- Joined
- 27 Feb 2021
- Messages
- 171
- Likes
- 1,009
- AFL Club
- Carlton
2023: SC Planning Thread
- Thread starter Gruffles
- Start date
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Whether you go high quality premiums or value premiums is irrelevant except for the pro's and con's of each style.
What matters is the rookies or mid pricers on the field.
Go high end and try for too many or value and try for too many is the same.
Risks for all these methods:
Quality premiums - will fall in value or or worse may not perform at last years average and will fall further. If the answer is I am not trading them out so I dont care if the value falls is also a false premise. This is ok for 2-3 premiums, yet if you have 10 (600k) and they perform at last year and someone has 12 value premiums (500k) that come off (lets say 10% lift in points), then clearly they are ahead by $500k in value and points.
Value premiums - risk is they dont improve and you have to trade them or leaking points at year end.
So let's ignore that and focus on rookies and mid pricers. Both have risk where cheap rookies can be subs or mid pricers dont break out.
If you go 12 Premium GnR and your rookies don't make quick money then you lack value growth early and your premiums may be only returning their intrinsic value. Less trades to fix premiums but no value to upgrade.
Go too much value and mid pricers break out and your success rate is poor you are also in trouble, more trades to be used although probably gains some value on GnR.
Blending all these methods is probably optimal, maybe 3-4 top end guys regardless of price, 7-8 value premiums, pay up for rookies with greta chance to play and mid pricers that have history with just a small amount of breakouts where the success rate maybe 40%.
Just need to remember that most value is made by round 8 and after that value creation is slim pickings.
Everyone knows this, issue is it is easy to drift too hard to the left (GnR) or right (Value) though.
What matters is the rookies or mid pricers on the field.
Go high end and try for too many or value and try for too many is the same.
Risks for all these methods:
Quality premiums - will fall in value or or worse may not perform at last years average and will fall further. If the answer is I am not trading them out so I dont care if the value falls is also a false premise. This is ok for 2-3 premiums, yet if you have 10 (600k) and they perform at last year and someone has 12 value premiums (500k) that come off (lets say 10% lift in points), then clearly they are ahead by $500k in value and points.
Value premiums - risk is they dont improve and you have to trade them or leaking points at year end.
So let's ignore that and focus on rookies and mid pricers. Both have risk where cheap rookies can be subs or mid pricers dont break out.
If you go 12 Premium GnR and your rookies don't make quick money then you lack value growth early and your premiums may be only returning their intrinsic value. Less trades to fix premiums but no value to upgrade.
Go too much value and mid pricers break out and your success rate is poor you are also in trouble, more trades to be used although probably gains some value on GnR.
Blending all these methods is probably optimal, maybe 3-4 top end guys regardless of price, 7-8 value premiums, pay up for rookies with greta chance to play and mid pricers that have history with just a small amount of breakouts where the success rate maybe 40%.
Just need to remember that most value is made by round 8 and after that value creation is slim pickings.
Everyone knows this, issue is it is easy to drift too hard to the left (GnR) or right (Value) though.
I'm willing to take a little hit on my M1 & M2 (Laird & Oliver) because of their draw and ability to lock them in as VC/C over the 1st 7 rounds (with a Hawks FD) the points gained, to me, are vital in the early stages of the season. I feel that risk is minimised because of durability and historical scoring. My only other players over $600k are Bont, who I expect to at least maintain his average, but more importantly, increase it, the other is Freoshaw who I'm not sure of.
As an extension of this, what are you guys thinking about the averages that are needed for D6/M8/R2/F6?
I have them pegged at 115 for the mids, last year 7 players hit this mark with 112 being the 8th
110 for the rucks ( Gawn went 114, Witts 109)
Last year 5 players in defence went over 110 with Stewart 6th at 106, so 105?
Forwards were a lot more interesting particularly with the DPP's, from a starting perspective, Hawkins and Lynch went at 95, Heeney 97, Brodie 99, Cogs 101 and Dunkley 109. I don't think it's unrealistic to set the mark for F6 at 95, but it would have to be adjusted to 100+ after the 2nd round of DPP's
As an extension of this, what are you guys thinking about the averages that are needed for D6/M8/R2/F6?
I have them pegged at 115 for the mids, last year 7 players hit this mark with 112 being the 8th
110 for the rucks ( Gawn went 114, Witts 109)
Last year 5 players in defence went over 110 with Stewart 6th at 106, so 105?
Forwards were a lot more interesting particularly with the DPP's, from a starting perspective, Hawkins and Lynch went at 95, Heeney 97, Brodie 99, Cogs 101 and Dunkley 109. I don't think it's unrealistic to set the mark for F6 at 95, but it would have to be adjusted to 100+ after the 2nd round of DPP's
Cheers
I think their was a post here over the last week referring to Taylor Adams saying that Cameron & Cox would continue to ruck share as they did in the latter half of last season , where Cameron's points dropped off (could also have been fatigue as well).
Could also be pure media talk as well.
McStay offers a different option as well.
You would think (hope) that another 12 months of development/learning/training Cameron's ruck craft would improve.
Not sure how his HTA compared to Grundy , but opposition clubs learnt to shark his hitouts 2-3 seasons ago and he (or the coaches) didn't really do to much to change it.
Although I did enjoy watching that CB tap over & behind his left shoulder to Adams or JDG on the burst (when it work).
The old 2 handed put down to feet at stoppages certainly didn't too much.
But he has moved on , so good luck to him at Melbourne.
In Fly we trust.
I think their was a post here over the last week referring to Taylor Adams saying that Cameron & Cox would continue to ruck share as they did in the latter half of last season , where Cameron's points dropped off (could also have been fatigue as well).
Could also be pure media talk as well.
McStay offers a different option as well.
You would think (hope) that another 12 months of development/learning/training Cameron's ruck craft would improve.
Not sure how his HTA compared to Grundy , but opposition clubs learnt to shark his hitouts 2-3 seasons ago and he (or the coaches) didn't really do to much to change it.
Although I did enjoy watching that CB tap over & behind his left shoulder to Adams or JDG on the burst (when it work).
The old 2 handed put down to feet at stoppages certainly didn't too much.
But he has moved on , so good luck to him at Melbourne.
In Fly we trust.
Last edited:
The main distinction between Rozee and your entire list is that he actually did what he needs to do for 2/3 of a season after making the move into the midfield. So basically he's proven the scoring in the role. His question is whether any of the o***eason moves impact that role which I've seen asked many times on here.
You're not wrong on any of your list but you're definitely selectively leaving out all the negatives to oversell them.
Daicos - New role, will it be better? It wasn't for Crisp. (I think it will be, fwiw).
Young - Never done it before, even for part of the season, so purely speculative.
Cumming - Whitfield going back cancels out Himmel.
Ridley - Hasn't done it for 2 years and they've added McGrath on top of all the other thieves.
Redman - McGrath and his last month when other teams gave him a bit of work.
LDU - Even his finish last year is below the standard required for an entire season. Plus Cunnington and a new coach factors.
Green - Way he finished every season so far is concerning. I like him though and think he has more runs than the others.
Mitchell - Looked completely washed last year, throw in that with Pendles, Crisp, Daicos, JDG, Adams, Lipinski, Sidey and Daicos they've got a strong midfield, he may very well play a lot of HF again. Based on last year it's hard to argue he is better than anyone on that list entering the season.
Worth noting that none of your list are forwards either, lower standards make it easier and the forwards have the lowest standards historically so Rozee at 105 is highly likely to be a keeper. The mids on that list would almost certainly be failures at that level and the defenders would need downward movement above them and you could probably only afford one of them.
As I said, I actually like the majority of your list and have considered them all, will probably end up with a couple of them but they've got some serious questions to answer, more than Rozee who just has "is his role the same". Everyone else needs more than that.
Not sure what's happening with Rich, but he dropped off to 96.5, I know this as I rode him all the way down...
Very interesting group, I do wonder how many people would have copped.
I know 2021 for example that Neale, Lloyd, Hunter, Danger, Fyfe, SIdebottom, Treloar and Rocky were all non-entities for the majority because of either terrible preseasons (most of them) or the huge COVID shortened games outlier situation (a few). So realistically the players that were actually relevant went at very high success rates. I didn't have any of them in my last 3 drafts for that season.
2022 is pretty similar, Darcy, Mitchell, NicNat, Zorko, Cunnington and Ziebell were on very few radars, if any, at round 1. Lyons and Guthrie are never on radars, which leaves Macrae (started great before in-season changes ruined him), Steele (was great until injury), Grundy (epic fail), Parish (great until injury), Lloyd (Not many went him as there were many concerns), Hall (not many went him after preseason injury but he was definitely on radars) and Crisp.
So really, there was Gawn, Walsh and Crisp who played 20 games and fell off and then a few injuries, which will always happen and otherwise only those actively seeking risks really were impacted. Again, come round one I had only Grundy and Rich from that list that failed.
I imagine this season will be similar. Come round one there will be a half dozen names on that list that no one is considering and the majority will drop off because the reasons we don't consider them are genuine, looking at Walsh, Darcy (if injured as badly as indicated, albeit already discounted from last year), Hurn (if age ever applies to anything but his hairline), Mills (role concerns), Boak (role change) and so on.
You're not wrong on any of your list but you're definitely selectively leaving out all the negatives to oversell them.
Daicos - New role, will it be better? It wasn't for Crisp. (I think it will be, fwiw).
Young - Never done it before, even for part of the season, so purely speculative.
Cumming - Whitfield going back cancels out Himmel.
Ridley - Hasn't done it for 2 years and they've added McGrath on top of all the other thieves.
Redman - McGrath and his last month when other teams gave him a bit of work.
LDU - Even his finish last year is below the standard required for an entire season. Plus Cunnington and a new coach factors.
Green - Way he finished every season so far is concerning. I like him though and think he has more runs than the others.
Mitchell - Looked completely washed last year, throw in that with Pendles, Crisp, Daicos, JDG, Adams, Lipinski, Sidey and Daicos they've got a strong midfield, he may very well play a lot of HF again. Based on last year it's hard to argue he is better than anyone on that list entering the season.
Worth noting that none of your list are forwards either, lower standards make it easier and the forwards have the lowest standards historically so Rozee at 105 is highly likely to be a keeper. The mids on that list would almost certainly be failures at that level and the defenders would need downward movement above them and you could probably only afford one of them.
As I said, I actually like the majority of your list and have considered them all, will probably end up with a couple of them but they've got some serious questions to answer, more than Rozee who just has "is his role the same". Everyone else needs more than that.
Not sure what's happening with Rich, but he dropped off to 96.5, I know this as I rode him all the way down...
Very interesting group, I do wonder how many people would have copped.
I know 2021 for example that Neale, Lloyd, Hunter, Danger, Fyfe, SIdebottom, Treloar and Rocky were all non-entities for the majority because of either terrible preseasons (most of them) or the huge COVID shortened games outlier situation (a few). So realistically the players that were actually relevant went at very high success rates. I didn't have any of them in my last 3 drafts for that season.
2022 is pretty similar, Darcy, Mitchell, NicNat, Zorko, Cunnington and Ziebell were on very few radars, if any, at round 1. Lyons and Guthrie are never on radars, which leaves Macrae (started great before in-season changes ruined him), Steele (was great until injury), Grundy (epic fail), Parish (great until injury), Lloyd (Not many went him as there were many concerns), Hall (not many went him after preseason injury but he was definitely on radars) and Crisp.
So really, there was Gawn, Walsh and Crisp who played 20 games and fell off and then a few injuries, which will always happen and otherwise only those actively seeking risks really were impacted. Again, come round one I had only Grundy and Rich from that list that failed.
I imagine this season will be similar. Come round one there will be a half dozen names on that list that no one is considering and the majority will drop off because the reasons we don't consider them are genuine, looking at Walsh, Darcy (if injured as badly as indicated, albeit already discounted from last year), Hurn (if age ever applies to anything but his hairline), Mills (role concerns), Boak (role change) and so on.
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 1,929
- Likes
- 6,564
I have my team permanently as incomplete, with only my locks saved. These are the guys who, barring any preseason injury or disaster, are starting for me in round 1. I'll semi regularly fill in the rest and screenshot any decent combinations I might like to go back to.
As it stands I have 13 locked away. I'd be interested to know how many locks others have at this stage?
As it stands I have 13 locked away. I'd be interested to know how many locks others have at this stage?
