DT Rucks 2010

[Cruiser23]

What are peoples thoughts on Brent Renouf?

Very interesting one. With Taylor going down he is clearly the number one ruckman with Skipper still under an injury cloud. Went through his stats and found he played 3 games last year where he was basically the only ruckman.

Round 2 50 v Sydney
Round 3 74 v North Melbourne
Round 22 69 v Essendon

Average of 64.

Doesn't get a lot of the footy but averaged 24 hit outs in those games and what i like is he loves to get down and dirty. Mind you this can back fire as he is prone to give free kicks away. There is one thing i like in a ruckman and that is a change of situation. With him being the only true ruckman in the Hawks squad up until Round 15 he may be a big improver. This is definitely the type of player i'll look at. Will need to read over his pre-season and see how he's travelling.

 

[Ball Hog]

What are peoples thoughts on Brent Renouf?

I have considered him and with Taylor gone it could make him more appealing but personally not for me. I think he has the traits to be a decent DT'er as he has a bit of athleticism and can compete at ground level. He's also not too bad contesting ruck contests so he still has potential to get a fair few hitout points at this stage. However, to really average 70-75 and above which i would want from him as a cash cow, I think he will need to be getting a real lot of game time and even though Taylor has gone down i don't really see it happenning.

This is mainly because we don't have a pinch hitting ruckman, only really Franklin, Roughead and possibly a Dowler/Lisle type can potentially play that role. Franklin and Roughead are obviously gold up forward and it is 'suicide' to put them in the ruck, Dowler is still slightly raw and is of much more benefit up forward and Lisle is still raw and probably won't play too many games this year. We have Skipper who I very much doubt will play a 'pinch hitting' role which i basically define as playing in another position for 70-75+% of the time until called into the ruck like Hooker & Brennan last year. I see Skipper as more of a true 2nd ruckman who will probably play 50-60% of game time with 40-50% of that in the ruck and the other time likely up forward. This means that i can't really see Renouf monopalising the ruck time like a Clark or Ryder did last year for their teams. Yes, he will probably play forward a bit too but i don't think his gametime will improve enough to make him a real 75+ average player.

I definitely see him improving to around 65 but even though he will be the first ruckman i think there are better options, if Skipper gets injured then he is a great pick.

Also Renouf is a bit underdone due to his arm injury.

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

After seven rounds last year Angus Graham had recorded the fourth highest price rise of any player (+$137,600). That put him ahead of Otten, Higgins, Gilbert and Rich at the same stage.

Sure, this was mainly due to a freak 118 against Brisbane... but still, it's food for thought.

You simply can't plan for that. There will always be surprises in DT.

Cheapish rookie ruckman (under 100k) generally score poorly and very rarely make enough cash to warrant a trade. Picking the wheat from the chaff is nigh on impossible.

Skipper looks like the only vague possibility of making some cash but his earlier efforts at the Bulldogs hardly instills confidence and is speculative at best. I'd rather save the 20K and use it as a contribution to some other upgrade.

 

[Hannabal]

Director just posted in here and said so, so that is the end of discussion!

True, but of course his 4th ruck sat on the bench the entire season and the $37K he made with said ruckman proved to be of little consequence in his victory. But sure, it could be different this year.

I'd rather save the money and burn a trade in the unlikely event I need to use the fourth.

 

[Hodges]

Exactly. I can hardly see a fourth ruck making enough money to be worth trading in, or scoring enough to be a worthwhile sub for an injury. To be honest I doubt Warnock will make enough money to be worth trading, so he might end up being your bench cover for the year. You save 17-18k (depending on Skipper or normal 94k) by going with a base priced 4th ruck, money which will in all likelihood be more useful than having a playing 4th ruck.

 

[jjcs]

You simply can't plan for that. There will always be surprises in DT.

Cheapish rookie ruckman (under 100k) generally score poorly and very rarely make enough cash to warrant a trade. Picking the wheat from the chaff is nigh on impossible.

Skipper looks like the only vague possibility of making some cash but his earlier efforts at the Bulldogs hardly instills confidence and is speculative at best. I'd rather save the 20K and use it as a contribution to some other upgrade.

Well.. that's exactly the point isn't it? You can plan for it - by giving yourself the best possible chance to pick that player.

By picking two ruckmen that you think will play means that you get two bites at the cherry. You essentially get two chances to pick the "breakout" rookie ruckman (if there is one). Everybody's convinced Warnock is the answer - big call for a bloke that's played 21 games in 4 years.

By picking picking a fourth (playing) ruckman, you're essentially getting two possibilities that you're going to pick up this year's Angus Graham.

 

[Tom12]

I've gone Sandi/HMAC combo. I think it'll be very very reliable. Saves me worrying over the Cox/xp-player who might no perform combo. Hopefully it rewards me, but I can't see it burning me badly, if worse comes to worse.

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

Well.. that's exactly the point isn't it? You can plan for it - by giving yourself the best possible chance to pick that player.

By picking two ruckmen that you think will play means that you get two bites at the cherry. You essentially get two chances to pick the "breakout" rookie ruckman (if there is one). Everybody's convinced Warnock is the answer - big call for a bloke that's played 21 games in 4 years.

By picking picking a fourth (playing) ruckman, you're essentially getting two possibilities that you're going to pick up this year's Angus Graham.

The "breakout" rookie ruckman... that sounds like a contradiction in terms. .

DT history would indicate that this is a very rare beast indeed. But good luck in your quest.

 

[DERIBERATE]

Really? I must be unlucky then! I would use the words 'somewhat unlikely'.

Anyway I agree with most of the stuff you said however in regards to the 4th ruck spot: Yes it is unlikely that you will ever have to use those points but you might actually use your 4th ruck as a cash cow. Someone like Skipper could easily go up 150k this year and then you can trade him down to a 77k spud after that... if you pick a 77k spud from the start then you a reducing the number of players you have that can be cash cows.

Yeah I agree here to a certain point. With the 4th ruck you've got the luxury that you don't have to wait for a downgrade target as such. So whatever money you make, whether it be lobbe/trengove/roughead/skipper, is free money with a spud-grade late in the year. Provided there's no better cash cow opportunity in the other positions at the time.

Starting with a 77k 4th ruck is just silly. All your positions need to be used to their fullest potential. The fullest potential for 4th ruck is to make 100k IMO. If you're ever using him on the field to cover for someone.... then your whole team is probably just plain f***ed at that stage.

 

[JimmyRecard]

I've gone Sandi/HMAC combo. I think it'll be very very reliable. Saves me worrying over the Cox/xp-player who might no perform combo. Hopefully it rewards me, but I can't see it burning me badly, if worse comes to worse.

+1

to lazy to worry bout the rucks, hopefully just lock n leave

 

[54Dogs]

4th ruck is not a cash cow, 4th ruck is insurance cover or a sacrifice.

You only have 2 choices

1) Find someone under 100K you believe will play. Pick them not because they will make cash but because they will play. You will never cash them in. Graham last year was a one off freak and very few ever come through that way.

2) If you are happy with your other 3 rucks, sacrifice the 77K and get the cheapest possible. None at 77K look like playing much this year so it is a sacrifice.



You are not covering 6 or 7 positions, only 2. But they are far and away the 2 most injury prone positions in the game. Only 7 rucks played 22 games last year. 2 of these were not even ruckmen.

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

Dogs... the voice of reason and measured mediation.

 

[DERIBERATE]

4th ruck is not a cash cow, 4th ruck is insurance cover or a sacrifice.

You only have 2 choices

1) Find someone under 100K you believe will play. Pick them not because they will make cash but because they will play. You will never cash them in. Graham last year was a one off freak and very few ever come through that way.

2) If you are happy with your other 3 rucks, sacrifice the 77K and get the cheapest possible. None at 77K look like playing much this year so it is a sacrifice.



You are not covering 6 or 7 positions, only 2. But they are far and away the 2 most injury prone positions in the game. Only 7 rucks played 22 games last year. 2 of these were not even ruckmen.

If you're using 4th ruck it means your 2 first rucks are injured in the same game.

If you look at the games missed by all rucks who played 20 or 21 games last year, at no point in the year did 2 miss the same week. I got challenged earlier saying the odds of your 2 rucks missing the same week, if they're durable, are astronomical. They are.

What it comes down to is your ability to choose 2 rucks that will play over 20 games. Last year there were 10. The year before 13. The odds of choosing the right 2 first up are pretty good, owing to the number of rucks that achieve it, and the correlation between players making 20+ games one year repeating it in the next. The odds of having one go down, then trading for another durable that goes down later, are very long.

Going in with a strategy to use only 1 trade in your rucks - a straight trade of one starter for another in case of an injury - is plausible. Being in a position that you need your 4th ruck for cover means you're screwed.

And again on the 4th ruck... if your 4th can make money... why not? You're not saving 17k when a 94k ruck option makes 50-100k and the spud doesn't play a game. What does that 17k buy you? An opportunity to buy a pricier premium that'll be worth 17k less after 3 rounds anyway? Ideally you should have 50k left over at the start anyway. If you're scratching for 17k then your team will have a lot of 'missed it by that much' trading frustration in the middle rounds.

 

[Walesy]

Starting with a 77k 4th ruck is just silly. All your positions need to be used to their fullest potential. The fullest potential for 4th ruck is to make 100k IMO. If you're ever using him on the field to cover for someone.... then your whole team is probably just plain f***ed at that stage.

In 2009 you had two rookie rucks that went up 100k
In 2008, you just had one.
I still can't find one in 2007.

Honestly, I don't think it's really that worth chasing.

 

[Lakey91]

If you're using 4th ruck it means your 2 first rucks are injured in the same game.

Ah but wait! This isnt necessarily true - it could mean one of your 2 starting ruckman has gone down for a week or two (a likely scenario) and your first choice bench option (ie warnock) is out of favour (a solid chance to happen at some point) or injured (also not improbable).

Its very likely IMO that at some point in 2010, having your 4th ruck out there playing would be handy, even if it is only for 30-40 points.

 

[Papa Juggs]

Is it worth buying David Hille?

Is he fit and ready for round 1?

Goldstein? Jesse White? Ivan Maric??

Any of these mid pricers any good?

Maybe I just go for Cox and Naitnui.

 

[adam10]

If you're using 4th ruck it means your 2 first rucks are injured in the same game.

If you look at the games missed by all rucks who played 20 or 21 games last year, at no point in the year did 2 miss the same week. I got challenged earlier saying the odds of your 2 rucks missing the same week, if they're durable, are astronomical. They are.

What it comes down to is your ability to choose 2 rucks that will play over 20 games. Last year there were 10. The year before 13. The odds of choosing the right 2 first up are pretty good, owing to the number of rucks that achieve it, and the correlation between players making 20+ games one year repeating it in the next. The odds of having one go down, then trading for another durable that goes down later, are very long.

Going in with a strategy to use only 1 trade in your rucks - a straight trade of one starter for another in case of an injury - is plausible. Being in a position that you need your 4th ruck for cover means you're screwed.

And again on the 4th ruck... if your 4th can make money... why not? You're not saving 17k when a 94k ruck option makes 50-100k and the spud doesn't play a game. What does that 17k buy you? An opportunity to buy a pricier premium that'll be worth 17k less after 3 rounds anyway? Ideally you should have 50k left over at the start anyway. If you're scratching for 17k then your team will have a lot of 'missed it by that much' trading frustration in the middle rounds.

Have to disagree on this point, you can still have 50k left over and be short of an upgrade by 1k. I personally don't see it a concern if you don't have 50k left around. Becuase that 50k could upgrade a Boyd type to possibly a Bartel type, which could mean 5-15 points extra in those first few rounds.

 

[Walesy]

Ah but wait! This isnt necessarily true - it could mean one of your 2 starting ruckman has gone down for a week or two (a likely scenario) and your first choice bench option (ie warnock) is out of favour (a solid chance to happen at some point) or injured (also not improbable).

Its very likely IMO that at some point in 2010, having your 4th ruck out there playing would be handy, even if it is only for 30-40 points.

But it's 17k! That's like, 3-4ppg!

You're gunna need your 4th ruck playing 3 games and posting those kinda scores to make it worth while!

 

[Blues_FC]

If you're using 4th ruck it means your 2 first rucks are injured in the same game.

No it doesn't. It could also mean that one of your starting two rucks is injured, and your number three ruck is either injured or benched.

ie.

Sandi - playing
Cox - injured
Warnock - benched
4th Ruck - NEEDED

If it's only a one-week injury to one of your starting rucks and you don't want to trade him out, why not make sure you have bench cover?

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

But it's 17k! That's like, 3-4ppg!

You're gunna need your 4th ruck playing 3 games and posting those kinda scores to make it worth while!

The number-cruncher scores with a straight left jab... a nice counter attack for the statistically inclined.

 

[Dr Awkward]

4th ruck is not a cash cow, 4th ruck is insurance cover or a sacrifice.

You only have 2 choices

1) Find someone under 100K you believe will play. Pick them not because they will make cash but because they will play. You will never cash them in. Graham last year was a one off freak and very few ever come through that way.

2) If you are happy with your other 3 rucks, sacrifice the 77K and get the cheapest possible. None at 77K look like playing much this year so it is a sacrifice.



You are not covering 6 or 7 positions, only 2. But they are far and away the 2 most injury prone positions in the game. Only 7 rucks played 22 games last year. 2 of these were not even ruckmen.

I really disagree with this. Having a 77k spud who cannot play just resigns you to the fact that you only have three people in that position and you are more likely to have to make a trade or cop a donut if one or two of your ruckman go down for a couple of weeks weeks.

But more importantly: I disagree with the statement that a 4th ruck can't be a cash cow. It is not that unlikely that at some point in the season (might be as late as round 17 or something) that there are rookie ruckman that are tradeable... Skipper, Lobbe, J. Roughead, Warnock, Stanley Currie, Cordy, Pyke...

I think for the sake of the extra 17k there is too much upside to ignore and having a 'dead' position just means you arn't maximising your resources.

 

[Walesy]

But more importantly: I disagree with the statement that a 4th ruck can't be a cash cow. It is not that unlikely that at some point in the season (might be as late as round 17 or something) that there are rookie ruckman that are tradeable... Skipper, Lobbe, J. Roughead, Warnock, Stanley Currie, Cordy, Pyke...

Depends on what you mean by the word "tradeable".

It is unlikely that more than one of these players will put on more than 75k. This year I would say that only Skipper or Warnock are a chance. And even then, it's going to require things going right.

But then, would 75k even be a success?

 

[DaVe86]

I really disagree with this. Having a 77k spud who cannot play just resigns you to the fact that you only have three people in that position and you are more likely to have to make a trade or cop a donut if one or two of your ruckman go down for a couple of weeks weeks.

But more importantly: I disagree with the statement that a 4th ruck can't be a cash cow. It is not that unlikely that at some point in the season (might be as late as round 17 or something) that there are rookie ruckman that are tradeable... Skipper, Lobbe, J. Roughead, Warnock, Stanley Currie, Cordy, Pyke...

I think for the sake of the extra 17k there is too much upside to ignore and having a 'dead' position just means you arn't maximising your resources.

There is no right or wrong answer.

2 years ago, Cox and Simmonds were in everyone's team and they each played 22 games.

I didn't even need a 3rd ruckman, let alone a 4th that year. I remember that year I started a spud as my 4th ruck. Most people did. It worked beautifully.


Last year, everyone started with 2 77K ruckman because it looked as if they were going to play. This along with Cox + McIntosh (i stupidly started Fraser).

When both Cox and Fraser went down...Spencer and Jacobs were both dropped as well. Luckily both Cox and Fraser had money so I got mcintosh and clark and they served me well.



Depends how brave you are. I think if you are starting with Hille, Ottens, Cox or leunberger, then you are well advised to get a 4th ruck of value. This is because your 3rd ruck is likely to be Warnock and he is very very injury prone.

But if you are starting big, and have Warnock in reserve...and need 15K...no doubt the place to save money could be your 4th ruck spot.


Depends how hard you are going for the prize. Are you willing to risk it...and if anything goes wrong rely on trades....or play it safe.


Guys like Roughead, Lobbe, Trengove and Skipper are all good 4th ruck options this year but are no certainties to play. But they could be good value as a backup if they play.




For me....I currently have a 77K rookie in my 4ht ruck spot...but if the money is available, I'll upgrade that. My hope is to upgrade.


But there's no right or wrong answer. If your rucks hold up...then that 15K at the start of the year would've been very nice to save.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

But it's 17k! That's like, 3-4ppg!

You're gunna need your 4th ruck playing 3 games and posting those kinda scores to make it worth while!

I hate it when common sense argues with logic

 

[The Falcon Strike]

My thoughts on it are - the two obvious number 3 rucks are Skipper and Warnock

Skipper will probably get a game up until the mid-season break - then won't offer much afterwards. So your only chance to use him IMO is in the first 11 weeks.

Warnock looks more guaranteed a game - but IMO he is a peaheart and will more than likley be dropped as well.

Of course either may surprise. My thoughts are that if one of my ruckmen go down for a week or two - i don't think I can rely on one of either Warnock or Skipper to be in the side. Holding both, i reckon you'd be unlucky if both were out - hence if they can snag 40-50pts in that one game - it makes up most of the 2-3pts the extra $17k costs you.

I very much see Walesy point about the $17k - it could be very useful cash - but i am just struggling with the idea of picking a bloke in my squad whom i know won't play - particularly before rd 1.

If it was rd 15 - i'd have a different opinion.

F uck you walesy - you have confused me