Opinion 2024 AFL SuperCoach Planning Thread

[Russty_]

Jackson had 8 games where Darcy was missing last year. He averaged 118 points. One game, was a spike game of 173 points.

It is likely Darcy will miss at least 6 weeks despite the best case scenario being 3-5.

Let's say if we extend it to the same sample size of 8 games and sprinkle in two games of ~70 (after Darcy is back), he'd average 108 points over that same time frame.

That is 10-11 points above his priced average as of right now. He should net you some money and will allow you to get points on board, but I think as soon as Darcy comes back, you'd have to either: (a) hold and see if Darcy suffers lingering symptoms (b) move him on for a higher priced premo.

I think with 40 trades you can get away with it, but the sweet spot needs to be at least 6-8 games missed. 3-5 is not enough for it to be super useful. Most people are going to pick Naismith as R3, so Jackson won't be useful ruck cover when Naismith and Gawn have the round 6 bye either as neither have DPP.

Does he really need to cover the ruck though when it's best 18 anyway and most coaches will only have a few players missing that round?

 

[Serj]

Jackson doesn't really need to cover Gawn or Naismith in the byes, cause it's best 18 scores, it's only if your R1 or R2 goes down with a temp injury or suspension you'd actually need to swing Jackson to Ruck.

I know. I just mention it as a bonus effect for a plausible trade. Also several people said that Jackson isn't real ruck cover because of not having a second R/F, and I wanted to point out a very plausible way we could have a second R/F soon

 

[Feerits Elf]

I also listed steele, touk and Martin in that group which is strange you deleted that from the quote.

That's not strange. Am I not entitled to selectively quote the part of your post to which I want to respond?

 

[Serj]

Just one thing to note - the average is only relevant vs players on the same line. Saying Touk, Steele, Martin and Crouch are better picks cause they’ll average more is flawed thinking. Fair enough if you think Jackson averages so poorly that $547k is a crazy overspend, but it’s probably more relevant if you are convinced he isn’t a top 8 forward this year. Given his likely hot start and favourable bye, it feels unlikely he falls outside the top 8 without significant injury impacts.

I think I disagree with this. If I knew in advance and was able to start the end of season best at F1-3, that's going to be less points than taking that cash and investing in the correct M1-3, or even M6-8. If Jackson is F1 by the end of the season, I don't necessarily want him at the start if I can use that cash for more points on other lines.
Having said that I do think it's worth starting Jackson myself. I just wanted to rebut that point.

 

[HimothyTaranto]

Does he really need to cover the ruck though when it's best 18 anyway and most coaches will only have a few players missing that round?

Well considering that you may still be fielding a number of rookies and are missing Gawn for the round, it could be a factor of x amount of points missing from the ruck vs having to field a rookie.

Most of them look solid from the pre-season, but 30-40 points is still a lot.

Was merely there to point out if people who are picking Jackson also for that purpose, that it won't be applicable.

 

[dlanod]

How many keepers are people running with?
I am sitting on either 10 or 11 at the moment.

12, but I'm counting Grundy.

 

[Chumpion]

I think I disagree with this. If I knew in advance and was able to start the end of season best at F1-3, that's going to be less points than taking that cash and investing in the correct M1-3, or even M6-8. If Jackson is F1 by the end of the season, I don't necessarily want him at the start if I can use that cash for more points on other lines.
Having said that I do think it's worth starting Jackson myself. I just wanted to rebut that point.

There is no argument that midfielders score better, and of course a better M1-3 is critical to a good start. But I think the point of starting teams should be to lock in as many top line players as they can - Crouch, Steele, Touk and Martin are unlikely to be top 10 mids (not impossible for Touk but unlikely) and Martin is probably a speculative D5/6 at best. So prioritising weak mid players over a top forward just means you are committing to an extra trade, or to carrying that M8 type all season where you likely then have to pass on other value plays (or end up with 3 M8 types).
Yes, going hard on the mid line means a good start, but what about the mid rookies that pushes off field (that are usually stronger) or the weaker forward rookie it brings on field? Probably difference of opinion but I would always want my players to either be a likely top rank for their line or make solid cash. Otherwise they’re just a bit of a no man’s land pick that ultimately cost a trade.

 

[7/11]

I do agree with your point that he should finish top 6 fwd, but as a 547k fwd i'd be expecting 105 avg which we are yet to see the evidence he can be trusted to do that. At 22 he could 100% break out but think he's too expensive to pick and hope he breaks out

I guess using this logic you’d have to see what you believe the rest of your forward line offers you in terms or cash to points.

Very hard to predict, but I’m willing to bet Jackson will give us good bang for our buck early doors. If we end up offloading him after some big scores for a Flanders type post bye/determining his SC role is not mud then great.

Either way a tough player to just dismiss based on other positions being better in terms of value as our forward line seems the most up in the air currently. Not many screaming value in the 400k+ price range.

 

[Feerits Elf]

What does Billings need to do tonight to shore up his position?

If he sort of meanders his way to 80 with 17 touches and a goal (I think I just summed up his career in 10 words) will that give comfort that he's a solid pick?

 

[Under The Dome]

Jackson without Darcy opponents/score

Nankervis - 119
Briggs - 118
McLean - 100
Stanley - 87
Fort - 173
Williams - 124
Hayes - 123
Reeves/Meek 101

 

[Leroy]

What does Billings need to do tonight to shore up his position?

If he sort of meanders his way to 80 with 17 touches and a goal (I think I just summed up his career in 10 words) will that give comfort that he's a solid pick?

For $240k I'll take meandering to 80.

I think with the expensive 'rookies' it's about having a floor that still makes money (eg. Avoiding those 30s and 40s; getting to 60s each game) and the ability to spike to 100.

Billings seems to fit that ... er ... 'bill' pretty well?

 

[scarfaceclaw]

I'd take a meandering 80 for billings. I'm just worried he will be a sub, especially when pickett returns to the side. We get to see how he goes before we need to work out our teams.

 

[aj74]

Does he really need to cover the ruck though when it's best 18 anyway and most coaches will only have a few players missing that round?

He's going to need to cover the ruck in round 16 or 17 when my R1/R2 misses a week or two.

If Naismith is putting in 100s by that stage he would long ago been cashed in. If he wasn't scoring premiums, I'd be happy to have Jackson there

 

[7/11]

Jackson without Darcy opponents/score

Nankervis - 119
Briggs - 118
McLean - 100
Stanley - 87
Fort - 173
Williams - 124
Hayes - 123
Reeves/Meek 101

Very surprising that Stanley kept him to the lowest score out of that lot. Thought he was one of the least mobile. Might have smashed him in the hitouts.

Edit: just looked, Stanley 42 to Jackson’s 19.

 

[freowho]

Very surprising that Stanley kept him to the lowest score out of that lot. Thought he was one of the least mobile. Might have smashed him in the hitouts.

Edit: just looked, Stanley 43 to Jackson’s 19.

Stanley and Blicavs would be the most mobile ruckmen. I think Stanley won a grand final sprint.

 

[Peter56]

by r6 naismith could be a downgrade to livingstone trade with nank back up and running. I imagine a bunch of people will be considering that in 6 weeks time, to free up cash and have the bonus of moving jackson in as gawn cover for the bye.

Never thought of going down this path. I like it 🙂

 

[aj74]

I do agree with your point that he should finish top 6 fwd, but as a 547k fwd i'd be expecting 105 avg which we are yet to see the evidence he can be trusted to do that. At 22 he could 100% break out but think he's too expensive to pick and hope he breaks out

Ah but I'm not looking for or needing a breakout from him. His first 4 years have gone 58, 71, 84, 97.

He'll I don't even need him to keep up with his natural progression 😀

Yeah he's pretty well a lock for me now. The late season injury coverage in the ruck when trades will be at a premium is worth saving one now.

 

[Under The Dome]

Very surprising that Stanley kept him to the lowest score out of that lot. Thought he was one of the least mobile. Might have smashed him in the hitouts.

Edit: just looked, Stanley 42 to Jackson’s 19.

Stanley and Blicavs would be the most mobile ruckmen. I think Stanley won a grand final sprint.

Yeh Stanley was a very athletic ruckman. Age will bring him back a bit now but he has always been the kryptonite for English.

 

[donnybuang]

How many keepers are people running with?
I am sitting on either 10 or 11 at the moment.

11, 12 if I dump 3 x 250-300k players

 

[donnybuang]

There is no argument that midfielders score better, and of course a better M1-3 is critical to a good start. But I think the point of starting teams should be to lock in as many top line players as they can - Crouch, Steele, Touk and Martin are unlikely to be top 10 mids (not impossible for Touk but unlikely) and Martin is probably a speculative D5/6 at best. So prioritising weak mid players over a top forward just means you are committing to an extra trade, or to carrying that M8 type all season where you likely then have to pass on other value plays (or end up with 3 M8 types).
Yes, going hard on the mid line means a good start, but what about the mid rookies that pushes off field (that are usually stronger) or the weaker forward rookie it brings on field? Probably difference of opinion but I would always want my players to either be a likely top rank for their line or make solid cash. Otherwise they’re just a bit of a no man’s land pick that ultimately cost a trade.

It's a moot point anyway. One could easily start all of Jackson, Miller, Steele and Martin.