very best young halves waiting for an opportunity - Walker or Sanders or, buy Williams and Welsby plus a young half or two.
Click to expand...
sorry -- i don't agree with the first part.

hastings only wanted to go when sheens said he would pay him at Lock and didn't see him as a 7.

if sheens had wanted to keep him at 7 -- we would've let brooks go -- like Newcastle wanted.

Newcastle only turned their attention to Hastings -- when Sheens wouldn't let Brooks leave.

Now Sheens has neither Brooks or Hastings.

That's my point.
 
tigermate said:
sorry -- i don't agree with the first part.

hastings only wanted to go when sheens said he would pay him at Lock and didn't see him as a 7.

if sheens had wanted to keep him at 7 -- we would've let brooks go -- like Newcastle wanted.

Newcastle only turned their attention to Hastings -- when Sheens wouldn't let Brooks leave.

Now Sheens has neither Brooks or Hastings.

That's my point.
Click to expand...

I think what you say here is correct.

Hastings has been poor at 7 though for Newy, I'm not confident he would have been the answer for us in that position.
 
pawsandclaws1 said:
We must have plenty of money to either buy the very best young halves waiting for an opportunity - Walker or Sanders or, buy Williams and Welsby plus a young half or two.
Click to expand...

We need to actually sign these guys though. Plus this year is another write off. It'd be great to have a good season. Hopefully soon.
 
426Tlgerland said:
You would hope club has some good news soon
Brooks going
Tommy Going
Joffa Gone
Nofo , offered up
Blore , Offered up ( big mistake )
Laurie Offered up

we the punters need some good news Now
Click to expand...
Front loading contracts like last year it seems.

We must be the leaders in front loading contracts, and yet Brooks was on a heavily back ended contract. Go figure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 851
Why is everyone so stressed about Tommy Talau officially signing for Manly in 2024 and thinking that'll jepordise the Fainu swap, if anything it just increased it.

Manly will try to get him over ASAP for this year as they're making a push for finals and needs as many outside backs as possible as they're dropping like flies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 272 (members: 40, guests: 232)
Forever online: Tigergran, Geo
Back
Top