NRL Fantasy 2020 Part 4

Camo123 wrote:

If you stick with this would you not use a trade on your CTRs and forego players like Latrell/Hopoate later in the year that might average more or would you stick with CTRs that might not score at the same level

If I was picking a 2nd expensive CTR alongside Burns I’d also probably lean towards Staggs over Leilua. Slightly undervalued with a few bench appearances and still has high ceiling and may be outside D Fifita/TPJ who can open up gaps for him

If you've already got Burns at centre and Lomax somewhere in your 17, I don't think you need another "gun" centre to start with, in the hope that those two are serviceable at centre until rd 12 at least. Maybe they aren't keepers, but I wouldn't be spending any more.

How much is too much on the bench? Currently I have friend, koro, brailey and grant, is that money better spent beefing up my starting 13?

I know we have already had the disussion but now that james is out knight, fotuaika or both(one on bench and one starting or both starting)

I really don't feel the same way for Best i think others do. he averaged 23 fantasy points in reserve grade so dont see any reason there will be any change there.

Also any love for the carty party saw it mentioned a few pages back, he is priced at 32 and if given the starting spot at second row should average around 10 points higher than he is priced

Ponga for prez wrote:How much is too much on the bench? Currently I have friend, koro, brailey and grant, is that money better spent beefing up my starting 13?

There's absolutely no difference between your starting 13 and four benchies. They all count from round 1 onwards towards your score. It's all a balancing act. You can spend more on your starting 13 and less on your interchange. Or more on your interchange than some of your starting 13, just like you can spend more on your forwards than you do your backs or vice versa.

You do spend as little as possible on your reserves though (18-21). Some do spend a little there also though to get a decent cow rather than putting complete dogshit in there if cash cows are seemingly hard to come by, but predicting that's a while off.

Ponga for prez wrote:How much is too much on the bench? Currently I have friend, koro, brailey and grant, is that money better spent beefing up my starting 13?

Mulvy already said it, but everyone in your 17 counts the same, whether they start or not

I would prioritise spending on players 14-17 over who my starting centres are

Mulvy wrote:

If you've already got Burns at centre and Lomax somewhere in your 17, I don't think you need another "gun" centre to start with, in the hope that those two are serviceable at centre until rd 12 at least. Maybe they aren't keepers, but I wouldn't be spending any more.

Unless that is Aubbusson, starts as 2RF come R1. Then, I can't imagine that any serious player would be without the Black Widow

This is just a different question some may know, Souths are moving to BankWest Round 17 this season on whilst ANZ is done, is level 1 on halfway undercover seating? Or does undercover only start from level 2 on?

Mulvy wrote:

standard-issue wrote:

Yes

I hate you so much right now.

FalconSloth wrote:I really don't feel the same way for Best i think others do. he averaged 23 fantasy points in reserve grade so dont see any reason there will be any change there.

Also any love for the carty party saw it mentioned a few pages back, he is priced at 32 and if given the starting spot at second row should average around 10 points higher than he is priced

I can see myself not picking Best only for him to score 50 with two tries in round one and compelled by the negative break even to trade him in, only for him to be injured.

As for Carty, he is like several backrowers we are waiting on to see what their role is. If starting, all of the following might be good value:

Carty, Hess, D Fifita, Lucy, Williams, Lowe, Sua, Stimson, Garner, Wright, Crichton, Hipgrave, Merrin, Tapine.

Mulvy wrote:

I can see myself not picking Best only for him to score 50 with two tries in round one and compelled by the negative break even to trade him in, only for him to be injured.

As for Carty, he is like several backrowers we are waiting on to see what their role is. If starting, all of the following might be good value:

Carty, Hess, D Fifita, Lucy, Williams, Lowe, Sua, Stimson, Garner, Wright, Crichton, Hipgrave

I will be avoiding Carty, Hipgrave and Wright I think, just can’t trust them even if they start.

I don’t have Best in my side currently, I think he will regularly score around 25.

I’d rather go with Burns at this stage and pray a 246k player comes up at centre for round 1.

Righteo, for round 1 if you got given the choice of only one of Brimson or Isaako who would you pick?

I think I would pick Brimson as I just trust him a little more than Isaako.

Rabbits21 wrote:Righteo, for round 1 if you got given the choice of only one of Brimson or Isaako who would you pick?

I think I would pick Brimson as I just trust him a little more than Isaako.

I've stuck with Brimson since day one. I really want Isaako in my team too, but can't squeeze him in. As a fullback, I think Brimson is definitely the better option. The only thing that keeps me wanting Isaako in there somewhere is the fact that he's the goal kicker too. It's a pretty big call to assume that Brimson will make up those extra few goal kicking points per week, but for some reason I haven't considered dumping Brimson for Isaako. I want both... but if it's only going to be one (which is how it looks), it's still Brimson for me.

After being burnt by Burns twice last year (after holding onto him for so long after the initial injury) makes me very skeptical on counting on him ever again.

In credence to Bethany’s double gun centre ploy, I was not long ago dabbling with a team which had Burns and Bird at centre. My thought process was that since the fantasy landscape was mostly bereft of good centre options it would be one way to get a sure jump on the competition. Plenty of teams I see sport Smith-Shields and Milne who I highly doubt see a R1 TLT, next off the rank are the Bradman Best and Mogas who I can easily see scoring 20s, and of course everyone will have Lomax. So really all you would need is for Lomax to be a flop (which isn’t that farfetched at all), and suddenly having 80-90 points in the centre position whilst everyone else fields 40-50 is a huge leg up. The devils advocate is that by fielding gun centres it is to the detriment of quality to your other players, but there certainly are enough mid rangers with promising value going around this season to make up for that.

In the end I decided having my whole team plan hinged
on the prospect of Lomax failing was a bit dicey, so I kept Burns and will run with Lomax at centre
...And instead I’ve moved on to the double gun half combination of Cleary AND Moses! #yolo

Pookus McFly wrote:In credence to Bethany’s double gun centre ploy, I was not long ago dabbling with a team which had Burns and Bird at centre. My thought process was that since the fantasy landscape was mostly bereft of good centre options it would be one way to get a sure jump on the competition. Plenty of teams I see sport Smith-Shields and Milne who I highly doubt see a R1 TLT, next off the rank are the Bradman Best and Mogas who I can easily see scoring 20s, and of course everyone will have Lomax. So really all you would need is for Lomax to be a flop (which isn’t that farfetched at all), and suddenly having 80-90 points in the centre position whilst everyone else fields 40-50 is a huge leg up. The devils advocate is that by fielding gun centres it is to the detriment of quality to your other players, but there certainly are enough mid rangers with promising value going around this season to make up for that.

In the end I decided having my whole team plan hinged
on the prospect of Lomax failing was a bit dicey, so I kept Burns and will run with Lomax at centre
...And instead I’ve moved on to the double gun half combination of Cleary AND Moses! #yolo

Well played if you can afford Burns and Lomax at centre and Cleary and Moses in the halves, but to do this you must be weaker in a couple of other positions.

I’m trying to fit both Cleary and Moses in but don’t have enough space at the moment.

Pookus McFly wrote:

In the end I decided having my whole team plan hinged
on the prospect of Lomax failing was a bit dicey, so I kept Burns and will run with Lomax at centre
...And instead I’ve moved on to the double gun half combination of Cleary AND Moses! #yolo

Nice!

Pookus McFly wrote:In credence to Bethany’s double gun centre ploy, I was not long ago dabbling with a team which had Burns and Bird at centre. My thought process was that since the fantasy landscape was mostly bereft of good centre options it would be one way to get a sure jump on the competition. Plenty of teams I see sport Smith-Shields and Milne who I highly doubt see a R1 TLT, next off the rank are the Bradman Best and Mogas who I can easily see scoring 20s, and of course everyone will have Lomax. So really all you would need is for Lomax to be a flop (which isn’t that farfetched at all), and suddenly having 80-90 points in the centre position whilst everyone else fields 40-50 is a huge leg up. The devils advocate is that by fielding gun centres it is to the detriment of quality to your other players, but there certainly are enough mid rangers with promising value going around this season to make up for that.

In the end I decided having my whole team plan hinged
on the prospect of Lomax failing was a bit dicey, so I kept Burns and will run with Lomax at centre
...And instead I’ve moved on to the double gun half combination of Cleary AND Moses! #yolo

I like the thinking of two gun halves, but I think Croft is an absolute must-have at 536k, he'll be getting enough kick metres to hedge against the risk of him not scoring much else, similar to what Wighton was doing last year.

I actually had Cleary in my team but swapped him for JFH since my FRF was very weak (had Carrigan there since I couldn't afford both Knight and Fotu) and I could just move Brimson up to half, Lomax to WFB and get my high upside POD in BJ at CTR.

Rabbits21 wrote:
Well played if you can afford Burns and Lomax at centre and Cleary and Moses in the halves, but to do this you must be weaker in a couple of other positions.

I’m trying to fit both Cleary and Moses in but don’t have enough space at the moment.

Nah mate, just guns guns guns as far as the eye can see. Not a weak link amongst it!

Bethany_B wrote:

I like the thinking of two gun halves, I think Croft is an absolute must-have at 536k, he'll be getting enough kick metres to hedge against the risk of him not scoring much else, similar to what Wighton was doing last year.

I actually had Cleary in my team but swapped him for JFH since my FRF was very weak (had Carrigan there since I couldn't afford both Knight and Fotu) and I could just move Brimson up to half, Lomax to WFB and get my high upside POD in BJ at CTR.

I have been flirting with Croft but I am not sold that he is a must-have. Admittedly I started with him last season when I was sure he was a must-have so the scars are still fresh. As you pointed out, it all comes down the the kick metres and I am still not convinced that Milford doesn’t steal some. He is always the better runner of the ball but he has been working on his kicking game for a couple of seasons now and all it takes is for him to take two or three long kicks in a game and suddenly Croft is missing 5 or 6 points. At least with DCE, Areyn, Cleary and Moses you KNOW they will do 95% of the kicking, i’m not convinced that split will be as kind to Croft with Milford still the dominant half. Trials will shed some light on this.

Mulvy wrote:

I like the vast majority of the picks. If they pay-off this team goes huge! But there's really only one certified gun in the team whereas most are getting two or three in there. And that gun (Lolo) is slightly below Haas and the three hookers for captain choice imo, but others would disagree. I like this as a WAG's team maybe?

For Bethany its more likely to be a HABs team. Agree about the risk / reward of a team that has the ability to go huge. Don't mind it at all.