Ruddy, just imagine you go double-Tippett, and KT goes BANG at the start of the year, just goes beserk. Sandi goes down for a couple (not enough to trade him out), and MPP works to perfection. JP even begins to play a few games and becomes a moo-moo. ....and this is the master-stroke that wins you the $50K. Balls of steel baby, balls of steel - maybe that's what it takes.
The other thing about using the Tippetts, is Kurt not only solves the R3 problem, but he also solves the F5 problem, as to whether there is an appropriate premium, or which mid pricer to pick. He definitely underperformed last year, probably as a result of Adelaide having a below par year, but i reckon he can get back to '09 form, or better in 2011.
<blockquote>Quote from yt on February 28, 2011, 20:41 when i was watching GC game the other night they were saying that smith is probably locked in as their number one ruck when they were talking about the GC team</blockquote> Very pleased to hear it, yt! It would have been nice to have seen him in action, ie. while the GC were still in the proper comp, but so long as the reason he hasn't played is because McKenna only wants to get the usual 2 pre-season matches into him and he would rather those be the nearest 2 to the start of the season, as opposed to the first 2.
<blockquote>Quote from Ruddy on February 28, 2011, 21:52 The other thing about using the Tippetts, is Kurt not only solves the R3 problem, but he also solves the F5 problem, as to whether there is an appropriate premium, or which mid pricer to pick. He definitely underperformed last year, probably as a result of Adelaide having a below par year, but i reckon he can get back to '09 form, or better in 2011.</blockquote> I'm actually liking that logic, Ruddy. More so from the f5 perspective more than anything else, and of course it has the ruck solution benefit as well. F5 has been killing me. Try as I might to restructure my team, I can't find enough coin (without robbing peter to pay paul) to fit a premium in there, and truth be told I'm not sure there is a 5th person I'd pay top money for anyway given the bye structure. Was trying to go without having a midpricer anywhere, but I guess f5-f7 all being rookie priced is perhaps just a tad too much risk, especially with a handful of them elsewhere as well. Having ~150k or so floating around makes changing a gamble(for example, who was only filling a spot) to a Tippett a nice simple way of using it up as well. Edit: Crud! The crows share the round 16 bye with Freo...that's a nuisance. I guess he will have served his purpose by then anyway though, and we should have an idea of what on earth is going on at GC with the rucks.
If you select Tippett, are you going to keep him all year? He won't cover byes, injuries or suspensions in the ruck if you have upgraded him. I had 2 F/R MPP's in the forward line in my first team plus J Tippett in the rucks, but the catch is there are no real keepers with F/R multi positioning.
Would probably use him to cover the first lot of byes (rnd 5 and 6 for cox+sandi or 6 and 7 for sandi+jolly) and then hope he appreciates enough to coincide with a fallen forward premium. Hopefully after the first 6/7 rounds we'll see if smith looks like playing most games. If he is indeed either the number 1 or two ruck and is playing each week and scoring okay, then he can be the cover for the second lot of byes. If not, then Tippet may just become a keeper, assuming he's scoring moderately. Petrie is always an option to bring in, if absolute necessary just in time to provide cover for the rucks (either as a downgrade option from Tippett if he's spudding it up, or as a bit of a sideways trade from a rookie who may have had a huge score in round1/2 but has done SFA since (can get 2 weeks of price rises from the rookie before Petrie changes). Certainly wouldn't be ideal but the damage could be lessened if it didn't work out.
If I did decide to go Tippett it would have to be F6. I couldn't see myself playing Tippett AND 2 rookies in the forwards. Just too scary for me.
the whole tippet discussion is interesting. And seems a great idea. especially to have him for cover for the early byes and then say goodbye (unless he looks to become a premium). But he would be a F5/6, which is good as no $ wasted. But what are peoples thoughts about having one of the other midpriced good value rucks as a R3 (such as Fraser). Is it too much $$ sitting on the pine?
Tippett, the F5/R3 saviour... it's an easy downgrade to Petrie if when he spuds it up keeping the R/F MPP link. I don't mind the idea. @Ant: An extra $120k-ish for Fraser and would probably give you a good 25 - 30 extra points on some of the cheap R3/4 options that appear to be available at the moment. Would make you feel pretty safe in the rucks. Would've been nice if Petrie didn't go get suspended, I was happy with a Petrie/Fraser R2/3 combo.
@GeneralHodge - I started with Top Ten Tippett and two rookies in the fwds last year and it screwed me big time. I had to burnt through trades to rectify it. Avoid.
Not the Tippett discussion again. Ryder until R23 looks a fair option You can think he will give Fraser a fair touchup in R6 when Sandilands is on the pine, almost making up for not having big Lurch. Petrie is still an option in the forward line at any time so long as you put in J Tippett in the rucks, which is still my fall back option. If Adelaide played at Docklands, I could justify TTT because his marking skills would work in the pristine conditions, but at AAMI, I just have Arctic Park in my head. Avoid.
At the moment I'm going with Sandi, Ryder, Petrie and Smith. This setup allows for only one ruck out for any one round (barring injury of course), and with Petrie's starting price I'm happy to let the extra $80k or so warm the bench as security for the season. It's looking like Majak Daw may get a decent run through the ruck as well, which I reckon may open up Petrie for a bit more of a half-forward role. Not a great role for your R1 or R2 but if he's getting TOG, it should suit my bench just fine
I agree with BlueBeliever that Petrie is worth the extra $$$ at R3 to give top coverage for byes, injuries and for players being rested. His one week suspension should not be an issue if you are planning to start Petrie at R3 with no MPP.
<blockquote>Quote from soups on March 1, 2011, 11:26 Jolly or Cox.. should I be concerned that Jolly hasnt played much this NAB series</blockquote> Should be interesting as they both go up against each other this weekend. Sure it'll answer this question for a lot of people.
<blockquote>Quote from Buzzboys on March 1, 2011, 10:02 I agree with BlueBeliever that Petrie is worth the extra $$$ at R3 to give top coverage for byes, injuries and for players being rested. His one week suspension should not be an issue if you are planning to start Petrie at R3 with no MPP.</blockquote> True, but the fact that he misses round 1 through suspension and round 3 through a bye means he could be more of a downgrade target for a tad later on in the season.
And this Tippett discussion is scaring the life out of me. I can see his benefits for the F5 and R3 problems, but we have to look at the calibre of the player you're bringing in. Nothing so far has indicated he will be better than his '10 form (3 goals in a Challenege not enough for mine). IF he can get back to '09 form then it could be viable. But that big if is enough to keep him out, regardless of his uses elsewhere. Again, I think perhaps too much focus on the round 6 bye. Without it, people wouldn't dream of TTT. Plus, I am still burnt from last year! Selecting him would be taking a big of a punt on a mid pricer (which many of us did last year), and I think there are better options to place your mid-price bolter punt on. I see its merits, and its a legit strategy, but for me its too much of a risk. I'd rather use the trade to get rid of him somewhere else.
@ Nick Missing 2 of the first 3 rounds just isn't an issue for me, with R1 and R2 on ground and betting if either get injured it will be after the opening few. I'll be trying to not use any trades on the ruck this time around