Position Rucks Discussion

[Adrenaline]

I want to introduce another conundrum to the debate. Is it worth going Grundy and mummy with fort as your r3. If fort jumps Stanley and is selected in round 1 it could be an awesome move. You will trade mummy around the byes round which will allow you to see who is mostly likely going to be the best rucks for the season. Even if Gawn is the no2 ruckman I honestly believe his avg will reduce to around 110 which will save you some cash. This strategy will also allow you to start an extra premo. The only downside to the strategy if mummy goes down which is a big risk

 

[Bermi]

I want to introduce another conundrum to the debate. Is it worth going Grundy and mummy with fort as your r3. If fort jumps Stanley and is selected in round 1 it could be an awesome move. You will trade mummy around the byes round which will allow you to see who is mostly likely going to be the best rucks for the season. Even if Gawn is the no2 ruckman I honestly believe his avg will reduce to around 110 which will save you some cash. This strategy will also allow you to start an extra premo. The only downside to the strategy if mummy goes down which is a big risk

I think Mummy is a too big risk. But if Fort plays in Rd1, that would be tempting to start him as a R2.

 

[Blaze]

This is certainly shaping as a year where 1 premo ruck looms as an option as you gotta follow the rookies. With Kreuzer going down I am running Grundstein but dropping one for 2 of Clarke, Fort and co if they are there R1 is certainly an option. The next 8 week's will be very interesting!

 

[stephen]

Really like the discussion here and in the RMT thread about the rucks. I have a few disparate thoughts:

- There are no risk-free options in the ruck this year. (This is probably true every year). I don't mean that just in the sense that nothing is certain in this game, but in the sense that every pick has a significant downside well within the realms of possibility.

- I have said this elsewhere and it is a sub-point to the above but I think a lot of people overstate the risk of cheap picks and understate the risk of expensive picks. This is partly due to how people value trades. I think trades are a bit overvalued on this site sometimes. The idea of using two trades to fix up failed rookies/cash-cows in my R2 spot scares me less than paying $700k for a player going at 105 and being stuck a whole premo behind the teams that nailed their value picks, leaking 40 points a week until teams are fully upgraded.

- I think we are too conservative and too certain when we state our predicted ranges. We tend to take last year's average and adjust up or down depending on our predictions, but the reality doesn't work like this. I definitely include myself here, and I know there's no real alternative, unless someone can introduce a bell curve probability app so we can easily upload graphs to our posts.

- It is too early to know. This is even more true this year before we see how the rule changes affect the flow of the game and SC scoring. I have gotten myself into the position before of being anti certain players, making the case against them here, and it's hard to extricate yourself once you're there. I started to see everything through the prism of proving my point, which was bad for my judgment. I think it's useful to avoid this.

 

[KLo30]

Really like the discussion here and in the RMT thread about the rucks. I have a few disparate thoughts:

- There are no risk-free options in the ruck this year. (This is probably true every year). I don't mean that just in the sense that nothing is certain in this game, but in the sense that every pick has a significant downside well within the realms of possibility.

- I have said this elsewhere and it is a sub-point to the above but I think a lot of people overstate the risk of cheap picks and understate the risk of expensive picks. This is partly due to how people value trades. I think trades are a bit overvalued on this site sometimes. The idea of using two trades to fix up failed rookies/cash-cows in my R2 spot scares me less than paying $700k for a player going at 105 and being stuck a whole premo behind the teams that nailed their value picks, leaking 40 points a week until teams are fully upgraded.

- I think we are too conservative and too certain when we state our predicted ranges. We tend to take last year's average and adjust up or down depending on our predictions, but the reality doesn't work like this. I definitely include myself here, and I know there's no real alternative, unless someone can introduce a bell curve probability app so we can easily upload graphs to our posts.

- It is too early to know. This is even more true this year before we see how the rule changes affect the flow of the game and SC scoring. I have gotten myself into the position before of being anti certain players, making the case against them here, and it's hard to extricate yourself once you're there. I started to see everything through the prism of proving my point, which was bad for my judgment. I think it's useful to avoid this.

I agree with all your points, and the last one is, to my mind, the most salient at this time. It's very easy to get locked in to a pick or non pick. Ideally, we should hold off selecting a side until teams are named for round 1 and then start our selections.

 

[freowho]

Really like the discussion here and in the RMT thread about the rucks. I have a few disparate thoughts:

- There are no risk-free options in the ruck this year. (This is probably true every year). I don't mean that just in the sense that nothing is certain in this game, but in the sense that every pick has a significant downside well within the realms of possibility.

- I have said this elsewhere and it is a sub-point to the above but I think a lot of people overstate the risk of cheap picks and understate the risk of expensive picks. This is partly due to how people value trades. I think trades are a bit overvalued on this site sometimes. The idea of using two trades to fix up failed rookies/cash-cows in my R2 spot scares me less than paying $700k for a player going at 105 and being stuck a whole premo behind the teams that nailed their value picks, leaking 40 points a week until teams are fully upgraded.

- I think we are too conservative and too certain when we state our predicted ranges. We tend to take last year's average and adjust up or down depending on our predictions, but the reality doesn't work like this. I definitely include myself here, and I know there's no real alternative, unless someone can introduce a bell curve probability app so we can easily upload graphs to our posts.

- It is too early to know. This is even more true this year before we see how the rule changes affect the flow of the game and SC scoring. I have gotten myself into the position before of being anti certain players, making the case against them here, and it's hard to extricate yourself once you're there. I started to see everything through the prism of proving my point, which was bad for my judgment. I think it's useful to avoid this.

Bluth Lodge must have employed leading teams in the off season or had Justin Langer as a guest speaker with his elite honesty!
One of the things I love about this forum is that it is so easy to find the truth. I don't think of posting something wrong or stupid as a reason to go back into your shell but rather an opportunity for someone else to straighten me out. If I'm in the wilderness on a subject I will sometimes purposely post something wrong because I know the smart people on this forum will give me the right answer. I use the like button way too much but it's because I genuinely enjoy most of the opinions even if I don't agree with them.

 

[freowho]

I agree with all your points, and the last one is, to my mind, the most salient at this time. It's very easy to get locked in to a pick or non pick. Ideally, we should hold off selecting a side until teams are named for round 1 and then start our selections.

Ruck discussion is not the right thread but I think your reply to Stephen's post creates an interesting discussion. I'm always a bit puzzled that people are worried about losing "their team" when the supercoach picker closes before supercoach proper opens when we are so far away from knowing what our round 1 team should look like. Every time I think of assessing my team I start from scratch. Pick the rucks, pick my captains, fill my team with the best cash cows and then work towards $10 million dollars by replacing the least valuable cash cows with the most important keepers. Even though I like to keep some flexiblity with the structure (I wouldn't want to end up with 6 keepers in the forward line and 1 in the backline) I don't have any preconceived idea of how it should look. I keep a pecking order of players for all 4 decisions that I am tinkering with as I gather information. For example Robbie Gray has moved up behind Danger and Heeney as a forward keeper in the last few weeks where as he was probably about 9th or 10th.
It seems to me that some people have 1 fixed team that they keep working from and they are cutting one player to make way for their new favourite player and that micro management is compromising the overall effectiveness of the team. A player like Mumford would fall into this category. People are using him to accomodate something else they want to do, but is he the best cash cow or a keeper or a reliable stepping stone?

 

[Yikes]

Excellent debate here.
From memory taps to advantages points are less this year so this might effect Goldy ?

What do you mean by this?

 

[Bermi]

I agree with all your points, and the last one is, to my mind, the most salient at this time. It's very easy to get locked in to a pick or non pick. Ideally, we should hold off selecting a side until teams are named for round 1 and then start our selections.

I have about 60 players fighting for a spot in my team. Once I know which Rookies are going to play Rd1, then I will be able to pick a team from my 'For Coinsideration' list.

 

[stephen]

Bluth Lodge must have employed leading teams in the off season or had Justin Langer as a guest speaker with his elite honesty!
One of the things I love about this forum is that it is so easy to find the truth. I don't think of posting something wrong or stupid as a reason to go back into your shell but rather an opportunity for someone else to straighten me out. If I'm in the wilderness on a subject I will sometimes purposely post something wrong because I know the smart people on this forum will give me the right answer. I use the like button way too much but it's because I genuinely enjoy most of the opinions even if I don't agree with them.

Had to google both those references but I am caught up - thanks (I think)!

In a longer version of my post (before my editor got to it) I referred approvingly to your point elsewhere about choosing where to ride your luck on breakouts so that you aim for ones that really help if your pick hits the mark. I have always had a slight misgiving about the use of 'POD' to describe an unpopular but fully-priced mid premo for example. It's right that it's a point of difference, but to what end? It's often just a different way to get the same points. The PODs that matter are the ones that shoot way over the fence, and can't be got back easily. Macrae or Grundy last year the obvious examples. In the opposite direction, betting against Goldy in 2016 or Shaw in 2017. The reason they were successful to bet against was they dropped 20+ points on their average, but the discussion about them preseason was mostly within a much tighter range, along the lines of "even if he's overpriced, he'll still be a top pick". I was trying to discuss that in the context of my 'our predictions are too conservative' point but it got too complicated.

I know sometimes I have in the back of my mind that I think a player can go 110 (I think that about Heeney, for example) but I also know it's pretty unlikely, and that people will tell me exactly why it's unlikely, and why I'm a dumb**** for thinking it, so instead I write "I think Heeney will probably score in the 95-105 range" when rationalising the pick. I'm not lying (that is the fat part of my range prediction), but it's not elite honesty. My SC new year's resolution is to post some of my more wild 'gut' predictions about players I'm considering. We'll see how that goes.

 

[freowho]

I have about 60 players fighting for a spot in my team. Once I know which Rookies are going to play Rd1, then I will be able to pick a team from my 'For Coinsideration' list.

Yep. I usually have about 60 or 70 that given circumstances could end up in my team.

 

[Bomber18]

I'm not as bullish on Goldy going 110+ I see more of a 102-108 and I see Gawn 118+
The resting of Gawn could very well happen but I won't exclude him based on the fact they might rest him.
Nank was supposed to be rested throughout the season last year to keep him fresh..he never was. I don't think teams rest their big names for the sake of resting unless they are an older Hodge type - even he was only rested once last season

Main difference I'd say is the Dees have an excellent backup ruck in Preuss, where as the Tigers didn't really have a good backup ruck for Nank (who did miss Round 21 last season however thru injury). The availability of a premium R/F like Westhoff probably also means that the risk of Gawn getting rested doesn't probably have the huge downside that it normally would have (other than the possible rookie score on field). However, there is also general uncertainty about the way Gawn will be used throughout the regular season. I wonder if he could get rested during games like NN had been by WCE, where he'd get lower TOG and be rested up forward in certain games. All a bit uncertain at this stage.

I'm not completely convinced Goldy goes at 110 either, he hasn't for the last two years. Just more wondering how Gawn might fare this season with Preuss and what the target consequently would be for R2. The more I think about it, the more I want a flexible R2, either a midpricer, rookie or even Hoff as the R/F swing man.

 

[freowho]

Had to google both those references but I am caught up - thanks (I think)!

In a longer version of my post (before my editor got to it) I referred approvingly to your point elsewhere about choosing where to ride your luck on breakouts so that you aim for ones that really help if your pick hits the mark. I have always had a slight misgiving about the use of 'POD' to describe an unpopular but fully-priced mid premo for example. It's right that it's a point of difference, but to what end? It's often just a different way to get the same points. The PODs that matter are the ones that shoot way over the fence, and can't be got back easily. Macrae or Grundy last year the obvious examples. In the opposite direction, betting against Goldy in 2016 or Shaw in 2017. The reason they were successful to bet against was they dropped 20+ points on their average, but the discussion about them preseason was mostly within a much tighter range, along the lines of "even if he's overpriced, he'll still be a top pick". I was trying to discuss that in the context of my 'our predictions are too conservative' point but it got too complicated.

I know sometimes I have in the back of my mind that I think a player can go 110 (I think that about Heeney, for example) but I also know it's pretty unlikely, and that people will tell me exactly why it's unlikely, and why I'm a dumb**** for thinking it, so instead I write "I think Heeney will probably score in the 95-105 range" when rationalising the pick. I'm not lying (that is the fat part of my range prediction), but it's not elite honesty. My SC new year's resolution is to post some of my more wild 'gut' predictions about players I'm considering. We'll see how that goes.

This aspect of debate has to be embraced. It doesn't have to be liked and it doesn't have to get personal but it's an important part of looking for answers.

 

[Juzzo]

Really like the discussion here and in the RMT thread about the rucks. I have a few disparate thoughts:

- There are no risk-free options in the ruck this year. (This is probably true every year). I don't mean that just in the sense that nothing is certain in this game, but in the sense that every pick has a significant downside well within the realms of possibility.

- I have said this elsewhere and it is a sub-point to the above but I think a lot of people overstate the risk of cheap picks and understate the risk of expensive picks. This is partly due to how people value trades. I think trades are a bit overvalued on this site sometimes. The idea of using two trades to fix up failed rookies/cash-cows in my R2 spot scares me less than paying $700k for a player going at 105 and being stuck a whole premo behind the teams that nailed their value picks, leaking 40 points a week until teams are fully upgraded.

- I think we are too conservative and too certain when we state our predicted ranges. We tend to take last year's average and adjust up or down depending on our predictions, but the reality doesn't work like this. I definitely include myself here, and I know there's no real alternative, unless someone can introduce a bell curve probability app so we can easily upload graphs to our posts.

- It is too early to know. This is even more true this year before we see how the rule changes affect the flow of the game and SC scoring. I have gotten myself into the position before of being anti certain players, making the case against them here, and it's hard to extricate yourself once you're there. I started to see everything through the prism of proving my point, which was bad for my judgment. I think it's useful to avoid this.

We need a program like a poker bot with AI. Is there anything like this for SC?

 

[Darkie]

Had to google both those references but I am caught up - thanks (I think)!

In a longer version of my post (before my editor got to it) I referred approvingly to your point elsewhere about choosing where to ride your luck on breakouts so that you aim for ones that really help if your pick hits the mark. I have always had a slight misgiving about the use of 'POD' to describe an unpopular but fully-priced mid premo for example. It's right that it's a point of difference, but to what end? It's often just a different way to get the same points. The PODs that matter are the ones that shoot way over the fence, and can't be got back easily. Macrae or Grundy last year the obvious examples. In the opposite direction, betting against Goldy in 2016 or Shaw in 2017. The reason they were successful to bet against was they dropped 20+ points on their average, but the discussion about them preseason was mostly within a much tighter range, along the lines of "even if he's overpriced, he'll still be a top pick". I was trying to discuss that in the context of my 'our predictions are too conservative' point but it got too complicated.

I know sometimes I have in the back of my mind that I think a player can go 110 (I think that about Heeney, for example) but I also know it's pretty unlikely, and that people will tell me exactly why it's unlikely, and why I'm a dumb**** for thinking it, so instead I write "I think Heeney will probably score in the 95-105 range" when rationalising the pick. I'm not lying (that is the fat part of my range prediction), but it's not elite honesty. My SC new year's resolution is to post some of my more wild 'gut' predictions about players I'm considering. We'll see how that goes.

I look forward to it!

Two initial reactions to this:

- There is less downside to doing so in this forum, because people are respectful, and base their responses predominantly on reason. Contrary views are welcomed, rather than shut down, especially when they are explained. This is a major plus as I see it ... there is no point simply echoing the same views repeatedly, and no one figures out anything by doing so.

- I recall people like BigRuss making what I saw as fairly big calls in the past (eg on Macrae), and being right. It is very useful to know who is good at making these calls, in my view, when interpreting and weighing their comments. I already thought he was a good judge, but I've revised up the weight I give to his comments further.

 

[stephen]

I look forward to it!

Two initial reactions to this:

- There is less downside to doing so in this forum, because people are respectful, and base their responses predominantly on reason. Contrary views are welcomed, rather than shut down, especially when they are explained. This is a major plus as I see it ... there is no point simply echoing the same views repeatedly, and no one figures out anything by doing so.

- I recall people like BigRuss making what I saw as fairly big calls in the past (eg on Macrae), and being right. It is very useful to know who is good at making these calls, in my view, when interpreting and weighing their comments. I already thought he was a good judge, but I've revised up the weight I give to his comments further.

I agree, it's not the forum's fault but my own vanity. I think it is natural to keep it conservative when you know it will be there for all to see once the season unfolds. But I think the discussion is well served by more out-there predictions.

I too follow bigruss's pronouncements closely.

 

[Bomber18]

I agree, it's not the forum's fault but my own vanity. I think it is natural to keep it conservative when you know it will be there for all to see once the season unfolds. But I think the discussion is well served by more out-there predictions.

I too follow bigruss's pronouncements closely.

All the guys I want to make big pronouncements about are injury prone players currently in rehab groups..... ??

 

[Tex]

What do you mean by this?

The scoring for tap to advantage has been reduced

 

[BigRuss]

I agree, it's not the forum's fault but my own vanity. I think it is natural to keep it conservative when you know it will be there for all to see once the season unfolds. But I think the discussion is well served by more out-there predictions.

I too follow bigruss's pronouncements closely.

I look forward to it!

Two initial reactions to this:

- There is less downside to doing so in this forum, because people are respectful, and base their responses predominantly on reason. Contrary views are welcomed, rather than shut down, especially when they are explained. This is a major plus as I see it ... there is no point simply echoing the same views repeatedly, and no one figures out anything by doing so.

- I recall people like BigRuss making what I saw as fairly big calls in the past (eg on Macrae), and being right. It is very useful to know who is good at making these calls, in my view, when interpreting and weighing their comments. I already thought he was a good judge, but I've revised up the weight I give to his comments further.

Geez you're making me blush fellas .

I think I don't mind making large statements firstly because they tend to generally produce good discussion and that's what most of us are here for.

Secondly, and and arguably more importantly, I don't mind being wrong and publicly wrong at that. There's a lot of people on this forum who are both smarter than me and better than me at Fantasy Footy. It would be such a waste of time to think that my own views are always the correct ones all the time. Most people, especially in this forum type format, are only interested in proving that their point of view is the correct one, which bloody astounds me to be fair. Cant learn anything if you think you already know everything.

The main reason this is largely the only forum I interact with is that, almost to a man, the regular contributors appear to share the same like minded approach and are at least willing to listen to each others points of view and take it on board before arguing or reinforcing the point.

Pretty unique experience as far as internet communication goes. The mods have really done a remarkable thing cultivating this community.

 

[PC]

Well said re the forum Russ.

(note, I also take notice of what BR says!)