Discussion 2025: AFL SuperCoach Discussion - OPEN
- Thread starter freowho
- Start date
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2023
- Messages
- 232
- Likes
- 969
- AFL Club
- Carlton
If Coleman isn’t playing round one, I’d 100% look at Naicos!
Naicos will almost certainly be a top 8 mid and could even be the highest scoring player in the game by the end of next season so there’s no doubt in my mind that you’ll need him in your side early so if Coleman isn’t ready, I’d definitely drop him to a rookie and upgrade Oliver or Petracca to Naicos!
(Even typing this message out is making me have FOMO
)
Naicos will almost certainly be a top 8 mid and could even be the highest scoring player in the game by the end of next season so there’s no doubt in my mind that you’ll need him in your side early so if Coleman isn’t ready, I’d definitely drop him to a rookie and upgrade Oliver or Petracca to Naicos!
(Even typing this message out is making me have FOMO
)
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 13,104
- Likes
- 45,974
If Coleman isn’t playing round one, I’d 100% look at Naicos!
Naicos will almost certainly be a top 8 mid and could even be the highest scoring player in the game by the end of next season so there’s no doubt in my mind that you’ll need him in your side early so if Coleman isn’t ready, I’d definitely drop him to a rookie and upgrade Oliver or Petracca to Naicos!
(Even typing this message out is making me have FOMO)
Naicos will almost certainly be a top 8 mid and could even be the highest scoring player in the game by the end of next season so there’s no doubt in my mind that you’ll need him in your side early so if Coleman isn’t ready, I’d definitely drop him to a rookie and upgrade Oliver or Petracca to Naicos!
(Even typing this message out is making me have FOMO
)
Can't see it myself. Durability is a big issue but the bye is a bigger issue, just can't see him beating other similarly priced rucks by 10 points a week in the first 6 games to make up that bye. He's a bit underpriced but I'm not sold he's physically capable of playing 23 games and he needs to be 10 points better than those without the bye, the value does mean he can be a bit worse than the top guys but you're cancelling 10 points of the value out.
Really hard to make the case when none of Gawn, Xerri, Marshall or English have the bye to consider. Throw in Darcy, Nank, TDK, ROB and Sweet who also don't have the bye and have cases that can be made
I like him as a player, fwiw, but that bye is brutal when pretty much none of the top rucks are copping it. Rucks so strong that it could well be 70 points you drop in the bye compared to top options.
Really hard to make the case when none of Gawn, Xerri, Marshall or English have the bye to consider. Throw in Darcy, Nank, TDK, ROB and Sweet who also don't have the bye and have cases that can be made
I like him as a player, fwiw, but that bye is brutal when pretty much none of the top rucks are copping it. Rucks so strong that it could well be 70 points you drop in the bye compared to top options.
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 39,373
- Likes
- 128,097
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
I agree with most of what you said about the 400k leftover. My argument is that 74 points lost are in reality less than that. If the 400k is the difference between a rookie and a premium. That means I'll have to play an extra rookie rather than say a premium averaging 110. That rookie probably scores 50 and with the flex position it can potentially help this strategy given rookies scores are volatile and if my 'extra rookie's flops but time, then I can benefit more than your average team does with the flex position. In reality it's not a simple equation so it's very tough to quantify how many points are lost.
My strategy is to get a team with very few of the must have top priced premiums instead going for value picks which means that (putting the cash in bank aside for a minute) I am trying my best to maximise team value and seek value in every position. If I can get the right cheaper premiums then regardless of cash leftover, I should be in a decent position.
This strategy of cheaper premiums carries big risk given if they flop you are behind on points and trades but if you get it right there is potential. What the money in the bank does is offers some insurance for those potential premiums that flop but if most of them do, you are in struggle street regardless of money leftover.
I'm not saying it will work at all but if you can hit the sweet spot you can make a team below the full salary cap that averages more than lots of teams that use the full cap.
I'm banking on being behind early but with trades I'm hoping to start closing the gap. It's high risk but I think avoiding picking all the top guns is the way to get ahead, at the end of the day I'll go with a team I like and see if I can leave 300k+
Doubt it works but it's not a simple equation of losing 75points per week and having to overcome that. It can go wrong in many ways but it's not as simple as losing 'x' points early...I'm also not saying that that is your only point.
It can and probably will go wrong but it's not necessarily because of the 400k in the bank, it will be my combination of selections that let me down. If I get cold feet I will end up using some of that cash in the bank.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
My strategy is to get a team with very few of the must have top priced premiums instead going for value picks which means that (putting the cash in bank aside for a minute) I am trying my best to maximise team value and seek value in every position. If I can get the right cheaper premiums then regardless of cash leftover, I should be in a decent position.
This strategy of cheaper premiums carries big risk given if they flop you are behind on points and trades but if you get it right there is potential. What the money in the bank does is offers some insurance for those potential premiums that flop but if most of them do, you are in struggle street regardless of money leftover.
I'm not saying it will work at all but if you can hit the sweet spot you can make a team below the full salary cap that averages more than lots of teams that use the full cap.
I'm banking on being behind early but with trades I'm hoping to start closing the gap. It's high risk but I think avoiding picking all the top guns is the way to get ahead, at the end of the day I'll go with a team I like and see if I can leave 300k+
Doubt it works but it's not a simple equation of losing 75points per week and having to overcome that. It can go wrong in many ways but it's not as simple as losing 'x' points early...I'm also not saying that that is your only point.
It can and probably will go wrong but it's not necessarily because of the 400k in the bank, it will be my combination of selections that let me down. If I get cold feet I will end up using some of that cash in the bank.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
If interest was received per round on remaining salary, I don’t mind the plan but as others have mentioned it places undue pressure on nailing those selections.
FWIW I love the idea mate, such an interesting strategy!
Just make sure you are completely sold on those mid-pricers and have very clear thoughts on why each are in your team.
You'd hate to waste that 400k fixing up your team rather than using it to your advantage and upgrading them.
Would love to hear how it turns out if you end up doing it!
Just make sure you are completely sold on those mid-pricers and have very clear thoughts on why each are in your team.
You'd hate to waste that 400k fixing up your team rather than using it to your advantage and upgrading them.
Would love to hear how it turns out if you end up doing it!