DT Rucks 2010

[Ninty]

Warnock will be in my 30, definitely will NOT rely on him on the field though!

 

[Lajon]

Petrie (RUCK) vs McIntosh (RUCK) ?

I know Petrie is suspended for first 2 rounds, that doesn't concern me. Looks like he's going to be playing more of a permanent forward position this year - will this effect his scoring potential?

Will McIntosh be ablee to back up after his best season?

 

[Pinochio]

Big Mac over petrie imo!

Rucks are tough now.....no real standouts so far.....

Jolly or Big Mac + ~40k or sandi?

And as for other ruck - stab in the dark lolz tippet/kreuz (not after last night though ) or both tippet and kruez!

thx for adivce

 

[XPISTO]

I think the Rucks are the toughest position this year, there's no real standout for mine as there has been in the past. In the above scenario Pinochio I'd be going Jolly over Sandi, simply cause the money is used better elsewhere. A $413k mid for example would score A LOT better then Sandi imo.

ATM I have Hille and Nic Nat as my 2 starters. This is risky but it allows me to have someone like Masten as my 5th mid who I think will score at least on par with Sandi but is $120k cheaper!

 

[Dr Awkward]

I think the Rucks are the toughest position this year, there's no real standout for mine as there has been in the past. In the above scenario Pinochio I'd be going Jolly over Sandi, simply cause the money is used better elsewhere. A $413k mid for example would score A LOT better then Sandi imo.

ATM I have Hille and Nic Nat as my 2 starters. This is risky but it allows me to have someone like Masten as my 5th mid who I think will score at least on par with Sandi but is $120k cheaper!

Why would a 413k mid score a lot better than Sandi?

Sandi averaged 95 last year, which is great for a ruck and finished only behind Cox. I dont see any reason why he won't repeat that and I think there is a chance he will improve given he is moving towards prime age for ruckmen and Freo might get better.

Plus he is pretty reliable, never any really low scores, he is gauranteed about 40 points from hitouts every game!

 

[Lakey91]

I think the Rucks are the toughest position this year, there's no real standout for mine as there has been in the past. In the above scenario Pinochio I'd be going Jolly over Sandi, simply cause the money is used better elsewhere. A $413k mid for example would score A LOT better then Sandi imo.

ATM I have Hille and Nic Nat as my 2 starters. This is risky but it allows me to have someone like Masten as my 5th mid who I think will score at least on par with Sandi but is $120k cheaper!

You know that players are priced on their averages right? So a 420k mid would of averaged exactly the same as sandilands (a 420k ruck) in 2009.

Sandilands holds a lot of value in the rucks too due to the fact many of the premiums have significant concerns (injury, role, TOG, competition, etc) that he doesnt seem to have.

 

[ZergMinion]

You know that players are priced on their averages right? So a 420k mid would of averaged exactly the same as sandilands (a 420k ruck) in 2009.quote]

A mid at that price would likely be expected to improve by 5-10 ppg (at least if you're trying to do well), whereas Sandilands couldn't realistically be expected to improve on his 95 average (Could happen, but unlikely).

Am I the only one thrilled that Kruezer had a shocker in his most visible pre-season game?

 

[Lakey91]

Look at the 420k mark for mids, and there isnt really that much value there IMO - Edwards? Anthony? Tuck? Deledio? Cross? Kane? Judd? Sure you could argue prismall and maybe priddis have a little upside, but other than that they all seem basically fully priced.

Its worth noting that a 420k mid isnt compartively significant for what else you can have (think top 5 mids) whereas in the rucks Sandilands is considered a premium in the top eschelon of his position, particularly with his relative durability.

Its also worth noting that during the 9 rounds between rounds 5 and 13 Sandilands averaged 110.33 - if this isnt a strong indication of some potential upside that many of the mids around the 420k price point would struggle to match, then Im not sure what is!

 

[jiphoc]

Whats the news with Brad Ottens (Geel)? He is going very cheap and at best is one of the best rucks in the league.

 

[ZergMinion]

Look at the 420k mark for mids, and there isnt really that much value there IMO - Edwards? Anthony? Tuck? Deledio? Cross? Kane? Judd? Sure you could argue prismall and maybe priddis have a little upside, but other than that they all seem basically fully priced.

Its worth noting that a 420k mid isnt compartively significant for what else you can have (think top 5 mids) whereas in the rucks Sandilands is considered a premium in the top eschelon of his position, particularly with his relative durability.

Its also worth noting that during the 9 rounds between rounds 5 and 13 Sandilands averaged 110.33 - if this isnt a strong indication of some potential upside that many of the mids around the 420k price point would struggle to match, then Im not sure what is!

I was thinking of the players around 30k cheaper (Morton and Cooney), who could both be expected to exceed Sandilands 95 average, whereas Sandilands is a safe bet to get 90-95 again. I'm not saying his purple patch last year where he averaged 110 is beyond him for a full season, but it's just not as likely as the other two beating him for the season for less money.

Dane Swan averaged 131 between round 9 and round 20, but do we expect him to have much improvement over his 119 average from last year? Could happen but it's not likely.

As you said, the main reasons for choosing Sandilands is his durability and relative scoring vs other ruckmen. Not really for his upside

 

[Thorgils]

I like the look of McIntosh this year. Petrie as a permanent forward should help his time in the ruck and with Goldstein taking up the slack when the big guy needs a rest sounds good, he should do the majority of the ruck work not sure what his pre-season has been like?

The question is will he raise his ppg average in 2010?

 

[Cruiser23]

I like the look of McIntosh this year. Petrie as a permanent forward should help his time in the ruck and with Goldstein taking up the slack when the big guy needs a rest sounds good, he should do the majority of the ruck work not sure what his pre-season has been like?

The question is will he raise his ppg average in 2010?

Goldstein has happered his scoring, average of 80 odd since Todd became the back-up over the last half a dozen games last year. The drop in form may also have been due to him shouldering most of the work load early in the year but to what extent? I think Todd will affect Hamish.

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

Whats the news with Brad Ottens (Geel)? He is going very cheap and at best is one of the best rucks in the league.

Not anymore. Unfortunately Brad has a degenerative knee problem that affects his mobility and needs ongoing management.

However he has recovered from the severed hand tendons and should get some pre-season game time.

 

[fatmungus]

Nic Nat is not good enough to be a second ruckman choice and too expensive to be a bench option.

It's nothing against the comment, I fully understand why you would pick solid in the ruck, keeping trades for elsewhere/injuries. But why does everyone take risks starting rookies, relying heavily on cash cows and diss off the mid priced players (more it seems).

There's all this talk of "you can't do this, or you shouldn't do that" but doesn't DT fundamentally comes down to: looking to get the best pp$ where ever you look, INCLUDING the rucks..

If your two rucks play 20+ games AND increase in value, isn't that better than say starting sandi + jolly, who just sit there doing nothing?

I guess this is similar to the 7th Mid question where people don't consider a 80 point scorer as a keepe.? So what if you have a mid player or ruck scoring whatever amount. Can't you use the extra cash elsewhere to upgrade bigger and better (more premiums as opposed to keepers)?

As long as you have all your cash spent at the start, and end up with all your cash spent in the end, you end up better off pp$ and hence points per week overall right? It's just maths. Not hard people.....

I know there is some doubt due to injury or from with players. But keepers go down too. If the players durable, and playing above his average why shouldn't I pick him god damn it

 

[Thorgils]

Goldstein has happered his scoring, average of 80 odd since Todd became the back-up over the last half a dozen games last year. The drop in form may also have been due to him shouldering most of the work load early in the year but to what extent? I think Todd will affect Hamish.

A fountain of information as usual C23, I don't see a lot of value in the rucks this year and at the moment McIntosh is almost my only option, perhaps Petrie will benefit from his new permanent role up forward but I shy away from picking him due to his suspension status and role change. The rucks may cause some headaches for me again this year. Thanks you for the info

 

[Just A Guess]

It's nothing against the comment, I fully understand why you would pick solid in the ruck, keeping trades for elsewhere/injuries. But why does everyone take risks starting rookies, relying heavily on cash cows and diss off the mid priced players (more it seems).

There's all this talk of "you can't do this, or you shouldn't do that" but doesn't DT fundamentally comes down to: looking to get the best pp$ where ever you look, INCLUDING the rucks..

If your two rucks play 20+ games AND increase in value, isn't that better than say starting sandi + jolly, who just sit there doing nothing?

I guess this is similar to the 7th Mid question where people don't consider a 80 point scorer as a keepe.? So what if you have a mid player or ruck scoring whatever amount. Can't you use the extra cash elsewhere to upgrade bigger and better (more premiums as opposed to keepers)?

As long as you have all your cash spent at the start, and end up with all your cash spent in the end, you end up better off pp$ and hence points per week overall right? It's just maths. Not hard people.....

I know there is some doubt due to injury or from with players. But keepers go down too. If the players durable, and playing above his average why shouldn't I pick him god damn it

I agree with you absolutely. This year I am looking to make some cash in the rucks, with players such as Hille, Naitanui, Kreuzer, Charman, Tippet and Warnock almost all certainties to increase their value. I am unsure of which combo to go with yet and won't decide until teams are named for round 1.

 

[Dr Awkward]

It's nothing against the comment, I fully understand why you would pick solid in the ruck, keeping trades for elsewhere/injuries. But why does everyone take risks starting rookies, relying heavily on cash cows and diss off the mid priced players (more it seems).

There's all this talk of "you can't do this, or you shouldn't do that" but doesn't DT fundamentally comes down to: looking to get the best pp$ where ever you look, INCLUDING the rucks..

If your two rucks play 20+ games AND increase in value, isn't that better than say starting sandi + jolly, who just sit there doing nothing?

I guess this is similar to the 7th Mid question where people don't consider a 80 point scorer as a keepe.? So what if you have a mid player or ruck scoring whatever amount. Can't you use the extra cash elsewhere to upgrade bigger and better (more premiums as opposed to keepers)?

As long as you have all your cash spent at the start, and end up with all your cash spent in the end, you end up better off pp$ and hence points per week overall right? It's just maths. Not hard people.....

I know there is some doubt due to injury or from with players. But keepers go down too. If the players durable, and playing above his average why shouldn't I pick him god damn it

You have written this as if there are unlimited trades in Dream Team. Have you seen the team of the person who won Dream Team last year. There is a thread on this board with the team in it.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

You have written this as if there are unlimited trades in Dream Team. Have you seen the team of the person who won Dream Team last year. There is a thread on this board with the team in it.

Agreed - but there isn't much difference of picking Naitanui with the intention of upgrading to Cox/Sandilands - then picking Kennelly and trying to upgrade him to Goddard.

 

[fatmungus]

Agreed - but there isn't much difference of picking Naitanui with the intention of upgrading to Cox/Sandilands - then picking Kennelly and trying to upgrade him to Goddard.

Yep. And wouldn't you want as many cash cows as possible?
There's more up side than downside IMO.

Have you seen the team of the person who won Dream Team last year.

I tried to look for it but no luck. I bet it has ala cox + hmac or something. I had them too and while i was lucky a lot picked simmons/jolly. Who cares? He didn't have Ablett...... Also cox was a given this time last year. Look how that turned out (still pending this year also).

I have just been reading over the golden rules and saw that the last most IMPORTANT rule is to disregard any of them.

What if i start Hille/Kruzer and someone else starts jolly as 2nd. Then I have 1 extra premium in the forward/backline. If there's more potential there then you could come out even more on top.

 

[Benno_900]

I like the look of McIntosh this year. Petrie as a permanent forward should help his time in the ruck and with Goldstein taking up the slack when the big guy needs a rest sounds good, he should do the majority of the ruck work not sure what his pre-season has been like?

The question is will he raise his ppg average in 2010?

As mentioned above, Goldstein will cut into his TOG and scoring.

But there's still a lot of improvement left in Hamish so it might not mean his avg will fall for sure. I'm struggling to settle on a 2nd ruckman as well.

 

[Dr Awkward]

Yep. And wouldn't you want as many cash cows as possible?
There's more up side than downside IMO.



I tried to look for it but no luck. I bet it has ala cox + hmac or something. I had them too and while i was lucky a lot picked simmons/jolly. Who cares? He didn't have Ablett...... Also cox was a given this time last year. Look how that turned out (still pending this year also).

I have just been reading over the golden rules and saw that the last most IMPORTANT rule is to disregard any of them.

What if i start Hille/Kruzer and someone else starts jolly as 2nd. Then I have 1 extra premium in the forward/backline. If there's more potential there then you could come out even more on top.

He did have Ablett. And Swan. And Bartel!

 

[major tom]

It's nothing against the comment, I fully understand why you would pick solid in the ruck, keeping trades for elsewhere/injuries. But why does everyone take risks starting rookies, relying heavily on cash cows and diss off the mid priced players (more it seems).

There's all this talk of "you can't do this, or you shouldn't do that" but doesn't DT fundamentally comes down to: looking to get the best pp$ where ever you look, INCLUDING the rucks..

If your two rucks play 20+ games AND increase in value, isn't that better than say starting sandi + jolly, who just sit there doing nothing?

I guess this is similar to the 7th Mid question where people don't consider a 80 point scorer as a keepe.? So what if you have a mid player or ruck scoring whatever amount. Can't you use the extra cash elsewhere to upgrade bigger and better (more premiums as opposed to keepers)?

As long as you have all your cash spent at the start, and end up with all your cash spent in the end, you end up better off pp$ and hence points per week overall right? It's just maths. Not hard people.....

I know there is some doubt due to injury or from with players. But keepers go down too. If the players durable, and playing above his average why shouldn't I pick him god damn it

Great post and has got me thinking. I am tossing up at the moment between Hille and Riewoldt OR Sandilands and Ziebell. I have decided to go with Sandi and Ziebell. My reasoning is this; with both of Hille and Ziebell they are mids that I am hoping will increase to be keepers in their respective positions. However if that doesn't happen and I have to trade them out I am better off doing this with Ziebell than Hille because in the Rucks there are far fewer options compared to the forwards. This is probably a minor point but it is enough for me to make it fall to the Sandi/Ziebell option. However if Hille plays 22 games and scores a 85pg average this all goes out the window.

 

[fatmungus]

He did have Ablett. And Swan. And Bartel!

Woops sorry, yeah he did. But then traded him out. Exactly my point.

People are throwing advice around here willy nilly without the reason for, only the reason why. I must admitt I would be lost without the help from BF fans, including you Dr Awkward, so will end the semi rave here.

On another note, do people think a cox NicNat combo is good? If cox comes up bad then you should be safe on Nauitui, and vice versa....

 

[swanton]

haven't heard anything about ryder in this thread recently what are your thoughts on him

hoping of an average of around 85, i dont think that hille will be spending alot of the game in the ruck, but when he does then ryder can rotate with hille in the forward line

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Woops sorry, yeah he did. But then traded him out. Exactly my point.

People are throwing advice around here willy nilly without the reason for, only the reason why. I must admitt I would be lost without the help from BF fans, including you Dr Awkward, so will end the semi rave here.

On another note, do people think a cox NicNat combo is good? If cox comes up bad then you should be safe on Nauitui, and vice versa....

I'm on a Naitanui upgrade to Cox strategy

Cox hasn't had the best pre-season - and i think Nic Nat will get his most ruck time early in the season - then as the season progresses and Cox gets more and more match fit - he'll take over more of the ruckwork - whilst the 19 year old ruckman gets more rest in the back half of the season.

I think by about rd 7/8 - Naita should have peaked and Cox fallen - so that the upgrade might cost $100k or so.

That's my plan anyway - based on having seen Naita in the intra-club match and now the NAB.