Thanks everyone, I dont have a lot of free time with work and two rug rats (under 2) so getting the cheat notes (so to speak) from your comments helps a great deal. Good work Chel... your a thinker.. Cheers
Midfielders who broke the 100avg mark last season whilst averaging <90 the season before: Rockliff 113.89 (85.9) Thompson 110.8 (90.8) Fyfe 108.0 (72.6) Wells 104.2 (87.9) Redden 102.9 (76.1) Beams 100.8 (84.9) Cotchin 100.6(78.9) Between $200k-$500k is 150 odd players. Take out Thompson and Beams, last year the strike rates was 5/150. So you have a 3.3% strike-rate to get the right player. I'd like to know the percentage of teams that had these guys at the start to show just how many people actually get right. So what I'm trying to point out, it's a lot safer going GnR
Chels, your last post on page 4 is something I've been trying to figure out for the last 2 days because trading Giles -> FWD and Rowe going into the Rucks is one way of avoiding a donut, I just can't work out how as he has the R13 bye. He's injured I think too so having him in your side you're giving up a chance for a forward cow I think.
@chels, I like your explanation of strategy behind DPP trades. Personally, I think the new rule is a good one and I bemoaned the fact it wasn't in place last year. A 'real' coach (as you put it) might do the same thing. e.g. Hayes injured, Goddard to the midfield and replace with a defender. So I don't think it's open to abuse.
@whips abuse might have been the wrong word mate -perhaps beneficial use might better convey an advantage to be gained? @port you and me both. I thought if I typed it out it might help. What I was trying to say was Rowe's value as an option might surpass the donuts. Tactically it might be worthwhile. Still think about it. @DirtyDog your welcome, we are all looking for short cuts. Not having rugrats could be seen as a bonus in this case! regards chels
I notice so many people taking Swan over Pendles. Everyone locks in Gablett, and usually has Swan and Selwood. Not so many seem to be locking in Pendles, the smooth rider. Reminds me of 2-3yrs ago when Ablett was exhorbitantly priced, and the clued in bought him anyway, and those who didnt fell away quickly. Is it different this year? Many collingwood supporters feel Dane Swan's elite days are numbered, as his body slows down and he spends time in arizona... Thats why i think pendles is better option, he's made of rubber and doesnt seem to get tagged or injured...
So many options, so little time....I wonder what Prompts is thinking?? Reading the level of analysis and knowledge you guys have, now I see why I've got a long way to go. I just hope my mates aren't onto this site. Yeah I know, selfish.
<blockquote>Quote from GaryReal on February 14, 2012, 16:51 I notice so many people taking Swan over Pendles. Everyone locks in Gablett, and usually has Swan and Selwood. Not so many seem to be locking in Pendles, the smooth rider. Reminds me of 2-3yrs ago when Ablett was exhorbitantly priced, and the clued in bought him anyway, and those who didnt fell away quickly. Is it different this year? Many collingwood supporters feel Dane Swan's elite days are numbered, as his body slows down and he spends time in arizona... Thats why i think pendles is better option, he's made of rubber and doesnt seem to get tagged or injured...</blockquote> im not sure for other peoples reasoning but mine for not taking pendles early is that there has never been a player capable of sticking to the 700k price for an extended period (ablett, swan and goddard have all reached it but its almost impossible to sustain) and so figure that extra few thousand $$ could be better spent as while most of the prems are expected to drop a bit that extra cost for pendles is likely to be gone eventually edit: hes also never managed to rise above 600k before either so for him to keep that price to make the early pick worthwhile hes going to need to improve a LOT
Yeah I have given Pendles a miss to start with for that exact reason. Can't see him sustaining the average required early on to keep at 700. I have gone 3 premiums in the mids. the breakdown currently is; Backs - 5 Mids - 3 Rucks - 1 (+ Kreuzer) Forwards - 5
Re: Pendlebury. If you don't take him early, I don't see when would be a good time to pick him up. If you wait until he's dropped 100K - projected to be around Collingwood's bye - you've given up half a season of his elite earning power. The likelihood is that any premium you'd like to name will be 80-100K cheaper at some stage. Even the most reliable names like Priddis and Murphy dipped 50K. So you're probably saving 20-30K in upgrades if things go well for you, but you're giving up a lot of points doing it. The other issue is finding the money to buy Pendlebury when you want him. I didn't start with Swan last year, and I doubt I'd have been able to afford him if he hadn't dropped right down to the $450K mark. I think you have to spend the money on him. You just can't afford not to have him. If you have any doubts, go back and have a look at his 2011 scoring.
@Dekka - I think it's only fair you don't tell them until next season. I don't think people should really be worrying about premium prices and losing money over a number of weeks etc etc. Did anyone drop Goddard last year when his price dropped? Did anyone hang around without him and wait to snap him up? Very few.
Pendulbury is a set and forget player, if you lose a bit of coin who cares at the end of the day he is "fingers crossed" ultra consistent!!! If you dont start with him you will be wanting to get him later and will have to burn trades or sideways! Jusy my opinion! Ask yourself do you see him "NOT" finishing in the top 10 sc mids this year??
<blockquote>Quote from GaryReal on February 14, 2012, 16:51 I notice so many people taking Swan over Pendles. Everyone locks in Gablett, and usually has Swan and Selwood. Not so many seem to be locking in Pendles, the smooth rider. Reminds me of 2-3yrs ago when Ablett was exhorbitantly priced, and the clued in bought him anyway, and those who didnt fell away quickly. Is it different this year? Many collingwood supporters feel Dane Swan's elite days are numbered, as his body slows down and he spends time in arizona... Thats why i think pendles is better option, he's made of rubber and doesnt seem to get tagged or injured...</blockquote> I agree with this except for the Arizona remark. Dane Swan's numbers got better AFTER he went there. Not to mention all the science behind altitude training.
I'm thinking 3-0-3 at the moment (the Breaker Morant) but it'll be interesting to see Barlow's form and role. Re Pendlebury: I'm not really up with how the magic number degradation thing works, but taking that as read it seems to me that you shouldn't worry that his price will drop, allowing others to pick him up cheaper, because won't the same thing happen to any other premium that they picked instead? You'll be able to pick them up cheaper as McCrabb said. Plus the whole time you're missing out on Pendlebury's captaincy potential which, all things otherwise being equal, is a few extra PPG.