Position 2015 SuperCoach midfielders

[SnappyHappy]

Had him in before then, but ok?

Just following your logic! I had Wines for a while in my side and his ownership barely reached 10% at its peak, so I'm not sure how that is 'blindly following the masses'. Griffen has been in my side since Day 1, of course people are going to consider him after he dominates pre-season, and his ownership is still only 16%.

You also went on a crusade yesterday saying Fyfe was a bad pick because of all the red flags. Last year he missed a total of 0 games through injury. He missed 4 from suspension (2 from a hip and shoulder that would be a reprimand this year, and 2 from a reckless forearm that can be summed up as a once-off brain fade considering its the only time he has done it).

24 hours later you are saying Mumford is a great pick - a bloke who has never made it through a full season.

I also think its foolish to assume people on here haven't done their research if they are picking Sloane/Wines or Fyfe/Griffen. Everyone has their opinions and making assumptions like that based on somebody's selection says more about you than anything.

 

[KardiniaPark]

How does SureBuddy14 manage to get so much hate! He didn't even say anything that bad haha every.time.

Souup 6 Premium's back is a horrible ****ing idea

 

[Thuggee_Cult]

No big agenda against Fyfe. I like him as a player, and may well end up with him in my team at one stage during the season. If someone picks him based on assessing his positives and negatives risks, and see him as a solid option, that's great.

I'm against the group think that had Sloane and Wines as locks 2 weeks ago, only to completely abandon them and replace them with Fyfe and Griffen. A blind following of the masses. The same group think that once anyone does anything different based off their research and evaluation, is told they're going to go terribly.

I guess i shouldn't care as those purely following the group-think will inevitably fail during the season, while those who have done their own work will be fine.

IIRC Fyfe actually missed 4 games due to suspension last year (2 for the head high bump against GC & 2 for snotting Jordan Lewis) and not injury. He is a lock for me even though he has never played a full year, that is the risk I'm willing to take.

110% agree with you re:Wines, has never been in my team.

 

[Souup]

Just following your logic! I had Wines for a while in my side and his ownership barely reached 10% at its peak, so I'm not sure how that is 'blindly following the masses'. Griffen has been in my side since Day 1, of course people are going to consider him after he dominates pre-season, and his ownership is still only 16%.

You also went on a crusade yesterday saying Fyfe was a bad pick because of all the red flags. Last year he missed a total of 0 games through injury. He missed 4 from suspension (2 from a hip and shoulder that would be a reprimand this year, and 2 from a reckless forearm that can be summed up as a once-off brain fade considering its the only time he has done it).

24 hours later you are saying Mumford is a great pick - a bloke who has never made it through a full season.

I also think its foolish to assume people on here haven't done their research if they are picking Sloane/Wines or Fyfe/Griffen. Everyone has their opinions and making assumptions like that based on somebody's selection says more about you than anything.

Have you read any of my posts? I think you've missed my whole point. I've said over and over again I have no issue with people selecting Fyfe, Mumford, Wines, Sloane or whoever the flavour of the week is. My issue is with those who select a player blindly based off the fact everyone else is, or criticize anyone else for doing something unique based on their research.

This same thing happened with Jacobs last yeae. I suggested Jacobs was a great choice and the Bigfooty group think told me Jacobs was a hack and he'd get nowhere. A majority on here chose Minson or Lobbe instead as that happened to be the Bigfooty group think decision. It happens every year, the group think criticize anyone who does anything different.

Like I said by all means choose the flavour of the week. Like you've stated, I have Mumford. I have no issue with choosing a popular player. And I've stated my reasons behind picking Mumford and being fully aware he won't play a full season. I haven't picked him to play a full season, he's a high risk high reward that I've gone with for specific reasons.

 

[TheOz]

Well Fyfe gets 16 touches & scores 132 sc points while JPK gets 33 touches & scores 151 sc points, who has the higher celling?

That's the way I look at it.

I don't think you can look at a single game and make a conclusion on who has a higher ceiling. JPK has shown in the past that he can score in the 170+ range.

 

[Krujan]

Have you read any of my posts? I think you've missed my whole point. I've said over and over again I have no issue with people selecting Fyfe, Mumford, Wines, Sloane or whoever the flavour of the week is. My issue is with those who select a player blindly based off the fact everyone else is, or criticize anyone else for doing something unique based on their research.
This same thing happened with Jacobs last yeae. I suggested Jacobs was a great choice and the Bigfooty group think told me Jacobs was a hack and he'd get nowhere. A majority on here chose Minson or Lobbe instead as that happened to be the Bigfooty group think decision. It happens every year, the group think criticize anyone who does anything different.

Like I said by all means choose the flavour of the week, like you've stated, I have Mumford. I have no issue with choosing a popular player. And I've stated my reasons behind picking Mumford and being fully aware he won't play a full season. I haven't picked him to play a full season, he's a high risk high reward that I've gone with for specific reasons.

Why does it bother you if the 'group think tank' all picked the wrong player?

Just being right in hindsight should be enough satisfaction. No need to be a campaigner about it.

 

[SnappyHappy]

Have you read any of my posts? I think you've missed my whole point. I've said over and over again I have no issue with people selecting Fyfe, Mumford, Wines, Sloane or whoever the flavour of the week is. My issue is with those who select a player blindly based off the fact everyone else is, or criticize anyone else for doing something unique based on their research.

This same thing happened with Jacobs last yeae. I suggested Jacobs was a great choice and the Bigfooty group think told me Jacobs was a hack and he'd get nowhere. A majority on here chose Minson or Lobbe instead as that happened to be the Bigfooty group think decision. It happens every year, the group think criticize anyone who does anything different.

Like I said by all means choose the flavour of the week, like you've stated, I have Mumford. I have no issue with choosing a popular player. And I've stated my reasons behind picking Mumford and being fully aware he won't play a full season. I haven't picked him to play a full season, he's a high risk high reward that I've gone with for specific reasons.

But that is the point I am making. It's a bit disrespectful to assume people are choosing somebody without doing their own research. Just because you have concluded from your own research that someone is a bad/risky option doesn't make that opinion correct.

Also just because one of your ideas is unique doesn't make it a good idea - and just because people disagree with it doesn't mean they are wrong and 'blindly following the masses'. Instead of having this pig headed attitude I'd suggest doing deeper research and properly assessing your strategy because 6 premo defenders will not win you the money IMO.

 

[karaoke]

Souup 6 Premium's back is a horrible ******* idea

Not necessarily, if he gets 6 of top 12 defenders right, doesn't have to piss around with def rookie headaches + trades well for fwds & mids - he's well on his way.

 

[MightyMark]

Not necessarily, if he gets 6 of top 12 defenders right, doesn't have to piss around with def rookie headaches + trades well for fwds & mids - he's well on his way.

Big IF though.

 

[Souup]

Why does it bother you if the 'group think tank' all picked the wrong player?

Just being right in hindsight should be enough satisfaction. You come in here and act like a campaigner about people possibly being influenced by others.

Because this forum would be a lot better of a place if thinking and personal research was encouraged? The enjoyment of the game is so much sweeter when you do your own work and it pays off.

You are right though, I should let it be and let it just happen.

 

[Souup]

But that is the point I am making. It's a bit disrespectful to assume people are choosing somebody without doing their own research. Just because you have concluded from your own research that someone is a bad/risky option doesn't make that opinion correct.

Also just because one of your ideas is unique doesn't make it a good idea - and just because people disagree with it doesn't mean they are wrong and 'blindly following the masses'. Instead of having this pig headed attitude I'd suggest doing deeper research and properly assessing your strategy because 6 premo defenders will not win you the money IMO.

The rate my team and player x vs player y are basically littered with people forming generic teams based on the group think. The other threads are great

Agree - unique does not = good.

 

[Lums23]

Have you read any of my posts? I think you've missed my whole point. I've said over and over again I have no issue with people selecting Fyfe, Mumford, Wines, Sloane or whoever the flavour of the week is. My issue is with those who select a player blindly based off the fact everyone else is, or criticize anyone else for doing something unique based on their research.

This same thing happened with Jacobs last yeae. I suggested Jacobs was a great choice and the Bigfooty group think told me Jacobs was a hack and he'd get nowhere. A majority on here chose Minson or Lobbe instead as that happened to be the Bigfooty group think decision. It happens every year, the group think criticize anyone who does anything different.

Like I said by all means choose the flavour of the week. Like you've stated, I have Mumford. I have no issue with choosing a popular player. And I've stated my reasons behind picking Mumford and being fully aware he won't play a full season. I haven't picked him to play a full season, he's a high risk high reward that I've gone with for specific reasons.

FWIW I'm going Ablett to Fyfe because he averaged 8.5 points per game more than JPK, and is more likely to score like Ablett. I did consider going for someone other than fyfe to be different to the group, but then I realised they may also want to pick the next best available option

 

[Goats]

Personally I'm not a fan of the 6 premium defenders structure; simply for the fact it restricts your ability to bring in a break out player in that position.

 

[Lums23]

Because this forum would be a lot better of a place if thinking and personal research was encouraged? The enjoyment of the game is so much sweeter when you do your own work and it pays off.

Why use the forum then?

 

[Goats]

Why use the forum then?

To hang shit on Judd_Magic

 

[Lums23]

To hang shit on Judd_Magic

Ah, now it all makes sense

 

[Souup]

Why use the forum then?

Because I like the discussion that happens outside of those 2 threads.

 

[SureBuddy]

Because this forum would be a lot better of a place if thinking and personal research was encouraged? The enjoyment of the game is so much sweeter when you do your own work and it pays off.

You are right though, I should let it be and let it just happen.

No, that is not what you are saying at all. What you are basically saying is every who doesn't pick what you think is the best strategy, is a sheep and has no idea at all. Mate sorry to burst your bubble, but your structure and game plan is horrendous. You will not be top 200 this year with that structure, that is one thing that can be guaranteed. You will leak an unbelievable number of points early on and will not be able to catch up.

To say that others do no research is completely absurd. What are you basing this on? Again, is it because every other person has not come up with that horrendous plan like you?

Also mate, there actually isn't that many 'amazing' forward rookie options that you can count on 4 of them to play every single week and actually score well. Good luck with it, I wish you all the best. You will certainly need luck on your side this year.

 

[Krujan]

Because this forum would be a lot better of a place if thinking and personal research was encouraged? The enjoyment of the game is so much sweeter when you do your own work and it pays off.

You are right though, I should let it be and let it just happen.

Well, if everyone did that, this forum would be redundant.

Have you ever stopped to think that reading the BF SC Forum is a form of research in itself? Most people here give reasons for picking or not picking particular players and give pros and cons for different structures. I find other peoples take on these things quite helpful as it gives me an alternate view that I sometimes hadn't considered and changed my mind about a player or structure as a result.

Those who dismiss other peoples theory's outright are closed minded know it alls who should just stick to statistic based footy websites for their research and not bother with a group think tank type discussion, which is what a 'forum' is by definition.

 

[Souup]

Personally I'm not a fan of the 6 premium defenders structure; simply for the fact it restricts your ability to bring in a break out player in that position.

Definitely one of the big drawbacks.

What happens if round 1 teams are named and the only rookie priced defender named is Nathan brown? I'm basically planning ahead for this worst case scenario.

If another rookie defender is named I've already got a plan in place to downgrade one of my premium Defenders and update into a premium forward.

I'm assuming no backline rookies end up getting named, and so I'd rather have some cover on the bench in defense than have Nathan Brown on the ground and any injuries mean I'm copping a donut or have to trade

 

[Souup]

Well, if everyone did that, this forum would be redundant.

Have you ever stopped to think that reading the BF SC Forum is a form of research in itself? Most people here give reasons for picking or not picking particular players and give pros and cons for different structures. I find other peoples take on these things quite helpful as it gives me an alternate view that I sometimes hadn't considered and changed my mind about a player or structure as a result.

Those who dismiss other peoples theory's outright are closed minded know it alls who should just stick to statistic based footy websites for their research and not bother with a group think tank type discussion, which is what forums are by definition.

You've basically said exactly what I have. I enjoy the discussion and the best posts are those where certain structures or players are evaluated and reasons are given. Pros and cons are discussed and with that info, people will decide what to do with it. I find other people's input extremely valuable too.

And I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. Nothing you just said contradicts anything I've said, you've basically summarized my points.

My issue is with posts along these lines... "downgrade a and b to rookies , and bring in x and y." There's no discussion in that, and it leads to generic structures and teams.

I understand people want help with their teams, but I think giving some guiding principals are more effective and lead to more enjoyment and discussion than telling someone exactly who to trade out and who to put in.

 

[MightyMark]

You've basically said exactly what I have. I enjoy the discussion and the best posts are those where certain structures or players are evaluated and reasons are given. Pros and cons are discussed and with that info, people will decide what to do with it. I find other people's input extremely valuable too.

And I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. Nothing you just said contradicts anything I've said, you've basically summarized my points.

My issue is with posts along these lines... "downgrade a and b to rookies , and bring in x and y." There's no discussion in that, and it leads to generic structures and teams.

I understand people want help with their teams, but I think giving some guiding principals are more effective and lead to more enjoyment and discussion than telling someone exactly who to trade out and who to put in.

Your never going to avoid those types of posts, especially now NAB cup is going, and people opinions are greatly swayed by singular performances from one week to the next.

NAB1 Salem sucked ass, NAB2 Salem the most picked.

Clark was the same.

This is the time that everyone actually gets to see if the research they have put in on players is going to pay off, and most people will simply pitch the research and just go with who ever performs the best.

FWIW I agree, i'll back my research, and use NAB cup to watch rookies and anyone i've earmarked for a breakout, because most premos couldnt give a shit and only play half the games anyway.

As far as im concerned, any opinion that creates discussion is worth while, thats the point of the forum.

 

[TheOz]

Your never going to avoid those types of posts, especially now NAB cup is going, and people opinions are greatly swayed by singular performances from one week to the next.

NAB1 Salem sucked ass, NAB2 Salem the most picked.

Clark was the same.

This is the time that everyone actually gets to see if the research they have put in on players is going to pay off, and most people will simply pitch the research and just go with who ever performs the best.

FWIW I agree, i'll back my research, and use NAB cup to watch rookies and anyone i've earmarked for a breakout, because most premos couldnt give a shit and only play half the games anyway.

As far as im concerned, any opinion that creates discussion is worth while, thats the point of the forum.

I'm not on the Salem bandwagon at all, having watched Melb vs WB, there is no way any team when the real stuff starts is going to let any other team just possess the football amongst themselves in the backline the way the Dogs did against Melbourne. In the first half the Dogs were basically just sitting back in their own half allowing Melbourne to do whatever they wanted without applying any pressure on the ball carrier whatsover.

If he were < $140k he would be a much more attractive proposition.

 

[MightyMark]

I'm not on the Salem bandwagon at all, having watched Melb vs WB, there is no way any team when the real stuff starts is going to let any other team just possess the football amongst themselves in the backline the way the Dogs did against Melbourne. In the first half the Dogs were basically just sitting back in their own half allowing Melbourne to do whatever they wanted without applying any pressure on the ball carrier whatsover.

If he were < $140k he would be a much more attractive proposition.

Agreed, my point was that people's opinion is widely swayed by single performances and stats from NAB cup games, without really watching whats going on.

I am considering Salem, was impressed with his pre season, and like the idea of a second year player of his calibre at that price. I have one more rookie spot to fill in the forwards and can afford him. But also looking at Steele, Lamb, Hogan, PK.

I want Blease, but i'm pretty sure thats just wishful thinking from a supporter POV.

 

[toxic]

Christ almighty

I need a beer and a swim

Back in 30minutes - corners out