Not sure how long I’ve got before auto pick lads but I’m home now and will get my pick in soon. Thanks
Hey coaches, If you take a player from the Free Agents List with your selection in the PSD, will you add that player to your squad in tsLeagues asap, so we don't have the situation where another Coach takes the same player with a later pick.
We have very different translations for “soon”. All good mate, just winding you up! Plenty of time as Chops said. The whole league has done super well with the time limits and we’re almost done. It’s been tremendous by all!
FWIW I don't think it's a stiff pick, Lobb has groin injuries and big Daws will play some games this year
2 picks to go, we've smashed this. Now that the draft is just about done, can we discuss the PTA/GCS bye round plans for this season..?
when the PSD should commence , as we seem to be moving through these drafts quickly id prefer a later start last week of January even if it takes three weeks we will be done before any practice matches start
Why do we have to be done before practice matches? It’s bloody ridiculous we’re finished in the middle of January when the season doesn’t start til late March, why not finish the draft in the middle of March? Stupid if you ask me, evidenced by the fact that no other ORFF league starts until mid Feb. Wait, this isn’t the rant thread? Oops
If 100 people do something incorrect are you going to follow suit just because they did? Not saying the issue you raise is right or wrong, just saying the justification is a poor one. You’re a smart man @Tomster, go again with a logical argument and, as they say in survivor, you’ll have my vote
Here's my take on it. JPK and I discussed all things ORFFU after the completion on the 2017 season. I suggested an earlier start to the PSD so we wouldn't have the situation like last year where some coaches(late in the draft) had the advantage of seeing some players strut their stuff in the pre-season games, while others didn't. So at my suggestion we agreed to start 1st Jan (optional) cause this year we had a minimum of 72 picks to be taken for the first time, and we didn't know how long that would take. It took 2 weeks and 1 day.....you could say I stuffed up big time on that, and you'd be correct. I have seen an earlier suggestion we start the last week in January. If by that, the suggestion means at the beginning of the last week in January, then that would be OK as long as the first pre-season game isn't scheduled prior to about the 15th February. I believe we need to allow at least 3 weeks to complete the Draft, just as a safeguard, going by this year's Draft. I believe the PSD should be completed prior to the pre-season games commencing, to make it fair for ALL Coaches, but if the majority of Coaches (and 10 is a majority) want to finish just prior to the main season starting (middle of March as someone has suggested) then we need 10 Coaches to state so. However I believe this could give an unfair advantage to some Coaches over others, as I stated previously. As this is the discussion thread, I'll leave it to be discussed.
Thanks for the input mate, didn't really add any reasons to stick with this draft time. I can see the problem with the old follow the leader method, but when the leader has been doing it for years more (successfully) and we managed fine in past years with a later draft - I guess what I'm saying is if 100 people are doing something, at least discuss whether it is correct or not rather than saying that we can't be sheep and disregarding the idea, if that makes any sense at all. I'm happy to be proven wrong Appreciate the legitimate points in here chop, and I'm not trying to come after you in a personal attack, more convey my point of view. If we look at this year as an example, I see two logical options: have the draft finish just before the JLT comp (i.e. start on Feb 10, finishing by Feb 23) or start about halfway through the JLT comp (i.e. March 6, finishing March 20), giving all coaches a chance to see at least some players in action and see where coaches will play them. I'm all for the research side of things but watching players in match situations is the best insight you can get. Many supercoaches have called the pre-season cup a lottery for picking players anyway due to the uncertainty and all. With your point about fairness of later picks seeing players, I admit that it's a fair point. I can't necessarily provide answers, but maybe we should consider that with increased draft length it becomes increasingly difficult to find those diamonds in the rough for picks 50+. These coaches may have the opportunity to view more pre-season games but it is still very tough to correctly identify a player even with more data based on JLT matches. Think Brett Eddy last year, who many thought would be a gun based on JLT performance but ended up amounting to next to nothing; or think Cam Ellis-Yolmen the year before, who had a great JLT and just about continued it for the rest of that AFL season and has done nothing since. It's still a lottery, but it is far more helpful than being completely blind and by drafting during the pre-season comp we should be able to make more informed decisions, but any unfairness should be eliminated merely due to the occasional randomness of the pre-season
Personally, I liked having the draft when we did - almost. I think we could have started on the 8th which would have stopped us checking this site every couple of hours over the Xmas break instead of spending time with our loved ones (yep, I'm guilty of that). We would still be finished by the JLT, which means its fair for all. For those of us that try and get early picks (lower teams) versus the top teams which end up with later picks, should never have an advantage of viewing players during the JLT. We can all still trade right up until the start of the season right? So if your younger players are not so great in the JLT, then let me know, we might be able to make a trade!
I don't think the system we used for this bye last year worked at all. Can understand that I am coming from a biased point of view but my team had a pretty much 0 chance of winning before the round even started and as a general rule I don't think that is something we should be aiming for. My suggestion would be that any GCS/PTA player who didn't play the week before or is listed on an injury report can't be selected but any other can be picked as normal and would get their average score for the year so far.
nailed it @Tomster you have my vote as sole survivor for the million dollars anyway, @martyg the 8th was the official start, the 1st was a 'soft' start. so no one was obligated to "check this site every couple of hours over the Xmas break instead of spending time with our loved ones". if coaches chose to check over Chrissy and new year then that was their decision. personally I didn't have a 'Xmas break' and was back at work on the 2nd so it's irrelevant to me. I know other coaches welcomed the distraction of FU and were hangin for some draft fun. Different strokes really... for example, I took my laptop home and was doing (voluntary) work on Christmas day, whereas I'm sure many people would think that's crazy and say you need to switch off and blah blah. Many ways to skin a cat, even a TS one.
Right, I'll start here. I completely agree that setting up teams for near-certain losses is not a good idea. Unfortunately the GC-Port bye is beyond our control, as you're all aware, and the <insert series of swear words here> at the AFL can't get their heads around planning the byes better. What we did was pick the teams that would be most effected (ie biggest number of best-15 players missing) and paired them together to try to even things out as much as possible. Yeah, it didn't work too well, but it was worth a shot. The alternate was worse. We need 17 weeks of regular season, plus the final three weeks of regular season for our finals. We won't have games over the official 3-week bye rounds, so we have no other choice but to use the GC-Port effected bye round as one of our regular weeks of ORFFU. I understand your suggestion, and I speak as a coach not the commissioner right now, I simply can't support it. While a player's average is a great comparison tool to judge their value, especially when trading, I don't believe that it should ever be used as an actual score for someone. If a player doesn't play, for whatever reason, then they can't score any points... Besides, very rarely do players actually hit exactly on their average. Hypothetically, if we followed this path, then where should we stop? Patrick Dangerfield was rubbed out last year for what everyone agreed was not a suspendable offence. Do we give Serengeti (yes, this could be a loaded question) his average score for that week, because we all knew he should have been playing? Sorry mate, personally, I just can't support using averages at any time like this. Its what the player scores each week that counts, in my opinion. If the general 'FU would like a vote on this matter, then we can happily put together a poll, but I don't like its chances of being successful in allowing averages to be used in these circumstances. So what we'll do again this year, is look at which teams will likely have the most best-15 players missing, and pair them together. We'll then work from there, to make sure we haven't made a complete mess of the draw. Unless of-course this potential poll does get up, then it becomes a moot point.