Position 2022: Defender Discussion
- Thread starter KLo30
- Start date
Cheaper than Rowell (obviously different lines) but many see him as a keeper (I don't personally).
Defender rookies don't appear might need to swap Premium + Rookie to 2 x Blakey , Campbell , Bowey , Chapman etc price types in any case.
5 extra trades why can't we start players that don't have to be a keeper ? might only need them to byes (or reassess when the first lot of DPP's are announced)
Defender rookies don't appear might need to swap Premium + Rookie to 2 x Blakey , Campbell , Bowey , Chapman etc price types in any case.
5 extra trades why can't we start players that don't have to be a keeper ? might only need them to byes (or reassess when the first lot of DPP's are announced)
Fair enough , keep reading about this 150k for years on here , would love to see some statistics in how often it has happened over the years , just seems something the site takes for granted.
I know @jel provided a table for last year showing how many players did actually make $ 150k.
Maybe if we lower our expectations and he (Blakey) say averaged 75-85 he might work short to medium term.
Wonder what people will do if we don't even get 3-4 defender rookies named for Round 1.
I know @jel provided a table for last year showing how many players did actually make $ 150k.
Maybe if we lower our expectations and he (Blakey) say averaged 75-85 he might work short to medium term.
Wonder what people will do if we don't even get 3-4 defender rookies named for Round 1.
Be nice to see how many players actually make it though , or are we so set in our ways here that we just accept it as gospel even though this season is going to be different with trade boosts , DPP additions etc etc
Maybe we need to refresh our thought process and strategies.
Can even see people mentioning not going Set n Forget rucks , last 3 years if you even dared to mention a different name in the ruck you quickly got frowned upon 😉
I think I ended up with 4 M8's last season , in reality don't even think they featured in the Top 25 mids for the season.
Maybe we need to refresh our thought process and strategies.
Can even see people mentioning not going Set n Forget rucks , last 3 years if you even dared to mention a different name in the ruck you quickly got frowned upon 😉
I think I ended up with 4 M8's last season , in reality don't even think they featured in the Top 25 mids for the season.
@jel and @Couch Coach had some posts in the RMT and Rookie Discussion threads that summarised it.
In short there were 33 players who made 150k last year, several of them no one would have considered, several more did it too late to be worthwhile.
Using my starting rookies/cash cows as an example (and this is not what I made, just from the table and filling in a couple that were missing):
Average Cash Generation: $156,843.75
Average Cash Removing for 0s: $179,250
Average Including Correction Trades: $170,723.53 (removing the zero: 181,393.75)
Now these numbers are only ball park, I didn't realise these exact numbers, fwiw some guys would be higher using peak instead of final price and vice versa so probably cancels out roughly but I think it supports the 150k.
FWIW, 11 of the 19 names (starting rookies and correction targets) made 150k under the criteria, the vast majority that made 150k actually made >200k, indicating that basically players smash there way there. Of those who didn't make it there were 2 zeros (one held as a loop all season, one corrected at round 2), there was a 3rd that made almost 150k but was traded at round 3 by me. Only four, including the two zeroes, didn't make at least 100k.
There was no real rhyme or reason to the starting point for success either, of the 9 who made more than 190k, 1 was 102k, 2 were 117k, 3 were 123k and 3 were >200k.
This also ignores the 2nd wave rookies who quite often also make 150k more but probably generally don't (as we take more of what we can get, when we need it).
I think the main basis of 150k though isn't actually based on rookies at all but more on being able to make the upgrades required to finish a side. Simple theory says if I start with 12 premiums, then I need 10 upgrades, if you say each upgrade is going to cost you 500k on average then you need to generate basically 300k from each pair of "rookies" to get their 240k up towards the 500k mark and the replacement rookie.
There's also the aim for the sky because if you miss at least you'll be among the stars theory at play, if you're using 150k as the target point then you can miss and still make cash to do something with.
In short there were 33 players who made 150k last year, several of them no one would have considered, several more did it too late to be worthwhile.
Using my starting rookies/cash cows as an example (and this is not what I made, just from the table and filling in a couple that were missing):
Average Cash Generation: $156,843.75
Average Cash Removing for 0s: $179,250
Average Including Correction Trades: $170,723.53 (removing the zero: 181,393.75)
Now these numbers are only ball park, I didn't realise these exact numbers, fwiw some guys would be higher using peak instead of final price and vice versa so probably cancels out roughly but I think it supports the 150k.
FWIW, 11 of the 19 names (starting rookies and correction targets) made 150k under the criteria, the vast majority that made 150k actually made >200k, indicating that basically players smash there way there. Of those who didn't make it there were 2 zeros (one held as a loop all season, one corrected at round 2), there was a 3rd that made almost 150k but was traded at round 3 by me. Only four, including the two zeroes, didn't make at least 100k.
There was no real rhyme or reason to the starting point for success either, of the 9 who made more than 190k, 1 was 102k, 2 were 117k, 3 were 123k and 3 were >200k.
This also ignores the 2nd wave rookies who quite often also make 150k more but probably generally don't (as we take more of what we can get, when we need it).
I think the main basis of 150k though isn't actually based on rookies at all but more on being able to make the upgrades required to finish a side. Simple theory says if I start with 12 premiums, then I need 10 upgrades, if you say each upgrade is going to cost you 500k on average then you need to generate basically 300k from each pair of "rookies" to get their 240k up towards the 500k mark and the replacement rookie.
There's also the aim for the sky because if you miss at least you'll be among the stars theory at play, if you're using 150k as the target point then you can miss and still make cash to do something with.
I can understand the question given the role change but unlikely. I haven't looked at any stats but the eye test suggests Hill is a fairly uncontested player and even though players like Hall and Ziebell move to uncontested roles they at least have some history in contested positions and don't avoid the contest. Not sure I've done a great job of explaining that.
A good seagull will still go through traffic when needed.
A good seagull will still go through traffic when needed.
Showed no evidence to support it last year when he played the role for a substantial chunk of the season. Hard part with them is for some reason Ratten wants Howard taking kick-ins so you lose that consistent source and that all of Wilkie, Sinclair, Paton and Webster are good rebounders themselves, nowhere near the level of funneling as at North.
Ultimately he's a lazy player who doesn't intercept or win the ball basically at all himself, rarely tackles and isn't that good a kick, despite mostly playing that role he's a solid 10+% behind the likes of Lloyd, Ziebell, Stewart and Ridley and 5%+ on most of the others up the top. He hits some excellent kicks but he also takes on a lot of kicks that aren't there and has a very annoying habit of trying to make absurd kicks on his right foot when a simple left foot would do that often become clangers, his 65 clangers is very high and the people who are around that like Rich and Salem had 200 more possessions, heck Lloyd had 200 more touches and 14 less clangers.
I do think he's going to improve, Coffield and Paton is not a like for like switch from a ball use/want perspective. If he can not have as many games in the 40s and even the 70s he could push a long way. I think ultimately he strikes as more of a 90 guy than the 100 you'd be chasing to leave some room for a miss.
There's also the fact that he handles a tag worse than perhaps any player in the history of the sport so if he does start to become genuinely damaging off half back it's a very easy choice to tag him and watch him go home which given he's not playing any defense at the best of times can be an even bigger issue.
I sound overly harsh here as I think he's got great value in draft leagues and even in classic he probably pushes the 100k price gain mark and he's definitely in the best few options in his price range, I just think that price range needs to include a realistic keeper outcome, last year he played wing and rebounding HBF, two of the friendliest roles in the sport and managed 4 scores above 88 in 22 games. For comparison Rioli did that twice, with another 87 and 83 in 6 games in the role. Personally I think Rioli at 60k less offers almost the exact same prospect in a team that's got a much stronger history of producing elite scoring defenders.
Ultimately he's a lazy player who doesn't intercept or win the ball basically at all himself, rarely tackles and isn't that good a kick, despite mostly playing that role he's a solid 10+% behind the likes of Lloyd, Ziebell, Stewart and Ridley and 5%+ on most of the others up the top. He hits some excellent kicks but he also takes on a lot of kicks that aren't there and has a very annoying habit of trying to make absurd kicks on his right foot when a simple left foot would do that often become clangers, his 65 clangers is very high and the people who are around that like Rich and Salem had 200 more possessions, heck Lloyd had 200 more touches and 14 less clangers.
I do think he's going to improve, Coffield and Paton is not a like for like switch from a ball use/want perspective. If he can not have as many games in the 40s and even the 70s he could push a long way. I think ultimately he strikes as more of a 90 guy than the 100 you'd be chasing to leave some room for a miss.
There's also the fact that he handles a tag worse than perhaps any player in the history of the sport so if he does start to become genuinely damaging off half back it's a very easy choice to tag him and watch him go home which given he's not playing any defense at the best of times can be an even bigger issue.
I sound overly harsh here as I think he's got great value in draft leagues and even in classic he probably pushes the 100k price gain mark and he's definitely in the best few options in his price range, I just think that price range needs to include a realistic keeper outcome, last year he played wing and rebounding HBF, two of the friendliest roles in the sport and managed 4 scores above 88 in 22 games. For comparison Rioli did that twice, with another 87 and 83 in 6 games in the role. Personally I think Rioli at 60k less offers almost the exact same prospect in a team that's got a much stronger history of producing elite scoring defenders.