Analysis 2023 Preseason Games
- Thread starter wogitalia
- Start date
Gulden feels like a carbon copy of Butters last year. His ownership went from about 10% to 50% over the preseason. Butters was going to win the Brownlow based on the preseason hype we heard.
The reality was there were still flaws with the pick (fragile body and a maniac with it), and swerving him was certainly the right call.
I said a few weeks ago it felt like a year too soon for Gulden, and I think that’s still probably the right call. There’s risks he gets shunted to wing, or stuck at half forward. In a year with five rock solid promos in Dunkley, Coniglio, Taranto, Rozee and Butters; I don’t really see the upside at that ownership level.
The reality was there were still flaws with the pick (fragile body and a maniac with it), and swerving him was certainly the right call.
I said a few weeks ago it felt like a year too soon for Gulden, and I think that’s still probably the right call. There’s risks he gets shunted to wing, or stuck at half forward. In a year with five rock solid promos in Dunkley, Coniglio, Taranto, Rozee and Butters; I don’t really see the upside at that ownership level.
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2015
- Messages
- 6,697
- Likes
- 30,160
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I wonder though whether these days the 36 trades and additional trade boosts do cater better with mid-price options then the GNR days. I played predominately GNR and found that it worked better with less trades back in the day because you knew the guns you picked were guns. I'd use a couple of rookie correction trades and then sit out the first few weeks before hitting the trade button again but to use an early trade on a mid-price could really hurt you.
These days it's moving more towards fantasy where you can trade most weeks no problems - starting mid-price options now doesn't hurt near as much as you just move them to on to someone else in a similar price range if they fail.
I'm wondering if it's more about structure rather than players. Pick your guns, couple of mid-price options for the quick cash/upgrade and rookies to grow. I mean if you use 9 trades in 3 rounds we still have a ****e load more trades than we ever use to start with.
These days it's moving more towards fantasy where you can trade most weeks no problems - starting mid-price options now doesn't hurt near as much as you just move them to on to someone else in a similar price range if they fail.
I'm wondering if it's more about structure rather than players. Pick your guns, couple of mid-price options for the quick cash/upgrade and rookies to grow. I mean if you use 9 trades in 3 rounds we still have a ****e load more trades than we ever use to start with.
Last edited:
I think the real issue with a purely G n R's setup is that you have to find spots for up to 17 rookies, it creates a problem where you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with rookies by having up to to 5-6 non playing/ poorly scoring/non cash generating rookies on the bench. If you replace those rookies with cash generating and reasonably scoring MP's then the odds for you succeeding (being competitive) are a lot higher. Was it last year, or the year before, where the right MP's gave that 150k+ more than the rookies? Something like 17 MP's and 15 rookies?
Small sample size but his average against GC isn't that good so maybe he still has a "down" game and everyone decides to reassess. He's priced at 85 so the question is would you jump off if he scored that? I doubt I would and even if he scores a couple of 80s he's not going to lose much value.
I can't help comparing him to Andrew Brayshaw. His breakout year was 2020 (3rd season) and started that season at $382k. I may be wrong about this but I'm fairly sure there was plenty of hype around him over that pre-season and he was a reasonably popular pick in the FWDs.
He then went 66, 88, 82, 78 in his first four games. Good scores but not great. Actually went up in price to $400k so many would have held but some would have jumped off thinking where are the tons? He then went 144, 122, 102, 136, 106, 150.
As plenty of others have noted, the game is different now and we have the extra trades to correct "mistakes". That can be a blessing and a curse. In the Brayshaw example, having the extra trades up your sleeve would most likely have led you to trade whereas if you only had 20, you'd probably have held and boy was that the right call.
I can't help comparing him to Andrew Brayshaw. His breakout year was 2020 (3rd season) and started that season at $382k. I may be wrong about this but I'm fairly sure there was plenty of hype around him over that pre-season and he was a reasonably popular pick in the FWDs.
He then went 66, 88, 82, 78 in his first four games. Good scores but not great. Actually went up in price to $400k so many would have held but some would have jumped off thinking where are the tons? He then went 144, 122, 102, 136, 106, 150.
As plenty of others have noted, the game is different now and we have the extra trades to correct "mistakes". That can be a blessing and a curse. In the Brayshaw example, having the extra trades up your sleeve would most likely have led you to trade whereas if you only had 20, you'd probably have held and boy was that the right call.
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2015
- Messages
- 6,697
- Likes
- 30,160
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Yeah I'm really talking 5-10 years ago when trades were like gold. The MP was much harder to get right early because of the fear of using a correction trade and it's not uncommon for a rookie to average more or the same as an MP - look how many MP options actually play the game and then look at the number of MP's that actually become SC relevant. Now days it's nothing to flick trades around, just look at the guy who won it last year. That would never have happened a few years ago. Some of us are probably still stuck in the old ways of thinking and not transitioning quick enough to the how the game should be played now, I think the trades are gold slogan can now be downgraded to a trades are like bronze
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2015
- Messages
- 6,697
- Likes
- 30,160
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I actually look at him the opposite way, at his price he's very easy to switch to in round 3 if his role holds up in the real stuff with Mills and Papley playing and Rowbottom playing a full game and he scores big in that role. On the flipside you've got very few options to go to from him if his role remains the same as last year, which was already wing/HF with some midfield bursts.
I love him as a player and think he can push towards 95 without a role change but that wouldn't be enough at his price point.
Realistically have 3 trade corrections now and can even go early if it looks like it's needed in round 2.
Ultimately I'd rather take the 3 guys with similar scoring potential/value and confirmed roles than gamble on Horse
I actually look at him the opposite way, at his price he's very easy to switch to in round 3 if his role holds up in the real stuff with Mills and Papley playing and Rowbottom playing a full game and he scores big in that role. On the flipside you've got very few options to go to from him if his role remains the same as last year, which was already wing/HF with some midfield bursts.
I love him as a player and think he can push towards 95 without a role change but that wouldn't be enough at his price point.
Realistically have 3 trade corrections now and can even go early if it looks like it's needed in round 2.
Ultimately I'd rather take the 3 guys with similar scoring potential/value and confirmed roles than gamble on Horse
I love him as a player and think he can push towards 95 without a role change but that wouldn't be enough at his price point.
Realistically have 3 trade corrections now and can even go early if it looks like it's needed in round 2.
Ultimately I'd rather take the 3 guys with similar scoring potential/value and confirmed roles than gamble on Horse
I seriously doubt anyone is risking fielding a $124k or below type on field. Maybe a couple of people are willing to combine some combination of McLean, Ratugolea, Allen, Sheezel duo. Others might have one combined with a Fyfe, Ziebell, Bruhn, Flanders type, but it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people right now had Flanders at F6; granted, Gulden at F5 is a big step above that, and it's more likely to have a Bruhn or Ziebell at F5 in that structure, but I don't think Gulden F5 is too outlandish either.
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,960
- Likes
- 126,628
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
