NRL Fantasy 2019 Part 66

Revraiser wrote:

Can't believe ud even consider that....





#mattersoftheheart

I wasn't considering putting the tag

Considering it's a requirement in their normal league, it was given their Eliminator would have the same criteria.

StormTrooper96 wrote:

Hey VK,

On our PM's I responded saying your plan was awesome I can see where you think I will get the most out of my trades; however, I would be left with 720K to get a 17/18th man but with no Xerri that would need to be a CTR? Otherwise I would have no CTR cover.

EDIT: Unless I use Ponga/Drinkwater in the halves and instead of getting a HLF in R18 (for Watson) I can grab a CTR (Burns, Mitchell??), this way in R21 I can grab anyone in any position for maximum points output.

I'm running with Burns for cover (well, that's the plan anyway!)... but if you can afford Mitchell this week without cocking up the longer term team balance then I'd be very tempted. He'd be a quality option for the l**p.

That's one thing I regret (a bit). My end team plan doesn't really have that boom/bust option sitting in 18/19.

So atm I have 3 trades lined up which are Milford, Farah, Sivo > SJ, RTS, Rookie.

Also looking to bring in Bateman, Drinkwater and Burns. Should I do 1 this week to get the other two next week? Just gets my team together earlier

Liverpool_Bulldog wrote:So atm I have 3 trades lined up which are Milford, Farah, Sivo > SJ, RTS, Rookie.

Also looking to bring in Bateman, Drinkwater and Burns. Should I do 1 this week to get the other two next week? Just gets my team together earlier

I have quite a strong view of only bringing in players that are playing in the round. What if Bateman, Drinky or Burns don't play next week due to a niggle etc. Too risky for me.

I'd prefer to spread the trades through 17 & 18. Fill any gaps first then play the BEs to determine trade order.

Others may disagree, I've seen quite a few plans with non 16 players being traded in. This is fine obviously - we're here to discuss this stuff rather than nod and agree all of the time.

Does that help?

Verbal Kint wrote:

I'm running with Burns for cover (well, that's the plan anyway!)... but if you can afford Mitchell this week without cocking up the longer term team balance then I'd be very tempted. He'd be a quality option for the l**p.

That's one thing I regret (a bit). My end team plan doesn't really have that boom/bust option sitting in 18/19.

I think Burns should give some boom/bust, that's my plan also.

Liverpool_Bulldog wrote:So atm I have 3 trades lined up which are Milford, Farah, Sivo > SJ, RTS, Rookie.

Also looking to bring in Bateman, Drinkwater and Burns. Should I do 1 this week to get the other two next week? Just gets my team together earlier

I'd agree with VK mate, a week's an eternity in fantasy, I'd only bring in the guys playing this week.

When you look at Mitchells scores this season and he already has a 98 and a hatrick against the Tigers...

Mulvy wrote:

I think Burns should give some boom/bust, that's my plan also.

Yeah, I also think he might nudge out Nikora as a starting centre for the run home.

I'd still prefer Mitchell. What a little gem that would be - a pod that can go massive who plays r16.

Verbal Kint wrote:

I have quite a strong view of only bringing in players that are playing in the round. What if Bateman, Drinky or Burns don't play next week due to a niggle etc. Too risky for me.

I'd prefer to spread the trades through 17 & 18. Fill any gaps first then play the BEs to determine trade order.

Others may disagree, I've seen quite a few plans with non 16 players being traded in. This is fine obviously - we're here to discuss this stuff rather than nod and agree all of the time.

Does that help?

Yeah definitely what I had planned to do originally. Burns and Drinkwater in 17 and Bateman in 18.
Just wondering if there was benefit to moving earlier. Prices shouldn't change too much overall and I have a 100k buffer

Verbal Kint wrote:

Yeah, I also think he might nudge out Nikora as a starting centre for the run home.

I'd still prefer Mitchell. What a little gem that would be - a pod that can go massive who plays r16.

He has 33% ownership

Revraiser wrote:The 4 day week i brought up a couple weeks back which led to much intriguing discussion here has been approved !

Today being Thursday, is now my Friday!

   

Good stuff getting it all approved Rev. Enjoy the time off

Thankfully EOFY is over now, finally have enough time this week to waste time looking at trades. Will probably go with Milford, Hutcho and Dearden > SJ, Coates and Tevaga. Been a rough year for halves, amazing pairing of SJ and Watson now Tevaga will give me a solid 18/19th man with Burns - best I can afford.

Should have more time to watch teamlists too, two weeks in a row of being down a player which was easily avoidable. Oh well.

Just enough cash to go Watson > Munster next week. Not enough cash to grab Tommy as well which is disappointing.

Verbal Kint wrote:

Yeah, I also think he might nudge out Nikora as a starting centre for the run home.

I'd still prefer Mitchell. What a little gem that would be - a pod that can go massive who plays r16.

Not ideal for looping though, they've got a lot of Sunday games.

Tevaga is giving me a headache. Great player to have in the team at that price if only he had some security. HOK/2RF is a slight problem area for me

StormTrooper96 wrote:

He has 33% ownership

Haha, really? I'd assume a chunk of that are inactive? Wow

Perhaps a pod within the scope of this forum.

Liverpool_Bulldog wrote:

Woooooooooo

I have ten weeks of parental leave coming up, oh joy

Exciting stuff, enjoy the time with your kid. If you want any advice, I took a bunch of time off for both my kids and happy to talk about it

Tex Hoy? Phoenix Crossland? Xavier Coates? If any of you ever played Championship Manager/Foitball Manager these are like regens from 2042.

Tits Ahoy

I'd be surprised if Mitchell was heavily owned within the top 100 or so teams

Liverpool_Bulldog wrote:Tevaga is giving me a headache. Great player to have in the team at that price if only he had some security. HOK/2RF is a slight problem area for me

I'm getting him I think, but I'm factoring a trade out down the track.