NRL Fantasy 2023 Part 19 - Doueihi or Don't he

HumanForumMember wrote:

Hey easytiger, I understand your concern about Aussie slang. I'll do my best to avoid using too much of it, especially when we're talking about fantasy NRL.
But you know what they say - sometimes the best part of footy is the slang! I promise to try and strike a balance between being clear and keeping the Aussie spirit alive.

Thanks for raising this, and feel free to reach out if you need any help or have any other questions. Keep on roaring like a tiger! Cheers!

Dttragic2016 wrote:Really keen to hear some opinions on Kiraz v Turbo.
Looking at the top 5k ownership % - Kiraz is at 2% ownership v Turbo at 32%

Teeth Eater wrote:I fell asleep on Sunday night and missed the second half of the second game, thus not seeing Trindall’s foot injury. I’m assuming from chat here it was nothing that would have stopped him playing this weekend if Hynes didn’t crash the party?

Going to be very hard moving in that negative break even.

Dttragic2016 wrote:Really keen to hear some opinions on Kiraz v Turbo.
Looking at the top 5k ownership % - Kiraz is at 2% ownership v Turbo at 32%

Looking at Turbo's avg at fullback in 2019 (53) and 2022 (38) in games over 70 mins is interesting. He's obviously started 2023 well and all footy fans would be hoping he gets a clean run without injuries. Manly have also had their bye so we could potentially see 10 rounds of Turbo in a row potentially averaging 50-55.

Looking at Kiraz, he averages 42 in games on the wing over the last year or so. So at first glance you're thinking Turbo should average around 10 more points than Kiraz. The stats that stand our for Kiraz are run metres, tackle breaks and offloads. Being a winger for a side that's been hot and cold for the last 12 months - they have been erratic.

I think the sensible play is to obviously got Turbo. But if you think the few rounds that the Dogs put together in the middle of 2022 with Burton hitting a purple patch can be repeated with Kikau and Mahoney at the club and TPJ set to return - then I think it could potentially be a risk worth taking.

I've never had a good start to a season (atleast not top 1k like I am now!) and love taking risks so I think I'm leaning towards Kiraz here. Worst case scenario - he averages around 35-40 for a month while Turbo kills it. This would really suck.
But I think the potential for Kiraz to go around 45-50 while Turbo averages around 50. Or the Dogs hitting a purple patch while Turbo has an injury (not hoping for this obviously). Or even if their averages have a 2-4 point gap rather than 10 and Kiraz to gun it during the Origin period while Tom is away.

A lot of scenarios where owning Kiraz at 2% v Turbo at 30+ % could pay off.

PS. I know this is a poorly worded version of Matt's pro Kiraz posts earlier haha but I do love the variety of opinions on here!

PPS. Anyone got another PODish WFB/HLF/HOK option? I'm leaning towards Starling and Kiraz atm.

SeattleSupersonics wrote:Is anyone trading bmm out?
I’ve had him for 2 games but he looks like a big mistake

Milchcow wrote:

CHATGPT - please compare NRL fantasy players Jacob Kiraz and Tom Trbojevic. Please give your answer in the style of Steve Irwin

No Worries wrote:Who's Kiraz ?

easytiger wrote:

Just my 2c for what it's worth;
I would say selecting based on low ownership is generally a low percentage play at this point in the game.

As you said; Turbo is the sensible play. This is because it is the higher percentage play, you might even suggest it's the correct play - we've seen what we can do, we know the ceiling of his game, he has a critical role and his floor is also good.

You've had a great start.
In my opinion, you're most likely to catch the people ahead of you by not making as many mistakes as they will (like going too hard too early, e.g. Kiraz) - we will inevitably make mistakes, but it's better to share these this early in the game...

I've also had a good start and believe that the people who will inevitably end up in front of me will come from the tsunami of quality players that I currently have a small points advantage over - these are the people that you can trust are making good high-percentage decisions (e.g. the Turbo's/Teddy's rather than left-field alternatives).

Good processes will win out over good narratives

Loomer wrote:

Yep all this and wingers are wingers are wingers etc. Kiraz got a 20 something floor but he can get that too often just game not going his way but he's whopping $666k

Dttragic2016 wrote:
PPS. Anyone got another PODish WFB/HLF/HOK option? I'm leaning towards Starling and Kiraz atm.

multiple.scoregasms wrote:

The best option is and always will be trading in the player you think will score the most points regardless of how many teams they are in

HumanForumMember wrote:

G'day mate, Kiraz v Turbo - it's a real head-scratcher, isn't it? Turbo's a dead-set legend, no doubt about it. But fair dinkum, Kiraz could be the dark horse here. He's got some ripper stats when it comes to run metres, tackle breaks, and offloads. And with Kikau and Mahoney joining the Dogs, who knows what kind of footy they'll play. Could be bonza!

But if you're keen to look at some other options, have a squiz at Starling and Garrick. They could be bloody good PODish picks to start the season. Starling will get some decent minutes under his belt, and Garrick's been known to put up some big scores. So what do you reckon, cobber? Are you going to back Turbo, or take a bit of a punt on Kiraz or one of these other options?

Antipodean1 wrote:It amazes me how much we tend to complicate this game. Surely hunting out the POD that 'might' outscore a known gun is fraught with danger.

As good as Kiraz looks, he does not have the pedigree of Teddy.

Moanaman wrote:

Very disappointed in the lack of Chur Bro, Cuz, and Choice in your programming. 0/10 for not being inclusive

Reklaw wrote:

I don't think I was clear when I started that discussion. I am aware of how the website works, I just wanted a shitty way to display it in my own spreadsheet of players, I have a very ghetto formula that is close enough.