Pendles

[RaisyDaisy]

Happy with the 87 tbh considering he was looking on track for 60 most of the night

[fanTCfool]

Yep 87 is a decent return give sickness, a little bit of man flu can hit the best of us!

[Blues Blues Blues]

Break even of 148 this week - what do we think he will drop to next week?

[HotTiges]

Traded him in this round..knew something was up when he was playing up fwd and on bench a fair bit also when around contest he didn't seem too interested..bit disappointed but if this is the worst performance of the year ill be happy in the end..i think!

[Gigantor]

Break even of 148 this week - what do we think he will drop to next week?

615k with a BE of 172

[MontyJnr]

@King_Robbo

Sorry champ, but you've missed the mark.

Hanners last 3 average 97, last 5 average 105. So 30ppg off Pendles' avg while playing in the midfield. Neale's 51 has to count against Brissy, and do you know why? Because Pendles will never throw out a stinker. So Neale who can throw up some showere when teams actually show him attention, vs a king of SC.

Second of all, most teams are complete or will be by this week so how do you all of a sudden make up 40 points on another line? Those trades are more than likely already done for this week (in your example DBJ -> Rance) so that can't count. So yes, indeed you are 50 points behind already by grabbing one of the other two.

Third, Neale and Hanners aren't at their lowest price, as both have pretty hefty Be's. One could say you could wait after the bye, but then that's two weeks without Pendles? And why would you bring in Hannebery who has the bye? Stupid

Fourth, 27% ownership vs 5% tells you that 27% of people understand Pendles is a gun and a must have. He should really be higher when you compare him with Danger at over 60%. So in that sense, is Pendles also a pod?

Fifth, this is accurate information and I am not leading anyone down the wrong path. Pretty insulting towards GL if I'm honest, calling him out for that in an in discrete way.

Last of all, but not least, please tell me, who will average more by years end? Pendles, Neale or Hanners? Once you work out who it is, I think you should understand that the principle of buy low sell high doesn't always account for instances like this, majority of that principle will be made early on in the year, when you sell rookies high and buy low end premiums, but, when finalising your team, you actually grab the best players available.

Cheers

Well 'champ'
Pendles went around tonight for an underwhelming 87..
As I said it was poor advice
Buy low sell high

You continually miss the point mate. You have one mid spot left. The options are Pendles, Hanners & Neale. In this circumstance, you pick Pendles because he is the best option for the rest of the season and a genuine Captaincy option. There is no "sell high" later, we've used most of our trades now.

Anyway, Pendles played an "absolute stinker" whilst sick and still managed an 87, only 13 points less than Neale. You know someone is a superstar when that is their basement scoring...

[ronl]

I'm not convinced Pendles was sick.   I vaguely remember him going into holiday mode last year in one of the late rounds against a weak side   IMHO I think Buckley tells him to take it easy, look after the young blokes, don't knock yourself out if you don't have to, but get us over the line in case of an emergency.

[enzedder]

I'm not convinced Pendles was sick.   I vaguely remember him going into holiday mode last year in one of the late rounds against a weak side   IMHO I think Buckley tells him to take it easy, look after the young blokes, don't knock yourself out if you don't have to, but get us over the line in case of an emergency.

IMHO don't think this would be the case. I mean what coach would say words to the effect of go about it half as$ed. Not even Buckley.

[King_Robbo]

@King_Robbo

Sorry champ, but you've missed the mark.

Hanners last 3 average 97, last 5 average 105. So 30ppg off Pendles' avg while playing in the midfield. Neale's 51 has to count against Brissy, and do you know why? Because Pendles will never throw out a stinker. So Neale who can throw up some showere when teams actually show him attention, vs a king of SC.

Second of all, most teams are complete or will be by this week so how do you all of a sudden make up 40 points on another line? Those trades are more than likely already done for this week (in your example DBJ -> Rance) so that can't count. So yes, indeed you are 50 points behind already by grabbing one of the other two.

Third, Neale and Hanners aren't at their lowest price, as both have pretty hefty Be's. One could say you could wait after the bye, but then that's two weeks without Pendles? And why would you bring in Hannebery who has the bye? Stupid

Fourth, 27% ownership vs 5% tells you that 27% of people understand Pendles is a gun and a must have. He should really be higher when you compare him with Danger at over 60%. So in that sense, is Pendles also a pod?

Fifth, this is accurate information and I am not leading anyone down the wrong path. Pretty insulting towards GL if I'm honest, calling him out for that in an in discrete way.

Last of all, but not least, please tell me, who will average more by years end? Pendles, Neale or Hanners? Once you work out who it is, I think you should understand that the principle of buy low sell high doesn't always account for instances like this, majority of that principle will be made early on in the year, when you sell rookies high and buy low end premiums, but, when finalising your team, you actually grab the best players available.

Cheers

Well 'champ'
Pendles went around tonight for an underwhelming 87..
As I said it was poor advice
Buy low sell high

You continually miss the point mate. You have one mid spot left. The options are Pendles, Hanners & Neale. In this circumstance, you pick Pendles because he is the best option for the rest of the season and a genuine Captaincy option. There is no "sell high" later, we've used most of our trades now.

Anyway, Pendles played an "absolute stinker" whilst sick and still managed an 87, only 13 points less than Neale. You know someone is a superstar when that is their basement scoring...

Ok so in summary you're happy to pick up pendles for effectively $100k extra and get about the same output?
Why wouldn't you go unique, skip pendles and invest that $100k into getting say a Docherty over a laird and gain 20 pts extra that way..
Let's be honest if you don't have pendles Ablett danger by now your team probably isn't going too great and you need to make up ground on the leaders.. not break even on another player..
This advice/style of playing SC by playing it safe all the time is why you will never win SC

[tommy10]

@King_Robbo

Sorry champ, but you've missed the mark.

Hanners last 3 average 97, last 5 average 105. So 30ppg off Pendles' avg while playing in the midfield. Neale's 51 has to count against Brissy, and do you know why? Because Pendles will never throw out a stinker. So Neale who can throw up some showere when teams actually show him attention, vs a king of SC.

Second of all, most teams are complete or will be by this week so how do you all of a sudden make up 40 points on another line? Those trades are more than likely already done for this week (in your example DBJ -> Rance) so that can't count. So yes, indeed you are 50 points behind already by grabbing one of the other two.

Third, Neale and Hanners aren't at their lowest price, as both have pretty hefty Be's. One could say you could wait after the bye, but then that's two weeks without Pendles? And why would you bring in Hannebery who has the bye? Stupid

Fourth, 27% ownership vs 5% tells you that 27% of people understand Pendles is a gun and a must have. He should really be higher when you compare him with Danger at over 60%. So in that sense, is Pendles also a pod?

Fifth, this is accurate information and I am not leading anyone down the wrong path. Pretty insulting towards GL if I'm honest, calling him out for that in an in discrete way.

Last of all, but not least, please tell me, who will average more by years end? Pendles, Neale or Hanners? Once you work out who it is, I think you should understand that the principle of buy low sell high doesn't always account for instances like this, majority of that principle will be made early on in the year, when you sell rookies high and buy low end premiums, but, when finalising your team, you actually grab the best players available.

Cheers

Well 'champ'
Pendles went around tonight for an underwhelming 87..
As I said it was poor advice
Buy low sell high

You continually miss the point mate. You have one mid spot left. The options are Pendles, Hanners & Neale. In this circumstance, you pick Pendles because he is the best option for the rest of the season and a genuine Captaincy option. There is no "sell high" later, we've used most of our trades now.

Anyway, Pendles played an "absolute stinker" whilst sick and still managed an 87, only 13 points less than Neale. You know someone is a superstar when that is their basement scoring...

Ok so in summary you're happy to pick up pendles for effectively $100k extra and get about the same output?
Why wouldn't you go unique, skip pendles and invest that $100k into getting say a Docherty over a laird and gain 20 pts extra that way..
Let's be honest if you don't have pendles Ablett danger by now your team probably isn't going too great and you need to make up ground on the leaders.. not break even on another player..
This advice/style of playing SC by playing it safe all the time is why you will never win SC

The fact that you would rather wait and willing to buy Pendles low will set back points and be catching the leaders as your comments as contradict what you are trying to say. There's a reason why you pay premium dollars for him and guys like Ablett, Fyfe, etc.
The buying low and selling high doesn't apply to Pendles and co. imo.

[_wato]

@ King_Robbo

Good on you 'champ' for pointing out the obvious. Pendles sick and plays a stinker, Neale gets tagged and scores a ton after scaling. Was 94 beforehand.

Hanners struggling to beat 87 lately too so your point has no merit. Good one.

[Judd Magic]

I think Wato and King_Robbo are both intelligent Supercoachers from what I read of their posts.

But have to give the points to Wato in regards to the Pendles argument.

Pendles is a must IMO, you can't compete without him.

No matter what his price is you just need to get him in if you don't already have him.

[timmyparso]

I think Wato and King_Robbo are both intelligent Supercoachers from what I read of their posts.

But have to give the points to Wato in regards to the Pendles argument.

Pendles is a must IMO, you can't compete without him.

No matter what his price is you just need to get him in if you don't already have him.

Not sure if this is about winners and losers. Both sides have valid arguments and its important to acknowledge that we don't always have to argee.

Its all a matter of choice from here on for individual coaches and what best suits the needs of your team.

For the absolute best chance getting best advice on the "Love Pendles, love Pendles not" debate its best you publish your entire team so a more informed opinion can be made.

[King_Robbo]

@ King_Robbo

Good on you 'champ' for pointing out the obvious. Pendles sick and plays a stinker, Neale gets tagged and scores a ton after scaling. Was 94 beforehand.

Hanners struggling to beat 87 lately too so your point has no merit. Good one.

Ok, I don´t really understand your above point. But on this topic, heres my last opinion.

Firstly, I dont get what your talking about re Hanners - he has two scores sub 100 this year - same too with Pendles.

As for Neale - scalling or no scalling, he got a 100 - 13 points more than Pendles. Again, nonsense comment.

Re Pendles.

He is an absolute jet, I love watching the guy play and I generally pick him at the start of the year because of his consistency, durability etc.

However - in regards to the opic that was posted originally - it was asking whether or not to pik up Pendles at his high price point, $640k. I clearly made the point that it was a waste of money and that there were a lot better options. Neale, Gaz, Hanners etc all represent better value, they´ll roughly score the same in the run home and you can save $100k of which you can improve another line by 20pts.

Everyone was saying, including yourself, Pendles never has stinkers..

Can I quote you Wato?

Because Pendles will never throw out a stinker. So Neale who can throw up some showere when teams actually show him attention, vs a king of SC.

The idea of buying someone mid season who has a breakeven of 160 (from memory) last week and has a breakeven this week of over 160, is a little dumb, especially when their are more valued options. I get that everyone has different tactics, number of trades, money in bank and ways to play the game, however the way I like to play is its like a stock market. There is no sense in buying a stock if it has reached its peak unless the options below dont represent better value. In this case the high stock was Pendles and the low stock being Hanners Neale and co. Wait for the top stock to fall a little,snap up some value and then youre ahead of the game.

A lot of supercoachers including most on this forum, choose to play the game like sheep, buying players that are the most popular, going for the ´safe´ pick etc. As I advised, if you (hopefully you all did) waited on Pendles, you missed a pretty average score of 87, you can hold another week and get him for a bargain at below $600k. A saving of $40k.

I´m not saying that I am some nostradamus that predicted Pendles having an off night, just pointing out that if you´re actually holding out hopes to win SC one day or take out league titles in strong leagues (both of which I have my focus on this year) then don´t make the moves that were suggested in this topic,use some common sense when it comes to trading

[MC]

Wato is correct in saying that Pendles doesn't throw up stinkers. He's gone under 80 a grand total of ONCE in the past 6 years. Under 100 roughly twice per year over that same duration. He's a machine.

I also agree with Robbo though in that Supercoach is more akin to the stock-market than most seem to understand. Buying low, selling high is the most consistent method for success. Many players pick up that 'under-priced' premo when they bottom out, though very few operate in reverse, selling a player when they peak in price. Parker is a prime example from this season, same goes with Shaw of a few weeks ago and Dangerfield now.

Parker peaked at 602k, with many scrambling to get him in. He's since averaged around 90 and dropped over 150k. At the time, a trade to Joel Selwood would have netted you 100k and close to 200 points since.
Shaw peaked at 665k a few weeks back. He's since averaged 95 and will drop over 100k. (A few people I know traded him to McVeigh, netting 200k+ and the same average.
Dangerfield this week is 744k, meaning you gain 200k+ by trading him to most other premiums, possibly resulting in the same average for the remainder of the season for those players (and the bonus of 200k+ to improve another spot).