Discussion 2019: Super Early Player & SC Game Change Discussion

[Blades]

I actually hope they make some rule changes to freshen it up a bit for next year. It feels like pretty much everybody that is serious is following the same formula so it is largely coming down to luck with injuries and breakouts.

Except my formula was 1 + 1 = -11

 

[Herbie66]

I actually hope they make some rule changes to freshen it up a bit for next year. It feels like pretty much everybody that is serious is following the same formula so it is largely coming down to luck with injuries and breakouts.

I have been saying for a few seasons now that I think it would be a lot more interesting if we all "had to pick" 2-3 KPP in our forward lines (and back lines as well) instead of having 6 "extra" midfielders running around in our forward lines (and yes if CD keep giving these guys F/M status of course we will continue to pick them), if next year Bont, Danger and Dusty are all Forwards they may as well just make us pick 14 mids from the beginning.

Also do we really need to have 2 ruckmen in our starting 18, maybe reduce that to one with 2 on the bench and have more F/R options avialable.

 

[freowho]

I have been saying for a few seasons now that I think it would be a lot more interesting if we all "had to pick" 2-3 KPP in our forward lines (and back lines as well) instead of having 6 "extra" midfielders running around in our forward lines (and yes if CD keep giving these guys F/M status of course we will continue to pick them), if next year Bont, Danger and Dusty are all Forwards they may as well just make us pick 14 mids from the beginning.

Also do we really need to have 2 ruckmen in our starting 18, maybe reduce that to one with 2 on the bench and have more F/R options avialable.

Personally I would like to see more positions as you say Herbie with a more flexible bench to cover donuts. So you might have 2 KPD and 4 General Defenders but they can all be covered by the same bench. Unfortunately it's all about clicks so they would be making the game simpler rather than more complex if they were to change anything.

 

[Beg2Differ]

Personally I would like to see more positions as you say Herbie with a more flexible bench to cover donuts. So you might have 2 KPD and 4 General Defenders but they can all be covered by the same bench. Unfortunately it's all about clicks so they would be making the game simpler rather than more complex if they were to change anything.

Understand the principle but don’t know how you achieve it practically because how would you distinguish between those “bench” players who can occupy either a KP or general spot and those that can’t. Once person’s KP would be another person’s bench player.

However I have always thought it silly that you are forced to play one short in one position even if you have a bench player in another position. In reality surely you would play the spare player even if it was out of position. Perhaps this could be allowed for a discounted score. Not sure how that works practically either though.

 

[Herbie66]

Like the majority of people I will be waiting on prices and pre-seasons of : -

Doc , Zac Attack , the other Crouch , Libba & maybe Scully

I currently have Hanneberry at $ 360,000.00 so he must be of interest.

If Bont , Danger & Dusty are forwards these maybe insignificant but :-

Billings , Dahlhaus , Dixon , Kennedy & Wingard maybe around the $ 390,000.00 to $ 420,000.00 mark.

Like others the big debate will be over the rucks and whether we start both Gawn & Grundy.

Depending on starting rookies I would be hopeful of starting 3-5/6-2-3 so pointing a gun at my head

D: Docherty , Williams , Andrews
M: Kelly , Oliver , Treloar , Heeney , Libba
R: Gawn , Grundy
F: Danger , Bont , Dusty

and just to throw a few extra in Bennell , Freeman & Wigg.

geez no room for Fyfe , Titch or Cripps

 

[Darkie]

Great thread. Early thoughts, subject to positions and fitness:

Def
- Doc if meaningfully discounted
- Maybe Williams, or Weitering/Aish subject to JS
- Lots of high scorers (= high priced players) but limited value
- Don't go too deep given value elsewhere, and def rookies continuing to make good cash

Mid
- Dusty a lock
- Danger close
- Likely Fyfe or Titch for a fairly- but high-priced captain option
- Riskier/discounted other options include Rocky, Hanners, Treloar, Zerrett and Zorko if they can prove they can score solidly when tagged, maybe Macrae, Bont, Sloane, Murphy
- Consider going deep given the breadth of somewhat discounted options

Rucks
- Nic Nat
- Tough to find value elsewhere, maybe Ryder?
- Lock in Grundy (biggest ceiling now?) or Gawn (most proven now?) and forget about it?
- R-F key at R3 unless choosing a dedicated donut or a rookie looks like playing

Forward
- Gray (hopefully he gets more mid time)
- Maybe JJK (some role risk from Darling) or Greene
- Any of the key mids who get fwd eligibility
- Could be tempted on Billings if he scores at premium level from here
- Wells if very cheap
- Bennell again very tempting if rookie priced

General
- Pay a fair but high price for proven, durable, low volatility top scorers
- Don't be afraid to select a lot of rookies (this is where the cash comes from!)
- One mid pricer per line is okay, but be willing to pull the rip cord at round three if a better option presents

 

[Herbie66]

Docherty close to first picked. I assume he won’t be given the full discount

IF Docherty was to get the full 30% injury price discount he would be $ 441,900.00.

Absolutely no way he will be priced that low.

 

[IDIG]

For those keen on Lloyd, if he's priced at $600k does that change anything?

 

[Herbie66]

For those keen on Lloyd, if he's priced at $600k does that change anything?

great question IDIG

After tonights game I have Lloyd @ $ 602,580.80 and Laird @ $ 609,819.83.

Personally I was against paying $ 550,000.00 this season for Hurley/Yeo/Laird (hindsight suggests I needed to probably start at least one.

May all depend on what discount Doc and Zac attack receive and how their preseason is and selecting the breakout defender.

I guess the "value" mids next season to start could be B Crouch , Scully , Libba and Hanners so Laird , Lloyd , Docherty , Williams could be start able.

Then if you go Gawn and Grundy in the ruck the $$$ are already stretched.

Good discussion though

 

[Bontempele]

D: Brodie Smith, Z Williams, Docherty all locks ... Laird and Whitfield the pick of the premiums.
M: Dusty, Danger locks, maybe one of Fyfe/Titch, probably 1-2 of Libba/B Crouch/Scully
R: Gawn/Grundy and Sean Darcy (assuming he plays 7 games or less)
F: Heeney if F/M, T Greene (if plays 7 games or less), any of the gun mids if F/M, maybe Wallis at a new club

 

[Herbie66]

D: Brodie Smith, Z Williams, Docherty all locks ... Laird and Whitfield the pick of the premiums.
M: Dusty, Danger locks, maybe one of Fyfe/Titch, probably 1-2 of Libba/B Crouch/Scully
R: Gawn/Grundy and Sean Darcy (assuming he plays 7 games or less)
F: Heeney if F/M, T Greene (if plays 7 games or less), any of the gun mids if F/M, maybe Wallis at a new club

nice looking start , talk that Smith might be OK to resume in the SANFL in 2-3 weeks

 

[IDIG]

Any chance Danger is m/f? Hope not.

 

[Manikato1]

So when you say rule changes, you mean to scoring? Or actual AFL rule changes. If AFL introduce zones I'm curious to know if any coaches here think that will affect any players scoring opportunities. Will it for example result in an increase of scoring for say a key forward who does not need to contender with the spare man back.

 

[couchPOTATO]

I reckon any SC rule changes next year would be increasing trades from 30 and/or increasing trades per round to 3 and/or increasing trades during bye rounds from 3 to 4 and/or making bye rounds best 16 or 17 (IMO best 15 would be WAY too easy unless trades are reduced from 3 to 2).

I can't see the 6-8-2-6 position setup changing (as others have suggested) unless an R2 becomes an M9 but I prefer the status quo in any case. Further reducing the number of premium f/ms would be great but I don't see it happening to the extent that it makes much difference.

The one change I hope is eventually made is to introduce the ability to switch 3 players between lines, ie if Sicily D/F is currently F6, Ahern F/M is M8 and Brayshaw D/M is D6 they should be able to be "subbed" with Sicily as D6, Brayshaw as M8 and Ahern as F6 (before any of them have played) without having to make a trade to allow it.

 

[jaca]

I’d quite like to see 20 trades.

 

[Herbie66]

Any chance Danger is m/f? Hope not.

confused

do you want him as a F only ? or a M only ?

chances are Bont , Danger & Dusty are all F/M if so they may as well do away with the F line and make us pick 14 mids from the start

 

[IDIG]

confused

do you want him as a F only ? or a M only ?

chances are Bont , Danger & Dusty are all F/M if so they may as well do away with the F line and make us pick 14 mids from the start

Mid only. As mids they’re all interesting propositions. As forwards they’re no brainers and all our forward lines start looking the same, especially if you add Heeney as a 4th.

 

[Bermi]

chances are Bont , Danger & Dusty are all F/M if so they may as well do away with the F line and make us pick 14 mids from the start

Maybe just change the ratio of time in the Fwd and Mid to make it harder to qualify as a Fwd/Mid.

 

[couchPOTATO]

I’d quite like to see 20 trades.

I remember having 20 trades, then 24 trades then 30 when the byes got brought in. It is trending one way, more site traffic and appeal for the masses could be the reason.

With 20 trades I would really be wanting the AFL to revert to a split round (22 round) format rather than multibye round (23 round) format, or the "best 15" multibye scoring mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

[Herbie66]

Mid only. As mids they’re all interesting propositions. As forwards they’re no brainers and all our forward lines start looking the same, especially if you add Heeney as a 4th.

exactly I agree , think they should make it so we have to pick at least 2 KPF as a minimum