- Banned
- #776
Meesen was in the squad of 29 yesterday but was dropped.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
DT rucks 2009
- Thread starter 54Dogs
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Meesen was in the squad of 29 yesterday but was dropped.
Yeh but spencer still has to be elevated to have any chance of games...
What else would you do with your 4th ruck spot? Its wasted cash if you go for an 86k option, and of the 75k rookies Spencer is probably the most likely to play. Seems like a logical enough choice to me.
Original statement was for two of these 72k rookies. Im all for having your fourth ruck as 72k, and think its the most logical choice.
#6 Mark Williams
Cancelled
- Banned
- #780
Only problem is if I have 2x 72K ruckmen and one of my starting ruckmen gets injured short term I'm pretty screwed, signs aren't looking good for Currie but then again their not looking good for any of the other 86K ruckmen as well.
Dunn - Well Done
Cancelled
- Banned
- #781
I still rate Sullivan quite highly, he impressed me against the pies and if a Seaby, NN or Cox get an LTI he will be the first to be in the senior squad. I also think he would be raed a better ruck than NN at this current stage. People overrate NN still way too much. He will barely play much in the ruck at all. The eagles will either use him as a wing or FP tall player.
If Cox gets an LTI, i reckon Sullivan will play for sure backing up Seaby in the ruck.
Althought i wouldnt want Cox to get injured anyhow as he will be in my team from the start.
Lock and Leave
3rd ruck: Currie
4th ruck: Pyke/Sullivan
Thats how i see it ATM.
If Cox gets an LTI, i reckon Sullivan will play for sure backing up Seaby in the ruck.
Althought i wouldnt want Cox to get injured anyhow as he will be in my team from the start.
Lock and Leave
3rd ruck: Currie
4th ruck: Pyke/Sullivan
Thats how i see it ATM.
Nah i reckon lynch would pinch hit a bit more, and seaby do most of the work, and probably give nicnat a few games. Sullivan well down the order IMO.
read fellas... sounds like Pyke may have the job.. if you havent heard this already... with Jake Orreal a outside chance.. Pyke would have to the obvious choice.. bigger body for #2 ruck.. but skillz are concern... One might as well.. put both in your team... as assurance.. What the hell happened to Currie..Is he another john meesen...and looks like they are going to play White FWD..
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/ne...-grab-ruck-spot/2009/02/22/1235237452236.html
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/ne...-grab-ruck-spot/2009/02/22/1235237452236.html
100% agree, best preseason he has ever put in and is finally over his injuries. Stupid to pick a huge risk in McIntosh when you can pick a player who is clearly a teams #1 ruck for 30K more.
Meesen is a spud. If one of Johnson/Jamar misses then I think they'd elevate Spencer if they have the chance. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a bad idea to just concede the ruck and play another player who is actually useful.
Ok ive got a new point of discussion.
If you go the lock and leave with the rucks (cox + hille for example) and then have currie + spencer as your reserves, at what point does a LTI become too long? Say between Spencer and currie provide cover for half your games, you would be losing:
105 (cox) + 85 (Hille) = Average of 95
Since spencer/currie only cover 12 rounds between them, their relative average is actually 17.5, meaning it actually costs you 95 - 17.5 = 77.5 each week your ruck is out with a LTI.
95 - 17.5 (average of currie/spencer?) = 77.5 points per week that spencer/currie play (approximately).
Now if this was round 22, using a trade to gain/save 78 points for that sole week is well and truly worth it, but what if this injury occurs in round 4? How many weeks can you go, before the LTI player has to be traded?
Also, if a player injures himself, and is expected to return in 4 rounds, and you decided to keep him, but then he receives a setback and will actually miss 7 rounds, where does this leave you if youve played spencer/currie already for 2-3 weeks?
Now, i want to know what happens when you have white/spencer on the bench.
I think these two would provide cover closer to 2/3 or 3/4 of the time.
OK, so lets project an average of 40 for white/spencer.
Say they play 2/3 of the time, this gives a relative average of 27.
95 (average of cox + hille) - 27 = 68 ppg missed by main ruck combo.
Say they play 3/4 of the time, this gives a relative average of 30.
95 (average of cox + hille) - 30 = 65 ppg missed by main ruck combo.
So having white, would gain you 12ppg on currie for each round one of your main ruck combo is out, based on these averages and projections.
But also, at what stage does a LTI become too long when white is on the bench? Can you hold an injured cox for 2-3 weeks longer with white than with currie?
What are your thoughts? How long an injury is too long? How many weeks and points extra cover would having white instead of currie gain in your view? Does the extra 50k odd for white justify buying him? Does this extra security cover the risks of injury and outwiegh the reward of using that 50k elsewhere?
Its getting a bit late, and its a bit jumbled, and the numbers are kinda random, but yeh, hope that makes sense...
If you go the lock and leave with the rucks (cox + hille for example) and then have currie + spencer as your reserves, at what point does a LTI become too long? Say between Spencer and currie provide cover for half your games, you would be losing:
105 (cox) + 85 (Hille) = Average of 95
Since spencer/currie only cover 12 rounds between them, their relative average is actually 17.5, meaning it actually costs you 95 - 17.5 = 77.5 each week your ruck is out with a LTI.
95 - 17.5 (average of currie/spencer?) = 77.5 points per week that spencer/currie play (approximately).
Now if this was round 22, using a trade to gain/save 78 points for that sole week is well and truly worth it, but what if this injury occurs in round 4? How many weeks can you go, before the LTI player has to be traded?
Also, if a player injures himself, and is expected to return in 4 rounds, and you decided to keep him, but then he receives a setback and will actually miss 7 rounds, where does this leave you if youve played spencer/currie already for 2-3 weeks?
Now, i want to know what happens when you have white/spencer on the bench.
I think these two would provide cover closer to 2/3 or 3/4 of the time.
OK, so lets project an average of 40 for white/spencer.
Say they play 2/3 of the time, this gives a relative average of 27.
95 (average of cox + hille) - 27 = 68 ppg missed by main ruck combo.
Say they play 3/4 of the time, this gives a relative average of 30.
95 (average of cox + hille) - 30 = 65 ppg missed by main ruck combo.
So having white, would gain you 12ppg on currie for each round one of your main ruck combo is out, based on these averages and projections.
But also, at what stage does a LTI become too long when white is on the bench? Can you hold an injured cox for 2-3 weeks longer with white than with currie?
What are your thoughts? How long an injury is too long? How many weeks and points extra cover would having white instead of currie gain in your view? Does the extra 50k odd for white justify buying him? Does this extra security cover the risks of injury and outwiegh the reward of using that 50k elsewhere?
Its getting a bit late, and its a bit jumbled, and the numbers are kinda random, but yeh, hope that makes sense...
How much is a trade worth? 20ppg? 40ppg? You can work that out by working out the *minimum* kind of upgrade you would be happy with.
Now, work out how many additional points that will gain you.
Round 10 - 12 rounds to go at 30ppg... 360 points...
So at that stage in the year, a 4 week injury would probably be worth the trade.
In round 16 though - 6 rounds to go... 180 points. That would only need a 2 week injury to trade through as your team will gain more benefit from that than from an upgrade...
But the exact value of the trade there, in ppg- you'll need to work that out for yourself.
Now, work out how many additional points that will gain you.
Round 10 - 12 rounds to go at 30ppg... 360 points...
So at that stage in the year, a 4 week injury would probably be worth the trade.
In round 16 though - 6 rounds to go... 180 points. That would only need a 2 week injury to trade through as your team will gain more benefit from that than from an upgrade...
But the exact value of the trade there, in ppg- you'll need to work that out for yourself.
GeeCats07
Club Legend
Injury or suspension. If Cox was to get suspended for 5 weeks what would you do then? You know it's not an injury so he is not going to drop in price due to poor injury related scoring. Would it be worth trading him out? Towards the end of the year I could see it, but if it was early on I don't think you would. If it was injury related and he scored poorly in the game he wsa injured, would it be worth trading him out then picking him back up if he dropped enough? I know dropping a player then picking him back up is a sin, but in this case it would not be so bad considering the position in your team.
Would have been disastrous. Haha.
You dug up this thread for that?
It truly was horrible. Ended up with HMAC and Petrie! Only HMAC, Petrie, Sandilands (though he had problems too), jolly and Clark (very very good pick if from the start) really produced in 2009 - far from simmonds, hille and cox who dominated in 2008 and then flopped.
Should probably make a new Rucks thread once the 2010 season is officially over and that...
You dug up this thread for that?
It truly was horrible. Ended up with HMAC and Petrie! Only HMAC, Petrie, Sandilands (though he had problems too), jolly and Clark (very very good pick if from the start) really produced in 2009 - far from simmonds, hille and cox who dominated in 2008 and then flopped.
Should probably make a new Rucks thread once the 2010 season is officially over and that...
Haha nah i was just having a read through the last few pages and i saw your post.
Yes i think a thread is needed for 2010 so many options.
Beautiful, someone to shift the blame to. I now officially blame the two of you for my crappy starting rucks.
Thanks Notorious.
- Apr 28, 2007
- 4,083
- 1,819
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Oh gosh, where to hide? That is just shameful.
In my defence, I said they were both capable of averaging 90+. Didn't say it'd be in 2009.
Somewhere between that post and the start of the season I must have made the value judgment that they weren't worth the risk, hence my selection of Sandilands and Cox as my starting rucks.
I also like that you conveniently left out my opinion on Kreuzer:
He averaged 75 for the year, fitting the mould of the new breed of mobile ruckmen beautifully. (Highlight my post just before the question marks)
In my defence, I said they were both capable of averaging 90+. Didn't say it'd be in 2009.
Somewhere between that post and the start of the season I must have made the value judgment that they weren't worth the risk, hence my selection of Sandilands and Cox as my starting rucks.
I also like that you conveniently left out my opinion on Kreuzer:
He averaged 75 for the year, fitting the mould of the new breed of mobile ruckmen beautifully. (Highlight my post just before the question marks)
