KISS.....you don't want your keepers missing games through injury, rest or suspension. You can cop a game here or there from a high averaging player, say Fyfe who you can make up points with a great captain score, but a player on the cusp of the top 10 averages in any position needs to play 21/22 games to be in the top 6/8/10 in aggregate. Last season you could have copped Hodge in your initial team due to his high average, and his 177 early, but preferred him from round 9 after missing rounds 6-8. Averaging high 80s for 22 games is acceptable. Averaging high 80s for 17 games becomes untenable.
Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
I think it's a bit presumptuous, or even dangerous, to assume all of Shaw, Boyd and McVeigh will be must haves/top 3 Defs. Given the ages we are looking at, I'd be willing to back one or more of them to PIT60 outside the top 3 Defs. Also, you rarely end up with all the top scorers on any line. Remember the lesson from 2014, as I reminded people when I re-opened this thread. The post is copied in below. I think one of those players you are referring to will need replacing at some stage too. We rarely get through a season without that happening on at least 3 lines. That opens up a spot for you as well.
One of the keys to getting the break out player in any line, is to get them before their price becomes too big. ie, you don't want to overpay for them. I think that's a wise philosophy for our starting teams too. While I concede some of our initial picks need to be ones we over payed for, I think it is best we try and limit how much we burn on those overpayments.
Sorry, it's a bit of a disjointed answer, as I've been in and edited it 5 times already.
They say that everything old is new again!
Looking at the opening 2 posts of this thread from the pre-season of 2014, you could be forgiven for thinking it referred to 2016!
A quick browse will show you what I mean, rather than me reproducing them here.
In a nutshell, we had 6 players added to the Def list in 2014, that in 2013 couldn't be chosen as Defs.
McVeigh, Bartell and Walker lead the Def prices at $572,500 and we also had Mitchell S, Hodge, and Simpson K added in for good measure.
Some Coaches on the site were bemoaning that the skill was being removed from the game, and that nearly every team would end up with these six as their final Def line, and they'd all be top 8-10 Defs, for sure! I warned this was trap thinking, and unlikely to happen, on both accounts.
So how does history show that they went?
It's interesting to look back, isn't it? Only three of the six turned out to be good picks! Interestingly enough, Bartel and McVeigh were two of those, and here they again, two years later!
The other thing I find interesting is their lowest available trade in price prior to Round 14. The successful ones never dipped more than $50k! Keep in mind, a player will drop 10% roughly, just by scoring at last seasons average. The others dipped a bit more, but that might have just been enough to trap some unsuspecting coaches.
So what lesson do we take from this for 2016?
The supposed new riches in the Def line won't all turn out to be smart picks.
The ones that do turn out to be smart picks probably won't drop that much in price! (but they will drop 8-12%, at some stage!)
Looking at the opening 2 posts of this thread from the pre-season of 2014, you could be forgiven for thinking it referred to 2016!
A quick browse will show you what I mean, rather than me reproducing them here.
In a nutshell, we had 6 players added to the Def list in 2014, that in 2013 couldn't be chosen as Defs.
McVeigh, Bartell and Walker lead the Def prices at $572,500 and we also had Mitchell S, Hodge, and Simpson K added in for good measure.
Some Coaches on the site were bemoaning that the skill was being removed from the game, and that nearly every team would end up with these six as their final Def line, and they'd all be top 8-10 Defs, for sure! I warned this was trap thinking, and unlikely to happen, on both accounts.
So how does history show that they went?
It's interesting to look back, isn't it? Only three of the six turned out to be good picks! Interestingly enough, Bartel and McVeigh were two of those, and here they again, two years later!
The other thing I find interesting is their lowest available trade in price prior to Round 14. The successful ones never dipped more than $50k! Keep in mind, a player will drop 10% roughly, just by scoring at last seasons average. The others dipped a bit more, but that might have just been enough to trap some unsuspecting coaches.
So what lesson do we take from this for 2016?
The supposed new riches in the Def line won't all turn out to be smart picks.
The ones that do turn out to be smart picks probably won't drop that much in price! (but they will drop 8-12%, at some stage!)
Last edited:
Hey ****, thanks for that
Hurn is underpriced for what he will probably deliver, but I doubt he will deliver a top 10-12 Def season. His only 2 seasons in the 90's were 2009 and 2012, and while he could potentially spike, I'd be expecting another mid to high 80's season from him.
He might be safer than those younger players, but he is also less likely to break into the top 6-8 Defs for the season too.
Hurn is underpriced for what he will probably deliver, but I doubt he will deliver a top 10-12 Def season. His only 2 seasons in the 90's were 2009 and 2012, and while he could potentially spike, I'd be expecting another mid to high 80's season from him.
He might be safer than those younger players, but he is also less likely to break into the top 6-8 Defs for the season too.
Last edited:
Hey t.t6,
most teams end up with a dead Rookie or two from the start. They only play one or two games, and are too cheap to trade out, if you didn't spot them as needing fixing, in the corrective trade period of the season. This is usually your D8, F8 or even R3 in recent time. Those with two FD's are doing two things:
Firstly, they are committing to, or doing their best to, not end up with other deadwood Rookies. They need to trade them out, or be well behind other teams in cash generation.
Secondly, they are choosing the tools they will work with, as opposed to Coaches who don't plan their FD's, and end up hoping their deadwood Rookies will fit the bill, and do the job.
It's a risky manouvre, and really relies on you not needing to make too many corrective trades, so you need to nail your playing Rookies. The good news is, you have fewer playing Rookies, so it is slightly easier to do that.
At the moment, I am running a M/F and a D/F floating donut. This could change, pending selections this week.
most teams end up with a dead Rookie or two from the start. They only play one or two games, and are too cheap to trade out, if you didn't spot them as needing fixing, in the corrective trade period of the season. This is usually your D8, F8 or even R3 in recent time. Those with two FD's are doing two things:
Firstly, they are committing to, or doing their best to, not end up with other deadwood Rookies. They need to trade them out, or be well behind other teams in cash generation.
Secondly, they are choosing the tools they will work with, as opposed to Coaches who don't plan their FD's, and end up hoping their deadwood Rookies will fit the bill, and do the job.
It's a risky manouvre, and really relies on you not needing to make too many corrective trades, so you need to nail your playing Rookies. The good news is, you have fewer playing Rookies, so it is slightly easier to do that.
At the moment, I am running a M/F and a D/F floating donut. This could change, pending selections this week.
All well and good with the Shaw/Goldy discussion but here is the thing that plays on my mind - I know I have 10 mill to spend now, I don't know how much rookie income I will have during the season...
I think Shaw and Goldy are overpriced but I also think that they will be in the top three of their lines come seasons end. Yes, that is a prediction at this point in time, but I can use their histories that support my prediction. Now, if I could safely predict the other top 2/3 rucks or backs (aggregate or avg) then I would happily pick them first and spend the difference. The problem is that I can't and I am also very uncomfortable at this point with my income streams during the season. (Note - the attitude 'the rookies will show' is a bit to my mind like the attitude 'safe as houses' - tends to be correct until the bubble pops...ie it can be seen as naive)
SO, picking Shaw and Goldy costs me say $200k more now than it might at some point in the future, BUT I save at least two trades AND I have the ability to potentially limited rookie cash to upgrade other positions when those players become apparent.
All based off my top 3 predictions in rucks and backs, but that is what the game is about, right?
I think Shaw and Goldy are overpriced but I also think that they will be in the top three of their lines come seasons end. Yes, that is a prediction at this point in time, but I can use their histories that support my prediction. Now, if I could safely predict the other top 2/3 rucks or backs (aggregate or avg) then I would happily pick them first and spend the difference. The problem is that I can't and I am also very uncomfortable at this point with my income streams during the season. (Note - the attitude 'the rookies will show' is a bit to my mind like the attitude 'safe as houses' - tends to be correct until the bubble pops...ie it can be seen as naive)
SO, picking Shaw and Goldy costs me say $200k more now than it might at some point in the future, BUT I save at least two trades AND I have the ability to potentially limited rookie cash to upgrade other positions when those players become apparent.
All based off my top 3 predictions in rucks and backs, but that is what the game is about, right?
You can't assume you have saved two trades by starting Goldy and Shaw. If the players you chose instead of them perform well, and are Keepers also, how have you saved two trades?
Secondly, I equate starting Goldy/Shaw/Deledio (or two of them) to someone saying "I'm happy to finish top 3,000 this season, but I will sacrifice top 1,000 to make that even more certain." To compete with those that start with only one (or none) who also nail their $450-$500k+ selections, you have to beat them with your cheaper selections. Unless Goldy/Shaw/Deledio perform at an extraordinary level, you are giving up too big of an advantage to the other camp, on a points/dollar basis. This is fine, if you think you can nail your cheap selections, or if you are happy to sacrifice your chance at a really great result, to secure a very good result.
Hey J44,
as you probably read, my current Ruck line is: Martin, Currie (Grimley) - with no DPP link in the Fwd line.
This is totally dependent on selection of course. I am surprised more people aren't considering it, given the concerns we have on cash generation. Depending on what Nicholls is doing, Currie might get us around $200-$250k in growth. If he is selected Round 1, where GC have an easy Ruck opponent (Ess), I'm confident he will stay in the team, as 3 of the next 4 games, they have tough Ruck opponents (Fre, carl, Bris, Nth).
as you probably read, my current Ruck line is: Martin, Currie (Grimley) - with no DPP link in the Fwd line.
This is totally dependent on selection of course. I am surprised more people aren't considering it, given the concerns we have on cash generation. Depending on what Nicholls is doing, Currie might get us around $200-$250k in growth. If he is selected Round 1, where GC have an easy Ruck opponent (Ess), I'm confident he will stay in the team, as 3 of the next 4 games, they have tough Ruck opponents (Fre, carl, Bris, Nth).
Hi Saint_nick, thanks for the kind words.
If you are happy that you'll never, ever trade in a R/F during the season, Goetz is probably the best R3 Donut for loopholing your Captain. If you think there is even an outside chance you will bring in a R/F into your Fwd line down the track, it should be Wyatt or Max King.
I had Goetz as my R3 for a few hours last week, but I like the flexibility a R/F gives me, even if it is only Grimley (at R3), and no link in my team with him. At least it creates options down the track for me.
If you are happy that you'll never, ever trade in a R/F during the season, Goetz is probably the best R3 Donut for loopholing your Captain. If you think there is even an outside chance you will bring in a R/F into your Fwd line down the track, it should be Wyatt or Max King.
I had Goetz as my R3 for a few hours last week, but I like the flexibility a R/F gives me, even if it is only Grimley (at R3), and no link in my team with him. At least it creates options down the track for me.
Sometimes Rowsus when I read your posts the little fella in the back of my head says 'here is another example of your ability to "cast pearls before swine."' I respect your opinions and thank you for making me think about SC from a perspective I may well never have considered.
Some here seem to lose sight of the point that your opinions are just that - opinions. I don't always agree with them; so why do I value them so highly? Because you provide analysis and data to support them. That is what I look for at SCS rather than yet another unsupported opinion / statement. Perhaps that is why this thread has hit 281 pages?
Some here seem to lose sight of the point that your opinions are just that - opinions. I don't always agree with them; so why do I value them so highly? Because you provide analysis and data to support them. That is what I look for at SCS rather than yet another unsupported opinion / statement. Perhaps that is why this thread has hit 281 pages?
How can we go by aggregate when we don't know how many games a player will play, other than guessing with Bartel, Boyd types?
As I see it we can only go by average when picking players.
If you pick a player on aggregate who has a lower average than a player with a higher average and lower aggregate and that player goes down for a few rounds, then you end up with a lower aggregate and lower average player.
As I see it we can only go by average when picking players.
If you pick a player on aggregate who has a lower average than a player with a higher average and lower aggregate and that player goes down for a few rounds, then you end up with a lower aggregate and lower average player.
Players with histories of injuries, rests and suspensions are targets. Everybody picking Franklin is factoring in his missed games in the second half on the season and has (or should have) a plan to counter this scenario. Dusty Martin on the other hand has missed 4 games in six years, so he is one who you'd consider at a lower average but with a better chance of being at the top of the aggregate.
Fair enough I suppose.
Do we know for sure that Buddy will definitely, 100% miss games later in the season?
Heath Shaw for example played all games last year, but before that had a history of missing 3, 4, 5 games a year for a number of reasons.
I know looking at history gives us a guide to what players might do in the future.
For me, I look at average and if they are fit and had a good pre season and playing same or similar role in their team, I'll probably pick them regardless of assumption of missing games for whatever reason.
Do we know for sure that Buddy will definitely, 100% miss games later in the season?
Heath Shaw for example played all games last year, but before that had a history of missing 3, 4, 5 games a year for a number of reasons.
I know looking at history gives us a guide to what players might do in the future.
For me, I look at average and if they are fit and had a good pre season and playing same or similar role in their team, I'll probably pick them regardless of assumption of missing games for whatever reason.
Fair enough I suppose.
Do we know for sure that Buddy will definitely, 100% miss games later in the season?
Heath Shaw for example played all games last year, but before that had a history of missing 3, 4, 5 games a year for a number of reasons.
I know looking at history gives us a guide to what players might do in the future.
For me, I look at average and if they are fit and had a good pre season and playing same or similar role in their team, I'll probably pick them regardless of assumption of missing games for whatever reason.
Do we know for sure that Buddy will definitely, 100% miss games later in the season?
Heath Shaw for example played all games last year, but before that had a history of missing 3, 4, 5 games a year for a number of reasons.
I know looking at history gives us a guide to what players might do in the future.
For me, I look at average and if they are fit and had a good pre season and playing same or similar role in their team, I'll probably pick them regardless of assumption of missing games for whatever reason.
Looking at last season, Fyfe's PIT70 average brought him back to the field.
2237 points from 18 games + 280 (70*4) = 2517 which is an average of 114.4 for the season.
Pendlebury - 2557 from 22 games
Hannebery - 2519 from 22 games.
Dangerfield - 2518 from 21 games (1 game was cancelled)
Cheers for the discussion Rowsus.
My final sentence underlined why I think I save two trades - because I think Goldy Shaw will be a great destination at the end of the season (read - Goldy and Shaw top 3 in their lines and therefore they are 'required' in one's team by the end of the season)
Your assumption is that there will be great $450-$500k selections - I can't see one in the backs and I already have The Beard in the rucks
Point taken on the good v great result - honestly I doubt I can make top 1k overall, I still have too much to learn about trading. Last year was a train wreck, so top 3k overall is probably a good aim...
My final sentence underlined why I think I save two trades - because I think Goldy Shaw will be a great destination at the end of the season
(read - Goldy and Shaw top 3 in their lines and therefore they are 'required' in one's team by the end of the season)Your assumption is that there will be great $450-$500k selections - I can't see one in the backs and I already have The Beard in the rucks
Point taken on the good v great result - honestly I doubt I can make top 1k overall, I still have too much to learn about trading. Last year was a train wreck, so top 3k overall is probably a good aim...
Well, he's currently sitting R2 in my team, but if he is picked in Round 1, I think everybody should seriously consider him for at least R3. I will add a couple of sub clauses there:
That doesn't apply to teams that are setting up Ruck coverage through a R3/F4-6 link.
It also doesn't apply to teams that are nailing there Captain's loophole to a non-playing R3.
I think if Currie is playing he will score a minimum of 65-70, and possibly even average as high as 80. This means he can give us anywhere from $160k-$230k in growth. Given we have concerns with our Cash generation this season, it would seem crazy to pass up a Rookie that might well ean us $180k!
All subject to selection, of course. The interesting twist is, it is quite conceivable GC don't pick him this week, as Essendon don't present a Rucking strength problem to be countered, but then GC do select Currie in Round 2 against Freo/Sandilands!
- Status