Nathan Fyfe to who trade

[Marstar]

Jordan Lewis @ 475K and a B/E of 105 ?

[_wato]

Jordan Lewis @ 475K and a B/E of 105 ?

Yuck

[fanTCfool]

Parker vs Pendles?

Parker

I can't read that name any more without hearing that stupid chick on that ad

Hahaha yep, I think of her every time I see him touch the ball.

Omfg it's so annoying haha

Paaahhhhhhhkaa

[ants]

Jordan Lewis @ 475K and a B/E of 105 ?

Yuck

[timtim]

Unless you don't already have Danger or Parker... I'd pick JELWOOD

BE will be under 100 for the next two rounds, and in my opinion is still underpriced at $580k

4 tons in 5 rounds (of which 2 were 140+) without a pre-season under his belt... now that he's had his 'warm up' watch out! Also next two games at Skilled Stadium

Priddis is a valid pick - but BE is 120+ for the next two rounds as his low scores need to rotate through. Similarly DanHan likely to drop in price this week (and maybe next).

Aiming to pick up either Priddis or DanHan later... but in the short term it's Jelwood for me

[GCSkiwi]

Let's be honest, if the point is to rank your three top mids regardless of if you have them or not, I'd be surprised with anyone who doesn't put Danger and DanHan as no1 and no2... 3rd could take some debating, but those two are the standouts if you don't have them imo. DanHan over Parker as a massive first game drags parker up a bit, but I reckon you can count on DanHan to pump out more 120+ scores...

I think Danger is a clear number 1, so he should've been left off the poll. Captain/VC loophole material. Obviously get him if you don't have him.

Dan Hannebery's price counts against him IMO. Is he really worth 40k more than Selwood, Parker, Pendles or Priddis? I honestly think the output of these guys will be similar, so the extra cash spent on Hannebery could probably be better spent elsewhere.

DanHan: 620k, BE 120, scores to date: 100, 121, 125, 129, 114
Selwood: 579k, BE 95 , scores to date: 105, 70, 142, 100, 144
Parker: 582k, BE 120, scores to date: 161, 116, 129, 92, 129
Pendles: 580k, BE 105, scores to date: 89, 110, 102, 104, 131
Priddis: 577k, BE 134, scores to date: 159, 79, 117, DNP, 87

Looking at that, yeah personally I think DanHan is definitely worth an extra 40k. Certainly over Jelwood, Priddis and Pendles. I'd take him over Parker as he's more consistent, like I said, more chance of 120+ imo, and is the only one who hasn't gone <100 (yet). He will, but still...

All of the others are clearly up and down looking at their scores

Parker is great value at his price and is clearly getting the points, but I think the 161 in week 1 makes him look waaaaaaay more enticing, when I think realistically I would expect ~115. But at that price sure, he would probably be my third fave after Danger and DanHan.

In a very close 4th, Jelwood is the best value pick of the list. But he doesn't really have a middle gorund, either goes big or barely tons, depends on what sort of player you want I guess. Arguably could be third because of the value and he's most likely to hit BE. Consider though that Danger and Jelwood have gone high and low together, the games Jelwood got 140s Danger got a 166 and 137, the game Jelwood got 70 Danger got 77, and the game Jelwood got 100, Danger got 99. So do you want that sort of pattern in your team make up?

Pendles hasn't performed at what we expect, prior to 131 in the ANZAC match where everyone steps up, and they plowed a decimated bombers team, he was averaging 101, I still would have little confidence in him until he strings a few big scores in together. He's being played out of position and it's hurting him SC wise.

Priddis no-one would consider without that 159 dragging up his average, don't chase round 1 points.

[RaisyDaisy]

Danger, Hanners, Ablett, Pendles, Parker, Gray, Jelwood are the 7 musts for me, and I've currently got them all except Hanners

Mills to Hanners is the plan but that's at least a few weeks away

That last spot which is currently Libba will turn into one of Smitch, Titch, Ward etc but again that will be the last mid spot I finalise - Libba doing a good enough job for now

[MontyJnr]

Let's be honest, if the point is to rank your three top mids regardless of if you have them or not, I'd be surprised with anyone who doesn't put Danger and DanHan as no1 and no2... 3rd could take some debating, but those two are the standouts if you don't have them imo. DanHan over Parker as a massive first game drags parker up a bit, but I reckon you can count on DanHan to pump out more 120+ scores...

I think Danger is a clear number 1, so he should've been left off the poll. Captain/VC loophole material. Obviously get him if you don't have him.

Dan Hannebery's price counts against him IMO. Is he really worth 40k more than Selwood, Parker, Pendles or Priddis? I honestly think the output of these guys will be similar, so the extra cash spent on Hannebery could probably be better spent elsewhere.

DanHan: 620k, BE 120, scores to date: 100, 121, 125, 129, 114
Selwood: 579k, BE 95 , scores to date: 105, 70, 142, 100, 144
Parker: 582k, BE 120, scores to date: 161, 116, 129, 92, 129
Pendles: 580k, BE 105, scores to date: 89, 110, 102, 104, 131
Priddis: 577k, BE 134, scores to date: 159, 79, 117, DNP, 87

Looking at that, yeah personally I think DanHan is definitely worth an extra 40k. Certainly over Jelwood, Priddis and Pendles. I'd take him over Parker as he's more consistent, like I said, more chance of 120+ imo, and is the only one who hasn't gone <100 (yet). He will, but still...

All of the others are clearly up and down looking at their scores

Parker is great value at his price and is clearly getting the points, but I think the 161 in week 1 makes him look waaaaaaay more enticing, when I think realistically I would expect ~115. But at that price sure, he would probably be my third fave after Danger and DanHan.

In a very close 4th, Jelwood is the best value pick of the list. But he doesn't really have a middle gorund, either goes big or barely tons, depends on what sort of player you want I guess. Arguably could be third because of the value and he's most likely to hit BE. Consider though that Danger and Jelwood have gone high and low together, the games Jelwood got 140s Danger got a 166 and 137, the game Jelwood got 70 Danger got 77, and the game Jelwood got 100, Danger got 99. So do you want that sort of pattern in your team make up?

Pendles hasn't performed at what we expect, prior to 131 in the ANZAC match where everyone steps up, and they plowed a decimated bombers team, he was averaging 101, I still would have little confidence in him until he strings a few big scores in together. He's being played out of position and it's hurting him SC wise.

Priddis no-one would consider without that 159 dragging up his average, don't chase round 1 points.

Excellent analysis and you make some great points. Hannebery certainly is the only player that hasn't gone <100, but he is the only player that hasn't gone 130+ as well.

Is it really worth spending 620k+ on a player that can't be relied on as a captaincy candidate? Many people were questioning whether Goldstein's 125 was enough as VC on the weekend for instance..

[GCSkiwi]

Excellent analysis and you make some great points. Hannebery certainly is the only player that hasn't gone <100, but he is the only player that hasn't gone 130+ as well.

Is it really worth spending 620k+ on a player that can't be relied on as a captaincy candidate? Many people were questioning whether Goldstein's 125 was enough as VC on the weekend for instance..

Again I think it comes down to what people are trying to get out of the loophole, for me I think the utility of the loophole is in avoiding a crap captain score rather than trying to net a huge one. Never a question from me if someone goes >120 as my VC, I take it 99/100 times. But I think a lot of people look at the loophole as a way to try and get a 140+ captain, so when they get Goldy getting 125, they ask the question "Can I use Danger as a captain to get more?" Which I think in some cases maybe worth the risk but realistically is greedy... Of course you have to assess match ups etc and make a call, but until there are players averaging 125 legitimately (ie not on the back of one huge score) then you take 125. If you want to play the hhuge captain risk, you pick a VC that might go huge but have a reliable ~120 backup option. On that basis I would absolutely consider DanHan a captain candidate.

[Raiden]

Let's be honest, if the point is to rank your three top mids regardless of if you have them or not, I'd be surprised with anyone who doesn't put Danger and DanHan as no1 and no2... 3rd could take some debating, but those two are the standouts if you don't have them imo. DanHan over Parker as a massive first game drags parker up a bit, but I reckon you can count on DanHan to pump out more 120+ scores...

I think Danger is a clear number 1, so he should've been left off the poll. Captain/VC loophole material. Obviously get him if you don't have him.

Dan Hannebery's price counts against him IMO. Is he really worth 40k more than Selwood, Parker, Pendles or Priddis? I honestly think the output of these guys will be similar, so the extra cash spent on Hannebery could probably be better spent elsewhere.

DanHan: 620k, BE 120, scores to date: 100, 121, 125, 129, 114
Selwood: 579k, BE 95 , scores to date: 105, 70, 142, 100, 144
Parker: 582k, BE 120, scores to date: 161, 116, 129, 92, 129
Pendles: 580k, BE 105, scores to date: 89, 110, 102, 104, 131
Priddis: 577k, BE 134, scores to date: 159, 79, 117, DNP, 87

Looking at that, yeah personally I think DanHan is definitely worth an extra 40k. Certainly over Jelwood, Priddis and Pendles. I'd take him over Parker as he's more consistent, like I said, more chance of 120+ imo, and is the only one who hasn't gone <100 (yet). He will, but still...

All of the others are clearly up and down looking at their scores

Parker is great value at his price and is clearly getting the points, but I think the 161 in week 1 makes him look waaaaaaay more enticing, when I think realistically I would expect ~115. But at that price sure, he would probably be my third fave after Danger and DanHan.

In a very close 4th, Jelwood is the best value pick of the list. But he doesn't really have a middle gorund, either goes big or barely tons, depends on what sort of player you want I guess. Arguably could be third because of the value and he's most likely to hit BE. Consider though that Danger and Jelwood have gone high and low together, the games Jelwood got 140s Danger got a 166 and 137, the game Jelwood got 70 Danger got 77, and the game Jelwood got 100, Danger got 99. So do you want that sort of pattern in your team make up?

Pendles hasn't performed at what we expect, prior to 131 in the ANZAC match where everyone steps up, and they plowed a decimated bombers team, he was averaging 101, I still would have little confidence in him until he strings a few big scores in together. He's being played out of position and it's hurting him SC wise.

Priddis no-one would consider without that 159 dragging up his average, don't chase round 1 points.

Excellent analysis and you make some great points. Hannebery certainly is the only player that hasn't gone <100, but he is the only player that hasn't gone 130+ as well.

Is it really worth spending 620k+ on a player that can't be relied on as a captaincy candidate? Many people were questioning whether Goldstein's 125 was enough as VC on the weekend for instance..

Also with Hanners he only had 62 TOG% when he scored that 100, from memory he sat out the last qrt so could easily have gone that 120+ either way you need Pendles & Hanners in your team come year end, it's just down to personal preference/available funds on which one you grab now or later on.

[GCSkiwi]

RD/Raiden/general question to anyone else, why are you considering Pendles as a must have? One decent score against the bombers, other than that he's been playing in the back and not scoring well at all? He's certainly got history but at the moment he's hardly even on the radar for me to be honest... Last year my M8 ended up being Cripps after all the carnage, he averaged 96, but I'm pretty sure all my other mids were averaging >105, if I remember rightly my final mid line was Priddis, Danger, Pendles, DanHan, Armo, Gray, Ward and Cripps, though I did some switching around when players were out so I might not have that exactly right... But still, Pendles was av 101 before playing the bombers, I wouldn't be getting rid of him if you had him, but I'm certainly in no rush to get him in.

[Raiden]

RD/Raiden/general question to anyone else, why are you considering Pendles as a must have? One decent score against the bombers, other than that he's been playing in the back and not scoring well at all? He's certainly got history but at the moment he's hardly even on the radar for me to be honest... Last year my M8 ended up being Cripps after all the carnage, he averaged 96, but I'm pretty sure all my other mids were averaging >105, if I remember rightly my final mid line was Priddis, Danger, Pendles, DanHan, Armo, Gray, Ward and Cripps, though I did some switching around when players were out so I might not have that exactly right... But still, Pendles was av 101 before playing the bombers, I wouldn't be getting rid of him if you had him, but I'm certainly in no rush to get him in.

His a gun, been playing with a injury & hanging around HB without playing pure mid whilst still scoring reasonably well. Monday proved the player he is by placing him back into the mids with his score speaking for itself. Don't get me wrong Hanner's is a gun, however Pendles at present suits my bye structure better. Pendles year on year has always been a must, i think this year will be no different in the long run.

[_wato]

Why GC? Because he played in the middle finally (thanks Bucks), and he has about 7-8 years of scoring to prove he's worth it

[RaisyDaisy]

Yep, and he still averaged 100 playing out of position

I started with him, so not really considering him ;)

[GCSkiwi]

Why GC? Because he played in the middle finally (thanks Bucks), and he has about 7-8 years of scoring to prove he's worth it

One game, one score, against the bombers. Let's see what happens this week before we get too excited? For sure if he's in the guts again this week he will rapidly rise in my sights, regardless of his score... But factor in that Pendles had all that history of killing it when playing in the guts, and Bucks still looked to shift him out... So is it an experiment that he has decided has failed, or was this a flash in the pan?

Yep, and he still averaged 100 playing out of position

I started with him, so not really considering him ;)

For sure, but if he goes back to playing out of position, I reckon I can do better than 100 for an M8, if that's all I'm getting I'll just keep Libba :P

Hypothetically if you hadn't started him, do you really think you'd be looking to pull him in now? Or would you be waiting?

I'm not saying Pendles is a spud, I'm saying Bucks is a spud and until he demonstrates that his brain explosion phase is done, Pendles is far from a must have player in your SC team.