Discussion 2025: AFL SuperCoach Discussion - OPEN
- Thread starter freowho
- Start date
Great discussions all.
My view is if you are worried that your Flex is a late out (but has no EMG) then at the start of every round, look for the early games for players you have in the non-Flex position, then substitute that player to the flex position, so you know that your Flex has played.
For example only, first or second game of the round involves FREO that you may have (B: Ryan, Serong, Darcy, Shai).
If your Flex is:
My view is if you are worried that your Flex is a late out (but has no EMG) then at the start of every round, look for the early games for players you have in the non-Flex position, then substitute that player to the flex position, so you know that your Flex has played.
For example only, first or second game of the round involves FREO that you may have (B: Ryan, Serong, Darcy, Shai).
If your Flex is:
- Flex FWD (Paul Vander Haar) - substitute Vander Haar to FWD and Shai to Flex
- Flex MID (Alan Ezard) - substitute Ezard to Mid and Serong to Flex
- Flex DEF (Anthony Daniher) - substitute Daniher to DEF and Ryan to Flex
- Flex RUC (Paul Salmon) - substitute Salmon to Ruck and Darcy to Flex.
Showing your age there with those players @Impromptu
Also why I am going with a DPP for flex as it covers two lines in relation to your examples above.
Showing your age there with those players @Impromptu
Also why I am going with a DPP for flex as it covers two lines in relation to your examples above.
Also why I am going with a DPP for flex as it covers two lines in relation to your examples above.
The only issue with my example is if you have 3 premium RUCKS comprised of 2 premium RUCK (plus EMG Ruck) and 1 premium FLEX who is a Ruck and your EMG Ruck don't play then you are not protected. However, if it's a Non-Ruck Flex, the it's likely you could be covered as there is only 1 EMG in Ruck but more EMG in other positions.
Therefore, if you are picking Sean Darcy, you probably want your EMG Ruck to play as you can only substitute for same position players with the FLEX.
Last edited:
Happy new year everyone.
I think you have the way to use flex the wrong way around. You don't want someone with a low floor in that spot because they are more likely to give you a 40 when you needed them to replace someone else spitting out likewise.
I'd suggest you want someone who you an be pretty confident will hit 80+ at the start. That way, when your D6 lets you down or Sean Darcy decides this week will be the week for his 48, you have someone in flex to fix it for you.
I've gone for Flynn at the moment, thinking he can do that and make some coin if he's the preferred WCE ruck but you'd be jut as good going Bont imv.
I think you have the way to use flex the wrong way around. You don't want someone with a low floor in that spot because they are more likely to give you a 40 when you needed them to replace someone else spitting out likewise.
I'd suggest you want someone who you an be pretty confident will hit 80+ at the start. That way, when your D6 lets you down or Sean Darcy decides this week will be the week for his 48, you have someone in flex to fix it for you.
I've gone for Flynn at the moment, thinking he can do that and make some coin if he's the preferred WCE ruck but you'd be jut as good going Bont imv.
For me the key with the flex is to remember it's not coverable with the emergency, realistically that's the priority, so making sure it has a chance to score.
Ideally for me it's someone in the first games that is either the VC loophole or someone you don't want to loophole at any position that you can loop.
Most weeks hopefully it would be the VC loophole, imo, unless you're going very late games on that in which case it's a premium in the earliest game you can.
Rookies as often as possible you'll want to loop them, obviously early rounds you can just put a rookie there that can't be looped from an early game, you should be trying to get the best score you can off the bench basically.
Ideally for me it's someone in the first games that is either the VC loophole or someone you don't want to loophole at any position that you can loop.
Most weeks hopefully it would be the VC loophole, imo, unless you're going very late games on that in which case it's a premium in the earliest game you can.
Rookies as often as possible you'll want to loop them, obviously early rounds you can just put a rookie there that can't be looped from an early game, you should be trying to get the best score you can off the bench basically.
Yeah I was just considering this.
An injury to Darcy would mean he would go to the bench, leaving TDK in R1 and Flynn and Boyd in R2 and Flex. They can't exist anywhere else.
So then you'd be wanting decent scores from TDK, Flynn and Boyd or else you would be losing the full benefit of the Flex. Flynn at Flex could still effectively cover a non-playing Boyd in R2 but you are pretty much painting yourself into a phonebox as this situation leaves you stuck having to cover R2 instead of being able to eliminate your 22nd score.
If Boyd and Flynn look like getting minutes early on, then it is still ok, I guess, as they both offer great cash if played. But if one of them is missing, then the other really needs to be played at R3 while you get the Flex filled by someone on another line.
Alternatively, you could run an R/F in R3 and have a Luke Jackson type ready to come in from the forwards. It gives you back the flexibility but at the cost a decent cash cow perhaps in Boyd. Maybe Boyd will make 200k which is only 5% of the 4 million you want to make but yeah.... food for thought.....
At this early stage, and just going off what I once saw of Flynn and have read about Boyd, they sound like a very good rookie and a promising MP to have in the list. If they get games, I think I'll be trusting them in the starting lineup and risking the potential loss of flexibility in the opening rounds.
An injury to Darcy would mean he would go to the bench, leaving TDK in R1 and Flynn and Boyd in R2 and Flex. They can't exist anywhere else.
So then you'd be wanting decent scores from TDK, Flynn and Boyd or else you would be losing the full benefit of the Flex. Flynn at Flex could still effectively cover a non-playing Boyd in R2 but you are pretty much painting yourself into a phonebox as this situation leaves you stuck having to cover R2 instead of being able to eliminate your 22nd score.
If Boyd and Flynn look like getting minutes early on, then it is still ok, I guess, as they both offer great cash if played. But if one of them is missing, then the other really needs to be played at R3 while you get the Flex filled by someone on another line.
Alternatively, you could run an R/F in R3 and have a Luke Jackson type ready to come in from the forwards. It gives you back the flexibility but at the cost a decent cash cow perhaps in Boyd. Maybe Boyd will make 200k which is only 5% of the 4 million you want to make but yeah.... food for thought.....
At this early stage, and just going off what I once saw of Flynn and have read about Boyd, they sound like a very good rookie and a promising MP to have in the list. If they get games, I think I'll be trusting them in the starting lineup and risking the potential loss of flexibility in the opening rounds.
No doubt that's part of it's value but if your player doesn't play, you're going 22 vs 23 as opposed to the other 4 position slots where you can lose a score, or even two if on the ball, and still end up at 23 v 23.
Just threw up a draft team and definitely liking the very heavy forward midprice/rookie layout, the biggest problem I keep encountering is I just can't find a 4th starting premium defender, it's insane now that Newman is gone that you're almost forced into the Mills at D4 play. There's a few sketchy options like Short, McGovern, Dale, Saad, Vlastuin and Hinge or you can take the punt on a Stewart bounceback to his peak but it's such slim pickings, combo takedown is that the rookies look by far the worst there also.
The Flynn & Boyd question is very interesting if both genuine options, if they're #1 ruck, they're both must have and field, you almost have to burn the flex on them which is generally going to mean starting a dead R3, which many like to do but feels wrong to me, but also has the risk if both fail, which is exceedingly possible given Flynn's injury history and that Saints seem to want to bump one of the very best rucks out for a rookie, that often lasts two weeks at most based on history, so definitely could come to round 3 and have 3 dead rucks in your side to fix
Just threw up a draft team and definitely liking the very heavy forward midprice/rookie layout, the biggest problem I keep encountering is I just can't find a 4th starting premium defender, it's insane now that Newman is gone that you're almost forced into the Mills at D4 play. There's a few sketchy options like Short, McGovern, Dale, Saad, Vlastuin and Hinge or you can take the punt on a Stewart bounceback to his peak but it's such slim pickings, combo takedown is that the rookies look by far the worst there also.
The Flynn & Boyd question is very interesting if both genuine options, if they're #1 ruck, they're both must have and field, you almost have to burn the flex on them which is generally going to mean starting a dead R3, which many like to do but feels wrong to me, but also has the risk if both fail, which is exceedingly possible given Flynn's injury history and that Saints seem to want to bump one of the very best rucks out for a rookie, that often lasts two weeks at most based on history, so definitely could come to round 3 and have 3 dead rucks in your side to fix
I’m not sure it matters who is in your flex spot unless it’s someone you only picked because you could put them there, in that if you have Bont there vs having him in your mid line, the effect is the same - you get his score and drop whatever is your worst score from the other 22 on field players.
It’s not the player in the flex spot that replaces a score, you just drop your worst score. Odds are it’ll be from one of the 22 non flex positions but if your worst score is the flex it would be the one to drop.
So it’s less about volatility in the flex player, and more what is the overall volatility of your 23 players. If you have too many high ceiling, low floor types then you are at risk regardless of where they’re placed.
It’s not the player in the flex spot that replaces a score, you just drop your worst score. Odds are it’ll be from one of the 22 non flex positions but if your worst score is the flex it would be the one to drop.
So it’s less about volatility in the flex player, and more what is the overall volatility of your 23 players. If you have too many high ceiling, low floor types then you are at risk regardless of where they’re placed.
I don’t think we’ll be looping heaps early with the early bye rounds but one thing I’ve been thinking on today is that the flex spot does open up the possibility of looping your loops. Which sounds ridiculous, but basically if you have a mid E and def E, and a M/D floating donut, you could theoretically choose the best E score by changing who goes into the flex spot. could be handy if there are a stretch of rounds where there is early loop opportunities and before there are DPP additions to minimise the need for the flex spot to serve this function.
If we get a viable, high quality R3 it’s something I might consider by parking a floating F/R donut.
If we get a viable, high quality R3 it’s something I might consider by parking a floating F/R donut.
No doubt that's part of it's value but if your player doesn't play, you're going 22 vs 23 as opposed to the other 4 position slots where you can lose a score, or even two if on the ball, and still end up at 23 v 23.
Just threw up a draft team and definitely liking the very heavy forward midprice/rookie layout, the biggest problem I keep encountering is I just can't find a 4th starting premium defender, it's insane now that Newman is gone that you're almost forced into the Mills at D4 play. There's a few sketchy options like Short, McGovern, Dale, Saad, Vlastuin and Hinge or you can take the punt on a Stewart bounceback to his peak but it's such slim pickings, combo takedown is that the rookies look by far the worst there also.
The Flynn & Boyd question is very interesting if both genuine options, if they're #1 ruck, they're both must have and field, you almost have to burn the flex on them which is generally going to mean starting a dead R3, which many like to do but feels wrong to me, but also has the risk if both fail, which is exceedingly possible given Flynn's injury history and that Saints seem to want to bump one of the very best rucks out for a rookie, that often lasts two weeks at most based on history, so definitely could come to round 3 and have 3 dead rucks in your side to fix
Just threw up a draft team and definitely liking the very heavy forward midprice/rookie layout, the biggest problem I keep encountering is I just can't find a 4th starting premium defender, it's insane now that Newman is gone that you're almost forced into the Mills at D4 play. There's a few sketchy options like Short, McGovern, Dale, Saad, Vlastuin and Hinge or you can take the punt on a Stewart bounceback to his peak but it's such slim pickings, combo takedown is that the rookies look by far the worst there also.
The Flynn & Boyd question is very interesting if both genuine options, if they're #1 ruck, they're both must have and field, you almost have to burn the flex on them which is generally going to mean starting a dead R3, which many like to do but feels wrong to me, but also has the risk if both fail, which is exceedingly possible given Flynn's injury history and that Saints seem to want to bump one of the very best rucks out for a rookie, that often lasts two weeks at most based on history, so definitely could come to round 3 and have 3 dead rucks in your side to fix
I never really considered what you said about Flynn and Boyd both being must starts if they are R1s. Not 100% certain that I agree with it yet because even after all these years, it's a different way of looking at it for me. Think I might have missed something obvious all these years so thanks for the suggestion. I presume that its tht if you have a rookei making 90+ as a first ruck should, you want those points on the field rather than say, the 50 point guy filling D6 yeah? And that gets achieved by you dropping a premium ruck so that you can afford another premium on the defensive line, yeah?
Actually, yeah.... So obvious once I typed it out and I would naturally do the same in any other line. It's just that it was the ruck line that I think introduced a blind spot in my thinking. Thanks man.
Agreed to the bold. I said "you'd be just as good putting Bont there" (as putting Flynn there).
To the rest of what you said, yeah I see that now though I still feel that putting the rookie into Flex means that you are committing to his score saving your bacon. In other words, you are gambling on choosing the correct rookie for that role.
If you put Bont in the position, it is much less of a gamble in flex. Yes, you will still need to find another rookie to fill the midfield spot that Bont has vacated, but that rookie can now be looped in the event of failure. I am gambling on Bont not being a late out but then I will be doing that for whoever fills the flex position. It is better to have it going to someone almost certan to play, rather than someone who could be a late emergency or whatever.
I think....
To the rest of what you said, yeah I see that now though I still feel that putting the rookie into Flex means that you are committing to his score saving your bacon. In other words, you are gambling on choosing the correct rookie for that role.
If you put Bont in the position, it is much less of a gamble in flex. Yes, you will still need to find another rookie to fill the midfield spot that Bont has vacated, but that rookie can now be looped in the event of failure. I am gambling on Bont not being a late out but then I will be doing that for whoever fills the flex position. It is better to have it going to someone almost certan to play, rather than someone who could be a late emergency or whatever.
I think....
It's plantar fasciitis which can be difficult to judge return times with. You generally have it until you don't
I get semi regular flare ups for a few days at a time, probably due to my weight. The missus has had it for the better part of a year
I think I'll fade Nick this time anyway. He's fully priced and I'm trying to minimise those guys, keeping maybe 2 for captaincy. Foot concerns and the bye are big factors when you measure him against Bont, Butters and co
I get semi regular flare ups for a few days at a time, probably due to my weight. The missus has had it for the better part of a year
I think I'll fade Nick this time anyway. He's fully priced and I'm trying to minimise those guys, keeping maybe 2 for captaincy. Foot concerns and the bye are big factors when you measure him against Bont, Butters and co
Personally I don't love Parish as a pick, even with the value. I don't have stats on hand but my view of him is that his disposal just isn't good enough to support keeper level scoring, especially now that the bombers have a few more clearance guys in the squad that share the load. Parish is very much a handball or dump kick guy, and our forward mix isn't strong enough to turn those dump kicks into effective disposals. I also think pace is an issue, so he struggles to gain separation enough to be effective.
Basically he needs to consistently get 40ish disposals to keep his average high enough and while he has had good seasons in the past, our midfield mix is better now and it isn't as reliant on him for clearances. Injury is also a factor and the value just isn't enough to o***et all of those concerns!
Basically he needs to consistently get 40ish disposals to keep his average high enough and while he has had good seasons in the past, our midfield mix is better now and it isn't as reliant on him for clearances. Injury is also a factor and the value just isn't enough to o***et all of those concerns!