Luke Brooks

They were saying on 360 last night Tigers may want to offload him and pay some freight. Would he go any good at hooker? 

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • In attack he could offer value, but he'd be a liability in defence. Maybe off the bench

    • From the figures they were talking (which could be all pure bullshit) for the tigers to get rid of him to another club they would have to pay about half his 2023 salary - $600k was the number provided. Do you think his defence could be improved/adapted to suit dummy half. How would Api Korisau go defending in the halves for example? I'm sure his rate of missed tackles would increase. Brooks is a player that needs a change of scenery 

      • Moses was just as shit and now he is a reliable defender at the Eels. At hooker Brooks will have more support around him. 

        I think he'll make a great hooker, looks to have a nice backpussy.

        • Good grief, this comment escalated real quick. I'll take your word for it Kurupt.

      • He does have speed, and a lefty kick from dummy half is always handy.

        • No way Brett. You're kidding signing a player who can't defend at hooker. 

          • I didn't say we should sign him Chief, I merely pointed out his good qualities. 

          • How do you know he can't defend at hooker?

            • Coz I've watched him tackle. You should watch him too that way you'll understand. You don't need to much of a sample size. About 10-15 games should be enough. 

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Randy Handlinger replied to Hell On Eels's discussion Iongi: Recent Illicit Substance Scandals vs NRL Sanctions
"Got any priors for players done for weed. I don't recall any.
Unlike weed, everything on that list is a class A. drug.
 "
22 minutes ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Hell On Eels's discussion The Eels v Lomax: Timeline and Key Questions
"Thanks Pato. It's 4o4. Does it say Tripp has not been asked to appear on the first? They can't make him but they can tear him up without reply if he doesn't attend
 "
28 minutes ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Hell On Eels's discussion The Eels v Lomax: Timeline and Key Questions
"Yeah Super, that's what I thought.
Pato was saying "unavailable to appear until 13th March. So Lomax won't be playing for Storm until Rd3 at the earliest if they get a result in their favour."
I thought he was saying it had been moved to 13th
 "
30 minutes ago
ParraPride replied to Hell On Eels's discussion Iongi: Recent Illicit Substance Scandals vs NRL Sanctions
"He'll be fine it seems like an old picture."
34 minutes ago
More…