Discussion 2025: AFL SuperCoach Discussion - OPEN
- Thread starter freowho
- Start date
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2023
- Messages
- 68
- Likes
- 348
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I started Newcombe last year. He was the same price or thereabouts as Steele. Across the first 7 weeks, Newcombe averaged mid 70’s. From memory Steele outcomes him by nearly 300 points. I ended up trading Steele in after losing 300 points and more than $150k in cash. In a season where everyone ended up with almost the same teams, it wasn’t so much about who you had, it was more about when you got them. So Newcombe was a killer selection for me. makes it really hard to overcome that bias and look at the new season with fresh eyes. having said that, Newcombe has scored around 99 each of the last 2 seasons. Looking at last year, there will probably be at least 10 midfielders who will average more than 110. So, if you are buying Newcombe as a keeper- you would have to believe he will go better than 110. On top of that, he has an early bye.
I don’t know why he had so many down games last year. His floor was way too low. He didn’t look interested some of the time. Then other games he was a beast and would score huge. Maybe it was role, maybe he was carrying an injury. I can understand why you would want to go there. As I say, I did last year. But having been burnt, not sure if he can go 110+ by eliminating his down games, plus his early bye means I personally find it hard to start him.
I don’t know why he had so many down games last year. His floor was way too low. He didn’t look interested some of the time. Then other games he was a beast and would score huge. Maybe it was role, maybe he was carrying an injury. I can understand why you would want to go there. As I say, I did last year. But having been burnt, not sure if he can go 110+ by eliminating his down games, plus his early bye means I personally find it hard to start him.
Fair enough. I started Newcombe too so can understand. It was both annoying and also good to see his form over the back half of the season compared to early on (one for SC, one as a Hawks fan).
He's 23, coming into his 4th full season. You would hope there's some improvement there, especially with the team around him getting more experienced.
The Hawks are a far better side with a fit Day. He was definitely missed in the finals last year. I can see his appeal too.
Both have won a B&F, both are 23, both can score well, both are cheaper compared to a lot of others who can potentially put up similar numbers. There's reasons to pick one, both or neither. Definitely worth considering both as options at least.
He's 23, coming into his 4th full season. You would hope there's some improvement there, especially with the team around him getting more experienced.
The Hawks are a far better side with a fit Day. He was definitely missed in the finals last year. I can see his appeal too.
Both have won a B&F, both are 23, both can score well, both are cheaper compared to a lot of others who can potentially put up similar numbers. There's reasons to pick one, both or neither. Definitely worth considering both as options at least.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 1,587
- Likes
- 6,107
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Is anyone else considering this player:
Excerpt from AFL pre-season training notes 2024, SuperCoach AFL track watch | Herald Sun
Excerpt from Lawson Humphries of the Geelong Cats AFL Games Played Stats
Excerpt from AFL pre-season training notes 2024, SuperCoach AFL track watch | Herald Sun
Excerpt from Lawson Humphries of the Geelong Cats AFL Games Played Stats
I would argue the opposite. It's best to start players with a poor injury record than trade them in if they start on fire.
The injury risk is still there but now you have used a trade to bring them in and potentially have to use another if (when) they get injured.
However, with the number of trades we have these days and the Flex position this is less a concern than previously.
I had Rankine in my first picked side. He's not there now but will likely find his way back.
The injury risk is still there but now you have used a trade to bring them in and potentially have to use another if (when) they get injured.
However, with the number of trades we have these days and the Flex position this is less a concern than previously.
I had Rankine in my first picked side. He's not there now but will likely find his way back.
I think that argument holds for rookies and potentially mid pricers, but I think for premiums you shouldn’t bring them in at all if you think there are significant injury risks. Regardless of when it happens it’s impactful, either in ruining upgrade cadence or creating a cash/trade problem.
I think for someone like Rankine you either think he won’t get injured or you don’t start him. Paying up that much for a forward premium is risky enough without compounding that with needing to use trades on the forward line when others are upgrading more lucrative positions.
I think for someone like Rankine you either think he won’t get injured or you don’t start him. Paying up that much for a forward premium is risky enough without compounding that with needing to use trades on the forward line when others are upgrading more lucrative positions.
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 13,117
- Likes
- 46,026
That damn round 0 bye is the easy answer to this.
I ignored it last year and it absolutely derailed my season, you can just can't be throwing points down the drain over the first 6 weeks that are easily avoidable. It was obviously compounded immensely by how hot the best non-r0 guys started last year (Butters, Houston, Serong, Ryan, etc) but it was a huge strategy error.
I'm going to basically factor in that anyone with that round 0 needs to be a confident 10ppg better than any alternative as my rule this year, which basically is the 50 points lost from their bye (110-60) over the first 6 weeks to be even/ahead. I doubt there will be many premiums that this stacks up for, if any. There will be a few midprice guys like Day and Newcombe where it probably does become a worthy discussion though. Bailey Smith has been in my drafts so far with the bye for example.
I think your logic is sound but my experience the last few years of ignoring this because we have so many trades has been that the compounding impact of the lost upgrades is far greater than the benefit.
If you upgrade in to them, then the replacement trade is more likely to be one of the "extra" trades rather than derailing you in the upgrades.
There's obviously perfect examples for both of it going right and it going wrong, Treloar or Whitfield last year for example would have been great choices on either starting or trading in to. Heeney, Crouch or Touk were clear examples of starting wins and upgrade fails. Josh Kelly and Taranto stand out as disasters to start. English was a bit of a disaster either way but worse to start because of the cost.
And then of course you've got the likes of Petracca where you pick them because of their durability and get smoked on it which seems to happen to 2 or 3 guys every season and those ones feel even more devastating, especially when you pick them over someone primarily on that factor!
Will go with the same rule of thumb that the preseason is the best indicator of durability, it tends to be the same guys that have issues in preseason and then the real stuff, definitely a few guys I've ruled out though at least already just on not worth the risk.
It really is striking how important durability is though, of the top 27 averages, only two of them played less than 21 games last year and the two below, both 19 games, were 19th and 25th in the group. As you get in to that next 25 or so guys, the games missed tends to start to get a lot more random despite plenty of really talented guys.
Hardest thing I'm finding so far on starting sides is trying to balance the round 12 bye. Probably because it's 4 teams that dodged the round 0 bullet, but finding an extreme overload in those teams for the guys that I want.
I ignored it last year and it absolutely derailed my season, you can just can't be throwing points down the drain over the first 6 weeks that are easily avoidable. It was obviously compounded immensely by how hot the best non-r0 guys started last year (Butters, Houston, Serong, Ryan, etc) but it was a huge strategy error.
I'm going to basically factor in that anyone with that round 0 needs to be a confident 10ppg better than any alternative as my rule this year, which basically is the 50 points lost from their bye (110-60) over the first 6 weeks to be even/ahead. I doubt there will be many premiums that this stacks up for, if any. There will be a few midprice guys like Day and Newcombe where it probably does become a worthy discussion though. Bailey Smith has been in my drafts so far with the bye for example.
I think your logic is sound but my experience the last few years of ignoring this because we have so many trades has been that the compounding impact of the lost upgrades is far greater than the benefit.
If you upgrade in to them, then the replacement trade is more likely to be one of the "extra" trades rather than derailing you in the upgrades.
There's obviously perfect examples for both of it going right and it going wrong, Treloar or Whitfield last year for example would have been great choices on either starting or trading in to. Heeney, Crouch or Touk were clear examples of starting wins and upgrade fails. Josh Kelly and Taranto stand out as disasters to start. English was a bit of a disaster either way but worse to start because of the cost.
And then of course you've got the likes of Petracca where you pick them because of their durability and get smoked on it which seems to happen to 2 or 3 guys every season and those ones feel even more devastating, especially when you pick them over someone primarily on that factor!
Will go with the same rule of thumb that the preseason is the best indicator of durability, it tends to be the same guys that have issues in preseason and then the real stuff, definitely a few guys I've ruled out though at least already just on not worth the risk.
It really is striking how important durability is though, of the top 27 averages, only two of them played less than 21 games last year and the two below, both 19 games, were 19th and 25th in the group. As you get in to that next 25 or so guys, the games missed tends to start to get a lot more random despite plenty of really talented guys.
Hardest thing I'm finding so far on starting sides is trying to balance the round 12 bye. Probably because it's 4 teams that dodged the round 0 bullet, but finding an extreme overload in those teams for the guys that I want.
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 441
- Likes
- 2,807
- AFL Club
- Bulldogs
Interesting one @Toothless Tigers,I hadn’t seriously considered him until I saw your post… those scores in the finals are eye catching. I reckon those OR games will have a big influence on my team, if Humphries puts up a 95 there, he will be hard to pass over.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 1,587
- Likes
- 6,107
- AFL Club
- Richmond
It would be appreciated if some Hawthorn people could provide some insight into:
Joshua Weddle of the Hawthorn Hawks AFL Games Played Stats
Joshua Weddle of the Hawthorn Hawks AFL Games Played Stats