Player X or Player Y (part 2)

[PAFCsince1870]

At face value the answer is no because neither player is likely to be in or close enough to the top 7 / 2 players in their position.

I think Gray may increase his average enough to be a 7th keeper forward.

I don't think it's realistic to expect to have the top 7/6/2 players in every position, so you need to define what would be an acceptable keeper average.

 

[yogibbear]

I reckon a good aim is to end up with (of the top tens):

Backs: 5
Mids: 6
Rucks: 2
Fwds: 5

Leaving 4 players in your fwds/backs that aren't top 10. Top 15 in Mids is probably good enough though for positions 5 & 6.

 

[Cynic]

Is that how you define a keeper? Or even a premium?

I would personally consider a premium top 10 in the mids/backs/fwds and top 5 in the rucks.

As for my thoughts on keeper values, I made a post on it here:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16512142&postcount=9

Im interested to see your thoughts on this...

A keeper is what you call a player not in the top X of their position you get stuck with as you ran out of trades . A premium is a player in the top X of their position.

This is why I'm not picking players like Armitage, Ellis or Gray. Even if they improve on their averages I don't think they're going to be in the top X of their position making them players at the end of the year I'd like to upgrade, making them over priced under performing cash cows.

Also re: your post that sort of thing isn't really relevant to me. Work out what you expect the top X players in each position are going to be based upon durability and averages and that's your benchmark. Sure you don't need players 1 - X in each position but for each one you get wrong that's points you've cost yourself.

 

[wallcob]

A keeper is what you call a player not in the top X of their position you get stuck with as you ran out of trades . A premium is a player in the top X of their position.

This is why I'm not picking players like Armitage, Ellis or Gray. Even if they improve on their averages I don't think they're going to be in the top X of their position making them players at the end of the year I'd like to upgrade, making them over priced under performing cash cows.

Also re: your post that sort of thing isn't really relevant to me. Work out what you expect the top X players in each position are going to be based upon durability and averages and that's your benchmark. Sure you don't need players 1 - X in each position but for each one you get wrong that's points you've cost yourself.

i agree that midfield players like armitage should not be pick as keepers (or cash cows due to high price) because i think you want all 6 of your midfielders to be abslolute guns come end of the year. everyone knows its your mids that are going to get you the big scores and therefore are super midfield is an essential element to a good team. having said this, it is not as easy, nor as beneficial to aim for all 7 forwards/backs to be abolsute guns. this is why i think it is reasonable to pick players like gray and ellis - that come the end of the year..if they are averaging say 85, you would be satisfied to have them as your 7th forward/back. most people are going to choose 4 midfield guns from the outset with 2 rookie priced players e.g barlow/martin and would probably like both these players to turn into say a swan/murphy by the end of the year.

got another combination for thought!

malceski + sandi + hille

v
dempsy + clark + seaby

keeping in mind one of malceski/dempsy would be my 6th back.

 

[RichoGun]

Scott Selwood or Nick Malceski ?

 

[Spoony]

Scott Selwood or Nick Malceski ?

Malceski, with very little doubt although injury may worry you. Malxeski looks like he is back to 2007 form and if he is then he is a keeper, selwood might improve but I doubt he will improve to the level that Malceski will.

 

[Dr Awkward]

A keeper is what you call a player not in the top X of their position you get stuck with as you ran out of trades . A premium is a player in the top X of their position.

This is why I'm not picking players like Armitage, Ellis or Gray. Even if they improve on their averages I don't think they're going to be in the top X of their position making them players at the end of the year I'd like to upgrade, making them over priced under performing cash cows.

Also re: your post that sort of thing isn't really relevant to me. Work out what you expect the top X players in each position are going to be based upon durability and averages and that's your benchmark. Sure you don't need players 1 - X in each position but for each one you get wrong that's points you've cost yourself.

I agree with you, especially when it comes to the midfield. However in the backline I don't think it matters as much if they are not in the top X. It is unrealistic to have the top players in every single position so you may as well have the weakest backline imo because that is where the lowest differential is.

 

[footycool]

Scott Selwood or Nick Malceski ?

I tend to Agree with Spooney that Malceski, he has job security while IMO Selwood doesnt yet.


Pendles Vs Mitchell

 

[indieswan96]

I tend to Agree with Spooney that Malceski, he has job security while IMO Selwood doesnt yet.


Pendles Vs Mitchell

Pendlebury because Ball and Jolly will take his scoring through the roof to around 110. I have him in my team purely for that reason but Mithchell is a solid pick but Pendles is the way to go.

Bass(4th ruck)/Banner or Skipper(4th ruck)/Bastinac

It wont have a huge amount on my scoring but still could affect my team nonetheless.

 

[Capt_Concussion]

Pendlebury because Ball and Jolly will take his scoring through the roof to around 110. I have him in my team purely for that reason but Mithchell is a solid pick but Pendles is the way to go.

Bass(4th ruck)/Banner or Skipper(4th ruck)/Bastinac

It wont have a huge amount on my scoring but still could affect my team nonetheless.

Who's your 3rd ruck?

Skipper should get plenty of game time with the ruck situation at Hawthorn (unless Roughie or someone plays ruck). I would just chuck Skipper as your 3rd ruck and a basement priced ruck as your 4th because it's very unlikely you'll need both ruck subs. This way you may net your self 30 - 40 extra grand. As for Banner vs Bastinac. Banner has higher scoring potential but I'm unsure in his place in the team (port fans help me out). Bastinac has impressed over the pre season and Scott is looking to youth I feel so Bastinac should get a decent run of games, scoring potential isn't as high though.


McVeigh vs Masten

 

[indieswan96]

Who's your 3rd ruck?

Skipper should get plenty of game time with the ruck situation at Hawthorn (unless Roughie or someone plays ruck). I would just chuck Skipper as your 3rd ruck and a basement priced ruck as your 4th because it's very unlikely you'll need both ruck subs. This way you may net your self 30 - 40 extra grand. As for Banner vs Bastinac. Banner has higher scoring potential but I'm unsure in his place in the team (port fans help me out). Bastinac has impressed over the pre season and Scott is looking to youth I feel so Bastinac should get a decent run of games, scoring potential isn't as high though.


McVeigh vs Masten

Sandilands - Seaby - Warnock - Skipper ATM
As for your question I would take Masten if your talking about Mark and Mcveigh if your talking about Jarryd.

 

[Decipher]

I agree with you, especially when it comes to the midfield. However in the backline I don't think it matters as much if they are not in the top X. It is unrealistic to have the top players in every single position so you may as well have the weakest backline imo because that is where the lowest differential is.

I think people are so obsessed with having the top handful of players from each area you overlook different strategies. This is a typical Bigfooty view and one that results in the type of teams posted on the Rate my team thread.

Every year you will see a number of teams posted up that would have won the competition without the use of a single trade. These teams generally run with the different strategy, go for value, if you pick players and they all improve then your laughing. Obviously its highly unlikely someone would pick all the break out players but people going down this line would still have 20 trades to trade out there cash cows and upgrade the poorly performing players.

 

[Just_ace]

this ones doing my head in.

S. Mitchell + C.Masten

or

J.Watson + L.Ball

 

[Axel.]

this ones doing my head in.

S. Mitchell + C.Masten

or

J.Watson + L.Ball

I'd go with Watson and Ball. Both can score well every week.

O'Keefe v S.Johnson.

 

[Just_ace]

I'd go with Watson and Ball. Both can score well every week.

O'Keefe v S.Johnson.

thanks I was leaning towards that too, definitely okeefe

 

[Axel.]

thanks I was leaning towards that too, definitely okeefe

Really? Any particular reason?

They'll both play a lot in the midfield and they're both in great form. Hard choice.

 

[Houli2Gumbleton]

Boyd + Gray

or

Armitage + O'Keefe


Also. O'Keefe or J.Brown?

 

[Tom12]

Gray or Tippet?

 

[Spoony]

I would go with Boyd + Gray. Boyd is really consistant and if the doggies tackle heaps like they have been in the Nab cup hes score is likely ot increase, he only has to 2 average two more tackles a game and there is 8 points, he has more upside than O'keefe. Robbie grey I think is more certain than armitage, I'm worried that armitage will not get enough TOG to become a true midfield keeper.

I would go for O'Keefe, Im not certain how Fevola will affect Brown's scoring, and O'Keefe could improve again off last year if the swans play a more high possession game like hey seem to have been doing in the Nab Cup.

On Gray and Tippet, I have both but with a choice between the two most people would go for grey but its a hard one for me I can see allot of improvement in both but I also have my concerns about both, in the end I would say Gry because he will play in the Midfield.

 

[joelselwood#14]

Really? Any particular reason?

They'll both play a lot in the midfield and they're both in great form. Hard choice.

go with steve johnson.. its good not many people have him in there teams. he played injuried last year and averaged 99
ROK wont do aswell this season and even last season he got a one off score of 170+ which just made his average better than what it normally is.

 

[Pinochio]

Waters and Malceski OR Ladson and Kennelly

Thx hypes (im sure many ppl are having this problem)

 

[Spoony]

Out of those to options I would say if possible go for Malceski and Kennely some people are worried by having two swans players but I think it will work. If not possible then the best option is Malceski and waters, personaly I am not to keen on Waters but Malceski's performances in the Nab cup are for me to good to ignore. Plus i question the fitness of Ladson and think he might take 4 or 5 games to get to match fitness.

 

[Tom12]

Out of those to options I would say if possible go for Malceski and Kennely some people are worried by having two swans players but I think it will work. If not possible then the best option is Malceski and waters, personaly I am not to keen on Waters but Malceski's performances in the Nab cup are for me to good to ignore. Plus i question the fitness of Ladson and think he might take 4 or 5 games to get to match fitness.

This is me, I don't feel to confident having two Swans. Am still considering it though, it could work. Malceski has played well which shows he's capable, but if Shaw comes back will that affect his role in the side? Certainly.

 

[theone5]

I think people are so obsessed with having the top handful of players from each area you overlook different strategies. This is a typical Bigfooty view and one that results in the type of teams posted on the Rate my team thread.

Every year you will see a number of teams posted up that would have won the competition without the use of a single trade. These teams generally run with the different strategy, go for value, if you pick players and they all improve then your laughing. Obviously its highly unlikely someone would pick all the break out players but people going down this line would still have 20 trades to trade out there cash cows and upgrade the poorly performing players.

It is like talking to 100 brick walls.

Everyone, listen to this guy.
Decipher makes a very valid point and no one comments on it.

 

[swans4eva]

This one is just based on a lack of cash and not knowing which premium selection to pick:

Enright + Gia + O'Keefe
OR
Goodes + Higgins + H. Shaw