Beams 136 or Ablett?

[Marstar]

Removing the 67 still doesn't become any more convincing. Any which way you look at it, banking the points is the *smart/safe* choice, not necessarily the right choice.

It's not black and white, and this is a competition where "calculated" risks lead to rewards or disaster.

I have VC on Sandi and @ 127 ... I'm willing to take the risk and push on with GAJ.

[Grufflez]

Removing the 67 still doesn't become any more convincing. Any which way you look at it, banking the points is the *smart/safe* choice, not necessarily the right choice.

It's not black and white, and this is a competition where "calculated" risks lead to rewards or disaster.

I have VC on Sandi and @ 127 ... I'm willing to take the risk and push on with GAJ.

+1

[enzedder]

Everyone talking about loopholes means there are alot of people out there happy to pick rookies that arent playing.. very dangerous move. only place i can see this being a possibility is in the ruck but if there are 2 rookies named ill take them. Cash generation is more important

I've got Sandi's 127 as VC with a decision to be made on King loophole or 2 ruck rookies that play. Every chance that only 1 rookie will be named.
Might just go with GAJ anyway.

[LaHug]

Also those Richmond scores were when Dan Jackson went to him. He isn't playing tomorrow

People need to be more aware of this. The Dream Team Talk boys missed it and most people on this forum are missing it too. Jackson is surprisingly good at containing GAJ but he's not playing this week. GAJ for 160 SC and 130+ DT.

(That being said, I'd still probably take Beams...)