2017 NRL.com Fantasy thread part 5

With Kings price at rock bottom he won't need 80 minutes to make cash though. Still a good cow but the problem is it's the one spot where you know the big points can come from having the guns. But extra cash does allow for Fifita/Mannering/JDB

wolfking wrote:My whole makeup depends on King also.  

it really free's up money to strengthen the FRF/2RF. So many of these mid range forwards that appear tempting really don't offer too much imo. And (at this stage) a lack of cheaper options may mean King is a necessary evil.

Spectre wrote:With Kings price at rock bottom he won't need 80 minutes to make cash though.

debatable.

If he and IDG play 40 mins a piece, King could comfortably avg 20. That woud be a disaster. You'd be stuck with another Scott Moore.

Last year IDG averaged 28.9 in 54.5 mins per game. In games where he played 60+ mins his average was 31.5.

I don't see King doing a whole lot different.

my tv broke wrote:

debatable.

If he and IDG play 40 mins a piece, King could comfortably avg 20. That woud be a disaster. You'd be stuck with another Scott Moore.

That's the thing, there's no breathing room in that hooker position, you're pretty much screwed if it doesn't work.

my tv broke wrote:

debatable.

If he and IDG play 40 mins a piece, King could comfortably avg 20. That woud be a disaster. You'd be stuck with another Scott Moore.

I think whoever is favoured as starting hooker should get 50+ minutes. An even split between two hookers is just plain stupid imo and it is bad for the team to play two halves basically with different combinations.

I don't know much about King, but I do know IDG offers absolutely nothing in attack. I'd be more worried to see Kaysa on the teamsheet

Spectre wrote:I think whoever is favoured as starting hooker should get 50+ minutes. An even split between two hookers is just plain stupid imo and it is bad for the team to play two halves basically with different combinations.

I don't know much about King, but I do know IDG offers absolutely nothing in attack. I'd be more worried to see Kaysa on the teamsheet

i agree, but with three hookers in their top 25 squad, it will surprise me if the minutes don't see-saw as the rounds progress.

I dunno. Personally King is an absolute no-go if there's a bench hooker.

Here's the thing with King if he starts and if he plays 80. He's hungry. Like Clubber Lang in Rocky III this is his opportunity at the big time so he's not going to waste it and you can't teach that!

Also read this article on NRL.com http://www.nrl.com/beale-set-for-sharks-fullback-role-in-wcs/tabid/10874/newsid/103780/default.aspx
In it Flanno basically says the hooking role is down to Nu Brown, Brailey and Morts. The latter he says he sees as more of a half and he's unsure of Brailey. If Nu Brown gets it and plays decent minutes, he's dirt cheap and would have some DPP flexibility if you really needed it. Poor Manaia Cherrington doesn't even get a mention

Welshy wrote:Jack DeBelin

average playing 60+ minutes at lock - 67.2 (15 games)

55+ in 13 out of 15 games - 86.67%

Spectre wrote:With Kings price at rock bottom he won't need 80 minutes to make cash though. Still a good cow but the problem is it's the one spot where you know the big points can come from having the guns. But extra cash does allow for Fifita/Mannering/JDB

Note that King's has scored over 30 only once in his career of shared hooking duties.
Doesn't matter how cheap he is, if you waste a hooker spot on a guy averaging 20s you are behind the 8-ball.

I just don't see how King could suddenly become an 80 minute player in the middle of the field. On what basis? 80 minute hookers generally build up to it, over years of NRL experience. King has next to none. Look at Macca. The guy has consistently been the fittest player at the broncos for 3 or 4 years straight and he struggles to be effective for 80 mins (he does tackle his heart out).

BA may consider King as a future 80 minute player but for the first few rounds at least I'm dead certain he'd have to give him a break. 6 of the Eels first 8 games are day games, its going to be a warm start to the season.

Milchcow wrote:

Note that King's has scored over 30 only once in his career of shared hooking duties.
Doesn't matter how cheap he is, if you waste a hooker spot on a guy averaging 20s you are behind the 8-ball.

Whatever. I wanted to start with Macca anyway.

my tv broke wrote:

it really free's up money to strengthen the FRF/2RF. So many of these mid range forwards that appear tempting really don't offer too much imo. And (at this stage) a lack of cheaper options may mean King is a necessary evil.

Yes getting King frees up money. And you could free up even more money by pairing King with Ballin or Nu Brown.
But at some point you will cripple your team. No point stacking your team with 7-8 total guns if the rest of your squad is crud as a result.

To be useful King needs either 80 minutes, or to vastly improve his work rate of 4 years of NRL. And to not get injured again

my tv broke wrote:I just don't see how King could suddenly become an 80 minute player in the middle of the field. On what basis? 80 minute hookers generally build up to it, over years of NRL experience. King has next to none. Look at Macca. The guy has consistently been the fittest player at the broncos for 3 or 4 years straight and he struggles to be effective for 80 mins (he does tackle his heart out).

Recent history shows it can be done. Lichaa barely played first grade before dogs picked him up and threw him in the deep end.

He may not be the most effective dummy half but he racks up the fantasy points

my tv broke wrote:I just don't see how King could suddenly become an 80 minute player in the middle of the field. On what basis? 80 minute hookers generally build up to it, over years of NRL experience. King has next to none. Look at Macca. The guy has consistently been the fittest player at the broncos for 3 or 4 years straight and he struggles to be effective for 80 mins (he does tackle his heart out).

Not quite true. Cook and Garvey when thrown into the bulldogs role over the past couple years have basically gone straight into 80 minute roles. I'm sure there are other examples too.
Whether King will be effective over 80 mins is another question, but with a decent off season he could probably do it

All these examples are with Des and the dogs mind. I can't see King getting anywhere near 80 unless IDG and Pritchard both fall off a cliff

Milchcow wrote:

Not quite true. Cook and Garvey when thrown into the bulldogs role over the past couple years have basically gone straight into 80 minute roles. I'm sure there are other examples too.
Whether King will be effective over 80 mins is another question, but with a decent off season he could probably do it

Parcell last year another example.

Hats off to anyone who runs with King as their second hooker. I personally won't be doing so especially if Dragons/Titans don't name a second hooker on the bench. At least if Peats or McInnes don't fire you have a good chunk of cash to work with.

Welshy wrote:All these examples are with Des and the dogs mind. I can't see King getting anywhere near 80 unless IDG and Pritchard both fall off a cliff

How about Nathan Peats!

Played second fiddle to Issac Luke for a long while before getting picked up by the eels and straight into it

Knights Squad vs Canberra Raiders

1 Dylan Phythian
2 Ken Sio
3 Dane Gagai
4 Peter Mata’utia
5 Nathan Ross
6 Brock Lamb
7 Trent Hodkinson
8 Daniel Saifiti
9 Danny Levi
10 Josh Starling
11 Sione Mata’utia
12 Jamie Buhrer
13 Mitch Barnett
BENCH
14 Luke Yates
15 Jack Stockwell
16 Sam Stone
17 Lachlan Fitzgibbon
18 Brendan Elliot
19 Will Pearsall
20 Josh King
21 Jacob Saifiti
22 Chanel Mata’utia

Spectre wrote:

How about Nathan Peats!

Played second fiddle to Issac Luke for a long while before getting picked up by the eels and straight into it

Peats was a decent established player when he went to the Eels not just some banded around journeyman who used to have decent wraps