LANGDON ON THE BENCH - read me

[Jiska]

Easier typing this once instead of replying with the same thing 289347892374 times.

DO NOT consider changing your whole bloody team to get his score. McDonald may come out and score 150. Then what will you do?

Can everyone stop being so bloody ridiculous with knee-jerk reactions over a Round 1 score. Worst case scenario having him on your bench will cost you 20-35 points. That's a hell of a lot better than the loss of cash generation a non-playing rookie will give you, especially when most people's game plan should be to generate maximum cash before the bye rounds. Potentially missing 20-35 points is also a lot better than the score that non-playing bench rookie will give you as emergency should Langdon do his ACL at training before Round 2.

His scores in the NAB Challenge were 36 and 57. Reality check, please, people - it's one game.

 

[leng jai]

Sounds like a good one round replacement for Hibberd if he doesn't play.

 

[timtamWB]

You can't tell me what to read, you're not the boss of me!

I agree with not changing your whole bloody team, but trading one rookie in order to get his score isn't that farfetched. I'm not suggesting changing my whole structure, I'm talking about trading a 123K rookie to a different rookie that should get opportunities later in the year, in order to utilise Langdon's score this year, and in the coming weeks. Because he could end up scoring similar for the next few weeks, and then you could have a 90+ average player sitting on your bench.

 

[100action]

*Langdon on the field crew*

 

[stevebbb]

it's not about getting his rd1 score, it's about using the ~60k you save by playing Langdon at D6 instead of McDonald to improve the rest of your team
my completed team had 10k left over, this cash allows me to upgrade my F4 and R1

and if I get rid of Webster instead of McDonald, that's ~120k I can use

 

[domskiezzzzzz]

it's not about getting his rd1 score, it's about using the ~60k you save by playing Langdon at D6 instead of McDonald to improve the rest of your team
my completed team had 10k left over, this cash allows me to upgrade my F4 and R1

Think about all the cash you will be losing by trading out McDonald who should be playing every week and score relatively good to a rookie who is just going to sit there chewing up 0's and not increase in price the slightest, in the hope he 'might' get a game. You might save 60k now.... but in the long term, you lose.

 

[Jiska]

You can't tell me what to read, you're not the boss of me!

I didn't tell you what to read. You had to option of not clicking on the thread labelled "opinion"

I agree with not changing your whole bloody team, but trading one rookie in order to get his score isn't that farfetched. I'm not suggesting changing my whole structure, I'm talking about trading a 123K rookie to a different rookie that should get opportunities later in the year, in order to utilise Langdon's score this year, and in the coming weeks. Because he could end up scoring similar for the next few weeks, and then you could have a 90+ average player sitting on your bench.

I'm assuming you're referring to Langford?? I'd lol so hard if he came out and scored 140 in Round 1 and then Langdon broke his arm at training the next week.

Craziness to chase 30 points by bringing in a non-playing rookie. You wouldn't have done that 24 hours ago, and you shouldn't be doing it now.

But hey, it's only my opinion - everyone is free to do what they think is best for them. Certainly makes my SC season easier.

it's not about getting his rd1 score, it's about using the ~60k you save by playing Langdon at D6 instead of McDonald to improve the rest of your team
my completed team had 10k left over, this cash allows me to upgrade my F4 and R1

and if I get rid of Webster instead of McDonald, that's ~120k I can use

You're assuming McDonald doesn't score 130. Given that 24 hours ago you didn't think Langdon would score 80, is that a risk you're willing to take??

 

[TheOz]

Watch Langdon score 40 next round and screwing up all the muppets playing him on field after ******* up their whole teams for the one score.

 

[stevebbb]

I'll be keeping McDonald, getting rid of Webster for another def rookie (Langford or Fuller, etc)

but...

Jacobs to Luey = +15?
Zorko to TMitchell = +15?
+ 50k in the bank

not worth it?

 

[TheOz]

Reminds me of Viney's score from last year round 1 with people doing ridiculous things like selecting Dayne Beams and dropping Pendlebury to get that bench score. Beams didn't return for something like 14 weeks. Calm the * down people!

 

[Double the Fist]

Doesn't really help me with my Webster issue Jiska!

 

[Jiska]

Reminds me of Viney's score from last year round 1 with people doing ridiculous things like selecting Dayne Beams and dropping Pendlebury to get that bench score. Beams didn't return for something like 14 weeks. Calm the **** down people!

Yeah, but selecting Viney was a brilliant move

 

[TheOz]

Yeah, but selecting Viney was a brilliant move

I mean for people who selected Viney but had him as an emg (like me), I didn't change my whole team for that one score or drop a premium or midpricer to move him on field. Two weeks later he scored something like 10.

 

[Feerits Elf]

The Hibberd strategy is tempting though.

 

[Chism]

Easier typing this once instead of replying with the same thing 289347892374 times.

DO NOT consider changing your whole bloody team to get his score. McDonald may come out and score 150. Then what will you do?

Can everyone stop being so bloody ridiculous with knee-jerk reactions over a Round 1 score. Worst case scenario having him on your bench will cost you 20-35 points. That's a hell of a lot better than the loss of cash generation a non-playing rookie will give you, especially when most people's game plan should be to generate maximum cash before the bye rounds. Potentially missing 20-35 points is also a lot better than the score that non-playing bench rookie will give you as emergency should Langdon do his ACL at training before Round 2.

His scores in the NAB Challenge were 36 and 57. Reality check, please, people - it's one game.

Is there any way i can get Sutcliffe in now without burning a trade??

 

[TheOz]

The Hibberd strategy is tempting though.

I can see the merit behind that idea to be fair, gotta make sure that HIbberd actually returns round 2.

 

[Jiska]

I mean for people who selected Viney but had him as an emg (like me), I didn't change my whole team for that one score or drop a premium or midpricer to move him on field. Two weeks later he scored something like 10.

I was in exactly the same boat.

The Hibberd strategy is tempting though.

It pisses me off something cronic. I'm probably one of the only people on here that has him (SC ownership 3%). Now all you Langdon lovers are gonna jump on board. I hope to hell he gets up and plays.

Is there any way i can get Sutcliffe in now without burning a trade??

He's on your bench??

 

[GotTheGoodes]

risk = reward? Short term, maybe. Long term, probably not.

 

[Jiska]

I mean for people who selected Viney but had him as an emg (like me), I didn't change my whole team for that one score or drop a premium or midpricer to move him on field. Two weeks later he scored something like 10.

I was in exactly the same boat.

The Hibberd strategy is tempting though.

It pisses me off something cronic. I'm probably one of the only people on here that has him (SC ownership 3%). Now all you Langdon lovers are gonna jump on board. I hope to hell he gets up and plays.

Is there any way i can get Sutcliffe in now without burning a trade??

The train has left the station. Seppo was the last one to board, he had to pry the doors open to get on..

 

[timtamWB]

I didn't tell you what to read. You had to option of not clicking on the thread labelled "opinion"


I'm assuming you're referring to Langford?? I'd lol so hard if he came out and scored 140 in Round 1 and then Langdon broke his arm at training the next week.

Craziness to chase 30 points by bringing in a non-playing rookie. You wouldn't have done that 24 hours ago, and you shouldn't be doing it now.

But hey, it's only my opinion - everyone is free to do what they think is best for them. Certainly makes my SC season easier.

Not when there are caps that say READ ME!

Well I have Ashby at the moment, and to be honest I really don't know about any of the defense rookies. I think I might just play it safe though and keep team as is, this way I won't regret any panicked trades

 

[TheOz]

Is there any way i can get Sutcliffe in now without burning a trade??

Knowing Ross Lyon he'll start as the sub next week. He did look good though.

 

[Chism]

Knowing Ross Lyon he'll start as the sub next week. He did look good though.

Will be a handy downgrade option if something happens to one of my premo defenders!

 

[Jiska]

Well I have Ashby at the moment, and to be honest I really don't know about any of the defense rookies. I think I might just play it safe though and keep team as is, this way I won't regret any panicked trades

I think that's probably safest. As The Oz said, look at Jack Viney last year. It's only one player out of 30, in one round out of 23.

You'll be better placed holding on to playing players. As the Bye rounds are so much earlier this year, you need to generate maximum cash by Round 8. The smarter coaches around the traps will be pretty close to a complete team of premos by the end of the bye rounds I would have thought.

 

[Jiska]

Not when there are caps that say READ ME!

I've changed them to lowercase for your benefit kind sir

 

[m!nt]

Who is considering changing their 'whole bloody team' for the score?

I have not seen one person contemplate that.