Opinion 2024 AFL SuperCoach Planning Thread

[dlanod]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1764461731735339122

View: https://twitter.com/SC__Bandit/status/1764461731735339122

Played as a first choice wing rotation after the Berry/Fletcher combination, where last year we'd have the extra defender (Wilmot or McKenna) push up. As a result played a lot more around the half forward line instead of deep forward, so got the ball a lot more often but not the best in terms of vision when getting it up the field. I think there's less chat about him but if he keeps the role in Round 0, everyone's going to be slotting him into their team.

 

[Chumpion]

That’s good to hear that your little one is bouncing back. First things first!

On your thoughts:

1. I agree. Looking at it in totality is key.

2. I think I agree with this as well. Maybe one way to think of it is how much does Fyfe outscore his price by, how many rounds does he last until traded, plus how much cash that make you and how many points does that generate via his replacement? I used to use 150 points as my hurdle to be worth using a trade, and he’s priced at 50, so if he could do 80 for 5 rounds, he’s actually paid for the trade to get him out (30 x 5 = 159 … and it’s actually better than this - his cash gen generates extra points for 17+ rounds, the 150 points would be lower today, and we don’t tax the rookies with that trade cost, so it’s not obvious why we should tax Fyfe). I agree that the risk dials up with more of them, but if the downside risk is one trade, which might now be worth <150 points, that’s not that large versus the potential upside.

3. I probably read it slightly differently, but I may need to rewatch the video. The way I was thinking about it is that if you start with a GnR team, you basically have to take c. 18 rookies whether you like them or not. You also have 0 midpricers. That’s going pretty deep in the rookies (you can’t pick 18 mid rookies either - they need to be in formation, and some people are imposing bye constraints as well), and you haven’t got even the very best midpricer at that point. If you allow yourself to cull your least favourite rookie, it is possible that you cull a Sheezel, but much more likely that it’s a Constable, which saves you a sideways trade later on for little or no value. You also get to take your favourite and second favourite midpricer, which should be pretty good picks, because it’s only 2 out of maybe hundreds in that price range. The analogy I think of is in BBL when someone goes really heavy on DGR players (which I’m actually not totally averse to sometimes, given that you get the 2x benefit … not so in AFL) … if you’re picking the 8th best Sydney Thunder player because they’re the only side on a DGR, you’re going to be picking up some low quality options. If you open up the pool to the SGR players, you can take the very best one you don’t already have … that marginal choice might be between 4 dodgy Thunder picks or c. 60 SGR options of all shapes and sizes - role, position, price point, form, opponent, etc. I am happy backing the latter. Incidentally I think some people are maybe doing themselves a disservice by ruling out too many round zero players. I think this pretty much by definition reduces the standard of their starting team excluding bye considerations, so they really need those bye benefits to be meaningful to make that sacrifice worthwhile. [PS Maybe the clearest way to put this is to look at the bolded sentence in your post above, and swap “rookie” and “midpricer”. The benefits in being able to choose are large, especially for the first choices - first rookie out, first midpricer in, and so on.]

4. It will be interesting to see how this works out. I can see benefits to protecting/improving upgrade cadence, but equally the correctional trades are the most important of the year. I think maybe 1-2 boosts for corrections (I hope not to need >5 corrections, it probably indicates very low initial conviction, and you can always correct some of your outs a bit later, it’s usually the ins that are more urgent, and I doubt I miss >5 of those with a value approach). That would allow 3-4 boosts for upgrading, slingshots etc, which I’m okay with. I think a few people held trades and boosts too late last year … I think they’re a resource to be used. So long as we have enough information that we can be confident they are being used productively, the earlier we use them, generally the better, because it gives more time for the benefits to accrue. If I have to do a premo upgrade a round later due to lack of boosts, I don’t think that costs me much in the scheme of things (perhaps 50 points?), and I think I can make that back through making the right correctional trades.

5. Agreed. I was thinking the other day - if someone totally avoids the round zero teams, it’s like picking a side with 44% of players being off limits … equivalent to trying to pick a side with no non-Victorian players, for example. It would be interesting to see how much worse those sides would look … no Grundy, Jordon, Roberts, Brayshaw, Serong, Young, Fyfe, Sharp, Laird, Reid, Touk, Flanders, Sexton, Butters, Rozee, Kiddy etc etc … it would put a massive hole in my side, certainly, and there aren’t good backup options for a lot of those picks … especially when you start trying to replace 4 or 5 guys all on one line, or a cash cow FWD playing half back. I know most people aren’t being quite so strict about excluding round 0 players, but that’s the type of disadvantage that some are electing to take on, to avoid holding those guys through a bye.

I’m obviously more comfortable with the downside risk of the cumulative impact of these sorts of picks (largely because of the trades and boosts), but I think only time will tell for sure what the right balance is. I don’t think it’s even a given that we know the true answer this time next year - the answer for 2024 may depend on specific circumstances that don’t recur next season.

One thing I would say is that with all of these extra resources, extra info from round 0, and extra AFL and fantasy content from a whole range of sources, the standard of the winning side is likely to be dramatically better than it was 3, 5 or 10 years ago. It is something I am keeping in mind … if the hurdle to win it continues to rise, and may have risen pretty sharply, then focusing too much on managing downside risk is going to further reduce my (modest) chance of ultimately being in real contention. I think if I want to have a shot at winning the whole thing, it’s important to adapt, because others will be using these extra resources more aggressively than I used to be comfortable with - and it will come off for some of them!

Edit: I had to remove some of the quoted text (#2) to get under 10,000 characters … @wogitalia would be proud!

Sorry I’m not going to get the time to give this the proper reply it deserves.. but it’s been a super interesting discussion!! I think broadly, we are about 80% aligned and the difference comes down to personal perspective, risk tolerance, and probably season goals. I’m usually in a few cash leagues so while I always start the year with a goal of winning, if that looks unrealistic I pretty quickly shift focus to league wins. So that’s probably influencing my lower risk appetite a tad..

I agree with heaps of what you said though, the R0 picks especially. Getting the balance right is key and having none or too many will hurt teams in different ways. You BBL analogy is spot on, having 2 games doesn’t mean they’ll outscore a gun playing one. And while scoring is more volatile, I think it broadly lines up with AFL SC.

It would be really interesting to revisit all this after round 9-10 and see how it unfolded. Was the best strategy to flip around the byes? Go hard on MP, balance, etc. It’s so hard to know now how it’ll all unfold!

 

[Chumpion]

Played as a first choice wing rotation after the Berry/Fletcher combination, where last year we'd have the extra defender (Wilmot or McKenna) push up. As a result played a lot more around the half forward line instead of deep forward, so got the ball a lot more often but not the best in terms of vision when getting it up the field. I think there's less chat about him but if he keeps the role in Round 0, everyone's going to be slotting him into their team.

Strong chance but it’s almost best case scenario.. R0 we get the slighter, then we get another free look in R1.. if he goes well and looks a just have we get 2 rounds to bring him in, so we don’t need to jump straight away and can possibly use him as a good correction trade for a rookie that has fizzled.

 

[Locky27]

i can see everyone bringing in Thomson Dow.

Has been in and out of my team, depending on whether I want Fyfe or Nic Martin in my starting side...

 

[donnybuang]

For those keen on starting Jackson now with the Darcy injury on what line are you going to start him?

Feel like forwards are flushed with mid-priced/rookie options that would be hard to pass up so potentially starting at R2 if Grundy doesn't perform in round 0 is a better option?

Ive replaced Flanders with him for now.

 

[BlufBlufShuv]

For those keen on starting Jackson now with the Darcy injury on what line are you going to start him?

Feel like forwards are flushed with mid-priced/rookie options that would be hard to pass up so potentially starting at R2 if Grundy doesn't perform in round 0 is a better option?

It's a free hit to have 3 elite scoring rucks in the team. Last time this happened was 2022 when English had forward designation. He went at 120 for 5 rounds before injury; you add that to whatever the R1 and R2 slots were doing (could have had Gawn + $380k Witts that year) its just a slam dunk to start Jackson forward.

 

[Darkie]

Sorry I’m not going to get the time to give this the proper reply it deserves.. but it’s been a super interesting discussion!! I think broadly, we are about 80% aligned and the difference comes down to personal perspective, risk tolerance, and probably season goals. I’m usually in a few cash leagues so while I always start the year with a goal of winning, if that looks unrealistic I pretty quickly shift focus to league wins. So that’s probably influencing my lower risk appetite a tad..

I agree with heaps of what you said though, the R0 picks especially. Getting the balance right is key and having none or too many will hurt teams in different ways. You BBL analogy is spot on, having 2 games doesn’t mean they’ll outscore a gun playing one. And while scoring is more volatile, I think it broadly lines up with AFL SC.

It would be really interesting to revisit all this after round 9-10 and see how it unfolded. Was the best strategy to flip around the byes? Go hard on MP, balance, etc. It’s so hard to know now how it’ll all unfold!

Hehe - all good mate, don’t feel a need to work through every point or every post if it doesn’t suit. It’s been a good discussion, and I agree that things like league vs overall focus probably influence it. I’m basically always overall focused, unless I’m close to a key threshold in something like Premier League! I probably take it for granted that SCS coaches are overall focused unless specified, especially early in the season, but maybe that’s an unfair assumption on my part 🙂

Indeed, it will be interesting to revisit and see how all of this lands. I’m not 100% convinced that we will get a definitive answer from a single season, but the benefit of some hindsight is probably going to be pretty instructive.

 

[Darkie]

How long do we think Darcy is out for?

 

[Connoisseur]

How long do we think Darcy is out for?

Possibly 3-6 weeks if similar to this situation: http://instagr.am/p/CcPf9WgpNRA/

 

[aj74]

How long do we think Darcy is out for?

Could be the 3 to 6 mentioned by Connoisseur or just the 2 (which I'll run with). Then there's the 2 or more at the end of the year that he might put up.

If he's 30 points underpriced compared to when he's rucking, then there's at least 4* 30 = 120 points we are getting for free if we start with him. Normally you'd have to pay a trade to get into those points because it would bee later in the year and you would most likely have bigger fish to fry (or be low on trades).

In this case, you are being offered 60 points straight up with a decent promise of more down the line.

I'd say if you were going to get Jackson in at all this year then you'd now want to be starting him. He will not perform at his peak for a large stretch of the year though as he will be playing out of the square for a large part of it. Starting him might cost you value or high end points elsewhere.

What provides the best bang for your buck?
The extra uber in that one mid premium?
A couple of MPs and 100k? (You will get another rookie)
A fairly solid Top 6 forward who could provide extra ruck coverage late and will most likely get first ruck duties for a good 6 weeks?

 

[Herbie66]

That's what I was trying to say, yeah.

Regardless, I think that the state of the forwards pool is such that pure GnR can't be done this year. I listed Jackson, who's stocks have risen slightly and Macrae who's preseason would test even the most zealous GnR evangelist.

I hear talk about having best 18 for 4 of the first 6 rounds meaning we can feel ok about fielding Reid/Gibcus at D6. Maybe throw Sexton or Martin back when they get their DPP. It's OK I guess but tally an extra trade to your corrections because getting that rookie out of D6 before round 7 isn't likely to gain you a lot of cash. The lucrative ones, if any, won't be ready yet and none will be DPP.

Maybe GnR isn't good this year for the backs either?

That's actually a very good point , if the D6-8 are not ready to be traded , we might be waiting awhile to use the anticipated DPP of Martin , McKercher , Roberts , Sexton advantageously.

Just assumed of moving them to defence without thinking it through fully.

 

[TommyC]

Hey guys! With the Jackson news it’s given me a fwd line headache. So which option do you all prefer at M3 and F1?

Jackson + Steele

Fisher + Serong

 

[HimothyTaranto]

For those starting Jackson now, I think Round 0 also doubles as a great way to find out a much more refined timeline for how long Darcy may be out.

The AFL requires teams to be more transparent about injury timelines so hopefully we may get an update before Round 1.

Darcy's durability is genuinely shocking for a guy so young, but I would want a definitive amount of time that he would miss than just the "opening rounds".

I'm guessing probably 6 weeks though..

 

[Darkie]

Could be the 3 to 6 mentioned by Connoisseur or just the 2 (which I'll run with). Then there's the 2 or more at the end of the year that he might put up.

If he's 30 points underpriced compared to when he's rucking, then there's at least 4* 30 = 120 points we are getting for free if we start with him. Normally you'd have to pay a trade to get into those points because it would bee later in the year and you would most likely have bigger fish to fry (or be low on trades).

In this case, you are being offered 60 points straight up with a decent promise of more down the line.

I'd say if you were going to get Jackson in at all this year then you'd now want to be starting him. He will not perform at his peak for a large stretch of the year though as he will be playing out of the square for a large part of it. Starting him might cost you value or high end points elsewhere.

What provides the best bang for your buck?
The extra uber in that one mid premium?
A couple of MPs and 100k? (You will get another rookie)
A fairly solid Top 6 forward who could provide extra ruck coverage late and will most likely get first ruck duties for a good 6 weeks?

Thank you, and to @Connoisseur.

It seems a bit short term to me to be changing plans for, if it’s 3 or fewer. If it’s 6 then I think the maths starts to look attractive (and I was thinking of that similarly - essentially 30ppg x # of fames Darcy misses).

I guess we could take the early bonus points and treat him as a luxury sideways option later on if that makes sense at the time.

 

[Under The Dome]

That's what I was trying to say, yeah.

Regardless, I think that the state of the forwards pool is such that pure GnR can't be done this year. I listed Jackson, who's stocks have risen slightly and Macrae who's preseason would test even the most zealous GnR evangelist.

I hear talk about having best 18 for 4 of the first 6 rounds meaning we can feel ok about fielding Reid/Gibcus at D6. Maybe throw Sexton or Martin back when they get their DPP. It's OK I guess but tally an extra trade to your corrections because getting that rookie out of D6 before round 7 isn't likely to gain you a lot of cash. The lucrative ones, if any, won't be ready yet and none will be DPP.

Maybe GnR isn't good this year for the backs either?

That's actually a very good point , if the D6-8 are not ready to be traded , we might be waiting awhile to use the anticipated DPP of Martin , McKercher , Roberts , Sexton advantageously.

Just assumed of moving them to defence without thinking it through fully.

You can also look at it as a rookie correction trade.

Getting a decent rookie on the bubble and having better scoring rookies making the quick money on field.

 

[Gruffles]

This won't stop Geelong, and other Clubs.

Bosustow - broken neck - 2 weeks.

Word just in.
We are sending Bosustow to Dubai to see a specialist, he will be right to play next week!

 

[Post Nut Clarity]

i can see everyone bringing in Thomson Dow.

It blows my mind that we’ve got so much value this year that Dow and Berry are POD’s … Years gone by I reckon they’d both be locks!

 

[Herbie66]

You can also look at it as a rookie correction trade.

Getting a decent rookie on the bubble and having better scoring rookies making the quick money on field.

Zac Attack has more then likely broken by then in any case so it could be a case of downgrading him to a F or M rookie then moving one of Martin / McKercher / Roberts / Sexton to defence.

I guess it then is also a case of looking at what F7/M9 are scoring in comparison to D6/D7.

Lots to play out in the first few weeks once we actually get under way.

 

[Gruffles]

Agree that the side isn’t the same but he did have a pretty good Boak go at around 107 in there with him. Think the preferred mid options always contains Wines + 2 of the other blokes mentioned.

We know Rozee is more outside so I don’t think that there is no room for wines to return to the 105 we want. Not saying it will definitely happen but I think that its lax to completely disregard tho potential that he does return to premium scoring.

For all their deficiencies Port are a pretty good H&A side and will likely continue that way this year. Until we see JHF start to find the footy a bit more consistently I think there’s room along side the others for a pure in and under mid.

There are other things to consider this year when factoring in picks like Wines & Crouch.
I don't think anyone plans on having them all year.
Both avoid the new ''early byes'' which cannot be understated as a reason we are not just all locking in Green, Gulden, Petrecca ect from the get go.

Wines early draw at Adelaide oval is also a big part of the enticement for me. I am realistically only expecting 100-105 average but if he can throw in some early spike scores we might get 100k profit, avoid a early bye premo, and jump onboard a premo whos dropped 50k+
I always think that factoring in possible high priced targets who drop a bit kinda adds to the value of the trade if you planned it that way.

 

[Gruffles]

View attachment 68713

There's something special about hitting a homerun on a sub $300k player that goes full premo within a season.. Bias, I know.

Xerri and whichever kid West Coast throws at him through R1 and R2, then Naismith cover if Nank's plantar fasciitis continues through R3 - I'm feeling dangerous..

I really wanna start Briggs. Trying to find excuses to do so.