2016 NRL.com Fantasy thread part 3

havent checked origin planning yet but which teams should we avoid in origin period?

White Lightning wrote:Mark was ok about it. He suggested a cross promotional theme. Marks a good bloke & he's not angry. That's why I apologised after I posted it because I forgot promoting another site isn't the thing to do & also cause weapons is an excellent site (not as good as NRLFantasyFanatics though) & I wouldn't want to get banned from there. Do I get banned on here if I suggest that weapons is a great place to visit & is excellent source of information (although not as good as NRLFantasyFanatics). I said to Mark I'd mention weapons on here - guns, knives, George Rose at the Sizzler salad bar.  



Edited for accuracy.

Klemhammer wrote:havent checked origin planning yet but which teams should we avoid in origin period?

Gday Klem, Ill be posting a bye planner etc when we kick start a new Fantasy thread closer to the season. The NRL Fantasy registration thread will be up and running either tonight or tomorrow also.

Can only speak for myself, but no dramas WL. Weapons is a good page. The thing with us is we don't have any real direct competition I guess you would say. Whereas there has always been quite a few FB pages dedicated to Fantasy. Some of which have become defunct due to said competition.

The thing I like about Melville is he is straight up and down.

Bren wrote:

Klemhammer wrote:havent checked origin planning yet but which teams should we avoid in origin period?

Gday Klem, Ill be posting a bye planner etc when we kick start a new Fantasy thread closer to the season. The NRL Fantasy registration thread will be up and running either tonight or tomorrow also.

Hey mate, I have to head away for a couple of hours. Are you going to be on late or should we do the Leagues Registration chat tomorrow? It's easy for me here being 2 hours behind so will leave it to you. I'll be back on around 8 o'clock my time. Sorry about that.

SI wrote:Can only speak for myself, but no dramas WL.  Weapons is a good page.  The thing with us is we don't have any real direct competition I guess you would say.  Whereas there has always been quite a few FB pages dedicated to Fantasy.  Some of which have become defunct due to said competition.

The thing I like about Melville is he is straight up and down.

Cheers mate. Appreciated.

SI wrote:

Hey mate, I have to head away for a couple of hours.  Are you going to be on late or should we do the Leagues Registration chat tomorrow?  It's easy for me here being 2 hours behind so will leave it to you.  I'll be back on around 8 o'clock my time.  Sorry about that.

If you see me online then hit me up, not going out tonight as I had a scare with my knee injury so resting up and taking it easy and watching the tennis.

I'm thinking Ma'u could be worth a shot to start the season. I see he averaged about 41 last year & that he played 80 minutes most games. I'm thinking he could lift that average this year playing on the same edge as Jennings & Semi as he might get extra attacking opportunities. I can just see defenders focusing on Jennings & Semi on a defence & Ma'u gets a short ball & scores a try.

sets wrote:

You obviously missed his offload that almost lost nz the game about a minute earlier?

nope caught that too. was a stupid offload that he had no reason to even attempt

White Lightning wrote:I'm thinking Ma'u could be worth a shot to start the season. I see he averaged about 41 last year & that he played 80 minutes most games. I'm thinking he could lift that average this year playing on the same edge as Jennings & Semi as he might get extra attacking opportunities. I can just see defenders focusing on Jennings & Semi on a defence & Ma'u gets a short ball & scores a try.

Just looking forward to watching Jennings and Semi straight up. Phwoar!!!

Welshy87 wrote:

Seen that haha! good work WL

what did he PM you saying, guess i can catch the jyst if it gets taken down...

Post it here for shits and giggles

Beast From The Big East wrote:
Guerra over Cordner. Both have attacking potential but Guerra has the tackle count to add to his score whereas Cordner scores more or less like any other edge backrower in that he gets a basic level of tackles and run metres but will rely on attacking stats for the high scores.

This is what I find strange about advice on fantasy forums. If they were hookers, everyone would say to pick Cordner, because he is an 80 minute player. But for some reason for these 2 we've ignored the likely game time and answered which one we think will get more points.

I prefer this method by the way. Its just that I find it strange how most of the rest of the time, we care about minutes as the prime consideration.

Welshy87 wrote:
I think i could handle Rochow and Snowden, Surely Snowden gets the extra prop minutes with the interchange rules @Honeysett ?

Just to be a picky bastard, and because I think it bears repeating.

There is still only 160 prop minutes per game this year. They are changing the number of interchanges, not the length of the game, or the number of players on the field.

I think coaches will still want their bench props to play minutes, they might just be expected to play longer stints before getting a break.

Milchcow wrote:

This is what I find strange about advice on fantasy forums. If they were hookers, everyone would say to pick Cordner, because he is an 80 minute player. But  for some reason for these 2 we've ignored the likely game time and answered which one we think will get more points.

I prefer this method by the way. Its just that I find it strange how most of the rest of the time, we care about minutes as the prime consideration.

I think you're right but I also think that analysis using minutes/potential points applies better when the players play a similar role. Like two workhorse props like Woods and Graham you can't really compare to someone like Gurgess. With hookers, unless they are Seggy, their primary points will usually come from tackles and the more minutes you play the more tackles you will potentially make so using that as comparison between someone like Macca vs Friend works as both of them have the potential to be benched as their teams have sometimes ran with a bench hooker/utility.

With the 2nd row options there are clear differences in players who get their stats defensively through tackles vs someone who gets their stats offensively through metres, offloads and tackle busts. Usually the defensive stats are more consistent week to week whereas the attacking stats vary depending on how the team is playing that game so usually if two players are priced evenly, unless I clearly prefer one player over the other I will usually take/advocate for the more defensive option

In regards to minutes surely it comes down to more minutes equals more chances to score more points more often than not

If 2 players both play 80 you go with the guy who scores more on avg, so that takes over obviously, in that case both Cordner and Guerra play 80 both have a similar avg

I think what most people want to know is if player A scores 40 points playing 50 minutes, rumours are he is in line to play for 60/80mins he is more likely to score more, in that case you are getting value

SI wrote:

One of my first picked, but good point.  I think Sam has more ticker than SBW as well.  In saying that, maybe Surgess does have some dollars to lose early on, and he's got to remember he has to tackle now as well.

I think he will want to repay the club for bringing him back. He knows they had to release players to sign him and he will want to make up for that.

Milchcow wrote:

Just to be a picky bastard, and because I think it bears repeating.

There is still only 160 prop minutes per game this year.  They are changing the number of interchanges,  not the length of the game, or the number of players on the field.

I think coaches will still want their bench props to play minutes,  they might just be expected to play longer stints before getting a break.

I do understand that mate, have just noticed that a few props have had increased minutes towards the back end of last season, although I'm currently too lazy to see if that coincided with their normal prop partner being injured etc That might not even follow into this year either but is something worth considering

Milchcow wrote:

Just to be a picky bastard, and because I think it bears repeating.

There is still only 160 prop minutes per game this year.  They are changing the number of interchanges,  not the length of the game, or the number of players on the field.

I think coaches will still want their bench props to play minutes,  they might just be expected to play longer stints before getting a break.

I think what some people are thinking is that you will get bench players who usually got 40 mins in two 20 min bursts only getting 30 minutes with 1 full on burst as you are not afforded the luxury of just rotating bench players when someone gets tired and you bring on some explosive intensity. Most of us are thinking that teams might have that one workhorse prop who can stretch out another 5-10 mins so that you can really utilize the bench as you need each person on their ready to go for a longer stint now

Welshy87 wrote:In regards to minutes surely it comes down to more minutes equals more chances to score more points more often than not

If 2 players both play 80 you go with the guy who scores more on avg, so that takes over obviously, in that case both Cordner and Guerra play 80 both have a similar avg

I think  what most people want to know is if player A scores 40 points playing 50 minutes, rumours are he is in line to play for 60/80mins he is more likely to score more, in that case you are getting value

yea but minutes played should only be considered when they score their points in the same way, or in my opinion when the greater minutes are for the player who gets more defensive stats and consistent runs of the ball. George Burgess and James Graham usually average pretty similar yet I would say that a 5 minute more James Graham interests me much more than a 5 minute more George Burgess because I can realistically see James Graham pumping out more points in those extra minutes whereas an increase in points for George in those 5 would rely on him having some big runs and making a few tackle busts.

To your point of Cordner and Guerra playing similar minutes and having similar averages, yes they do but of the two of them I would say Guerra has the better chance each and every game of outscoring him because all he needs to do is get lucky with a few runs and he picks himself up an extra 10 points in attacking stats whereas Cordner currently needs to get lucky to get his points anyway

The extra minutes do equal more chances to score but unless they score the exact way then how they score their points with those minutes should be looked at

Beast From The Big East wrote:

yea but minutes played should only be considered when they score their points in the same way, or in my opinion when the greater minutes are for the player who gets more defensive stats and consistent runs of the ball. George Burgess and James Graham usually average pretty similar yet I would say that a 5 minute more James Graham interests me much more than a 5 minute more George Burgess because I can realistically see James Graham pumping out more points in those extra minutes whereas an increase in points for George in those 5 would rely on him having some big runs and making a few tackle busts.

The extra minutes do equal more chances to score but unless they score the exact way then how they score their points with those minutes should be looked at

Yes EASIER to score points if they are primarily base stat scorers in the extra minutes i agree with that, nothing to stop that extra 5 minutes baing the period in which attacking scorers can also grab some points although less likely