Opinion Questions For Rowsus

[Rowsus]

Hi Rows,

Like yourself I am struggling this year.
Is Telly a must have to bring in this week
I plan to downgrade cousins to say a Hayes or maybe hately (go early) but cannot get to Telly using Parker. I would have to use Moore or Drew.
What are your thoughts on Newnes?
Seems to be playing a more SC friendly role again this tear.

Cheers

Hey Slam,
I'm not sure how this question got passed over. I did have a busy few day last week, so apologies.
I would have advised against Newnes. I was keen to start him as a value pick, but I don't think the value is there to trade him in now.
I wouldn't have said Telly was a must have last week, but it certainly did look like a good week to grab him.
I hope your trades worked out for you.

 

[Rowsus]

Hey Rows,

Is it worth trading Danger to a Daniel or Newnes type, if it means also turning a Walsh into Fyfe or Bont ?

Hey Slam,
a short, one line question, that is ohhhhh so complicated! I like it.

Ok, let's start by eliminating some of the possibilities.
Newnes - has gone up $100k from his opening quote, and is currently priced close enough to his average ($456,200 & 92.7). He's only had one score over 95 (114, and last year only one score over 95 for the season, 99). To take him now would seem to be hoping he can suddenly start scoring some 100,s, and his last 29 games have ony produced one 100+ score. I think those that started Newnes did well, but I wouldn't be falling into him now.
If someone was twisting my arm, and forcing me to take a Fwd that cost less than $460,000, I'd be more heading to Menegola, Marshall or possibly even Dahlhaus, but not Newnes. I like Daniel better than those three, but obviously there is a price difference involved.
Fyfe - I personally have Fyfe in the start him, or forget him basket. His record in the 2nd half of seasons is too problematical to be trading him in. Even when you remove the 2016 season, where he was out for the rest of the season after Round 5, he still only averages 8 games/season, in the 2nd half of the season. He might defy that history, but i'm not willing to back it in. Since 2013, his Rnd 12-23 figures are:
2013 11/103
2014 10/129
2015 7/109
2016 0/0
2017 9/121
2018 4/94
Ave Total 7/114
If you remove the 2016 season, it becomes 8/114. That PIT65's out at 8/101.
As I said, he may do better, but those high scores quickly get watered down, when he misses games, or throws in those 43 & 66 (2018), 81, 84 & 93 (2017), 89, 80 & 92 (2015) type scores. I just think the history risk is too great. Start him, or skip him, and if you start him, dump him at the first sign of trouble!

I like Daniel, and I'm looking at Bont myself this week. Bont is actually on the outer limit of break out territory, so it's not beyond the possibilities this his year, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a spike season to get him there. After this season, it would tend to be a spike, if he doesn't go 110+ this season.

Now the more complicated part of the question. Trading Dangerfield out. It should be noted, this is written before selections (or late outs!) are confirmed. Dangerfield is currently $541,000, has a B/E of 198, and last two scores of 94 & 26, so even if he plays, and scores well, he drops cash, and faces another decent B/E in his next game.
So let's paint a (worst case) scenario. Dangerfield misses this week, and another game later in the season. He scores at 105 in all the games he does play from now on. That means Dangerfield plays 13 out of 15 games, for a 13/105 return, or a PIT60 of 13/99. During that period, his price bottoms out in Rnd 10 at $410k, which is $131k lower than he is now. A PIT60 return of 13/99 is actually not too bad, and if his name wasn't Dangerfield, and someone guaranteed you a PIT60 13/99 return on a $541k Fwd for the last 15 games, you'd actually consider it.
So what do you gain by trading him out? In his worst case scenario, you gain the opportunity to trade him back in, $131k cheaper, while dodging his missed game. Those that keep him face a Rookie 60, then 105, 105 while he is out of your team, and you trade him back in after those scores, so that's where the loop closes again. So those that keep him score 270 for that place in their team, while you score let's say 60 points higher than that. So your net gain is 60 points + $131k, at the cost of 2 trades. It's not enough. It will feel right, and look good at the time, but it doesn't stand up to a "let's look back at the end of the season, and see how it worked out" test. To be worthwhile, you have to have Danger either miss say 4 games, or average a 100 less in the games he does play. The notional idea that this might be worthwhile, comes I think, from the idea that Dangerfield is a high priced player. The problem is, he's not anymore, so you just don't get the value needed in trading him out, unless things really go pear shaped for him from here. Dangerfield is actually the 27th highest priced played in SC, and is slightly less than Luke Ryan in price. In a blind test, who do you want, Ryan or Danger?
It would be a big risk to bet against a player that has only missed 5 games in the past 8 seasons, and averaged around 120 in the past 7 seasons, to say he'll suddenly miss 3 or more games this season, and average 105 in the games he does play from here.

TL;DR - Danger is no longer a high priced commodity, there is no value in trading him out now, unless it is a confirmed LTI.

 

[Cattleherder]

Hello Rowsus
I hope you are well and enjoying the SuperCoach season. One of the best bits of advice I received was from someone else on this thread responding to me who said in effect ‘make sure you enjoy SC and your team’.
Anyhow, I have a question that has been puzzling me so I thought I would put it to you. My rucks are from the start: Grundy, Gawn, Bines with Hoff in the forward line as injury insurance. I elected not to take ROB as he would have mucked around with my ruck setup and in any case I couldn’t see the value in using 2 trades on him (one in and one out to realise the cash). Given his good performance, have those who have traded him in now have an advantage over those like myself who chose not get him?

Cheers.

 

[Adrenaline]

hi row
i am considering a forward upgrade and have 2 players in mind trav boak and caleb daniel. it is looking like both players will end up in the top 6-8 forward players for the year.
out of the 2 players caleb daniel presents the most value. He has low ownership. However i have concerns about him. he has never averaged over 79 points per season. what is your opinion about his scoring output from here on in? given that bulldogs are a little bit unpredictable are you confident he can continue his scoring output?

 

[MarkM]

Hey Slam,
a short, one line question, that is ohhhhh so complicated! I like it.

Ok, let's start by eliminating some of the possibilities.
Newnes - has gone up $100k from his opening quote, and is currently priced close enough to his average ($456,200 & 92.7). He's only had one score over 95 (114, and last year only one score over 95 for the season, 99). To take him now would seem to be hoping he can suddenly start scoring some 100,s, and his last 29 games have ony produced one 100+ score. I think those that started Newnes did well, but I wouldn't be falling into him now.
If someone was twisting my arm, and forcing me to take a Fwd that cost less than $460,000, I'd be more heading to Menegola, Marshall or possibly even Dahlhaus, but not Newnes. I like Daniel better than those three, but obviously there is a price difference involved.
Fyfe - I personally have Fyfe in the start him, or forget him basket. His record in the 2nd half of seasons is too problematical to be trading him in. Even when you remove the 2016 season, where he was out for the rest of the season after Round 5, he still only averages 8 games/season, in the 2nd half of the season. He might defy that history, but i'm not willing to back it in. Since 2013, his Rnd 12-23 figures are:
2013 11/103
2014 10/129
2015 7/109
2016 0/0
2017 9/121
2018 4/94
Ave Total 7/114
If you remove the 2016 season, it becomes 8/114. That PIT65's out at 8/101.
As I said, he may do better, but those high scores quickly get watered down, when he misses games, or throws in those 43 & 66 (2018), 81, 84 & 93 (2017), 89, 80 & 92 (2015) type scores. I just think the history risk is too great. Start him, or skip him, and if you start him, dump him at the first sign of trouble!

I like Daniel, and I'm looking at Bont myself this week. Bont is actually on the outer limit of break out territory, so it's not beyond the possibilities this his year, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a spike season to get him there. After this season, it would tend to be a spike, if he doesn't go 110+ this season.

Now the more complicated part of the question. Trading Dangerfield out. It should be noted, this is written before selections (or late outs!) are confirmed. Dangerfield is currently $541,000, has a B/E of 198, and last two scores of 94 & 26, so even if he plays, and scores well, he drops cash, and faces another decent B/E in his next game.
So let's paint a (worst case) scenario. Dangerfield misses this week, and another game later in the season. He scores at 105 in all the games he does play from now on. That means Dangerfield plays 13 out of 15 games, for a 13/105 return, or a PIT60 of 13/99. During that period, his price bottoms out in Rnd 10 at $410k, which is $131k lower than he is now. A PIT60 return of 13/99 is actually not too bad, and if his name wasn't Dangerfield, and someone guaranteed you a PIT60 13/99 return on a $541k Fwd for the last 15 games, you'd actually consider it.
So what do you gain by trading him out? In his worst case scenario, you gain the opportunity to trade him back in, $131k cheaper, while dodging his missed game. Those that keep him face a Rookie 60, then 105, 105 while he is out of your team, and you trade him back in after those scores, so that's where the loop closes again. So those that keep him score 270 for that place in their team, while you score let's say 60 points higher than that. So your net gain is 60 points + $131k, at the cost of 2 trades. It's not enough. It will feel right, and look good at the time, but it doesn't stand up to a "let's look back at the end of the season, and see how it worked out" test. To be worthwhile, you have to have Danger either miss say 4 games, or average a 100 less in the games he does play. The notional idea that this might be worthwhile, comes I think, from the idea that Dangerfield is a high priced player. The problem is, he's not anymore, so you just don't get the value needed in trading him out, unless things really go pear shaped for him from here. Dangerfield is actually the 27th highest priced played in SC, and is slightly less than Luke Ryan in price. In a blind test, who do you want, Ryan or Danger?
It would be a big risk to bet against a player that has only missed 5 games in the past 8 seasons, and averaged around 120 in the past 7 seasons, to say he'll suddenly miss 3 or more games this season, and average 105 in the games he does play from here.

TL;DR - Danger is no longer a high priced commodity, there is no value in trading him out now, unless it is a confirmed LTI.

But it only costs you 1 trade though doesn't it? People say trading a player out and then in again later costs you 2 trades, but 1 of those trades would've happened anyway.

Compare:
Rd 8 : Danger -> Daniel (or other premo)
......
Rd 11 : Maxed out rookie -> Danger

to

Rd 8: No trade
........
Rd 11 : Maxed out rookie -> Daniel (or other premo)

In both cases you end up with the same team, with the first example costing 2 trades, while the second example costs 1 trade.

 

[Cattleherder]

But it only costs you 1 trade though doesn't it? People say trading a player out and then in again later costs you 2 trades, but 1 of those trades would've happened anyway.

Compare:
Rd 8 : Danger -> Daniel (or other premo)
......
Rd 11 : Maxed out rookie -> Danger

to

Rd 8: No trade
........
Rd 11 : Maxed out rookie -> Daniel (or other premo)

In both cases you end up with the same team, with the first example costing 2 trades, while the second example costs 1 trade.

Interesting scenario MarkM. I would like to generalise the question a bit to say: When does it become advantageous to use a trade (or two) on trading out a fallen premium? When do you hold them and when do you fold them, to use a cards analogy.

 

[Pieman17]

Hey Slam,
a short, one line question, that is ohhhhh so complicated! I like it.

Ok, let's start by eliminating some of the possibilities.
Newnes - has gone up $100k from his opening quote, and is currently priced close enough to his average ($456,200 & 92.7). He's only had one score over 95 (114, and last year only one score over 95 for the season, 99). To take him now would seem to be hoping he can suddenly start scoring some 100,s, and his last 29 games have ony produced one 100+ score. I think those that started Newnes did well, but I wouldn't be falling into him now.
If someone was twisting my arm, and forcing me to take a Fwd that cost less than $460,000, I'd be more heading to Menegola, Marshall or possibly even Dahlhaus, but not Newnes. I like Daniel better than those three, but obviously there is a price difference involved.
Fyfe - I personally have Fyfe in the start him, or forget him basket. His record in the 2nd half of seasons is too problematical to be trading him in. Even when you remove the 2016 season, where he was out for the rest of the season after Round 5, he still only averages 8 games/season, in the 2nd half of the season. He might defy that history, but i'm not willing to back it in. Since 2013, his Rnd 12-23 figures are:
2013 11/103
2014 10/129
2015 7/109
2016 0/0
2017 9/121
2018 4/94
Ave Total 7/114
If you remove the 2016 season, it becomes 8/114. That PIT65's out at 8/101.
As I said, he may do better, but those high scores quickly get watered down, when he misses games, or throws in those 43 & 66 (2018), 81, 84 & 93 (2017), 89, 80 & 92 (2015) type scores. I just think the history risk is too great. Start him, or skip him, and if you start him, dump him at the first sign of trouble!

I like Daniel, and I'm looking at Bont myself this week. Bont is actually on the outer limit of break out territory, so it's not beyond the possibilities this his year, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a spike season to get him there. After this season, it would tend to be a spike, if he doesn't go 110+ this season.

Now the more complicated part of the question. Trading Dangerfield out. It should be noted, this is written before selections (or late outs!) are confirmed. Dangerfield is currently $541,000, has a B/E of 198, and last two scores of 94 & 26, so even if he plays, and scores well, he drops cash, and faces another decent B/E in his next game.
So let's paint a (worst case) scenario. Dangerfield misses this week, and another game later in the season. He scores at 105 in all the games he does play from now on. That means Dangerfield plays 13 out of 15 games, for a 13/105 return, or a PIT60 of 13/99. During that period, his price bottoms out in Rnd 10 at $410k, which is $131k lower than he is now. A PIT60 return of 13/99 is actually not too bad, and if his name wasn't Dangerfield, and someone guaranteed you a PIT60 13/99 return on a $541k Fwd for the last 15 games, you'd actually consider it.
So what do you gain by trading him out? In his worst case scenario, you gain the opportunity to trade him back in, $131k cheaper, while dodging his missed game. Those that keep him face a Rookie 60, then 105, 105 while he is out of your team, and you trade him back in after those scores, so that's where the loop closes again. So those that keep him score 270 for that place in their team, while you score let's say 60 points higher than that. So your net gain is 60 points + $131k, at the cost of 2 trades. It's not enough. It will feel right, and look good at the time, but it doesn't stand up to a "let's look back at the end of the season, and see how it worked out" test. To be worthwhile, you have to have Danger either miss say 4 games, or average a 100 less in the games he does play. The notional idea that this might be worthwhile, comes I think, from the idea that Dangerfield is a high priced player. The problem is, he's not anymore, so you just don't get the value needed in trading him out, unless things really go pear shaped for him from here. Dangerfield is actually the 27th highest priced played in SC, and is slightly less than Luke Ryan in price. In a blind test, who do you want, Ryan or Danger?
It would be a big risk to bet against a player that has only missed 5 games in the past 8 seasons, and averaged around 120 in the past 7 seasons, to say he'll suddenly miss 3 or more games this season, and average 105 in the games he does play from here.

TL;DR - Danger is no longer a high priced commodity, there is no value in trading him out now, unless it is a confirmed LTI.

Will Danger actually drop to around 410k afternoon his next two games ?

I had him around the 470 mark.

 

[Rowsus]

Hello Rowsus
I hope you are well and enjoying the SuperCoach season. One of the best bits of advice I received was from someone else on this thread responding to me who said in effect ‘make sure you enjoy SC and your team’.
Anyhow, I have a question that has been puzzling me so I thought I would put it to you. My rucks are from the start: Grundy, Gawn, Bines with Hoff in the forward line as injury insurance. I elected not to take ROB as he would have mucked around with my ruck setup and in any case I couldn’t see the value in using 2 trades on him (one in and one out to realise the cash). Given his good performance, have those who have traded him in now have an advantage over those like myself who chose not get him?

Cheers.

Hello Cattle, I'm not quite into the full enjoyment mode yet, but i'm getting there. I'm making too many silly, avoidable mistakes
Yes, those that traded him in do hold an advantage over you.
ROB started at 136k, and looks like being in the top 2 Rookies this season.
I think you looked at it the wrong way, in saying you didn't want to use 2 trades on him. Most of the Rookies you trade in, in the first 8-10 Rounds, get traded out again, so they nearly all have 2 trades used on them.
Your options were to chop Westhoff, when ROB was on the bubble. Westhoff had just posted 3 x sub 50 scores in a row, and had a big B/E, so it would have been "excusable". Of course, 20/20 hindsight says it was a brilliant move, now.
The other option was to trade a Fwd out, Bines down, and ROB in, though that seems a bit messy, and you'd want a pretty good, reliable F7 to do that.

 

[Rowsus]

hi row
i am considering a forward upgrade and have 2 players in mind trav boak and caleb daniel. it is looking like both players will end up in the top 6-8 forward players for the year.
out of the 2 players caleb daniel presents the most value. He has low ownership. However i have concerns about him. he has never averaged over 79 points per season. what is your opinion about his scoring output from here on in? given that bulldogs are a little bit unpredictable are you confident he can continue his scoring output?

Hi ad,
I'm tossing up between Daniel and Bont myself this week.
Keep in mind, that Daniel largely played the small Fwd role before this season, and has a completely different, SC friendly role so far this season.
While one of the SC rules says take history over potential, I'm still not 100% sold that Boak will continue on as he has started. His recent record, and Port Mids in general recent records, suggest he should come back to the pack at some stage, even with his new role.
I am probably biased, but I decided early on "No Boak for me", so I will vote Daniel.
Good luck, I hope it works out which ever way you jump.

 

[Rowsus]

But it only costs you 1 trade though doesn't it? People say trading a player out and then in again later costs you 2 trades, but 1 of those trades would've happened anyway.

Compare:
Rd 8 : Danger -> Daniel (or other premo)
......
Rd 11 : Maxed out rookie -> Danger

to

Rd 8: No trade
........
Rd 11 : Maxed out rookie -> Daniel (or other premo)

In both cases you end up with the same team, with the first example costing 2 trades, while the second example costs 1 trade.

You're right on the number of trades, but there is actually a difference in holding, and trading him out, and back in again.
Ending with the same team looks right on paper, but how you get there actually has more affect than people sometimes realise.
It actually becomes quite complicated, with the 3 different scenarios. I started to try and write it out, but it became very unwieldly, and hard to read.
If you decide that Dangerfield is a player you want/need going further into the season after this Round, holding Danger now actually opens up more possibilities, than trading him does. Even though it looks like on paper, that you end up with the same result, the trade not used on Danger has a rolling effect, if used well elsewhere.
Of course, with most sliding doors type decisions, it can work out that trading him was better, and holding was a mistake. It all comes down to the possibilities that are presented this week, and subsequent weeks.
I apologise I can't explain it better, but when I wrote it out on paper, I realised I was going to have a great deal of trouble explaining it well here. One of my great fails, is not always being able to explain things succinctly.

 

[Rowsus]

Interesting scenario MarkM. I would like to generalise the question a bit to say: When does it become advantageous to use a trade (or two) on trading out a fallen premium? When do you hold them and when do you fold them, to use a cards analogy.

The simple answer to that one is expectations.
What are your expectations for that player from here, for the rest of the season? It is only then you can decide if you are getting your trades worth, by trading them out.
The bottom line is, a player traded out just becomes an available player in the large pool of players you have to choose from each week. Some people have a rule about never trading them back in again, and history backs this up quite a bit, but there are exceptions, so it can go either way.
With a player like Dangerfield, that has missed less than one game/season, and averaged 120 in the past 7 seasons, trading him out at $541k, when it is not a confirmed LTI, seems like you are not getting your value, unless you are backing it in to become a LTI, or to drastically affect his output from here.

 

[Rowsus]

Will Danger actually drop to around 410k afternoon his next two games ?

I had him around the 470 mark.

I must admit, I was lazy, and used the TooSerious calculator, for the first time ever.
I think I used it incorrectly!
I think your $470k may be more accurate.
I should have stuck to my own, tried and true method, instead of being lazy!

 

[Cattleherder]

Hello Cattle, I'm not quite into the full enjoyment mode yet, but i'm getting there. I'm making too many silly, avoidable mistakes
Yes, those that traded him in do hold an advantage over you.
ROB started at 136k, and looks like being in the top 2 Rookies this season.
I think you looked at it the wrong way, in saying you didn't want to use 2 trades on him. Most of the Rookies you trade in, in the first 8-10 Rounds, get traded out again, so they nearly all have 2 trades used on them.
Your options were to chop Westhoff, when ROB was on the bubble. Westhoff had just posted 3 x sub 50 scores in a row, and had a big B/E, so it would have been "excusable". Of course, 20/20 hindsight says it was a brilliant move, now.
The other option was to trade a Fwd out, Bines down, and ROB in, though that seems a bit messy, and you'd want a pretty good, reliable F7 to do that.

Hi Rowsus.

Not what I wanted to hear, but I have to move on from here and take the lesson . Looking back I can see that my ruck strategy made me ‘stuck’ and I was unable to be flexible enough to take advantage of the unusual opportunity that ROB presented.

 

[Cattleherder]

You're right on the number of trades, but there is actually a difference in holding, and trading him out, and back in again.
Ending with the same team looks right on paper, but how you get there actually has more affect than people sometimes realise.
It actually becomes quite complicated, with the 3 different scenarios. I started to try and write it out, but it became very unwieldly, and hard to read.
If you decide that Dangerfield is a player you want/need going further into the season after this Round, holding Danger now actually opens up more possibilities, than trading him does. Even though it looks like on paper, that you end up with the same result, the trade not used on Danger has a rolling effect, if used well elsewhere.
Of course, with most sliding doors type decisions, it can work out that trading him was better, and holding was a mistake. It all comes down to the possibilities thatare presented this week, and subsequent weeks.
I apologise I can't explain it better, but when I wrote it out on paper, I realised I was going to have a great deal of trouble explaining it well here. One of great fails, is not always being able to explain things succinctly.

One issue I have discovered is that there is a risk in trading a premium out with the intention of bringing him back in because you don’t know what the future holds. Other more pressing issues take up your trades and before you know it you don’t have the cash/trades to bring them back in. It is easier to do it during the bye rounds when you have 3 trades available. Harder to do it later in the season when trades and cash are running low. It depends on your risk/reward profile - how much risk you are willing to take for what reward?

 

[bloke]

Hi Rowsus,
I've looked through some of your comments this year on Westhoff and to me it sounds like you don't rate him as a pickup. I'm obviously interested at his price, but agree that last year seems like a spike and he might not be getting the same role this year.

I'm wondering if you would value Rowan Marshall's consistency or Westhoff's ruck coverage as higher, if you were looking at a value fwd who is probably going to end up F6?

 

[Adrenaline]

Hi ad,
I'm tossing up between Daniel and Bont myself this week.
Keep in mind, that Daniel largely played the small Fwd role before this season, and has a completely different, SC friendly role so far this season.
While one of the SC rules says take history over potential, I'm still not 100% sold that Boak will continue on as he has started. His recent record, and Port Mids in general recent records, suggest he should come back to the pack at some stage, even with his new role.
I am probably biased, but I decided early on "No Boak for me", so I will vote Daniel.
Good luck, I hope it works out which ever way you jump.

thanks rowsus

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus,
I've looked through some of your comments this year on Westhoff and to me it sounds like you don't rate him as a pickup. I'm obviously interested at his price, but agree that last year seems like a spike and he might not be getting the same role this year.

I'm wondering if you would value Rowan Marshall's consistency or Westhoff's ruck coverage as higher, if you were looking at a value fwd who is probably going to end up F6?

Hi bloke,
If I was forced to choose between Marshall and Westhoff, I'd take Marshall.
I will add in one side note.
While Marshall is showing some great potential, you need to break down his opponents so far, and then question, has he been gifted a good start?
Rnd 2 v Ess (80% B'chambers, 20% McKernan) - Ruck opponents have generally been scoring to, or just over, their ave against TBC
Rnd 3 v Freo (Lobb) - Lobb is tall, but one of the easier Ruck opponents
Rnd 4 v Haw (66% McEvoy, 34% Ceglar) - most rucks are scoring around 10%+ higher than their ave against Haw
Rnd 5 v Melb - got smashed by Gawn, his first and only true/good Ruck opponent. Scored a poor 50.
Rnd 6 v Ade - DNP
Rnd 7 v GWS (Mummy) - ok, we have to concede he played well, and smart here, and used his superior athleticism to collect 22 Disposals
I'm not sure we should reasonably be expecting him to score at a decent F6 level from here to the finish. Though at his price, if he gets close, it does make making a "better" upgrade elsewhere more of a possibility.
If your bye structure allows for it, I'd be more tempted to go Menegola as a value pick, than Marshall.

 

[Eagling]

Hi bloke,
If I was forced to choose between Marshall and Westhoff, I'd take Marshall.
I will add in one side note.
While Marshall is showing some great potential, you need to break down his opponents so far, and then question, has he been gifted a good start?
Rnd 2 v Ess (80% B'chambers, 20% McKernan) - Ruck opponents have generally been scoring to, or just over, their ave against TBC
Rnd 3 v Freo (Lobb) - Lobb is tall, but one of the easier Ruck opponents
Rnd 4 v Haw (66% McEvoy, 34% Ceglar) - most rucks are scoring around 10%+ higher than their ave against Haw
Rnd 5 v Melb - got smashed by Gawn, his first and only true/good Ruck opponent. Scored a poor 50.
Rnd 6 v Ade - DNP
Rnd 7 v GWS (Mummy) - ok, we have to concede he played well, and smart here, and used his superior athleticism to collect 22 Disposals
I'm not sure we should reasonably be expecting him to score at a decent F6 level from here to the finish. Though at his price, if he gets close, it does make making a "better" upgrade elsewhere more of a possibility.
If your bye structure allows for it, I'd be more tempted to go Menegola as a value pick, than Marshall.

Hi Rowsus.

What are your thoughts on Jack Ziebell around the same price point?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1125177905326067712

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus.

What are your thoughts on Jack Ziebell around the same price point?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1125177905326067712

In his career he has averaged 95 twice, in 2016 and 2013, and they are his only seasons over 90.
He's capable of going on good 7 or 8 game streaks, which has sucked a few people in, in the past.
This is currently a 2 game streak.
You might get some short term pleasure out of having him, but I would have to back against him proving to be a good pick from here, to the finish.

 

[Steuby]

Hey Row,


Normally I'm against sideways trading but I'm seriously considering cogs -> macrae. I'm not sure why but cogs looks different to last year despite a similar output. I've read that he spent 34% in the forward 50 v hawks and was 4th CBA for the giants.

Macrae @ 574k looks incredibly tempting but I'm not sure if this is a rational decision. Any thoughts?