Position Ruck Discussion

[aps1]

The similar circumstances are quite uncanny (lack of good rookie options, etc). I've learnt my lesson with Witts. Lycett R2 worked well the following year as well.

I'd be extremely happy with 75 from Naismith, but I agree that he could push 80 if that role he got continues (primary ruck with Sinclair as pure backup only). Early draw is quite good as well, no Gawn/Grundy before byes and worst is Goldy/NN in R7 and R8.

75 feels like a reasonable expectation. I think Sinclair will have some ruck time, especially when Buddy/Reid come back. If he goes higher, that will just be a bonus.

You would think that Gawn starts a little bit slowly if he is missing some of his fitness base, but even if he goes 130, thats just what you are paying for.

 

[Manikato1]

Naismith is certainly interesting at $ 251,500.00 (similar to Roberton , Vandenberg , Sier etc) , probably needs to average 80-90 to make that $ 150,000.00 profit which would take him to $ 400,000.00.

You are then hoping Gawn is available at $ 550,000.00 assuming going to do the traditional 1 down/1 up (given so much uncertainty over cheap rookies starting now will we even have downgrade options presenting ?)

Don't think Gawn even got close to that mark last season and if he does would his performance be still good enough to be R2.

Think it would be a lot easier starting Roberton , Vandenberg , Sier and being able to get a fallen premium for them for $ 525 - $ 550 k ish around the byes.

If I don't take Gawn , think I would take Goldy or ROB personally.

Rucks are not the position to try and get too cute with.

Don't think 80 would cut it. Table courtesy of KLo30

 

[Herbie66]

Don't think 80 would cut it. Table courtesy of KLo30

View attachment 16001

90 it is then , from someone who may not even be # 1 ruck at his club and who has missed the last 2 seasons , just asking for trouble by the sounds of it.

 

[BigRuss]

Don't think 80 would cut it. Table courtesy of KLo30

View attachment 16001

130k in 8 weeks would be more than enough to make him a good pick IMO. As previously said it’s not as much about what he does as what it lets you do with the rest of your team.

 

[jobeywatto]

Naismith has 1 score over 90 in his entire career playing 1st ruck and people picking him need him to average that?

 

[Hondo]

Naismith has 1 score over 90 in his entire career playing 1st ruck and people need him to average that?

It’s about opportunity and natural improvement. He’s only played about 20 games?

Nank and Witts had no scoring history either before their break out years. They just needed the no 1 ruck spot to spike up.

 

[jobeywatto]

It’s about opportunity and natural improvement. He’s only played about 20 games?

Nank and Witts had no scoring history either before their break out years. They just needed the no 1 ruck spot to spike up.

Isn't that another warning sign? He's always injured.

Naismith was 1st ruck for all of 2017 and his scoring was terrible. Being the starting ruck isn't always a guarantee of high scoring. He needs to find more of the football.

 

[McLovin]

Isn't that another warning sign? He's always injured.

Naismith was 1st ruck for all of 2017 and his scoring was terrible. Being the starting ruck isn't always a guarantee of high scoring. He needs to find more of the football.

I don't understand Sydney's attachment to him. Straight back in as first ruck based on I'm not sure what. He's aggressive but that's about all I can remember seeing from him. Bit of a reverse Mumford in that he tends to injure himself instead of opposition players. I suppose some of his numbers in 2017 would've been affected by splitting time with Tippett, but there's not much point in them picking Sinclair if he's not spending a reasonable amount of time in the ruck.

 

[Hondo]

Isn't that another warning sign? He's always injured.

Naismith was 1st ruck for all of 2017 and his scoring was terrible. Being the starting ruck isn't always a guarantee of high scoring. He needs to find more of the football.

it would require a leap of faith no question. Witts was a key leap of faith that year because of the exact same scenario being no scoring history and it meant skipping Gawn. That was the year Gawn pulled a hamstring or groin in about R3.

but then again we are probably going to pick some other $200k players with no games played at all.

I’m undecided at this point on him but if you try it you’ll find you can solve the problem of these missing mid rookies and get a pretty good 6th premium mid to o***et not having Gawn.

 

[Blades]

it would require a leap of faith no question. Witts was a key leap of faith that year because of the exact same scenario being no scoring history and it meant skipping Gawn. That was the year Gawn pulled a hamstring or groin in about R3.

but then again we are probably going to pick some other $200k players with no games played at all.

I’m undecided at this point on him but if you try it you’ll find you can solve the problem of these missing mid rookies and get a pretty good 6th premium mid to o***et not having Gawn.

Bomber18 suggested earlier that Naismith at one point leapt as high as NicNat in the game. I'm not sure how high a 'leap of faith' is? But if you've got a leap as high as NicNat...that's probably high enough!

 

[Vicwood]

And when he gets injured, who do you upgrade to.? My Suggestion, if you want to take a risk FWD line.

 

[jobeywatto]

it would require a leap of faith no question. Witts was a key leap of faith that year because of the exact same scenario being no scoring history and it meant skipping Gawn. That was the year Gawn pulled a hamstring or groin in about R3.

but then again we are probably going to pick some other $200k players with no games played at all.

I’m undecided at this point on him but if you try it you’ll find you can solve the problem of these missing mid rookies and get a pretty good 6th premium mid to o***et not having Gawn.

I think it's a big risk to take in the rucks. If Gawn goes down early you can trade him to anyone. If Naismith goes down early things will get a bit awkward figuring out what to do with him.

For Naismith's price you'd really need him to be scoring close to 85 (that's what I'd expect from a Roberton/C.Jones pick at the same price range) and I'm not sure if he has that in him unless he can add another 3-4 disposals to his game. He's played close to a full season as #1 ruck and didn't show much. Sinclair is still around to take ruck contests away from him.

For me personally, unless Gawn is out for Round 1 (I doubt he will be... wasn't his niggle only a minor one?) I'll be starting him. I tinkered with a Naismith team and I didn't feel like the improvements were enough to o***et a potential Gawn 125+ start to the season.

 

[Hondo]

I think it's a big risk to take in the rucks. If Gawn goes down early you can trade him to anyone. If Naismith goes down early things will get a bit awkward figuring out what to do with him.

For Naismith's price you'd really need him to be scoring close to 85 (that's what I'd expect from a Roberton/C.Jones pick at the same price range) and I'm not sure if he has that in him unless he can add another 3-4 disposals to his game. He's played close to a full season as #1 ruck and didn't show much. Sinclair is still around to take ruck contests away from him.

For me personally, unless Gawn is out for Round 1 (I doubt he will be... wasn't his niggle only a minor one?) I'll be starting him. I tinkered with a Naismith team and I didn't feel like the improvements were enough to o***et a potential Gawn 125+ start to the season.

I don’t see him as a comparison to Roberton. Gawn is $700k so the equation is say:

Danger/Naismith v Gawn/Serong

115/85 v 125/60? Put your own estimates in depending on the players. I think Naismith could go at 80 and you’d be ahead still. $450k spend to get 45 more points from Naismith to Gawn? If you put it like that it’s a different perspective.

Yes he could get injured and that’s a risk but that was what was said in the Witts year when many me included picked Sandi and Witts. What could you do if he went down? There’s always a solution to these things but yes it would be a tough spot.

I remember this exact discussion in the Witts year. What if he goes down. What if Gawn goes huge.

 

[_Slip_]

Gawn's 155 ave vs GWS doesn't really apply, I'd be more inclined to look at his record vs Adelaide. Sauce gonna murder him.

Sauce got beat up by Naismith. I can’t see him murdering Gawn. Lmao

 

[PC]

The difference with Witts was that he was a reasonable player who hadn't had the opportunities due to Grundy at the Pies. Went to the Suns with a clean bill of health as first ruck. Naismith isn't quite in the same boat.

Disclaimer - I have Naismith atm. With Xerri, Cameron, Williams as reasonable chances of playing I figure there are a few back up plans.

 

[jobeywatto]

$450k spend to get 45 more points from Naismith to Gawn? If you put it like that it’s a different perspective.

That's if Naismith finds a way to add at least 11 points to his best ever season average without a significant role change. Maybe natural progression will get him there but I wouldn't bank on it.

Comparing him to Witts can be dangerous. Different situations. Just because it worked out once doesn't mean it will again. If Naismith continues to score at 70-odd with Gawn continuing at 120+, how do you bring him in?

I'm not saying it won't work out but I think leaving out Gawn because of a pre-season niggle has more potential to hurt you than just starting him. Many left out Grundy last year for similar reasons (minor foot injury in pre-season, didn't look great in pre-season games) and it cost them. If Gawn plays in Marsh 2 then what will you do?

 

[Hondo]

@jobeywatto it’s not about Gawn being possibly injured although he’s the one I’d pick because out of he and Grundy he has the worse injury history.

It’s more about who is the better cash cow .. Naismith v the mid rookie like I put the x v y up for. It’s a strategy to deal with this lack of mid rookies.

And as PC said there appears to be some playing base priced rucks that we can pick to safeguard the strategy.

In terms of how to upgrade well how does one upgrade say Serong going 65 to Dunkley going 115? Same deal isn’t it?

 

[Hondo]

The difference with Witts was that he was a reasonable player who hadn't had the opportunities due to Grundy at the Pies. Went to the Suns with a clean bill of health as first ruck. Naismith isn't quite in the same boat.

Disclaimer - I have Naismith atm. With Xerri, Cameron, Williams as reasonable chances of playing I figure there are a few back up plans.

I think if you look back at the Witts discussion at the time some of the predictions were very dire and I am not sure we even got to him being a “reasonable player”. I got told he would be lucky to go 75-80 by some.

 

[jobeywatto]

In terms of how to upgrade well how does one upgrade say Serong going 65 to Dunkley going 115? Same deal isn’t it?

Except that in other positions you have more choice. There tends to be a few underpriced premos to choose from when making upgrades. If you can't afford Dunkley at 115 then maybe you bring in Treloar going at 112 who's had a few poor games in a row. In the case of Gawn you're relying on him and him alone dropping in price and becoming available.

 

[PC]

I think if you look back at the Witts discussion at the time some of the predictions were very dire and I am not sure we even got to him being a “reasonable player”. I got told he would be lucky to go 75-80 by some.

For sure. I took Witts that year and enjoyed the choice from memory.