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

Angry Eel replied to ParramattaLurker's discussion NRL ready to broker a peace deal with warring clubs over Lomax
"So you're willing to give Melbourne a gold chip just so we can take a bronze chip. That's not smart, that is dumber than dog shit"
47 minutes ago
Adam Magrath replied to Joel K's discussion National Melbourne League
"You've also got to remember Lomax might be more than willing to pay us say $500k in damages (I'm not sure what would be agreed to by the parties or court enforced) in order to get a 3 year $700k contract with the storm."
2 hours ago
Adam Magrath replied to Joel K's discussion National Melbourne League
"We don't need to pick any sort of fight in this, we don't need to be the aggressor. It is also important that we don't portray ourselves as that.
At this stage there has been no wrong (I think the correct term is "tort") committed. Time is on our…"
2 hours ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Joel K's discussion National Melbourne League
"But we will demand lube...Parra Stronk"
7 hours ago
More…