Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
I don't think it's that simple Rowsus.
Goldstein has averaged 110 so far, so not a total disaster. He still looks like he will be a top 2 ruck, so non-Goldstein owners will still have to trade into him (ie. costing 1 trade), or have a deficit for whoever they have instead of Goldstein.
Furthermore, the savings from Goldstein at the start of the season needed to be spent properly. The following scenarios are all very plausible ways in which those savings may have been spent:
- avoid Libba and upgraded to Rockliff/Wines/Selwood; or
- upgraded from a $120k rookie mid to Clayton Oliver;
Those are the 2 common ways in which savings were likely to have been spent...and I doubt these non-Goldstein owners are in a better position than Goldstein owners.
Obviously there are scenarios that may have worked out better, but I think Goldstein will still end up top 2 and a worthwhile pick. If he gets rolling again he also becomes a viable VC/C option too.
Goldstein has averaged 110 so far, so not a total disaster. He still looks like he will be a top 2 ruck, so non-Goldstein owners will still have to trade into him (ie. costing 1 trade), or have a deficit for whoever they have instead of Goldstein.
Furthermore, the savings from Goldstein at the start of the season needed to be spent properly. The following scenarios are all very plausible ways in which those savings may have been spent:
- avoid Libba and upgraded to Rockliff/Wines/Selwood; or
- upgraded from a $120k rookie mid to Clayton Oliver;
Those are the 2 common ways in which savings were likely to have been spent...and I doubt these non-Goldstein owners are in a better position than Goldstein owners.
Obviously there are scenarios that may have worked out better, but I think Goldstein will still end up top 2 and a worthwhile pick. If he gets rolling again he also becomes a viable VC/C option too.
Last edited:
You are absolutely right meataxe that for those of us who do not have Goldie it is about the return on the "saving." There are multiple scenarios and we part way through week 2.
There are two valuable options we hold (albeit some might not understand that they hold them) that may be misunderstood if they are not separated:
(i) we have an option to decide when or if we trade into Goldie. You could describe this as an expansion option for our teams. We may not exercise it but it is there. It might be an expensive option should he start hitting 2015 type scores which on their own may be greater than our "ruck + rookie" combo is putting up. Or it might be valuable if he mean reverts. If you hold Goldie you accept his scores (high or low) or trade him out while we observe, which leads to the second option.
(ii) we have an option to continue to choose not to acquire him. You could think of this as a contraction option. It is valuable if he does not perform or (heaven forbid) he is injured. You rightly point out we need to trade to acquire him but ignore the trade you would need to remove him and perhaps a second trade to re-acquire him. A contraction option is often misunderstood or not contemplated in the business environment.
Just one punter's opinion.
There are two valuable options we hold (albeit some might not understand that they hold them) that may be misunderstood if they are not separated:
(i) we have an option to decide when or if we trade into Goldie. You could describe this as an expansion option for our teams. We may not exercise it but it is there. It might be an expensive option should he start hitting 2015 type scores which on their own may be greater than our "ruck + rookie" combo is putting up. Or it might be valuable if he mean reverts. If you hold Goldie you accept his scores (high or low) or trade him out while we observe, which leads to the second option.
(ii) we have an option to continue to choose not to acquire him. You could think of this as a contraction option. It is valuable if he does not perform or (heaven forbid) he is injured. You rightly point out we need to trade to acquire him but ignore the trade you would need to remove him and perhaps a second trade to re-acquire him. A contraction option is often misunderstood or not contemplated in the business environment.
Just one punter's opinion.
Hey Rowsus,
Like a lot of others I will be looking at trading out Rocky and Barlow this week.
Yes I am looking at Libba and maybe JJ but wouldn't that seem a little weird as I would basically be trading out two supposed Premos to two speculative mid pricers.
Shouldn't we be looking at replacing them with other Premiums ?
Like a lot of others I will be looking at trading out Rocky and Barlow this week.
Yes I am looking at Libba and maybe JJ but wouldn't that seem a little weird as I would basically be trading out two supposed Premos to two speculative mid pricers.
Shouldn't we be looking at replacing them with other Premiums ?
Actually....... it is that simple! 
My observation was based purely on one thing. Non-Goldstein owners would be looking for Goldy to not do anything over 120, and preferably not over 115, as far as his early average is concerned. The fact that he is averaging 110, and has 6 of his 8 quarters scoring between 8 and 22 gives me hope that it was a good decision. Remember, if he continues to average 110, there's a good chance his price will be somewhere in the $520-$530 mark at some stage, as 110 average will usually contain 2 or 3 80's or 90's in there.
We could discuss the merits of how the Loose Change was spent ad infinitum. The bottom line is, as a one out decision right now, was it worth paying $700k to get a 110 player. The answer to this stage of the season is "No!". We don't know what will happen from here.
I stated 2 or 3 weeks before the season started, that I didn't think it was likely to be possible for the Winner in 2016 to start 2 or more of Goldstein, Shaw and Deledio. The reason being, you were paying too much Cash, and would find it hard to compete with someone, who spent their cash more efficiently. The only hope the Goldy/Shaw/Deledio owners had, was if they jumped out at the start, and averaged close to, or over, last years numbers. Deledio is out of the equation now, so let's look at the Goldstein/Shaw equation:
They cost a combined $1,302,900 and are averaging a combined 190/week, meaning each point is costing $6,857.
There WILL BE coaches out there, that have picked well, and have averaged around $5,100/point for the higher picks. Looking at just the $1.3million, that equates to 255/week. So those Coaches, just on that $1.3million spent, are already 130 points ahead, of the Goldy/Shaw owners.
My back up point to my claim was, the Goldstein/Shaw/Deledio owners would need to beat these other Coaches with their sub $450k selections. As you can see, they are behind 130 points at the moment, on the first 13% of the money spent, and that is a lot of points to make up in that sub $450k area. They might be lucky, and have a Johannison type in their team to help do that, but remember, within that Group of coaches that didn't start Goldy/Shaw, will be coaches that also have Johannison!
My observation was based purely on one thing. Non-Goldstein owners would be looking for Goldy to not do anything over 120, and preferably not over 115, as far as his early average is concerned. The fact that he is averaging 110, and has 6 of his 8 quarters scoring between 8 and 22 gives me hope that it was a good decision. Remember, if he continues to average 110, there's a good chance his price will be somewhere in the $520-$530 mark at some stage, as 110 average will usually contain 2 or 3 80's or 90's in there.
We could discuss the merits of how the Loose Change was spent ad infinitum. The bottom line is, as a one out decision right now, was it worth paying $700k to get a 110 player. The answer to this stage of the season is "No!". We don't know what will happen from here.
I stated 2 or 3 weeks before the season started, that I didn't think it was likely to be possible for the Winner in 2016 to start 2 or more of Goldstein, Shaw and Deledio. The reason being, you were paying too much Cash, and would find it hard to compete with someone, who spent their cash more efficiently. The only hope the Goldy/Shaw/Deledio owners had, was if they jumped out at the start, and averaged close to, or over, last years numbers. Deledio is out of the equation now, so let's look at the Goldstein/Shaw equation:
They cost a combined $1,302,900 and are averaging a combined 190/week, meaning each point is costing $6,857.
There WILL BE coaches out there, that have picked well, and have averaged around $5,100/point for the higher picks. Looking at just the $1.3million, that equates to 255/week. So those Coaches, just on that $1.3million spent, are already 130 points ahead, of the Goldy/Shaw owners.
My back up point to my claim was, the Goldstein/Shaw/Deledio owners would need to beat these other Coaches with their sub $450k selections. As you can see, they are behind 130 points at the moment, on the first 13% of the money spent, and that is a lot of points to make up in that sub $450k area. They might be lucky, and have a Johannison type in their team to help do that, but remember, within that Group of coaches that didn't start Goldy/Shaw, will be coaches that also have Johannison!
- Joined
- 29 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 996
- Likes
- 75
- AFL Club
- Essendon
This is most likely going to be pointless (well almost defiantly) but it is a question which has plagued supercoach minds for years.
IS SUNDAY CARNAGE REAL???????
I might do it myself over time but I thought it would be interesting if you went through last years most popular picks on each line and compared Sunday to Non-sunday matches.
We all say it half jokingly but more importantly half seriously because this **** has gone beyond a joke.
IS SUNDAY CARNAGE REAL???????
I might do it myself over time but I thought it would be interesting if you went through last years most popular picks on each line and compared Sunday to Non-sunday matches.
We all say it half jokingly but more importantly half seriously because this **** has gone beyond a joke.
Hey Slammer, I tend to agree.
Sometimes the obvious (JJ/Libba) is obvious for a reason, and sometimes it's just opening the door on a ReCOE! (Regrettable Chain Of Events). The thing to do is, stop looking at those big numbers, sitting in their Rounds 1 & 2 scores, and start asking questions. And there really are a lot of questions to ask!
Currently their ownership is something like JJ (13%), Libba (54%). My guess is that will change to something like JJ (18%) Libba (58%) this week.
Is there a reason they have scored as they have?
Look at a scenario, just comparing your team, to another team that has Johannisen at D3.
You have already given up (possibly) 90 points to this team, as your D3 is currently that far behind JJ. You are now giving up a trade to fall in line with that same team. So now you are a trade, and 90 points behind them, and have one less POD against that team to bridge that difference. There is one, and only one scenario where this is acceptable. Johannisen continues to score at a good Keeper level from here on in. Let's assume for a moment that JJ has a 20 game at 97 season. That means he will score 18 games at 93.7 from here, in your team. So that's what you're getting, the 93.7 player, not the 97 player. I know you know that, but I am just pointing that out. But what if he does worse than that? What if he goes 17 games at 86 from here? That gives him 19 games at 90.3, and an acceptable D6, for those that started him, but a leaking D6 for those that traded him in!
You need to realistically look at what he (and you) might achieve from here. You are backing him to become from here, a bankable Keeper, where his short history doesn't project he will maintain it. I'm not saying he will or won't. I'm just saying consider the situation you are trading into.
Libba is actually a different kettle of fish. Why? His price is lower, meaning he can make you useful and usable dollars. JJ can't really, as if you get to a situation where you need to trade him out, his growth won't be that great, or a form reversal might have handed all his growth back anyway. Libba is also different, in that he has a history of scoring at the level you might be hoping for, and lastly, Libba is different, because you would be getting Libba in the full knowledge that there is a reasonable chance you might upgrade him later in the season.
My thoughts are get Libba, but have a real good hard think about what you hope and expect to get from JJ. If you are not at least 80% happy he can be a good Rnd 3 - Rnd 23 Def Keeper, go a different route, that ship has sailed!
Sometimes the obvious (JJ/Libba) is obvious for a reason, and sometimes it's just opening the door on a ReCOE! (Regrettable Chain Of Events). The thing to do is, stop looking at those big numbers, sitting in their Rounds 1 & 2 scores, and start asking questions. And there really are a lot of questions to ask!
Currently their ownership is something like JJ (13%), Libba (54%). My guess is that will change to something like JJ (18%) Libba (58%) this week.
Is there a reason they have scored as they have?
- Opposition?
- Opportunity - other players missing?
- Circumstances?
- Do we have enough reason to believe this is their level now?
- Will opposition teams start to target them more now?
- Is there history to support this?
- Am I closing a door on a POD against me?
- Am I just joining the show too late, and chasing lost points?
- Realistically, what do I expect them to achieve from here?
- What is my exit strategy, if it goes pear-shaped?
Look at a scenario, just comparing your team, to another team that has Johannisen at D3.
You have already given up (possibly) 90 points to this team, as your D3 is currently that far behind JJ. You are now giving up a trade to fall in line with that same team. So now you are a trade, and 90 points behind them, and have one less POD against that team to bridge that difference. There is one, and only one scenario where this is acceptable. Johannisen continues to score at a good Keeper level from here on in. Let's assume for a moment that JJ has a 20 game at 97 season. That means he will score 18 games at 93.7 from here, in your team. So that's what you're getting, the 93.7 player, not the 97 player. I know you know that, but I am just pointing that out. But what if he does worse than that? What if he goes 17 games at 86 from here? That gives him 19 games at 90.3, and an acceptable D6, for those that started him, but a leaking D6 for those that traded him in!
You need to realistically look at what he (and you) might achieve from here. You are backing him to become from here, a bankable Keeper, where his short history doesn't project he will maintain it. I'm not saying he will or won't. I'm just saying consider the situation you are trading into.
Libba is actually a different kettle of fish. Why? His price is lower, meaning he can make you useful and usable dollars. JJ can't really, as if you get to a situation where you need to trade him out, his growth won't be that great, or a form reversal might have handed all his growth back anyway. Libba is also different, in that he has a history of scoring at the level you might be hoping for, and lastly, Libba is different, because you would be getting Libba in the full knowledge that there is a reasonable chance you might upgrade him later in the season.
My thoughts are get Libba, but have a real good hard think about what you hope and expect to get from JJ. If you are not at least 80% happy he can be a good Rnd 3 - Rnd 23 Def Keeper, go a different route, that ship has sailed!
If you observe it, it is real.
Just like "celebrities die in 3's", "it always rains just after I wash my car" and "there's always more fries to be found in the bottom of the McDonald's take away bag". These things only exist because they are in the back of your mind, and easily come to the front of your mind, once you observe them. When they don't occur, you really don't notice or even remember that they didn't, but because it is something in your memory set, you remember when they do.
Just like when your wife says "you never put the toilet seat down!", the truth is, she never notices when you do, and ALWAYS notices when you don't!
Just like "celebrities die in 3's", "it always rains just after I wash my car" and "there's always more fries to be found in the bottom of the McDonald's take away bag". These things only exist because they are in the back of your mind, and easily come to the front of your mind, once you observe them. When they don't occur, you really don't notice or even remember that they didn't, but because it is something in your memory set, you remember when they do.
Just like when your wife says "you never put the toilet seat down!", the truth is, she never notices when you do, and ALWAYS notices when you don't!
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 369
- Likes
- 529
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Very salient advice here. As much as I want JJ cos he is killing it after two games and is set for a decent price rise, my gut is telling me that tons aren't sustainable for JJ every week.
In all honesty, I don't see the Dogs going on to massacre their opponents every week and outscore them by 400 - 500 SC points. So apart from anything else, I see less pie to go around.
To this end, i'm seriously considering Bob Murphy instead. Despite his age, he has a solid form line over the last 5 yrs and has started strong. Probably doesn't have the ceiling of some other premo defs but I reckon he makes up for that in low SD.
Rowsus - Thanks for reminding us to look, research and think before we leap.
In all honesty, I don't see the Dogs going on to massacre their opponents every week and outscore them by 400 - 500 SC points. So apart from anything else, I see less pie to go around.
To this end, i'm seriously considering Bob Murphy instead. Despite his age, he has a solid form line over the last 5 yrs and has started strong. Probably doesn't have the ceiling of some other premo defs but I reckon he makes up for that in low SD.
Rowsus - Thanks for reminding us to look, research and think before we leap.
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 2,909
- Likes
- 2,122
- AFL Club
- Brisbane
Hi Row,
in before the masses!
my query and theory as follow. I have Rocky, Barlow, and no Papley or Libba (fwd rookies are Milera and McCarthy). In my haste this morning i traded Barlow to Papley and Gresham to Libba. I'm ranked 21k from 16k but still have the bones of a team i'm happy with. T Adams and Selwood are slight concerns but i'm not jumping off them after two games as i picked them based on research and faith.
However, and here's the theory part, Barlow's history is good and he is in a Freo team not playing well atm. Papley will make money quickly but i'm not sure he'll make too much more than my other rookies. I've missed his two tonnes and no other history dictates the scoring will continue. Therefore i'm considering holding fire and having some faith in the team i started. Rocky may be injured, and becomes a Donut which i'm okay with. When he plays, he'll turn things around. Libba is an unfortunate miss but he will have some challenging games moving forward and i'll just have to plan a good Mid upgrade early on to counter this.
Question then, does holding fire make sense, or do i get the corrections done?? Thanks in advance!!
in before the masses!
my query and theory as follow. I have Rocky, Barlow, and no Papley or Libba (fwd rookies are Milera and McCarthy). In my haste this morning i traded Barlow to Papley and Gresham to Libba. I'm ranked 21k from 16k but still have the bones of a team i'm happy with. T Adams and Selwood are slight concerns but i'm not jumping off them after two games as i picked them based on research and faith.
However, and here's the theory part, Barlow's history is good and he is in a Freo team not playing well atm. Papley will make money quickly but i'm not sure he'll make too much more than my other rookies. I've missed his two tonnes and no other history dictates the scoring will continue. Therefore i'm considering holding fire and having some faith in the team i started. Rocky may be injured, and becomes a Donut which i'm okay with. When he plays, he'll turn things around. Libba is an unfortunate miss but he will have some challenging games moving forward and i'll just have to plan a good Mid upgrade early on to counter this.
Question then, does holding fire make sense, or do i get the corrections done?? Thanks in advance!!
Hey Rowsus;
I just want to run this possibility by you.
My current rookies are so:
D: Amt, Brown, Hartley, Uebergang.
M: Menadue, Hewett, Dunkley, Davis
R: Wyatt
F: Kerridge, Adams, Papley, McCarthy
I have about $24k in the bank & 30 trades left.
----
As many people do, I have Rockliff and Barlow. Though I loathe trading out premiums, but with question marks over the selection of both players, I have a scenario question.
Say, for example, Rockliff misses one or two games. Normally I'd stick him on the bench and wait it out, but since his B/E is so high, he's due to plummet in value. Normally, this would be a non-issue as I'll be keeping Rocky, but in this particular instance, would it be wise to trade Rocky to Ben Kennedy; bank the cash and consider bringing Rocky back in in about a month or so, when he, hopefully, bottoms out?
I know replacing a premium with a rookie is a big no-no; but so far, Ben-Ken has outscored Rocky; that might not keep up; but I do have a decent flexibility with my rookies. Alternatively, I could use no trades and let Ben Ken go; trade Rocky to a cheaper premium and someone like Dunkley up, or just trade Rocky to a premium.
I know having $380k on the bench is a lot; but if I can cover with a couple of decent rookie scores 80+, I reckon I'll be well served by saving it for a couple of weeks, letting someone like Priddis or Danger fall a bit, and picking them up for a swelling rookie.
PS: I'm a little unsure about how to cull rookies. Say I can afford the Premium I want - Priddis for example. I can get him using Hewett, who is priced at 350k; averaging 80, or Dunkley, priced at 250k, averaging 60. If both players are bench options, who do I get rid of? I've usually gone with Dunkley, because Hewett is probably the safer option to come onto the field, but something tells me I'm going about it the wrong way.
I just want to run this possibility by you.
My current rookies are so:
D: Amt, Brown, Hartley, Uebergang.
M: Menadue, Hewett, Dunkley, Davis
R: Wyatt
F: Kerridge, Adams, Papley, McCarthy
I have about $24k in the bank & 30 trades left.
----
As many people do, I have Rockliff and Barlow. Though I loathe trading out premiums, but with question marks over the selection of both players, I have a scenario question.
Say, for example, Rockliff misses one or two games. Normally I'd stick him on the bench and wait it out, but since his B/E is so high, he's due to plummet in value. Normally, this would be a non-issue as I'll be keeping Rocky, but in this particular instance, would it be wise to trade Rocky to Ben Kennedy; bank the cash and consider bringing Rocky back in in about a month or so, when he, hopefully, bottoms out?
I know replacing a premium with a rookie is a big no-no; but so far, Ben-Ken has outscored Rocky; that might not keep up; but I do have a decent flexibility with my rookies. Alternatively, I could use no trades and let Ben Ken go; trade Rocky to a cheaper premium and someone like Dunkley up, or just trade Rocky to a premium.
I know having $380k on the bench is a lot; but if I can cover with a couple of decent rookie scores 80+, I reckon I'll be well served by saving it for a couple of weeks, letting someone like Priddis or Danger fall a bit, and picking them up for a swelling rookie.
PS: I'm a little unsure about how to cull rookies. Say I can afford the Premium I want - Priddis for example. I can get him using Hewett, who is priced at 350k; averaging 80, or Dunkley, priced at 250k, averaging 60. If both players are bench options, who do I get rid of? I've usually gone with Dunkley, because Hewett is probably the safer option to come onto the field, but something tells me I'm going about it the wrong way.
Hi Rowsus
As a fellow Mcgovern owner has your opinion changed on him since preseason? Im thinking of offloading him over the more proven premiums in Rocky and Barlow. Ideally I'd dump De Goey and Gresham for Libba and Papley (must haves) but I'm agonisingly 2k short so have to find someone else. What are your thoughts on Mcgovern from here on in? Likely top 10 defender?
As a fellow Mcgovern owner has your opinion changed on him since preseason? Im thinking of offloading him over the more proven premiums in Rocky and Barlow. Ideally I'd dump De Goey and Gresham for Libba and Papley (must haves) but I'm agonisingly 2k short so have to find someone else. What are your thoughts on Mcgovern from here on in? Likely top 10 defender?
Hey Rowsus,
Hope you're well mate. One of my best mates is heading over to the Netherlands to play cricket for the summer so I've told him to head north and hunt you down if he needs any Supercoach advise or just talk AFL with someone!
I recall you being pretty big on Tom Mitchell during the pre-season and his stats in your pre-season analysis thread to this point in his career were awesome. I am looking at him as a potential POD replacement for Rocky. Parker is the obvious choice but he seems to be everyones choice and I am still worried he could be moved forward when required. Tom Mitchell has started the season with a bang and seems to be playing almost pure mid but is he worth the risk at 30k more than Parker? Is any Swans mid worth the risk considering their midfield depth?
Would love your thoughts.
Hope you're well mate. One of my best mates is heading over to the Netherlands to play cricket for the summer so I've told him to head north and hunt you down if he needs any Supercoach advise or just talk AFL with someone!
I recall you being pretty big on Tom Mitchell during the pre-season and his stats in your pre-season analysis thread to this point in his career were awesome. I am looking at him as a potential POD replacement for Rocky. Parker is the obvious choice but he seems to be everyones choice and I am still worried he could be moved forward when required. Tom Mitchell has started the season with a bang and seems to be playing almost pure mid but is he worth the risk at 30k more than Parker? Is any Swans mid worth the risk considering their midfield depth?
Would love your thoughts.
Zoku Pops, I think you will find your answer here http://www.supercoachscores.com/threads/2766-Rowsus-Tables-And-Analysis-Of-2015-Season/page6 see post 111. Pretty sure those who followed Rowsus's reasoning are not unhappy.
- Status