NRL Fantasy 2021 Part 53 - The round's over. The magic lives on.

GreenMachine wrote:

Was talking more in real life, but he’s a try scorer and cheap so don’t hate him as a fantasy buy.

Will produce the occasional 20pts in 80mins like most in that shitty position but If you like your players to pass the eye test... you’re welcome!

Ah stop you're getting me excited!

This is one of those "tell me you own Jet/Cini without telling me you own Jet/Cini" challenge.

my tv broke wrote:

just lurked BHQ and didnt see it ? hasnt been mentioned by any of the journos.

Khunt not training with the team though according to Todd Balym (NRL.com reporter).

Saw it last night, I think it was from a radio report. Also said Hetherington would be playing. Now I can't find it either, but think it was in the Rnd 11 thread.

rhinoceroo wrote:

Saw it last night, I think it was from a radio report. Also said Hetherington would be playing. Now I can't find it either, but think it was in the Rnd 11 thread.

Yeah pretty confident Hetherington will get a run, is eligible to play as of this week and has been going well in Cup. Further ahead than Piakura and a better player than Palasia.

EDIT - found it. It was a Dobbo news report. He just said that Milford and Gamble are under pressure and Kelly could come in.

If Kelly was training in the halves it'd be on twitter by now you would think.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

From a non fantasy perspective, I agree with this.

Burton was a temp fill in who undoubtedly took his opportunity and unfortunately for Momo owners, has pretty well forced Cleary's hand.

I'm also glad Cleary doesn't take into account where he is signed to play next season - that is one of my pet hates.
He sis signed to the Panthers this year and is playing well.

Does make it a tough call for Momo owners though. He will definitely play Rd 13 and given the plethora of injuries/suspensions this year could get a start at any time.

Wasn't Momo a temp fill-in for Naden when he signed?

Mr peanutbutter wrote:

There is only one Fish

Jaeman Salmon

Fevita Tuna
Alexander Breamson
Riley Mangrove Jacks

Pookus McFly wrote:

Fevita Tuna
Alexander Breamson
Riley Mangrove Jacks

Anthony Barramundine

Pookus McFly wrote:

Fevita Tuna
Alexander Breamson
Riley Mangrove Jacks

Jack Bird

Am I doing this right?

rhinoceroo wrote:

Wasn't Momo a temp fill-in for Naden when he signed?

Naden, Momo, Burton, ...?

I feel like the lesson here is pretty much any decent centre is going to look class in the Panthers setup.

Honestly reckon Cleary rates May more than all of them, but prefers him in that very specific bench role over 80 min centre

Pookus McFly wrote:

Fevita Tuna
Alexander Breamson
Riley Mangrove Jacks

Not bad, cod do better

who is the better buy.. Walsh at 400k or Teddy at 577k?

Damien Cooked wrote:who is the better buy.. Walsh at 400k or Teddy at 577k?

Youd think Teddy has bottomed out, if you can afford him in one trade, no brainer. Walsh's mins is a lottery atm. I suspect if you didn't get onto him before, you prob missed the train

Chris Garry just tweeted Fat Albert in, Milf out

hymenbustas wrote:Chris Garry just tweeted Fat Albert in, Milf out

Thank god, I needed Gamble to have 17

hymenbustas wrote:Chris Garry just tweeted Fat Albert in, Milf out

haha fkn wow

Oates dropped as well.

my tv broke wrote:

Love to see this:

1 Hynes
2 Oates
3 Farnworth
4 Staggs
5 Isaako
6 Milford
7 Reynolds

People will disagree with the 6, and I think its probably unlikely, but I'd like to see how that goes.

This might be an unpopular opinion around Broncos supporters but I'm not sure we need Hynes.

Unlike others, I think Isaako has been really solid at the back all year and is now chiming in with some decent attack.

I also back Milf and didn't think he was playing too badly before being dropped.
Hoping he regains confidence this season and then kicks on even more with Reyno (who he would suit playing with).

So not really sure where Hynes would fit into the spine (which I understand is a driver for him) and I am really hoping we don't sign him on a promise for a position (I hope we never sign anyone like that).

Anyone want to check my logic here? If you're bored of centre talk, scroll past now. For those with the same problem, could be helpful.

Centres are Bird, Peachey and Roberts. The way I see it, there are three options, all viewed through the lens of how many points scored over the next three weeks and how many trades used.

1. No trade. Roberts potentially could be back next week according to casualty ward, or not at all. If I hold Roberts, He potentially gives me zero points in the next three weeks, or potentially 15 points in rd 12 and 13.

So option 1. 0-30 points. Zero trades.

2. Trade Roberts to a rd13 centre. If I did this, I suspect said player won't score as well as Peachey and Bird long term, so they would be first to go for a rd17 player when bye trading. But it would give me 25-35 points for the three weeks (Peachey is only out the next two weeks but I would play all three of them in rd13 of course).

So option 2. 75-105 points. Two trades.

3. Trade Roberts to a rd17 centre. I would try and make it a keeper (ie good JS) like Manu for example. Would get two scores of 30-40 points. If indeed I went Manu, has the advantage of Manu potentially into FB if Teddy is rested for any matches over Origin or the rest of the year (Robbo doesn't mind a rd25 Teddy resting).

So option 3. 60-80 points. One trade.

(There is a fourth option of trade Peachey to another centre, but it doesn't net me any more points than options 2 or 3 and I'm still left with Roberts in my team. Selling Peachey frees up cash, but I don't need it for my planned trades).

Looking at that, option 2 looks like the poorest. Potentially only 45 more points than option 1 for two trades. Potentially gives up to 105 more points, but I reckon I could get more points using those two trades to sideways trade guns in the bye rounds or keeping for carnage in the run home.

With option 3, I've only looked at scores over the next three weeks, you probably can't discount their rd17 score. Also option 1 means I still have James Roberts. Hmmm. I guess you can't even call option 1 zero trades because ultimately I'll be trading him, probably to a rd 17 player. This appears to make option 3 stand out. The big risk being rd17 is over seven weeks away and more chances for an injury or suspension.

I think based on that I'm leaning toward option 3, although I'm almost certain some of my arguments are probably flawed to some extent. Thoughts greatly appreciated.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:Unlike others, I think Isaako has been really solid at the back all year and is now chiming in with some decent attack.

don't understand the first part of this. he is real bad in defense.. positioning, awareness, organisation all lacking.

Mulvy wrote:Anyone want to check my logic here? If you're bored of centre talk, scroll past now. For those with the same problem, could be helpful.

Centres are Bird, Peachey and Roberts. The way I see it, there are three options, all viewed through the lens of how many points scored over the next three weeks and how many trades used.

1. No trade. Roberts potentially could be back next week according to casualty ward, or not at all. If I hold Roberts, He potentially gives me zero points in the next three weeks, or potentially 15 points in rd 12 and 13.

So option 1. 0-30 points. Zero trades.

2. Trade Roberts to a rd13 centre. If I did this, I suspect said player won't score as well as Peachey and Bird long term, so they would be first to go for a rd17 player when bye trading. But it would give me 25-35 points for the three weeks (Peachey is only out the next two weeks but I would play all three of them in rd13 of course).

So option 2. 75-105 points. Two trades.

3. Trade Roberts to a rd17 centre. I would try and make it a keeper (ie good JS) like Manu for example. Would get two scores of 30-40 points. If indeed I went Manu, has the advantage of Manu potentially into FB if Teddy is rested for any matches over Origin or the rest of the year (Robbo doesn't mind a rd25 Teddy resting).

So option 3. 60-80 points. One trade.

(There is a fourth option of trade Peachey to another centre, but it doesn't net me any more points than options 2 or 3 and I'm still left with Roberts in my team. Selling Peachey frees up cash, but I don't need it for my planned trades).

Looking at that, option 2 looks like the poorest. Potentially only 45 more points than option 1 for two trades. Potentially gives up to 105 more points, but I reckon I could get more points using those two trades to sideways trade guns in the bye rounds or keeping for carnage in the run home.

With option 3, I've only looked at scores over the next three weeks, you probably can't discount their rd17 score. Also option 1 means I still have James Roberts. Hmmm. I guess you can't even call option 1 zero trades because ultimately I'll be trading him, probably to a rd 17 player. This appears to make option 3 stand out. The big risk being rd17 is over seven weeks away and more chances for an injury or suspension.

I think based on that I'm leaning toward option 3, although I'm almost certain some of my arguments are probably flawed to some extent. Thoughts greatly appreciated.

If you have Bird and Peachey I wouldn't be worrying too much about whether your 3rd centre plays R13/17. I think I'd lean toward option 3 as well.

There was a time when Albert Kelly and Aiden Sezer were the starting halves for the Titans. Both cheap and both produced gun scores for a while.

rhinoceroo wrote:

Wasn't Momo a temp fill-in for Naden when he signed?

Nah Naden was dropped because he can't defend. That's why May took his spot in the grand final

Momo was signed as a starter and lost his spot to a player in good form. Nice problem to have for Cleary but I reckon Momo is 18th man until there is a back 5 injury