Teams 2025 Rate My Pre-Season Team

[A Bit Dusty]

Just a heads up kents if you didn't know you can copy & paste you team in one go clicking on this.

 

[Veer Right]

I have 2 premo mids!

I am dooomed!

 

[Eagling]

SC is about points on field in the end, if he plays the first 6-10 weeks without many SP mid's he could be hundreds of points down by the time he trades them in.

That's where the question of where the extra money is being spent happens. A $620k MID + $120k bench defender versus a $560k defender + $180k mid rookie. Now I'm not going to go into which is better; it's dependent on many factors, but it's not as straightforward as simply saying the more expensive player = more points.

We also have a finite number of trades. To get players over $600k, which is where many of those midfielders will be, he will need to use 3 (or more) trades on each upgrade. Those teams he posted require another 6 premo mid's. If he spends 18 trades on those positions he'll never finish his team.

IMO that strategy leaves too much to do later on.

This is a good point, but only relevant when you're talking about a specific player, not any number of the dozen or so players will be acceptable midfielders to have in your team at the end of the season. Take Bont, as an example. One could say that he's about 2-3ppg overpriced, and they also think he'll be a top 2 mid by the end of the season, and because he's so consistent; with a spike ceiling, he probably doesn't stay at his low point for more than a week. So, one decides to pay a $50k premium to guarantee they have him for his spike scores even though there's a good chance he'll be available for about $50k cheaper during one round of the first half of the season, because he could easily drop his 180 before that happens or there's no guarantee they'll be able to take advantage of that drop in price.

The other factor is when you have multiple players. Some might cruise along at $600k+ for most of the season, but you'll get the rest that come along and drop to that $570k mark. Take last season for instance.

Zerrett: Started at about $650k, did trend down after about round 6 but most people wanted him for that Round 8-11 juicy fixture, even if he didn't capitalise with some monsters. Overall, he just underperformed versus his starting price so starting him was about a wash.

Butters: 175 v Richmond in Round 2. Went up roughly 7 points on his average. Absolute win starting him.

Serong: About the same story. Starting him was the right call.

Bont: Lost over $100k by Round 7. Juicy first upgrade, but like you said, can be hard to arrange.

So there's the $600k+ midfielders that it ended up being good to start with.

Then you have Oliver, Petracca, Laird, Libba, Dawson, Dunkley, LDU, Green, Gulden, Brayshaw, Cerra...

Now some of these players were far more popular than others, but it just shows how easy it is to drop out of that elite echelon of top supercoach midfielders.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

That's where the question of where the extra money is being spent happens. A $620k MID + $120k bench defender versus a $560k defender + $180k mid rookie. Now I'm not going to go into which is better; it's dependent on many factors, but it's not as straightforward as simply saying the more expensive player = more points.




This is a good point, but only relevant when you're talking about a specific player, not any number of the dozen or so players will be acceptable midfielders to have in your team at the end of the season. Take Bont, as an example. One could say that he's about 2-3ppg overpriced, and they also think he'll be a top 2 mid by the end of the season, and because he's so consistent; with a spike ceiling, he probably doesn't stay at his low point for more than a week. So, one decides to pay a $50k premium to guarantee they have him for his spike scores even though there's a good chance he'll be available for about $50k cheaper during one round of the first half of the season, because he could easily drop his 180 before that happens or there's no guarantee they'll be able to take advantage of that drop in price.

The other factor is when you have multiple players. Some might cruise along at $600k+ for most of the season, but you'll get the rest that come along and drop to that $570k mark. Take last season for instance.

Zerrett: Started at about $650k, did trend down after about round 6 but most people wanted him for that Round 8-11 juicy fixture, even if he didn't capitalise with some monsters. Overall, he just underperformed versus his starting price so starting him was about a wash.

Butters: 175 v Richmond in Round 2. Went up roughly 7 points on his average. Absolute win starting him.

Serong: About the same story. Starting him was the right call.

Bont: Lost over $100k by Round 7. Juicy first upgrade, but like you said, can be hard to arrange.

So there's the $600k+ midfielders that it ended up being good to start with.

Then you have Oliver, Petracca, Laird, Libba, Dawson, Dunkley, LDU, Green, Gulden, Brayshaw, Cerra...

Now some of these players were far more popular than others, but it just shows how easy it is to drop out of that elite echelon of top supercoach midfielders.

Yep agree with that. It's not easy picking the ones that justify their start price. The best players can pick the players that start $500-550k and go 110+

There are many ways to approach SC, which is great, We need something to talk about at this point of the year. And the good thing is none of us are wrong (yet)!

Regarding the bold bit, that wasn't what I was saying. I agree picking an expensive player for the sake of it is not the answer. Just that leaving so many upgrades in a line where the players cost the most is risky.

 

[Eagling]

Yep agree with that. It's not easy picking the ones that justify their start price. The best players can pick the players that start $500-550k and go 110+

There are many ways to approach SC, which is great, We need something to talk about at this point of the year. And the good thing is none of us are wrong (yet)!

Regarding the bold bit, that wasn't what I was saying. I agree picking an expensive player for the sake of it is not the answer. Just that leaving so many upgrades in a line where the players cost the most is risky.

Yes and no, because the best cash generation is generally in the same line, either via scoring more, having more job security, or a combination of the two. And this is where the boosts can help in regard to being able to pick up those bigger upgrades.

 

[Lolaser]

Just booted it up for the first time since the final round last year. Roast me someone

View attachment 2197181

Too many top priced guys for mine, hate picking both Darcy and Jackson as the upside of one impacts the other one.

Don’t like LDU and Sheezel in the same team for the same reason.

You’re also missing Bailey Smith, Caleb Daniel and Phillipou. Don’t mind skipping Macrae, however, it’s too cute to skip the other three - they are popular for a reason.

 

[Lolaser]

Yep agree with that. It's not easy picking the ones that justify their start price. The best players can pick the players that start $500-550k and go 110+

There are many ways to approach SC, which is great, We need something to talk about at this point of the year. And the good thing is none of us are wrong (yet)!

Regarding the bold bit, that wasn't what I was saying. I agree picking an expensive player for the sake of it is not the answer. Just that leaving so many upgrades in a line where the players cost the most is risky.

I actually think that having a lot of upgrades in the midfield can be a good thing. It gives you the flexibility to ensure you get the best players, can time their runs, and pick them up when their break even has plateaued.

With the boosts in upgrade season, it’s actually not that hard to get the 600k players. Three rookies at 340k (conservative) is 1,020k, you do two down to 117k and one 600k player and have 190k leftover. That means the next week you can get one 600k, one 500k and one basement rookie. If one rookie spikes higher, it’s even easier to get them.

Think this is a bit of myth and if you’ve prioritised cash generation you should be ok.

 

[Lolaser]

Love this.

Got a similar team, but you've taken it further with the lack of high price premos, I have a few of them. Although every time I edit my team, I find myself dropping, or at least strongly considering dropping a high price premo. I can see myself ending up with a similar team. The amount of value from returning injured premos and underperforming premos is crazy, don't think we've ever seen so much.

Cumming getting injured and missing a chunk of early preseason is a concern. Gotta see him get through the preseason matches before he gets near my team.

Thanks mate. Yeah I tend to take an extreme approach to this strategy of fading the top priced guys.

I think it gives you the highest ceiling for potentially winning and extracting the most points per dollar. Don’t mind having one or two captain options, but I’ll back all the top priced players to have just one down game and then upgrade into them.

Cumming is far from a lock, but I like that price point more than the Peatling price point and would be hoping he gets defender DPP.

 

[SELFCONFESDAFLNERD]

Happy with this effort. 417k is probably more representative of what ill take into round 1 in the kitty.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

I actually think that having a lot of upgrades in the midfield can be a good thing. It gives you the flexibility to ensure you get the best players, can time their runs, and pick them up when their break even has plateaued.

With the boosts in upgrade season, it’s actually not that hard to get the 600k players. Three rookies at 340k (conservative) is 1,020k, you do two down to 117k and one 600k player and have 190k leftover. That means the next week you can get one 600k, one 500k and one basement rookie. If one rookie spikes higher, it’s even easier to get them.

Think this is a bit of myth and if you’ve prioritised cash generation you should be ok.

Respectively disagree with this. Maybe if you get every single rookie right you will have the money for multiple trade in's over $600k. If you get all your rookies to $340k you will win SC this year.

Of course upgrading the value picks to the uber-premo's is fairly simple, but that still leaves your other rookies to be upgraded.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Respectively disagree with this. Maybe if you get every single rookie right you will have the money for multiple trade in's over $600k. If you get all your rookies to $340k you will win SC this year.

Of course upgrading the value picks to the uber-premo's is fairly simple, but that still leaves your other rookies to be upgraded.

Absmagic did an exercise the other day, on how many trades were required to get a complete team

Let's say, you have 11 keepers in your starting team ....that would mean, with the extra flex position, another 12 upgrades

Let's say, 2.5 trades per upgrade = 30 trades required + early correction trades + injury trades

It doesn't leave a lot of leeway, as some of us can testament too

The question is, if you can maximise cash generation on your starting team, can you reduce the # of upgrade trades from 2.5 to 2 .....thus saving 6 trades ??

 

[MaYhEm!!!]

 

[Eagling]

Respectively disagree with this. Maybe if you get every single rookie right you will have the money for multiple trade in's over $600k. If you get all your rookies to $340k you will win SC this year.

Of course upgrading the value picks to the uber-premo's is fairly simple, but that still leaves your other rookies to be upgraded.

That's why you're judicious of who you spend the big bucks on (over $600k) (this year will probably be a little lower due to the extra player). It is simpler to start by spending the big bucks because you don't have to worry about triple trading etc, but you're sacrificing elsewhere to do it. It doesn't make it easier to finish a team, you just think it is because you're hyperfocused on the most expensive players who you think will be top of the line. Sometimes that works - Lachie Neale in 2020, for instance, was absolutely a must-start; but there's so many instances where a player someone thinks is a locked in uberpremium doesn't turn out that way. Now, there are very much reasons to start $600k+ players, but your assertation that it's more difficult to trade them in later specifically because of lack of cash generation is, barring extraordinary circumstances, frankly incorrect (with the caveat of all else, aside from direct premium and rookie swaps being equal).

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

That's why you're judicious of who you spend the big bucks on (over $600k) (this year will probably be a little lower due to the extra player). It is simpler to start by spending the big bucks because you don't have to worry about triple trading etc, but you're sacrificing elsewhere to do it. It doesn't make it easier to finish a team, you just think it is because you're hyperfocused on the most expensive players who you think will be top of the line. Sometimes that works - Lachie Neale in 2020, for instance, was absolutely a must-start; but there's so many instances where a player someone thinks is a locked in uberpremium doesn't turn out that way. Now, there are very much reasons to start $600k+ players, but your assertation that it's more difficult to trade them in later specifically because of lack of cash generation is, barring extraordinary circumstances, frankly incorrect (with the caveat of all else, aside from direct premium and rookie swaps being equal).

I'm not hyper-focused on the super expensive players, but thank you for telling me what I think

Go back and look at your trading history from previous seasons, and tell me how many times you have traded rookies up to players $600k+, then you may understand the point I was making.

 

[A Bit Dusty]

I'm not hyper-focused on the super expensive players, but thank you for telling me what I think

Go back and look at your trading history from previous seasons, and tell me how many times you have traded rookies up to players $600k+, then you may understand the point I was making.

 

[Eagling]

I'm not hyper-focused on the super expensive players, but thank you for telling me what I think

Go back and look at your trading history from previous seasons, and tell me how many times you have traded rookies up to players $600k+, then you may understand the point I was making.

Not very often, but that's because I

A: Started a heap of very expensive players at the cost of my lower bench rookie investment, meaning I had less cash generation because I picked poor role, low JS rookies.

B: Didn't look at those type of players because I have a natural aversion to jumping on a clearly unsustainable trend.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

It's your fault for posting those teams!

 

[ArdentEagle]

Anyone else here seen the movie Split?

In my minds eye, I often think it's the same person with split personalities, debating with each other online.


Anyway - To keep this on track. This is my team V1.02
It seems the mids are where all the cash gen is.

 

[Eagling]

Anyone else here seen the movie Split?

In my minds eye, I often think it's the same person with split personalities, debating with each other online.


Anyway - To keep this on track. This is my team V1.02
It seems the mids are where all the cash gen is.



View attachment 2197509

I guess the big focus will be the Jackson and Bolton picks; any particular reason why you've picked them both?

I don't recall seeing Hotton in other sides either; is he a placeholder or is there a reason we should be considering him?

Other than that I think the team is really solid; the midfield especially is very enviable; you might have the top 2 mids + a fallen premium and the rest filled up with cash generation.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I guess the big focus will be the Jackson and Bolton picks; any particular reason why you've picked them both?

I don't recall seeing Hotton in other sides either; is he a placeholder or is there a reason we should be considering him?

Other than that I think the team is really solid; the midfield especially is very enviable; you might have the top 2 mids + a fallen premium and the rest filled up with cash generation.

Injured in his u18 year .....ACL IIRC ....won't be ready until halfway thru the season

 

[A Bit Dusty]

This team is for Maybe Tomorrow
Bolton gone & 4 Premo Mids

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

This team is for Maybe Tomorrow
Bolton gone & 4 Premo Mids

View attachment 2197530

 

[King_Steele]

 

[ArdentEagle]

I guess the big focus will be the Jackson and Bolton picks; any particular reason why you've picked them both?

I don't recall seeing Hotton in other sides either; is he a placeholder or is there a reason we should be considering him?

Other than that I think the team is really solid; the midfield especially is very enviable; you might have the top 2 mids + a fallen premium and the rest filled up with cash generation.

Thanks for the feedback mate.

Jackson and Bolton - I picked TBH as I'm having troubles with the forwards.

Bolton I'm pretty sure will have a better year than last year, which makes him close to a lock for forwards this year.

I've got a fraction of Jackson action as I want extra Ruck coverage...I have TERRIBLE luck with rucks and injuries.
And the forwards are hard to pick.


Hotton is a place holding swinger. I did think he was further along with his recovery though, he can find the ball, he can kick goals. I suspect he'll be a high point per possie player.

 

[VainGlorious]

Anyone else here seen the movie Split?

In my minds eye, I often think it's the same person with split personalities, debating with each other online.

 

[Raveneyes]

View attachment 2197646

Title of your sex tape