Position 2022: Forward Discussion
- Thread starter KLo30
- Start date
I understand your reasoning and agree trades are worth considerably less (at base value we have 16%ish more trades) but again you’ve discounted the fact that someone who strikes a 1 trade upgrade is conceivably 1 premium up until your team is completed. That time frame decides the gap created. If it’s 40 points a week for 2 weeks then it’s potentially negligible but if it’s 3,4,5+ The gap becomes considerable.
Everyone can use the trade boosts remember not just the teams going for big money upgrades. 1up/down + 1 up early in the year can snowball into a huge amount of points.
Everyone can use the trade boosts remember not just the teams going for big money upgrades. 1up/down + 1 up early in the year can snowball into a huge amount of points.
I'm starting to re-assess Rayner.
He's been a bit of a whipping boy for sure, but even in 2020 playing mostly forward and small bursts of midfield he averaged 73 and spiked to $386k before he got injured. Then came back and played some power games for 114 and 125 SC.
If he repeats 2020 he still makes just over $100k by upgrade time, is best 22 every week, and in a line with seemingly very few rookies.
If he's any better than 2020 (2 years fitter and stronger is a plus/ACL is minus/potential better role is a plus) then he suddenly becomes worth serious consideration I think.
He's been a bit of a whipping boy for sure, but even in 2020 playing mostly forward and small bursts of midfield he averaged 73 and spiked to $386k before he got injured. Then came back and played some power games for 114 and 125 SC.
If he repeats 2020 he still makes just over $100k by upgrade time, is best 22 every week, and in a line with seemingly very few rookies.
If he's any better than 2020 (2 years fitter and stronger is a plus/ACL is minus/potential better role is a plus) then he suddenly becomes worth serious consideration I think.
So if Simpkin, LDU and Cunnington are all full-time midfielders, Greenwood resorts to playing a MID/FWD role which doesn't suit him, Thomas is probably their most damaging mid. Phillips apparently is best 22 and has dominated in pre-season.
JHF is their 6th best midfielder if he's even ahead of players like Stephenson, Anderson, Powell. The players ahead of JHF aren't exactly versatile either (can't play forward, can't play wing)
JHF is their 6th best midfielder if he's even ahead of players like Stephenson, Anderson, Powell. The players ahead of JHF aren't exactly versatile either (can't play forward, can't play wing)
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Much more damaging? Probably a subjective call.
Daicos is touted as the best kicks/decision maker in our best 22 midfield at the moment (probably an exaggeration given we have Pendles but you get the point). We will give Daicos the ball whenever we have the chance. Think a Merrett/Walsh type player with Daicos.
Regardless, whether a player is damaging or not is irrelevant right? If we properly measured the player's impact, the likes of Lloyd/Hall wouldn't have averaged 105+/110+.
Judging by pure numbers, Daicos was more prolific than Walsh, than Rowell, than Mcluggage, than Brayshaw, than Petracca. If my memory serves me right, Nick Daicos averaged 36 disposals and 2 goals in under 18s football, whereas JHF was averaging something like 15 possessions a game?
I can quite easily see Daicos producing a 22 - 25 disposal, 85 - 90 supercoach points season in his 1st year, whereas I believe the ceiling for JHF (at least for this year) is much, much lower.
Tbh i doubt JHF will even get 20% midfeld. 20% CBA perhaps, but in terms of overall game time he will be almost always situated in the forward line.
Daicos is touted as the best kicks/decision maker in our best 22 midfield at the moment (probably an exaggeration given we have Pendles but you get the point). We will give Daicos the ball whenever we have the chance. Think a Merrett/Walsh type player with Daicos.
Regardless, whether a player is damaging or not is irrelevant right? If we properly measured the player's impact, the likes of Lloyd/Hall wouldn't have averaged 105+/110+.
Judging by pure numbers, Daicos was more prolific than Walsh, than Rowell, than Mcluggage, than Brayshaw, than Petracca. If my memory serves me right, Nick Daicos averaged 36 disposals and 2 goals in under 18s football, whereas JHF was averaging something like 15 possessions a game?
I can quite easily see Daicos producing a 22 - 25 disposal, 85 - 90 supercoach points season in his 1st year, whereas I believe the ceiling for JHF (at least for this year) is much, much lower.
Tbh i doubt JHF will even get 20% midfeld. 20% CBA perhaps, but in terms of overall game time he will be almost always situated in the forward line.
Last edited:
Coleman starting back most likely as there are a lot more FWD options in that price range than defenders.
There's a pretty clear distinction between the guys taking new roles compared to hoping for natural improvement to be the driver although both can work or fail.
Those that fail generally fall into a few categories:
1. Not best 22 or role not certain - Clark last year a perfect example of this. Not playing regularly in good roles is a reason players are here.
2. Durability issues - Hayden Young the perfect example here, guys in that range are very often there because of durability problems in the previous season.
3. Position doesn't stick - Atkins last year a perfect example, albeit he made over 100k from an expensive starting point still.
4. Relying solely on improvement - If there's guys ahead, relying on them to pass others to take roles is very risky. Clark an example of this again, Young, fwiw, is an example of it "working" if you ignore the timing because of his injury.
The ones that are successful generally have strong position changes, the ones who did it last year and show something and then keep going are good, basically coaches liked what they saw and get an o***eason developing. The other successful group are the injury prone guys who stay fit, I actually think this group is a worse play in general but some are so cheap you have to risk it (Ziebell for example).
Looking at the main candidates this year:
Coleman - Part 3 is his one, a bit of 4 mixed in.
Curnow - Part 2 is a major concern.
Coniglio - Part 2 is a fairly strong concern.
McGovern - Part 2 but also role might not stick, definitely potential chain reaction if Curnow/McKay are out and they need a forward.
Rayner - Role not certain, if he gets mid it might not stick, durability interestingly is his smallest concern!
Milera - Yeah, part 2 sure stands out!
Phillips - Job security/role certainty major issue.
Brodie - Best 22/role certainty issues. Durability might also be.
Henry - Role and whether he even scores well in that role questions.
Bowey/L. Jones - 4 with a bit of 1 mixed in for both.
Ruscoe - 1/3 in play as well as too much turmoil.
I do think last years group was a fair bit stronger but I also think that Curnow, Coleman, Coniglio, McGovern, Rayner and Milera are all well placed to work out but probably important to temper expectations. They're being taken to make cash, not as keepers, I think the thresholds shift upward this year and only a couple of these guys really has the scope to get there.
I've ignored the mids above but several can squeeze into this, they're mostly durability also though Polec is a "I don't even know what"...
It's also worth noting that there are a lot more "durability" guys this year, which I think is more akin to previous years than last year where really only Ziebell was a pure durability play. Impey/Young had a single injury issue. Dale, Hind, Cumming, Atkins and Jiath were all genuine position changes or in Cumming's case, Heath Shaw's retirement and Whitfields injury clearing a wide open path. For mine that is a better target than durability plays. McGovern the interesting combination of both.
Personally at this point the only ones I really "want" to pick are Coleman and Coniglio. Rookies have me picking more of these guys than I want.
There's a pretty clear distinction between the guys taking new roles compared to hoping for natural improvement to be the driver although both can work or fail.
Those that fail generally fall into a few categories:
1. Not best 22 or role not certain - Clark last year a perfect example of this. Not playing regularly in good roles is a reason players are here.
2. Durability issues - Hayden Young the perfect example here, guys in that range are very often there because of durability problems in the previous season.
3. Position doesn't stick - Atkins last year a perfect example, albeit he made over 100k from an expensive starting point still.
4. Relying solely on improvement - If there's guys ahead, relying on them to pass others to take roles is very risky. Clark an example of this again, Young, fwiw, is an example of it "working" if you ignore the timing because of his injury.
The ones that are successful generally have strong position changes, the ones who did it last year and show something and then keep going are good, basically coaches liked what they saw and get an o***eason developing. The other successful group are the injury prone guys who stay fit, I actually think this group is a worse play in general but some are so cheap you have to risk it (Ziebell for example).
Looking at the main candidates this year:
Coleman - Part 3 is his one, a bit of 4 mixed in.
Curnow - Part 2 is a major concern.
Coniglio - Part 2 is a fairly strong concern.
McGovern - Part 2 but also role might not stick, definitely potential chain reaction if Curnow/McKay are out and they need a forward.
Rayner - Role not certain, if he gets mid it might not stick, durability interestingly is his smallest concern!
Milera - Yeah, part 2 sure stands out!
Phillips - Job security/role certainty major issue.
Brodie - Best 22/role certainty issues. Durability might also be.
Henry - Role and whether he even scores well in that role questions.
Bowey/L. Jones - 4 with a bit of 1 mixed in for both.
Ruscoe - 1/3 in play as well as too much turmoil.
I do think last years group was a fair bit stronger but I also think that Curnow, Coleman, Coniglio, McGovern, Rayner and Milera are all well placed to work out but probably important to temper expectations. They're being taken to make cash, not as keepers, I think the thresholds shift upward this year and only a couple of these guys really has the scope to get there.
I've ignored the mids above but several can squeeze into this, they're mostly durability also though Polec is a "I don't even know what"...
It's also worth noting that there are a lot more "durability" guys this year, which I think is more akin to previous years than last year where really only Ziebell was a pure durability play. Impey/Young had a single injury issue. Dale, Hind, Cumming, Atkins and Jiath were all genuine position changes or in Cumming's case, Heath Shaw's retirement and Whitfields injury clearing a wide open path. For mine that is a better target than durability plays. McGovern the interesting combination of both.
Personally at this point the only ones I really "want" to pick are Coleman and Coniglio. Rookies have me picking more of these guys than I want.
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,960
- Likes
- 126,626
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
If the rookies don't show on a line you still need to get boots on the field. I would rather a $260k odd punt than a $350k one. Even if the $260k punt doesn't make money, so long as he plays it is better than a donut or losing cash.
I think there is a real risk this year if you fill a line with starting prems but have end rd 6 dpp changes come over the top to screw the top prem scorers on the line. You are then behind and need to potentially trade or takethe points hit. Not to mention you have probably taken a risk on other lines to fill a line.
All reasons Coleman in my back 6 atm.
I think there is a real risk this year if you fill a line with starting prems but have end rd 6 dpp changes come over the top to screw the top prem scorers on the line. You are then behind and need to potentially trade or takethe points hit. Not to mention you have probably taken a risk on other lines to fill a line.
All reasons Coleman in my back 6 atm.
Absolutely, but that's not anything we don't know.
Rayner hasn't played much through the middle to date so he has low possession numbers.
If you're getting Rayner, it's on the expectation he plays more through the middle so the low possession numbers are meaningless because you're banking on a change of role.
So if you like Rayner, continue. If you don't, continue.
Rayner hasn't played much through the middle to date so he has low possession numbers.
If you're getting Rayner, it's on the expectation he plays more through the middle so the low possession numbers are meaningless because you're banking on a change of role.
So if you like Rayner, continue. If you don't, continue.
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Any opinion is subjective, however, the experts think it. See except below from the draft analysis.
It’s all well and good winning bucketloads of the ball, but what are these two doing with it? Horne’s lower disposal rates in comparison do not necessarily indicate lesser impact. 15 of his disposals are arguably more damaging than if Daicos had the same number, but the latter’s sway on the game comes through sheer accumulation and an uncanny knack for knowing when and where his next possession will come.
Horne’s penetrative kick and bullet-like passing can be a real weapon, matched with the positive intent to put the ball in ominous areas. His knack for taking eye-catching overhead marks and laying crunching tackles also point towards his undeniable status as a high-impact player. Daicos is usually a wonderfully clean and clever user of the ball, with the added trait of bringing his teammates into the play.
He constantly looks to give and go; kicking short and running hard to get the handball back, or chaining by hand up the field to help bring some fluency to his side’s play. It means he is a productive and creative type in midfield, just in a different way to Horne. He is better able to find the ball in all areas of the ground with his work-rate and smarts, but is that kind of accumulation always as impactful as possible? The verdict is out, but he can certainly have an overwhelming effect on the game with his rate of accumulation, popping up everywhere
It’s all well and good winning bucketloads of the ball, but what are these two doing with it? Horne’s lower disposal rates in comparison do not necessarily indicate lesser impact. 15 of his disposals are arguably more damaging than if Daicos had the same number, but the latter’s sway on the game comes through sheer accumulation and an uncanny knack for knowing when and where his next possession will come.
Horne’s penetrative kick and bullet-like passing can be a real weapon, matched with the positive intent to put the ball in ominous areas. His knack for taking eye-catching overhead marks and laying crunching tackles also point towards his undeniable status as a high-impact player. Daicos is usually a wonderfully clean and clever user of the ball, with the added trait of bringing his teammates into the play.
He constantly looks to give and go; kicking short and running hard to get the handball back, or chaining by hand up the field to help bring some fluency to his side’s play. It means he is a productive and creative type in midfield, just in a different way to Horne. He is better able to find the ball in all areas of the ground with his work-rate and smarts, but is that kind of accumulation always as impactful as possible? The verdict is out, but he can certainly have an overwhelming effect on the game with his rate of accumulation, popping up everywhere