Thought I'd drag this over to the next thread as it's a good post with many talking points. I personally agree with a lot but not all of it.
Can't work out how to post gifs the links never work.. is there a certain site?
@Rapture_NRL wrote: Can't work out how to post gifs the links never work.. is there a certain site?
right click the image and select copy image address. Then select insert image and paste the url.
On POD's, if you have a bunch of POD's and they don't fire, you're fucked. If your POD's do fire, they won't be POD's for very long.
I will be on night shifts the next couple nights and should get ample downtime. So post up your teams in the Assistant Coach area and I will try and review them all.
Also remember to add [R4R] to your post to encourage others to review your team in return for you reviewing theirs.
Yeah this was my thinking but without the evidence. If you had the best 21 players you'd win.
It could just as easily apply to that guy priced at 40 becoming a gun. Like @mattnz said those guys are gold. But history tells us it's hard to do though therefore it's risky. And the risk could explain the low ownership. Not a bad thing, just know what's going on there. Selecting those guys could be gold but not because they're POD's but because of the high risk and high reward when it pays off. That's where those WAG's teams are good, selecting all these "POD's" but not because they are PODS per se but because they are all high risk high reward.
Does anyone know if the spreadsheets are accessible via Google Sheets?
I also think PODs are a waste.
If you think a player is worth it, and he happens to have low ownership, that's one thing, and you shouldn't change this. Deliberately selecting a lesser player in the hope he scores better than the superior player you are ignoring is bad long term strategy.
It's fine in DFS Comps, where the chance to jump ahead of the pack can be worth the risk. Bit over the course of the season the better player will win out.
There are many ways to play this game but I don't think any of them involve finding a guy priced under 40 who you think will score 50+, and then not picking that player.
@Milchy wrote: There are many ways to play this game but I don't think any of them involve finding a guy priced under 40 who you think will score 50+, and then not picking that player.
Hard to disagree with that. Easier said than done though.
Just posting this for the sake of discussion. This is a list of the top money makers in the first 6 rounds last year.
On the topic of PODs, I don't particularly like the term, and a player won't be a POD for very long if he's scoring well. There may be some merit to picking a "POD" towards the end of the year, but IMO, its more about getting lucky and avoiding an injury, or a guy who gets rested, more than pure scoring. Here are the top players by "last 5 average" from 2018 (just gonna have to ignore aitkens/drinkwater.) + some analysis, which I've hidden behind spoiler, as its dribble.
Nice list mtb. Interesting things I picked from it.
The top few cows made a lot of coin in a short space of time, but it drops off quickly. Also have to jump on the right missed cows Getting Issako or Kikau late was still a good move. If you picked up Phillip Sami after missing the first couple of weeks, not sure it works and up such a good deal.
Of those listed, AFB is the only one that strikes me as a PPM king player.
I think it has been posted but Morgan averaged 55.0 in 15 games without thurston excluding one injury game where he got 24 in 39mins. However, what hasn't been mentioned is that he only scored above 50 4 times out of those 15 games without a try. He'll still be in my team though, it's just something I think worth considering.
@Alfie wrote: I think it has been posted but Morgan averaged 55.0 in 15 games without thurston excluding one injury game where he got 24 in 39mins. However, what hasn't been mentioned is that he only scored above 50 4 times out of those 15 games without a try. He'll still be in my team though, it's just something I think worth considering.