Hi Rowsus - very interested in your view regarding above. My thinking is that coaches tend to start with 1-1-2 rucks structure so I'm burning one more trade by selecting a value ruck player for R1 with a view to upgrading. Figure I can afford to strategically use 2 trades to upgrade R1 and R2 and use the $$$ saved to upgrade other lines such as MIDS. Completely crazy or is there some logic to the madness? Really appreciate your opinion on this strategy.
Rucks Discussion
- Thread starter Impromptu
- Start date
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 6,980
- Likes
- 11,114
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Thanks Rowsus - I hear you re Kreuz's game count. Given this problem, do you like any of the following solutions:
1. Get Berger instead, or
2. Double upgrade from Sandi to Goldy and Kreuz to fallen premo (Minson, Cox ?), or
3. Start with Lobbe/Sandi and use the saved cash elsewhere ?
Thanks
Ps. Have been using the RAMP predictor today and have been loving the insights re scores and price movements across the season - it really adds an extra dimension to the planning process
Edit - just read Broges suggestion above and I think it is the same as what I am suggesting at item 3 above
1. Get Berger instead, or
2. Double upgrade from Sandi to Goldy and Kreuz to fallen premo (Minson, Cox ?), or
3. Start with Lobbe/Sandi and use the saved cash elsewhere ?
Thanks
Ps. Have been using the RAMP predictor today and have been loving the insights re scores and price movements across the season - it really adds an extra dimension to the planning process
Edit - just read Broges suggestion above and I think it is the same as what I am suggesting at item 3 above
Last edited:
Just a bit further on that I was thinking whilst trying to go to sleep last night about the good old days of set and forget ruck strategy (As you do). It used to be so much easier as it was pick Cox and then figure out who the best other ruck would be for the year. Then add in a 200k odd 3rd ruck who was likely to play a large number of games. It was for myself more important R3 would play regular games even if only scoring 50 odd rather than be a cash cow.
Further I reckon the move from 20 to 30 trades now makes set and forget less important. As when you had 20 trades you needed to be more conservative to save as many trades as possible hence eliminating rucks from those 20 trades made life much simplier. Simple thinking but just an observation of my own ruck trading history.
Further I reckon the move from 20 to 30 trades now makes set and forget less important. As when you had 20 trades you needed to be more conservative to save as many trades as possible hence eliminating rucks from those 20 trades made life much simplier. Simple thinking but just an observation of my own ruck trading history.
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 757
- Likes
- 45
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Definitely not mad to be considering this. Last year I was also burnt by Maric and Rowsus' article on the rucks only makes your idea more appealing. However, you should be prepared to waste more than 2 trades to fix your rucks throughout the season. One of HMac/Sandi could easily go down without making much cash. I would love to pick a top priced ruckman to set and forget but once bitten, twice shy. Lobbe and Sandi for me ATM.
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 1,078
- Likes
- 2,941
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Loving all the conflicting opinion and strategy in regards to rucks.
Alot of focus on fitness of Nic Nat and Sandi in the NAB Cup, but how much will we really know. Both will be managed so they can line up Rd 1.
We will still be taking massive risks on their fitness going into the season.
Current thinking is possibly only going with one of these two, not both. Too much risk for mine, with limited 'get out of jail cards to play' if things go pear-shaped.
Alot of focus on fitness of Nic Nat and Sandi in the NAB Cup, but how much will we really know. Both will be managed so they can line up Rd 1.
We will still be taking massive risks on their fitness going into the season.
Current thinking is possibly only going with one of these two, not both. Too much risk for mine, with limited 'get out of jail cards to play' if things go pear-shaped.
I tend to agree with what some of the others have said, that if you come in with a "value" R1 you are probably looking at 4 trades to upgrade your R1 and R2. I think it's best if you start with 1 Ruck that has at least the potential to be a keeper, and fill the R1 or R2 position, so that you might at least potentially save yourself a trade or two.
Right now my own structure is waivering between Lobbe and Leuey, and Lobbe, Sandi and Hickey. I think anyone taking Sandi or HMac definitley needs to have cover and/or a contingency plan. I think the idea of taking both Sandi and Hmac is just too much risk. You nearly need to have cover for both, and that compromises your whole structure.
I'm interested that so many people that have suggested a R1, Sandi, back up Ruck at R3 structure have gone for Longer. In fact, I've hardly seen anyone suggest Hickey for R3, apart from myself, all the other Coaches that have gone for cover, have lumped for Longer. I'm not sure I understand this. I understand the bit about Longer being $34,200 cheaper, but the way I see it is this. St Kilda "let" McEvoy go well before they secured Longer. They would only do that, if they were satisfied the current back up (Hickey) was at a stage he could do a more than reasonable job of taking over from McEvoy. They couldn't rely on what they might be able to trade to, or draft down the track. It means to me, they have confidence in Hickey to do the job, and Longer was brought in as back up. The Coaches planning on starting Longer at R3 will most likely be forced into re-jigging their teams, if/when he is not selected in round 1.
I think it might be crazy to start two value Rucks at R1 and R2, but that comes down to what your definition of "value Rucks" is. I can see upside in both Lobbe and Leuey. Some people here will call them both value picks, some will just call the higher Midpriced selections. I'm happy with either definition.
Some might ask, why not Lobbe and Hickey then? While I am happy Hickey, is well placed and well priced, I am worried about the points I'll give up early, if I start him at R2. If I have him at R3 I will loophole him with R1 and R2 through King (Melb) leading up to the byes, then upgrade him.
Yes, as you can see from above, I'm having the same dilemma.
I'm still undecided which way to jump. I think Goldy is a better pick than Minson, but I am concerned about starting too many players at top price, so I won't be going Goldy.
broges has the right idea, I think. History has shown the better Rucks tend to show themselves by rounds 7 or 8, and go on with job. Rather spend top dollar on Goldy/Minson, and risk losing $100k each on 2 side trades to the 2 Rucks that look like being the "ones" in 2014, I'd rather get a few points at value, until we can assess it properly.
Having said all of this, and responding to broges, if NicNat looks good, I'm throwing all those plans out the window, and building my Rucks around him.
I'm glad you're liking your RAMP tool. It can be a bit much to take in at first, when you start comparing expected price drops/rises, and trying to work out which players to take now, and which ones are best to take later (SJ looks like a gem of an upgrade just after mid season!
), but once you get used to it, it's pretty good. Of course, my opinion is very biased!
Right now my own structure is waivering between Lobbe and Leuey, and Lobbe, Sandi and Hickey. I think anyone taking Sandi or HMac definitley needs to have cover and/or a contingency plan. I think the idea of taking both Sandi and Hmac is just too much risk. You nearly need to have cover for both, and that compromises your whole structure.
I'm interested that so many people that have suggested a R1, Sandi, back up Ruck at R3 structure have gone for Longer. In fact, I've hardly seen anyone suggest Hickey for R3, apart from myself, all the other Coaches that have gone for cover, have lumped for Longer. I'm not sure I understand this. I understand the bit about Longer being $34,200 cheaper, but the way I see it is this. St Kilda "let" McEvoy go well before they secured Longer. They would only do that, if they were satisfied the current back up (Hickey) was at a stage he could do a more than reasonable job of taking over from McEvoy. They couldn't rely on what they might be able to trade to, or draft down the track. It means to me, they have confidence in Hickey to do the job, and Longer was brought in as back up. The Coaches planning on starting Longer at R3 will most likely be forced into re-jigging their teams, if/when he is not selected in round 1.
I think it might be crazy to start two value Rucks at R1 and R2, but that comes down to what your definition of "value Rucks" is. I can see upside in both Lobbe and Leuey. Some people here will call them both value picks, some will just call the higher Midpriced selections. I'm happy with either definition.
Some might ask, why not Lobbe and Hickey then? While I am happy Hickey, is well placed and well priced, I am worried about the points I'll give up early, if I start him at R2. If I have him at R3 I will loophole him with R1 and R2 through King (Melb) leading up to the byes, then upgrade him.
Yes, as you can see from above, I'm having the same dilemma.
I'm still undecided which way to jump. I think Goldy is a better pick than Minson, but I am concerned about starting too many players at top price, so I won't be going Goldy.
broges has the right idea, I think. History has shown the better Rucks tend to show themselves by rounds 7 or 8, and go on with job. Rather spend top dollar on Goldy/Minson, and risk losing $100k each on 2 side trades to the 2 Rucks that look like being the "ones" in 2014, I'd rather get a few points at value, until we can assess it properly.
Having said all of this, and responding to broges, if NicNat looks good, I'm throwing all those plans out the window, and building my Rucks around him.
I'm glad you're liking your RAMP tool. It can be a bit much to take in at first, when you start comparing expected price drops/rises, and trying to work out which players to take now, and which ones are best to take later (SJ looks like a gem of an upgrade just after mid season!
), but once you get used to it, it's pretty good. Of course, my opinion is very biased!
Last edited:
The only worry I have with Leuenberger is what effect West will have on his scores, they liked to play Luey Forward last year, and inevitably when Brown goes down again I think Luey goes forward more and West does majority of the rucking.
But at the moment my Setup is basically the same as yours Rowsus Lobbe & Berger or Lobbe & Minson/Goldy.
But at the moment my Setup is basically the same as yours Rowsus Lobbe & Berger or Lobbe & Minson/Goldy.
I tend to agree with what some of the others have said, that if you come in with a "value" R1 you are probably looking at 4 trades to upgrade your R1 and R2. I think it's best if you start with 1 Ruck that has at least the potential to be a keeper, and fill the R1 or R2 position, so that you might at least potentially save yourself a trade or two.
Right now my own structure is waivering between Lobbe and Leuey, and Lobbe, Sandi and Hickey. I think anyone taking Sandi or HMac definitley needs to have cover and/or a contingency plan. I think the idea of taking both Sandi and Hmac is just too much risk. You nearly need to have cover for both, and that compromises your whole structure.
I'm interested that so many people that have suggested a R1, Sandi, back up Ruck at R3 structure have gone for Longer. In fact, I've hardly seen anyone suggest Hickey for R3, apart from myself, all the other Coaches that have gone for cover, have lumped for Longer. I'm not sure I understand this. I understand the bit about Longer being $34,200 cheaper, but the way I see it is this. St Kilda "let" McEvoy go well before they secured Longer. They would only do that, if they were satisfied the current back up (Hickey) was at a stage he could do a more than reasonable job of taking over from McEvoy. They couldn't rely on what they might be able to trade to, or draft down the track. It means to me, they have confidence in Hickey to do the job, and Longer was brought in as back up. The Coaches planning on starting Longer at R3 will most likely be forced into re-jigging their teams, if/when he is not selected in round 1.
I think it might be crazy to start two value Rucks at R1 and R2, but that comes down to what your definition of "value Rucks" is. I can see upside in both Lobbe and Leuey. Some people here will call them both value picks, some will just call the higher Midpriced selections. I'm happy with either definition.
Some might ask, why not Lobbe and Hickey then? While I am happy Hickey, is well placed and well priced, I am worried about the points I'll give up early, if I start him at R2. If I have him at R3 I will loophole him with R1 and R2 through King (Melb) leading up to the byes, then upgrade him.
Yes, as you can see from above, I'm having the same dilemma.
I'm still undecided which way to jump. I think Goldy is a better pick than Minson, but I am concerned about starting too many players at top price, so I won't be going Goldy.
broges has the right idea, I think. History has shown the better Rucks tend to show themselves by rounds 7 or 8, and go on with job. Rather spend top dollar on Goldy/Minson, and risk losing $100k each on 2 side trades to the 2 Rucks that look like being the "ones" in 2014, I'd rather get a few points at value, until we can assess it properly.
Having said all of this, and responding to broges, if NicNat looks good, I'm throwing all those plans out the window, and building my Rucks around him.
I'm glad you're liking your RAMP tool. It can be a bit much to take in at first, when you start comparing expected price drops/rises, and trying to work out which players to take now, and which ones are best to take later (SJ looks like a gem of an upgrade just after mid season!), but once you get used to it, it's pretty good. Of course, my opinion is very biased!
Right now my own structure is waivering between Lobbe and Leuey, and Lobbe, Sandi and Hickey. I think anyone taking Sandi or HMac definitley needs to have cover and/or a contingency plan. I think the idea of taking both Sandi and Hmac is just too much risk. You nearly need to have cover for both, and that compromises your whole structure.
I'm interested that so many people that have suggested a R1, Sandi, back up Ruck at R3 structure have gone for Longer. In fact, I've hardly seen anyone suggest Hickey for R3, apart from myself, all the other Coaches that have gone for cover, have lumped for Longer. I'm not sure I understand this. I understand the bit about Longer being $34,200 cheaper, but the way I see it is this. St Kilda "let" McEvoy go well before they secured Longer. They would only do that, if they were satisfied the current back up (Hickey) was at a stage he could do a more than reasonable job of taking over from McEvoy. They couldn't rely on what they might be able to trade to, or draft down the track. It means to me, they have confidence in Hickey to do the job, and Longer was brought in as back up. The Coaches planning on starting Longer at R3 will most likely be forced into re-jigging their teams, if/when he is not selected in round 1.
I think it might be crazy to start two value Rucks at R1 and R2, but that comes down to what your definition of "value Rucks" is. I can see upside in both Lobbe and Leuey. Some people here will call them both value picks, some will just call the higher Midpriced selections. I'm happy with either definition.
Some might ask, why not Lobbe and Hickey then? While I am happy Hickey, is well placed and well priced, I am worried about the points I'll give up early, if I start him at R2. If I have him at R3 I will loophole him with R1 and R2 through King (Melb) leading up to the byes, then upgrade him.
Yes, as you can see from above, I'm having the same dilemma.
I'm still undecided which way to jump. I think Goldy is a better pick than Minson, but I am concerned about starting too many players at top price, so I won't be going Goldy.
broges has the right idea, I think. History has shown the better Rucks tend to show themselves by rounds 7 or 8, and go on with job. Rather spend top dollar on Goldy/Minson, and risk losing $100k each on 2 side trades to the 2 Rucks that look like being the "ones" in 2014, I'd rather get a few points at value, until we can assess it properly.
Having said all of this, and responding to broges, if NicNat looks good, I'm throwing all those plans out the window, and building my Rucks around him.
I'm glad you're liking your RAMP tool. It can be a bit much to take in at first, when you start comparing expected price drops/rises, and trying to work out which players to take now, and which ones are best to take later (SJ looks like a gem of an upgrade just after mid season!
), but once you get used to it, it's pretty good. Of course, my opinion is very biased!
Ohhhhhhhhh Zim, Zim, Zim. Do you not read every word, of every thread I post???!!!
(anyone that does deserves a medal, or a "reading merit" badge, at least!)
May I direct you here, so you can see how 53 people have gotten their own RAMP tool so far.
Click here ---> RAMP score and price predictor
(anyone that does deserves a medal, or a "reading merit" badge, at least!)
May I direct you here, so you can see how 53 people have gotten their own RAMP tool so far.
Click here ---> RAMP score and price predictor
Lmao historically I dont read all posts on various forums over the years. I've won heated debates on soccer forums by reading half posts lol. Plus I took a bit of a AFL fantasy break so have missed quite a bit. Only just returned this week for the FDL draft, which I had no idea about until Johno messaged me on the playstation lol. Otherwise i'd still be in hibernation.
