2014 : Pod's
- Thread starter yakka
- Start date
ATM I only have one of those players in my team which is Sandilands.
To date I have a 4-0-4, 5(inc Murph)-0-5, 1-1-2 and 4-0-4 structure.
The main reason being I see that all 3 will need to be upgraded. This structure is of course depended on me being able to find 2 rookie backs and 2 rookie forwards that I am happy to start.
If the rookies are not available down forward then one of my mid premiums mat give way for a rookie so I can upgrade one of the backs and forwards to a mid pricer Suckling would probably get a run if that is the case.
But I a still unlikely to start Thomas.
To date I have a 4-0-4, 5(inc Murph)-0-5, 1-1-2 and 4-0-4 structure.
The main reason being I see that all 3 will need to be upgraded. This structure is of course depended on me being able to find 2 rookie backs and 2 rookie forwards that I am happy to start.
If the rookies are not available down forward then one of my mid premiums mat give way for a rookie so I can upgrade one of the backs and forwards to a mid pricer Suckling would probably get a run if that is the case.
But I a still unlikely to start Thomas.
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,570
- Likes
- 1,373
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I have had all three in many incarnations of my team. Currently, however, I only have Suckling. I personally would rather start Suckling over KK or another 'premium' rookie.
Sandilands is a 50/50 right now based on how he pulls up before Rd 1. If he was a starter, I'd likely only keep him till the byes.
Thomas is a seductive option but I managed to turn him into a Watson/ Jack/ Cotchin so he's a definite no for me.
In the end, whether or not you start all or any of them depends entirely on YOUR structures and gut-feels. I'm sure there will be teams who will manage just fine without any of them and vice-versa. Personally, I think the best teams will probably have at least one of them. It's not going to be a massive advantage or disadvantage.
Trading - here's where you separate the wheat from the chaff.
Sandilands is a 50/50 right now based on how he pulls up before Rd 1. If he was a starter, I'd likely only keep him till the byes.
Thomas is a seductive option but I managed to turn him into a Watson/ Jack/ Cotchin so he's a definite no for me.
In the end, whether or not you start all or any of them depends entirely on YOUR structures and gut-feels. I'm sure there will be teams who will manage just fine without any of them and vice-versa. Personally, I think the best teams will probably have at least one of them. It's not going to be a massive advantage or disadvantage.
Trading - here's where you separate the wheat from the chaff.
Suckling, although cheap, doesn't have the scoring history to make him a worthwhile risk, Sandipants you get bang for your buck but i can see him getting injured and missing games and i've decided i want a starting set and forget ruck combo this year, Daisy = Lock although time will tell if he's a Mid keeper.
I'm not starting any of them at the moment, my personal reasons are below.
Sandy - Great scoring potential for a very low price. I'm just not confident that he can stay on the park long enough for him to be worth it. He has been IN and OUT of my team more than any other player, however this just proves i'm not confident he will stay fit to the byes.
Suckling - Too much doubt if he can average 85ppg, therefor he won't make as much cash as a rookie. Didn't play any AFL in 2013, so he may start off slow with sub par scores.
Daisy - Much like Suckling, he pretty much needs to average just below the top 10 premiums to make the same amount of cash as a top rookie. I just see too much doubt if he will be able to get straight back to that form. He also seems to miss many games almost every year.
Previously injured players can be great value when at the right price or under the right circumstances. Serial offenders of injury like Sandy and Daisy are almost 50/50 to get some sort of injury again. Paul Chapman is another one for me, great scoring potential of 100ppg but seems to miss 2-5+ games every year. Who knows when he will miss those 2-5 games, if it's early in the season it will likely cost you 20-40ppg with a rookie on the ground or a trade.
Anyway, that's just my opinion and it seems to be well and truly against the majority or coaches.
Sandy - Great scoring potential for a very low price. I'm just not confident that he can stay on the park long enough for him to be worth it. He has been IN and OUT of my team more than any other player, however this just proves i'm not confident he will stay fit to the byes.
Suckling - Too much doubt if he can average 85ppg, therefor he won't make as much cash as a rookie. Didn't play any AFL in 2013, so he may start off slow with sub par scores.
Daisy - Much like Suckling, he pretty much needs to average just below the top 10 premiums to make the same amount of cash as a top rookie. I just see too much doubt if he will be able to get straight back to that form. He also seems to miss many games almost every year.
Previously injured players can be great value when at the right price or under the right circumstances. Serial offenders of injury like Sandy and Daisy are almost 50/50 to get some sort of injury again. Paul Chapman is another one for me, great scoring potential of 100ppg but seems to miss 2-5+ games every year. Who knows when he will miss those 2-5 games, if it's early in the season it will likely cost you 20-40ppg with a rookie on the ground or a trade.
Anyway, that's just my opinion and it seems to be well and truly against the majority or coaches.
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 930
- Likes
- 276
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I will be looking at them all quite closely. While suckling isnt a guaranteed premium, my view is to not necessarily have all top premiums on the field at the end.
My approach that worked for me last season was to get the best players on the park as quickly as I could, which might mean that somebody like Suckling could be my final defender left to upgrade as a luxury. I took a similar approach with Mundy last season and was very happy with how that worked out for me.
Sandi is a true premium and I have tried set and forget structures before but a freak accident can ruin that. The one year i didnt grab Chappy because I was sick of him getting injured was the year he didnt miss a game, and had a stelar season. So Sandi is a risk i almost will def take.
Daisy will come down to how freely moving he is and whether I believe he will be ready to go at 100%
My approach that worked for me last season was to get the best players on the park as quickly as I could, which might mean that somebody like Suckling could be my final defender left to upgrade as a luxury. I took a similar approach with Mundy last season and was very happy with how that worked out for me.
Sandi is a true premium and I have tried set and forget structures before but a freak accident can ruin that. The one year i didnt grab Chappy because I was sick of him getting injured was the year he didnt miss a game, and had a stelar season. So Sandi is a risk i almost will def take.
Daisy will come down to how freely moving he is and whether I believe he will be ready to go at 100%
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 2,301
- Likes
- 1,721
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
Daisy: Certainly not a lock because he is a mid. 50/50 pick i reckon.
Sandi: Such a huge bargain, though with no ruck rookies likely to play, there is an argument against him.
Suckling: Absolute lock i reckon. Very few cheap defense options.
I've got all 3 as they are all bargains, though there are definitely arguments against Sandi and Daisy.
Sandi: Such a huge bargain, though with no ruck rookies likely to play, there is an argument against him.
Suckling: Absolute lock i reckon. Very few cheap defense options.
I've got all 3 as they are all bargains, though there are definitely arguments against Sandi and Daisy.
Sandi - yes
Suckling - no
Daisy - fence sitting on this one. If he looks promising in NAB then I may select him purely to facilitate an upgrade in another line if there is a lack of decent rookies to fill spots.
I will certainly try to maintain some money in the kitty in case one of them gets injured early on.
Who do you think is the biggest risk out of Sandi and Daisy?
Suckling - no
Daisy - fence sitting on this one. If he looks promising in NAB then I may select him purely to facilitate an upgrade in another line if there is a lack of decent rookies to fill spots.
I will certainly try to maintain some money in the kitty in case one of them gets injured early on.
Who do you think is the biggest risk out of Sandi and Daisy?
Bargains yes, this does not mean they are worthy to be in your team. If you think they will be premiums then you should definitely have them in your side. If you think Suckling will average 90ppg, that should be good enough for D6. If Thomas will average 105ppg, that's probably good enough for M8 at his price. What about the other end of the stick if things don't turn out so well...
If Suckling only averages 80ppg to the byes? - You will make about 120k and be forced to use a trade for a premium. 120k profit is probably 50-100k less than the top rookie defenders.
If Thomas only averages 90ppg to the byes? - You will make about 140k and be forced to use a trade for a premium. 140k is probably 80-150k less than the top rookie midfielders.
If Sandilands gets injured at round 4? You will be forced to make a side/downgrade trade for under 400k, then need another trade to get a premium later.
I see a lot of love for these players and seem to only read one side of the Ifs and Buts, which kind of confuses me based on their injury history and such. I've said this a couple times recently but it all comes down to how you value your trades, if things don't turn out so well. Risk vs reward is a big thing with these types of players, just make sure you consider the good and bad possibilities before deciding.
If Suckling only averages 80ppg to the byes? - You will make about 120k and be forced to use a trade for a premium. 120k profit is probably 50-100k less than the top rookie defenders.
If Thomas only averages 90ppg to the byes? - You will make about 140k and be forced to use a trade for a premium. 140k is probably 80-150k less than the top rookie midfielders.
If Sandilands gets injured at round 4? You will be forced to make a side/downgrade trade for under 400k, then need another trade to get a premium later.
I see a lot of love for these players and seem to only read one side of the Ifs and Buts, which kind of confuses me based on their injury history and such. I've said this a couple times recently but it all comes down to how you value your trades, if things don't turn out so well. Risk vs reward is a big thing with these types of players, just make sure you consider the good and bad possibilities before deciding.
I think you have to consider all three. None of them have the risk associated with a breakout candidate. They all are injury discounted.
Suckling priced at 57. 2012 avg 86. difference 29
Daisy priced at 64. 2012 avg 96. difference 32
Sandilands priced at 57. 2012 avg 112. difference 55
At $222,000 Jack Martin is priced at 41. Will he add 29 and avg 70, or add 32 and avg 73, or add 55 and avg 96?
All rookies have job security issues, I confident with these 3 that if they are fit they play.
So for me if these guys play NAB cup, look fit and are named round 1. They are in my starting side.
Suckling priced at 57. 2012 avg 86. difference 29
Daisy priced at 64. 2012 avg 96. difference 32
Sandilands priced at 57. 2012 avg 112. difference 55
At $222,000 Jack Martin is priced at 41. Will he add 29 and avg 70, or add 32 and avg 73, or add 55 and avg 96?
All rookies have job security issues, I confident with these 3 that if they are fit they play.
So for me if these guys play NAB cup, look fit and are named round 1. They are in my starting side.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of choice with the rucks and defenders.
Sandilands was awesome in the finals last year and I think he will have to play with Clarke and Griffin and Kepler unlikely to get early games. I think when the others become available he might be rested but I am treating him as a cash cow given the lack of rookie ruckmen who will play games.
Suckling wasn't even guaranteed a game when he was at his supercoach peak a couple of years ago. I remember him being omitted a couple of times. He also had a bad run of injuries when he was younger before he brokeout.
I can't see any value in Thomas. He won't be a top 10, he won't make as much money as a rookie, and I think we have a lot of mid rookies who are going to get regular games, and he now has a history of injury!!!
Sandilands was awesome in the finals last year and I think he will have to play with Clarke and Griffin and Kepler unlikely to get early games. I think when the others become available he might be rested but I am treating him as a cash cow given the lack of rookie ruckmen who will play games.
Suckling wasn't even guaranteed a game when he was at his supercoach peak a couple of years ago. I remember him being omitted a couple of times. He also had a bad run of injuries when he was younger before he brokeout.
I can't see any value in Thomas. He won't be a top 10, he won't make as much money as a rookie, and I think we have a lot of mid rookies who are going to get regular games, and he now has a history of injury!!!
I don't think you can use Martin as a counter-example, as he is already too expensive to begin with (compared to some other rookies that could likely score as well as him).
As to anfa18's point (and many other of Rowsus' comments), the only one of those three that is likely to be worth it is Sandilands. Both Suckling and Thomas are unlikely to average enough to be keepers (i.e.: 90-95 for Suckling, and 105-110 for Thomas), but Sandilands is a proved scorer, and the theory is that you only need him for 7 weeks (until the BYES).
Yes, Sandilands has a risk, in that if he goes down early, you can't trade him to anyone of relevance. However, if you've got good cover, you should be OK. This cover could be from a few different areas:
1. Good R3 rookie (i.e.: maybe Nankervis if he gets games)
2. Pricier R3 (i.e.: McIntosh)
3. F/R DPP (i.e.: a rookie R/F in R4, and Dixon in the FWD line)
At this stage, I'm still leaning towards Option 3, but I think any of these 3 options could work (the coming weeks will help decide).
As to anfa18's point (and many other of Rowsus' comments), the only one of those three that is likely to be worth it is Sandilands. Both Suckling and Thomas are unlikely to average enough to be keepers (i.e.: 90-95 for Suckling, and 105-110 for Thomas), but Sandilands is a proved scorer, and the theory is that you only need him for 7 weeks (until the BYES).
Yes, Sandilands has a risk, in that if he goes down early, you can't trade him to anyone of relevance. However, if you've got good cover, you should be OK. This cover could be from a few different areas:
1. Good R3 rookie (i.e.: maybe Nankervis if he gets games)
2. Pricier R3 (i.e.: McIntosh)
3. F/R DPP (i.e.: a rookie R/F in R4, and Dixon in the FWD line)
At this stage, I'm still leaning towards Option 3, but I think any of these 3 options could work (the coming weeks will help decide).
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 2,301
- Likes
- 1,721
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
I can see your argument and I agree that a premium + a rookie is better generally than 2 mid pricers, BUT...
How many rookies will actually play?
ATM, barring injuries, Fuller is the only defense rookie likely to play, as well as the more expensive ones in Laidler and Mcdonald.
So u probably can't have more than 3 rookies. Surely u can't have 5 defense premiums?
There are a couple more rookies likely to play in midfield and forward, so youre gonna have to balance out your team and pick a few mid pricers.
Surely these guys are better than the rest.
sandi is obviously a massive injury risk. I have taken the risk and picked Dixon in my forward line for cover if Sandi is out from 1-2 weeks. I just have to hope sandi can go a while without getting a long term injury.
On the other side of the scale, if u dont get sandi, and he plays 20+ games, youre way behind the 8 ball.
How many rookies will actually play?
ATM, barring injuries, Fuller is the only defense rookie likely to play, as well as the more expensive ones in Laidler and Mcdonald.
So u probably can't have more than 3 rookies. Surely u can't have 5 defense premiums?
There are a couple more rookies likely to play in midfield and forward, so youre gonna have to balance out your team and pick a few mid pricers.
Surely these guys are better than the rest.
sandi is obviously a massive injury risk. I have taken the risk and picked Dixon in my forward line for cover if Sandi is out from 1-2 weeks. I just have to hope sandi can go a while without getting a long term injury.
On the other side of the scale, if u dont get sandi, and he plays 20+ games, youre way behind the 8 ball.
I set out to do some research to prove to myself why it was a bad idea to get Suckling and Thomas because I wanted to cross them off the watch list for good. The results were interesting but not conclusive.
I found 6 players from the past 2 seasons to compare with Suckers and Daisy. The 6 were all running players (not big men) and had season ending lower limb injuries: Gray, Ball, Lecras, Dempsey, Grimes and Hayes.
I looked at the full season average prior to their injury season and the season after (not including sub affected scores)
Gray: 90 (before), 92 (after)
Ball: 98, 99
Lecras: 86, 83
Dempsey: 77, 83
J Grimes: 88, 88
Hayes: 104, 104
I also looked at whether they start the next season slowly and improve, or start with a bang then taper off (again no subs included)
Gray: 82 (after five full games back), 93 (after ten games), 92 (season average)
Ball: 96, 100, 99
Lecras: 91, 80, 83
Dempsey: 92, 94, 83
Grimes: 83, 86, 88
Hayes: 113, 106, 104
What I learned from this:
1. You get almost exactly what the player produced in their previous season before injury. In this case it's Suckers 83, Daisy 96.
2. Whether they start fast or slow, they end up with roughly the previous seasons average by the end. Meaning if they come out straight away with huge numbers they will probably fall away at some stage and vice versa.
3. 5/6 of the above players had interrupted returns, missing/and or being sub in at least one of the first 6 games. The exception is Hayes and he is a star.
So the verdict....I don't really know lol. 6 isn't a big sample size. I'm thinking they won't be keepers, nor make enough cash, and will probably be managed early on. But who knows really? That's why we love it I guess!
I found 6 players from the past 2 seasons to compare with Suckers and Daisy. The 6 were all running players (not big men) and had season ending lower limb injuries: Gray, Ball, Lecras, Dempsey, Grimes and Hayes.
I looked at the full season average prior to their injury season and the season after (not including sub affected scores)
Gray: 90 (before), 92 (after)
Ball: 98, 99
Lecras: 86, 83
Dempsey: 77, 83
J Grimes: 88, 88
Hayes: 104, 104
I also looked at whether they start the next season slowly and improve, or start with a bang then taper off (again no subs included)
Gray: 82 (after five full games back), 93 (after ten games), 92 (season average)
Ball: 96, 100, 99
Lecras: 91, 80, 83
Dempsey: 92, 94, 83
Grimes: 83, 86, 88
Hayes: 113, 106, 104
What I learned from this:
1. You get almost exactly what the player produced in their previous season before injury. In this case it's Suckers 83, Daisy 96.
2. Whether they start fast or slow, they end up with roughly the previous seasons average by the end. Meaning if they come out straight away with huge numbers they will probably fall away at some stage and vice versa.
3. 5/6 of the above players had interrupted returns, missing/and or being sub in at least one of the first 6 games. The exception is Hayes and he is a star.
So the verdict....I don't really know lol. 6 isn't a big sample size. I'm thinking they won't be keepers, nor make enough cash, and will probably be managed early on. But who knows really? That's why we love it I guess!
At the moment it's all speculation and wait and see for defensive and forward rookies. I'm sure we will see at least 3 or 4 play come round 1, either due to injuries or NAB form. At the moment i have 3 premiums, 1 breakout contender and 2 rookies on the field in defense.
I agree regarding Sandilands, but the last time he played 20 games was in 2009 and played 19 games in 2010. I have absolutely no confidence he can play that many this year. Having cover is a good thing for Sandilands, but having cover with a player who has missed half of last 2 or 3 seasons with injuries is also not for me. Dixon is a really good player and i do rate him. Having said that, the most games in a season he's played is just 13 and that would hardly inspire confidence.