Discussion The Round 0 Knee Jerk

[Zimmer]

I'd say that there was pretty much nothing that happened this round that should have changed your opinion on the players except for Coleman and Docherty, obviously.

If you didn't have these guys in your team before this round I'm genuinely not sure what you'd have seen to change that. Similarly if you did have them, I don't think there were many that changed that.

Maybe Gulden on the negative side just with the role and output (he's cheap in a month most likely if he is going to be a gun, can probably wait post bye now) but if you didn't like Heeney/Flanders/Grundy/Gawn/Daicos/Green/Miller/etc then I think you're probably being reactionary if rushing them in and vice versa. All of those guys played the same role as preseason and as advertised, there shouldn't have been any real shocks.

The rookie guys a bit different, those are far more guesses than educated decisions and having those answered one way or the other is nice.

I think you’re agreeing with me in principle - but yeah, I’m so far behind in research this year that I’ll probably throw out these offhand comments based on historical “burns” rather than current context, every so often, until I get up to scratch. Sorry for that. Wishing everyone a great year, especially given the strange start. 👍

 

[The Banker]

It's a trap.

I think you’re agreeing with me in principle - but yeah, I’m so far behind in research this year that I’ll probably throw out these offhand comments every so often. 👍

So you say it's a trap and then say you are behind in research 🤨

Bottom line is R0 has been part of the preseason for this season. I don't know why people get so worked up over people changing their teams with the info we have been given.

Fwiw I was really happy to see the role Heeney played. Whether or not he played it all preseason, he played it in the first game. Admittedly there are players out. That's the gamble. If he does continue to get even a portion of the role he has the opportunity to be a top 6 forward selection.

Really don't think you can lose as much on Heeney as what you could have if the SC season started on Thursday night and you selected him. He now has runs on the board. Bye in 5. If he's not a keeper he's an easy flip trade. Got a month to work that out.

 

[Rowsus]

I actually disagree with this logic for a few reasons.

1. If he's worth having, he's scoring another 90+ type score, that's probably 30 points on an unknown rookie, he's proven himself capable of 130 as well. Could conceivably be 70 points.
2. His price is structural. He's actually not an easy trade unless you plan for him in which case, you may as well start him and get the benefit of point 1.
3. Week 3 trades are precious correction moves, as per point two, he probably involves two of the trades to get done but at best, he's one of your trades. Even assuming no injuries to that point that trade has a lot of value.
4. You can loop with him in week 2, which itself has genuine value and could generate points, picking your best 18 from 23 instead of 22 is a bonus. Most will have Williams so the captaincy side not as relevant but if you don't have Williams, he also adds that. To be fair, I'd be surprised if even with two shots the M9 counts in many best 18s!

I don't disagree that the wait and see approach is possible but I don't think it's the optimum idea.

Playing the last game in round 1 is a genuine nightmare though! I guess could bail into Sharp, if he's there, but pretty limited options outside that but I'd be genuinely surprised if he was the sub this week (things I definitely said about Billings this week for $200 please).

This pretty much sums up why I brought in Lyon today.
If he scores well again in his next game, he will become a very desirable player.
A rough guesstimate of his BE coming into his bubble game works out at 40 - his next score. Score 90, and he's got a BE of around -50.
As Wogi said, the trades used for Round 3 and 4 can be very important. If you start without Lyon, and decide you need him, you either need: another Mid-Pricer to have failed, kept a cash bank of around $130k+, or use 1.5-2 trades to get him in. None of those things are desirable.
Sure, starting him, and having him go immediately flakey is very undesirable too. The thing with that scenario is, it's an easy, 1 trade fix, and would likely still end up giving you a player with a good BE + some $$$ in the bank!

 

[Rowsus]

So you say it's a trap and then say you are behind in research 🤨

Bottom line is R0 has been part of the preseason for this season. I don't know why people get so worked up over people changing their teams with the info we have been given.

Fwiw I was really happy to see the role Heeney played. Whether or not he played it all preseason, he played it in the first game. Admittedly there are players out. That's the gamble. If he does continue to get even a portion of the role he has the opportunity to be a top 6 forward selection.

Really don't think you can lose as much on Heeney as what you could have if the SC season started on Thursday night and you selected him. He now has runs on the board. Bye in 5. If he's not a keeper he's an easy flip trade. Got a month to work that out.

Totally agree. The downside is very small. Bit of an injury history, but anyone could get injured. Reverts to last seasons role, you take a small cash hit. Compare that to the upside, and I think he's worth the risk.

 

[Zimmer]

So you say it's a trap and then say you are behind in research 🤨

Bottom line is R0 has been part of the preseason for this season. I don't know why people get so worked up over people changing their teams with the info we have been given.

Fwiw I was really happy to see the role Heeney played. Whether or not he played it all preseason, he played it in the first game. Admittedly there are players out. That's the gamble. If he does continue to get even a portion of the role he has the opportunity to be a top 6 forward selection.

Really don't think you can lose as much on Heeney as what you could have if the SC season started on Thursday night and you selected him. He now has runs on the board. Bye in 5. If he's not a keeper he's an easy flip trade. Got a month to work that out.

Think you might have missed my point - as it's a bit of a running joke around here: I was pretty much agreeing with the spirit of @Rowsus thread, which was very much your point that people get too worked up and start throwing their teams around based on a few games, after a preseason of research. My point about my lack of research was completely personal, so won't go into it.
But I'll take the feedback on board - Good luck to everyone.

 

[Leroy]

Just of interest, for those going Heeney, is it at the expense of someone like Fisher, or going thin somewhere else?

My current top forwards are Jackson, Flanders, Fisher, Jordon

I'd love to have a crack, serious talent, but it's a tight squeeze.

 

[The Banker]

Just of interest, for those going Heeney, is it at the expense of someone like Fisher, or going thin somewhere else?

My current top forwards are Jackson, Flanders, Fisher, Jordon

I'd love to have a crack, serious talent, but it's a tight squeeze.

Jackson R1
Flanders, Heeney, Fisher, Fyfe, Jordon

 

[froffershanners]

So the dust has settled and thought I’d made more drastic moves than it has landed.

D’Ambrosio, Coffield -> Howes, Gibcus

Parish (inj), Sharp (inj) -> Green, Lyons

English -> Grundy

Billings, Lazzaro -> Heeney, Burgess

Think my team is settled for the next few hours.

 

[Leroy]

Jackson R1
Flanders, Heeney, Fisher, Fyfe, Jordon

Nice.

I'm moving Jordon to the mids or something like that to put Heeney in if I can find the dollars.

 

[Brookesy]

Just of interest, for those going Heeney, is it at the expense of someone like Fisher, or going thin somewhere else?

My current top forwards are Jackson, Flanders, Fisher, Jordon

I'd love to have a crack, serious talent, but it's a tight squeeze.

I've gone at the expanse of Jackson, mainly because Darcy will be back at some point and it gives me more cash to spread around.

I now have Blakey, Daicos, Green, Miller, Grundy, Flanders and Heeney as Round 0 premiums which is way more than I intended but they all look like they have the right roles and should improve on last season, so appear underpriced for that reason. My team looks more balanced and I keep reminding myself that I am playing for leagues, but I'm not entirely comfortable with it.

 

[wogitalia]

Totally agree. The downside is very small. Bit of an injury history, but anyone could get injured. Reverts to last seasons role, you take a small cash hit. Compare that to the upside, and I think he's worth the risk.

Even if he reverts to last 7 years role, he's actually fit to start this season and underpriced from that alone. Plus, I'll back his career kicking at goal over last year's anomalous kicking (the stats don't fully cover the 1-2 OOF he had a game last year, he, iirc, had 4 in one game for example).

Midfield role is gravy on a solid pick. The bye is well placed to bail if it fails.

Just of interest, for those going Heeney, is it at the expense of someone like Fisher, or going thin somewhere else?

My current top forwards are Jackson, Flanders, Fisher, Jordon

I'd love to have a crack, serious talent, but it's a tight squeeze.

I don't really feel like I've had to sacrifice anything is probably the bonus. I've gone some value in the midfield and only 3 premium defenders. I had a higher end midfield spend with Fisher at F1 and a bunch of the 200k collection behind him. By downscaling the mids and losing Coleman I've added Jackson, Flanders and Heeney to Fisher. Sanders my only premium bench rookie for now is perhaps the concern.

 

[Chumpion]

I actually disagree with this logic for a few reasons.

1. If he's worth having, he's scoring another 90+ type score, that's probably 30 points on an unknown rookie, he's proven himself capable of 130 as well. Could conceivably be 70 points.
2. His price is structural. He's actually not an easy trade unless you plan for him in which case, you may as well start him and get the benefit of point 1.
3. Week 3 trades are precious correction moves, as per point two, he probably involves two of the trades to get done but at best, he's one of your trades. Even assuming no injuries to that point that trade has a lot of value.
4. You can loop with him in week 2, which itself has genuine value and could generate points, picking your best 18 from 23 instead of 22 is a bonus. Most will have Williams so the captaincy side not as relevant but if you don't have Williams, he also adds that. To be fair, I'd be surprised if even with two shots the M9 counts in many best 18s!

I don't disagree that the wait and see approach is possible but I don't think it's the optimum idea.

Playing the last game in round 1 is a genuine nightmare though! I guess could bail into Sharp, if he's there, but pretty limited options outside that but I'd be genuinely surprised if he was the sub this week (things I definitely said about Billings this week for $200 please).

Yeah you make some good points and I have huge respect for your opinion on this forum so it’s concerning finding myself in opposition but I feel like there is an hint of rose coloured glasses (which probably o***et my opposite tinged glasses) around how well he works out.

My main issue is, I just can’t see where this sudden change comes from. Last year he was clearly fringe with Robertson preferred, who could be back as soon as this week and if not I’d strongly expect him in round 3. So there is absolutely no reason to think Lyons’ JS has suddenly become rock solid, and very good reason to think it’s suspect. I’m also pretty sure his best issue wasn’t limited to being the sub as he actually started and was subbed off in a couple of games. So even being named this week is a risk - if Coleman hadn’t been injured he may well have been the sub vs Carlton. Purely hypothetical, but the body of evidence across last year supports him being fringe/sub risk much more than him returning to a line midfield role.

I definitely agree that getting him in could be tricky, but I don’t think that alone is a reason to start him. We can’t crystal ball those trades, but the pathway to him could be much easier than it seems. But starting a risky pick to avoid the need for a correction trade seems crazy - if he is a risk he’s a risk, and if he’s not he’s not. If he becomes a must get, then so be it. But you only get 1 score for a guy locked in your team before the price rise, and who knows.. you might have more problems in round 3 which means you have to carry him even if getting subbed. Plus if you start a guy in that midfield spot with no bye who scores 70 both weeks, they will comfortably outscore him off his 1 round 2 score.

FWIW I think he could be amazing, but in the absence of clear information around why things are suddenly different and the evidence last year that showed his position, I think it’s prudent to see how it develops.

One thing I will say though is it does depend on the make up of your side and overall risk profile. For example having Lyons and Fyfe feels extremely risky given the compounding nature of things, but only one should be manageable.

 

[wogitalia]

Yeah you make some good points and I have huge respect for your opinion on this forum so it’s concerning finding myself in opposition but I feel like there is an hint of rose coloured glasses (which probably o***et my opposite tinged glasses) around how well he works out.

My main issue is, I just can’t see where this sudden change comes from. Last year he was clearly fringe with Robertson preferred, who could be back as soon as this week and if not I’d strongly expect him in round 3. So there is absolutely no reason to think Lyons’ JS has suddenly become rock solid, and very good reason to think it’s suspect. I’m also pretty sure his best issue wasn’t limited to being the sub as he actually started and was subbed off in a couple of games. So even being named this week is a risk - if Coleman hadn’t been injured he may well have been the sub vs Carlton. Purely hypothetical, but the body of evidence across last year supports him being fringe/sub risk much more than him returning to a line midfield role.

I definitely agree that getting him in could be tricky, but I don’t think that alone is a reason to start him. We can’t crystal ball those trades, but the pathway to him could be much easier than it seems. But starting a risky pick to avoid the need for a correction trade seems crazy - if he is a risk he’s a risk, and if he’s not he’s not. If he becomes a must get, then so be it. But you only get 1 score for a guy locked in your team before the price rise, and who knows.. you might have more problems in round 3 which means you have to carry him even if getting subbed. Plus if you start a guy in that midfield spot with no bye who scores 70 both weeks, they will comfortably outscore him off his 1 round 2 score.

FWIW I think he could be amazing, but in the absence of clear information around why things are suddenly different and the evidence last year that showed his position, I think it’s prudent to see how it develops.

One thing I will say though is it does depend on the make up of your side and overall risk profile. For example having Lyons and Fyfe feels extremely risky given the compounding nature of things, but only one should be manageable.

All fair points.

McCluggage to HF/Wing was the noticeable change to me (both games so far) which opened up the inside midfield position. I may not agree with that move but seems to be made for a reason, I'd guess it's the standard maximising the limited player at the expense of the superstar that so many coaches do but it was a noticeable change. FWIW Robertson would be just as good in the role as Lyons and could be a problem regardless, but that's the change that reduces the sub factor.

I expect that McKenna comes in for Coleman, so no change there. Which leaves the Ah Chee, Lohmann, Fletcher trio as the most limited/vulnerable after that game. It doesn't hurt that they used Robertson on a wing mostly towards the end of last year, so he'd be like for like for those 3 as well but he's definitely a question.

The Clug change is the big part for me and it's just as reversible as anything else, if it limits his impact and influence too much, Lyons will get the shaft pretty quickly as Fagan is a good coach who will fix that. If Clug can still influence from the HF then that changes things big time.

The only counterpoint is that fixing Lyons is far easier than fixing into Lyons. Basically if you're 60/40 on him working and can't see better options/structures, you should start for that reason. If you like Jordon far more as a forward, then go that way or if you're confident in Hustwaite, go that way, for example. Lyons fall from grace has always been weird, I don't really rate him but he played really well for the Lions and then just seemed to lose fitness and favour and fall off completely, maybe he's sorted out whatever that was as well as the role was good.

Each to their own, FWIW I think he's probably a good option that could be a trainwreck just as easily as he could be one of the best cash generators. Original was more to point out that I think starting him is the path of least resistance if he's on your radar. I can totally buy him not being on your radar. Billings fell off mine completely with his sub vest appearance. Fyfe is clinging to my radar for the same reason (and a few others). I'm trying to find as many rookies I doubt get subbed as possible for the same reason. God I hate the sub vest

 

[Vicwood]

Good work with these tables.

The Carroll that is playing for Carlton is Jack Carroll, 124K mid. Effectively filling in for Walsh.

Could be one to watch with the Docherty injury, even when walsh returns.

 

[Shannon]

Just of interest, for those going Heeney, is it at the expense of someone like Fisher, or going thin somewhere else?

My current top forwards are Jackson, Flanders, Fisher, Jordon

I'd love to have a crack, serious talent, but it's a tight squeeze.

With Reid in the mids - seems excessive I must admit, still debating about Fyfe & Jordon tbh

 

[Under The Dome]

After R0 selections
Stayed:
Daicos, Jordon, Miller, Roberts, Thomas, Sexton

Out:
Gawn, Liberatore, Billings, Coffield, Laurie and Dempsey

In:
Grundy, Flanders, Howes, Berry, Harmes and Lyons.

 

[Chumpion]

All fair points.

McCluggage to HF/Wing was the noticeable change to me (both games so far) which opened up the inside midfield position. I may not agree with that move but seems to be made for a reason, I'd guess it's the standard maximising the limited player at the expense of the superstar that so many coaches do but it was a noticeable change. FWIW Robertson would be just as good in the role as Lyons and could be a problem regardless, but that's the change that reduces the sub factor.

I expect that McKenna comes in for Coleman, so no change there. Which leaves the Ah Chee, Lohmann, Fletcher trio as the most limited/vulnerable after that game. It doesn't hurt that they used Robertson on a wing mostly towards the end of last year, so he'd be like for like for those 3 as well but he's definitely a question.

The Clug change is the big part for me and it's just as reversible as anything else, if it limits his impact and influence too much, Lyons will get the shaft pretty quickly as Fagan is a good coach who will fix that. If Clug can still influence from the HF then that changes things big time.

The only counterpoint is that fixing Lyons is far easier than fixing into Lyons. Basically if you're 60/40 on him working and can't see better options/structures, you should start for that reason. If you like Jordon far more as a forward, then go that way or if you're confident in Hustwaite, go that way, for example. Lyons fall from grace has always been weird, I don't really rate him but he played really well for the Lions and then just seemed to lose fitness and favour and fall off completely, maybe he's sorted out whatever that was as well as the role was good.

Each to their own, FWIW I think he's probably a good option that could be a trainwreck just as easily as he could be one of the best cash generators. Original was more to point out that I think starting him is the path of least resistance if he's on your radar. I can totally buy him not being on your radar. Billings fell off mine completely with his sub vest appearance. Fyfe is clinging to my radar for the same reason (and a few others). I'm trying to find as many rookies I doubt get subbed as possible for the same reason. God I hate the sub vest

Yeah you’ve made some very good points and I think we could revisit this with hindsight and see all the signs were there.. just don’t know which signs to focus on and which to ignore!

One thing we do absolutely agree on.. hate the sub vest with a passion!!

 

[frosty1]

Just of interest, for those going Heeney, is it at the expense of someone like Fisher, or going thin somewhere else?

My current top forwards are Jackson, Flanders, Fisher, Jordon

I'd love to have a crack, serious talent, but it's a tight squeeze.

Question. How much confidence do you have in Fisher and Jordon?

I'm taking (currently) Heeney, and not Flanders or Fisher. But might try and get Flanders.

Fisher is someone who I always rated as a potential SC break out player, since he racked up possessions at U18 level, but I really don't trust him in a team with so many options to the play the role, and with almost all of the other options being the long term future of the club

 

[Vicwood]

He gets 3-4 weeks to settle in for another ton or two without any of them. If alarm bells start ringing, just flick him at his bye and pocket the $100k or so.

Yeap,thats the option i am considering RD5 flip to Flanders.

 

[Herbie66]

Interesting thing with Lyons , is if you wait for him and say Carroll , they could both be 2 correction trades for Round 3.

Total cost together is $ 381,900.00

By then we might have 2 scores from the Watson , Sanders , Hustwaite , Lazarro price types to see if they look viable or not.

$ 360-370k in total

Reid or McKercher could also be used if they don't live up to scoring expectations.

Adjustment for Fyfe (if broken) , Harmes etc etc

Jordon's & Windsor's price should change at the end of Round 2 if they have played 3 games.