Player A v Player B (and General Player) Discussions
- Thread starter Impromptu
- Start date
- Status
Re: Player A v Player B
Posting this for my mate at work to see what everyone thinks. He needs a forward premo and has his heart set on Zorko, gave me some stats and numbers obviously after his bye but i dont know how i feel about investing now $400k into an unproven rookie who's running hot.
He already has Buddy, Sidebottom, Dangerfield, Martin, Zaharakis and let's assume he has a standard downgrade, upgrade in mind so any forward up to $550k.
So it's Zorko v SJ/Roo/Goodes/ROK/Pav/Robinson/Cloke + whatever coin left over.
Posting this for my mate at work to see what everyone thinks. He needs a forward premo and has his heart set on Zorko, gave me some stats and numbers obviously after his bye but i dont know how i feel about investing now $400k into an unproven rookie who's running hot.
He already has Buddy, Sidebottom, Dangerfield, Martin, Zaharakis and let's assume he has a standard downgrade, upgrade in mind so any forward up to $550k.
So it's Zorko v SJ/Roo/Goodes/ROK/Pav/Robinson/Cloke + whatever coin left over.
Re: Player A v Player B
I think Zorko needs to be taken on face value.
16, 100, 83, 102, 137, 118.
6 goals, 34 marks, 38 tackles, 111 possesions in 5.25 games gives him;
1 goal, 6 marks, 7 tackles, 21 possesions per game.
Even if he goes 60, 60 in the next 2 weeks, his price will rise to $450k.
If you lose faith, it's not a big jump to bail and go to one of the others (hmmm not a big jump, trades? dollars?)
Only Pavlich and Robinson on your list average more than him, and that is only because of his first, sub affected, game.
A player in form, with a corrected average of 106, that costs less than $400k? - ticks every single box. Will finish the season with F7 status.
There is a big psychological leap some people have trouble taking. They hate paying $393k for someone that was once priced $113,200.
They feel they are paying too much, just because so many paid a lot less. They need to ask themselves, if he wasn't priced at $113,200 at the start of the year, if he was priced at say $330k as a 2nd year player, would they buy him now for $393k with those figures? You bet they would! Tell your mate to jump aboard the Zorko band wagon, there's still plenty of room for more up here!
I think Zorko needs to be taken on face value.
16, 100, 83, 102, 137, 118.
6 goals, 34 marks, 38 tackles, 111 possesions in 5.25 games gives him;
1 goal, 6 marks, 7 tackles, 21 possesions per game.
Even if he goes 60, 60 in the next 2 weeks, his price will rise to $450k.
If you lose faith, it's not a big jump to bail and go to one of the others (hmmm not a big jump, trades? dollars?)
Only Pavlich and Robinson on your list average more than him, and that is only because of his first, sub affected, game.
A player in form, with a corrected average of 106, that costs less than $400k? - ticks every single box. Will finish the season with F7 status.
There is a big psychological leap some people have trouble taking. They hate paying $393k for someone that was once priced $113,200.
They feel they are paying too much, just because so many paid a lot less. They need to ask themselves, if he wasn't priced at $113,200 at the start of the year, if he was priced at say $330k as a 2nd year player, would they buy him now for $393k with those figures? You bet they would! Tell your mate to jump aboard the Zorko band wagon, there's still plenty of room for more up here!
Re: Player A v Player B
I am going to put my hand up with a similar scenario with Brian Lake. I refuse to trade Brian Lake in (and also Malceski in yester-years). You are both right, it feels very awkful getting a player in at $350K to $400K when they were only $113K at the start of the year.
I think the answer lies in whether there is just as good an alteratives of Zorko taking into price. If there is noone but Zorko then perhaps trading Zorko isn't so bad. But it would be a sick feeling in the stomach.
I am going to put my hand up with a similar scenario with Brian Lake. I refuse to trade Brian Lake in (and also Malceski in yester-years). You are both right, it feels very awkful getting a player in at $350K to $400K when they were only $113K at the start of the year.
I think the answer lies in whether there is just as good an alteratives of Zorko taking into price. If there is noone but Zorko then perhaps trading Zorko isn't so bad. But it would be a sick feeling in the stomach.
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 19,855
- Likes
- 929
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Re: Player A v Player B
Zorko was just a name to me last week... then I went to final quarter of Lions v Dogs game whilst I was in city... I must say Zorko up close looks a damn good footballer. I'm happy I got him when I did. I thought he would be a good cash cow. But I have no hesitation after seeing him play to take a place in my forward line.
Rowsus provided good stats on him, however there is nothing like seeing someone play up close to know whether you are willing to trust judging how good a player they are.. Very impressed. Well worth investing in. Vossy must be excited to have him.
Zorko was just a name to me last week... then I went to final quarter of Lions v Dogs game whilst I was in city... I must say Zorko up close looks a damn good footballer. I'm happy I got him when I did. I thought he would be a good cash cow. But I have no hesitation after seeing him play to take a place in my forward line.
Rowsus provided good stats on him, however there is nothing like seeing someone play up close to know whether you are willing to trust judging how good a player they are.. Very impressed. Well worth investing in. Vossy must be excited to have him.
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 672
- Likes
- 97
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 672
- Likes
- 97
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Re: Player A v Player B
I clicked reply rather than reply with quote - I was actually talking about Scotland v Carrazzo.
Roughead should be a pretty safe option. I think he'll remain as a forward/2nd ruck role so he'll maintain an average around the 100 mark.
I can't see Hawthorn playing two rucks + Roughead so you should be right.
I clicked reply rather than reply with quote - I was actually talking about Scotland v Carrazzo.
Roughead should be a pretty safe option. I think he'll remain as a forward/2nd ruck role so he'll maintain an average around the 100 mark.
I can't see Hawthorn playing two rucks + Roughead so you should be right.
Re: Player A v Player B
He is only slightly undervalued on a $/ave basis, but that is due to 4 of his past 6 scores being 88 to 96.
He is more of a forward, that plays ruck, than the other way around. With Buddy pushing up the ground, Roughies scores might actually be aided by another Ruck coming back into the side. I would think Hale (who I also have) would be the greatest loser out of another Ruck coming in.
He is only slightly undervalued on a $/ave basis, but that is due to 4 of his past 6 scores being 88 to 96.
He is more of a forward, that plays ruck, than the other way around. With Buddy pushing up the ground, Roughies scores might actually be aided by another Ruck coming back into the side. I would think Hale (who I also have) would be the greatest loser out of another Ruck coming in.
Re: Player A v Player B
I think I have to go Roughie. His more likely to take it large than Sauce.
My first thought on Sauce was that he came home strong last year, and he might have been an improving up and coming Ruck. That still might turn out to be true. But his finish last year was deceiving. Season ave 92.7, but only averaged about 95 in the 2nd half of the season, including a career high 144.
Could go either way, but Roughie appears safer. Good luck, keep pegging 'em back!
I think I have to go Roughie. His more likely to take it large than Sauce.
My first thought on Sauce was that he came home strong last year, and he might have been an improving up and coming Ruck. That still might turn out to be true. But his finish last year was deceiving. Season ave 92.7, but only averaged about 95 in the 2nd half of the season, including a career high 144.
Could go either way, but Roughie appears safer. Good luck, keep pegging 'em back!
Re: Player A v Player B
All great options in my opinion and all come with their own element of risk. West coast do have quite a few games at home from memory but Heater offers the most big point potential, Scotto is consistent as anyone and MJ just keeps on keeping on and Freo do have a pretty decent run home.
I probably didn;t help any haha but all good options
All great options in my opinion and all come with their own element of risk. West coast do have quite a few games at home from memory but Heater offers the most big point potential, Scotto is consistent as anyone and MJ just keeps on keeping on and Freo do have a pretty decent run home.
I probably didn;t help any haha but all good options
Re: Player A v Player B
I went the backman. $214k and 4 trades left
Now similar question.
What is better to help with a trade lol
having Ryder instead of Giles
OR
Upgrading another DEF meaning Dempsey becomes bench backup inseat of 7th def
OR
Upgrading Pfieffer or Adams to a 500k FWD meaning one of Zorko/Porplyzia become bench backup
I went the backman. $214k and 4 trades left
Now similar question.
What is better to help with a trade lol
having Ryder instead of Giles
OR
Upgrading another DEF meaning Dempsey becomes bench backup inseat of 7th def
OR
Upgrading Pfieffer or Adams to a 500k FWD meaning one of Zorko/Porplyzia become bench backup
- Status