Position SC 2021: Defender Discussion

[Philzsay]

The more I look at all the options across the lines the more I feel that I will select a FDTP (Floating Donut to Play) at D8.

Effectively a rookie (D/M if possible) who will act as my C donut if my VC goes large in the first few weeks, and then hopefully he will be selected to play early on in the season say between rounds 3 to 5 odd.

Will use R3 as a cash cow instead of the usual donut in previous years; got to go where the rookies are and are not this year.

 

[SuchIsLife]

Is there any reason why Lloyd should be considered, if:
1. I already have 2-3 VC/C options elsewhere
2. I have rookies/midfielders that I expect will get me within 1 trade of Lloyd, even if lloyd barely falls (600-650k)
3. I expect my other defensive premiums to be top 6-8 defenders while also representing value

What is the rationale behind selecting Jake Lloyd? Does anyone actually see upside? What is the actual risk of not starting him?

 

[Ricky Bobby]

The more I look at all the options across the lines the more I feel that I will select a FDTP (Floating Donut to Play) at D8.

Effectively a rookie (D/M if possible) who will act as my C donut if my VC goes large in the first few weeks, and then hopefully he will be selected to play early on in the season say between rounds 3 to 5 odd.

Will use R3 as a cash cow instead of the usual donut in previous years; got to go where the rookies are and are not this year.

Who do you like for the D8 FDTP ?

 

[Shannon]

With the lack of rookies down back
Is anyone else think of rolling a Fyfe as the loop then sit him at m11 when the jones/Gould’s of the world actually pop up during the year?

As good as I think Treacy looks the amount of decent forward rookies and Flynn make me think he’s not the right guy to start for the loop as he may get 2/3 games early. Fyfe has no chance and yeah just my thinking

Absolutely- with so many viable rookies on the other lines, a 102K floating donut is a real possibility.

 

[Bomber18]

The more I look at all the options across the lines the more I feel that I will select a FDTP (Floating Donut to Play) at D8.

Effectively a rookie (D/M if possible) who will act as my C donut if my VC goes large in the first few weeks, and then hopefully he will be selected to play early on in the season say between rounds 3 to 5 odd.

Will use R3 as a cash cow instead of the usual donut in previous years; got to go where the rookies are and are not this year.

Might just be a Donut To Play for me like Highmore in that D8 slot

 

[Backbone]

Is there any reason why Lloyd should be considered, if:
1. I already have 2-3 VC/C options elsewhere
2. I have rookies/midfielders that I expect will allow me to trade for Lloyd using no more than 1 trade, even if lloyd barely falls (600-650k)
3. I expect my other defensive premiums to be top 6-8 defenders while also representing value

What the rationale behind selecting Jake Lloyd? Does anyone actually see upside? What is the actual risk of not selecting him?

There’s always risk of people not backing up a 120+ season
Only really a handful of guys have done it consistently
Gazza pendles swan danger

Lloyd is elite and at the end of the day for the overall prize you want the best players in your team for the longest possible time
Even if Lloyd goes 110 for the year at 22x110 thats 2420 points
He’s durable and won’t burn you
Over the course of the year he and Neale are going to be tops at their position again it’s just worth weighing it up verse the rest of your team
It’s gonna be impossible to go 3 500+k guys down back and Lloyd plus Neale and 2/3 600k guys in the guts and Gawndy with danger dusty etc

Just gotta weigh up whether you think you can start 11 of the best of the best keepers verses stretching it out to 13 keepers who are a rung under that elite category but will score you more early. I’m avoiding Lloyd I’m going gawndy Neale and Macrae Oliver which is more then enough captaincy guys

If young and Webster pop Lloyd won’t be that hard to get by round 8.

 

[Philzsay]

Who do you like for the D8 FDTP ?

Might just be a Donut To Play for me like Highmore in that D8 slot

Josh Worrell at the moment. Don't think he will play Rd 1 but I think may get a chance early.

But starting to go through every single option trying to rate the probability of an early season debut.

 

[wogitalia]

Is there any reason why Lloyd should be considered, if:
1. I already have 2-3 VC/C options elsewhere
2. I have rookies/midfielders that I expect will get me within 1 trade of Lloyd, even if lloyd barely falls (600-650k)
3. I expect my other defensive premiums to be top 6-8 defenders while also representing value

What is the rationale behind selecting Jake Lloyd? Does anyone actually see upside? What is the actual risk of not starting him?

As someone who didn't start Lloyd or Neale last year based on this exact same argument... I would argue that if they improve, admittedly against the odds, you're absolutely screwed.

It's the hidden costs in not starting them that can hurt where the need to get him in later forces your hand out of other options.

You basically pay for safety. You're getting an ultra durable guy who is a pretty safe bet to be a top 3 scorer and could well end up 10 points clear a game on anyone. You take out the risk of him not declining and forcing you to move heaven and earth to get him.

I say that whilst being in total agreement that he's overpriced and there is a decent case he falls back to the pack.

I think Dawson and quite possibly Campbell both steal a not insignificant amount of kickouts. I think the Swans should be more competitive and thus concede less behinds, I think the new kick-in rules are going to favour Dawson and Campbell taking a lot more because of their ability to kick considerably further and that Lloyd pinning the team in the pocket so he can get a cheap 1-2 is not going to happen nearly as often (perhaps hope is better than think here). I think that the man on the mark rule will lead to teams wanting it in the hands of their most damaging kicks (not Lloyd) more often so they can cut angles through the middle and open the game, again, Dawson and Campbell are both comfortably ahead of Lloyd as would be Mills who I think floats defensively a bit but more importantly teams are going to go forward more aggressively on the back of that which will again cut out a lot of his seagull opportunities. Lastly I hope that we're going to be more interested in trying to win which means Lloyd having to be a team player instead of chasing hollow, empty stats for personal glory.

I say all of that and yet he's still in my current draft team Mostly because even with all of that I think he's a strong chance at 110+.

 

[SuchIsLife]

As someone who didn't start Lloyd or Neale last year based on this exact same argument... I would argue that if they improve, admittedly against the odds, you're absolutely screwed.

It's the hidden costs in not starting them that can hurt where the need to get him in later forces your hand out of other options.

You basically pay for safety. You're getting an ultra durable guy who is a pretty safe bet to be a top 3 scorer and could well end up 10 points clear a game on anyone. You take out the risk of him not declining and forcing you to move heaven and earth to get him.

I say that whilst being in total agreement that he's overpriced and there is a decent case he falls back to the pack.

I think Dawson and quite possibly Campbell both steal a not insignificant amount of kickouts. I think the Swans should be more competitive and thus concede less behinds, I think the new kick-in rules are going to favour Dawson and Campbell taking a lot more because of their ability to kick considerably further and that Lloyd pinning the team in the pocket so he can get a cheap 1-2 is not going to happen nearly as often (perhaps hope is better than think here). I think that the man on the mark rule will lead to teams wanting it in the hands of their most damaging kicks (not Lloyd) more often so they can cut angles through the middle and open the game, again, Dawson and Campbell are both comfortably ahead of Lloyd as would be Mills who I think floats defensively a bit but more importantly teams are going to go forward more aggressively on the back of that which will again cut out a lot of his seagull opportunities. Lastly I hope that we're going to be more interested in trying to win which means Lloyd having to be a team player instead of chasing hollow, empty stats for personal glory.

I say all of that and yet he's still in my current draft team Mostly because even with all of that I think he's a strong chance at 110+.

Hahaha thanks for this.

Although a little confused why he would ever "force" a trade unless he goes absolutely berzerk. It's also marginally easier to climb from 112 (previous best to) 122, than 122 to 132 for example. We also probably don't know how much of that 10 point increase actually comes from the shorter quarters (better scaling for top players) and the defensive play style last year (much more kickins and congestion). So I guess what I'm trying to say is that, unless he threatens captaincy levels (I'd say it needs to be 130 to contest with Grundy/Gawn/Neale, especially with a lower ceiling than the latter), I can just wait for my midpricers to mature, and go Ziebell + Daniher for Lloyd + rookie for example.

But definitely very insigthful regarding the swans set up. I've actually followed Dawson very extensively over the years, and have realised out of all the swans defenders, he is one of the least likely to pass to Lloyd, so i guess another thing to consider.

 

[Gruffles]

Danger is 30... bit different to 34

On Dunkley :-
Josh Dunkley could be on his way to Essendon in 2021 — and the potential move is reportedly due to a key disagreement over his best position on the field.

It was reported this week that Dunkley had told the Dogs he was keen to move across to Essendon, despite being contracted for two more years.

The Bulldogs have insisted the 23-year old is going nowhere, but Jon Ralph explained Dunkley’s irritation with being used as an undersized ruckman could be behind the reports.

“During the single final, he played only 30 per cent of game time in the midfield. I think he just feels he doesn’t want to be playing at half-forward, he doesn’t want to be playing in the ruck,” he said on Fox Sports News’ AFL Tonight.

“He got hit-outs in seven of the 12 games, he’s been pushed to a wing at times. In that amazing year last year when he had 650 possessions he was played mostly in the midfield.”

The reasoning is supported by the numbers, with Champion Data’s ‘Fantasy Freako’ revealing Dunkley’s centre bounce attendance had dropped from 63 per cent to 36 per cent in the last 12 months, with coach Luke Beveridge often using the big-bodied onballer in the ruck.

View attachment 26627


Grigg coming to the end of his career, he was happy to play any position if it meant getting a game. He was an honest footy player but no star coming to the end. Dunkley is in his prime age, who has shown how bloody good he is when played as a midfielder yet his coach wanted him to play as 2nd ruck - can't compare the 2 players.

Danger/Selwood/ Wills only very occasionally.

Bont/Macrae had turns as well but nowhere near as much as Dunkley.

The point is you have a young star who shown he has all the tools to be an absolute gun midfielder that has just turned 24 years old - to run the risk of him being injured playing in the most combative position on the ground ( yes players can get injured in any parts of the ground but the constant bang & crash of ruckwork takes some getting used to) that he hasn't done much training in just seems very strange to me.

Why not deploy someone like Josh Bruce as the 2nd ruck last season (197cms/ 93kgs) who is a solid player but no potential young star?

Don't know how right this view is but i have always thought Dunkley's problem is Libba.
The Dogs won't trade Libba out of loyalty and he really is a coalface only type player and good at it. Dunkley is surplus, but a younger, bigger inside bull in the same mould. Seems like the Dogs are trying to keep Dunks ''waiting in the wings'' to milk the most the can get out of Libba.

Trying to have their cake and eat it too I reckon. Trying to balance holding Dunks but staying loyal to a father/son.

If the Doggies were more ruthless, they really could have traded Libba years ago. Could be wayyyy off, but that's my take.
Bet they just keep telling Dunkley ''Just sit tight mate, do the team thing, your time is right around the corner''

 

[Chumpion]

Josh Worrell at the moment. Don't think he will play Rd 1 but I think may get a chance early.

But starting to go through every single option trying to rate the probability of an early season debut.

Given the delayed team announcements I would prioritise some who 100% won’t play (LTI, etc) if you’re looking for a donut. Could throw some chaos in if the guy you’re relying on to lock a great VC score pops up as a surprise when Sunday teams are named on Saturday arvo/evening..

 

[stephen]

Hahaha thanks for this.

Although a little confused why he would ever "force" a trade unless he goes absolutely berzerk. It's also marginally easier to climb from 112 (previous best to) 122, than 122 to 132 for example. We also probably don't know how much of that 10 point increase actually comes from the shorter quarters (better scaling for top players) and the defensive play style last year (much more kickins and congestion). So I guess what I'm trying to say is that, unless he threatens captaincy levels (I'd say it needs to be 130 to contest with Grundy/Gawn/Neale, especially with a lower ceiling than the latter), I can just wait for my midpricers to mature, and go Ziebell + Daniher for Lloyd + rookie for example.

But definitely very insigthful regarding the swans set up. I've actually followed Dawson very extensively over the years, and have realised out of all the swans defenders, he is one of the least likely to pass to Lloyd, so i guess another thing to consider.

I'm with you, and don't see many good reasons to start Lloyd. I'm not a believer in the 'expensive guys are too hard to trade in' school, and it has never been true for me. The difficulty is more than evened out by the trade advantage gained by targeting value.

But I do think a trade can be 'forced' in the sense that there are always a couple of players on each line who you absolutely need if you want to be competitive at the pointy end, so you have to target them to complete your team. It's not until the top teams are all complete that the hammer drops on that so there is plenty of time to wait for the right moment.

The only versions of my team with Lloyd are when I go with a full premo defence, which I think unfortunately forces your hand to start Lloyd. Already you are going without Whitfield who may well be necessary as well. I'm happy to bank on one injury popping up (or a sideways if suitable) but starting 6 Def's without the probable top two averages isn't appealing. That's the only good reason I see to start Lloyd.

I actually quite like that structure despite the obvious downsides. One of the main downsides to me is having to start Lloyd.

 

[Wheedus]

If you believe Lloyd will be in a class of his own, you should pick him. The price is pretty much irrelevant. If you believe Lloyd will regress to below 110 and there will be a sufficient number of other reliable defenders giving you between 105-110, then you don’t need Lloyd. You don’t need to worry about targeting him either.

Unfortunately, my gut feel is he’ll be somewhere in between, which pretty much makes it a toss of the coin decision

 

[Goodie's Guns]

Who do you like for the D8 FDTP ?

Trent Bianco is possibly one DEF/MID to play at some stage. Highmore a pure DEF that you’d expect to play at some stage, if he doesn’t make round one.

EDIT: Worrell a great shout by @Philzsay, have liked what I’ve seen of him.

 

[Bones]

Trent Bianco is possibly one DEF/MID to play at some stage. Highmore a pure DEF that you’d expect to play at some stage, if he doesn’t make round one.

EDIT: Worrell a great shout by @Philzsay, have liked what I’ve seen of him.

My personal preference would be a D/M and put say a Laird in the mids as some extra cover. Collingwood play early a lot of the time which I think makes Bianco a bit awkward.

 

[Herbie66]

Interesting reading about Mills today , in the 3 games he played as a mid last season he actually averaged less than he did when playing as a defender.

 

[Bomber18]

Maybe it doesn't matter, I agree there's an argument for buying a sure thing and not everything can be value with Supercoach, but I see less value with him than with someone like Oliver, despite the assurance he'll likely be D1. I would trust the younger player to maintain an average or their improvement and especially the midfielder. I'm also really of the belief that the number of kick outs he's had is unsustainable, there's a new rule to help him from regressing with that but I don't think it would be enough.

He's also been patchy within the last few seasons, starting him won't necessarily be the best option if that happens again and he hits form at a different time in the year.

I guess like you said you'd be happy with 115, so we're not far off in our assumption, maybe it's just feel and innate preference. I feel like Oliver is more likely to get to 120 and I have a harder time picking other mids this year than I do picking the Laird/Stewart/Daniel types to replace Lloyd.

What’s your predicted average of Lloyd and your replacement types like Daniel/Stewart?

Fwiw I have Lloyd at likely 115 with 110 as a minimum.

Daniel/Stewart at both 100.

 

[SuchIsLife]

I'm with you, and don't see many good reasons to start Lloyd. I'm not a believer in the 'expensive guys are too hard to trade in' school, and it has never been true for me. The difficulty is more than evened out by the trade advantage gained by targeting value.

But I do think a trade can be 'forced' in the sense that there are always a couple of players on each line who you absolutely need if you want to be competitive at the pointy end, so you have to target them to complete your team. It's not until the top teams are all complete that the hammer drops on that so there is plenty of time to wait for the right moment.

The only versions of my team with Lloyd are when I go with a full premo defence, which I think unfortunately forces your hand to start Lloyd. Already you are going without Whitfield who may well be necessary as well. I'm happy to bank on one injury popping up (or a sideways if suitable) but starting 6 Def's without the probable top two averages isn't appealing. That's the only good reason I see to start Lloyd.

I actually quite like that structure despite the obvious downsides. One of the main downsides to me is having to start Lloyd.

100% agree, the bolded is exactly what I was thinking but forgot to mention it.

What is a legitimate argument of starting lloyd is the potential opportunity cost and the restriction it has on your trading plans, since you really do have to plan certain players in advance to make it happen.

 

[GrainFedBeef]

Hahaha thanks for this.

Although a little confused why he would ever "force" a trade unless he goes absolutely berzerk. It's also marginally easier to climb from 112 (previous best to) 122, than 122 to 132 for example. We also probably don't know how much of that 10 point increase actually comes from the shorter quarters (better scaling for top players) and the defensive play style last year (much more kickins and congestion). So I guess what I'm trying to say is that, unless he threatens captaincy levels (I'd say it needs to be 130 to contest with Grundy/Gawn/Neale, especially with a lower ceiling than the latter), I can just wait for my midpricers to mature, and go Ziebell + Daniher for Lloyd + rookie for example.

But definitely very insigthful regarding the swans set up. I've actually followed Dawson very extensively over the years, and have realised out of all the swans defenders, he is one of the least likely to pass to Lloyd, so i guess another thing to consider.

Note Lloyd is priced at a discount..........to his 2H scoring average of 127.

Expect some extra scoring points for many premium so unless his role changes, he could do his average when other premiums are below their 2020 average. Good he be below last year average, of course, you could say that of many premiums.

the other point is lack of rookies means we are picking many premiums in defence. I currently sit at 5 and upgraded Duggan to Mills. why? quite likely Whitfield is no.6 to come in, however, what happens if there is another bolter. I don't want Duggan to be bleeding against that player. The deeper you go, the more likely you have to pick the best players if there is 1-2 you are not starting.

If you think there is a lot of value in other premium defenders, then sure, pick them.

 

[wogitalia]

Interesting reading about Mills today , in the 3 games he played as a mid last season he actually averaged less than he did when playing as a defender.

Grain of salt for mine, if you take out the enormous outlier of 179 against Richmond where the ball was literally in the Swans D50 for whole damn game that stat flips the other way.

Throw in that he only played parts of games in the midfield and was tagging in at least one (think it was 2 but blanking) of them and it kind of makes sense. He was generally thrown on ball in games he was struggling to impact prior to it which is another factor to consider given those games would likely have been worse without it and brought down the defensive average.

Would also add that by my calc 101.67 is higher than 101.4 so not even sure the stat is accurate to be honest.

What’s your predicted average of Lloyd and your replacement types like Daniel/Stewart?

Fwiw I have Lloyd at likely 115 with 110 as a minimum.

Daniel/Stewart at both 100.

I think 110 minimum is pretty generous, 3 season average prior to last year was 103, 2019 was 109, he definitely could drop a fair bit lower than 110. Personally think 105 is probably the low end of any projection though so not talking extreme variances.

I actually think he's probably about 110 myself given all the factors at play for last season and my general feeling for the Swans (more competitive). I'd say that 110 is probably the mark where everyone is fine with picking/not picking. 115 and I think not picking is hurting, anything under 110 and it's a pretty significant blow.

Laird, Mills and Whitfield are the only 3 that I would say have average chances of touching that 110 level this year, there's a few other guys with longshots (most of the guys starting 95+ to be honest) so 110 is still a very good shot of being the top back.

Lloyd is such a sloot though that I wouldn't be at all surprised if he matched or improved on last year. While I'd back sub 115 if you put my life on it I wouldn't be confident of living!