Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
Until we get official word, that it will be a DGR, and where it exactly fits in, I would ignore it for now.
I'm not sure even if/when it happens, I'd be bending my team to get too many.
Obviously having Gawn would appear to be advantageous, as if he scores 300 over the 2 games, and you have him as Captain, then that is a ridiculous advantage over those that don't.
Outside of that, you have to remember, it is just one extra game. That extra game is nearly immediately nullified, if the player you brought in misses a game through injury later on.
You need to do a comparison. eg.
Will I bring in Oliver, who will play I believe 14 games from here at 107 for 1,498 points, or will I bring in Cripps, who will play 13 games at 115 for 1,495 points? As you can see, not much difference.
I'd be very careful about it it ruling your trade decisions, outside of making sure you have a strong DGR Captain, if it eventuates!
I'm not sure even if/when it happens, I'd be bending my team to get too many.
Obviously having Gawn would appear to be advantageous, as if he scores 300 over the 2 games, and you have him as Captain, then that is a ridiculous advantage over those that don't.
Outside of that, you have to remember, it is just one extra game. That extra game is nearly immediately nullified, if the player you brought in misses a game through injury later on.
You need to do a comparison. eg.
Will I bring in Oliver, who will play I believe 14 games from here at 107 for 1,498 points, or will I bring in Cripps, who will play 13 games at 115 for 1,495 points? As you can see, not much difference.
I'd be very careful about it it ruling your trade decisions, outside of making sure you have a strong DGR Captain, if it eventuates!
Hi Rowsus.
Do you think there's a new level of 'Zenith Premiums' we should be aiming for? When I started the season, I figured most of the top mids would average between 115 and 120; one or two might push just beyond that.
Now, Lachie Neale is averaging 165. In a normal season, I'd feel this is indicative of a bubble about to burst. But in this case; I'm not sure - whether it's the shorter quarters or someone else, it seems like established wisdom has opened the window and is about to climb out.
I keep seeing people wanting to trade say Macrae to Neale last week. Now it's Tom Mitchell/Josh Kelly to Fyfe. Sometimes injury hampered issues is understandable, but I've always been advised that such trades generally backfire as scores equalise. Do you think players like Fyfe and Neale are 20-30 ppg better than Mitchell or Josh Kelly?
Do you think there's a new level of 'Zenith Premiums' we should be aiming for? When I started the season, I figured most of the top mids would average between 115 and 120; one or two might push just beyond that.
Now, Lachie Neale is averaging 165. In a normal season, I'd feel this is indicative of a bubble about to burst. But in this case; I'm not sure - whether it's the shorter quarters or someone else, it seems like established wisdom has opened the window and is about to climb out.
I keep seeing people wanting to trade say Macrae to Neale last week. Now it's Tom Mitchell/Josh Kelly to Fyfe. Sometimes injury hampered issues is understandable, but I've always been advised that such trades generally backfire as scores equalise. Do you think players like Fyfe and Neale are 20-30 ppg better than Mitchell or Josh Kelly?
Hi Rowsus
I started with Grundy and Goldy in the rucks with Xerri on the bench and Cameron on the bench in the forwards.
My reasoning was that Grundy and Goldy would be set and forget and if one of them missed a game then the most likely replacement was already in my team to at least get a few points and that I would not have to thing about the rucks all year.
Things have changed and last week I brought in Pittonet (via DPP Toby Greene).
Now that I have Pittonet sitting on the bench I am considering trading out Grundy to get him on the field and bringing in Neale (or Fyfe). What are your views on this move? Trading out a player like Grundy goes against all lessons I have learnt in previous years
I started with Grundy and Goldy in the rucks with Xerri on the bench and Cameron on the bench in the forwards.
My reasoning was that Grundy and Goldy would be set and forget and if one of them missed a game then the most likely replacement was already in my team to at least get a few points and that I would not have to thing about the rucks all year.
Things have changed and last week I brought in Pittonet (via DPP Toby Greene).
Now that I have Pittonet sitting on the bench I am considering trading out Grundy to get him on the field and bringing in Neale (or Fyfe). What are your views on this move? Trading out a player like Grundy goes against all lessons I have learnt in previous years
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 8,560
- Likes
- 11,561
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
HI Rowan, the Pittonet advice was spot on and I had a bit of money to get him at R 3. I have Gawn so a nice replacement that averted a disaster round, 1868 was bad enough with 5 premiums out and Whitfield. Am thinking of trading Pickett to Bennell, too early maybe but cash is imperative. Thanks for what you give Rowan, be well. Keith
Last edited:
Hey Rows,
Once again thanks again for assistance with last weeks trades.
Any thoughts on what to do with Houston?
Haynes is now out of reach for me who I had planned to trade him to last week.
With Sturt injured and Pickett likely to get dropped I may have no choice but to hang onto Houston.
Throw in Noble and my non playing rookies and it is now becoming a little tough. New recruit Pittonet will also have to remain on the bench.
cheers
Once again thanks again for assistance with last weeks trades.
Any thoughts on what to do with Houston?
Haynes is now out of reach for me who I had planned to trade him to last week.
With Sturt injured and Pickett likely to get dropped I may have no choice but to hang onto Houston.
Throw in Noble and my non playing rookies and it is now becoming a little tough. New recruit Pittonet will also have to remain on the bench.
cheers
Last edited:
Hi Eagling,
the short answer is no. I'd be staggered if Neale and Fyfe ended the season with a 20-30 point break, on the "next tier". A correction of sorts will come, of that I'm pretty sure.
I too am a bit bemused by all the talk along the lines of, "All rules are out the window this season. It's more like BBL. Side trade your Prem, even if it's a 1 week injury!" etc. A finished team is still the objective, even if it is only done for a Round or two. Those throwing trades out the window are more than likely looking at finalised teams with 3 to 5 value picks or compromised picks. Unless those value picks suddenly outperform their exposed form, those Coaches will be losing points to sides that built their team along more conventional lines. A balance probably needs to be struck, but I can't see that balance being achieved, by coaches that consistently burn trades, that aren't moving them closer to a full Prem team.
Neale comes up against Adelaide this week, where I expect him to go 150+ again, but then has Port and Collingwood. Neither of those 2 teams are giving up regular big Mid scores, though Port did give up a 166 to Fyfe. If Neale goes 150, 110, 100 then suddenly he is $722k with a BE 211. He'd be fairly and squarely in trade me in, and grab 2 Keepers for me territory. His average would still be a 142, but if you were of the opinion he'd average 125-127 this season, then his last 11 games are going to go at 115-118 after those games. Being he'd be priced at 140, I can see an argument for cashing him in!
Fyfe has GC, Ade, Melb - It's not hard to see him going 115, 150, 130 in those games. That would put him at: $698,000 BE 126. It's not screaming "sell me" like Neale does. If we assumed Fyfe would finish the season on 15/125 (he misses games every season!), then after Round 6 he is going to give you 9/118, which is a PIT60 of 107. Would you pay $698,000 for a player you expected to return 107? It seems unlikely!
the short answer is no. I'd be staggered if Neale and Fyfe ended the season with a 20-30 point break, on the "next tier". A correction of sorts will come, of that I'm pretty sure.
I too am a bit bemused by all the talk along the lines of, "All rules are out the window this season. It's more like BBL. Side trade your Prem, even if it's a 1 week injury!" etc. A finished team is still the objective, even if it is only done for a Round or two. Those throwing trades out the window are more than likely looking at finalised teams with 3 to 5 value picks or compromised picks. Unless those value picks suddenly outperform their exposed form, those Coaches will be losing points to sides that built their team along more conventional lines. A balance probably needs to be struck, but I can't see that balance being achieved, by coaches that consistently burn trades, that aren't moving them closer to a full Prem team.
Neale comes up against Adelaide this week, where I expect him to go 150+ again, but then has Port and Collingwood. Neither of those 2 teams are giving up regular big Mid scores, though Port did give up a 166 to Fyfe. If Neale goes 150, 110, 100 then suddenly he is $722k with a BE 211. He'd be fairly and squarely in trade me in, and grab 2 Keepers for me territory. His average would still be a 142, but if you were of the opinion he'd average 125-127 this season, then his last 11 games are going to go at 115-118 after those games. Being he'd be priced at 140, I can see an argument for cashing him in!
Fyfe has GC, Ade, Melb - It's not hard to see him going 115, 150, 130 in those games. That would put him at: $698,000 BE 126. It's not screaming "sell me" like Neale does. If we assumed Fyfe would finish the season on 15/125 (he misses games every season!), then after Round 6 he is going to give you 9/118, which is a PIT60 of 107. Would you pay $698,000 for a player you expected to return 107? It seems unlikely!
Hi Mudflap,
it's something that deserves serious consideration, but then needs to be put aside with a "You know, if things were slightly different, I'd be willing to run this gambit".
First off, to run the gambit, ideally you'd like Grundy playing after Goldy and Pittonet, then you'd have a better idea of what Ruck scores you'd be facing. Unfortunately, Grundy plays in game 2, so you'd need to pull the trade pin early.
Secondly. I'm of the opinion Grundy hasn't been 100% since that 2nd quarter clash against Richmond. Without knowing exactly what's hampering him, for all we know, he could be 100% this week, or banged up for the next 4. Given Collingwood have options, so I think the first one is likely closer to the truth than the 2nd one.
Thirdly. Collingwood's Ruck Draw! Here's what Grundy faces in the immediate future, and the scores they have given up:
Jacobs - Fort 94, Goldstein 164, English 120 - all 3 scored well over what you'd expect them to average.
TBC - Lobb 133 + Darcy 54, Sinclair 144, No game - again, in the 2 games played, scores higher than you'd expect.
McInerney/Martin(?) - Ceglar 101, Lobb 57 + Darcy 47, NicNat 137 - bit up and down.
If Grundy is right, his next 2 games should produce above average scores, followed by an average score. What does that mean? Potentially it means 150, 150, 125! IF Grundy is right. It is also rumored he will potentially face Fort very soon, which would be another above average game.
If this didn't convince you, then I would suggest you go to Fyfe over Neale. While I expect Neale to go 150+ against Ade this week, he then faces Port and Collingwood. He could easily go back to 110, 100 against those 2 teams, and suddenly he is $722k with a BE 210! Port have only given up 1 big Mid score, Fyfe 166 last week, but that was more contested marks and goals, than accumulation. Fyfe is cheaper, and faces GC, Ade, Melb. Neale is less likely to miss games than Fyfe, but I have a feeling, Neale might "only" average 110 for a stretch, after this game, dropping his price to a more gettable range.
Good luck, whichever way you jump!
it's something that deserves serious consideration, but then needs to be put aside with a "You know, if things were slightly different, I'd be willing to run this gambit".
First off, to run the gambit, ideally you'd like Grundy playing after Goldy and Pittonet, then you'd have a better idea of what Ruck scores you'd be facing. Unfortunately, Grundy plays in game 2, so you'd need to pull the trade pin early.
Secondly. I'm of the opinion Grundy hasn't been 100% since that 2nd quarter clash against Richmond. Without knowing exactly what's hampering him, for all we know, he could be 100% this week, or banged up for the next 4. Given Collingwood have options, so I think the first one is likely closer to the truth than the 2nd one.
Thirdly. Collingwood's Ruck Draw! Here's what Grundy faces in the immediate future, and the scores they have given up:
Jacobs - Fort 94, Goldstein 164, English 120 - all 3 scored well over what you'd expect them to average.
TBC - Lobb 133 + Darcy 54, Sinclair 144, No game - again, in the 2 games played, scores higher than you'd expect.
McInerney/Martin(?) - Ceglar 101, Lobb 57 + Darcy 47, NicNat 137 - bit up and down.
If Grundy is right, his next 2 games should produce above average scores, followed by an average score. What does that mean? Potentially it means 150, 150, 125! IF Grundy is right. It is also rumored he will potentially face Fort very soon, which would be another above average game.
If this didn't convince you, then I would suggest you go to Fyfe over Neale. While I expect Neale to go 150+ against Ade this week, he then faces Port and Collingwood. He could easily go back to 110, 100 against those 2 teams, and suddenly he is $722k with a BE 210! Port have only given up 1 big Mid score, Fyfe 166 last week, but that was more contested marks and goals, than accumulation. Fyfe is cheaper, and faces GC, Ade, Melb. Neale is less likely to miss games than Fyfe, but I have a feeling, Neale might "only" average 110 for a stretch, after this game, dropping his price to a more gettable range.
Good luck, whichever way you jump!
LOL, you give me too much credit!
I will not claim I invented The Slingshot, but I will claim I named it! It's a tactic that has been used by smart players, in any season with byes, for many years.
The answer I gave on the DGR's probably wasn't all it could be. I actually answered it at work, on my phone, which in close to 500 answers given in this thread, I have done around 4 times!
Where my head is at, with the DGR's, is that I can see people trading in say a Viney, thinking it was a smart move, as he has a DGR. 1 trade to bring Viney in, who then scores in line with his history, and goes 95 + 90. You got 185 points from the trade, for the Round, and think that was pretty cool. But now you have Viney, a 90-95 player sitting at M7! What are you going to do? Continue to leak 10-20/Round, with a weak M7/8? Trade him straight back out again? If the DGR is very late in the season, just do it. If there are a number of games to come, what have you gained if you keep him? In 6 or so Rounds, the "bonus" points you got are gone, and now you are leaking points on the deal! Ok, so let's trade him out. Great! You just spent 2 trades for a 90 point gain. 45 points/trade. No thanks.
I think any player you trade in, due to an expected DGR still needs to qualify as a Keeper, otherwise you negate any advantage you gained. On the flipside, if you own a Viney type now, you are probably prudent to hold him, until we get a better idea on the if and when of any potential DGR.
I will not claim I invented The Slingshot, but I will claim I named it! It's a tactic that has been used by smart players, in any season with byes, for many years.
The answer I gave on the DGR's probably wasn't all it could be. I actually answered it at work, on my phone, which in close to 500 answers given in this thread, I have done around 4 times!
Where my head is at, with the DGR's, is that I can see people trading in say a Viney, thinking it was a smart move, as he has a DGR. 1 trade to bring Viney in, who then scores in line with his history, and goes 95 + 90. You got 185 points from the trade, for the Round, and think that was pretty cool. But now you have Viney, a 90-95 player sitting at M7! What are you going to do? Continue to leak 10-20/Round, with a weak M7/8? Trade him straight back out again? If the DGR is very late in the season, just do it. If there are a number of games to come, what have you gained if you keep him? In 6 or so Rounds, the "bonus" points you got are gone, and now you are leaking points on the deal! Ok, so let's trade him out. Great! You just spent 2 trades for a 90 point gain. 45 points/trade. No thanks.
I think any player you trade in, due to an expected DGR still needs to qualify as a Keeper, otherwise you negate any advantage you gained. On the flipside, if you own a Viney type now, you are probably prudent to hold him, until we get a better idea on the if and when of any potential DGR.
Hi Keith, I'm glad Pittonet worked out well for you, and everyone else that brought him in.
Pickett is starting to look like a flash in the pan, and a great story, when we look back in 10 years, and say "Oh yeah! I remember him! What happened to him?!". I'm not saying he can't turn it around, but his last 2 games have been dreadful. So bad in fact, I'd nearly be surprised if he got picked this week. He's just fumbled and bumbled so much, the last 2 games. Of course, going to Bennell potentially replaces one problem with another. It's a risk, but he does have the potential to be an 80-85 player, and outside of Rowell, there aren't many non-Ruck Rookies we can say that about!
Good luck, and good health.
Rowan
Pickett is starting to look like a flash in the pan, and a great story, when we look back in 10 years, and say "Oh yeah! I remember him! What happened to him?!". I'm not saying he can't turn it around, but his last 2 games have been dreadful. So bad in fact, I'd nearly be surprised if he got picked this week. He's just fumbled and bumbled so much, the last 2 games. Of course, going to Bennell potentially replaces one problem with another. It's a risk, but he does have the potential to be an 80-85 player, and outside of Rowell, there aren't many non-Ruck Rookies we can say that about!
Good luck, and good health.
Rowan
Hi Rowsus / all,
I'm in a similar, but inverse quandry, whereby I would be keen to bring Naismith in, but already have Gawn/Grundy/Pittonet. The only real option I see would be to trade Grundy down to him, which is a questionable decision. There is some decent cash generation potential in Naismith, but I'm also nervous that he's been named alongside Sinclair.
Thoughts?
I'm in a similar, but inverse quandry, whereby I would be keen to bring Naismith in, but already have Gawn/Grundy/Pittonet. The only real option I see would be to trade Grundy down to him, which is a questionable decision. There is some decent cash generation potential in Naismith, but I'm also nervous that he's been named alongside Sinclair.
Thoughts?
HI TBO, welcome back.
For this to work you need 2 things to happen:
Grundy gets injured, or has a string of scores in the 105-110 area.
Naismith stays fit, and pumps out 4 or 5 scores in the 80+ area.
Betting on one of those things might be risky, betting on both to happen concurrently seems unlikely, and could easily be a make or break decision on your season.
If ever there was a season for a play like that, it is this one, but given Grundy's draw, I don't like it.
For this to work you need 2 things to happen:
Grundy gets injured, or has a string of scores in the 105-110 area.
Naismith stays fit, and pumps out 4 or 5 scores in the 80+ area.
Betting on one of those things might be risky, betting on both to happen concurrently seems unlikely, and could easily be a make or break decision on your season.
If ever there was a season for a play like that, it is this one, but given Grundy's draw, I don't like it.
Appreciate the thoughts. I was definitely leaning this way, and your logic is very sound. Cheers.
Will be interesting to see the teams this afternoon, really unsure of the need to necessarily make any trades this week. Only other one I was contemplating was Sturt to ??? (Pickett? Georgiades? Fort?), but none of them particularly inspire much confidence in me.
Incidentally, what do you think of the HIGHEST score rule they just brought in for the ESS v MEL game? Personally, I think it's probably the right way to go, especially if the game won't be held for several weeks, so it stops people contemplating loading up on these players later in the season.
Will be interesting to see the teams this afternoon, really unsure of the need to necessarily make any trades this week. Only other one I was contemplating was Sturt to ??? (Pickett? Georgiades? Fort?), but none of them particularly inspire much confidence in me.
Incidentally, what do you think of the HIGHEST score rule they just brought in for the ESS v MEL game? Personally, I think it's probably the right way to go, especially if the game won't be held for several weeks, so it stops people contemplating loading up on these players later in the season.
Personally, I prefer it to a DGR. Some are saying Melb/Ess players only get 16 scores this season, but I say that is immaterial. They received some sort of compensation with the best 18 decision. Some had it good, with Pittonet, some had it bad, with donuts.
What I will say is VS really made a rod for their back, by not pre-planning, and preannouncing what would happen in this scenario. Now every decision they make will appear to be made on the fly, and will anger a good number of their participants.
What I will say is VS really made a rod for their back, by not pre-planning, and preannouncing what would happen in this scenario. Now every decision they make will appear to be made on the fly, and will anger a good number of their participants.
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 999
- Likes
- 2,067
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Status