2016 NRL.com Fantasy Thread Part 8

Welshy wrote:
If Hurrell was named to start in the CTRS he might be worth the risk but job security would obviously be under threat, BJ i think is worth a gamble and I have been eyeing him up, but with CLaw around the same $ and with better base stats its hard to go past that

I have had Hurrell in and out of teams. But I think I concluded that even if starting, Ayshford is nipping at his heels too closely in a team where McFadden needs results by round 8 to keep his job, and may be keen to chop and change quickly if things are not working. BJ is actually a good option that I had not thought of. You are right about CLaw being a more attractive option, though who knows what BJ's role in that raiders pack. That backline will score a lot of tries this season, and he may well be a big part of that

Yeah its good to see some newbies staying around and posting most days. We weren't sure whether new people would find this site let alone join up and contribute. Really glad its happened

Pookus McFly wrote:

I have had Hurrell in and out of teams. But I think I concluded that even if starting, Ayshford is nipping at his heels too closely in a team where McFadden needs results by round 8 to keep his job, and may be keen to chop and change quickly if things are not working. BJ is actually a good option that I had not thought of. You are right about CLaw being a more attractive option, though who knows what BJ's role in that raiders pack. That backline will score a lot of tries this season, and he may well be a big part of that

Yea agree on Hurrell mate, I've always been one for base stats over the explosive scorers, but BJ is only a year removed from avg 40 a year being a pure CTR, in that Raiders team who many are expecting to be very attacking he looks very appealing!

Currently have Aubbs and Auva'a (if named) i would need to downgrade 1 of my reserves to a nuffie and play Taylor as a 4th reserve to run Claw or BJ as my second CTR!

TLT will throw a few names into the ring that no one expects happens every year, hopefully they are in the FR/2RF so i can strengthen the 2nd CTR spot

Beast From The Big East wrote:

Sorry wasn't clear in my post. Wasn't meaning that the other starters fail, was meaning what if the cheap backs fail. Every year you get guys like Nabuli and Lee who appear as a cash cow and are in a lot of teams, but ultimately fail.

The cheap option you have suggested gives you no depth at the back and you are using the saved cash elsewhere. Odds are that some of those cheapies fail and because you rely on them as a scorer or in rotation with other cheapies, you force yourself into a downgrade and trades from your guns in order to fix it immediately. And then what if the mid rangers like I suggested struggle as some on here have said in their arguments against the likes of Fergo. You have to do a massive downgrade to fix your struggling backs.

While you want some cheapies, you don't want to overload in one position as if it goes wrong then everything will crash and burn

My mistake mate.

Yep that's what I was asking if it was too risky in those areas. And I agree with your points. I actually don't mind rolling with 25ppg players that only cost 130k in my 17, if they're a back.

I think going premium-cheap-cheap-cheap in the CTR's is relatively low risk... but it's the WFB's with Barba as the most expensive player seems risky so trying to see what you guys thought. Adding another player like Fergo/Slater and have 4 cheap options (1 being Barba) probably buys some insurance. I do feel this is the area of the ground where some risks can be taken though.

Wooooo L2!

Thanks and well done lads.

Pookus McFly wrote:

I have had Hurrell in and out of teams. But I think I concluded that even if starting, Ayshford is nipping at his heels too closely in a team where McFadden needs results by round 8 to keep his job, and may be keen to chop and change quickly if things are not working. BJ is actually a good option that I had not thought of. You are right about CLaw being a more attractive option, though who knows what BJ's role in that raiders pack. That backline will score a lot of tries this season, and he may well be a big part of that

Might not help all THAT much but there are highlights of the Raiders trial on youtube if you haven't already seen them. I've got BJ after seeing them, watching him score a try on the left sealed it for me, means he was hungry enough to go looking for the ball on the other side of the field.


That said, he is likely to shoulder charge someone 10min into Rd1 after dropping it 3 times and wind up with a -tive score and months suspension so.... perhaps the 2nd row idea is better after all. I've got Claw also, but thats really just going on what I've read here.

Archer wrote:

Pookus McFly wrote:

I have had Hurrell in and out of teams. But I think I concluded that even if starting, Ayshford is nipping at his heels too closely in a team where McFadden needs results by round 8 to keep his job, and may be keen to chop and change quickly if things are not working. BJ is actually a good option that I had not thought of. You are right about CLaw being a more attractive option, though who knows what BJ's role in that raiders pack. That backline will score a lot of tries this season, and he may well be a big part of that

Might not help all THAT much but there are highlights of the Raiders trial on youtube if you haven't already seen them. I've got BJ after seeing them, watching him score a try on the left sealed it for me, means he was hungry enough to go looking for the ball on the other side of the field.


That said, he is likely to shoulder charge someone 10min into Rd1 after dropping it 3 times and wind up with a -tive score and months suspension so.... perhaps the 2nd row idea is better after all.

Loomer and 1 or 2 other lads talking BJ up as well. Just reminds of James Roberts Fantasy centre wise, goes on great runs and then some really down periods. As a Raiders supporter, has anything changed that may see him more consistent? His weight was an issue last year from memory? Aside from the inconsistency, the thing that's put me off is the Raiders reliance on going down Croker's side, or am I imaginating that?

Archer wrote:
Might not help all THAT much but there are highlights of the Raiders trial on youtube if you haven't already seen them. I've got BJ after seeing them, watching him score a try on the left sealed it for me, means he was hungry enough to go looking for the ball on the other side of the field.


That said, he is likely to shoulder charge someone 10min into Rd1 after dropping it 3 times and wind up with a -tive score and months suspension so.... perhaps the 2nd row idea is better after all. I've got Claw also, but thats really just going on what I've read here.

Holy shit he looks fit and lean!!

Surely I cant have him AND Croker in my side

superbucks wrote:

My mistake mate.

Yep that's what I was asking if it was too risky in those areas. And I agree with your points. I actually don't mind rolling with 25ppg players that only cost 130k in my 17, if they're a back.

I think going premium-cheap-cheap-cheap in the CTR's is relatively low risk... but it's the WFB's with Barba as the most expensive player seems risky so trying to see what you guys thought. Adding another player like Fergo/Slater and have 4 cheap options (1 being Barba) probably buys some insurance. I do feel this is the area of the ground where some risks can be taken though.

No worries. Yea premium and 3 cheapies in the centres is a good option this year. Especially with many, including myself possibly running with 4 cheapies.

The WFB's meanwhile are going to be the biggest area I think for either giving yourself an advantage early or crashing and burning. If you get lucky with who you pick then it can really benefit you and your team as you have cash to spend elsehwere but if only a few of the cashies perform off the bat then it can really set you back. I agree with you that having at least 1 recognized mid ranger provides some insurance, and Barba if named at FB does a bit of the same but even then I still wouldn't feel confident with him. The fact that going into the season there are 3 guys talked about for the role, and the guy we are hoping will get it didn't even start last year makes me still think that he is still a major risk regardless of TLT. Whose to say he doesn't get moved around after round 1 and Flano decides he prefers Holmes back there after Barba has a quiet game and Holmes does some great kick returns. Barba as 3rd best WFB option is the way to go for me. Gives you 2 more established/reliable scorers but also gives you that cheapie that saves you some cash.

Archer wrote:
Might not help all THAT much but there are highlights of the Raiders trial on youtube if you haven't already seen them. I've got BJ after seeing them, watching him score a try on the left sealed it for me, means he was hungry enough to go looking for the ball on the other side of the field.


That said, he is likely to shoulder charge someone 10min into Rd1 after dropping it 3 times and wind up with a -tive score and months suspension so.... perhaps the 2nd row idea is better after all. I've got Claw also, but thats really just going on what I've read here.

Looked decent there did ol BJ. But the one thing I take out of that clip is how atrocious some of that defending was from Newcastle.

SI wrote:
Loomer and 1 or 2 other lads talking BJ up as well.  Just reminds of James Roberts Fantasy centre wise, goes on great runs and then some really down periods.  As a Raiders supporter, has anything changed that may see him more consistent?  His weight was an issue last year from memory? Aside from the inconsistency, the thing that's put me off is the Raiders reliance on going down Croker's side, or am I imaginating that?

His weight was an issue last year which has apparently been rectified (Strong off season and all that usual stuff trotted out each year. However this time he actually does look fitter, perhaps Cousin Soli has been on to him - not someone I'd want to upset). Also supposedly the coaching staff have been on to him about his tackling technique which lead to the should charge suspensions. I'm not sure on whether we favoured Croker's side more (I definitely think it was the more succesful side once Edlee and him struck up a good combo). It wasn't something I noticed if we did though. Its possible, as it did have both Papa and Austin who probably ran it a bit more than Williams and Soli. It also changed quite a few times throughout the year.

For me the biggest uncertainty I have is your rather apt comparison to Roberts, rather than whether he will get ball.I think Sezer might take control of both sides add to which I'm nearly certain Austin will have been working on setting up his outside men over the off season (Hard to remember but he was quite inexperienced there). The other unknown will probably be Whitehead, though he appears to be capable of setting up his outside men.

Beast From The Big East wrote:

Looked decent there did ol BJ. But the one thing I take out of that clip is how atrocious some of that defending was from Newcastle.

Yeah pretty fair call. The other thing is that from all reports our defence was hardly tested (at least in the first 30min, which is when the first grade squad was out there), which is our biggest bug bear and a pretty big factor in fantasy, so who knows whether that's improved at all.

The biggest thing for the Raiders from the trial was that the halves stayed on their side of the field so on the left you had Sezer/Papali/Crocker and the right Williams(will be Austin)/Whitehead/BJ

Pretty sure i know which side will be favoured and considering how much of a ball hog Austin is im not sure BJ will see much ball and when he does he wont pass it so good luck to Whitehead. I reckon he will run more decoys then anyone in the comp this year.

Shanbon wrote:The biggest thing for the Raiders from the trial was that the halves stayed on their side of the field so on the left you had Sezer/Papali/Crocker and the right Williams(will be Austin)/Whitehead/BJ

Pretty sure i know which side will be favoured and considering how much of a ball hog Austin is im not sure BJ will see much ball and when he does he wont pass it so good luck to Whitehead. I reckon he will run more decoys then anyone in the comp this year.

If Whitehead was bought in to just run decoys then its a massive waste, they may as well put fensom there, run him with decoys and just use him as the tackling machine he is.

Whitehead will be a star and will be used correctly I'm sure

Now that footy season is well and truly kicking in I am looking forward to the first drunken ramble/argument.

Shanbon wrote:The biggest thing for the Raiders from the trial was that the halves stayed on their side of the field so on the left you had Sezer/Papali/Crocker and the right Williams(will be Austin)/Whitehead/BJ

Pretty sure i know which side will be favoured and considering how much of a ball hog Austin is im not sure BJ will see much ball and when he does he wont pass it so good luck to Whitehead. I reckon he will run more decoys then anyone in the comp this year.

Each to their own. I think the side will play out very differently with Austin there instead of Williams, but I'm just going on a hunch so you may be right.

Kane Evans and Napa on same team a good idea?

Klemhammer wrote:Kane Evans and Napa on same team a good idea?

I can't get past that name or picture. Do you kick puppies in your spare time?

Beast From The Big East wrote:No worries. Yea premium and 3 cheapies in the centres is a good option this year. Especially with many, including myself possibly running with 4 cheapies.

I do agree. I look at it as centres having the most underwhelming ceiling, so you can get away with cheap ones here. I've also thought about going 4 cheaps here because I am still scared/scarred from Aubusson.

The WFB's meanwhile are going to be the biggest area I think for either giving yourself an advantage early or crashing and burning. If you get lucky with who you pick then it can really benefit you and your team as you have cash to spend elsehwere but if only a few of the cashies perform off the bat then it can really set you back. I agree with you that having at least 1 recognized mid ranger provides some insurance, and Barba if named at FB does a bit of the same but even then I still wouldn't feel confident with him. The fact that going into the season there are 3 guys talked about for the role, and the guy we are hoping will get it didn't even start last year makes me still think that he is still a major risk regardless of TLT. Whose to say he doesn't get moved around after round 1 and Flano decides he prefers Holmes back there after Barba has a quiet game and Holmes does some great kick returns. Barba as 3rd best WFB option is the way to go for me. Gives you 2 more established/reliable scorers but also gives you that cheapie that saves you some cash.

Yea I do see the WFB's as a crash and burn area. The scores are so variable. That's why I usually like getting premiums elsewhere because you can usually pick up cheaper backs at most stages of the season. That said if a back goes on a hot run they can be huge for you.

One thing I would like to note about the mid-price backs is I don't want to get caught in the trap of last-year-syndrome, that is we had RTS, Tedesco and Borris at like 300k to start the year (guess which one I picked ). The former pair became the leading scorers. So with that in mind I don't want to pick a 300k player by default, rather I would like to pick a player because they are good enough to make my team. You're probably doing the same thing I imagine.

Barba is a risk but does have upside. I think he'll be a slow burner actually - he'll get better as the season goes on. As long as he plays no.1 I'll stick firm with him. I'm considering pushing Barba to WFB3 for reasons you mentioned. Right now my team has Barba at WFB2 with Tedesco at WFB1, but I could drop Ted and say Scott and bring in Fergo/Slater which would leave Barba as 3rd WFB.

Thanks for your post(s).