Teams 2024 Fantasy Rate My Pre-Season Team

[RowellAnderson12]

Thoughts on my side Round 1-4, 6-24?

 

[SELFCONFESDAFLNERD]

Really cookie cutter but i like it.

61k itb

 

[JDWCE]

I guess it comes down to how quickly you think you can get them in after their bye, which is always the big worry.

Lets say Daicos is +10 over another D1 you might start with.

First 4 rounds you are +40 up
Then the bye round comes and you are fielding a 50 instead of the other D1 who might be 100.
Thats a total net loss of 10 points by R5.

But then from R6 onwards its +10 each week, so by R7 you are back to being in the green.

So if you trade in Daicos in R6 then it's a great play. But I highly doubt you'd be able to orchestrate that trade that early on in the season without restructuring.

Technically you wouldn’t be 40 up though because whatever cash you save on Daicos, you end up spending elsewhere on your field. So theoretically you’re breaking even assuming you spend the cash difference between a Daicos and Young somewhere else to make up those points. Which starting the year should be the goal to maximise your cash. Yes daicos likely is +10 on the next defender, but the cash saved allows you to go a Butters up to a Dawson which should cover that +10 ‘theoretically’

Too many moving parts this early in the season!

 

[bettingonbetts]

Reckon I’ve finally put together a team a love, pending rookies.
Currently have a 200k, if Conway isn’t getting a game I’ll stick with that.
Fisher at F1 finds me happy with my rotation of mids and a backline that allowed me to get rid of Williams and upgrade.
Pretty confident however, I would’ve loved to somehow afford Sharp > Wines/Crouch but no way I can find that money.
Not starting with Flanders is a risk but I’m willing to take it to free up cash for elsewhere.

 

[bettingonbetts]

Really cookie cutter but i like it.

61k itb

View attachment 1916452
View attachment 1916453

Your whole forward line basically has early byes. Wouldn’t go with that approach

 

[Phar Ace]

Hey lads Iam really stuck on how to improve this team, opinions would be much appreciated
DEFENCE: Sheezel, Stewart, Young, Yeo, Z Williams, Coffield (Curtin, Dean)
MIDFIELD:Bont, Serong, Butters, Steele, LDU, Ginbey, Mckercher, Sanders( Stanley, Clark)
RUCKS: Grundy, Xeri(Heath)
FORWARDS: Flanders(unsure about his position now in my team), Fisher, Jordon, Mackenzie, Reid, Lazzaro(Cadman, Windsor)
Utility; Mannagh
Unsure on my f1 now, and not sold on j sharp getting a game for freo. Bolton,Jackson,Daniel or keep Flanders

Don't dwell too much. Just keep a watch-list of players.

Round Zero (Swingers's Round) is going to throw up conundrums - players that score so well you will want them for Bye and score benefits. Players who tank so badly and have the bye that you will want to avoid for now.

Remember, even though we don't get their score in Swinger's Round, we will get their allocated price increase or decrease as long as we select them for Round 1. Those price amendments get applied with the Round 1 price amendments after Round 1. 184 players in Swinger's Round, most are being avoided right now, but some might come with a delayed price adjustment too good to ignore.

 

[Catastrophe!]

Technically you wouldn’t be 40 up though because whatever cash you save on Daicos, you end up spending elsewhere on your field. So theoretically you’re breaking even assuming you spend the cash difference between a Daicos and Young somewhere else to make up those points. Which starting the year should be the goal to maximise your cash. Yes daicos likely is +10 on the next defender, but the cash saved allows you to go a Butters up to a Dawson which should cover that +10 ‘theoretically’

Too many moving parts this early in the season!

The main one for me is that he's a gift and Top 6 in his position - so the two trades saved are pretty valuable in and of itself.

That's the reason I currently have him, now that I've gotten rid of Adams and Grundy. Feels like sound enough reasoning, but obviously a lot to play out.

 

[JDWCE]

The main one for me is that he's a gift and Top 6 in his position - so the two trades saved are pretty valuable in and of itself.

That's the reason I currently have him, now that I've gotten rid of Adams and Grundy. Feels like sound enough reasoning, but obviously a lot to play out.

Now that Grundy looked poor I’m actually more tempted to start Daicos as there’s less bye issues by not starting multiple on that round. But still a round 0 watch for me.

I also think it’s just the 1 trade to get him in. You’ll be doing a rookie downgrade / cash funding trade regardless right? So it’s just the one trade to get up to Daicos as opposed to a Stewart or Sinclair type? Or did I have too much beer last night? Or another way to look at it is you’ll need to do 2 trades to get someone else so it’s much of a muchness really

 

[Catastrophe!]

Now that Grundy looked poor I’m actually more tempted to start Daicos as there’s less bye issues by not starting multiple on that round. But still a round 0 watch for me.

I also think it’s just the 1 trade to get him in. You’ll be doing a rookie downgrade / cash funding trade regardless right? So it’s just the one trade to get up to Daicos as opposed to a Stewart or Sinclair type? Or did I have too much beer last night? Or another way to look at it is you’ll need to do 2 trades to get someone else so it’s much of a muchness really

Nah it's still two trades. You gotta think about it this way: you're funding THAT specific trade, rather than a different one.

For example, let's say Rozee gets forward status Round 6. So I then need to downgrade Windsor, and upgrade say Billings. There's two trades. If I already have Naicos, I just jump on board Rozee and use those two trades. If I need both Rozee and Naicos, all of a sudden it's 4 trades.

I get what you're saying about that the rookie downgrade happens regardless, but, it's still two trades that you need to make to get that specific player. It's two trades that you can use to fund another specific player - i.e. Rozee in this example. If you already have Naicos, you don't need to allocate them to him, and instead can allocate them to Rozee.

 

[Phar Ace]

Technically you wouldn’t be 40 up though because whatever cash you save on Daicos, you end up spending elsewhere on your field. So theoretically you’re breaking even assuming you spend the cash difference between a Daicos and Young somewhere else to make up those points. Which starting the year should be the goal to maximise your cash. Yes daicos likely is +10 on the next defender, but the cash saved allows you to go a Butters up to a Dawson which should cover that +10 ‘theoretically’

Too many moving parts this early in the season!

Absolutely, with unknowns yet to emerge after Round 0 that will only magnify that - unique season.

 

[Phar Ace]

Nah it's still two trades. You gotta think about it this way: you're funding THAT specific trade, rather than a different one.

For example, let's say Rozee gets forward status Round 6. So I then need to downgrade Windsor, and upgrade say Billings. There's two trades. If I already have Naicos, I just jump on board Rozee and use those two trades. If I need both Rozee and Naicos, all of a sudden it's 4 trades.

I get what you're saying about that the rookie downgrade happens regardless, but, it's still two trades that you need to make to get that specific player. It's two trades that you can use to fund another specific player - i.e. Rozee in this example. If you already have Naicos, you don't need to allocate them to him, and instead can allocate them to Rozee.

It's a little bit about what danster168 (right sig?) was saying, as much as he says it with some aggravation - we all gotta value our trades more

 

[JDWCE]

Nah it's still two trades. You gotta think about it this way: you're funding THAT specific trade, rather than a different one.

For example, let's say Rozee gets forward status Round 6. So I then need to downgrade Windsor, and upgrade say Billings. There's two trades. If I already have Naicos, I just jump on board Rozee and use those two trades. If I need both Rozee and Naicos, all of a sudden it's 4 trades.

I get what you're saying about that the rookie downgrade happens regardless, but, it's still two trades that you need to make to get that specific player. It's two trades that you can use to fund another specific player - i.e. Rozee in this example. If you already have Naicos, you don't need to allocate them to him, and instead can allocate them to Rozee.

I get what you’re saying but the way I look at it is there’s always someone you need to get. So say for example in your scenario, if I have Rozee already then all I need to do is get daicos in that scenario. But then say I have both of them already, there’ll be another player I need to allocate the trades to who other people will already have, like Stewart for example. So no matter what, the trades are going to be used to try and get whatever hype player you’re missing. So regardless you’re doing a one up, one down. Am I missing something? Or is it more so that daicos is a must have and there aren’t too many like that?

 

[Catastrophe!]

I get what you’re saying but the way I look at it is there’s always someone you need to get. So say for example in your scenario, if I have Rozee already then all I need to do is get daicos in that scenario. But then say I have both of them already, there’ll be another player I need to allocate the trades to who other people will already have, like Stewart for example. So no matter what, the trades are going to be used to try and get whatever hype player you’re missing. So regardless you’re doing a one up, one down. Am I missing something? Or is it more so that daicos is a must have and there aren’t too many like that?

Yeah I think it's the last sentence that really nails it.

Naicos isn't just any player, he's a Top 3 player in the game, and an absolute gift in defence as D1. If you don't start with him, you will have to get him at one stage, so it's not even really a choice. Starting with him alleviates that decision.

 

[Catastrophe!]

It's a little bit about what danster168 (right sig?) was saying, as much as he says it with some aggravation - we all gotta value our trades more

I was saying this back in 2017, lonngg before that ball of sunshine started ramming it down our throats.

 

[JDWCE]

Yeah I think it's the last sentence that really nails it.

Naicos isn't just any player, he's a Top 3 player in the game, and an absolute gift in defence as D1. If you don't start with him, you will have to get him at one stage, so it's not even really a choice. Starting with him alleviates that decision.

Ahhh yep ok I get it now. Daicos killer me last year so definitely thinking of starting him but it would be at the expense of a Young/Stewart type and I’m just not sure the gap will be that different for the first 6/7 rounds with his bye and tough run

 

[Catastrophe!]

Ahhh yep ok I get it now. Daicos killer me last year so definitely thinking of starting him but it would be at the expense of a Young/Stewart type and I’m just not sure the gap will be that different for the first 6/7 rounds with his bye and tough run

Yeah the bye and possibly the tag is crap, but at the end of the day, he's still so far ahead of those other two, it's not funny.

I also think Stewart will suffer this year, with Holmes being the 'drive' out of defence, and Duncan being the distributor at other times. Can't see him averaging more than the 95 he usually does. Young at least is priced 60K less and has some upside.

 

[amazingjoshy]

Love the discussion

No issue with starting with bye players, but it essentially comes down to Daicos vs Gulden for me. Def starting with one but having both is too much of a hit in Rd 5

Guldens early draw puts him ahead at this stage imo

 

[Lukesera]

Love the discussion

No issue with starting with bye players, but it essentially comes down to Daicos vs Gulden for me. Def starting with one but having both is too much of a hit in Rd 5

Guldens early draw puts him ahead at this stage imo

Same boat here, been chopping and changing Daicos and Gulden. Definitely agree it's too much to run both, with $2m+ sitting on the bench in Rd 5. Hoping Opening Round will help make the decision for us.

 

[Catastrophe!]

Love the discussion

No issue with starting with bye players, but it essentially comes down to Daicos vs Gulden for me. Def starting with one but having both is too much of a hit in Rd 5

Guldens early draw puts him ahead at this stage imo

I was definitely the same, but I also had Grundy and TAdams, and only allowed a maximum of 3 for any of the byes.

Now that they're both gone, I've got Naicos and Jordon in their spots - which is pretty much the same price. Also works having one in defence and the other in the mids.

Agree though, if you need to make the choice, it's Gulden by a country mile with his early draw.

 

[Phar Ace]

Love the discussion

No issue with starting with bye players, but it essentially comes down to Daicos vs Gulden for me. Def starting with one but having both is too much of a hit in Rd 5

Guldens early draw puts him ahead at this stage imo

It's how many and whether their byes coincide. Collingwood coincides with Sydney's. The heavier you are on players from that week, the more you are taking a lesser score that week. Swings and roundabouts. If you still have good bums on seats, it will be worth the risk. Again, I say ad-nauseam, Round 0 could have a big say on all this..........

Say Naicos has one of his rare shockers, ala the 37 against Hawks, or that 79 and 97 against the Carlton (the latter not so bad), etc then perhaps you do fade him and commit to burning that trade on a player you were going to upgrade / jump from anyway. Not one of those 184 players that play Round 0 is a lock until after Round 0 - even Naicos!

It's not going to happen much, but I could see $100k turnarounds from say fading one player and choosing another. Knowing me, if I didn't consider it, I bet I'd be on the wrong side of the $100k turnaround

 

[DukeX]

After tinkering with my squad and dumping Grundy > Xerri, and Adams > Fisher, I've found myself with 6 on-field Kangaroos, which seems ridiculous, but feel like they're all valid picks. Or am I just an idiot (highly likely)?

 

[amazingjoshy]

It's how many and whether their byes coincide. Collingwood coincides with Sydney's. The heavier you are on players from that week, the more you are taking a lesser score that week. Swings and roundabouts. If you still have good bums on seats, it will be worth the risk. Again, I say ad-nauseam, Round 0 could have a big say on all this..........

Say Naicos has one of his rare shockers, ala the 37 against Hawks, or that 79 and 97 against the Carlton (the latter not so bad), etc then perhaps you do fade him and commit to burning that trade on a player you were going to upgrade / jump from anyway. Not one of those 184 players that play Round 0 is a lock until after Round 0 - even Naicos!

It's not going to happen much, but I could see $100k turnarounds from say fading one player and choosing another. Knowing me, if I didn't consider it, I bet I'd be on the wrong side of the $100k turnaround

To be fair its almost pointless even picking a side till Rd 0 is over but what fun would there be in that?

 

[Phar Ace]

To be fair its almost pointless even picking a side till Rd 0 is over but what fun would there be in that?

Exactly - it's just not deep dive territory yet.

 

[Phar Ace]

After tinkering with my squad and dumping Grundy > Xerri, and Adams > Fisher, I've found myself with 6 on-field Kangaroos, which seems ridiculous, but feel like they're all valid picks. Or am I just an idiot (highly likely)?

View attachment 1917661

You and Calvin from The Traders

 

[4tune8]

I guess it comes down to how quickly you think you can get them in after their bye, which is always the big worry.

Lets say Daicos is +10 over another D1 you might start with.

First 4 rounds you are +40 up
Then the bye round comes and you are fielding a 50 instead of the other D1 who might be 100.
Thats a total net loss of 10 points by R5.

But then from R6 onwards its +10 each week, so by R7 you are back to being in the green.

So if you trade in Daicos in R6 then it's a great play. But I highly doubt you'd be able to orchestrate that trade that early on in the season without restructuring.

I've had a good look at this scenario and for me it comes down to who is the D1 that you replace Daicos with? If it's Ryan, Stewart or Sheezel then you're saving $100k-$120k and if spent wisely somewhere else then that should generate 10-15PPG, so a MP or a rookie with better JS, scoring and cash generation.

Over 5 rounds you could be 60-85pts better off by fading Daicos as well as better cash gen (theoretically)

I thought that the tags would come thick and fast last year and faded him, it took an injury to Doc for me to be able to get him in by rnd 6 IIRC. I still think that the tag threat is real as evidenced by Finn, question is, do the coaches take note of it? Or have players and structures that allow it?

If he does receive attention and pumps out an 80 in rnd 4 then the pts gain goes to 90-115 as well as the resultant drop in his price over rnds 6-8. Of course if the tag doesn't eventuate then you still have that better rookie/MP earning those 10-15PPG so there's no net loss and that's a hard thing to remember.