Opinion 2024 AFL SuperCoach Planning Thread

[Manikato1]

In respect of the opening round (ORD) teams having byes and the implications I have decided for now to have a maximum of two opening round players which must have different early byes. These are Grundy and Gawn currently and this is based on them being value. If you choose ORD players based on value (Touk another one) then you need to keep them and take the bye round score hit unless after seeing some early games you suspect they might be a mistake.

My earliest draft based on first thoughts ended up having 6 ORD players in it and that is just too many. So my current draft has now got just two with my proposed midfield having no ORD players. But if a Brisbane/Carlton mid player fires and one of my current mids looks a bad pick or is injured then I would trade them in in based on the fact that the price goes up post Rd 3 and the best part of the value will be gone after that. Also in the case of GC I want to see the game plan Dimma is going with because it might be a negative for some of their mids.

Current draft looking at 13/14 possible keepers playing with 4 or 5 rookie scores to make up the scoring 18 in those early bye rounds.
However as we all know the forward line is a cluster this year so much will depend on what shows up pre season within that group and their cost as to how other positions pan out.

 

[Connoisseur]

@Connoisseur

Here is a $0 remaining side which I actually quite like :-

View attachment 65277

Excellent. My work is already done and therefore no need to bother when the free version is released.

 

[Post Nut Clarity]

The main concern I have with Flanders is his role over the last 10 rounds was under King and I'm not sure how Hardwick will use him? If he uses him like they did in the last 10 rounds Flanders will be a top 6 forward. Need to wait and see how he goes in first few games to maybe bring him in after 2 rounds if his role looks good. I currently have Miller in my side because he is underpriced on what he's put out in 2021 & 2022.

Although I’m going to try and avoid making changes based on players performances in Round 0, Flanders is the one player I’d probably steer clear of if he wasn’t playing as a pure mid, opting for Miller instead.
I just think Flanders proved he is too good to leave out of the engine room and subsequently will be a top 6 forward by seasons end.
Miller is still a good pick but I think with the emergence of Anderson, Rowell & Flanders he’s probably going to drop back to the pack a bit and average around the 110 mark which is still great value.

 

[Shannon]

Very interesting on Watson - hawks only bye is round 15 😉

 

[Herbie66]

Fairly pointless at this stage of the year but

Ridley , Young
Walsh , Miller , Steele
Gawn , Grundy
J Macrae *

is 8 to possibly build around.

Z Williams and Lynch both are cheap

Still don't understand why they don't just start opening Round (Best of X) then have unlimited trades to reset for Round 1 , oh well not my decision to make

My BBL SC is a train wreck at the moment , so thought I would fill in the gaps using the price points of the Top 18 drafted , purely for planning

Had to lose Grundy (so will need to adjust) , and placing Daicos & Macrae in the mids purely for this exercise.

Bont used as highest priced mid.

Haven't even looked at the fixtures or Bye rounds at this stage.

$ 244,400.00 in the Bank

Bring on Round 0/1 team annoucements 🤗

SICILY , STEWART , RIDLEY , YOUNG , Williams , Curtin * / O'Sullivan , Leake

BONT , DAICOS * , WALSH , MACRAE * , MILLER , STEELE , Reid * , McKercher / Duursma * , Sanders , Rogers

GAWN , Read / Green

Walter , Watson * , Windsor * , Caddy , Gothard , Tholstrup / Croft , Wilson *

11 premiums , update R2

See how long Zac Attack can stay on the park

Once the rookie adjustments occur probably fit in another mid pricer (maybe Harmes or Lynch)

 

[GrainFedBeef]

View attachment 65513 Very interesting on Watson - hawks only bye is round 15 😉

Thank you Shannon. on weight stats, Watson looks a little lightweight and the type of light forward I would avoid. Had a ook at the highlights and he looks reasonable well built, with his height being not being too far of Caleb Daniel at 1.7m. Does feel the top 10 rookies could dominant out selections, rightly or wrongly, early day still.

 

[Herbie66]

Just thought I'd plonk this in as a refresher / reference
View attachment 65248

So essentially if I start 2 players that each have the Bye in Round 2 , 3 , 5 & 6 they will then be covered by my 19th & 20th player effectively.

Example start Daicos & Grundy who both have the Bye in Round 5 , I will get someone scoring maybe 40-60 each so down by 140 - 100 points that round.

Do that for all 4 early Bye rounds and that is a truck load of points to make up.

 

[scarfaceclaw]

Its a tricky balance. In addition to the early byes, round 15 looks ugly.

 

[Russty_]

So essentially if I start 2 players that each have the Bye in Round 2 , 3 , 5 & 6 they will then be covered by my 19th & 20th player effectively.

Example start Daicos & Grundy who both have the Bye in Round 5 , I will get someone scoring maybe 40-60 each so down by 140 - 100 points that round.

Do that for all 4 early Bye rounds and that is a truck load of points to make up.

It would be, that's why some are saying picking no or minimum Opening round players is the way to go.
I've got one playing in rd 3, 2 in rd 5 and 1 in rd 6 at the moment.
It'll be interesting to see what the best strategy was in hindsight.

 

[Russty_]

Its a tricky balance. In addition to the early byes, round 15 looks ugly.

At least by round 15, we should be able to trade ourselves into a better position.

 

[Herbie66]

It would be, that's why some are saying picking no or minimum Opening round players is the way to go.
I've got one playing in rd 3, 2 in rd 5 and 1 in rd 6 at the moment.
It'll be interesting to see what the best strategy was in hindsight.

Haven't given it a lot of thought yet but starting Daicos , Gawn , Grundy , Miller & Walsh could end up giving up a lot of points over the first few rounds.

I guess it then comes down to working out when they can be upgraded into our sides.

 

[gutsroy]

Rd 0 premos:
The idea is that you'll have all the big guns, or as close as you can get, by the end of upgrade season, not the end of the year.
Assume the point diff between a premo and a rookie is 50-60 pts.
For a Rd 0 premo, you are guaranteed that loss during upgrade season.
So it's a 60pt deficit over 10 rds or so (gets complicated, since you grab blokes each week across upgrade season, for your early targets, the pts/rd actually increases, because you lose the 60 over a shorter period).
Is this thinking correct or flawed?
Unless they are value or clearly superior, hard to argue the case for garden variety Rd 0 premos VS comparable blokes without that bye.

 

[HimothyTaranto]

I'm seeing a lot of Ridley picks.

What is the reasoning here? I understand McKay has come in and that should ease off Ridley a little bit, but they also did get rid of another "lockdown" defender in Zerk-Thatcher.

 

[Shaunpro1]

I'm seeing a lot of Ridley picks.

What is the reasoning here? I understand McKay has come in and that should ease off Ridley a little bit, but they also did get rid of another "lockdown" defender in Zerk-Thatcher.

I dont think a great deal changes myself, Ridley is still going to be asked to be a main defender majority of the time, they needed to bring two guys in to truly free him up.

 

[Shaunpro1]

Haven't given it a lot of thought yet but starting Daicos , Gawn , Grundy , Miller & Walsh could end up giving up a lot of points over the first few rounds.

I guess it then comes down to working out when they can be upgraded into our sides.

Im really not a fan of a competition where we basically have to disregard over a third of the player base, but its the only logical way to play the hand we have been dealt.

Probably depends on the trade count though, gut feel is theyll spoon feed trades to keep casuals engaged.

 

[OnTopBar]

Im really not a fan of a competition where we basically have to disregard over a third of the player base, but its the only logical way to play the hand we have been dealt.

Probably depends on the trade count though, gut feel is theyll spoon feed trades to keep casuals engaged.

Not necessarily, the value picks and rookies are still viable. AFLF still have a limit of 2 trades/round over the early byes and the ability to use a boost in SC allays the need for any extra trades.

 

[Manikato1]

So a question for those that have maths as their thing.

Given the starting magic number is 5588.8 which is the highest it has been in nine years, will this have a measurable impact on the higher priced players. By measureable I mean in terms of what they need to score to retain value compared to previous seasons. We have two players over $700k and five in the $650-700 range so if say Bont has a slow start (like he did last year) will the higher magic number cause his price to fall quicker than in previous years? And conversely if you hit on a value player that starts well will his value rise quicker.

Or will those changes only be a nominal $ amount compared to previous years and not worth taking into consideration. Just thinking about how hard/easy it might be to bring in those higher priced players during the season in 2024.

 

[GrainFedBeef]

So a question for those that have maths as their thing.

Given the starting magic number is 5588.8 which is the highest it has been in nine years, will this have a measurable impact on the higher priced players. By measureable I mean in terms of what they need to score to retain value compared to previous seasons. We have two players over $700k and five in the $650-700 range so if say Bont has a slow start (like he did last year) will the higher magic number cause his price to fall quicker than in previous years? And conversely if you hit on a value player that starts well will his value rise quicker.

Or will those changes only be a nominal $ amount compared to previous years and not worth taking into consideration. Just thinking about how hard/easy it might be to bring in those higher priced players during the season in 2024.

The fall in the magic number depends on players outperforming prior year stats and level of rookies that play. If we see less rookies playing than 2-3 years ago (due to covid ripples) and the ones that do are more expensive starting priced rookie players, then the negative impact on the magic number is less.

Your point is fair from a starting point, it is higher. Why is it higher, last season saw less rookies was one factor, second being rookies outperforming their intrinsic price was less. does this trend change? Notable that the magic number use to get down to 5000-5100 in prior years and I dont think it has done that for several years.

Re Bont, a slow start one year doesn’t mean he will be the same this year. He has had surgery so that may be a factor. Think these decisions create anxiety pre season every year.

Premium A jogs around preseason game and we take them out of our side. Merrett you could argue has a longer history of a slow start. Gawn starts strong and can fade.
Most others I would look to balance long term history with just some value, go hard left (full premoum price) or right (mid price madness and value premiums) and we undo ourselves.

I will say there is history against the top scorer of any year. Also history against brownlow medallists in following year.

 

[Manikato1]

The fall in the magic number depends on players outperforming prior year stats and level of rookies that play. If we see less rookies playing than 2-3 years ago (due to covid ripples) and the ones that do are more expensive starting priced rookie players, then the negative impact on the magic number is less.

Your point is fair from a starting point, it is higher. Why is it higher, last season saw less rookies was one factor, second being rookies outperforming their intrinsic price was less. does this trend change? Notable that the magic number use to get down to 5000-5100 in prior years and I dont think it has done that for several years.

Re Bont, a slow start one year doesn’t mean he will be the same this year. He has had surgery so that may be a factor. Think these decisions create anxiety pre season every year.

Premium A jogs around preseason game and we take them out of our side. Merrett you could argue has a longer history of a slow start. Gawn starts strong and can fade.
Most others I would look to balance long term history with just some value, go hard left (full premoum price) or right (mid price madness and value premiums) and we undo ourselves.

I will say there is history against the top scorer of any year. Also history against brownlow medallists in following year.

Thanks for your thoughts. Re Bont he was simply an example of a player starting slow. I was not suggesting he will again or anyone else will or the merit of anyones preseason form. His first four games in 2023 he went 107, 125, 89 and 122 and after that fourth game he had lost 29k and was at his cheapest at any point in the season. My query was based on would a higher MN in 2024 exacerbate that type of price loss for any high priced premo. IE would in the same circumstances next year that kind of a loss now be 40k instead of 29k for example.

 

[_Slip_]

Happy Boxing Day!

Here is my first draft.