Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
Some scientists reckon the chicken came first.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...icken-really-DID-come-egg-say-scientists.html
I can just imagine these scientists at a party....
"So, what do you do?"
"I solved the what came first chicken verses egg debate. Cool, Eh?
"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...icken-really-DID-come-egg-say-scientists.html
I can just imagine these scientists at a party....
"So, what do you do?"
"I solved the what came first chicken verses egg debate. Cool, Eh?
"Hey Rowsus,
Thoughts on Tom McDonald? What are the chances of a break out for the big fella. The 2015 sample size grew to 4 with his game on the weekend and it reads quite nicely.
NAB1: 99
NAB2: 108
NAB3: 96
RND1: 125
I watched the game on Saturday and he was super impressive. I know the tendency for most coaches down back is to grab half back flankers who get the rebound 50's and set their teams up. But there is always an exception to the rule. The older brigade will recall having Chad Cornes locked in their teams for 3 or 4 years running when he was at Port. Can't help but feel that if he was 188cm tall - we'd all be putting him in our teams.
Thoughts?
Thoughts on Tom McDonald? What are the chances of a break out for the big fella. The 2015 sample size grew to 4 with his game on the weekend and it reads quite nicely.
NAB1: 99
NAB2: 108
NAB3: 96
RND1: 125
I watched the game on Saturday and he was super impressive. I know the tendency for most coaches down back is to grab half back flankers who get the rebound 50's and set their teams up. But there is always an exception to the rule. The older brigade will recall having Chad Cornes locked in their teams for 3 or 4 years running when he was at Port. Can't help but feel that if he was 188cm tall - we'd all be putting him in our teams.
Thoughts?
Hey Slammer,
I'm on the Rocky ---> Hannebery train, but that is because I had Hannebery in my team for about 3 months in the pre-season. My suggestion is, if you never gave him much thought for your team, but had really liked the look of JPK, then go JPK. But, only if you think the difference between Pendles and JPK can be put to good use, in the short term.
I'm on the Rocky ---> Hannebery train, but that is because I had Hannebery in my team for about 3 months in the pre-season. My suggestion is, if you never gave him much thought for your team, but had really liked the look of JPK, then go JPK. But, only if you think the difference between Pendles and JPK can be put to good use, in the short term.
It still leaves you missing: vdB, Heeney, possibly Hogan, and Brayshaw, if you want to add in a $200k+ Rookie. Given dollars look like they might be even harder to generate this year, than some years, you may end up wanting all 4 of those, and you'd need them before they get a price bump.
My suggestion would be, grab vdB and Heeney this week, if they're not named sub, and then assess the other 2 for next week. If you can do it without trading Rocky, that's not the worst thing you can do. At least it gives you another week of information on him, too.
My suggestion would be, grab vdB and Heeney this week, if they're not named sub, and then assess the other 2 for next week. If you can do it without trading Rocky, that's not the worst thing you can do. At least it gives you another week of information on him, too.
Hey Mike,
it seems like a very risky move, and I'd advise against it. It was a considered move to not start him, and his first week was anything but convincing. Yes, he had 16 CP's in 19 Dis, but he wasn't even 90% of the old Gaz. The jury is still out, and to change course now has more possibility of regret than success. I'd look elsewhere, and stick with your guns on the "I didn't start Gaz" policy.
it seems like a very risky move, and I'd advise against it. It was a considered move to not start him, and his first week was anything but convincing. Yes, he had 16 CP's in 19 Dis, but he wasn't even 90% of the old Gaz. The jury is still out, and to change course now has more possibility of regret than success. I'd look elsewhere, and stick with your guns on the "I didn't start Gaz" policy.
Some scientists reckon the chicken came first.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...icken-really-DID-come-egg-say-scientists.html
I can just imagine these scientists at a party....
"So, what do you do?"
"I solved the what came first chicken verses egg debate. Cool, Eh? "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...icken-really-DID-come-egg-say-scientists.html
I can just imagine these scientists at a party....
"So, what do you do?"
"I solved the what came first chicken verses egg debate. Cool, Eh?
"
Silly scientists....... it's not that hard, is it?
Last edited:
Hey dazal_,
keep in mind GC had pretty much all their tall Fwds out, and were playing Smith and Gorringe at Full Fwd. He won't get that luxury every week, and will get more typical Tall Def scores when up against better Fwds, especially ones he can't just run off, like he was against those two. This week when he plays on Cameron will be a much better guage to his prospects.
keep in mind GC had pretty much all their tall Fwds out, and were playing Smith and Gorringe at Full Fwd. He won't get that luxury every week, and will get more typical Tall Def scores when up against better Fwds, especially ones he can't just run off, like he was against those two. This week when he plays on Cameron will be a much better guage to his prospects.
Some scientists reckon the chicken came first.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...icken-really-DID-come-egg-say-scientists.html
I can just imagine these scientists at a party....
"So, what do you do?"
"I solved the what came first chicken verses egg debate. Cool, Eh? "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...icken-really-DID-come-egg-say-scientists.html
I can just imagine these scientists at a party....
"So, what do you do?"
"I solved the what came first chicken verses egg debate. Cool, Eh?
"
It reminds me of some research that I think NASA spent about $1,000,000 on back in the 70's or 80's. They wanted to determine exactly what was the ideal axle for a yo-yo!!!!
They wanted to trial various diameters, as the diameter determines the speed the yo-yo falls and spins at. They wanted to trial various materials, as a smooth, slippery surface will allow for less loss of speed, when the yo-yo was sleeping, but it had to have enough grip, to respond to the jerk to bring it back up to your hand. After months of research, they announced that the ideal diameter was 6-7mm, and the ideal material to use, giving both enough slip and grip was wood! Yep, NASA spent $1,000,000 and months of research to tell us, the ideal axle for a yo-yo was a piece of 6mm wooden dowel! Who knew?!
They wanted to trial various diameters, as the diameter determines the speed the yo-yo falls and spins at. They wanted to trial various materials, as a smooth, slippery surface will allow for less loss of speed, when the yo-yo was sleeping, but it had to have enough grip, to respond to the jerk to bring it back up to your hand. After months of research, they announced that the ideal diameter was 6-7mm, and the ideal material to use, giving both enough slip and grip was wood! Yep, NASA spent $1,000,000 and months of research to tell us, the ideal axle for a yo-yo was a piece of 6mm wooden dowel! Who knew?!
Last edited:
Pro, I think that is something that only applies if they tap the ball to their own advantage. Something NicNat was good at in his younger days. It isn't all gathers that are down in point scoring, just the ones from a hitout to advantage. Those points have been given to the Ruck for his good work, hence the 5 for a H2A. The loss of points is more likely to affect a Neale, or even Fyfe! as they get first hands on the ball after a tapout.
Hey Row,
Very much enjoying your analysis. Thank you!
I think I have decided to downgrade Rocky to Sloane, but notice you have gone hannas, is this because you already have sloane?
I now have fyfe, sloane, wines, neale, steven, vandenberg, heeney, cey and subs cripps, ando and miller.
In the fwd I have gray, bartel, buddy, martin, salem, clark and bench lonie and lamb.
with 93,000 spare I'm wondering if I should switch Lamb to lambert or ???
I suppose like everyone I assume next week will be a week where we will want to trade more than two so was wondering if I should jump on the gun on someone???
Thanks Row
PS. The ruck thing seems kind of interesting because it would appear from the surface that the better teams should therefore get more points because they would win more of the tapouts and/or be able to shark the taps however I remember last year hearing brad johnston talk about how the tigers strategy is to almost 'let the other team win the tap' and then get the ball off them by having a ring of players just outside the ball up circle with the strategy to then stop the ball carrier. i had another point too, but it escapes at present. I do feel though that it really makes the actual scoring a little random and almost non realistic as it does not necessarily take into account the actual players play and relies more on the strategy of the teams...but maybe that is all the sc scoring system...Do you or can you get stats for players or teams who shark taps??
on another point it seems whoever has done well with contested marks in the first round has scored very very well, did you notice this??
Cheers
Very much enjoying your analysis. Thank you!
I think I have decided to downgrade Rocky to Sloane, but notice you have gone hannas, is this because you already have sloane?
I now have fyfe, sloane, wines, neale, steven, vandenberg, heeney, cey and subs cripps, ando and miller.
In the fwd I have gray, bartel, buddy, martin, salem, clark and bench lonie and lamb.
with 93,000 spare I'm wondering if I should switch Lamb to lambert or ???
I suppose like everyone I assume next week will be a week where we will want to trade more than two so was wondering if I should jump on the gun on someone???
Thanks Row
PS. The ruck thing seems kind of interesting because it would appear from the surface that the better teams should therefore get more points because they would win more of the tapouts and/or be able to shark the taps however I remember last year hearing brad johnston talk about how the tigers strategy is to almost 'let the other team win the tap' and then get the ball off them by having a ring of players just outside the ball up circle with the strategy to then stop the ball carrier. i had another point too, but it escapes at present. I do feel though that it really makes the actual scoring a little random and almost non realistic as it does not necessarily take into account the actual players play and relies more on the strategy of the teams...but maybe that is all the sc scoring system...Do you or can you get stats for players or teams who shark taps??
on another point it seems whoever has done well with contested marks in the first round has scored very very well, did you notice this??
Cheers
Hey Kafka, I'm glad you're enjoying it all.
I mainly went to Hannebery because he was in my team nearly the whole pre-season. For quite a while my Mid read: Ablett, Rocky, Sidebottom, Heppell, Hannebery, Swallow. Of course, the closer you get to the season, the more it changes. I ended up with Ablett, Rocky, Pendlebury, Swallow. With Rocky down, and Sidebottom out, that left me with Heppell and Hannebery to choose between from my original side. I'm still a bit cautious about Essendon players, which just left me with Hannebery.
I guess I'm Lucky I went back to Pendles over Sidey, and unlucky with Rocky, so my luck reads a 1-1 draw at the moment.
I think you'd be crazy to trade Lamb to Lambert this week. For a start, you have to do it Friday, before you even see if Lambert is sub. Secondly, Lambert hasn't even played a game yet, so he is 1 week behind the other Rookies. We get an "extra" week to decide on him, and don't need to commit until Rnd 4. Lastly, Lamb could be back before then, and Lambert gone again. It seems a very unnecessary risk to do that this week.
Contested Marks have always been a good indicator for scoring. It's one of the reasons NRoo was so good years ago. Especially great for Defs, as it usually from an opposition kick, hence McG's good score last week.
I mainly went to Hannebery because he was in my team nearly the whole pre-season. For quite a while my Mid read: Ablett, Rocky, Sidebottom, Heppell, Hannebery, Swallow. Of course, the closer you get to the season, the more it changes. I ended up with Ablett, Rocky, Pendlebury, Swallow. With Rocky down, and Sidebottom out, that left me with Heppell and Hannebery to choose between from my original side. I'm still a bit cautious about Essendon players, which just left me with Hannebery.
I guess I'm Lucky I went back to Pendles over Sidey, and unlucky with Rocky, so my luck reads a 1-1 draw at the moment.
I think you'd be crazy to trade Lamb to Lambert this week. For a start, you have to do it Friday, before you even see if Lambert is sub. Secondly, Lambert hasn't even played a game yet, so he is 1 week behind the other Rookies. We get an "extra" week to decide on him, and don't need to commit until Rnd 4. Lastly, Lamb could be back before then, and Lambert gone again. It seems a very unnecessary risk to do that this week.
Contested Marks have always been a good indicator for scoring. It's one of the reasons NRoo was so good years ago. Especially great for Defs, as it usually from an opposition kick, hence McG's good score last week.
Hey Rowsus,
What is your view on the following trade:
Miller>Lambert
Miller will never score 75+ in a game, given the role he plays, and there is talk of him being the probable sub this weekend. I know Lambert hasn't played a game yet, and its probably wise to wait, but I have 2 trades planned out for next week, and Im confident in Lambert's scoring ability
By doing this trade, I can also open up the M/F link, as well as being able to choose between Lambert and Vandenberg/Heeney/Ellis-Yolmen's scores
Also, do you see Mitch Clark as a necessary rookie?
What is your view on the following trade:
Miller>Lambert
Miller will never score 75+ in a game, given the role he plays, and there is talk of him being the probable sub this weekend. I know Lambert hasn't played a game yet, and its probably wise to wait, but I have 2 trades planned out for next week, and Im confident in Lambert's scoring ability
By doing this trade, I can also open up the M/F link, as well as being able to choose between Lambert and Vandenberg/Heeney/Ellis-Yolmen's scores
Also, do you see Mitch Clark as a necessary rookie?
Not wanting to talk for Rowsus, however I think Rowsus explained it pretty well in his thread http://www.supercoachscores.com/threads/2250-JPK-Parker-Hannebery-and-Jack
Hannebery
Hannebery definitely has room for improvement in his TOG%, which always a great sign. I'm actually more keen on Hannebery than Parker, so I should declare my biased straight up. He had a pretty ordinary pre-season last year, and needed matches to get fit. I heard an interview with him, that I can't find Again, but I did find this "boost for Dan". He played 280 mins across 3 NAB Cup games in 2014, and only averaged 64 SC points. His first 4 games only produced 57, 107, 82 and 67, and the interview, that I can't find, he admits he just wasn't fit enough coming into the season. He got injured in Round 13, and missed 6 games. We've seen already he can underwhelm us in SC, when not fully fit, and that Round 13 game, and his first 2 games back from his torn ankle ligament (hard to hold base fitness with that type of injury!) produced 55, 54 and 65. I know I'm being over generous here, but if we remove the scores where he clearly wasn't fit, his numbers are 9 games at 125.4/game. With Parker potentially targetted, and Hannebery coming into the season the fittest he's been at this time of the year in many seasons (yes, he's training the house down!) I rate him a real chance to go 110+ this season.
Hannebery's Away Loss figures are just terrible! I find that really interesting, because his Away Win figures are actually his best His Home and Away figures are close enough together, even if slightly unusual that his Away figures are better. Like most better/consistent players (including Parker) his numbers in big Wins are not significantly higher, I like that in a player. I don't like taking players that need big Wins to post big scores.
Hannebery definitely has room for improvement in his TOG%, which always a great sign. I'm actually more keen on Hannebery than Parker, so I should declare my biased straight up. He had a pretty ordinary pre-season last year, and needed matches to get fit. I heard an interview with him, that I can't find Again, but I did find this "boost for Dan". He played 280 mins across 3 NAB Cup games in 2014, and only averaged 64 SC points. His first 4 games only produced 57, 107, 82 and 67, and the interview, that I can't find, he admits he just wasn't fit enough coming into the season. He got injured in Round 13, and missed 6 games. We've seen already he can underwhelm us in SC, when not fully fit, and that Round 13 game, and his first 2 games back from his torn ankle ligament (hard to hold base fitness with that type of injury!) produced 55, 54 and 65. I know I'm being over generous here, but if we remove the scores where he clearly wasn't fit, his numbers are 9 games at 125.4/game. With Parker potentially targetted, and Hannebery coming into the season the fittest he's been at this time of the year in many seasons (yes, he's training the house down!
) I rate him a real chance to go 110+ this season.
Hannebery's Away Loss figures are just terrible! I find that really interesting, because his Away Win figures are actually his best
His Home and Away figures are close enough together, even if slightly unusual that his Away figures are better. Like most better/consistent players (including Parker) his numbers in big Wins are not significantly higher, I like that in a player. I don't like taking players that need big Wins to post big scores.
- Status