If you think Langdon offers more than JJ on pretty much any given day then that says a bit about your judgement. JJ is hardly a Simmo favourite. He is still in the fringe category but rapidly breaking into the must pick bracket.
Jones wasn't bad last week but definitely down on his previous games, probably a result of missing a week.
Backing a class player who had a slightly down day due to first game back and getting an early head knock is not credits, it's sensible selection.
As much as I loved Langdon's game, and I also believe he has being playing well for a while now, JJ is a much higher chance to play an influential role than Langdon. In any case I called for Waterman to miss.
I don't think you are wrong on the call for Waterman to miss (unless JK is also going to miss) or in preferring JJ over Langdon. I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy of this board as a whole bemoaning selections based on "credits in the bank" but when we suggest changes it is nearly always based on our own favourites and not form. That is, its not considering credits in the bank that we object to its that it is Simmo's credits and not our credits. I picked on your post but we all do it and you are by no means one of the worst offenders.
FWIW though, backing a class player who was down on output for understandable reasons is the very definition of "credits in the bank" and can also be a sensible selection at the same time.