2015: Premium Rucks

[IDIG]

Apart from which rookies are available, looks like the rucks are going to determine what structure I go with.

Not sure how the new ruck rules will affect their scoring but it's difficult to gauge (for me anyway ) if we're now paying overs or unders and we'll be better off spending big or looking for value.

I read somewhere the afl ave is 25% hit outs to advantage, 25% disadvantage and 50% neutral with Sandi with the worst % to disadvantage which would mean that if rucks are losing more points for disadvantage than they are to advantage we're paying overs?? And that's if rucks aren't gaining more for hit outs to advantage this year? Does that sound right?

 

[DeliciousJedi]

Have to wait until some news from people with the '15 Prospectus comes out in regards to the much sought after H2A stats

Not sure if I will get it this season but if I do I will try to collate it in Jan sometime if we can't find anything.

 

[Courtesans]

Surprised to see so few go with Jacobs and NicNat as a set and forget. Had a fair look throughout the SC sites at draft teams, he is expensive but perhaps worth it.

 

[anfa18]

Surprised to see so few go with Jacobs and NicNat as a set and forget. Had a fair look throughout the SC sites at draft teams, he is expensive but perhaps worth it.

As you said, "perhaps worth it". At 620k there isn't any room for doubt and the money could be better utilized in the midfield and forward lines. I would also think some people remember being burnt in 2013.

 

[Nathan]

Surprised to see so few go with Jacobs and NicNat as a set and forget. Had a fair look throughout the SC sites at draft teams, he is expensive but perhaps worth it.

I have gone Goldy/Natanui. I think Goldy is the better pick over Sauce but shares the bye with Natanui which is annoying.

 

[Courtesans]

I have gone Goldy/Natanui. I think Goldy is the better pick over Sauce but shares the bye with Natanui which is annoying.

Which is just why I didn't pick Goldstein.

 

[Courtesans]

As you said, "perhaps worth it". At 620k there isn't any room for doubt and the money could be better utilized in the midfield and forward lines. I would also think some people remember being burnt in 2013.

Rather pick him than Kruezer or Leuenberger, neither will be a keeper. It is a risk, but if he averages 115 I'll take it.

 

[anfa18]

Rather pick him than Kruezer or Leuenberger, neither will be a keeper. It is a risk, but if he averages 115 I'll take it.

I agree, except there aren't many rucks that average 115 let alone 2 years in a row. I think Jacobs is the only current ruckman to average 115+ in a season, so I wouldn't be expecting him to do it again. Maybe 105-110 is realistic and even that would be a super effort. People were expecting/hoping that either or both Goldstein and Minson would back up their 2013 seasons. Goldstein dropped 6.6ppg and Minson dropped 21ppg in 2014.

 

[Prochard]

I agree, except there aren't many rucks that average 115 let alone 2 years in a row. I think Jacobs is the only current ruckman to average 115+ in a season, so I wouldn't be expecting him to do it again. Maybe 105-110 is realistic and even that would be a super effort. People were expecting/hoping that either or both Goldstein and Minson would back up their 2013 seasons. Goldstein dropped 6.6ppg and Minson dropped 21ppg in 2014.

No Ruckman has ever averaged 115 two years in a row, including dean cox.

 

[Jurn Stern]

Rather pick him than Kruezer or Leuenberger, neither will be a keeper. It is a risk, but if he averages 115 I'll take it.

What if he averages 95, will you take the risk? You have to take the risk before knowing what he will score for you. Saying Leuenberger won't be a keeper is ignoring the fact that he ligimately could be given he's averaged around 100 before. Rucks fluctuate from year to year and without a proven scoring method now the ruck rules have changed, spending less on a ruckman in a strong midfield that could win a lot of clearances could be a good move.

 

[Dimmawit]

Unless there is a saving grace and a rookie bobs up, or Mumford gets a LTI which gives us a cheaper GWS ruck, the more I look at it the more I think it comes back to

- you take a premo ruck (Goldy/NicNat/Jacobs) + TBC + Luey. This is approximately similar spend as a two high end ruck combo
- you go two premo rucks no bench cover
- one premo + TBC/Leuy and no bench cover

Right now I am leaning toward 2 or 3. To win the comp you need things to go your way. Of course right now we are all in it to Win it and so it is easy to 'be risky' this time of year. The amount of money the second two options give you over someone who spends for a 300-350k bench player (especially two premo plus a bunch) is huge.

I'm leaning toward betting the person who wins the lot just goes two rucks (possibly TBC as R2) and just rides their luck - also let's assume TBC goes 85 and becomes a Goldy/Jacobs/etc mid season

My team just looks damn stronger with a dead body at R3.

Also, if you look at ruck loophole with R/F there aren't actually many options to use it with the popular rucks early on and TBC, so having TBC in your FWDs is a bit of a waste, you'd really need him sitting at R3 if ruck cover mid round is really what you are after.

 

[DeliciousJedi]

Always try to look for value with rucks. Last year Jacobs, Mumford, Lobbe were under-priced, and Sandi was the mid-priced option.

I think for comparison this year that NicNat or Maric are the under-priced prems and we have Leuy/Kreuzer instead of Sandi.

Have to remember with SC, those that hold their scoring, lose their value.

 

[Jurn Stern]

Unless there is a saving grace and a rookie bobs up, or Mumford gets a LTI which gives us a cheaper GWS ruck, the more I look at it the more I think it comes back to

- you take a premo ruck (Goldy/NicNat/Jacobs) + TBC + Luey. This is approximately similar spend as a two high end ruck combo
- you go two premo rucks no bench cover
- one premo + TBC/Leuy and no bench cover

Right now I am leaning toward 2 or 3. To win the comp you need things to go your way. Of course right now we are all in it to Win it and so it is easy to 'be risky' this time of year. The amount of money the second two options give you over someone who spends for a 300-350k bench player (especially two premo plus a bunch) is huge.

I'm leaning toward betting the person who wins the lot just goes two rucks (possibly TBC as R2) and just rides their luck - also let's assume TBC goes 85 and becomes a Goldy/Jacobs/etc mid season

My team just looks damn stronger with a dead body at R3.

Also, if you look at ruck loophole with R/F there aren't actually many options to use it with the popular rucks early on and TBC, so having TBC in your FWDs is a bit of a waste, you'd really need him sitting at R3 if ruck cover mid round is really what you are after.

Always good to see the advice of a previous winner. I am more looking for cover if R1 or R2 go down with injury or suspension for 1 game. Having TBC then with say donut M.Cox would allow me cover. I could then keep TBC at F6 until all my lines are upgraded and then potentially move him into F7, R3 territory for cover / emergency loop. I don't want to have to make an injury trade to cover a donut for just one - two weeks. That will be the time I should be upgrading.

Thoughts?

 

[Dimmawit]

100% agree with the notion of having cover. Don't get me wrong I'd like to have a R/F in the fwds and be able to swing him into the ruck when needed for cover. Problem is that unless the draw allows it there are gonna be plenty of weeks where your R/F has to sit at R3 to guarantee that cover. So the flexibility you are paying for isn't even useable. In that case you've got an extra 200k min (TBC) sitting on the bench and a dead R/F in your fwds.

Whilst that would give you the ability to loophole a FWD player it is also denying you another rookie which could cost a further 200k. There seems to be a lot of rookie mid/fwds around (now at least) so for me, giving up another cash cow is also a big price to pay.

In short, ruck cover is certainly not something I'm promoting giving up. It could prove the master stroke if a hugely popular NicNat is a late out and your R3 tons it up, I'm just saying that it is gonna be exxxxpensive to adequelty cover and/or particularly so if you consider you are going in with a donut R/F to boot and so are a cash cow down also.

 

[DeliciousJedi]

100% agree with the notion of having cover. Don't get me wrong I'd like to have a R/F in the fwds and be able to swing him into the ruck when needed for cover. Problem is that unless the draw allows it there are gonna be plenty of weeks where your R/F has to sit at R3 to guarantee that cover. So the flexibility you are paying for isn't even useable. In that case you've got an extra 200k min (TBC) sitting on the bench and a dead R/F in your fwds.

In the early weeks, when you wouldn't have a full premium forward line, why would you have the mid-priced R/F on your ruck bench instead of playing in the forward line (where you said the rookie R/F is)?

The point is that whilst you don't need the R/F to cover the ruck, he is playing in your forward line and when he does cover, you have a forward rookie playing instead of the R/F rookie.

 

[Diabolical]

In the early weeks, when you wouldn't have a full premium forward line, why would you have the mid-priced R/F on your ruck bench instead of playing in the forward line (where you said the rookie R/F is)?

The point is that whilst you don't need the R/F to cover the ruck, he is playing in your forward line and when he does cover, you have a forward rookie playing instead of the R/F rookie.

You have summed up my thoughts nicely DJ

 

[Slugus]

In the early weeks, when you wouldn't have a full premium forward line, why would you have the mid-priced R/F on your ruck bench instead of playing in the forward line (where you said the rookie R/F is)?

The point is that whilst you don't need the R/F to cover the ruck, he is playing in your forward line and when he does cover, you have a forward rookie playing instead of the R/F rookie.

Yep, +1 to this

 

[Dimmawit]

My thinking - why pay the extra for a player you wouldn't really pick otherwise, unless he was there to guarantee against a ruck zero. In the case of late out.

If you've got the R/F playing in your forwards you are just as exposed as the guy who either didn't pick them or played him as R2, except my bet is that this guys has used the cash spared to strengthen other lines. There are plenty of FWD rookies that I think will make way more cash than a TBC, and potentially score as well. If your playing TBC then someone who didn't take him has spent that 200k elsewhere....they might be playing an extra ultra premo mid or premo back vs. you.

I suppose I'm saying why take the playing R/F at all unless, a) he is someone you think is the best option for his price (and that to me is highly doubtful) or b) you think you need to cover the R3 position in the case of a late out.

If b) is your concern then you've got no option but to leave him at R3 many weeks... If we are talking TBC then for half the rounds before the bye he will play early in the round and you'll have to decide where to play him, meaning if he is your ruck 'insurance' you can only get that by plonking him at R3...a lot to pay for an E.

The only other reason to keep the R/F is that early on you will need two trades a week to correct your team so if you don't take the ruck cover you could be in be position where you can't trade to cover a ruck late out if you roll the dice and go in without a backup.

Sorry for the long winded posts! Currently sitting in a beer cafe

 

[vc_bombers]

Call me crazy but I'm thinking of starting with Ivan Maric.

Had groin and ankle issues last couple of years, but looked ok when he was back last year.

Any thoughts?

 

[Philzsay]

In the early weeks, when you wouldn't have a full premium forward line, why would you have the mid-priced R/F on your ruck bench instead of playing in the forward line (where you said the rookie R/F is)?

The slight issue is that if you have your R/F on the forward field you may not have cover if one of your ruckman is a late out as either of your dpp r/f may have already played their game and hence locked into position. (Which is essentially paraphrasing Dimmawit's follow up post, so real purpose of this post is the upcoming example)

I did a quick check of my two likely premium rucks added with TBC in the forward line for up to round 10 and worked out that TBC only played after the 2 main rucks 7 out of 20 times, which would become even less when you add the rookie dpp's fixture into the equation.

Hence having TBC in the forward line gives me cover when I know at the start of the round one of my starting rucks is not playing but provides limited cover for a late out.