Opinion Player X vs Player Y

[Ben's Beasts]

Ok, what if I lower that to 93-99. Same view or that changes it for you?
Bont average 102 last year.
Brayshaw would be a fair chance to get near that in his second year.

If you think he will average 93-99 then pick him for sure. An average of 93 would be an acceptable F6/F7 and closer to 99 would be good for a F4/F5 spot I reckon.

I don't think you can compare the Bont to Brayshaw though. They are very different players. One thing they do have in common though is that they will wear a brownlow around their neck at some stage

 

[happydays]

If you think he will average 93-99 then pick him for sure. An average of 93 would be an acceptable F6/F7 and closer to 99 would be good for a F4/F5 spot I reckon.

I don't think you can compare the Bont to Brayshaw though. They are very different players. One thing they do have in common though is that they will wear a brownlow around their neck at some stage

Accounting for his sub-affected games (4), he is probably a 73-75 average in his first year. He will get more TOG and more time in the middle; plus natural progression...with this is it reasonable to put him down for an additional 12-25 points higher in second year???

 

[Rowsus]

Accounting for his sub-affected games (4), he is probably a 73-75 average in his first year. He will get more TOG and more time in the middle; plus natural progression...with this is it reasonable to put him down for an additional 12-25 points higher in second year???

Like BB, I am a Melbourne supporter, and love the way Brayshaw goes about it. Having said that, I would be surprised if he can average 90 in 2016. I think he will be given the role Viney played in the first half of 2015. A more run with/negating type role, rather than a productive type role. That generally leads to disappointing scores in most games for SC.

 

[Torress]

This might be a very even X vs Y

Danger vs Pendles

Which one would you start?
I have not hesitating starting pendles in years. Will he a Mr fix it in 2016? the pies have a decent brigade of on ballers. Pendles could get thrown about a bit? He is that good it probably wouldn't matter where he is! Not picking Dangerfield (hard to given starting price) this year for some reason has me nervous all of a sudden. He might just have that extra motivation to really really impress geelong and have his best ever season of his career? seriously if danger smashes this season he is a massive show at the brownlow!

I won't be starting both, my only other option for not locking in pendles is danger.

 

[happydays]

This might be a very even X vs Y

Danger vs Pendles

Danger.
I can see him exploading in a Brownlow year.

 

[Darkie]

^ Pendles for me in a non-close call ... although I think Danger is more likely to win the Brownlow.

Danger is priced based on his best season to date. He was immense at times last year, given everything that happened at Adelaide and his contract talks - but it's not clear to me he has another SC level in him.

Pendles is priced at a five year low after playing injured. He used to be good for consistent 120s averages before that. Top 2 for total points in 4 of the last 5 years.

Both should be top 8 mids for mine, but I would back Pendles to out-average Danger, and he's cheaper.

 

[happydays]

I tend to think Chris Scott is going to just let Danger off the leash (almost purely) within the midfield. With Menzel and Motlop, I don't think they need Danger up forward; and I think he will just stay within the guts to blend throughout the year with Selwood, Blicavs, Caddy and Duncan.

Pendles I think is the 2nd best player in the comp (behind Fyfe), but Collingwood now run very deep and Pendles is proven - he doesn't need to gel with co-mids or be given mid time to build up his midfield capabilities. I think he will be mid and swingman half-back/half-forward.

I also think Danger is potentially a better VC option with a higher ceiling.

 

[Darkie]

I tend to think Chris Scott is going to just let Danger off the leash (almost purely) within the midfield. With Menzel and Motlop, I don't think they need Danger up forward; and I think he will just stay within the guts to blend throughout the year with Selwood, Blicavs, Caddy and Duncan.

Pendles I think is the 2nd best player in the comp (behind Fyfe), but Collingwood now run very deep and Pendles is proven - he doesn't need to gel with co-mids or be given mid time to build up his midfield capabilities. I think he will be mid and swingman half-back/half-forward.

I also think Danger is potentially a better VC option with a higher ceiling.

You may be right about how they will be used. To me, Buckley is a very logical person, and I see the midfield as the logical place to use one of the comp's best midfielders (ie, you don't need an additional reason to play him there, it is the default as I see it). I think Bucks will also be pretty keen to lock away a finals spot this year, so if I was him I would play Pendles in the mids early and potentially experiment later, rather than the reverse. We seem to talk about up-and-coming players getting more mid time, and the very best players getting less, every pre-season, but I think often it doesn't eventuate.

Has Bucks or someone made comments indicating that Pendles will be used differently? I've seen a few comments to that effect on here, so perhaps I've missed something important.

Your point on Danger being a better C option is potentially quite a good one. If they average the same (obviously we have different views on that ), I would certainly agree with you ... it was actually one of the reasons I picked Danger last year.

What do you think they will average?

 

[Juzzo]

I tend to think Chris Scott is going to just let Danger off the leash (almost purely) within the midfield. With Menzel and Motlop, I don't think they need Danger up forward; and I think he will just stay within the guts to blend throughout the year with Selwood, Blicavs, Caddy and Duncan.

Pendles I think is the 2nd best player in the comp (behind Fyfe), but Collingwood now run very deep and Pendles is proven - he doesn't need to gel with co-mids or be given mid time to build up his midfield capabilities. I think he will be mid and swingman half-back/half-forward.

I also think Danger is potentially a better VC option with a higher ceiling.

I think you may have forgotten about someone who plays for the Gold Coast?

 

[Ben's Beasts]

I have finally settled on the structure that I want but can't quite get all my first choice players.

Ideally I would have McVeigh, Pendlebury and Goldstein but I just can't fit them all in.

So I have two options. Assuming that all of the following players play in the NAB challenge, have no injury concerns and are ready to play round 1, which combo would you choose?

Simpson, J Selwood and Goldstein
v
McVeigh, Pendlebury and Naitanui

 

[Darkie]

I have finally settled on the structure that I want but can't quite get all my first choice players.

Ideally I would have McVeigh, Pendlebury and Goldstein but I just can't fit them all in.

So I have two options. Assuming that all of the following players play in the NAB challenge, have no injury concerns and are ready to play round 1, which combo would you choose?

Simpson, J Selwood and Goldstein
v
McVeigh, Pendlebury and Naitanui

I'll take option two. I actually have all those players except Goldy in my side, but at their prices, I think the second option wins 3-0 for me. McVeigh for higher-end scoring, Pendles for reliability, and NN to beat Goldy if you include the loose change.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

Ignoring price, which player at F4:
Boomer v Berger? And what do you think they will average?

I like Berger for his cheap price and utility as ruck cover, but his injury history suggests he is a risky pick.
Boomer has a great history, but is getting older and will this be the year for him to fall off the cliff?

 

[Darkie]

Ignoring price, which player at F4:
Boomer v Berger? And what do you think they will average?

I like Berger for his cheap price and utility as ruck cover, but his injury history suggests he is a risky pick.
Boomer has a great history, but is getting older and will this be the year for him to fall off the cliff?

Easily Boomer for me. I currently have, and am quite bullish on, both, but if Leuey was Boomer's price I wouldn't even be considering him. He would be way too risky for me to pick as a keeper, so his utility comes from his price. Essentially I think he's a very risky pick, but priced more than accordingly, if you will.

I have Boomer playing 20 @ 98, and Leuey playing 17 @ 93ish. I think that history suggests that if Leuey gets injured, it's more likely to be early, so there's probably at least as much chance that Leuey plays 3 as 22.

Boomer already has a sub discount in his price, so I think there is some downside protection from that. I also reckon the Roos will be taping him up to equal/break Tuck's record if necessary, so I don't see him missing too many, especially early in the year.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

^^ thanks for your comments Darkie. I think I am starting to reach similar opinions myself, but currently looking to choose between the two. Part of the puzzle for me is that I would need to raise the funds elsewhere to fit Boomer in at F4 so I'm looking at the trade o*** (aren't we all?). One of the options is to downgrade Crouch at M6 to a rookie - do you have a view on what Crouch could average?

 

[Darkie]

^^ thanks for your comments Darkie. I think I am starting to reach similar opinions myself, but currently looking to choose between the two. Part of the puzzle for me is that I would need to raise the funds elsewhere to fit Boomer in at F4 so I'm looking at the trade o*** (aren't we all?). One of the options is to downgrade Crouch at M6 to a rookie - do you have a view on what Crouch could average?

No probs RB, that makes sense. Crouch had low TOG in two games in 2014, so adjusting for that he averaged around 98-99 in that year. He's obviously been injured (negative) but should have plenty of natural improvement still to come and more opportunity in the mids than he's had in the past (positive). Let's call that a wash, and I will say high 90s.

Three other things I am considering on Crouch: he's a stepping stone for me rather than a hopeful keeper, so he will need to be upgraded (although your rookie would as well). That also means his early scores are more important than his later ones, and he has quite a tough early draw, and might be expected to start slow anyway, given his return from injury. I would expect him to average less in the first half than the second, which weakens his cash generation versus the average I estimated. The other issue is that he's injury prone, having already suffered at least three injuries that have caused him to miss games in his career to date.

 

[jaca]

Thoughts on:

McVeigh & Barlow vs. Montagna & (e.g.) KKolo

 

[Snowman]

Thoughts on:

McVeigh & Barlow vs. Montagna & (e.g.) KKolo

All 4 may end up decent picks, but if forced to pick one combination its McVeigh&Barlow, presuming both look fit for rnd1

 

[Darkie]

Thoughts on:

McVeigh & Barlow vs. Montagna & (e.g.) KKolo

If they're all fit, option one by a distance for me.

 

[Dynamo]

I have finally settled on the structure that I want but can't quite get all my first choice players.

Ideally I would have McVeigh, Pendlebury and Goldstein but I just can't fit them all in.

So I have two options. Assuming that all of the following players play in the NAB challenge, have no injury concerns and are ready to play round 1, which combo would you choose?

Simpson, J Selwood and Goldstein
v
McVeigh, Pendlebury and Naitanui

2nd option, if fit McVeigh beats Simpson, Pendles beats Selwood and I thing that Nic Nat can go at 110-115 like he did for the last half of the season if he stays fit.

 

[Dynamo]

Thoughts on:

McVeigh & Barlow vs. Montagna & (e.g.) KKolo

Opt 1 for me as well.
I would really like to know what happened to barlow last year, i have seen some comments about a leg injury he was carrying but does anyone have any real info?