Position Ruck Discussion

[freowho]

I think the opposite is true. If he had a further discount and was sub-200k he would be one of the first-picked rookies, the above discussion would be unnecessary and everyone's teams would be more ****genous. I agree it can sometimes be frustrating that they seem to just make these decisions subjectively but IMO they usually get it right.

EDIT that's a funny one for the swear-detector to pick up. i meant everyone's teams would be more same-same.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[NT.Thunder]

everyones team is usually the same anyway so whats what should be done going to change?

I can't see how they usually get it right when you have b-z-t at 189 after one game as an example

I probably disagree here, certainly post byes many teams become very similar but usually there's a vastly different road there between coaches. I've seen plenty of variety here, the vanilla picks are just that for a reason. I get reassurance from seeing plenty of the players I'm keen on in others teams, means I'm on the right track.

 

[Zagbag]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Need to get that Rep button back

 

[inwhiterooms]

Naismith at R2 is starting to look very appealing to me. Solves a lot of problems

 

[Ironhawk]

Naismith at R2 is starting to look very appealing to me. Solves a lot of problems

Having the two best rucks from the start does too.

 

[Spots]

Naismith at R2 is starting to look very appealing to me. Solves a lot of problems

Yes I am liking that combined with the Wiliams/Cameron/Xerri combo atm... gotta chase the cash generation where it exists

 

[BlueNwhiteHoops]

Anyone got a good reason why Naismith can't be a good pick at his price?

 

[Herbie66]

Anyone got a good reason why Naismith can't be a good pick at his price?

Callum Sinclair for starters.

Is Naismith even guaranteed of playing Round 1 ?

Previous seasons scores as posted aren't overly convincing as well as being out of the game for 2 seasons (admittedly played 4 NEAFL games at the backend of last season)

 

[Deeman1]

Anyone got a good reason why Naismith can't be a good pick at his price?

Ask @freowho, he seems pretty dead against him

??? scoring potential
??? where he fits into the team with Sinclair
??? bad injury history
??? how to fix if it goes wrong

I think the main reason many are considering him are due to the ??? over Gawn and his price is pretty attractive and allows much better spread of funds accross other lines with out 1.4m across two ruckman.

 

[Herbie66]

So if the majority are seeing Naismith as a better starting option than Gawn as R2 , does that mean the option of Goldy/ROB suddenly becomes a more viable proposition and then slingshot to Gawn (if warranted) in Round 14 ?

 

[Dimmawit]

I'm as big an advocate for a mid price ruck as anyone but I think comparisons to Witts (at the time and still) are being too generous to Naismith

 

[Hondo]

So if the majority are seeing Naismith as a better starting option than Gawn as R2 , does that mean the option of Goldy/ROB suddenly becomes a more viable proposition and then slingshot to Gawn (if warranted) in Round 14 ?

No I think it’s more about using the $450k to shore up rookie selections on other lines rather than not picking Gawn just because of a specific concern on Gawn.

ROB doesn’t free up as much cash.

If that makes sense?

 

[Deeman1]

So if the majority are seeing Naismith as a better starting option than Gawn as R2 , does that mean the option of Goldy/ROB suddenly becomes a more viable proposition and then slingshot to Gawn (if warranted) in Round 14 ?

I think that the main reason for starting Naismith is he may have better scoring on field over an alternate rookie. He may make a reasonable amount of cash in first 6-7 weeks and if Gawn gets off to a slow start he could drop 100k for example (may) and trading Naismith to Gawn will be cheaper.

I think the main difference between staring a ruckman that may make some quick cash and an alternative like Goldy or ROB is that you may have to wait until round 14 as you suggested to get Gawn, where as if Naismith goes OK, then it would potentially allow a faster trade to Gawn or alternative. I think if you take Goldy or ROB you are committed to holding them unitl the byes.

 

[Manikato1]

I think choosing Naismith potentially puts you in a hole you will never be able to get out of. I gave up a mid (just my preference) to get the flexibility on other lines. I have a number of options to choose from when to comes to upgrades during the season. If Gawn comes good then you need him as a ruck that can go big. Chances are your other ruck upgrade options will mean you are settling for second best.

 

[BlueNwhiteHoops]

I'm as big an advocate for a mid price ruck as anyone but I think comparisons to Witts (at the time and still) are being too generous to Naismith

So you think that Sinclair is the superior ruckman at Sydney and they are just giving Naismith a run in the preseason?

Tbh, i would take a 75 average for 250k in the rucks this year, i feel the money spent on value forwards to get those crap forward rookies off of the ground is well worth it, together with Gawn not fully training the last few weeks i think it's worth a go if Sydney think Naismith is a worthy R1.

 

[Herbie66]

No I think it’s more about using the $450k to shore up rookie selections on other lines rather than not picking Gawn just because of a specific concern on Gawn.

ROB doesn’t free up as much cash.

If that makes sense?

I still think if the rookies are named you need to start them and then hope they perform will enough to make the $$$ that they need to.

People may be "trapped" into spending that $ 450 k where they don't really want too

At the moment I still have Grundy & Gawn & a 5 premium midfield , providing my 6 rookie mids are named I actually feel more comfortable in fielding Gawn & Anderson/Caldwell/Ash/Stephens/Serong/Green than buying a 6th premium mid (who I don't want yet) and running the risk of Naismith (have read all the pros and against)

Hill looks viable enough at F5 , should be enough for F6-8.

Defence looks plentiful for choices.

We need the rookies to generate the $$$ , even with Naismith sides they are only getting 13/14 starting premiums then have to work out how to upgrade him.

I actually have 13 including Smith , Lynch & Docherty.

I may have also completely misread the Naismith situation though , lot of faith being placed in a guy who may/may not be # 1 ruckmen in his team.

 

[Hondo]

I think choosing Naismith potentially puts you in a hole you will never be able to get out of. I gave up a mid (just my preference) to get the flexibility on other lines. I have a number of options to choose from when to comes to upgrades during the season. If Gawn comes good then you need him as a ruck that can go big. Chances are your other ruck upgrade options will mean you are settling for second best.

But I see it as the same in the mids. Yes there’s more choice but sometimes you need to get the expensive choice because he’s flying rather than compromise and hope. We all probably make 1-2 upgrades like this each season. The big $300k splurge to lock in the mid you need. So if skipping Gawn takes out one future mid upgrade then your splurge trade is in the rucks.

 

[Herbie66]

No I think it’s more about using the $450k to shore up rookie selections on other lines rather than not picking Gawn just because of a specific concern on Gawn.

ROB doesn’t free up as much cash.

If that makes sense?

$ 450 k only directly gets you a rookie mid to a premium mid though who may score 10-15 points less than Gawn , a premium forward/defender will get you a 95-100 point player.

 

[Dimmawit]

So you think that Sinclair is the superior ruckman at Sydney and they are just giving Naismith a run in the preseason?

Tbh, i would take a 75 average for 250k in the rucks this year, i feel the money spent on value forwards to get those crap forward rookies off of the ground is well worth it, together with Gawn not fully training the last few weeks i think it's worth a go if Sydney think Naismith is a worthy R1.

Not at all - Naismith looks like he'll ruck no 1 for sure. To be clear I will be watching Naismith like a hawk. I'm not at all an advocate of the set and forget religion. In 2013 I started Blicavs as a rookie at R2 and things went pretty well for me. I think successful mid price ruck picks are just about the biggest starting team advantage you can lock in if you get right.

To me Witts was a safer, cheaper and more obvious pick to succeed than Naismith is now (disclaimer I didnt pick Witts and god I was dirty about it)

 

[BlueNwhiteHoops]

So if the majority are seeing Naismith as a better starting option than Gawn as R2 , does that mean the option of Goldy/ROB suddenly becomes a more viable proposition and then slingshot to Gawn (if warranted) in Round 14 ?

Nah, waste of trades. Either start the best or go for cash cow.