Opinion SC 2021: Rate My Team

[Shannon]

The thing that stands out to me is no Gawn, Neale or Lloyd - 3 SC guns who will probably finish as the top scorer for each of their respective positions if they stay fit. I can understand rolling the dice & not taking one of them because of money constraints but none of those 3 is a real risk & also reduces your Capt/VC options each week.

Not sure if you have seen Powell but he is very skinny, I would be surprised if he plays round 1 - his teammate Phillips is much more AFL ready, worth the extra 40k in my opinion.

Personally, I would be dropping 1 of Butters/Heeney to a rookie (maybe F Macrae for example) to help strengthen your team.

 

[BIGB0Y]

Thanks for the feed back mate.

Super unlikely I'll actually start 6 defenders. Stewart probably has the least upside so he probably doesn't make the cut.

I'm hoping Rozee becomes a keeper but at worst he should make a bit of money and then can upgrade if he doesn't get to keeper levels. Ziebell is a stepping stone and is the first to go if I need more money for rookies.

Good point re midfield upgrades, might just have to pay up for 1 or 2.

I’m back rozee to average enough to fill the F6 position. I think his more than capable to ave 95

 

[BIGB0Y]

The thing that stands out to me is no Gawn, Neale or Lloyd - 3 SC guns who will probably finish as the top scorer for each of their respective positions if they stay fit. I can understand rolling the dice & not taking one of them because of money constraints but none of those 3 is a real risk & also reduces your Capt/VC options each week.

Not sure if you have seen Powell but he is very skinny, I would be surprised if he plays round 1 - his teammate Phillips is much more AFL ready, worth the extra 40k in my opinion.

Personally, I would be dropping 1 of Butters/Heeney to a rookie (maybe F Macrae for example) to help strengthen your team.

Differently heeney. Must play a midfield role or I would never pick him. Roller coaster ride

 

[pizza safety]

The thing that stands out to me is no Gawn, Neale or Lloyd - 3 SC guns who will probably finish as the top scorer for each of their respective positions if they stay fit. I can understand rolling the dice & not taking one of them because of money constraints but none of those 3 is a real risk & also reduces your Capt/VC options each week.

Not sure if you have seen Powell but he is very skinny, I would be surprised if he plays round 1 - his teammate Phillips is much more AFL ready, worth the extra 40k in my opinion.

Personally, I would be dropping 1 of Butters/Heeney to a rookie (maybe F Macrae for example) to help strengthen your team.

Not starting those 3 is definitely on my mind, and why I originally got Neale into my team. But at the same time I feel like all 3 are definitely overpriced, so much so that it is difficult to start any of them. I'm definitely not starting Lloyd, I'm pretty unlikely to start Gawn, but Neale is a chance to get in the team. I think the extra minutes he got last year just makes him that extra bit overpriced and a difficult player to start with if you look at him in isolation. His minutes per game last year adjusted to 20 min quarters would have equated to an extra 7 minutes played per game than in 2019 and means he scored just under 8 points per game extra from his game time alone. That is the exact opposite of Cripps in 2020 and isn't ideal.

I'd probably be more likely to do Powell down to a cheaper rookie, I don't think Phillips is very big either and I don't like expensive rookie midfielders who aren't necessarily going to get a lot of midfield opportunity. North aren't good but they have good midfield depth.

 

[wogitalia]

After seeing that Neale's time on ground went up by 4% last year (Herald sun article) I'm slightly less inclined to start him. The fact he has Sydney in Round 1 who tagged him and kept him in the 50's in round 16 last year makes me even more inclined to fade him to start with the plan of getting him in ASAP. He also has Geelong in Round 3 who are hard for mids to score against. Not saying he won't go big in those games but the upside of freeing up some cash and getting an edge on everybody else could prove pivotal.

Here's what my team looks like at the moment.



I might need better rookies so I might need to downgrade a player or two, time will tell, but I like this team without Neale. Not sure about starting Titch given his injury concerns but not sure where else to to turn, Fyfe is an option but I feel you can only start one of Fyfe and JKelly. Butters is an interesting one but he has been rumoured to spend more time in the mids this year, is training more with them and is apparently looking particularly impressive.

I think with Marshall being capable of moving to the rucks there's enough midpriced forwards to replace Preuss with if he fails or they decide to use Mumford either instead of him or alongside him. Something in my gut tells me that Preuss won't be a viable option (not sure why but maybe because he's never played much). If that's the case I'll be more inclined to move Marshall to the rucks and bring in a Daniher/Impey type. I also think O'Brien will be the best ruck behind Grundy / Gawn and could potentially average in the same ballpark as one of them this year.

My major concern with this team is you've got 2 midfield slots left and only 1 of the top 8 and 3 of the top 35 scorers from last year. It's not common to see that much change that you'll pick 3 guys to go from outside the top 35 to inside the top 10 but only having two openings with that kind of ratio is extreme. Basically if you assume Neale and Macrae are what they've been the last couple of years then that's the last two spots and you've got zero room to move on anyone else.

Definitely the type of all or nothing team that can win it or struggle to get inside the top 20k!

 

[pizza safety]

My major concern with this team is you've got 2 midfield slots left and only 1 of the top 8 and 3 of the top 35 scorers from last year. It's not common to see that much change that you'll pick 3 guys to go from outside the top 35 to inside the top 10 but only having two openings with that kind of ratio is extreme. Basically if you assume Neale and Macrae are what they've been the last couple of years then that's the last two spots and you've got zero room to move on anyone else.

Definitely the type of all or nothing team that can win it or struggle to get inside the top 20k!

I know what you mean and I don't think Taranto is a top 8 mid, he's more of a value pick who will end up at M8, but I think the others will be top 8-10. Taranto could certainly leave the team, he's just in there for the time being. I agree that Taranto's spot might be better left open so I can bring 3 players in rather than 2, that's been my structure for most of the past two months til the last couple of days.

I don't think you can look at last years top scorers the same way as usual, a lot of them scored better than they usually would because of scaling and will fall back down to earth.

If you look at Steele's stats last year he's been scaled up quite a bit, Petracca's scoring came from out of nowhere, the Dogs mids are impossible to gauge with Bevo and Treloar coming in, Zerrett's time on ground was way up than the rest of his career, Lyons/Crouch/Boak/Adams are unlikely to score better than Cripps who was way below them in average last year.

I don't see those top positions from last year as meaning as much as usual or the top 35 meaning very much in general, I see them this year as more of a facade with a lot of strange caveats and an unusual seasons causing those averages. A lot of the skill this year in selection will be separating the fact from fiction. Cripps is very underpriced and much more proven than many of the players above him and Walsh I believe will go 110+.

Don't know about struggling to make 20k or first lol, don't think this team is all that wild, I think I'm just avoiding some of the overpriced players.

I agree with your point about going 6 deep with Taranto and might need to leave the midfield more room for change. I just wouldn't pay much attention to some of the top scorers from last year, Cripps and Walsh can easily catch them.

 

[wogitalia]

I know what you mean and I don't think Taranto is a top 8 mid, he's more of a value pick who will end up at M8, but I think the others will be top 8-10. Taranto could certainly leave the team, he's just in there for the time being. I agree that Taranto's spot might be better left open so I can bring 3 players in rather than 2, that's been my structure for most of the past two months til the last couple of days.

I don't think you can look at last years top scorers the same way as usual, a lot of them scored better than they usually would because of scaling and will fall back down to earth.

If you look at Steele's stats last year he's been scaled up quite a bit, Petracca's scoring came from out of nowhere, the Dogs mids are impossible to gauge with Bevo and Treloar coming in, Zerrett's time on ground was way up than the rest of his career, Lyons/Crouch/Boak/Adams are unlikely to score better than Cripps who was way below them in average last year.

I don't see those top positions from last year as meaning as much as usual or the top 35 meaning very much in general, I see them this year as more of a facade with a lot of strange caveats and an unusual seasons causing those averages. A lot of the skill this year in selection will be separating the fact from fiction. Cripps is very underpriced and much more proven than many of the players above him and Walsh I believe will go 110+.

Don't know about struggling to make 20k or first lol, don't think this team is all that wild, I think I'm just avoiding some of the overpriced players.

I agree with your point about going 6 deep with Taranto and might need to leave the midfield more room for change. I just wouldn't pay much attention to some of the top scorers from last year, Cripps and Walsh can easily catch them.

Taranto at his price is a wasted pick if you don't think he's a keeper. Better off fielding a rookie who scores 55 than him on value for points on the field and cash generation. Basically you're giving up trades, points and cash generation to pick him.

Steele's role changed last year, went from a tagger relying heavily on tackles to a ball winning and goal kicking midfielder. Petracca had always scored like that when playing midfield, the difference was he got fit and the coach played him there full time (admittedly the shorter quarters compound this), there's at least as strong a case that Petracca just had his breakout and is set to push onwards towards 130 as there is for him being overpriced. Zerrett finally played genuine midfield instead of rotting on the wing as Rutten transitioned to coach. All 4 of those guys scored better than Cripps last year and Cripps broke down physically for the 2nd straight season.

Just playing devils advocate on all those to show how easy it is to flip the script. I think the skill is going to be picking the very particular players who are genuinely overpriced as opposed to just the inflated averages which most relevant players have, quite simply the better players got bigger chunks of the scaling.

Last year the only changes from the 2019 top 10 mids were Petracca, Steele, Merrett, Mitchell and Hunter coming in for Fyfe (11th), Cripps(way out), Treloar (17th), Gaff (21st) and Boak (14th) (fwiw Treloar was 4ppg from top 10 still). Mitchell was injured in 2019 (1st in 2018) and Merrett was not far off the top 10 the year (3ppg, 15th) before but Petracca, role change, Steele, role change and Hunter, anomaly scoring imo, were all big movers from outside the top 35. While the averages were a bit higher overall the makeup of the group is pretty ****genous.

FWIW I actually really like both the Walsh and Cripps reasoning for breaking out.

For me it's the guys like Hunter, Sidebottom, Lyons, Menegola, Anderson and Dumont types that all stand out as the ones to really watch for being out of whack in SC. The "pure DT" guys as I'd call them, tackles, cheap +6s on the outside, low impact touches, guys who historically struggled to get above a 1:1 ratio, they're the ones who I think ate a disproportionate amount of the extra points that just wouldn't be there for them again this year. Their quantity stats held greater standing with a significantly reduced amount of impact stats.

As much as it seems like a weird year and I totally agree on most premiums being a bit overpriced, I'd also warn against overusing the blanket that kind of fits on everyone and perhaps over-adjusting in the opposite where you give the most recent season less respect than it deserves.

For example, I personally think that Steele and Petracca have the best narratives of the top 8 guys to improve their averages but they'd be the first two you throw out with the bathwater if you write off last season's information as irregular. I think the information is noisy but incredibly valuable still.

 

[manyproblems]

Taranto at his price is a wasted pick if you don't think he's a keeper. Better off fielding a rookie who scores 55 than him on value for points on the field and cash generation. Basically you're giving up trades, points and cash generation to pick him.

Steele's role changed last year, went from a tagger relying heavily on tackles to a ball winning and goal kicking midfielder. Petracca had always scored like that when playing midfield, the difference was he got fit and the coach played him there full time (admittedly the shorter quarters compound this), there's at least as strong a case that Petracca just had his breakout and is set to push onwards towards 130 as there is for him being overpriced. Zerrett finally played genuine midfield instead of rotting on the wing as Rutten transitioned to coach. All 4 of those guys scored better than Cripps last year and Cripps broke down physically for the 2nd straight season.

Just playing devils advocate on all those to show how easy it is to flip the script. I think the skill is going to be picking the very particular players who are genuinely overpriced as opposed to just the inflated averages which most relevant players have, quite simply the better players got bigger chunks of the scaling.

Last year the only changes from the 2019 top 10 mids were Petracca, Steele, Merrett, Mitchell and Hunter coming in for Fyfe (11th), Cripps(way out), Treloar (17th), Gaff (21st) and Boak (14th) (fwiw Treloar was 4ppg from top 10 still). Mitchell was injured in 2019 (1st in 2018) and Merrett was not far off the top 10 the year (3ppg, 15th) before but Petracca, role change, Steele, role change and Hunter, anomaly scoring imo, were all big movers from outside the top 35. While the averages were a bit higher overall the makeup of the group is pretty ****genous.

FWIW I actually really like both the Walsh and Cripps reasoning for breaking out.

For me it's the guys like Hunter, Sidebottom, Lyons, Menegola, Anderson and Dumont types that all stand out as the ones to really watch for being out of whack in SC. The "pure DT" guys as I'd call them, tackles, cheap +6s on the outside, low impact touches, guys who historically struggled to get above a 1:1 ratio, they're the ones who I think ate a disproportionate amount of the extra points that just wouldn't be there for them again this year. Their quantity stats held greater standing with a significantly reduced amount of impact stats.

As much as it seems like a weird year and I totally agree on most premiums being a bit overpriced, I'd also warn against overusing the blanket that kind of fits on everyone and perhaps over-adjusting in the opposite where you give the most recent season less respect than it deserves.

For example, I personally think that Steele and Petracca have the best narratives of the top 8 guys to improve their averages but they'd be the first two you throw out with the bathwater if you write off last season's information as irregular. I think the information is noisy but incredibly valuable still.

Enjoy your posts mate. I really like Steele, he was a disgusting pig in NEAFL (almost 160 average) way back. I'm not worried about the scaling up narrative for him, his endurance has improved every year and he floors his opponent on a weekly basis. When he was set free late 2018, he went 110 average in full games in the last 10 rounds or so. I've probably bought more into the Petracca benefited from shortened quarters more narrative given his past endurance issues, but his training standards have improved dramatically. I still just want to see him in full length games, I think someone here posted his first halfs were better than his second halves but cant remember. He is in the Dangerfield mould to become an unstoppable force like Danger was at his peak, still plenty of time for him.

 

[manyproblems]

Dunkley can be slightly injury prone and looks like playing forward a little more with Treleor only able to play midfield.
Dusty has missed something like 1 game in 5 years and will average 100 but doesn't tend to get huge scores.
Then there's value players like Heeney and possibly Tom Phillips to consider.
I may end up picking Dusty for his durability to balance out players returning from injury that I've picked.

Wouldnt call Dunkley injury prone. He had a contact injury playing forward, and got back way ahead of schedule. Dusty has had more injury cases latey than Dunks.

Dunkley. In my side.

Chat on big footy is that he has come back fitter. View attachment 25680 View attachment 25681

While it's not a contract year, playing him in the mids will get a better return al la Telly/Geelong.

Worst case scenario (bar injury) is playing forward all year and still likely being top 6 Fwd. I think is the most likely outcome, but here's hoping.

The guy is more addicted to training than cousins is to meth

 

[pizza safety]

Taranto at his price is a wasted pick if you don't think he's a keeper. Better off fielding a rookie who scores 55 than him on value for points on the field and cash generation. Basically you're giving up trades, points and cash generation to pick him.

Steele's role changed last year, went from a tagger relying heavily on tackles to a ball winning and goal kicking midfielder. Petracca had always scored like that when playing midfield, the difference was he got fit and the coach played him there full time (admittedly the shorter quarters compound this), there's at least as strong a case that Petracca just had his breakout and is set to push onwards towards 130 as there is for him being overpriced. Zerrett finally played genuine midfield instead of rotting on the wing as Rutten transitioned to coach. All 4 of those guys scored better than Cripps last year and Cripps broke down physically for the 2nd straight season.

Just playing devils advocate on all those to show how easy it is to flip the script. I think the skill is going to be picking the very particular players who are genuinely overpriced as opposed to just the inflated averages which most relevant players have, quite simply the better players got bigger chunks of the scaling.

Last year the only changes from the 2019 top 10 mids were Petracca, Steele, Merrett, Mitchell and Hunter coming in for Fyfe (11th), Cripps(way out), Treloar (17th), Gaff (21st) and Boak (14th) (fwiw Treloar was 4ppg from top 10 still). Mitchell was injured in 2019 (1st in 2018) and Merrett was not far off the top 10 the year (3ppg, 15th) before but Petracca, role change, Steele, role change and Hunter, anomaly scoring imo, were all big movers from outside the top 35. While the averages were a bit higher overall the makeup of the group is pretty ****genous.

FWIW I actually really like both the Walsh and Cripps reasoning for breaking out.

For me it's the guys like Hunter, Sidebottom, Lyons, Menegola, Anderson and Dumont types that all stand out as the ones to really watch for being out of whack in SC. The "pure DT" guys as I'd call them, tackles, cheap +6s on the outside, low impact touches, guys who historically struggled to get above a 1:1 ratio, they're the ones who I think ate a disproportionate amount of the extra points that just wouldn't be there for them again this year. Their quantity stats held greater standing with a significantly reduced amount of impact stats.

As much as it seems like a weird year and I totally agree on most premiums being a bit overpriced, I'd also warn against overusing the blanket that kind of fits on everyone and perhaps over-adjusting in the opposite where you give the most recent season less respect than it deserves.

For example, I personally think that Steele and Petracca have the best narratives of the top 8 guys to improve their averages but they'd be the first two you throw out with the bathwater if you write off last season's information as irregular. I think the information is noisy but incredibly valuable still.

I agree with a lot of that, especially about the DT players, but just to make a few counter-points.

Taranto averaging low 100's is much better than a rookie on field who averages 55, you're saving a lot of money because he's priced at 85 and he'd be a competent M8. You often end up with an M8 who scores under 100 anyway and saving a money on a keeper is valuable. That said, I'm unlikely to start him in the end.

Zerrett played more wing last year than any other year as a player, he did not rot on a wing but often played better on a wing and it complimented his ability to find the ball in space. Largely he had his scores boosted by getting an extra 6-7% time on ground for the year and not getting tagged, I brought him in early last year because fo the short quarters and the fact he was going to play a higher % of game time.

Cripps averaged 119 and 117 in 2018-2019. He broke down late in 2019 but wasn't a bad pick from the start. He's now genuinely underpriced based on what he's shown he can produce. There are certainly concerns but he represents a lot of value.
To me Cripps is the opposite value to a Steele/Petracca type in theory. I think they all probably average low 110's.

On Steele, to me he was a very clear beneficiary of the scoring and scaling because he was the clear no.1 midfielder in a good team. He certainly improved tremendously and was very good in a role he should have been played in for a while longer, but I think he got another 5-7 points on top of his average that he otherwise would not have got. His stats did not improve to the point that he should have averaged 122 after you adjust for quarter length. Given his season was 27 pts better than anything he's previously produced he's certainly overpriced and the short quarters make this even more so the case. He could back it up and I expect him to go to 110 but he's not a good starting pick in my opinion.

Petracca is similar to Steele, but I think he benefitted a little less from the scaling. He did improve his average by 37 compared to any other season and that to me is a bit of a red flag which shows a high likelihood of some regression and at the very least stagnation. We cannot be sure that he didn't benefit from shorter quarters as the extent of his improved fitness wasn't tested across 20 minute quarters.

I see the pair of them as being top 10 picks but not players who are worth prioritising as starters over Cripps/Walsh, things change a lot and I think things will slightly regress for this pair. It will also be their turn this year to get the type of attention Cripps has had for the past 3 seasons and with that there will also be some regression.

I think if you're starting 3 of Neale, Oliver, JKelly, Neale, Titch, Fyfe & Macrae as part of a 5 man midfield then you will be fine. A few of those will drop down too and I don't see Petracca, Steele being significantly better picks than a value option in Cripps and a breakout candidate. if you don't seek out value and players who can improve on their average then the rest of your team suffers.

 

[wogitalia]

I agree with a lot of that, especially about the DT players, but just to make a few counter-points.

Taranto averaging low 100's is much better than a rookie on field who averages 55, you're saving a lot of money because he's priced at 85 and he'd be a competent M8. You often end up with an M8 who scores under 100 anyway and saving a money on a keeper is valuable. That said, I'm unlikely to start him in the end.

Zerrett played more wing last year than any other year as a player, he did not rot on a wing but often played better on a wing and it complimented his ability to find the ball in space. Largely he had his scores boosted by getting an extra 6-7% time on ground for the year and not getting tagged, I brought him in early last year because fo the short quarters and the fact he was going to play a higher % of game time.

Cripps averaged 119 and 117 in 2018-2019. He broke down late in 2019 but wasn't a bad pick from the start. He's now genuinely underpriced based on what he's shown he can produce. There are certainly concerns but he represents a lot of value.
To me Cripps is the opposite value to a Steele/Petracca type in theory. I think they all probably average low 110's.

On Steele, to me he was a very clear beneficiary of the scoring and scaling because he was the clear no.1 midfielder in a good team. He certainly improved tremendously and was very good in a role he should have been played in for a while longer, but I think he got another 5-7 points on top of his average that he otherwise would not have got. His stats did not improve to the point that he should have averaged 122 after you adjust for quarter length. Given his season was 27 pts better than anything he's previously produced he's certainly overpriced and the short quarters make this even more so the case. He could back it up and I expect him to go to 110 but he's not a good starting pick in my opinion.

Petracca is similar to Steele, but I think he benefitted a little less from the scaling. He did improve his average by 37 compared to any other season and that to me is a bit of a red flag which shows a high likelihood of some regression and at the very least stagnation. We cannot be sure that he didn't benefit from shorter quarters as the extent of his improved fitness wasn't tested across 20 minute quarters.

I see the pair of them as being top 10 picks but not players who are worth prioritising as starters over Cripps/Walsh, things change a lot and I think things will slightly regress for this pair. It will also be their turn this year to get the type of attention Cripps has had for the past 3 seasons and with that there will also be some regression.

I think if you're starting 3 of Neale, Oliver, JKelly, Neale, Titch, Fyfe & Macrae as part of a 5 man midfield then you will be fine. A few of those will drop down too and I don't see Petracca, Steele being significantly better picks than a value option in Cripps and a breakout candidate. if you don't seek out value and players who can improve on their average then the rest of your team suffers.

To be fair, mostly playing devils advocate. Role is everything for the mids though, it only takes a slightly worse role for them to fall out of relevance.

Disagree on Steele though, I think he's the perfect example of discounting a player based on it happening last year and rationalising away his actual improvement and just how sustainable it is.

Steele genuinely had a significant role change going from a tagger and defensive midfielder to an attacking midfielder. In the shortened quarters he had the same disposals, kicked 3x as many goals, had a third of the FA, had more clearances, goal assists and I50s than he had in 20 games of full quarters the year before. He also dropped 2 tackles a game after adjusting for the shorter quarters. The stats strongly support the eye test for mine.

His DT went to the ~110 range in full quarters, for a player who uses it quite well and is as contested as he is that would generally lead to a 120 range score. Pendles for example uses it a bit better and would push to the mid 120s on that kind of DT, Selwood, who is a very strong comparison to his season last year, hit the 117-120 range when producing 105 DT seasons.

Having said that, there are absolutely counter points to him. Pushing beyond 120 is very rare, that alone is a strong case against. He needs the side to improve which may or may not happen but they have the hardest fixture this year so that certainly counts against him. Crouch coming in certainly is worth questioning. That said, still think of the guys in the 115+ group I like his story to improve more than the others except for Petracca.

Also worth accepting that if everyone is overpriced at the top end (and I'd buy that they are) then the magic number will adjust for that to a large extent (as it did with DT last year and the shortened quarters). Allowing for that you need to pick the mids you think are the best chance of being top 8 in that group I guess.

Cripps if he is fit will be in every side this year, he's pretty much Mr Irrelevant, really the only way he presents risk/reward is if you choose to go against him.

 

[THCLT]

A belated warm welcome to @wogitalia
A member since 2016 who has finally come out of the woods.
I find your insights and analysis very considered and measured.
We're all grateful and blessed to have you join us for the upcoming season.
With your valuable contributions, we have no reason but to dominate SC for season 2021.

 

[Herbie66]

To me at this stage of the year this team looks a lot more realistic on paper

D: LLOYD , WHITFIELD , Williams , Harmes , Milera , Grainger-Barass / Cox * , Reid

M: LAIRD * , WALSH , CRIPPS , Rowell , Taranto , Atkins , Phillips , Campbell * / Pedler , Bruhn , Powell

R: GAWN , Preuss / Treacy *

F: MARSHALL * , Heeney , Brown , Ziebell , Daniher , Impey / Kelly , Macrae *

$ 58,800.00 in the Bank.

Suspect ones the rookies are more clearer I can upgrade Taranto - > Neale/Oliver type

2-3-3
3-3-5
1-1-1
1-5-2

= 7-12-11

only 3 rookies onfield , but no doubt too many midpricers to start (could possibly need 11-15 upgrades)

 

[Cricket98]

Hi All,

Made an initial team a month ago, and have altered a few things since. Loving the amount of in-depth discussion going on already, it's been thoroughly enjoyable to catch up on.

DEF: I've cooled off LMAC, think I need to see his role first with Ziebell supposedly going back there to distribute. Surprised to see Harmes ownership at 1.3%. Was progressing every year until last year (54, 69, 73, 22/84, 22/95) before playing HBF last year didnt work out. He's said in recent weeks he'll be playing midfield again in 2021. Melbourne kept the CBAS extremely tight between the 4 main mids last year, and going back to 20 minute quarters I can't see that as sustainable. It also looks like Tomlinson may go back to defense, meaning Brayshaw could go to the vacated wing, which would open up even more mid time for Harmes. Will watch very closely next few weeks, but expecting his ownership to jump soonish. Milera/Young/Cumming are all in consideration. Alot of points have become avaliable in that decimated GWS backline, just hoping that Cumming gets the SC friendly role. Meanwhile, virtually everyone that played in Freo's defense last year scored well.

MID: Oliver durable and consistent as they come. Still only 23 years old, huge scope for further growth. Hopefully Macrae's ownership continues to drop, regardless of Bevo he's safe for 115+. King of Marvel and relishes longer quarters. He's in the same boat of Grundy where tends to get alot of his scoring in the later parts of quarters and games. More than happy to pay 650 for both of these guys going back to 20min quarters, considering the other premo mid prices.

Going value hunting at M3-5. Cripps obvious choice. TK massive POD (3%), ticks alot of boxes to breakout to 110+. Taranto 2019 season still in the front of my mind. Didn't get any favours from the SC Gods that year too, with an extremely poor DT:SC ratio compared to the other mids with premium numbers. Atkins on a 5 year deal surely gets a HBF/Wing role, and prior to 2020 had an extremely durable 4 seasons between 75-79 av. Treating him as an expensive rookie with very good JS. Rookies after that up in the year, dont know if the North boys are walk up starts with their midfield depth and a lack of matches for them in 2020. Think they start the year in the twos.


RUCK: Been set since November.

FWD: Dunkley seems an extremely low risk pick. As a dogs supporter myself I think he's got a point to prove this year, regardless whether he wants to be at the club. Massive ceiling if he gets the mid time he deserves. Marshall I love, I do think he has a 120+ ceiling, just a matter of when he gets there. R/F is a massive bonus but would probably pick him as a pure forward too. F3 is probably my most unsure position. Have flirted with Rozee and Bolton here too. Would love some peoples thoughts on what theyre doing here. Only picking Impey if he plays HBF, would love some Hawks supporters thoughts on his role. Ely Smith apparently flying in his 3rd year in the system.

 

[SlicenDyce]

I want to pick one of Neale and Gawn.
Neale has a easy early fixture with no tight taggers that I know of.
Preuss represents value as the main ruckman at GWS @$300,000.He will hopefully go up to $500,000 making the trade to Gawn a lot easier.
There is no equivalent midfield player around the $300,000 that will make money, Heppell is still not 100%.
So Neale over Gawn so I can extract value from Preuss is my answer.

Neale plays Sydney in round one, where he's almost certain to get tagged by Clarke or Hewett, who have restricted Neale's output in the past. I'd recommend looking at Neale's scoring history against them.

 

[pizza safety]

To be fair, mostly playing devils advocate. Role is everything for the mids though, it only takes a slightly worse role for them to fall out of relevance.

Disagree on Steele though, I think he's the perfect example of discounting a player based on it happening last year and rationalising away his actual improvement and just how sustainable it is.

Steele genuinely had a significant role change going from a tagger and defensive midfielder to an attacking midfielder. In the shortened quarters he had the same disposals, kicked 3x as many goals, had a third of the FA, had more clearances, goal assists and I50s than he had in 20 games of full quarters the year before. He also dropped 2 tackles a game after adjusting for the shorter quarters. The stats strongly support the eye test for mine.

His DT went to the ~110 range in full quarters, for a player who uses it quite well and is as contested as he is that would generally lead to a 120 range score. Pendles for example uses it a bit better and would push to the mid 120s on that kind of DT, Selwood, who is a very strong comparison to his season last year, hit the 117-120 range when producing 105 DT seasons.

Having said that, there are absolutely counter points to him. Pushing beyond 120 is very rare, that alone is a strong case against. He needs the side to improve which may or may not happen but they have the hardest fixture this year so that certainly counts against him. Crouch coming in certainly is worth questioning. That said, still think of the guys in the 115+ group I like his story to improve more than the others except for Petracca.

Also worth accepting that if everyone is overpriced at the top end (and I'd buy that they are) then the magic number will adjust for that to a large extent (as it did with DT last year and the shortened quarters). Allowing for that you need to pick the mids you think are the best chance of being top 8 in that group I guess.

Cripps if he is fit will be in every side this year, he's pretty much Mr Irrelevant, really the only way he presents risk/reward is if you choose to go against him.

You are right that Steele would have averaged 113 in DT if you scale up for minutes played, but in the past he was always a 1:1 DT:SC player. His previous three years were DT:SC: 92/91, 96/95 and 95/94, and then this year were 113(scaled up)/122.

I'm not saying Steele wasn't good, he was elite and he was freed up to play a role many had long thought he could play well. Many of us on here started him in 2019 thinking he was ready for a breakout then after showing big time scoring ability in late 2018. but he was forced to tag yet again. He did in 2020 what many had hoped he would do a year earlier. I'm only saying he got another 5-7 extra points from scaling in shorter quarters and should have averaged 115-117 instead of 122.

All of his stats improved, but not to the point where he was a 122 average player. His goal kicking improved, but I'm not sure that his kicking in general did, and whilst he got more contested possessions and clearances, like you said his tackles went down. It might be that his new midfield role is more conducive to SC and it probably is, but if we compare him to Pertracca and Taylor Adams I think much of the difference in their averages comes from being the main man in a good team and the scaling used last season. If you want to criticise the Adams comparison on account of disposal efficiency Adams averaged 7.3 effective kicks per game to Steele's 6.6 (AFL Stats pro). There will also likely be some regression with his low number of frees against compared to previous seasons.

We also know that the top and most impactful players were scaled up last year, and that a team who has a best player who is a great deal more impactful than the 2nd best player, is heavily favoured in the SC scoring system. Logically we know that this is the case and he will be impacted to some extent by Brad Crouch's arrival and the likelihood he gets tagged more often.

He is a good comparison to Selwood as player, except that Selwood was a better attacking player in his prime and a better kick of the football. His goals, goal assists and general impact made him a 117-120 average player in those seasons and I would argue that Steele's year was close to 117 last season if not for scaling because in essence he is still the more DT friendly player.

I wouldn't weigh that too heavily on it's own, but combined with him having a breakout year, which was 27.5 points better than any previous season, I think it makes him quite overpriced. My prediction is he averages 112, 10 points beneath what he is priced at.

 

[Leroy]

Here we go, something I am "happy(ish)" with first up. 20k spare change.

It feels pretty vanilla and balances a far smaller risk profile than I've attempted in previous years (am I learning at last? hmm).

Defenders: Can't afford the top players everywhere so Lloyd is the upgrade target. Laird and Stewart feel very safe; Whitfield has a durability question on him so maybe I turn him into Daniel (who I rate very well for consistency) if I need 30k somewhere, but Lachie feels like he has the game to go large.

Midfielders: I want a high chance of 22 games from my 5 keepers, so no Fyfe/Jelly/Treloar types. Brayshaw and Walsh both as breakout picks might be too much, so if a bunch of good scoring cheaper rookies arrive I can cash out Atkins and upgrade one of them.

Rucks: Lock and load people, VC and C scores every week.

Forwards: The line with the most churn. Had Brown and Daniher but Ben sounds like non-starter so after picking a rookie instead I've got an awkward amount of cash left over (Rozzee for now). Maybe Caldwell instead or Harmes down back are better picks for that amount of money (?) but if anyone has ideas, I'd love to hear them. An uninspiring list with players like Jezza Cameron, Mathieson, Blakely, Tom McDonald or Will Brodie is all I've got at the moment.

Thoughts?

 

[Bomber18]

A lot of great debate on Dunkley. Am loving it. He’s out for me currently. I think the point it seems that hasn’t been quite touched on is his high price point. At 560k, he doesn’t come that cheap. I worry that if he drops to a 90-95 avg playing in a more M/F role, he could be easily picked up in that sub 460k-480k region. If he indeed goes 110-115, I suspect his price wouldn’t increase much from 560k... worst case 600k?

The downside risk of losing potentially 100k early from a sub par average has me concerned with him as a starting pick. The most likely route to success for Dunkley is an injury to a Libba, Treloar, Bont or Macrae type which would open up a pure mid spot for him. In the wait and see basket for me at this stage but if his role looks good in the preseason, I may still start him.

 

[pizza safety]

A lot of great debate on Dunkley. Am loving it. He’s out for me currently. I think the point it seems that hasn’t been quite touched on is his high price point. At 560k, he doesn’t come that cheap. I worry that if he drops to a 90-95 avg playing in a more M/F role, he could be easily picked up in that sub 460k-480k region. If he indeed goes 110-115, I suspect his price wouldn’t increase much from 560k... worst case 600k?

The downside risk of losing potentially 100k early from a sub par average has me concerned with him as a starting pick. The most likely route to success for Dunkley is an injury to a Libba, Treloar, Bont or Macrae type which would open up a pure mid spot for him. In the wait and see basket for me at this stage but if his role looks good in the preseason, I may still start him.

I don't think the price rise is so much the reason to start him, but rather his potential ability to score in the 115+ range without having much downside as a pick and where that leaves you if you start without him. I don't think his floor is as low as 90 anymore but probably 95-105. It's unlikely that anyone will score at the level he is capable of in the forward line bar Danger and he has had a very interrupted preseason (Marshall could be another if Ryder goes down or isn't at the level anymore). He has shown the potential to be an absolute pig.

I know coach's don't usually bow down to where a player wants to play but it would make a fair bit of sense in this instant given that he is legitimately Bevo's favourite player and the fact they might lose him soon if they don't play him in the middle.

I think what will happen at the dogs this year is that Treloar, Bont and Dunkley will be the midfielders with the most CBA's, Libba will spend more time forward and Macrae/Bailey Smith will spend more time on the wing and at half forward.

 

[Seymour Skinner]

To be fair, mostly playing devils advocate. Role is everything for the mids though, it only takes a slightly worse role for them to fall out of relevance.

Disagree on Steele though, I think he's the perfect example of discounting a player based on it happening last year and rationalising away his actual improvement and just how sustainable it is.

Steele genuinely had a significant role change going from a tagger and defensive midfielder to an attacking midfielder. In the shortened quarters he had the same disposals, kicked 3x as many goals, had a third of the FA, had more clearances, goal assists and I50s than he had in 20 games of full quarters the year before. He also dropped 2 tackles a game after adjusting for the shorter quarters. The stats strongly support the eye test for mine.

His DT went to the ~110 range in full quarters, for a player who uses it quite well and is as contested as he is that would generally lead to a 120 range score. Pendles for example uses it a bit better and would push to the mid 120s on that kind of DT, Selwood, who is a very strong comparison to his season last year, hit the 117-120 range when producing 105 DT seasons.

Having said that, there are absolutely counter points to him. Pushing beyond 120 is very rare, that alone is a strong case against. He needs the side to improve which may or may not happen but they have the hardest fixture this year so that certainly counts against him. Crouch coming in certainly is worth questioning. That said, still think of the guys in the 115+ group I like his story to improve more than the others except for Petracca.

Also worth accepting that if everyone is overpriced at the top end (and I'd buy that they are) then the magic number will adjust for that to a large extent (as it did with DT last year and the shortened quarters). Allowing for that you need to pick the mids you think are the best chance of being top 8 in that group I guess.

Cripps if he is fit will be in every side this year, he's pretty much Mr Irrelevant, really the only way he presents risk/reward is if you choose to go against him.

While I haven't 100% agreed with every post you've made so far, they have all been absolutely top notch content, I am very glad you are no longer a lurker! Keep it up and good luck for the season ahead.