Position Forwards Discussion
- Thread starter IDIG
- Start date
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 3,912
- Likes
- 12,177
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I’ve heard this a lot but don’t follow the logic. If you pick up premiums from the later byes early in the year instead you’ll have less of those players when their bye comes around. Something like 6-6-6 for each bye would be optimal wouldn’t it when the byes come around?
I’ll show you what I mean let’s look at three examples and how many premiums you get for the byes.
Pretending we have 18 premiums heading into round 12, here are three structures.
1. 5 with Round 12 bye, 6 with round 13 bye, 7 with round 14 bye.
Round 12= 13 players
Round 13= trade in two who had Round 12 bye (you now have 7) and you have 14 players
Round 14= trade in 1 player who had Round 13 bye (you now have 7) and you have 14 players
Total = 41 premiums during the byes
2. 6 with Round 12 bye, 6 with round 13 bye, 6 with round 14 bye.
Round 12= 12 players
Round 13= trade in two who had Round 12 bye (you now have 8) and you have 14 players
Round 14= trade in 1 player who had Round 13 bye (you now have 7) and you have 15 players
Total = 41 premiums during the byes
3. 5 with Round 12 bye, 7 with round 13 bye, 6 with round 14 bye.
Round 12= 13 players
Round 13= trade in two who had Round 12 bye (you now have 7) and you have 13 players
Round 14= trade in 1 player who had Round 13 bye (you now have 8) and you have 15 players
Total = 41 premiums during the byes
I’ll show you what I mean let’s look at three examples and how many premiums you get for the byes.
Pretending we have 18 premiums heading into round 12, here are three structures.
1. 5 with Round 12 bye, 6 with round 13 bye, 7 with round 14 bye.
Round 12= 13 players
Round 13= trade in two who had Round 12 bye (you now have 7) and you have 14 players
Round 14= trade in 1 player who had Round 13 bye (you now have 7) and you have 14 players
Total = 41 premiums during the byes
2. 6 with Round 12 bye, 6 with round 13 bye, 6 with round 14 bye.
Round 12= 12 players
Round 13= trade in two who had Round 12 bye (you now have 8) and you have 14 players
Round 14= trade in 1 player who had Round 13 bye (you now have 7) and you have 15 players
Total = 41 premiums during the byes
3. 5 with Round 12 bye, 7 with round 13 bye, 6 with round 14 bye.
Round 12= 13 players
Round 13= trade in two who had Round 12 bye (you now have 7) and you have 13 players
Round 14= trade in 1 player who had Round 13 bye (you now have 8) and you have 15 players
Total = 41 premiums during the byes
Last edited:
If, during round 13, you upgrade a R14 rookie (who has their bye coming up), to a R12 premium (who has already had their bye), then you essentially steal an extra game, just by doing a standard upgrade.
I guess that's the most common example, but it also holds trading a premium yet to have his bye to another premium that has - known as a "slingshot" trade. Balance up whether using the trade is worth getting 10 games for the rest of the season, instead of 9 (for example)
I guess that's the most common example, but it also holds trading a premium yet to have his bye to another premium that has - known as a "slingshot" trade. Balance up whether using the trade is worth getting 10 games for the rest of the season, instead of 9 (for example)
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 3,912
- Likes
- 12,177
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Yeah that’s pretty much what I’m worried about, Jake Lloyd would be my only guaranteed upgrade target with the round 13 bye (which would give me 7 premo’s with that bye) but there’s a risk that more will pop up. I feel like Kelly just has the worse bye so I’ll probably stick to Dunkley depending on where it looks like he’ll be playing
Sure, it's not a reason to avoid a round 12 player. But given we have 3 trades during each week of the byes, you can potentially generate a stack of those slingshot type trades, which you potentially wouldn't be able to do if your Bye set-up was heavily tilted to round 12 bye players.
Again - not a reason to throw the structure out the window - but given the unpredictability of players scoring/events throughout the year, worth considering. You wouldn't want to start with 7/8 round 12 bye players, then want to trade in a few more Rd 12 players when Bont is 350k and shifts to midfield and Titch returns with a bionic leg.
Again - not a reason to throw the structure out the window - but given the unpredictability of players scoring/events throughout the year, worth considering. You wouldn't want to start with 7/8 round 12 bye players, then want to trade in a few more Rd 12 players when Bont is 350k and shifts to midfield and Titch returns with a bionic leg.
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 3,912
- Likes
- 12,177
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I hear you but there’s nothing wrong with having up to 6, you’d prefer to have 5 because there might not be 8 premiums with the bye that are worth having. You don’t get extra players playing with 4 or 5 players with the round 12 bye over having 6 heading into round 12
If you trade in more players with the round 13 bye you’ll need to cover more come the bye week. So heading into the byes with 6-6-6 would have the best chance with getting 18 players every week.
Your argument with Bont and players in R12 is the exact same with any of the other players playing in other rounds.
If you trade in more players with the round 13 bye you’ll need to cover more come the bye week. So heading into the byes with 6-6-6 would have the best chance with getting 18 players every week.
Your argument with Bont and players in R12 is the exact same with any of the other players playing in other rounds.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 262
- Likes
- 177
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I posted this in the Rowsus thread..
How many players is too many from the one team?
All of Crozier, Macrae, Bont, McLean, Dunkley and Daniel are in the mix for me. Macrae and McLean more than likely in with Dunkley very close. I am also a bit cautious that Dunkleys run with role he played last year could turn into a tagging role in some games throwing out a dud game here and there.
How many players is too many from the one team?
All of Crozier, Macrae, Bont, McLean, Dunkley and Daniel are in the mix for me. Macrae and McLean more than likely in with Dunkley very close. I am also a bit cautious that Dunkleys run with role he played last year could turn into a tagging role in some games throwing out a dud game here and there.
The Bont might be the one to suffer from the job sharing and being mid only is the least likely to be a keeper. But job sharing is great for players on other lines. Pretty sure Wallis is confirmed as a half forward and Cavarra is probably in the forward line so McLean and Dunkley could both be close to 100 average for the year. McLean in particular doesn't need many disposals to score well.
This is just from my personal experience. But I would say 4 is too many to have from the same team. Last year I had Gawn, Oliver, Hibberd & Petracca. The first two were awesome, the last 2 screwed my year up. So that is a success rate of 50% for me which is a pass... but for me I am calling it a fail. I think if I had only one of Hibberd/Petracca it would have made my team less horrible and more enjoyable for supercoach. So for me I will only have a max of 3 players from the one team this season (Bear in mind I did not count rookies as part of that number). So in summary 4 is passable, but my recommendation is 3. From those dogs players you mentioned if I were to pick 4, it'd be Macrae, McLean, Dunkley and then Bont in that order. Hope it works out for you. Sorry if that didnt really answer your question.
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 3,912
- Likes
- 12,177
- AFL Club
- Essendon
In regards to the byes you don’t get more premiums playing during the byes by avoiding R12 players til after their bye, you get more players by trading players in after their bye. It might be easier to fill in 5 missing spots opposed to 6 the first week of the byes if you dont opt to go 6-6-6 but then remember that Grundy probably can’t be covered unless you have Westhoff in R13
Last edited:
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 262
- Likes
- 177
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I feel like the Bont is wasted when he plays forward for too long. I know they don't have great targets and he can do the job but he is too good in the middle to sacrifice. It could work well for McLean and Dunkley though.
Yeah that's not a bad way to look at it. Would have to expect at least one if not two to not work out as good picks. 2 out of 3 though is not too bad though.
Thanks for your response!
Yeah that's not a bad way to look at it. Would have to expect at least one if not two to not work out as good picks. 2 out of 3 though is not too bad though.
Thanks for your response!
However, if you had Gawn, Oliver, Hogan into McDonald and Brayshaw, you'd have been very happy.
One on each line can work, and even two such as Menegola and Hawkins.
Obviously, you've got to get it right, however four shouldn't be discounted just because it's four. A correction trade up the sleeve to make it three can be planned in advance.
One on each line can work, and even two such as Menegola and Hawkins.
Obviously, you've got to get it right, however four shouldn't be discounted just because it's four. A correction trade up the sleeve to make it three can be planned in advance.
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 9,617
- Likes
- 37,713
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Daniher continuing to improve. Clarke or Draper could still be options too.
(Sorry, I don’t know how to copy and paste article without pictures, ads, etc.)
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...-daniher-this-pre-season-20190219-p50yve.html
(Sorry, I don’t know how to copy and paste article without pictures, ads, etc.)
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...-daniher-this-pre-season-20190219-p50yve.html
Personally I think its more about how many have the same bye. If you picked three from each team with the round 13 bye, for example, that would be 18 out that round, which is far too many even though it's only three per side. Which team they happen to play for is less relevant in my view.
The other main considerations would be (1) whether they can all score well in the same side (are Dunkley and Mclean mutually exclusive as food picks? Even if they are, is this a problem, or are you happy to use them as a hedge?), and (2) that loopholing is more effective if you have players across a spread of teams (because this implies they will be playing at different times). The loopholing benefit is most relevant for the players that are likely to be loopholed (top premiums/premiums with a high ceiling, and middle quality rookies, or those with very up and down scoring).
The other main considerations would be (1) whether they can all score well in the same side (are Dunkley and Mclean mutually exclusive as food picks? Even if they are, is this a problem, or are you happy to use them as a hedge?), and (2) that loopholing is more effective if you have players across a spread of teams (because this implies they will be playing at different times). The loopholing benefit is most relevant for the players that are likely to be loopholed (top premiums/premiums with a high ceiling, and middle quality rookies, or those with very up and down scoring).
