Orffan rmt ?

I can't think of a single good reason why we cant snoz, the commentary pool is smaller, but no less discerning My problem with any RMT thread is that my team is only ever my team for a few hours at best...

 

Personally, I think we should use the other parts of the site. There have already been concerns raised in the past that the ORFF comps have resulted in less people commenting around other areas of the site. Although it was just a perception, I believe having our own RMT (and SC discussion thread) will almost definitely result in it. And I personally don't think it's great for TS, but that's questionable in itself anyway. Even still I think we should be using other parts of the site that are set up for those purposes and keep this ORFFA forum for ORFFA stuff.

 

anthak wrote:
Personally, I think we should use the other parts of the site. There have already been concerns raised in the past that the ORFF comps have resulted in less people commenting around other areas of the site. Although it was just a perception, I believe having our own RMT (and SC discussion thread) will almost definitely result in it. And I personally don't think it's great for TS, but that's questionable in itself anyway. Even still I think we should be using other parts of the site that are set up for those purposes and keep this ORFFA forum for ORFFA stuff. Just my view by the way. I won't hold it against anyone if they do RMT in here

 

Even still, we could do it in both places. Ant has a point. BUT!!! RMT is a huge workload, one that walesy can barely touch, due to just keeping TS rolling along. Jason (Doggies) does a lot of the work and his observations are astute, if not always appreciated. Myself and BB try to tackle some of the load where we can. It is a thankless task, because many don't get it, or many make changes and ask to be rated again. Then there are always the smart-arses who know more than the whole site. However, there is that cream at the top who listen to advice, do better as a result and eventually become contributing members of TS. This, I suggest, is the group we want to attract. RMT is essentially a recruiting pool for TS and attracts more hits than even TiB vs Nobody. Taking ant's observation into account, I don't think RMT is where ORFFA should be sticking our teams (NB: Donors usually have their own RMT). Rather, I think it should be here. BUT!!!! With the proviso that anyone who sticks their team up in here to be rated does at least 24 hours service giving advice on the regular RMT (none of that 'I'm not good enough' BS either). I would add that, anyone logging on to TS can view all pages of ORFFA, which is an integral part of TS, so it's not like we are just doing our own thing disregarding the rest. And yes, Simon. My team is secret. I will attempt to ask she who must be obeyed where she has put it. Len's team is so secret he can't even log out.

 

I looked and found the same sNoZ, so; I have a very similar structure (currently same ruck approach and one less back, one more mid) with a different rookie set. Not convinced McVeigh will hold his avg, like the Swallow pick, I went Shaw, one or the other will be in a lot of teams, Hanley & Sucklings firmly in mine also atm.. If you are only going to run 4 mids they are good ones to run, not keen on Grundy, I am looking at Hickey there atm, Fwds very much the same, I have Zorko where you have Mitchell. I think it's a fine squad, I wish I had drafted it

 

For the sake of discussion here is where I am at right now, it's the shape I want, inevitably some names will change, $145K left over. Although it's what I have I am not 100% on starting with both Ablett & Pendlebury. I use the JR 'Higginator' for byes management, thus the SS is of that, not SC. /Portals/0/User%20Images/NewFolder/Clipboard02.jpg' style='width: 468px; height: 622px; See anything stupid, let me know

 

Easy to see I have done this before. YOU DIDN'T SAY HOW MUCH LEFT IN THE BANK SNOZ. Overall, like it. You have 4 MIDS in FWD, 1 FWD in RUCK, 5 MIDS in DEF. But you have no one to swap them with to take advantage of DPP. Finding a relatively painless way of moving McDonald and Garlett into MID would help resolve this. Also, if you had, say, Charlie Dixon FWD, you take advantage of the DPP there (specially if Sandi stubs his toe). I take Len's point on McVeigh, but it is a toss up with Arbtel and Hodge. Ellis is speculative, but could be a winner. Rohan, again speculative, but not so sure on this one. Polec, just gut, don't know anything, but suspect he could be this year's Karnezis - and there are a lot of good rooks to choose from in MID. FWIW.

 

@Len - essentially the same message re. DPP and bank. My only comment would be; be wary of NAB. Langford has been on the Hawks list for a while now and may be a flash in the pan. He will find it difficult to crack a regular gig in the premiership team. Besides, he has to get behind Grimley Can see a lot of wear and tear on the Prospectus with the rookie choices, no doubt some will change, but with a split R1, we have to get it right before the first whistle.

 

Len, you mentioned something about doubts on Ablett/Pendles? DEF Bartel (D/M) Kolodjashnij Hanley (D/M) Scharenberg McKenzie Clurey Swallow Suckling MID Barlow Sheed Sloane Dunstan Cunnington Crouch Grigg McDonald (M/D) Martin Honeychurch (M/F) RUC Minson Thurlow (R/F) Sandilands Nankervis FWD Dangerfield (F/M) Hogan Wingard (F/M) Billings Dixon (F/R) Lennon Gunston T. Lynch +16k The theory, at this formative stage of the season, is that there is a bunch of MID prems in DEF and FWD who will compensate slightly for not having the Ablett/Pendles scores early. Having the opportunity to take a look at a bit of form, the plan is to up to Ablett/Pendles/Swan/Griffin - whoever is going big time, hopefully around the byes.

 

Interesting approach Terry, I meant I wasn't sure about starting with both, none I had not considered Structure aside, what's the reasoning on Grigg, he seems an interesting choice at that price, most seem to be going Beams or Swallow either side of him.. Having initially thought the rookies would be easy this year all of a sudden there are a lot not sure of early game time, I'd include Billings in that lot at the moment, will swap Lewis to Impey in mine, though no more confident about him either.. That struggle is also why mid mid eligible dpp rookies are not currently in the mid line

 

Len wrote:
Interesting approach Terry, I meant I wasn't sure about starting with both, none I had not considered Structure aside, what's the reasoning on Grigg, he seems an interesting choice at that price, most seem to be going Beams or Swallow either side of him.. Having initially thought the rookies would be easy this year all of a sudden there are a lot not sure of early game time, I'd include Billings in that lot at the moment, will swap Lewis to Impey in mine, though no more confident about him either.. That struggle is also why mid mid eligible dpp rookies are not currently in the mid line Grigg? Grigg who? Two swallows do not make a Spring.

 

Indeed, nvm me

 

As the actress said to the bishop.