Opinion 2024 AFL SuperCoach Planning Thread

[KLo30]

Warning to the idea of starting Daicos in the mids until we get a clearer picture of the top premiums.
Allows Houston, Ryan, Sheezel, Williams, Gibcus, Howes (Ried, Coffield)

Midfield would have Bont, Green, Daicos, Martin (have cash to go to premium though which I might do) + rookies. Gawn/Grundy in ruck and Flanders, Jackson, Heeney, Fisher + rookies.

Basically do I pass on Williams for an extra mid rookie. One to ponder..

 

[Shannon]

Are those who have Dow in the mids keeping him after that effort?

Without being rude, I can’t see how you could tbh

0 possessions in the first quarter playing as an inside mid, think he had 2/3 at half time. Rarely have I seen a mid dominated so much by an opponent like Rowell did to him in the first half. Rowell/Touk/ Anderson absolutely obliterated the tigers in the middle today.

 

[Blue Bloods]

With these bye players, thinking 90% of teams are going to have one missing in each round, so if you have two missing and talking premiums only, don’t think you are hurting your team to much if you pick the right ones.

Am I just convincing/fooling myself because I like the Miller and Flanders also Daicos and Grundy picks?

 

[Johnsy44]

Planning to run Naismith at R2 with Livingston R3.

Have a bail out option if Nank decides to ruin the fun. Luke Jackson F1 swings into ruck, with Flanders M6 swinging forward, moving Matt Roberts onfield to replace Naismith

 

[warewolves]

Are those who have Dow in the mids keeping him after that effort?

Not me..👎👎 R0 preview saved me 😅

 

[donnybuang]

Pretty much ignoring early byes now. Most serious coaches are going to have a bunch of round zero players, so doubt there'll be much if any impact from them scoring wise.

 

[Athomas]

Pretty much ignoring early byes now. Most serious coaches are going to have a bunch of round zero players, so doubt there'll be much if any impact from them scoring wise.

Maybe... Maybe I'll have Grundy only

 

[Ben's Beasts]

Pretty much ignoring early byes now. Most serious coaches are going to have a bunch of round zero players, so doubt there'll be much if any impact from them scoring wise.

I currently have five ‘keepers’ from the early byes. Probably more than I would have wanted but I really like all the selections. No more than two per bye.

 

[freowho]

Lot of talk about easy correction trades and 40 trades making it easier to correct. Corrections are a part of the game but I wouldn't be planning them. Ideally there are no corrections. The 40 trades should allow us to build more value, ride hot streaks and create some looping with an extra keeper on the bench for the run home.

 

[NT.Thunder]

I currently have five ‘keepers’ from the early byes. Probably more than I would have wanted but I really like all the selections. No more than two per bye.

Yeah I've got 4 and that;s with Green and Miller and I don't feel comfortable with that yet don't feel comfortable without them.

 

[Athomas]

Pretty peaceful week for getting teams sorted. Can leave the heavy lifting to Friday afternoon if you are so inclined, or even Saturday.

Carlton - To Zac Williams or not? I'm fairly happy with him in my team. No Coleman now ( ) so you can effectively loop D7 & D8 for best 18 in Round 2. With Doc out for the year & Walsh out for at least Round 1 - Carroll is the other decision to make, if he gets up for Round 1. Definitely an awkward one with Walsh (hopefully) to return in Round 3, but I think Kennedy is not in contention for midfield time so Carroll is safe until Walsh is back. At worst he is probably sub in Round 3 and gets a price rise at least. I'm leaning yes (and whack the E on just in case he goes 100+ against that Richmond midfield!)

Richmond - I assume our hands will be forced with Naismith, feels hard to get to him if he's not named Round 1 - with a R/F loop more appealing to sub Luke Jackson in, and take captaincy scores. Short is already priced at 99 so I'm not really considering him... Ball might be down there a lot. So Gibcus seems the only real decision. I'm feeling good on him too, probably at D7.


After those decisions/game, we will have all the 23's for the rest of the round, as well as subs for the Collingwood/Sydney match, to form the majority of our team.

 

[TRIGGA HAPPY]

Didn't see any of the game last night but noticed Flanders scored really well.

Was he back in the midfield?

Just not sure about him and his role.

 

[Santoz]

Didn't see any of the game last night but noticed Flanders scored really well.

Was he back in the midfield?

Just not sure about him and his role.

A few CB's but racked them up everywhere.

 

[Athomas]

Role was good:



No CBA's for Humphrey, pretty tight rotation.

Feels hard to judge against Richmond / comfortable win, but has definitely come back into contention for me.

 

[Darkie]

Lot of talk about easy correction trades and 40 trades making it easier to correct. Corrections are a part of the game but I wouldn't be planning them. Ideally there are no corrections. The 40 trades should allow us to build more value, ride hot streaks and create some looping with an extra keeper on the bench for the run home.

I agree that you don’t want to plan a correction trade (that’s probably just a sideways trade, rather than a true correction), but I think the main thing the extra trades allow is taking more risk. Being able to correct more of the (seemingly) failed picks is a big advantage as I see it, and the boosts make it even easier. The downside of a failed pick is reduced this year.

 

[Darkie]

Role was good:

View attachment 69028

No CBA's for Humphrey, pretty tight rotation.

Feels hard to judge against Richmond / comfortable win, but has definitely come back into contention for me.

Other than one of the other three mids getting injured, I don’t think this split could really have been any better for Flanders. He averaged <40% upon return last year and was higher yesterday, with the tightest rotation in the league, and in a win. A big win is arguably a great opportunity to get some mid time into a younger player or try something different, but they didn’t do it.

It does seem like Richmond were very poor, but the numbers are very favourable from my perspective.

 

[randomcliche]

Totally agree.

Each year is different and the strength of those 19-22 rookies is greater than normal. I think the table from last year showed that your 19th rookie averaged 58 (fantasy) over the first 6 rounds. Lets call that 68 for SC. If Sexton, McKercher, Sanders, Hustwaite, Lazzaro, Reid types cannot beat 68 between them, then why are we paying extra (in most cases) for them?

In any bye round, given you can likely loop 1 or 2 extra, you would want/expect closer to 90 from the best of that lot I would have thought. There's also every chance one of them will produce a spike score equivalent to the missing premo too. If you were relying on one guy as the replacement, it would be a far greater risk.

That table specifically used the average 19th score, not the best of your 19th to 23rd or 24th in a particular round. The average might have been 68, but with fluctuations between 48 and 88 (for example), you are going to get way better than 68 from a pool of 5 or 6.

Sorry for the delay, been meaning to point this out, the scores are ranked, so the the 19th is better than the 20th, 21st etc.

Are those who have Dow in the mids keeping him after that effort?

Hell no. Role tick. Skill, drive and determination, fail. Massive gap all night between him and Rowell.

FWIW the case against culling him: I think it was really hard because Witts is IMO the most difficult ruck matchup for new inside mids. He didn't adjust to the need to rove Witts and apply defensive pressure as first priority, because the ball is going to favour your opponent. He won't need to do that every week.

He'll get better hopefully, but I won't be riding that train because of his lack of effort and footy IQ.

 

[donnybuang]

I currently have five ‘keepers’ from the early byes. Probably more than I would have wanted but I really like all the selections. No more than two per bye.

I'm up to 6 now, 3 the most from one bye

 

[randomcliche]

I currently have five ‘keepers’ from the early byes. Probably more than I would have wanted but I really like all the selections. No more than two per bye.

5 here as well. Plus others like Jordon.

 

[Locus Levy Lunacy]

Sorry for the delay, been meaning to point this out, the scores are ranked, so the the 19th is better than the 20th, 21st etc.




Yeah they are, but it is averaged across the top 10,000 I think?

Each person's team has access to 5 or 6 different players to take their 19th score (I'm factoring in a loop or 2). Obviously if every team has the same 19 - 24 ranked players, then it is straightforward. If you have more value round zero premos's, then theoretically your depth of rookies is better.

There is always going to be a range of scores that form the average for each of the ranking positions. Let's say the range for the 19th position is 50 -105 depending on team depth. The 20th position then might have a range of 46 - 99. The 24th position might have a range of 20 to 88, with a lot more towards the lower end, dragging the average down.

Each individual team only needs 1 "upper end" score across any of the 19 - 24 positions, to be better off then the "average" 19th player. The average 19th fantasy score was 57 last year, but that doesn't mean someone's 20th player can't have scored 99 in any given week.