Your record is very good (I think at least as good as mine!), I respect your opinion.
I agree that Titch and Grundy potentially look a bit middling as VC/C options based on 2020, but I think both were somewhat unfit (Mitchell returning from an LTI, Grundy struggling hard to avoid a rest when he clearly needed one) and with quarters returning to normal length, I think there’s an argument to back mean reversion more than normal. As it turns out they both went 120+ (the number I usually use for C calcs - albeit not always the threshold I accept) half of their games last year (Grundy 8, Mitchell 9). Grundy had a better ceiling with 5x 140+ and Mitchell only 2.
I think if you expect them just to repeat their 2020 performance you probably don’t pick them, or they’re a bit lineball (at least they’re both durable). If they add 5+ to their averages, I would expect their ceiling to go up similarly, maybe more so, and then I think they’re good picks, and hopefully viable with the armband.
My view is that you want a high ceiling (eg ability to go a long way above 120 with some regularity) for VC, and a high average (eg an average of ideally 120+, possibly with low variability) as C. Mitchell is probably more in the latter category, with Grundy arguably in both. Fortunately I think Grundy typically plays before Titch.
Danger and Cripps aren’t ideal options but they both can go big when they are on (ie good for VC). Both are more up and down than I’d now like to rely on, to your point, so I’d ideally like to avoid using them as C unless they improve in 2021.
I’d love to start Neale and Gawn, but am just not sure I can stomach their prices given that they’re based off such an unusual year. Hopefully they don’t punish me too much for that decision!
I agree that Titch and Grundy potentially look a bit middling as VC/C options based on 2020, but I think both were somewhat unfit (Mitchell returning from an LTI, Grundy struggling hard to avoid a rest when he clearly needed one) and with quarters returning to normal length, I think there’s an argument to back mean reversion more than normal. As it turns out they both went 120+ (the number I usually use for C calcs - albeit not always the threshold I accept) half of their games last year (Grundy 8, Mitchell 9). Grundy had a better ceiling with 5x 140+ and Mitchell only 2.
I think if you expect them just to repeat their 2020 performance you probably don’t pick them, or they’re a bit lineball (at least they’re both durable). If they add 5+ to their averages, I would expect their ceiling to go up similarly, maybe more so, and then I think they’re good picks, and hopefully viable with the armband.
My view is that you want a high ceiling (eg ability to go a long way above 120 with some regularity) for VC, and a high average (eg an average of ideally 120+, possibly with low variability) as C. Mitchell is probably more in the latter category, with Grundy arguably in both. Fortunately I think Grundy typically plays before Titch.
Danger and Cripps aren’t ideal options but they both can go big when they are on (ie good for VC). Both are more up and down than I’d now like to rely on, to your point, so I’d ideally like to avoid using them as C unless they improve in 2021.
I’d love to start Neale and Gawn, but am just not sure I can stomach their prices given that they’re based off such an unusual year. Hopefully they don’t punish me too much for that decision!
Going to try stay out of this thread till March 
