2023: SC Planning Thread
- Thread starter Gruffles
- Start date
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2021
- Messages
- 171
- Likes
- 1,009
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I'm not suggesting that someone use the strategy to that extreme. It would be pointless, because we are not playing a zero trade game. In theory, a mid-price team can win overall without trading. A guns and rookies team cannot win overall without trading. That has to suggest that the more mid-price you can go without stuffing up, the better off you are.
In practice, I totally agree with you - a line has to be drawn somewhere in terms of the balance. Previous winners will always have had successful mid-price/speculative picks. Travis Cloke was the difference for John Bruyn that year, not his premos.
The 36 trades allows you to fix mistakes quickly. If you allocate 8 (for example) spots to speculative picks, you can correct 6 of them in 2 weeks if you need to. Ideally you don't want to have to do that, but it really is no different to correcting rookies.
Last year, you could have picked Sicily, Hewett, Bowey, Cripps, Witts, Coniglio, Curnow, Brodie and done well. That is a third of the on-ground 22. I reckon a lot of the higher finishing coaches would have started with a number of these - the winner certainly did.
In practice, I totally agree with you - a line has to be drawn somewhere in terms of the balance. Previous winners will always have had successful mid-price/speculative picks. Travis Cloke was the difference for John Bruyn that year, not his premos.
The 36 trades allows you to fix mistakes quickly. If you allocate 8 (for example) spots to speculative picks, you can correct 6 of them in 2 weeks if you need to. Ideally you don't want to have to do that, but it really is no different to correcting rookies.
Last year, you could have picked Sicily, Hewett, Bowey, Cripps, Witts, Coniglio, Curnow, Brodie and done well. That is a third of the on-ground 22. I reckon a lot of the higher finishing coaches would have started with a number of these - the winner certainly did.
Travis Cloke was the difference for John Bruyn that year, not his premos.
And if my memory serves me right he started Blicavs as R2 and traded him out for a massive gain.
I tried a mid price strategy soon after I started playing. It was clear to me that nailing the breakout players would be a huge advantage so I loaded up. However it was too hard to pick the right ones and too hard to fix (less trades back then and a lot less info on players available online). One thing I did learn is that just because you can ID a player who will be a big improver that does not mean he will be a good pick. Trying to guess how much a player can improve is tricky but the lower his start price the more leeway you have in making your guess.
IMO it still comes back to skilfull trading and timing (eg how Bruyn traded out Cloke when most people were busting a gut to get him in). If you are good at that it goes a long way.
And if my memory serves me right he started Blicavs as R2 and traded him out for a massive gain.
I tried a mid price strategy soon after I started playing. It was clear to me that nailing the breakout players would be a huge advantage so I loaded up. However it was too hard to pick the right ones and too hard to fix (less trades back then and a lot less info on players available online). One thing I did learn is that just because you can ID a player who will be a big improver that does not mean he will be a good pick. Trying to guess how much a player can improve is tricky but the lower his start price the more leeway you have in making your guess.
IMO it still comes back to skilfull trading and timing (eg how Bruyn traded out Cloke when most people were busting a gut to get him in). If you are good at that it goes a long way.
I think this is logical. Some additional thoughts I think I may have mentioned elsewhere:
- More trades allows us to take more injury/suspension risk
- More trades should facilitate more cash gen, which allows for better finished sides. This means that finishing with weak D6/M8/F6 types is more damaging … so it’s potentially okay to start some of those types, but there’s a greater need to get them out. Or you can largely just start who you expect to be the best guys, and back yourself to make up the remaining cash required on the other positions (which I think was probably an underrated strategy anyway, I had shifted towards it).
- There is greater scope for slingshots around the byes, if you pick the wrong premos.
- More trades allows us to take more injury/suspension risk
- More trades should facilitate more cash gen, which allows for better finished sides. This means that finishing with weak D6/M8/F6 types is more damaging … so it’s potentially okay to start some of those types, but there’s a greater need to get them out. Or you can largely just start who you expect to be the best guys, and back yourself to make up the remaining cash required on the other positions (which I think was probably an underrated strategy anyway, I had shifted towards it).
- There is greater scope for slingshots around the byes, if you pick the wrong premos.
I prefer a solid choice for F2, Rozee can go large but he can also have some stinkers and because of that I think he's more suited to an F4/5 in my team.
They both have durability issues but I'm leaning more towards Taranto for solid week to week scores. Currently have him at F3 with Cameron at R2 (probably F4 later) Rozee is certainly on my radar though and as an F5 would be handy, Cogs is F2.
They both have durability issues but I'm leaning more towards Taranto for solid week to week scores. Currently have him at F3 with Cameron at R2 (probably F4 later) Rozee is certainly on my radar though and as an F5 would be handy, Cogs is F2.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
Generally a set and forget team can win (or place very highly) however not last year because of the introduction of the trade boost and DPPs being added mid season. The highest score achievable was as per the following post (subject to the points made) and would have placed only 625th nearly 1500 points behind.
https://supercoachscores.com/thread...eam-post-230-onwards.4408/page-12#post-905334
https://supercoachscores.com/thread...eam-post-230-onwards.4408/page-12#post-905334
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2021
- Messages
- 171
- Likes
- 1,009
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I'd say a huge portion of that is they can put guys like Bolton and Martin (not as much last year) in for CBA where they run one direction and they can replace them (it's why Lambert was so huge for them, he'd defensively cover those guys from HF with insane workrate) but they can't utilise those two around the ground to the same level as they get exposed, especially in the defensive half.
I'd be shocked if Hopper doesn't play a pure midfield role this year and score very well. Durability is basically the only question, if he's fit he's going to score very well for his starting price. Prestia was their only above average midfielder last year. They were giving huge midfield minutes to Cotchin, Ross, Dow, RCD, Short and Sonsie throughout the season. Hopper (and Taranto) are considerably better than that list outside Short who is a very different player and, imo, far better playing HB or even wing.
In short, Hopper should comfortably make 100k and score reliably. The question is how much further he can go.
I think the big issue with Richmond is historically they're not producing keeper level scoring and given he's never done it, I think the idea of keeper scoring for Hopper is a big longshot.
Taranto a bit better but want to see how his role lands before jumping. He's outstanding value though.
Midpricers are basically like playing roulette. The more spins of the wheel, the more likely you lose.
Looking at my mid price madness team from last year, a pretty good representation despite the limitations the rules impart.
I've left out the cheapies I filled the roster with, cash is to the byes as that's what's relevant.
H. Young - High end failure. Didn't make enough cash, didn't score enough. There were worse picks but he didn't work out.
B. Hill - Failure.
Hewett - Success but needed a trade after injury.
Sicily - Complete win, was only relevant if you didn't pick him like some idiot on here...
Blakey - Pass. Made enough cash by the bye rounds and scored well. Not a keeper.
Rioli - Debatable. Made 90k, scored decently but definitely not a keeper.
McInerney - Failure. Lost cash, not a premium.
Lipinski - Borderline. Made ~100k and the DPP addition was helpful.
Caldwell - Borderline - Made ~100k.
Newcombe - Win. Made 160k.
Berry - Win. Made 170k.
Rowell - Debatable. If you got out at the right time you made 100k, probably not worth it with ordinary scoring outside round 1.
Parfitt - Failure.
Schoenberg - Failure
Polec - More rookie priced but total failure.
Coniglio - Huge win
Brodie - Huge win (basically a rookie though).
Witts - Enormous win.
Preuss - Rookie priced, kind of a win.
Draper - Failure.
Cameron - Failure. Not quite good enough to be a keeper, didn't make enough cash.
McGovern - Failure.
Rayner - Failure.
Butters - Debatable. Probably keeper level from the value point as a F6, missed 2 games doesn't help.
Naughton - Failure, to be fair mostly picked as had to have a Dog, I wouldn't have chosen him as a breakout naturally.
Gresham - Win
B. Brown - Failure.
The big takeaways for me are the cheaper guys were far more likely to succeed. Basically the guys in the <300k were much better.
Looking at my draft sides last year I considered (using 230k+) Milera, Coleman, Berry, Coniglio, McGovern, Sicily, Cripps, Rowell, Polec, Hewett, Xerri, Whitfield. Can include Butters and Heeney but they started in premium range, imo. Obviously a few of those were ruled out before round one but I took most of them.
Basically there's just no way to nail as many as you need. Ultimately guys are midpriced options for one of a few reasons:
1. Durability - They were injured in the previous season. Past performance is not always indicative of future outcomes but injuries seem to be a pretty reliable trend and so every durability related midpricer has to be viewed as higher risk. Even a lot of the wins above ultimately had to be traded because they got hurt again.
2. Natural Improvement - We can pick them sometimes but you're always projecting the improvement and the reasoning for it, we can watch preseason and extrapolate but even that's unreliable, how many guys get midfield time and then they don't. Chances of nailing these reliably aren't great. One of the hardest parts of these is the standout candidates are generally in that "must be a keeper" level starting price because they've already shown the talent. So you're talking Daicos, Young, Rowell and many other types. Young last year a classic example of being good but not good enough, so you were "right" but still failed. Blakey a good example of being that much cheaper that it allowed it to work. Tom Green another last year who landed in no man's land. I'd say this one is probably the most unreliable path.
3. Position changes - This is, imo, the most reliable thing we can pick from, especially those who had the position change last year and have indicative scoring on file. Rioli or Blakey are great examples of this last year. Trying to pick them unsighted is a lot harder and less reliable. Someone like Rozee is a perfect example of an option of this for the current season where I feel pretty good picking him.
4. New clubs - Another huge guess work one. You can reason what you want but ultimately it's a guess. Hewett or Lipinski for example last year are pretty strong outcomes. Tom Lynch going to Richmond was a huge fail but at the time a KPF going to a much stronger team would be a pretty easy sell for improvement.
You get guys who tick multiples of these, heck Taranto probably ticks all 4 boxes this year
Ultimately the game has shifted to be cash generation being more important than it was before because we now have the trades to use it all. Every value pick you nail is like one step forward and every failed pick is probably two steps back (especially if they're unique).
There's definitely also a valuable to more reliable scoring as opposed to playing rookie roulette, especially if you can avoid needing a rolling donut that costs you cash generation.
I'd be shocked if Hopper doesn't play a pure midfield role this year and score very well. Durability is basically the only question, if he's fit he's going to score very well for his starting price. Prestia was their only above average midfielder last year. They were giving huge midfield minutes to Cotchin, Ross, Dow, RCD, Short and Sonsie throughout the season. Hopper (and Taranto) are considerably better than that list outside Short who is a very different player and, imo, far better playing HB or even wing.
In short, Hopper should comfortably make 100k and score reliably. The question is how much further he can go.
I think the big issue with Richmond is historically they're not producing keeper level scoring and given he's never done it, I think the idea of keeper scoring for Hopper is a big longshot.
Taranto a bit better but want to see how his role lands before jumping. He's outstanding value though.
Midpricers are basically like playing roulette. The more spins of the wheel, the more likely you lose.
Looking at my mid price madness team from last year, a pretty good representation despite the limitations the rules impart.
I've left out the cheapies I filled the roster with, cash is to the byes as that's what's relevant.
H. Young - High end failure. Didn't make enough cash, didn't score enough. There were worse picks but he didn't work out.
B. Hill - Failure.
Hewett - Success but needed a trade after injury.
Sicily - Complete win, was only relevant if you didn't pick him like some idiot on here...
Blakey - Pass. Made enough cash by the bye rounds and scored well. Not a keeper.
Rioli - Debatable. Made 90k, scored decently but definitely not a keeper.
McInerney - Failure. Lost cash, not a premium.
Lipinski - Borderline. Made ~100k and the DPP addition was helpful.
Caldwell - Borderline - Made ~100k.
Newcombe - Win. Made 160k.
Berry - Win. Made 170k.
Rowell - Debatable. If you got out at the right time you made 100k, probably not worth it with ordinary scoring outside round 1.
Parfitt - Failure.
Schoenberg - Failure
Polec - More rookie priced but total failure.
Coniglio - Huge win
Brodie - Huge win (basically a rookie though).
Witts - Enormous win.
Preuss - Rookie priced, kind of a win.
Draper - Failure.
Cameron - Failure. Not quite good enough to be a keeper, didn't make enough cash.
McGovern - Failure.
Rayner - Failure.
Butters - Debatable. Probably keeper level from the value point as a F6, missed 2 games doesn't help.
Naughton - Failure, to be fair mostly picked as had to have a Dog, I wouldn't have chosen him as a breakout naturally.
Gresham - Win
B. Brown - Failure.
The big takeaways for me are the cheaper guys were far more likely to succeed. Basically the guys in the <300k were much better.
Looking at my draft sides last year I considered (using 230k+) Milera, Coleman, Berry, Coniglio, McGovern, Sicily, Cripps, Rowell, Polec, Hewett, Xerri, Whitfield. Can include Butters and Heeney but they started in premium range, imo. Obviously a few of those were ruled out before round one but I took most of them.
Basically there's just no way to nail as many as you need. Ultimately guys are midpriced options for one of a few reasons:
1. Durability - They were injured in the previous season. Past performance is not always indicative of future outcomes but injuries seem to be a pretty reliable trend and so every durability related midpricer has to be viewed as higher risk. Even a lot of the wins above ultimately had to be traded because they got hurt again.
2. Natural Improvement - We can pick them sometimes but you're always projecting the improvement and the reasoning for it, we can watch preseason and extrapolate but even that's unreliable, how many guys get midfield time and then they don't. Chances of nailing these reliably aren't great. One of the hardest parts of these is the standout candidates are generally in that "must be a keeper" level starting price because they've already shown the talent. So you're talking Daicos, Young, Rowell and many other types. Young last year a classic example of being good but not good enough, so you were "right" but still failed. Blakey a good example of being that much cheaper that it allowed it to work. Tom Green another last year who landed in no man's land. I'd say this one is probably the most unreliable path.
3. Position changes - This is, imo, the most reliable thing we can pick from, especially those who had the position change last year and have indicative scoring on file. Rioli or Blakey are great examples of this last year. Trying to pick them unsighted is a lot harder and less reliable. Someone like Rozee is a perfect example of an option of this for the current season where I feel pretty good picking him.
4. New clubs - Another huge guess work one. You can reason what you want but ultimately it's a guess. Hewett or Lipinski for example last year are pretty strong outcomes. Tom Lynch going to Richmond was a huge fail but at the time a KPF going to a much stronger team would be a pretty easy sell for improvement.
You get guys who tick multiples of these, heck Taranto probably ticks all 4 boxes this year
Ultimately the game has shifted to be cash generation being more important than it was before because we now have the trades to use it all. Every value pick you nail is like one step forward and every failed pick is probably two steps back (especially if they're unique).
There's definitely also a valuable to more reliable scoring as opposed to playing rookie roulette, especially if you can avoid needing a rolling donut that costs you cash generation.
I'm a little bit miffed on the Taranto hype to be honest. Show me a recent Tigers mid that has played a full season and averaged more than 102 and I'll show you a Brownlow medallist (!)
Their style just doesn't seem to be suited to racking up effective stats through the middle of the ground. And people seem absolutely confident that Taranto coming into this team will average 105+ and be better than he ever has.
Rozee for me. Just has to keep doing what he showed he could last year and he's an awesome pick.
Their style just doesn't seem to be suited to racking up effective stats through the middle of the ground. And people seem absolutely confident that Taranto coming into this team will average 105+ and be better than he ever has.
Rozee for me. Just has to keep doing what he showed he could last year and he's an awesome pick.
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2021
- Messages
- 171
- Likes
- 1,009
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I'd say a huge portion of that is they can put guys like Bolton and Martin (not as much last year) in for CBA where they run one direction and they can replace them (it's why Lambert was so huge for them, he'd defensively cover those guys from HF with insane workrate) but they can't utilise those two around the ground to the same level as they get exposed, especially in the defensive half.
I'd be shocked if Hopper doesn't play a pure midfield role this year and score very well. Durability is basically the only question, if he's fit he's going to score very well for his starting price. Prestia was their only above average midfielder last year. They were giving huge midfield minutes to Cotchin, Ross, Dow, RCD, Short and Sonsie throughout the season. Hopper (and Taranto) are considerably better than that list outside Short who is a very different player and, imo, far better playing HB or even wing.
In short, Hopper should comfortably make 100k and score reliably. The question is how much further he can go.
I think the big issue with Richmond is historically they're not producing keeper level scoring and given he's never done it, I think the idea of keeper scoring for Hopper is a big longshot.
Taranto a bit better but want to see how his role lands before jumping. He's outstanding value though.
Midpricers are basically like playing roulette. The more spins of the wheel, the more likely you lose.
Looking at my mid price madness team from last year, a pretty good representation despite the limitations the rules impart.
I've left out the cheapies I filled the roster with, cash is to the byes as that's what's relevant.
H. Young - High end failure. Didn't make enough cash, didn't score enough. There were worse picks but he didn't work out.
B. Hill - Failure.
Hewett - Success but needed a trade after injury.
Sicily - Complete win, was only relevant if you didn't pick him like some idiot on here...
Blakey - Pass. Made enough cash by the bye rounds and scored well. Not a keeper.
Rioli - Debatable. Made 90k, scored decently but definitely not a keeper.
McInerney - Failure. Lost cash, not a premium.
Lipinski - Borderline. Made ~100k and the DPP addition was helpful.
Caldwell - Borderline - Made ~100k.
Newcombe - Win. Made 160k.
Berry - Win. Made 170k.
Rowell - Debatable. If you got out at the right time you made 100k, probably not worth it with ordinary scoring outside round 1.
Parfitt - Failure.
Schoenberg - Failure
Polec - More rookie priced but total failure.
Coniglio - Huge win
Brodie - Huge win (basically a rookie though).
Witts - Enormous win.
Preuss - Rookie priced, kind of a win.
Draper - Failure.
Cameron - Failure. Not quite good enough to be a keeper, didn't make enough cash.
McGovern - Failure.
Rayner - Failure.
Butters - Debatable. Probably keeper level from the value point as a F6, missed 2 games doesn't help.
Naughton - Failure, to be fair mostly picked as had to have a Dog, I wouldn't have chosen him as a breakout naturally.
Gresham - Win
B. Brown - Failure.
The big takeaways for me are the cheaper guys were far more likely to succeed. Basically the guys in the <300k were much better.
Looking at my draft sides last year I considered (using 230k+) Milera, Coleman, Berry, Coniglio, McGovern, Sicily, Cripps, Rowell, Polec, Hewett, Xerri, Whitfield. Can include Butters and Heeney but they started in premium range, imo. Obviously a few of those were ruled out before round one but I took most of them.
Basically there's just no way to nail as many as you need. Ultimately guys are midpriced options for one of a few reasons:
1. Durability - They were injured in the previous season. Past performance is not always indicative of future outcomes but injuries seem to be a pretty reliable trend and so every durability related midpricer has to be viewed as higher risk. Even a lot of the wins above ultimately had to be traded because they got hurt again.
2. Natural Improvement - We can pick them sometimes but you're always projecting the improvement and the reasoning for it, we can watch preseason and extrapolate but even that's unreliable, how many guys get midfield time and then they don't. Chances of nailing these reliably aren't great. One of the hardest parts of these is the standout candidates are generally in that "must be a keeper" level starting price because they've already shown the talent. So you're talking Daicos, Young, Rowell and many other types. Young last year a classic example of being good but not good enough, so you were "right" but still failed. Blakey a good example of being that much cheaper that it allowed it to work. Tom Green another last year who landed in no man's land. I'd say this one is probably the most unreliable path.
3. Position changes - This is, imo, the most reliable thing we can pick from, especially those who had the position change last year and have indicative scoring on file. Rioli or Blakey are great examples of this last year. Trying to pick them unsighted is a lot harder and less reliable. Someone like Rozee is a perfect example of an option of this for the current season where I feel pretty good picking him.
4. New clubs - Another huge guess work one. You can reason what you want but ultimately it's a guess. Hewett or Lipinski for example last year are pretty strong outcomes. Tom Lynch going to Richmond was a huge fail but at the time a KPF going to a much stronger team would be a pretty easy sell for improvement.
You get guys who tick multiples of these, heck Taranto probably ticks all 4 boxes this year
Ultimately the game has shifted to be cash generation being more important than it was before because we now have the trades to use it all. Every value pick you nail is like one step forward and every failed pick is probably two steps back (especially if they're unique).
There's definitely also a valuable to more reliable scoring as opposed to playing rookie roulette, especially if you can avoid needing a rolling donut that costs you cash generation.
I'd be shocked if Hopper doesn't play a pure midfield role this year and score very well. Durability is basically the only question, if he's fit he's going to score very well for his starting price. Prestia was their only above average midfielder last year. They were giving huge midfield minutes to Cotchin, Ross, Dow, RCD, Short and Sonsie throughout the season. Hopper (and Taranto) are considerably better than that list outside Short who is a very different player and, imo, far better playing HB or even wing.
In short, Hopper should comfortably make 100k and score reliably. The question is how much further he can go.
I think the big issue with Richmond is historically they're not producing keeper level scoring and given he's never done it, I think the idea of keeper scoring for Hopper is a big longshot.
Taranto a bit better but want to see how his role lands before jumping. He's outstanding value though.
Midpricers are basically like playing roulette. The more spins of the wheel, the more likely you lose.
Looking at my mid price madness team from last year, a pretty good representation despite the limitations the rules impart.
I've left out the cheapies I filled the roster with, cash is to the byes as that's what's relevant.
H. Young - High end failure. Didn't make enough cash, didn't score enough. There were worse picks but he didn't work out.
B. Hill - Failure.
Hewett - Success but needed a trade after injury.
Sicily - Complete win, was only relevant if you didn't pick him like some idiot on here...
Blakey - Pass. Made enough cash by the bye rounds and scored well. Not a keeper.
Rioli - Debatable. Made 90k, scored decently but definitely not a keeper.
McInerney - Failure. Lost cash, not a premium.
Lipinski - Borderline. Made ~100k and the DPP addition was helpful.
Caldwell - Borderline - Made ~100k.
Newcombe - Win. Made 160k.
Berry - Win. Made 170k.
Rowell - Debatable. If you got out at the right time you made 100k, probably not worth it with ordinary scoring outside round 1.
Parfitt - Failure.
Schoenberg - Failure
Polec - More rookie priced but total failure.
Coniglio - Huge win
Brodie - Huge win (basically a rookie though).
Witts - Enormous win.
Preuss - Rookie priced, kind of a win.
Draper - Failure.
Cameron - Failure. Not quite good enough to be a keeper, didn't make enough cash.
McGovern - Failure.
Rayner - Failure.
Butters - Debatable. Probably keeper level from the value point as a F6, missed 2 games doesn't help.
Naughton - Failure, to be fair mostly picked as had to have a Dog, I wouldn't have chosen him as a breakout naturally.
Gresham - Win
B. Brown - Failure.
The big takeaways for me are the cheaper guys were far more likely to succeed. Basically the guys in the <300k were much better.
Looking at my draft sides last year I considered (using 230k+) Milera, Coleman, Berry, Coniglio, McGovern, Sicily, Cripps, Rowell, Polec, Hewett, Xerri, Whitfield. Can include Butters and Heeney but they started in premium range, imo. Obviously a few of those were ruled out before round one but I took most of them.
Basically there's just no way to nail as many as you need. Ultimately guys are midpriced options for one of a few reasons:
1. Durability - They were injured in the previous season. Past performance is not always indicative of future outcomes but injuries seem to be a pretty reliable trend and so every durability related midpricer has to be viewed as higher risk. Even a lot of the wins above ultimately had to be traded because they got hurt again.
2. Natural Improvement - We can pick them sometimes but you're always projecting the improvement and the reasoning for it, we can watch preseason and extrapolate but even that's unreliable, how many guys get midfield time and then they don't. Chances of nailing these reliably aren't great. One of the hardest parts of these is the standout candidates are generally in that "must be a keeper" level starting price because they've already shown the talent. So you're talking Daicos, Young, Rowell and many other types. Young last year a classic example of being good but not good enough, so you were "right" but still failed. Blakey a good example of being that much cheaper that it allowed it to work. Tom Green another last year who landed in no man's land. I'd say this one is probably the most unreliable path.
3. Position changes - This is, imo, the most reliable thing we can pick from, especially those who had the position change last year and have indicative scoring on file. Rioli or Blakey are great examples of this last year. Trying to pick them unsighted is a lot harder and less reliable. Someone like Rozee is a perfect example of an option of this for the current season where I feel pretty good picking him.
4. New clubs - Another huge guess work one. You can reason what you want but ultimately it's a guess. Hewett or Lipinski for example last year are pretty strong outcomes. Tom Lynch going to Richmond was a huge fail but at the time a KPF going to a much stronger team would be a pretty easy sell for improvement.
You get guys who tick multiples of these, heck Taranto probably ticks all 4 boxes this year
Ultimately the game has shifted to be cash generation being more important than it was before because we now have the trades to use it all. Every value pick you nail is like one step forward and every failed pick is probably two steps back (especially if they're unique).
There's definitely also a valuable to more reliable scoring as opposed to playing rookie roulette, especially if you can avoid needing a rolling donut that costs you cash generation.
Not for everyone, but this guy did.
I've got Daicos, Marshall and Rozee across the field at that price picked ahead of Taranto.
As you say, I think he's a safe bet for something like 95-105 (upper end at the absolute most) but at this point I'm only starting two forward premos: Dunkley and Rozee at this stage. I think next picked up forward for 'most likely to get the best average' is Cogs playing midfield right?
As you say, I think he's a safe bet for something like 95-105 (upper end at the absolute most) but at this point I'm only starting two forward premos: Dunkley and Rozee at this stage. I think next picked up forward for 'most likely to get the best average' is Cogs playing midfield right?
There is a positive and a negative here...
The reason for the bad scores was a knee injury, credit to him playing through it but was definitely limited by it. Durability is the single biggest issue with Rozee, he's been shaky on that front to date.
I think Rozee is an easy choice at this point. My first picked forward.
The reason for the bad scores was a knee injury, credit to him playing through it but was definitely limited by it. Durability is the single biggest issue with Rozee, he's been shaky on that front to date.
I think Rozee is an easy choice at this point. My first picked forward.