Discussion 2025 Fantasy Pre-Season Planning Discussion

[Barrybran]

Sheezel ?

I'm looking for a reason to fade Sheezel but outside of Sinclair, all the better options have early byes.

 

[Shaunn]

I was hesitant at starting early bye players last year but felt like I learnt you don’t need to be that hesitant.
Let’s say you have Tom Green and Rioli on that bye, it gives you two extra field on field (looking at a normal structure and including Hewitt that’s 7. 22 on field means you’ll have 15 premium/mid prices and then 3 rookie scores and I’m sure players like Draper, Travaglia and Jagga will push out reasonable scores.
I don’t think it looks that bad on paper.
Everyone still looking at avoiding early byes as much as they can???

I also saw a really relevant post by I believe Duke of Windsor about early byes have later byes. I’m really keen on Walsh this year but that’s adding another player to round 12 (hardest round to play I think) and so many other relevant teams on that round. Is it better going a player who has round 14/15 bye? Like a Green or Merrett (both have early byes I’m aware) or are we not thinking that much into it?
My team at the moment round 12 would have 5 players: Dale, Walsh, Rozee, DeKoning, Daniel (not including rookies)

The thing is the players coming onto the field for the bye players most likely wont count though. They're most likely in the bottom 4 scores so you're not really getting a replacement score in theory.

If you were to say go Tom Green and he goes 110 for the year, him missing a game means in theory he is going 105 as the bench score most likely doesn't count.

 

[Shaunn]

I think there's an alternative way to look at it that's not being spoken about much.

If we look at the byes, it finishes R4. If you were to have a Tom Green (99.9avg), think about what score he may be replaced with for his bye. Let's say a 70 (probably too much). So if you think Green can go 110 at the start, do this:
110 x 3 + 70 (rookie score) = 400 (avg of 100)

So really Tom Green going 110 for the first few rounds of the season is no different to say a Rozee (97.1 avg), going at 97 himself for the first four rounds. That's why premos with in-built value and don't have the bye feels a much better pick.

Alternatively, you can look at it this way:

Instead of looking at what they're priced at, look at what they are priced at factoring in a rough rookie score that replaces them (70 again ie)

So Green is priced at 99.9 but is actually truly priced at 110 to start due to the loss of a game and a replacement rook score (rookie score = 70), therefore needs 330pts from the other 3 games = 110 per game to reach the 400pts that he is priced at for the first 4 rounds

When looking at the early round byes, focus on just the first four rounds and not the whole season, as you can pick up a Green ie AFTER his bye for not much more

Like i said in my other post, the replacement score for Green is highly likely to be in the bottom 4 scores as for example Jagga, Ashcroft, Travaglia and say Langford or Hewett should be the bottom 4 scores in theory so in a best 18 week i dont see replacement players going higher than all 4-5 of those players, even if he did go 70 replacing him you're probably only gaining 10-20 points max.

 

[Lukesera]

I think Sheezel will have a very tough season in 2025.

North should be more competitive this season with the players they brought in and the improvement of their younger players. Not necessarily more wins, but their games will be much closer and other teams will be worrying more about North's best player (which is obviously Sheezel).

I bet this will be the season of Sheezel trying to understand how to shrug off a tag. If he plays pure mid with a bit of forward time, he will be Norths most damaging player by far. Other teams will do everything they can to shut him down.

I still think he will probably be a top 6 defender, just not value at all. And will have some very poor scores this season when he gets a lot of attention.

Do you reckon this lets LDU off the chain a bit? He is the one that usually gets tagged, when teams choose to tag. He's been teasing a breakout the last couple of seasons but hasn't lived up to it. With the extra support around him and a contract year, he could be a smokey

 

[DenieD]

Do you reckon this lets LDU off the chain a bit? He is the one that usually gets tagged, when teams choose to tag. He's been teasing a breakout the last couple of seasons but hasn't lived up to it. With the extra support around him and a contract year, he could be a smokey

LDU is someone I've always looked at in pre-season, and like you said, has been touted to break out almost every season in the past 4 years. If Sheezel does start getting attention more with the tag, I expect LDU to score very well this season.

Problem with LDU is his ceiling just isn't high enough right now to become an uber premo (Last season only one score above 120). Would need to see him be able to fill the stat line more than he currently does.

 

[JDWCE]

Sheezel is an interesting one this year. He’s basically a shoe in to be a top 6 defender. Early fixtures are a bit of a mixed bag. Every chance you could get him at a much cheaper price in the early parts of the season but the cost of a trade like that isn’t always straight forward.

I think I’ll start him because I feel there’s enough value everywhere else but that round 12 bye is certainly going to be tricky

 

[Thelethal97]

The other hard-to-quantify cost is the opportunity cost of already having Tom Green (your example) and not needing to trade him in, and so using that trade (if you are certain to want him as per your example infers) to create a further opportunity of cash cowing or a trade that creates more cash and/or points than might otherwise not have been made. Same is true if it helps you avoid a loss that you might otherwise have incurred - easy game this!

All things are subject to change, but knowing the keepers you want and/or expect, helps solidify this construct in your mind.

I'm yet to be entirely unconvinced that the ' Zevon technique' of using pins and darts is just as effective

This is a very good point that I didn't factor in, hard to quantify the value of saving a trade

No bye round players are screaming amazing run at the start of the season, otherwise I think this would be a very good way to look at things

ie if Tom Green was priced at 99.9 last year, everyone would have started him (with playing NM and WC first)

I just feel there are way too many premo mids that are genuinely underpriced without a bye, the only one I could consider is Day due to how cheap he is

But otherwise, we have so many without the bye: Rozee, TT, Doch, Cerra, Clarry etc

 

[stallon]

This is a very good point that I didn't factor in, hard to quantify the value of saving a trade

No bye round players are screaming amazing run at the start of the season, otherwise I think this would be a very good way to look at things

ie if Tom Green was priced at 99.9 last year, everyone would have started him (with playing NM and WC first)

I just feel there are way too many premo mids that are genuinely underpriced without a bye, the only one I could consider is Day due to how cheap he is

But otherwise, we have so many without the bye: Rozee, TT, Cogs, Doch, Cerra, Clarry etc

The other hard-to-quantify cost is the opportunity cost of already having Tom Green (your example) and not needing to trade him in, and so using that trade (if you are certain to want him as per your example infers) to create a further opportunity of cash cowing or a trade that creates more cash and/or points than might otherwise not have been made. Same is true if it helps you avoid a loss that you might otherwise have incurred - easy game this!

All things are subject to change, but knowing the keepers you want and/or expect, helps solidify this construct in your mind.

I'm yet to be entirely unconvinced that the ' Zevon technique' of using pins and darts is just as effective

That opportunity cost is largely irrelevant, if you pass on Tom Green you are likely starting another premium in his place, Rozee for example.
Maybe Green is likely to average a little bit more than Rozee, but thats offset by Green missing an extra week.
The trade used to bring in Green doesnt even come into it, you have Rozee who is also a premium. You are not a trade or a premium behind.

If you are scrambling to get in Green, whats to say that everyone else isnt scrambling to get in Rozee(or whichever premium you choose)?
What if Green goes at sub 105 and isnt a top 10 mid anyway?

 

[squashface]

That opportunity cost is largely irrelevant, if you pass on Tom Green you are likely starting another premium in his place, Rozee for example.
Maybe Green is likely to average a little bit more than Rozee, but thats offset by Green missing an extra week.
The trade used to bring in Green doesnt even come into it, you have Rozee who is also a premium. You are not a trade or a premium behind.

If you are scrambling to get in Green, whats to say that everyone else isnt scrambling to get in Rozee(or whichever premium you choose)?
What if Green goes at sub 105 and isnt a top 10 mid anyway?

The final paragraph sums up early bye mids for me pretty perfectly. There is such a magnitude of premo mids that there really is no need to select early bye ones - the risk is too great for not as much reward (like your Green vs Rozee example)

Defenders and forwards I can see the value in going a bit heavier on early bye players because there isn’t a sheer weight of numbers of good options in those lines like there are in the mids.

 

[stallon]

The final paragraph sums up early bye mids for me pretty perfectly. There is such a magnitude of premo mids that there really is no need to select early bye ones - the risk is too great for not as much reward (like your Green vs Rozee example)

Defenders and forwards I can see the value in going a bit heavier on early bye players because there isn’t a sheer weight of numbers of good options in those lines like there are in the mids.

Yeah for sure

I think the only time you can justify starting Green is if you think he will 100% be a top 8 mid, and you dont believe any of the mids priced at sub 105ish are any chance of being in the top 8 mids. I dont think anybody is in this situation.
Its just not justifiable, especially with the excess of trades we get to sideways players

Those few defenders and forwards everyone is starting are just way too much value to pass up lol, theyre so cheap. That cost/value vs points scored is there even if theyre covered by a 50 point scoring rookie one week.

 

[happy_eagle]

Yeah for sure

I think the only time you can justify starting Green is if you think he will 100% be a top 8 mid, and you dont believe any of the mids priced at sub 105ish are any chance of being in the top 8 mids. I dont think anybody is in this situation.
Its just not justifiable, especially with the excess of trades we get to sideways players

Those few defenders and forwards everyone is starting are just way too much value to pass up lol, theyre so cheap. That cost/value vs points scored is there even if theyre covered by a 50 point scoring rookie one week.

Last year I started Daicos and T.Green on this premise that they were clearly the top of their line and would be too hard to afford after their bye.

Unfortunately neither of those two proved to be standouts in their position.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

That opportunity cost is largely irrelevant, if you pass on Tom Green you are likely starting another premium in his place, Rozee for example.
Maybe Green is likely to average a little bit more than Rozee, but thats offset by Green missing an extra week.
The trade used to bring in Green doesnt even come into it, you have Rozee who is also a premium. You are not a trade or a premium behind.

If you are scrambling to get in Green, whats to say that everyone else isnt scrambling to get in Rozee(or whichever premium you choose)?
What if Green goes at sub 105 and isnt a top 10 mid anyway?

Also, after Green's Early Bye, he cops the HAW tag

 

[Phar Ace]

Like i said in my other post, the replacement score for Green is highly likely to be in the bottom 4 scores as for example Jagga, Ashcroft, Travaglia and say Langford or Hewett should be the bottom 4 scores in theory so in a best 18 week i dont see replacement players going higher than all 4-5 of those players, even if he did go 70 replacing him you're probably only gaining 10-20 points max.

This is not the Round (R2) to have much stress over, unless you want to rock 4 players like say Green, Daniels, Rioli and Anderson. One of the four is no issue, two you could cope with, probably. Probably got more Bench still to work with too.

But the next round has 4 teams BL, Co, Geel and Swans and if you were carrying say one of each, you could be down to 40's or 50's for your best 18, in a worse case scenario (and it can get worse).

If you started with Green last year, after Rnd 6 he had given you 525pts plus the least score of your 18, of, however if you had chosen say Merrett instead of just $20k more, you would have had 699pts. Mea culpa - I've cherry picked. But some 'got lucky' doing something like this last season. Aim for the stars, and if you only get the moon, it's probably better than not aiming at all.

That opportunity cost is largely irrelevant, if you pass on Tom Green you are likely starting another premium in his place, Rozee for example.
Maybe Green is likely to average a little bit more than Rozee, but thats offset by Green missing an extra week.
The trade used to bring in Green doesnt even come into it, you have Rozee who is also a premium. You are not a trade or a premium behind.

If you are scrambling to get in Green, whats to say that everyone else isnt scrambling to get in Rozee(or whichever premium you choose)?
What if Green goes at sub 105 and isnt a top 10 mid anyway?

The opportunity of which I speak is the one you get by starting Tom Green and not having to use a trade at Round 3 or Round 4 to bring him in, if that is always the goal. So much of this spins on a dime at times.

 

[Phar Ace]

Last year I started Daicos and T.Green on this premise that they were clearly the top of their line and would be too hard to afford after their bye.

Unfortunately neither of those two proved to be standouts in their position.

Yep, Daics 475pts and Green 525pts at the end of early byes (end of Rnd 6). This year early byes finish in 3 weeks - end of Rnd 4. Hopefully less of any impact.

 

[Barrybran]

This is not the Round (R2) to have much stress over, unless you want to rock 4 players like say Green, Daniels, Rioli and Anderson. One of the four is no issue, two you could cope with, probably. Probably got more Bench still to work with too.

But the next round has 4 teams BL, Co, Geel and Swans and if you were carrying say one of each, you could be down to 40's or 50's for your best 18, in a worse case scenario (and it can get worse).

If you started with Green last year, after Rnd 6 he had given you 525pts plus the least score of your 18, of, however if you had chosen say Merrett instead of just $20k more, you would have had 699pts. Mea culpa - I've cherry picked. But some 'got lucky' doing something like this last season. Aim for the stars, and if you only get the moon, it's probably better than not aiming at all.

Worth noting that everyone will have Bailey Smith so your 19th player is already accounted for before you consider Green. Those with Coleman or Mills have their 20th player accounted for as well. Then those with Daicos are down to their 21st player before you even consider Green.

I've just put together a side without Daicos/Green and one of Coleman/Mills/Roberts which I don't mind. I'd still like another non-rookie defender though.

 

[tigs2010]

Worth noting that everyone will have Bailey Smith so your 19th player is already accounted for before you consider Green. Those with Coleman or Mills have their 20th player accounted for as well. Then those with Daicos are down to their 21st player before you even consider Green.

I've just put together a side without Daicos/Green and one of Coleman/Mills/Roberts which I don't mind. I'd still like another non-rookie defender though.

Green is a different week to those. Not many others I'm considering that week. Probably have none on his bye tbh.

 

[Barrybran]

Green is a different week to those. Not many others I'm considering that week. Probably have none on his bye tbh.

I need to buy fantasy coach already. These byes are doing my head in

 

[Shaunn]

This is not the Round (R2) to have much stress over, unless you want to rock 4 players like say Green, Daniels, Rioli and Anderson. One of the four is no issue, two you could cope with, probably. Probably got more Bench still to work with too.

But the next round has 4 teams BL, Co, Geel and Swans and if you were carrying say one of each, you could be down to 40's or 50's for your best 18, in a worse case scenario (and it can get worse).

If you started with Green last year, after Rnd 6 he had given you 525pts plus the least score of your 18, of, however if you had chosen say Merrett instead of just $20k more, you would have had 699pts. Mea culpa - I've cherry picked. But some 'got lucky' doing something like this last season. Aim for the stars, and if you only get the moon, it's probably better than not aiming at all.


The opportunity of which I speak is the one you get by starting Tom Green and not having to use a trade at Round 3 or Round 4 to bring him in, if that is always the goal. So much of this spins on a dime at times.

Yeah my point being that will be one of everyones stronger weeks so unless the bye player is a big stand out example (Heeney last year) then its not really worth it as the player replacing him most like wont count or will add 5-20 points at best.

Him going 110 for the year is basically him going 105 because of one less game, with all the good premo mids with value we have i think we have much better options this year.

Like stallon said above though you'd be using that trade to bring in another premo anyway so it doesn't really matter who it is.

 

[Phar Ace]

I need to buy fantasy coach already. These byes are doing my head in

Same, did without it last season, just, with a spreadsheet - no more!

 

[Phar Ace]

Green is a different week to those. Not many others I'm considering that week. Probably have none on his bye tbh.

He's a Round 4 trade in I reckon

 

[Walkingwounded]

I’m starting ( currently with C Serong), fast season starter, with good bye position both at start of year and mid year!.. sorts out all this bye shitte talk.

 

[Sixpence]

Very rough first draft. The price changes have ****ed me mentally, need to get my head around what players are actually worth now. Also, haven't taken into account any byes whatsoever.

 

[Shaunn]

Very rough first draft. The price changes have ****ed me mentally, need to get my head around what players are actually worth now. Also, haven't taken into account any byes whatsoever.


View attachment 2199690

No B Smith, Daniels or Macrae? All should be forward locks, Coleman in the backline also .

 

[Sixpence]

No B Smith, Daniels or Macrae? All should be forward locks, Coleman in the backline also .

Baz and Coleman are good shouts. Not as keen on the other 2.

I just threw this together as a starting point, still needs a lot of work.

 

[Duke of Windso]

Thoughts on only going 2 rookies in the midfield? It's been noted that there are heaps of good value options in the midfield and not many in defence, so instead of having a 3rd rookie in the mids and spending the money in defence, you could spend that money on a mid instead. The argument would be, say, W. Ashcroft and Travaglia versus McKercher and Draper.