Yep fully agree. Irrelevant without a mostly mid role. To be fair he only averaged about 15 and a goal a game as a forward which i think is a pretty replaceable stat line in their stacked forward 50. Personally think hell provide more to that side as a second big bodied mid but well see how it plays out.
Position 2024: FORWARD DISCUSSION
- Thread starter KLo30
- Start date
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,994
- Likes
- 126,725
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
https://coachespanel.tv/8-most-relevant-sam-flanders/
“During a notable 10-game stretch, Flanders impressed with an average of 5.7 marks per game, placing him among a select group of AFL players who excel in this area. However, with only a handful of non-defenders achieving similar mark tallies, the challenge for Flanders lies in maintaining this aspect of his game amidst potential role changes under Hardwick’s system.”
“During a notable 10-game stretch, Flanders impressed with an average of 5.7 marks per game, placing him among a select group of AFL players who excel in this area. However, with only a handful of non-defenders achieving similar mark tallies, the challenge for Flanders lies in maintaining this aspect of his game amidst potential role changes under Hardwick’s system.”
Forwards are dropping like flies.
Macrae and Adams look like avoids now with soft tissue issues.
Flanders didn't really impress this week - but at least we get to see Round 0.
Anyone considering running with an entire sub $400k forward line?
Fyfe, Harmes, Billings, Jordon, Reid, Windsor, Sexton, Macrae...
Maybe list of Fisher, Phillipou, Mackenzie, Tsatas, Duursma, Caddy, Watson, Lazzaro, Fantasia, Lohmann, Wislon, Burgess, Laurie and Jones...
Macrae and Adams look like avoids now with soft tissue issues.
Flanders didn't really impress this week - but at least we get to see Round 0.
Anyone considering running with an entire sub $400k forward line?
Fyfe, Harmes, Billings, Jordon, Reid, Windsor, Sexton, Macrae...
Maybe list of Fisher, Phillipou, Mackenzie, Tsatas, Duursma, Caddy, Watson, Lazzaro, Fantasia, Lohmann, Wislon, Burgess, Laurie and Jones...
Why not Borris, that's what makes it fun, trying a different way sometimes, doing it the same way every year and expecting different results is a bit.... insane 
Better late than never!
I am a bit concerned that, as a site, we haven’t adapted as quickly to changes as some others, and it has hurt our rankings … a lot of coaches have mentioned having a down year in 2023.
There may be other factors contributing, but I do think the game has changed pretty significantly since the pandemic - so strategies need to be reassessed.
I am a bit concerned that, as a site, we haven’t adapted as quickly to changes as some others, and it has hurt our rankings … a lot of coaches have mentioned having a down year in 2023.
There may be other factors contributing, but I do think the game has changed pretty significantly since the pandemic - so strategies need to be reassessed.
One thing to not overlook is the group think that creeps in. Often you’ll see sites/groups have similar-ish results based on common opinions around certain choices. Take last year, there was a strong view English was too injury prone which had a big impact.
That said, I think the game has shifted to reward aggressive play, but I can see people becoming too aggressive in their starting sides. There needs to be a new balance around risk/reward and aggression.
For example, a team with 8 speculative picks will struggle to correct them all if too many flop, and history suggests that they won’t all pay off.
I think the game is currently in a place where you need a core group of keepers, and then the cheapest possible options with scoring potential and sub vest safety. Pure guns and rookies doesn’t work as too many of those cheap rookies are sub risks, but too many mid price or speculative picks means you fall behind the teams with genuine top tier premiums that are completing a stronger team faster.
I’ve said a few times, but extra trades are only valuable to much as you can use them. But you can’t fix 4 issues in a week, and can’t spend too many correcting mistakes or you fall behind.
That said, I think the game has shifted to reward aggressive play, but I can see people becoming too aggressive in their starting sides. There needs to be a new balance around risk/reward and aggression.
For example, a team with 8 speculative picks will struggle to correct them all if too many flop, and history suggests that they won’t all pay off.
I think the game is currently in a place where you need a core group of keepers, and then the cheapest possible options with scoring potential and sub vest safety. Pure guns and rookies doesn’t work as too many of those cheap rookies are sub risks, but too many mid price or speculative picks means you fall behind the teams with genuine top tier premiums that are completing a stronger team faster.
I’ve said a few times, but extra trades are only valuable to much as you can use them. But you can’t fix 4 issues in a week, and can’t spend too many correcting mistakes or you fall behind.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 3,858
- Likes
- 1,652
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I’m looking at the year I did well when we had 37 trades (Covid 2020). I traded hard throughout, but I guess I missed a lot of the carnage as well that season (something I didn’t do in 2023).
I’ve been rather conservative since the advent of boosts and I’ve noticed a drop off in my ranking performances in BBL and AFL. I’m thinking it’s time to throw caution to the wind a little to try and see if I can replicate my best AFL rank.
I’ve been rather conservative since the advent of boosts and I’ve noticed a drop off in my ranking performances in BBL and AFL. I’m thinking it’s time to throw caution to the wind a little to try and see if I can replicate my best AFL rank.
