SC Rucks Discussion Thread

[buttox]

hmm what to do with jolly.
i think i might end up having a sandi petrie combo by the looks with jolly on the bench.
hes gonna get traded if his start to the season is the same as last year.

 

[LeFtBehinD]

Why anyone didnt go in with Cox & Sandi confuses me. lol

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Why anyone didnt go in with Cox & Sandi confuses me. lol

Sandilands is a top priced premium. Obviously we dont have the cash for every player in the team to be a top priced premium.

Sandilands is just a single choice in the whole game. You arent better off having a premium ruck and an 80/game averager in the forward line, than you are with a Premium forward and an 80/game ruck.

Its called individual choices, and its all about getting maximum score for your bucks.

 

[ThePezDispenser]

It was discussed in detail the advantages of having two premium Rucks, in particular with Sandi as one of them.

 

[Spudregus_87]

Sandilands is just a single choice in the whole game. You arent better off having a premium ruck and an 80/game averager in the forward line, than you are with a Premium forward and an 80/game ruck.

Its called individual choices, and its all about getting maximum score for your bucks.

I reckon buying a ruckman who averages 20ppg more than the next best would've been spending your cash wisely

211 should been the your first pick, and the bloke you built the rest of your team around. As valuable as Swan/Goddard.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I'm not saying Sandilands isnt a good pick.

But if there is anyone in your team who is only going to average 80, upgrading them to a premium makes as much sense as upgrading to Sandilands.

 

[potchip]

Except the 1 or 2 times Sandi is up against your average ruckman, in which case Sandi will get his usual, your pick will get 50. Ruck department is a zero-sum game.

 

[ThePezDispenser]

I'm not saying Sandilands isnt a good pick.

But if there is anyone in your team who is only going to average 80, upgrading them to a premium makes as much sense as upgrading to Sandilands.

This post doesn't make much sense.

 

[Falchoon]

early days, obviously

Name  Team	Score	$/Point
WARNOCK	CAR	117	2552
COX	WCE	165	2595
HILLE	ESS	134	2901
RYDER	ESS	141	2956
MCEVOY	STK	100	3087
OTTENS	GEE	105	3124
BROGAN	PTA	96	3495
LEUENBERGER	BRL	89	3743
HAMPSON	CAR	63	3803
MARIC	ADE	82	3956
VICKERY	RIC	61	3982
GRAHAM	RIC	84	4048
SANDILANDS	FRE	137	4049
JAMAR	MEL	98	4087
MUMFORD	SYD	107	4210
HUDSON	WBD	88	4366
TRENGOVE	PTA	51	5016
HALE	HAW	47	5366
CLARK	BRL	61	5810
SEABY	SYD	45	6082
JOLLY	COL	63	6165
RENOUF	HAW	34	9185
BRADLEY	FRE	37	11792

I went Cox/McEvoy because I like their tanks and non ruck ability with expected increases in TOG.

TOG Last year Sandi 88%, McEvoy 60%, Cox 72%, Leuenberger 71%.

Sandi's only upside is meeting players with less rest time downside is he surely has to be better managed this year than last.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

This post doesn't make much sense.

I'll try to expand.

If I have ,for example David Mackay in the midfield and I think he'll get 80 average, and I have Ben McEvoy in the ruck and I think he'll be 80 as well.
Does it may more sense to spend extra cash on Sandilands instead of McEvoy, than If I was to get Swan instead of Mackay?

I take on board the previous comment regarding what will happen when the non premium ruck plays Sandilands , good point.

 

[ThePezDispenser]

That's his only upside?

The fact he's taller than his opposition has nothing to do with it.

 

[Falchoon]

That's his only upside?

The fact he's taller than his opposition has nothing to do with it.

he was taller last year too.

Upside v price

 

[ThePezDispenser]

I'll try to expand.

If I have ,for example David Mackay in the midfield and I think he'll get 80 average, and I have Ben McEvoy in the ruck and I think he'll be 80 as well.
Does it may more sense to spend extra cash on Sandilands instead of McEvoy, than If I was to get Swan instead of Mackay?

I take on board the previous comment regarding what will happen when the non premium ruck plays Sandilands , good point.

Why would you want either of McKay or McEvoy?

Sandi averages 114 - If you think McEvoy will average 80 you are losing 34 points every week for the year.

Whereas in you midfield you can upgrade your players much easier due to their ability to increase rapidly in cash.

 

[ThePezDispenser]

he was taller last year too.

Upside v price

So you plan on keeping McEvoy for the whole year?

 

[Falchoon]

Why would you want either of McKay or McEvoy?

Sandi averages 114 - If you think McEvoy will average 80 you are losing 34 points every week for the year.

whilst having 52 points to spend elsewhere.

 

[ThePezDispenser]

whilst having 52 points to spend elsewhere.

Not really how it works, but yeah - you go for it.

Nice how you didn't quote the whole post.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Why would you want either of McKay or McEvoy?

Sandi averages 114 - If you think McEvoy will average 80 you are losing 34 points every week for the year.

Whereas in you midfield you can upgrade your players much easier due to their ability to increase rapidly in cash.

Arrrghhh. I used the names and scores as examples, as well as their projected scores. I didn't look up the specific prices.

Try this.
Midfielder X costs as much as a player who will score 60 each week.
It is generally considered he will score 80 each week.
Midfielder Y costs as much as a player who averages 115 and probably will.
Ruck X costs as much as a player who will score 60 each week and will probably score 80.

If you have midfielder X and ruck X , and enough cash to upgrade, why is it better to have sandilands than midfielder Y?

 

[Falchoon]

Not really how it works, but yeah - you go for it.

Spending less on a position doesn't allow you to allocate more elsewhere? Damn!

Nice how you didn't quote the whole post.

there you go

 

[ThePezDispenser]

Arrrghhh. I used the names and scores as examples, as well as their projected scores. I didn't look up the specific prices.

Try this.
Midfielder X costs as much as a player who will score 60 each week.
It is generally considered he will score 80 each week.
Midfielder Y costs as much as a player who averages 115 and probably will.
Ruck X costs as much as a player who will score 60 each week and will probably score 80.

If you have midfielder X and ruck X , and enough cash to upgrade, why is it better to have sandilands than midfielder Y?

Why are players valued at ~ 275k (around the value of a 60 point player) considered to score 80 ppg?
Beside the point really - Why would you wan someone that expensive only scoring 80 in your midfield. Midfield rookies can average that much.

Spending less on a position doesn't allow you to allocate more elsewhere? Damn!

It does, however with the depth in a backs and midfields its been widely considered optimal to lock and load your rucks. Especially when they score as well as Sandilands.

Like has been said plenty of times, cash cows in the midfield, backs and forwards are far more beneficial than those in the rucks. Thus the lock and load approach.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Why are players valued at ~ 275k (around the value of a 60 point player) considered to score 80 ppg?
Beside the point really - Why would you wan someone that expensive only scoring 80 in your midfield. Midfield rookies can average that much.



It does, however with the depth in a backs and midfields its been widely considered optimal to lock and load your rucks. Especially when they score as well as Sandilands.

Like has been said plenty of times, cash cows in the midfield, backs and forwards are far more beneficial than those in the rucks. Thus the lock and load approach.[/quote

WHY??? Because that was last year and this is this year. Are you thinking that there are no players that will get a better score than they did last year? You just pull an AFL player out of the can, and thats how well they go.

Fair enough on your final comment. Obviously you consider this to be the only way to do things. Others obviously disagree.

 

[johnny_barker_27]

Max Bailey

Anyone got any updates on this guy? As a hawk fan, would really like to see him in full flight, injury free he is easily a better ruck option than renouf.
Bit of a dilema my team. Cox, McEvoy, Fraser, Bailey. Will probably have to get rid of Fraser for Smith, but could get rid of Bailey for the extra coin, stuck with 2 GC players in the ruck.

 

[Stanton]

Re: Max Bailey

Anyone got any updates on this guy? As a hawk fan, would really like to see him in full flight, injury free he is easily a better ruck option than renouf.
Bit of a dilema my team. Cox, McEvoy, Fraser, Bailey. Will probably have to get rid of Fraser for Smith, but could get rid of Bailey for the extra coin, stuck with 2 GC players in the ruck.

Not a bad ruck combo there John, id be looking at getting rid of Fraser, Smith looks like adequate cover, i would check the hawks board on Bailey.

Bailey is in my team as well hoping he gets a run soon. On the flipside having 2 gold coast players in the ruck isnt necessarily a bad thing as one will play each week.

 

[00Stinger]

Re: Max Bailey

Anyone got any updates on this guy? As a hawk fan, would really like to see him in full flight, injury free he is easily a better ruck option than renouf.
Bit of a dilema my team. Cox, McEvoy, Fraser, Bailey. Will probably have to get rid of Fraser for Smith, but could get rid of Bailey for the extra coin, stuck with 2 GC players in the ruck.

What are you doing having someone like Fraser on your bench? That is a rookie error. When picking your side, beside the team who has the bye never pick any one on the bench who isn't a rookie. You should get rid of Fraser for Smith (GC) and use the extra cash to upgrade somewhere else.

 

[dlanod]

Re: Max Bailey

What are you doing having someone like Fraser on your bench? That is a rookie error. When picking your side, beside the team who has the bye never pick any one on the bench who isn't a rookie. You should get rid of Fraser for Smith (GC) and use the extra cash to upgrade somewhere else.

Then explain why many of the better and consistently good SCers went Petrie and Smith on their benches? This year you want at least one solid scorer on your bench to cover your premium rucks' four byes, and Smith hadn't been sighted in the preseason so was a relatively risky proposition. With the benefit of hindsight I'm sure most people would just use Smith and a rookie, but Fraser and Petrie were valid options.

 

[Captain Batch]

Jolly to miss this week. If Sandi misses also, it could stretch a few teams.