Comments on: Player Ranking 2010 http://tooserious.net/?p=757 For those who take it way too seriously... Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:49:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Tim http://tooserious.net/?p=757&cpage=1#comment-23574 Tim Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:11:43 +0000 http://tooserious.net/?p=757#comment-23574 thats what im doing walesy, ;) using Connors as a cheap m4 that is 95% guaranteed to play the majority of the season IMO. then using martin and barlow as my 2 starting mid rookies, and then choosing my mid bench rookies from a rather large group of potentials thats what im doing walesy, ;) using Connors as a cheap m4 that is 95% guaranteed to play the majority of the season IMO. then using martin and barlow as my 2 starting mid rookies, and then choosing my mid bench rookies from a rather large group of potentials

]]> By: walesy http://tooserious.net/?p=757&cpage=1#comment-23543 walesy Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:26:57 +0000 http://tooserious.net/?p=757#comment-23543 If it helps, you can argue that starting Connors isn't starting a rookie. Just someone real cheap. :) If it helps, you can argue that starting Connors isn’t starting a rookie. Just someone real cheap. :)

]]> By: Lucas http://tooserious.net/?p=757&cpage=1#comment-23533 Lucas Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:26:53 +0000 http://tooserious.net/?p=757#comment-23533 If Connors and Martin are both likely to play 18+ games, they should both be locks. I am generally of the opinion you need to spread the rookies around, but I will have to watch out for the form of Connors in the remaining matches to see if he is worth some loving. Connors-Martin-Trengove as a triple fills me with some strong-body confidence. Then you can use the last one on a Bastinac or a Shuey. If Connors and Martin are both likely to play 18+ games, they should both be locks. I am generally of the opinion you need to spread the rookies around, but I will have to watch out for the form of Connors in the remaining matches to see if he is worth some loving.

Connors-Martin-Trengove as a triple fills me with some strong-body confidence. Then you can use the last one on a Bastinac or a Shuey.

]]> By: Benny http://tooserious.net/?p=757&cpage=1#comment-23523 Benny Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:40:22 +0000 http://tooserious.net/?p=757#comment-23523 I've gone back to two rookie mids. It's just more reliable and an important area for points. Currently have Martin but I've been swapping between he and Connors for the past 2 weeks. I feel Martin is set to play the majority of the season, possibly 22 but likely to get a little rest so I'm assuming 18. Connors will play 22 if he can keep up his form/fitness and has scored better than Martin so far. I feel a little more secure with Martin in there, he has a body that's ready to go and he'll be an asset to Richmond and likely to play the majority of games this year. If you've read today's Herald Sun there's a few supercoach scores listed in there. Shows a few good rookies while showing a few other good performers so far in the NAB Cup. I’ve gone back to two rookie mids. It’s just more reliable and an important area for points.
Currently have Martin but I’ve been swapping between he and Connors for the past 2 weeks.
I feel Martin is set to play the majority of the season, possibly 22 but likely to get a little rest so I’m assuming 18. Connors will play 22 if he can keep up his form/fitness and has scored better than Martin so far.
I feel a little more secure with Martin in there, he has a body that’s ready to go and he’ll be an asset to Richmond and likely to play the majority of games this year.

If you’ve read today’s Herald Sun there’s a few supercoach scores listed in there. Shows a few good rookies while showing a few other good performers so far in the NAB Cup.

]]> By: Nick http://tooserious.net/?p=757&cpage=1#comment-23520 Nick Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:01:54 +0000 http://tooserious.net/?p=757#comment-23520 I've gone off Scully, but always had Trengove in my mind as a lock, as it was perceived that he was the more advanced of the two. Am now leading towards Connors/Martin (especially when shown to me as combined price as you did) but am reluctant to have two starting mids as Richmond players! However if Barlow turns into a Broughton early this will allay my fears. Too many ifs... I’ve gone off Scully, but always had Trengove in my mind as a lock, as it was perceived that he was the more advanced of the two. Am now leading towards Connors/Martin (especially when shown to me as combined price as you did) but am reluctant to have two starting mids as Richmond players! However if Barlow turns into a Broughton early this will allay my fears.

Too many ifs…

]]> By: Tim http://tooserious.net/?p=757&cpage=1#comment-23517 Tim Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:25:57 +0000 http://tooserious.net/?p=757#comment-23517 Just thought id throw this out there: Early on everbody was on the Scully/Trengove bandwagon, but after the first two weeks of the Who Cares Wins Cup have seemed to go a little cold. However, still people are sticking with them. I am interested to hear some thoughts on this comparison: Scully/Trengove ($353400 combined) VS Connors/Martin ($347100 combined) I personally believe the Tiger duo to be a more reliable pairing based off both, the potential to play the majority of the season and their scoring form in the WCW Cup. Just thought id throw this out there:

Early on everbody was on the Scully/Trengove bandwagon, but after the first two weeks of the Who Cares Wins Cup have seemed to go a little cold. However, still people are sticking with them. I am interested to hear some thoughts on this comparison:

Scully/Trengove ($353400 combined) VS Connors/Martin ($347100 combined)

I personally believe the Tiger duo to be a more reliable pairing based off both, the potential to play the majority of the season and their scoring form in the WCW Cup.

]]> By: Lucas http://tooserious.net/?p=757&cpage=1#comment-23512 Lucas Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:43:18 +0000 http://tooserious.net/?p=757#comment-23512 Didak: 89th OA - 708 points Score 85/100 Price 43/100 Value 53/100 Durability 78/100 Captaincy 81/100 So - low durability, average value (better than some but still not great), low price consistency. Very much on the money Nick, and I'd probably steer clear for this reason (until his price comes down to a level where you can't resist - e.g. 3 bad games in a row) Didak: 89th OA – 708 points

Score 85/100
Price 43/100
Value 53/100
Durability 78/100
Captaincy 81/100

So – low durability, average value (better than some but still not great), low price consistency.

Very much on the money Nick, and I’d probably steer clear for this reason (until his price comes down to a level where you can’t resist – e.g. 3 bad games in a row)

]]> By: Nick http://tooserious.net/?p=757&cpage=1#comment-23510 Nick Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:33:08 +0000 http://tooserious.net/?p=757#comment-23510 Where is Didak in your list Lucas? Low durability but high swings I presume? Where is Didak in your list Lucas?

Low durability but high swings I presume?

]]> By: Hutchy http://tooserious.net/?p=757&cpage=1#comment-23509 Hutchy Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:29:13 +0000 http://tooserious.net/?p=757#comment-23509 I'm not sure I follow Walesy?! I’m not sure I follow Walesy?!

]]> By: walesy http://tooserious.net/?p=757&cpage=1#comment-23508 walesy Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:27:00 +0000 http://tooserious.net/?p=757#comment-23508 Yeah, but R11 would have most of your upgrades complete. :) Yeah, but R11 would have most of your upgrades complete. :)

]]>