Worth noting that I'd only consider Libba a premium amongst that lot, and I picked him last year and consider that move a success. Admittedly, that's in part because I traded him at his bye, but I'd assume the Swallows of the world would be approached similarly. Roughy has much better history than almost everyone on that list.
Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
Hey RBB,
initially I had Hodge locked into my team, but I've gone a bit cold on him. Yes, the potential is there for him to play more Mid time, but I believe Hawthorn might really spread the roles around to fill the gaps left by Mitchell and Lewis. Titchell will get the lions share, but I also believe Hawthorn will use the opportunity to get more Mid time into some younger players. They certainly need to do that, as far as their short term future is concerned.
The other thing that concerns me is Hodge's inconsistency.
2012 - 8/85.9 - PIT60 69.4
2013 - 20/96.7 - PIT60 93.4
2014 - 19/91.5 - PIT60 87.2
2015 - 17/108.2 - PIT60 97.2
2016 - 13/88.5 - PIT60 76.9
From a Def's point of view, that's 3 fails, 1 passable season, and one good season in his last 5. Not tremendous. Compare that to Montagna, who's SC averages read well for a Def listed player, in 9 out of the last 10 seasons, and Hodge becomes a risk I'm not taking at the moment. I think Hodge definitely is in the "start him, or forget him" category.
As to Tuohy, I think he had plenty of chances to be SC relevant before this season. Rowsus rule #7 - a leopard doesn't change it's spots. There's not many examples of a 120 game player changing clubs, and then suddenly becoming SC relevant. He looks a pre-season trap to me.
If Hodge plays 18 I think he needs to average around 97, so he gets a PIT60 of 90. If Tuohy plays 22, you want him to average at least 90. Therein lies the problem. You don't want both your D5 & D6 to be PIT60 90 players, so if you take both, you probably want one of them to push their PIT60 up into the 92/93 area.
Thanks for the kind words. Time will tell if I can reach 1,000,000!
initially I had Hodge locked into my team, but I've gone a bit cold on him. Yes, the potential is there for him to play more Mid time, but I believe Hawthorn might really spread the roles around to fill the gaps left by Mitchell and Lewis. Titchell will get the lions share, but I also believe Hawthorn will use the opportunity to get more Mid time into some younger players. They certainly need to do that, as far as their short term future is concerned.
The other thing that concerns me is Hodge's inconsistency.
2012 - 8/85.9 - PIT60 69.4
2013 - 20/96.7 - PIT60 93.4
2014 - 19/91.5 - PIT60 87.2
2015 - 17/108.2 - PIT60 97.2
2016 - 13/88.5 - PIT60 76.9
From a Def's point of view, that's 3 fails, 1 passable season, and one good season in his last 5. Not tremendous. Compare that to Montagna, who's SC averages read well for a Def listed player, in 9 out of the last 10 seasons, and Hodge becomes a risk I'm not taking at the moment. I think Hodge definitely is in the "start him, or forget him" category.
As to Tuohy, I think he had plenty of chances to be SC relevant before this season. Rowsus rule #7 - a leopard doesn't change it's spots. There's not many examples of a 120 game player changing clubs, and then suddenly becoming SC relevant. He looks a pre-season trap to me.
If Hodge plays 18 I think he needs to average around 97, so he gets a PIT60 of 90. If Tuohy plays 22, you want him to average at least 90. Therein lies the problem. You don't want both your D5 & D6 to be PIT60 90 players, so if you take both, you probably want one of them to push their PIT60 up into the 92/93 area.
Thanks for the kind words. Time will tell if I can reach 1,000,000!
Last edited:
Hi Rows,
Figured I'd chimed in with a question of my own. Whilst the majority of coaches are currently focussing on 'beefing up' their midfield and settling their rucks set up, I've been looking to identify some potential bargain/value players to possibly start off with. When you have some time, can you cast your eyes over the following and give me your opinion and whether you feel there's any value in starting them? I do acknowledge that they are all returning from a long injury layoff, hence the potential value.
Dylan Roberton
Kade Kolodjashnij
Jaegar O'Meara
David Swallow
Jamie Elliott
Jarryd Roughead
Figured I'd chimed in with a question of my own. Whilst the majority of coaches are currently focussing on 'beefing up' their midfield and settling their rucks set up, I've been looking to identify some potential bargain/value players to possibly start off with. When you have some time, can you cast your eyes over the following and give me your opinion and whether you feel there's any value in starting them? I do acknowledge that they are all returning from a long injury layoff, hence the potential value.
Dylan Roberton
Kade Kolodjashnij
Jaegar O'Meara
David Swallow
Jamie Elliott
Jarryd Roughead
the first thing that springs to mind, when I read that, is aren't you looking for value in those selections, so you can beef up your Midfield too?
Roberton - has crossed the 100 game threshold, just, so if he is going to breakout, as opposed to have a spike season, you'd think this is his last chance. Having a best season of 20/90.6 doesn't read well for him. That season had 5 100+ scores, that were all 115+ as well, and 5 scores of 70 or lower. It will be interesting to see what the recruiting of Brown, and the "return" of Carlisle will do for Roberton's role. Of course, Fisher is gone now, so Roberton still might have to take the 3rd tall, when playing teams set up that way. I'm sure he will have some good rebounding games, but I'm also sure he will have his share of 60's again too. With only 1 season above 77, and 3 seasons with more than 14 games (none more than 20!) I think the risk is too great.
KK - I think it comes down to what happens with May now gone for the season. KK's running was setting him up for a SC friendly role, but if he has to go back to playing tall, you don't want him. Watch the next 2 JLT's to see what role he plays, but for now, he's a no, due to the uncertainty.
J O'M - if he gets through the JLT's looking ok, he's a definitely a chance to be a good pick. Either as a Stepping Stone, or a cheap M8/9. The big question is, will he stay on the park? He really only needs to average at least mid to high 80's to do his job for you (as a SS), and I'm confident if he stays on the park, that's his worst case scenario. I'm generally against Stepping Stones in the Midfield, but if you have the cash left over, or we are short of Mid Rookies, why not?!
Swallow D - I think some people are looking at him a bit starry-eyed, but he might turn out to be a good pick. Reading between the lines, it seems like some people are expecting Swallow to a 20-22 game player, at anything from 105-110/game. That would seem to be the very upper limit of anything he is likely to produce. He "only" needs to play every game at something like 92-94 to make $100k by his bye, and I think that is potentially in his wheel-house. Yes, Swallow looked good in 2014 when he went 22/103, but people seem to forget, that in 2015 BEFORE he did his knee, he played 4 games at 87/game, with a SC/100%TOG of 110. So if you believe what I do, you are left with a conundrum. I think J O'M is more likely than Swallow to fill a M8 role, but Swallow is more likely to stay on the park. If you are hoping to fill a cheap M8/9, go with J O'M. If you are looking for a Stepping Stone, then Swallow, particularly with his Round 9 bye, looks the better option. Personally, I've never had either in my team, at any stage this season.
J Elliott - cheap enough to be a stepping stone, I guess. If he times a good score or two a couple of weeks before you want to trade him out, he might make $130k. The thing is, I think we could find a Forward Rookie to do the same, at around half the price. Too many unknowns given his price. No.
J Roughead - I think people are a little too bullish on him. Sure, his last 5 seasons have been 96+, and he's moving ok in what we've seen, but that's not enough for me. It's like people expect the signs of fatigue to show themselves during the JLT. I think they'll start to show themselves when the "horror" of Hawthorns draw kicks in. In their first 20 games, Hawthorn play 12 at the MCG and 8 games where they travel on a plane. I'm fully expecting Roughead will show signs of wear and tear by about Round 11 at the latest. Yes, they can give him a rest in Round 14 (Crows in Ade, and 3rd interstate game out of 4, with the bye in between) to give him a big break at their bye, but I think he'll need more management than that, and his output will diminish as he tires.
Round 6 in Tassie
Round 7 at MCG
Round 8 in Tassie
Round 9 at MCG
Round 10 in Sydney
Round 11 in Adelaide.
There's just no respite. It's all big grounds and/or air travel. I have no doubt he will play some good games, but I'm also backing him to get managed a bit or get fatigued as the season wears on. I'm not risking him, as I think he will need fixing at some stage.
Last edited:
Hi TG,
it's not something I would be looking for patterns in. I think every case needs to be treated on its' own merits.
Thanks to THCLT for his contribution to this answer.
I will add in 2 more:
P Hasleby went 20/87 in 2007, missed 2008, then went 22/86 in 2009.
N Lappin went 16/103 in 2005, missed 2006, then went 18/106 in 2007.
it's not something I would be looking for patterns in. I think every case needs to be treated on its' own merits.
Thanks to THCLT for his contribution to this answer.
I will add in 2 more:
P Hasleby went 20/87 in 2007, missed 2008, then went 22/86 in 2009.
N Lappin went 16/103 in 2005, missed 2006, then went 18/106 in 2007.
Last edited:
Hi B182,
similar to my theory (rule #7 - a leopard doesn't change its' spots) that a player changing clubs doesn't become a better player than he was, which is backed up by very few established non-SC relevant players changing Clubs, then suddenly becoming SC relevant, I think you can say the same about adding a player to a Club. ie, the arrival of Mitchell isn't likely to increase Shuey's SC output, and is unlikely to make him that much of a better player. Once again, there is very few cases I can think of, where a player with an established scoring pattern, suddenly improved because a gun arrived from another Club. Shuey is coming into his 8th season, and has 134 games under his belt. His last 5 seasons have gone: 103, 91, 100, 97, 106. I think you can expect anything in the 100-108 area this season, and anything above that is more likely from a spike season, not Mitchell's presence.
similar to my theory (rule #7 - a leopard doesn't change its' spots) that a player changing clubs doesn't become a better player than he was, which is backed up by very few established non-SC relevant players changing Clubs, then suddenly becoming SC relevant, I think you can say the same about adding a player to a Club. ie, the arrival of Mitchell isn't likely to increase Shuey's SC output, and is unlikely to make him that much of a better player. Once again, there is very few cases I can think of, where a player with an established scoring pattern, suddenly improved because a gun arrived from another Club. Shuey is coming into his 8th season, and has 134 games under his belt. His last 5 seasons have gone: 103, 91, 100, 97, 106. I think you can expect anything in the 100-108 area this season, and anything above that is more likely from a spike season, not Mitchell's presence.
Last edited:
G'day GoGeta,
JJK, like the Eagles, plays better at home. Here are tables for his last 2 seasons:
2015
Josh J Kennedy (FTB)
Season - 22 games at 92.0 (2014 20 games at 79.2)
Home - 12 games at 101.7 (Home wins 10 at 107.4, Home losses 2 at 73.0)
Away - 10 games at 80.3 (Away wins 6 at 89.5, Away 4 losses at 66.5)
Wins - 16 games at 100.7
Losses - 6 games at 68.7
2016
JJK, like the Eagles, plays better at home. Here are tables for his last 2 seasons:
2015
Josh J Kennedy (FTB)
Season - 22 games at 92.0 (2014 20 games at 79.2)
Home - 12 games at 101.7 (Home wins 10 at 107.4, Home losses 2 at 73.0)
Away - 10 games at 80.3 (Away wins 6 at 89.5, Away 4 losses at 66.5)
Wins - 16 games at 100.7
Losses - 6 games at 68.7
2016
Last edited:
Hi ZP,
I think Cripps might potentially play a "scratchy" game or two in his first 3 or 5 games, but I generally expect he might score well in the first half to two-thirds of the season. Carlton's draw gets tougher the deeper we get into the season, and I wouldn't be surprised if his scoring drops off in that period. I think the biggest hurdle he needs to overcome is his K:H ratio. In 2015 it was 158/313 (1:1.98), in 2016 it was 176:390 (1:2.22). In his hot streak of the last 8 games it was 73:164 (1:2.24). It seems unlikely he will ever get up into the Super Premium area, while his K:H is so bad.
Mitchell is definitely a risk under the Hawthorn game plan, the question now becomes, will the game plan be the same? Clarkson knows they need to change/adapt to keep up with what is happening. Will that include some sort of shift from a team ethic, to a Star ethic? Even if it is a small shift, it could be enough to make Titchell a very good pick in 2017. I really like how his historical numbers map out, compared to other players at the same stage of experience, but I won't be taking him in my starting team, due to that unknown factor.
I think Cripps might potentially play a "scratchy" game or two in his first 3 or 5 games, but I generally expect he might score well in the first half to two-thirds of the season. Carlton's draw gets tougher the deeper we get into the season, and I wouldn't be surprised if his scoring drops off in that period. I think the biggest hurdle he needs to overcome is his K:H ratio. In 2015 it was 158/313 (1:1.98), in 2016 it was 176:390 (1:2.22). In his hot streak of the last 8 games it was 73:164 (1:2.24). It seems unlikely he will ever get up into the Super Premium area, while his K:H is so bad.
Mitchell is definitely a risk under the Hawthorn game plan, the question now becomes, will the game plan be the same? Clarkson knows they need to change/adapt to keep up with what is happening. Will that include some sort of shift from a team ethic, to a Star ethic? Even if it is a small shift, it could be enough to make Titchell a very good pick in 2017. I really like how his historical numbers map out, compared to other players at the same stage of experience, but I won't be taking him in my starting team, due to that unknown factor.
Hi Thanh,
the first thing that springs to mind, when I read that, is aren't you looking for value in those selections, so you can beef up your Midfield too?
the first thing that springs to mind, when I read that, is aren't you looking for value in those selections, so you can beef up your Midfield too?
Thanks for adding your opinions on those requested players, always good to hear other's insight, especially yours.
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 425
- Likes
- 358
Hi TG,
it's not something I would be looking for patterns in. I think every case needs to be treated on its' own merits.
Thanks to THCLT for his contribution to this answer.
I will add in 2 more:
P Hasleby went 20/87 in 2007, missed 2008, then went 22/86 in 2009.
N Lappin went 16/103 in 2005, missed 2006, then went 18/106 in 2007.
it's not something I would be looking for patterns in. I think every case needs to be treated on its' own merits.
Thanks to THCLT for his contribution to this answer.
I will add in 2 more:
P Hasleby went 20/87 in 2007, missed 2008, then went 22/86 in 2009.
N Lappin went 16/103 in 2005, missed 2006, then went 18/106 in 2007.
In regards to breakout candidates, what are your thoughts on Matt Crouch? He is one I am bullish on, not sure I'm brave enough to start with him though.
Libba averaged about 98 before his bye, and then I think I turned him into Sloane, who had already had his bye and who averaged 111 from then on. In total they played 22 games for me and averaged around 103.
That's actually not a bad PIT average for a mid, it's just a handful of points outside what the 12th best mid has PIT averaged for the last four years (see the link below).
That only cost me $357k to start with, so I had around $200k of loose change to use from day one, relative to selecting someone who played 22 games at 103, and was priced fairly to start with (103 x $5,375 = $554k). The loose change is worth about 40 points per round, and I had most of that for the whole year.
I effectively used $60k of that loose change in upgrading to Sloane (giving up 12 points per round, making it a net of 40 - 12 = 28 per round, for 10 rounds). I obviously used a trade as well.
So the loose change was arguably worth about (40ppg x 13 games) + (28 x 10) = 800 points. From that I would deduct 150, the cost I place on a trade. So the whole arrangement netted me 650 points versus selecting someone at fair value ... which is absolutely massive, about 30ppg.
Perhaps not so concidentally, this is in the order of the discount I got on Libba.
Note that the calcs above assume I could have found a player guaranteed to play 22 up front, which obviously isn't necessarily the case.
The benefits of using Libba as a stepping stone to Sloane could also have been greater if Sloane didn't miss round 23. [I'd already got 22 scores out of the pair though, so I've treated the missed R23 as equivalent to the bye, with a rookie serving as a replacement. If Sloane had played R23, that would have effectively boosted my score during the byes by a bit more, as I would have been swapping a rookie score for a premium score. I could have had 23 premo scores for the year from that place in my team, instead of 22 premos and a rookie.]
Before I did these calcs, I was thinking that I'd definitely take Libba again if he was available in the same circumstances this year.
On the basis of the above, though, it looks like an absolute no-brainer.
Am I missing something?
http://www.supercoachscores.com/thr...-Defs-Mids-Fwds-Durability-vs-Higher-Ceilings
That's actually not a bad PIT average for a mid, it's just a handful of points outside what the 12th best mid has PIT averaged for the last four years (see the link below).
That only cost me $357k to start with, so I had around $200k of loose change to use from day one, relative to selecting someone who played 22 games at 103, and was priced fairly to start with (103 x $5,375 = $554k). The loose change is worth about 40 points per round, and I had most of that for the whole year.
I effectively used $60k of that loose change in upgrading to Sloane (giving up 12 points per round, making it a net of 40 - 12 = 28 per round, for 10 rounds). I obviously used a trade as well.
So the loose change was arguably worth about (40ppg x 13 games) + (28 x 10) = 800 points. From that I would deduct 150, the cost I place on a trade. So the whole arrangement netted me 650 points versus selecting someone at fair value ... which is absolutely massive, about 30ppg.
Perhaps not so concidentally, this is in the order of the discount I got on Libba.
Note that the calcs above assume I could have found a player guaranteed to play 22 up front, which obviously isn't necessarily the case.
The benefits of using Libba as a stepping stone to Sloane could also have been greater if Sloane didn't miss round 23. [I'd already got 22 scores out of the pair though, so I've treated the missed R23 as equivalent to the bye, with a rookie serving as a replacement. If Sloane had played R23, that would have effectively boosted my score during the byes by a bit more, as I would have been swapping a rookie score for a premium score. I could have had 23 premo scores for the year from that place in my team, instead of 22 premos and a rookie.]
Before I did these calcs, I was thinking that I'd definitely take Libba again if he was available in the same circumstances this year.
On the basis of the above, though, it looks like an absolute no-brainer.
Am I missing something?
http://www.supercoachscores.com/thr...-Defs-Mids-Fwds-Durability-vs-Higher-Ceilings
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Libba averaged about 98 before his bye, and then I think I turned him into Sloane, who had already had his bye and who averaged 111 from then on. In total they played 22 games for me and averaged around 103.
That's actually not a bad PIT average for a mid, it's just a handful of points outside what the 12th best mid has PIT averaged for the last four years (see the link below).
That only cost me $357k to start with, so I had around $200k of loose change to use from day one, relative to selecting someone who played 22 games at 103, and was priced fairly to start with (103 x $5,375 = $554k). The loose change is worth about 40 points per round, and I had most of that for the whole year.
I effectively used $60k of that loose change in upgrading to Sloane (giving up 12 points per round, making it a net of 40 - 12 = 28 per round, for 10 rounds). I obviously used a trade as well.
So the loose change was arguably worth about (40ppg x 13 games) + (28 x 10) = 800 points. From that I would deduct 150, the cost I place on a trade. So the whole arrangement netted me 650 points versus selecting someone at fair value ... which is absolutely massive, about 30ppg.
Perhaps not so concidentally, this is in the order of the discount I got on Libba.
Note that the calcs above assume I could have found a player guaranteed to play 22 up front, which obviously isn't necessarily the case.
The benefits of using Libba as a stepping stone to Sloane could also have been greater if Sloane didn't miss round 23. [I'd already got 22 scores out of the pair though, so I've treated the missed R23 as equivalent to the bye, with a rookie serving as a replacement. If Sloane had played R23, that would have effectively boosted my score during the byes by a bit more, as I would have been swapping a rookie score for a premium score. I could have had 23 premo scores for the year from that place in my team, instead of 22 premos and a rookie.]
Before I did these calcs, I was thinking that I'd definitely take Libba again if he was available in the same circumstances this year.
On the basis of the above, though, it looks like an absolute no-brainer.
Am I missing something?
http://www.supercoachscores.com/thr...-Defs-Mids-Fwds-Durability-vs-Higher-Ceilings
That's actually not a bad PIT average for a mid, it's just a handful of points outside what the 12th best mid has PIT averaged for the last four years (see the link below).
That only cost me $357k to start with, so I had around $200k of loose change to use from day one, relative to selecting someone who played 22 games at 103, and was priced fairly to start with (103 x $5,375 = $554k). The loose change is worth about 40 points per round, and I had most of that for the whole year.
I effectively used $60k of that loose change in upgrading to Sloane (giving up 12 points per round, making it a net of 40 - 12 = 28 per round, for 10 rounds). I obviously used a trade as well.
So the loose change was arguably worth about (40ppg x 13 games) + (28 x 10) = 800 points. From that I would deduct 150, the cost I place on a trade. So the whole arrangement netted me 650 points versus selecting someone at fair value ... which is absolutely massive, about 30ppg.
Perhaps not so concidentally, this is in the order of the discount I got on Libba.
Note that the calcs above assume I could have found a player guaranteed to play 22 up front, which obviously isn't necessarily the case.
The benefits of using Libba as a stepping stone to Sloane could also have been greater if Sloane didn't miss round 23. [I'd already got 22 scores out of the pair though, so I've treated the missed R23 as equivalent to the bye, with a rookie serving as a replacement. If Sloane had played R23, that would have effectively boosted my score during the byes by a bit more, as I would have been swapping a rookie score for a premium score. I could have had 23 premo scores for the year from that place in my team, instead of 22 premos and a rookie.]
Before I did these calcs, I was thinking that I'd definitely take Libba again if he was available in the same circumstances this year.
On the basis of the above, though, it looks like an absolute no-brainer.
Am I missing something?
http://www.supercoachscores.com/thr...-Defs-Mids-Fwds-Durability-vs-Higher-Ceilings
Assume rookie scored 60 points, you are giving up 40 points per game to the byes. However, the 150k-200k is invested in another player which may have given you a premium, saving you a trading also, and giving you 30-40 points per game (assuming the linear return of a mid pricer to a premium exists). i.e. mid price of $350k may give 70 (as he only delivers in line result) and premium is 100.
Just a different look on it. all hypothetical.
If I read your point correctly, GFB, I think it's a fair one. As I see it, Libba and the rookie would be fairly even in your comparison. I would consider a rookie like the one you described as a big success though, so I suppose that all ties together ... Libba may have not been much more successful than a good rookie, but a good rookie adds a lot to your side - so I guess they both do.
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Correct Darkie. Challenge is to find all those rookies.
Players like Libba should not be your first picked, they need to be last picked. When you have spare money over or cannot find depth of rookies then we should add a mid pricer. Where a mid pricer wins out is if they turn into a keeper saving you a trade.
A pure GnR side with successful mid pricers is the best side, however, if you have to trade the mid pricer then the quality of output allowing for trades also, is below a GnR side. Unfortunately job security of rookies is not 100% hence we trade off lower priced rookies for higher price cash cows.
Players like Libba should not be your first picked, they need to be last picked. When you have spare money over or cannot find depth of rookies then we should add a mid pricer. Where a mid pricer wins out is if they turn into a keeper saving you a trade.
A pure GnR side with successful mid pricers is the best side, however, if you have to trade the mid pricer then the quality of output allowing for trades also, is below a GnR side. Unfortunately job security of rookies is not 100% hence we trade off lower priced rookies for higher price cash cows.
That's an interesting point Bomber.
I know the traditional view is that the best rookies are in the mids, but in the last couple of years I reckon the defenders have actually been very good. I'm not sure whether I've read that correctly, and if so, whether it's a function of a change in game style (or def scoring?), or simply a coincidence based on the rookies that happen to have come through recently. It did seem like Essendon contributed a lot of good def (and def/fwd!) rookies last year.
I know the traditional view is that the best rookies are in the mids, but in the last couple of years I reckon the defenders have actually been very good. I'm not sure whether I've read that correctly, and if so, whether it's a function of a change in game style (or def scoring?), or simply a coincidence based on the rookies that happen to have come through recently. It did seem like Essendon contributed a lot of good def (and def/fwd!) rookies last year.
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Your both right.
Whilst not many mid rookies, Parish probably would have been better than Libba. Saving $150k. I unfortunately went B Crouch (thinking extra $$ spent was safer) then swapped to Libba, so I made it even worse.
Darkie - I made that exact point on another link. I went very deep in mid rookies last year and they all struggled, I moved some on only to see them come back towards the end of the season and do well, such as Gresham. Held Dunkley and traded Hewett to BenKen in round 3 after he had two quiet games first up.
It's why I do suggest its Hypothetical. The view in my opinion is correct, yet, executing it is harder as mid rookies in particular tend to be slow burns in the mid although can fire up as we saw with Gresham or Dunkley.
Two different topics being meshed here, however, can be important when considering the JOM of this year.
Sorry Rowsus, just realised this is your thread which seems to have been hijacked!
Whilst not many mid rookies, Parish probably would have been better than Libba. Saving $150k. I unfortunately went B Crouch (thinking extra $$ spent was safer) then swapped to Libba, so I made it even worse.
Darkie - I made that exact point on another link. I went very deep in mid rookies last year and they all struggled, I moved some on only to see them come back towards the end of the season and do well, such as Gresham. Held Dunkley and traded Hewett to BenKen in round 3 after he had two quiet games first up.
It's why I do suggest its Hypothetical. The view in my opinion is correct, yet, executing it is harder as mid rookies in particular tend to be slow burns in the mid although can fire up as we saw with Gresham or Dunkley.
Two different topics being meshed here, however, can be important when considering the JOM of this year.
Sorry Rowsus, just realised this is your thread which seems to have been hijacked!
Last edited:
- Status