Kadog
Brownlow Kentallist
- Feb 16, 2013
- 18,235
- 44,377
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Liverpool Detroit Lions
Oh yeah, I'm on the Mummy train! Toot toot!
Position 2015 SuperCoach rucks
- Thread starter Super Hans
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I want to be, buuuuuut, .... I just can't!
stevebbb
Brownlow Medallist
- May 21, 2013
- 23,681
- 60,946
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Arsenal, Fluminense; Blue Jays
damn spending $1.2 mill on rucks hurts 
the only way I won't run with Jacobs and Goldy is if I somehow find confidence in picking 2 players under total cost of $850k, then I can bring in an extra mid premium
Smith, Hickey, Clarke, Lycett, Pyke, Giles... inspiring so much confidence!
the only way I won't run with Jacobs and Goldy is if I somehow find confidence in picking 2 players under total cost of $850k, then I can bring in an extra mid premium
Smith, Hickey, Clarke, Lycett, Pyke, Giles... inspiring so much confidence!
- Sep 9, 2012
- 15,600
- 22,655
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- EAD Jiska
- Banned
- #1,279
damn spending $1.2 mill on rucks hurts
the only way I won't run with Jacobs and Goldy is if I somehow find confidence in picking 2 players under total cost of $850k, then I can bring in an extra mid premium
Smith, Hickey, Clarke, Lycett, Pyke, Giles... inspiring so much confidence!
You should look at your investment this way, when Smith, Hickey, Clarke, Lycett, Pyke, Giles are all averaging less than 80 & Jacobs & Goldy 105+ each you won't be complaining about having an extra 25-50 points each week over 1/2 your league opponents from just 2 players.
- Jun 16, 2014
- 2,795
- 3,117
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Manchester United
Against Giles and state players. Both are great players obviously, and you can't really go wrong with either
When Mumford plays, he's immense. IF he manages to string together half a season of games together in a row, i'd go as far as to say he has to start in every team. The guy could legitimately average 130+ in the first half of the season.
GWS start the season against St Kilda (158), Melbourne (164, 112), Sydney (76), Gold Coast, West Coast, Hawthorn (112), Carlton (152)
The scores in the brackets are his scores against those teams last season. I don't have much doubt that against Smith/Nicholls he'd ton up. West Coast against Naitanui would be a tougher task, but who even knows what's going on with Naitanui. If he rucked against Lycett he'd be a near-on certainty to ton up that game too.
I hadn't considered him whatsoever due to his injury history, but ever since some doubt and injury rumours have crept over Naitanui i'm being massively tempted. The more I look at Mumford as an option, I can't help but think he may be an outstanding choice if you know what you want from him, and understand that you need to be completely ok with risk fact that he will almost certainly break down at one point, and you'll need to trade him away. I think if you get 10 games in a row out of Mumford at a 120-130 score point average then he's done his job. There's also the small likelihood that like Sandilands last year, he may well get through the whole season uninjured, and if you've avoided Mumford during the season due to your assumption that he'll inevitable injury himself, you've basically lost any chance of finishing highly.
Currently running with Goldstein/Naitanui, but if Naitanui doesn't make it for round 1, Mumford is straight in, and i'll be riding the Mumford train until he derails. And if he doesn't derail.. And even if Naitanui does make it for Round 1, I might go with Mumford until he breaks down, at which point i'll trade over to another ruck premium (Naitanui, Jacobs, or whoever is looking good at that stage)
GWS start the season against St Kilda (158), Melbourne (164, 112), Sydney (76), Gold Coast, West Coast, Hawthorn (112), Carlton (152)
The scores in the brackets are his scores against those teams last season. I don't have much doubt that against Smith/Nicholls he'd ton up. West Coast against Naitanui would be a tougher task, but who even knows what's going on with Naitanui. If he rucked against Lycett he'd be a near-on certainty to ton up that game too.
I hadn't considered him whatsoever due to his injury history, but ever since some doubt and injury rumours have crept over Naitanui i'm being massively tempted. The more I look at Mumford as an option, I can't help but think he may be an outstanding choice if you know what you want from him, and understand that you need to be completely ok with risk fact that he will almost certainly break down at one point, and you'll need to trade him away. I think if you get 10 games in a row out of Mumford at a 120-130 score point average then he's done his job. There's also the small likelihood that like Sandilands last year, he may well get through the whole season uninjured, and if you've avoided Mumford during the season due to your assumption that he'll inevitable injury himself, you've basically lost any chance of finishing highly.
Currently running with Goldstein/Naitanui, but if Naitanui doesn't make it for round 1, Mumford is straight in, and i'll be riding the Mumford train until he derails. And if he doesn't derail.. And even if Naitanui does make it for Round 1, I might go with Mumford until he breaks down, at which point i'll trade over to another ruck premium (Naitanui, Jacobs, or whoever is looking good at that stage)
Last edited:
I think they'll cop a fair whack if found guilty. If not, ASADA and WADA will appeal and the saga would drag on with the players copping a big suspension eventually anyway. AFL would also risk millions of dollars of government funding for not following the doping code properly.
Essendon playing with top up players for most of the season would be less damaging ultimately. They will just be the new GWS for the season.
Kadog
Brownlow Kentallist
- Feb 16, 2013
- 18,235
- 44,377
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Liverpool Detroit Lions
This whole situation is a clusterfark. This circus has dragged on for an eternity and rather than settle this shit in the offseason, they **** up yet another season by making a ruling at the 11th hour.
If found guilty and a ban is placed that's backdated & which partially affects this season, the integrity of the comp is ruined whereby certain teams (yes that includes my Pies) will be heavily advantaged by playing 'the substitutes'. A gimme 4pts and %booster. I can easily say you beauty because of Anzac day but if I was an opposition supporter who'll miss playing the misfits, I'd be ****ing filthy. I want a level playing field. Period.
Ban them 17 weeks whereby every team plays them once.
If found guilty and a ban is placed that's backdated & which partially affects this season, the integrity of the comp is ruined whereby certain teams (yes that includes my Pies) will be heavily advantaged by playing 'the substitutes'. A gimme 4pts and %booster. I can easily say you beauty because of Anzac day but if I was an opposition supporter who'll miss playing the misfits, I'd be ****ing filthy. I want a level playing field. Period.
Ban them 17 weeks whereby every team plays them once.
GOAUS!
Norm Smith Medallist
- Apr 20, 2010
- 9,852
- 7,554
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
It will be interesting to see if other teams rest their stars against a depleted bombers.
Plus they won't hand out bans on March 31, only say guilty/not guilty.
Plus they won't hand out bans on March 31, only say guilty/not guilty.
Kadog
Brownlow Kentallist
- Feb 16, 2013
- 18,235
- 44,377
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Liverpool Detroit Lions
What do you mean no bans if guilty verdict? You telling me it will continue to drag again for a ban ruling? That doesn't sound right.
Yep, the 31st is the date for the independant judges to rule, this has nothing to do with the AFL. Once the AFL gets given the verdict they need to decide a punishment, which from what I understand is a minimum of 12 months backdated.
Kadog
Brownlow Kentallist
- Feb 16, 2013
- 18,235
- 44,377
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Liverpool Detroit Lions
So the circus continues...Thanks for the clarification.
Yes, this is not the year to scrimp and save with the rucks. Jacobs and Goldy had averages in the latter half of last season that would have had them close to the top 8 midfielders. That's pretty astounding. They're also not likely to be as adversely affected by the new ruck scoring as many of the others. Add their durability and they really do stand out.damn spending $1.2 mill on rucks hurts
the only way I won't run with Jacobs and Goldy is if I somehow find confidence in picking 2 players under total cost of $850k, then I can bring in an extra mid premium
Smith, Hickey, Clarke, Lycett, Pyke, Giles... inspiring so much confidence!
Last edited:
- Sep 25, 2013
- 3,456
- 4,356
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
From my understanding I don't believe there is a minimum, just a maximum (2 years). The sports governing body, in this case the AFL (who has a supposedly independent tribunal), decide the penalty so technically they could give them as small a penalty as they like. Obviously ASADA/WADA have already flagged that if they are not satisfied they will appeal.
In terms of timing of possible bans, you would have to think that they have already planned for this and possible sanctions should have already been discussed. You would hope that after a ruling is handed down, that sanctions should not be too far behind.
Blind Freddy can see at worst it will be a 6 month ban backdated to their last game. Whatever happens they will play Round 1.
Big Fozza
Premiership Player
I'm starting to lean this way as well. Downgraded my m6 to a rookie and gonna splash on the rucks. Still tossing up on whether to include NN as r2. But i think that the money i would save will be made up with games he misses as i can't see him playing 18+. Especially because i have no cover
- Sep 25, 2013
- 3,456
- 4,356
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
I lean the other way. I don't believe there is any chance at all they play Rd1. Would have to be found not guilty for this to happen.
They'll have to miss time, else WADA/ASADA 100% appeal. Even in the event the verdict or sanction is disputed, my understanding is their provisional suspension will continue until such a time as the matter is settled
ASADA have made such a meal of this they just want to get out of the spotlight and go and die in a corner. They will accept the AFL's backdated six months. The AFL will not allow Essendon to play a reserves team for any period of time. It's a big enough embarrassment they are doing it during the pre season, they just won't allow it. Look what happened to Melbourne when they 'weren't tanking'.
Correct if they are sanctioned.
If they are not sanctioned they are free to play pending the outcome of the ASADA appeal.
- Sep 25, 2013
- 3,456
- 4,356
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
No arguments about them having made a meal of it. I think that much is clear.
While I know there are others who share your other opinions on the matter, I'm not sure some of the assumptions you are making are entirely correct.
If ASADA were so desperate to 'get out of the spotlight and go and die in a corner', they could have dropped the investigation at any time, but they haven't. If they didn't believe they had the evidence to persist, they would surely have done so as failing to get a guilty verdict will only cause them further embarrassment as an organisation. Since ASADA changed their leadership, they have been far more assertive and taking far greater direction from WADA. Any ban beneath the 2 year mandatory has to be approved by WADA and they have been very strong on the fact that they won't be accepting any watered down sanctions. So sure, the AFL don't want Essendon fielding a sub-strength side for long or at all, but in this case, they don't have final say to do whatever they want. No prearranged, contrived outcomes this time. The only way they could take back total control of what occurs here would be to denounce ASADA and run their own anti-doping program, which not even the AFL would be arrogant enough to consider. Too much conflict of interest, and they would be sure to lose a truck load of government funding.
- Sep 25, 2013
- 3,456
- 4,356
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
Yeah this is where I am confused. I'm not sure they would be free to play.
Lets say you are right though and they are free to play, they may make a decision not to, strange as that sounds (and imagine Lord Hirdy. Makes me laugh). Should they lose on appeal, but have returned to playing in the meantime, they may have removed the possibility of back-dated bans being a possible outcome
ASADA can't just walk away now, they need to see something happen I know that. At this stage a 6 month ban from September 1 or whatever their last game was would be sufficent for them to save face and say 'see we told you they did something wrong!' If the AFL somehow worded it as Essendon having no issue at all and allowing them to play then you would probably find that ASADA would come again. BUT I believe now after all this that the AFL and ASADA are in bed together just to ensure that it does actually does go away on the 31st. This can't keep going SURELY!
They will be found either guilty or not guilty.
If found guilty they wont play until bans are over or an appeal is successful.
If found not guilty they will play (Up until a point that an appeal by asada/wada/htb overturns the origional decision, if it was to be overturned).
If found guilty they wont play until bans are over or an appeal is successful.
If found not guilty they will play (Up until a point that an appeal by asada/wada/htb overturns the origional decision, if it was to be overturned).
2015 kangas rucks
a biased supporters view.
currie 260k 60 dour. will play some games. not every week
durdin 147k 0 north have an abundance of tall guys. hes way down the list.
goldstein 574k 106 imo. at his max price under old rules. good pick. may be better out there.(maybe his face scares other ruckmen?)
preuss 108k 0 idk
wallace 123k 0 will get a game at some stage. ? on skills.
norths more likely to go with daw and ben brown if goldy goes down at a guess than any of these guys.
a biased supporters view.
currie 260k 60 dour. will play some games. not every week
durdin 147k 0 north have an abundance of tall guys. hes way down the list.
goldstein 574k 106 imo. at his max price under old rules. good pick. may be better out there.(maybe his face scares other ruckmen?)
preuss 108k 0 idk
wallace 123k 0 will get a game at some stage. ? on skills.
norths more likely to go with daw and ben brown if goldy goes down at a guess than any of these guys.
- Status
