An Alternate Ruck Theory

[_RT_]

Just want to throw this out there for discussion as it is something that is tempting me and might just tempt others. In regards to the rucks who says you can't have say Cox as your number 1 ruck and then have 3 cheap 2nd string rucks as your backups.

The reason I ask is if you can find 3 rookie rucks and you are fairly confident that at least 1 will play each week, why not pick them instead of starting say 2 rookies in your midfield/forwards? This would then allow you to have more depth in your backs/mids/forwards by allowing you to take an extra player from the value packed mid-priced or potential keepers range which have less risk than most of the possible second choice rucks.

Please don't just jump in a say this is a stupid way to go, I want valid reasons why you can't go for 3 bonafide second rucks to rotate with Cox in your starting line up make some cash of them in the first part of the season as I see it as being no different to taking 2-3 rookie mids/backs/forwards and hoping to make money of off them.

 

[Jonas]

Stupid way to go.

Firstly try and find thre rookie rucks that you are fairly confident will play.
Secondly, why waste your time with a rookie ruck on the field compared to a rookie mid/fwd on the field as they tend to score far better?
Finally, the money rise will be far greater from a rookie mid/fwd than a rookie ruck - meaning you can get to that complete team quicker.

But go with your strategy! I wont mind.

 

[ZergMinion]

He didn't say rookies, he said second string. --edit...well crap...he did say rookies Apologies.

I imagine it would be something like Leuenberger, Bellchambers and Jesse white (or were you thinking cheaper?).

I don't like the strategy as you're tieing up too much cash on the bench in guys that will probably average less than 50. On the plus side you have an instant downgrade cash cow, although you could make that downgrade trade now for free and reinforce other areas.

There was a graph in another thread showing that a guy averaging 70 playing round 3-10 will be higher priced in round 8 than a guy averaging 60 who plays round 1-10. This is a nice indicator that you're better off picking your cheaper players as high scoring as possible, and that's just not going to happen in the rucks.

 

[Ollies]

Just want to throw this out there for discussion as it is something that is tempting me and might just tempt others. In regards to the rucks who says you can't have say Cox as your number 1 ruck and then have 3 cheap 2nd string rucks as your backups.

The reason I ask is if you can find 3 rookie rucks and you are fairly confident that at least 1 will play each week, why not pick them instead of starting say 2 rookies in your midfield/forwards? This would then allow you to have more depth in your backs/mids/forwards by allowing you to take an extra player from the value packed mid-priced or potential keepers range which have less risk than most of the possible second choice rucks.

Please don't just jump in a say this is a stupid way to go, I want valid reasons why you can't go for 3 bonafide second rucks to rotate with Cox in your starting line up make some cash of them in the first part of the season as I see it as being no different to taking 2-3 rookie mids/backs/forwards and hoping to make money of off them.

I think this idea has some merit and I have been considering it myself because the difference between a rookie ruck score and a keeper ruck is likely to be less than the difference between say a rookie forward and a keeper forward.

The downside is TOG for rookie rucks and the difficulty in picking those who may play sufficient games.

 

[jack_lord]

In Fantasy English Premier League there is a strategy some people use for defenders. This may be hard to explain for people who haven't played it but basically you have 5 defenders, at least 3 of who must play. Basically they get 2 gun defenders then 3 cheap defenders who will play (usually from crap sides). As points are awarded for clean sheets, you then look at which of your cheap defenders has the easiest game and play him that week. People have had success doing this.

For interest's sake I did look (very) briefly at trying to do similar with rucks - having Big Cox and then 2 or 3 lower priced players (eg K Tippett/Leuey/Kreuzer) +/- starting rookie. But it just wouldn't work because it is almost impossible to predict who will score better out of AFL players - let alone ruckmen! To make it better than having a decent 2nd ruck you would have to average picking one of you rucks getting probably 80+ every week which just wouldn't happen. It is also far more expensive than going with the normal strategy so basically it is not going to work. Potentially there may be a future year you could do something similar but I would highly highly doubt it.

Rucks generally make terrible cashcows as they score stuff all. Even if you had 3 starting rookies chances are they'll be lucky to go up 50k each and you'll use 2-3 trades to upgrade 1 ruckman. Not to mention for the start of the season having a starting player smashing up Presti-like scores of 25 on your field while Hille & Co get other people 90. Compare that to a Rich or Ziebell or can be expected to consistently get at least 50s and go up at least 100k.

 

[Antagonist]

Not that it is necessarily a bad strategy, but I see it as risky. You would be very lucky to average 40 at the start for your 2nd ruck ( without considering job security), and if you expect a Hille or Simmonds etc to average 90ish, then you need to make up 50ppw or so.

Lets say you pick a 150k compared to the 380k ruck premium, you have between 200-250k extra. That is about the same value as the points lost, and if you can find better value elsewhere it could be a stroke of genius. But lets say you want to upgrade another rookie who may average over 50, you need to find a player under 340k who will average 100. If you have one then great! If not, you are in a spot of bother...

I for one am not skilled enough in identifying breakout players nor have the balls to run that strategy. If you do then all the best!

 

[SkankDanker]

Just want to throw this out there for discussion as it is something that is tempting me and might just tempt others. In regards to the rucks who says you can't have say Cox as your number 1 ruck and then have 3 cheap 2nd string rucks as your backups.

The reason I ask is if you can find 3 rookie rucks and you are fairly confident that at least 1 will play each week, why not pick them instead of starting say 2 rookies in your midfield/forwards? This would then allow you to have more depth in your backs/mids/forwards by allowing you to take an extra player from the value packed mid-priced or potential keepers range which have less risk than most of the possible second choice rucks.

Please don't just jump in a say this is a stupid way to go, I want valid reasons why you can't go for 3 bonafide second rucks to rotate with Cox in your starting line up make some cash of them in the first part of the season as I see it as being no different to taking 2-3 rookie mids/backs/forwards and hoping to make money of off them.

Get ready for the nay-sayers to jump in but there is no right or wrong strategy in DT and this is one that requires an open mind. I have considered before actually.

I see a number of positives with this strategy, but also risks of course, but there is no risk free strategy.

The good thing about it is several ruck options only need to score 20 pts to be good value, and there are several who could. And while their price might not escalate at the same rate as others, who cares - it is easier than going for a name ruckman and having a major dilemma if there is a three week injury/suspension (Mr Hille!) and you have no backup.

In a nutshell the positives are:

No major or regular decisions required in a risky area
Limited downside - even a zero only costs you say 15 - 20 pts (what a rookie or newbie is priced at)
Chances of a set and forget in 09 are probably pretty small anyway - this is one way to do it
Ultimately the flexibility you get in other areas should enable you to score well, and ideally accumulate cash to upgrade mid year - while they might not appreciate at the same rate as a mid-rookie as I mentioned, other rucks will no doubt come down at a greater rate than the mids you would upgrade to anyway.

Downsides are

Potential zeroes
Almost definite requirement to upgrade at some point if you want a top finish - that's probably 2 trades to set aside, one for cash one for the upgrade

Rucks are an ugly area and I think any outside the box thinking should be considered not written off as a stupid idea. I personally believe it has some merit, at leas worth considering. Particularly given the form of rookie rucks over the NAB cup.

Not for everyone, but if you have a gun rookie strategyu does that not suggest a rookei in each position?

 

[moose54]

Don't worry about being 50 point behind a second ruck if you feel you can make up those points with the savings made. That is if you can make those points up.

I'd assume at some stage you would be looking to upgrade one of the rookie rucks and also make some cash out of one too. The big issue for me here is that there are few ruckmen listed as rookies. There are a heap listed as mids, a reasonable number of fwds, few backs and least of all rucks. So when you want to downgrade a rookie ruck to make cash out of him, the options for picking someone who will get games and can be a reserve if necessary is limited. Plus as stated earlier the mids tend to make more points and hence cash. Ruckmen much like Basketball Centers take years to develop. Much harder to be a good ruckman, mobile with size and all the coordination than a little guy on the ground.

So in my opinion a gutsy call. But it would be different to others. If it pays off well then you could be streets ahead, but if it fails you will definitely be a long way behind. Is the risk worth the reward? I doubt it. Your call

 

[SkankDanker]

I think you would only look to upgrade a rookie ruck - downgrades would have to occur elsewhere (where there are more options).

 

[phealey]

Last year I ran with Dean Cox and Cam Wood for at least half the year, with 2 rookies on the bench ( 1 being Kruezer). That setup worked out pretty well for me, so I'll probably go with the same again.

Thinking back it probably wasn't until mid season that I eventually upgraded wood.

 

[The Sultan]

Ive gone big cox with Kruezer, along with two Rookies, I beleive barring injury Kruz will play all games and has the potential to average, 65-70, so with the savings I have upgaraded a mid priced player into a gun. and if i have the spare $$ and trades i can upgrade Kruz into a gun ruckman whom ever it is this year.

 

[Butane]

The main problem is that rucks are generally poor 'money earners'. Especially rookie/2nd string rucks. Also if you have 3 rookie mids and rotate them they might come in and score a 40 in a bad game and 80 in a good game as opposed to a ruck who might score 25 in a bad game and 60 in a good game. You'd rather be rotating rookie mids/fwds then rookie rucks.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

I was also thinking about playing 2 up and coming rucks as your starting rucks.
Lets say Kruezer and Leunberger. These guys i think can only get better or score what they did last year. I personally think both can improve. Leunberger becomes number 1 after Charman cant play early due to injury and Kruezer plays week in week out scoring 60.

Than i think you could go a little bit more expensive for the ruck emeregncies. With J.White and probably Graham. I think Meesen is also another to watch.

Its just another idea. It would free up some awesome cash where you could have a super side apart from the rucks.

 

[sante]

I was also thinking about playing 2 up and coming rucks as your starting rucks.
Lets say Kruezer and Leunberger. These guys i think can only get better or score what they did last year. I personally think both can improve. Leunberger becomes number 1 after Charman cant play early due to injury and Kruezer plays week in week out scoring 60.

Than i think you could go a little bit more expensive for the ruck emeregncies. With J.White and probably Graham. I think Meesen is also another to watch.

Its just another idea. It would free up some awesome cash where you could have a super side apart from the rucks.

That is suicide. Kruezer and especially Luey will have games where they score sub 30. RT was talking about Dean Cox and a 2nd stringer, not two of them.

Do you really want to be copping scores of 20/30/40 when most other teams will have a rookie scoring 40/50/60? Your 2nd string Ruckmen will probably decrease in price too, making the upgrade even harder.

 

[tonemeister]

RT i think kreuzer will do alright at 241k and you could have graham as your 3rd. Terry has already said he'll play not matter what anyone else thinks of him. For the 4th spot pick a 75k rookie like pyke, spencer or orreal. Highly unklikely that you'll need anyone other than graham so don't waste the money there. I've never had a bench ruck as an emergency as there are too many other spots in the backs, mids and forwards that need to be covered. If you want some insurance put in currie as your 4th, he'll get over his injury niggles and push for selection sometime this year. Good luck.

 

[SkankDanker]

Ive gone big cox with Kruezer, along with two Rookies, I beleive barring injury Kruz will play all games and has the potential to average, 65-70, so with the savings I have upgaraded a mid priced player into a gun. and if i have the spare $$ and trades i can upgrade Kruz into a gun ruckman whom ever it is this year.

With all respect this is irrelevant to the thread and belongs somewhere else - what players you are selecting is your own business. Do you have any thoughts on the strategy outlined?

That is suicide. Kruezer and especially Luey will have games where they score sub 30. RT was talking about Dean Cox and a 2nd stringer, not two of them.

Do you really want to be copping scores of 20/30/40 when most other teams will have a rookie scoring 40/50/60? Your 2nd string Ruckmen will probably decrease in price too, making the upgrade even harder.

I thought DT Suicide was playing Chapman in the centres? Oh well times sure have changed. It is probably an inappropriate (insensitive) term but I guess...this is serious.

Trying to correlate the scores by position doesn't really add up sante - saying other sides will have rookies scoring 40/50/60 vs 20/30/40 is simply a convenience.

Personally I can't see any difference starting two low end mid-ranger rucks vs anywhere else - everyone in that range has the potential to get 30s. If you think they can improve on their last year's average by say 10% what does it matter? Picking improvers is what this is all about, and I see plenty of scope in the rucks - less than in the mids sure, but by the same token there are less positions to fill.

 

[ZergMinion]

Out of curiosity, has Kruezer's bone spur in his hip been fixed yet? I remember Carlton saying when he was drafted that it'd need fixing in his first two years at some point.

 

[Tippaz]

well i'm glad Skank has an open mind.

because (believe it or not) this is exactly my strategy in SuperCoach.
- Jolly (SYD)
- White (SYD)
- Currie (SYD)
- Pyke (SYD)

the idea is to upgrade one of the little guys to Cox. (which will take 2 trades)

this strategy really helps load up on more guns (keepers) in other areas. which means less future upgrades, and (done properly) i believe can actually save you trades in the long run.

so yes, this ruck theory has some merit.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

^^ you wont score any zero's thats for sure.Unless 3 get injured.

Im starting to see some good potential rookies. Graham (2nd best ruck at richmond), Currie (was to be 2nd ruck at sydney but injuries have altered his progress and may come on later in the year), Meesen (done quite well in NAB and injuries have occured to the top melbourne rucks, will the number 7 draft pick get a chance to show his worth and talent). Than you have Pyke, Spencer and Jacobs as very good 75k rucks.

I know its not really related to the thread but just added something about rucks

 

[_RT_]

Appreciate all the feedback and although it is still a tempting tactic, I will be reverting back to the strategy that is tried and tested and will be going with a Cox and another ruck with a value of at least $300k.

What I might do though is run a team at home this year and see how this tactic plays out. See if it really makes that much difference to the overall ranking of a side. I suppose thats the only real way to see if it can work or not is to try it out.

 

[Lakey91]

Skanker - i am intrigued by you saying that the chances of getting the lock and leave is pretty small (first page somewhere...). Care to elaborate on what you mean???

 

[sante]

With all respect this is irrelevant to the thread and belongs somewhere else - what players you are selecting is your own business. Do you have any thoughts on the strategy outlined?



I thought DT Suicide was playing Chapman in the centres? Oh well times sure have changed. It is probably an inappropriate (insensitive) term but I guess...this is serious.

Trying to correlate the scores by position doesn't really add up sante - saying other sides will have rookies scoring 40/50/60 vs 20/30/40 is simply a convenience.

Personally I can't see any difference starting two low end mid-ranger rucks vs anywhere else - everyone in that range has the potential to get 30s. If you think they can improve on their last year's average by say 10% what does it matter? Picking improvers is what this is all about, and I see plenty of scope in the rucks - less than in the mids sure, but by the same token there are less positions to fill.

Of course there is potential, but the percentages lie with the Rucks. How many Ruckmen perform well under the age of 25? Not many. How many Midfielders/Defenders/Forwards perform well under 25? Plenty.

Its a risky theory and one I wouldn't be willing to try.

Dean Cox is the only Ruckman I feel confident in selecting and maybe thats why I see it as such a huge risk with little reward.

 

[Mr.Jingles]

Personally i believe the best starting ruck combination will be Cox/Petrie.
But thats alot of money. If you can manage to fit those 2 in and maintain a solid all round team, then your doing well.
I am currently trying to see if it can be done.

 

[Chunky]

I have toyed with the idea of starting Cox in combination with a low priced 2nd ruck (sub 140k) but I've made the conclusion that it is not a wise choice (this season anyway).

At the end of the day, any low priced/rookie players should be assessed in the same way regardless of whether they are a back, mid, ruck or forward. On that basis, I cannot justify starting a low priced ruck this year because none of them have shown that they are likely to average more than 40 points. If they played in any other position, I would not consider them unless I thought they could average 60+ and play plenty of games.

As we all know, DT is a numbers game and in my opnion it is a mistake to do anything other than pick 2 premium rucks this year. It would be different if there was a low priced ruck that looked as if they were going to score 60+ but I don't see that sort of player available this season.

 

[Butane]

At the end of the day, any low priced/rookie players should be assessed in the same way regardless of whether they are a back, mid, ruck or forward. On that basis, I cannot justify starting a low priced ruck this year because none of them have shown that they are likely to average more than 40 points..

Hmmmmmm sort ot. Rucks are always the worst cash cows. Sure, rate each player on their own merits but every year rookie rucks are always the shittest.