Originally Posted by Dots1982
I think Grealish and Pukki will both haul big but it’s just the approach a lot of managers take to bring in Pukki when the chances of him being able to maintain those numbers from early season were low when he has such a bad team around him.
Basically it seems manager’s just bring in whoever is going well in the first few weeks and now after 10 weeks basically every player is pulling the weight of their price apart from the few I mentioned so was there any real point running to the early season trailblazers after 2 or 3 weeks.
Does it actually cost a lot of teams points? I basically think a lot of players make far too many transfers to put a point in it.
So in your first post you say Pukki is a very good player but he plays for a crap team so expecting big hauls consistently is not going to happen.
Surely the same applies to Grealish?
Then you say that you expect Grealish and Pukki to both haul big?
To put into perspective Pukki had 49 points in the first 5 weeks. As you expected a big haul I assume you had him in since GW1. Grealish had 14 points in this period.
GW6-10 Grealish scored 29 points. Pukki scored a total of 8.
So essentailly Grealish was sh1te for 5 weeks, Pukki sh1te for 5 weeks. Managers bring in players who are good at the time.
Sterling will likely score 200-250+ points this season. Put he could be crap for a few games and then go on run and rack up 70 points in 5 weeks.
Your point boils down to ''Is taking hits worth it?'' and the only way for you to know that is if you track it. I tracked mine last year for a few weeks and mine was positive of about +4-6 points.
This year I have only taken my first hit now after GW10 for a -4.