To clarify Lucas, Orren in front of Redden and Giles in a 2 prem ruck combo? Edit: Sh*t, beaten again!
i have been turned off from McEvoy and onto mummy. I am trying to fit in hale somewhere maybe as a forward?
<blockquote>Quote from 11kgm on March 18, 2012, 10:38 i have been turned off from McEvoy and onto mummy. I am trying to fit in hale somewhere maybe as a forward?</blockquote> Just asking are you a Mummies boy? Sorry couldn't resist.
I need a brain dump to help me work through this... Going with Big Cox at R1, with Giles and Redden in R3 and R4. The question is, who should be R2? Currently have Kreuzer, but looking at Hale based on the Hawks current stocks and his pretty impressive pre-season, or maybe even go up to a Mummy or Sandi. Not keen on McEvoy or the Burger (or most others), but I just can't make my mind up... Kreuzer is still a bit of an unknown, and may have too much competition. Hale is looking good, as both a ruck and a fwd, but what happens when the Hawks ruck stocks improve? Mummy is great, but highly prone to brain fades. Sandi may still have toe issues, and Griffin is looking pretty good too, but then Sandi on song is a SC champ. decisions, decisions, decisions...
one thing id say for mcevoy is that the full length (regular season) games are to his benefit. the smaller style of nab cup games and reduced ground time work against him as one of his biggest assets is his engine and his contested marking (which was a big scorer for him last year) has again looked strong. once the real games start id expect to see him up in the premium ruck section again and have no hesitation in picking him. i am a saints supporter though ;p
It's either Cox/Mumford for me or Cox/Giles as R1/R2, not going to go halfway with someone like Kreuzer or McEvoy. The pros and cons of going one way or the other both seem to cancel each other out with the main variable being Giles, if you believe that he can replicate his preseason form in the season proper then surely he needs to be considered as a starter due to the lack of real quality rookies on the other lines. I'd rather play Giles and his 90 ppg than someone like Morris and his 60 ppg, although the differential could be made up between a Mumford and lets say a Broughton if you're adding that extra premium defender. Basically, it's a crapshoot. If Giles doesn't perform as expected then you pretty much are gone for the season unless Redden can come in and score starter worthy scores for you, it's alot easier to replace a mid rookie for example pre-round 3 with a bolter than trying to replace a ruck rookie who you need to rely for points.
Ive got Cox, MK, Giles and Redden. I feel as though Redden has done more than O in the pre season hence why he got the last spot about a week and a bit ago.
For me, the Big O is ahead because of minutes on the pitch. As R4 (behind Giles in R3), you want someone who turns up every week. R1 and R2. Cox.. will lose out to NicNat in ruck minutes. We saw on the weekend he had 8 hit outs to 30. When he's planted deep forward he's not gonna pick up those free roving posessions. Sandi's injuries are a worry, but I'm hopeful. Hes a premium thats not going to go up too much, even if he stars. Mine will be Mummy and Kruezer with an upgrade to the best of Cox/Sandiland as soon as the picture becomes clear. (perhaps both?). I'd rather invest in Kruezer as a low risk, and upgrade than invest in Cox or Sandi and watch them spiral.
What are peoples thoughts on Jamar as an option, is there any potential there? I have been tossing up between Mummy and the Burger, Mummy and McEvoy and Mummy and Jamar. I figure the money i save with Jamar i can spend somewhere else that is more likely to score more points. Of course this only works if Jamar is going to score well enough, Is he even going to be number one at Melbourne this year?
Would you believe he averaged 32.3 hitouts last year? Ranked 5th in the comp from memory. One to consider, however, for mine he doesnt do a lot else whereas the likes of Mummy, Jacobs, Berger etc do.
Like all of us I have gone over and over my team and my structure just looks better with a 3 rookie ruck. I am settled on a 3 premium mid so to have a second premium in the ruck means losing a premium fwd or def. We all have to play a minimum of 5-6 rookies on field and for me it comes down to the question of will Giles score higher, more consistently and have better JS than fwd/def rookies that are currently my F and D 8/9? (eg bugg, darley, morris, bower, smith, hall, dickson, kerridge etc..). Big Jonny come on down!!! After 4 rounds of the NAB some of the best and most consistent rookie performances have been from Giles and Redden. That leaves Stephenson to be the best R4 to ever grace my team!
Welcome aboard Pattay. IF you take the time to look around the place, you will notice that these forums are different to some in that we spell words in full (most of the time) and don't use chat-room leet speak.
<blockquote>Quote from Jason on March 19, 2012, 18:37 Welcome aboard Pattay. IF you take the time to look around the place, you will notice that these forums are different to some in that we spell words in full (most of the time) and don't use chat-room leet speak. </blockquote> haha, love it.
<blockquote>Quote from Bob on March 17, 2012, 08:53 Longer's an expensive rookie, but he's looking likely for a Rd 1 berth. I'd be concerned however about Huddo coming in for him against teams with bigger-bodied rucks. The kid's undoubtedly a talent though. A whopping 7 of his 13 hit-outs (with roughly 60% time in the ruck) were to advantage. When he's strong enough to compete better around the ground he's going to be scary good. And at his current rate of development, that won't be long.</blockquote> Thanks for the vaulable feedback Bob, appreciate it. Keeping Longer (if he is named) but starting to think I can't afford Cox. The Porn Star combo might have to wait until mid season when Cox's value has dropped.