Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 3,147
- Likes
- 3,311
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Hi Rowsus!
Just read this piece you wrote on rockliff and you have convinced me that his massive scoring is no fluke. Originally I didn't think about rocky because I thought beams might hinder him, but thinking about Hanley last year, I firmly believe he can rack it up again. He is here to stay and a star at this game. I have been stressing about whether to take ablett or not, and that adding ablett means I have to pick nicnat as my R2. BUT I've decided to pick up rocky.. And with his extra money, I was able to get Maric as well for consistency over nicnat.
Thanks so much for your continued insight. It really helps A Lot!
Just read this piece you wrote on rockliff and you have convinced me that his massive scoring is no fluke. Originally I didn't think about rocky because I thought beams might hinder him, but thinking about Hanley last year, I firmly believe he can rack it up again. He is here to stay and a star at this game. I have been stressing about whether to take ablett or not, and that adding ablett means I have to pick nicnat as my R2. BUT I've decided to pick up rocky.. And with his extra money, I was able to get Maric as well for consistency over nicnat.
Thanks so much for your continued insight. It really helps A Lot!
Hi wT2k, happy to help! 
It may be proven to be wrong in the long run, and while there may not be a lot between the 2 combos, I do like Rocky/Maric better than Ablett/NicNat. As I say though, there shouldn't be a lot in it. The best part of Rocky/Maric is, I think Maric is less likely to need upgrading than NicNat, and they're both about the same chance to be injury affected.
It may be proven to be wrong in the long run, and while there may not be a lot between the 2 combos, I do like Rocky/Maric better than Ablett/NicNat. As I say though, there shouldn't be a lot in it. The best part of Rocky/Maric is, I think Maric is less likely to need upgrading than NicNat, and they're both about the same chance to be injury affected.
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 262
- Likes
- 177
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Hey Row,
One thing is for sure..you know how to sell a player!
Does it bother you that over the first couple of nab games Beams had double the amount of first possessions than Rocky? (14-7) Which resulted in Beams pts/tog100% score being 150 to Rockys 116.
Also the fact he will play a bit more forward this year. Over the first half of the year in 2013 when he played mainly forward, he only kicked 7 goals and averaged on 96 sc points per game.
I had him in my team early but then these things have been nagging at me.
What are your thoughts?
One thing is for sure..you know how to sell a player!
Does it bother you that over the first couple of nab games Beams had double the amount of first possessions than Rocky? (14-7) Which resulted in Beams pts/tog100% score being 150 to Rockys 116.
Also the fact he will play a bit more forward this year. Over the first half of the year in 2013 when he played mainly forward, he only kicked 7 goals and averaged on 96 sc points per game.
I had him in my team early but then these things have been nagging at me.
What are your thoughts?
Hey Mike,
nope, none of those things bother me. The NAB Cup shouldn't be used for guaging/judging Premiums, only Rookies, and the cheaper players. Tags aren't run, structures aren't the same, so many things are different. As to the Fwd time, that's pretty speculative at the moment. It's yet to occur.
Remember Goldy throwing in a couple of dreadful NAB games in 2013, and everyone jumping off him? The only thing Prems should be judged on in NAB Cup games is how they are moving, not what they are producing.
nope, none of those things bother me. The NAB Cup shouldn't be used for guaging/judging Premiums, only Rookies, and the cheaper players. Tags aren't run, structures aren't the same, so many things are different. As to the Fwd time, that's pretty speculative at the moment. It's yet to occur.
Remember Goldy throwing in a couple of dreadful NAB games in 2013, and everyone jumping off him? The only thing Prems should be judged on in NAB Cup games is how they are moving, not what they are producing.
Hey Rowsus. Hope all is well. Just wondering on your thoughts re Ibbotson? I am tossing up between him and KK for D4. I also need to decide between Taylor and Lumumba for D3 (could also throw MJ into that mix too I guess, but I know you're keen on him so no doubt you would recommend him over the other two!).
Also, have you ever considered Rich as a value pick at say M5? I saw him in a few early teams but he seems to have fallen out of favour of late. Could he be an ideal stepping stone candidate?
Also, have you ever considered Rich as a value pick at say M5? I saw him in a few early teams but he seems to have fallen out of favour of late. Could he be an ideal stepping stone candidate?
Hey Slammer,
historically the only player being that affects Pendles is Swan.
In the last 3 seasons Pendles has averaged 107 in the 9 games where Swan didn't play, and 129 in the 52 games where Swan did play.
If we look at Pendles lowest scoring games in that period we can see that of his 7 worst scores (his only sub 100 scores in those 3 seasons) 5 were in losses, and generally in bigger losses. He has another 6 scores in the same period, that were between 100 and 110, and they were all in winning teams.
Looking at the table, it's not a case of another player dominating, and putting Pendles in the shade. When you look at the top, where we see the other players season averages, for the most part, when Pendles had a quiet day, they still played at about their season averages.
This next table shows how he performed if one of them wasn't playing.
We can see that apart from Swan missing dropping Pendles average considerably, the other missing have little affect on him.
Pendlebury has scored 110+ in 48 of his 61 games in the last 3 seasons, and while he can score lower in losses, particularly bigger losses, it's hard to see him dropping below something like 117 this season. The loss of another Midfielder would appear to have little affect on him, going by these tables.
As to Swan running through the Middle more, it might happen, but I don't think it will boost his mid time that much. I'm not a collingwood person, so I can't confidently say how much prime Midtime J Thomas would have had, and how much Swan would have had with Thomas there anyway. My gut feel is we are only talking possibly minutes/game extra Mid for Swan due to the other missing Midfielders.
historically the only player being that affects Pendles is Swan.
In the last 3 seasons Pendles has averaged 107 in the 9 games where Swan didn't play, and 129 in the 52 games where Swan did play.
If we look at Pendles lowest scoring games in that period we can see that of his 7 worst scores (his only sub 100 scores in those 3 seasons) 5 were in losses, and generally in bigger losses. He has another 6 scores in the same period, that were between 100 and 110, and they were all in winning teams.
Looking at the table, it's not a case of another player dominating, and putting Pendles in the shade. When you look at the top, where we see the other players season averages, for the most part, when Pendles had a quiet day, they still played at about their season averages.
This next table shows how he performed if one of them wasn't playing.
We can see that apart from Swan missing dropping Pendles average considerably, the other missing have little affect on him.
Pendlebury has scored 110+ in 48 of his 61 games in the last 3 seasons, and while he can score lower in losses, particularly bigger losses, it's hard to see him dropping below something like 117 this season. The loss of another Midfielder would appear to have little affect on him, going by these tables.
As to Swan running through the Middle more, it might happen, but I don't think it will boost his mid time that much. I'm not a collingwood person, so I can't confidently say how much prime Midtime J Thomas would have had, and how much Swan would have had with Thomas there anyway. My gut feel is we are only talking possibly minutes/game extra Mid for Swan due to the other missing Midfielders.
Interestingly though that Pendles scores drop through losses (particularly big losses).
I can see that Collingwood may struggle this year and will not make the eight.
Has me thinking again whether or not to leave Pendles out and see if he will drop significantly in price.
I would imagine (including yourself) he is in most teams.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apologies if this has already been asked.
Does Goddard become an automatic selection if the Essendon players get suspended today?
Obviously the Bombers will struggle all year if it is the worst case scenario, but Goddard still knows how to find the footy and the Bombers will still get a fair amount of points, of which Goddard should be a large beneficiary.
He's not in my team at the moment, but I'm strongly considering him (depending on what happens today).
Does Goddard become an automatic selection if the Essendon players get suspended today?
Obviously the Bombers will struggle all year if it is the worst case scenario, but Goddard still knows how to find the footy and the Bombers will still get a fair amount of points, of which Goddard should be a large beneficiary.
He's not in my team at the moment, but I'm strongly considering him (depending on what happens today).
Hey Rowsus,
Just one other question I had was the Rucks.
Scores in the NAB were not particularly high with the Rucks.
I know we shouldn't read too much in the NAB but are you concerned about the new rules and how they will affect scores?
I have contemplated throughout the NAB of starting with two cheaper Rucks in say Nic Nat and a Leunberger and see what happens. Then look to upgrade later if needed.
I may sacrifice a few points if Nic Nat or Leuy don't perform but I guess I could look at how I can make up the difference with bringing in better premiums in other lines.
Any thoughts?
Just one other question I had was the Rucks.
Scores in the NAB were not particularly high with the Rucks.
I know we shouldn't read too much in the NAB but are you concerned about the new rules and how they will affect scores?
I have contemplated throughout the NAB of starting with two cheaper Rucks in say Nic Nat and a Leunberger and see what happens. Then look to upgrade later if needed.
I may sacrifice a few points if Nic Nat or Leuy don't perform but I guess I could look at how I can make up the difference with bringing in better premiums in other lines.
Any thoughts?
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 19,855
- Likes
- 929
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Not from my own viewpoint.
Looking at forward options I believe there are going to be many players average around same mark, including Goddard so I do not feel he makes much difference either way. If you have him and he scores very well all good but someone else may have another player, lets say Swan, Brent Harvey, Franklin or Zorko as just a few examples that may score similar and not massive difference in price I would suspect.
Obviously byes may have a say based on balance at the time but still overall not seeing it as crucial to have him in whatever happens today.
Looking at forward options I believe there are going to be many players average around same mark, including Goddard so I do not feel he makes much difference either way. If you have him and he scores very well all good but someone else may have another player, lets say Swan, Brent Harvey, Franklin or Zorko as just a few examples that may score similar and not massive difference in price I would suspect.
Obviously byes may have a say based on balance at the time but still overall not seeing it as crucial to have him in whatever happens today.
Hey Rowsus,
Just thinking what your thoughts are on Will Minson?
Been tossing up between him and Maric all preseason and he is quite enticing at 500k
My question is do you know why he broke out in 2013 with a whopping average of 114 and then why he slumped back to his former self last year with an average of 93.3?
Will the new ruck rules help or hinder his output for 2015?
Are there better ruck options (not a fan of Nic Nat)
Thanks mate! Love your work
Just thinking what your thoughts are on Will Minson?
Been tossing up between him and Maric all preseason and he is quite enticing at 500k
My question is do you know why he broke out in 2013 with a whopping average of 114 and then why he slumped back to his former self last year with an average of 93.3?
Will the new ruck rules help or hinder his output for 2015?
Are there better ruck options (not a fan of Nic Nat)
Thanks mate! Love your work
Thanks mate, sorry to hear about the unemployment, given today Ablett looks like a certain starter now and i've spent the $80k elsewhere now i'm going to run with the Ablett-Beams option despite the scary crazy Rockliff stats and just anoint him my number 1 upgrade target. Hopefully he doesn't punish me for that!
The only other option i've got is to downgrade Cockatoo to a $120kish rookie and i'd probably have the cash to go Beams to Rocky..... will probably change my mind 100 times in the next few days!
The only other option i've got is to downgrade Cockatoo to a $120kish rookie and i'd probably have the cash to go Beams to Rocky..... will probably change my mind 100 times in the next few days!
Hey Bobbie,
here is what I wrote about Ibbotson way back in Nov last year, nothing has changed for me with him.
There are 2 ways of looking at the Lumumba Vs Taylor question.
History - outside of one season, Taylor is a 21 games 83-87/game player. Outside of one season Lumumba is a 20 game 72-78/game player. Using the rule that history trumps potential, you take Taylor.
The 2nd way to look at it is, Lumumba's history is largely irrelevant, as he has had a Club change, and an apparant role change. Has this turned him into a different player, SC-wise?
I want 90+'s in my Def Keepers. Taylor scores at that level in patches every season, but also well below it in patches, too. If Lumumba plays as much on-ball/Wing time as he did in the NAB, then he has the potential (there's that word again!) to reach that level. I think Lumumba is more likely to give us a 90+ season than Taylor. He would need monitoring though. If he starts playing more HBF, and scoring in his old pattern, I'd ditch him quickly.
If I was looking for a Stepping Stone in the Mids, Rich would be a candidate. You need to believe he can give you very high 90's consistently, before you took him. I don't think he will quite make that level, so no, I've never really considered him. I don't believe there are any ideal Mid Stepping Stone candidates this season. Wells and Rich are probably the best 2, but it depends on each individual Coaches idea of success. I don't think either will reach what I'd want from them, so I am staying away.
here is what I wrote about Ibbotson way back in Nov last year, nothing has changed for me with him.
There are 2 ways of looking at the Lumumba Vs Taylor question.
History - outside of one season, Taylor is a 21 games 83-87/game player. Outside of one season Lumumba is a 20 game 72-78/game player. Using the rule that history trumps potential, you take Taylor.
The 2nd way to look at it is, Lumumba's history is largely irrelevant, as he has had a Club change, and an apparant role change. Has this turned him into a different player, SC-wise?
I want 90+'s in my Def Keepers. Taylor scores at that level in patches every season, but also well below it in patches, too. If Lumumba plays as much on-ball/Wing time as he did in the NAB, then he has the potential (there's that word again!) to reach that level. I think Lumumba is more likely to give us a 90+ season than Taylor. He would need monitoring though. If he starts playing more HBF, and scoring in his old pattern, I'd ditch him quickly.
If I was looking for a Stepping Stone in the Mids, Rich would be a candidate. You need to believe he can give you very high 90's consistently, before you took him. I don't think he will quite make that level, so no, I've never really considered him. I don't believe there are any ideal Mid Stepping Stone candidates this season. Wells and Rich are probably the best 2, but it depends on each individual Coaches idea of success. I don't think either will reach what I'd want from them, so I am staying away.
IMO not an Automatic pick, either way. Essendon players in general should be avoided. It's really hard to know where they are at.
Mentally, I expect them to play really well in the first 1-3 Rounds, as they feel the burden lift. I then expect them to hit a flat spot, as the weight of everything they've been through hits home. Probably will take them until around the byes to settle into "normal" mode. As we can't guess who is more affected (mentally) than others, I'm avoiding them all. That counts double for their Rookies, as we have absolutely no idea how they fit into plans, or what their JS is, now the full squad is operating "normally".
Mentally, I expect them to play really well in the first 1-3 Rounds, as they feel the burden lift. I then expect them to hit a flat spot, as the weight of everything they've been through hits home. Probably will take them until around the byes to settle into "normal" mode. As we can't guess who is more affected (mentally) than others, I'm avoiding them all. That counts double for their Rookies, as we have absolutely no idea how they fit into plans, or what their JS is, now the full squad is operating "normally".
Hey Bobbie,
here is what I wrote about Ibbotson way back in Nov last year, nothing has changed for me with him.
There are 2 ways of looking at the Lumumba Vs Taylor question.
History - outside of one season, Taylor is a 21 games 83-87/game player. Outside of one season Lumumba is a 20 game 72-78/game player. Using the rule that history trumps potential, you take Taylor.
The 2nd way to look at it is, Lumumba's history is largely irrelevant, as he has had a Club change, and an apparant role change. Has this turned him into a different player, SC-wise?
I want 90+'s in my Def Keepers. Taylor scores at that level in patches every season, but also well below it in patches, too. If Lumumba plays as much on-ball/Wing time as he did in the NAB, then he has the potential (there's that word again!) to reach that level. I think Lumumba is more likely to give us a 90+ season than Taylor. He would need monitoring though. If he starts playing more HBF, and scoring in his old pattern, I'd ditch him quickly.
If I was looking for a Stepping Stone in the Mids, Rich would be a candidate. You need to believe he can give you very high 90's consistently, before you took him. I don't think he will quite make that level, so no, I've never really considered him. I don't believe there are any ideal Mid Stepping Stone candidates this season. Wells and Rich are probably the best 2, but it depends on each individual Coaches idea of success. I don't think either will reach what I'd want from them, so I am staying away.
here is what I wrote about Ibbotson way back in Nov last year, nothing has changed for me with him.
There are 2 ways of looking at the Lumumba Vs Taylor question.
History - outside of one season, Taylor is a 21 games 83-87/game player. Outside of one season Lumumba is a 20 game 72-78/game player. Using the rule that history trumps potential, you take Taylor.
The 2nd way to look at it is, Lumumba's history is largely irrelevant, as he has had a Club change, and an apparant role change. Has this turned him into a different player, SC-wise?
I want 90+'s in my Def Keepers. Taylor scores at that level in patches every season, but also well below it in patches, too. If Lumumba plays as much on-ball/Wing time as he did in the NAB, then he has the potential (there's that word again!) to reach that level. I think Lumumba is more likely to give us a 90+ season than Taylor. He would need monitoring though. If he starts playing more HBF, and scoring in his old pattern, I'd ditch him quickly.
If I was looking for a Stepping Stone in the Mids, Rich would be a candidate. You need to believe he can give you very high 90's consistently, before you took him. I don't think he will quite make that level, so no, I've never really considered him. I don't believe there are any ideal Mid Stepping Stone candidates this season. Wells and Rich are probably the best 2, but it depends on each individual Coaches idea of success. I don't think either will reach what I'd want from them, so I am staying away.
Hey Slammer,
I think the Rucks scores might suffer a little, but not as much as some people think. New scoring system and probably 5 to 10 less stoppages per game with the new holding the ball interpretation, potentially both eat into their scoring. Having said that, I'd be surprised if the difference is huge, My guess is the Rucks most affected may lose 5 - 8 /game from their averages. I certainly wouldn't let the NAB sway you in anyway. Shortened games, with possibly less tackling, less fatigue factor, and next to no tagging meant there were very few stoppages in some games.
I think if you start with any cheaper Rucks, they still have to pass the "Stepping Stone" test, to be considered a good pick. In my definition, that usually means they need to make at least $80k along the way, preferably $100k. Given we are expecting some devaluation in the Rucks, possibly by my guesstimated 5 to 8/game, you could possibly drop that $80-100k requirement to $50-70k. Certainly starting one or two value Rucks is a viable option, I just can't find any I am very confident in.
I think the Rucks scores might suffer a little, but not as much as some people think. New scoring system and probably 5 to 10 less stoppages per game with the new holding the ball interpretation, potentially both eat into their scoring. Having said that, I'd be surprised if the difference is huge, My guess is the Rucks most affected may lose 5 - 8 /game from their averages. I certainly wouldn't let the NAB sway you in anyway. Shortened games, with possibly less tackling, less fatigue factor, and next to no tagging meant there were very few stoppages in some games.
I think if you start with any cheaper Rucks, they still have to pass the "Stepping Stone" test, to be considered a good pick. In my definition, that usually means they need to make at least $80k along the way, preferably $100k. Given we are expecting some devaluation in the Rucks, possibly by my guesstimated 5 to 8/game, you could possibly drop that $80-100k requirement to $50-70k. Certainly starting one or two value Rucks is a viable option, I just can't find any I am very confident in.
- Status