Position 2015 SuperCoach defenders

[toxic]

In before toxic and Clancee

Nah im on goodes now

 

[FAILTOSUCCEED]

That's it, defence is crapola this year.

I've personally gone for Birchall, Hurn, Newnes & Docherty with Brown, Hamling, Goddard & Maynard.

Just waiting to see what rookies pop up before changing my structure.

I had Birchall but got rid of him since injury update. May get him in late or wait and upgrade to him later. Hurn is OK, but still don't think he'll be top 10 defenders at years end and Newnes I'm not sold on yet. Lots of upside though, time will tell.

Rookies are anyone's guess atm!

 

[FAILTOSUCCEED]

Nah im on goodes now

Definitely not touching that spud!

 

[rocker_oz33]

Harry Taylor anyone looks like he could be playing the 3rd def role.

At this stage my back line looks like this>
Heater birchall hurn docherty rooks.

 

[Judd_Magic]

I don't have one premo in my backline at the moment.

Most expensive player is Kelly and Newnes.

Not getting sucked in to paying for full price defender premos when all the sudden they turn to s**t!

Man I had them all last year (Enright, Hibberd, Janench, Simpson, etc)

Just don't think they are worth it IMO.

I'm totally trying something new this year and going back to how it was when I picked my team and not being influenced by looking at billions of other teams on here and then changing it all last minute (AKA last year!)

Webster, Enright (double agghhh!) but they were both my fault though!

 

[Th3 DoG FaTh3R]

It has been noted that this years back line premo options are both fewer AND have a lower ceiling than previous years noted scorers.
In the past many have gone with the 4-0-4 setup (premo-mid-rookies).
The biggest mistake this year and what will differentiate alot of teams IMO is the apparent prevalence of teams attempting to mitigate the risk in the back line, by introducing more risk, in the form of more mid pricers or a reduction in overall back line spend. Alot of back lines I have seen this year have either a 2-3-3 or 3-2-3 setup.
This to me is a flawed strategy. Common risk mitigation practice suggests that when risks are identified, the most effective method to counter is to minimise the risk, not increase it.
This suggests to me that an increase of back line spend (to have more premos not less) is more prudent. This reduces risk exposure and increases the likelihood of consistent point scoring IMO.

 

[Deliverance]

It has been noted that this years back line premo options are both fewer AND have a lower ceiling than previous years noted scorers.
In the past many have gone with the 4-0-4 setup (premo-mid-rookies).
The biggest mistake this year and what will differentiate alot of teams IMO is the apparent prevalence of teams attempting to mitigate the risk in the back line, by introducing more risk, in the form of more mid pricers or a reduction in overall back line spend. Alot of back lines I have seen this year have either a 2-3-3 or 3-2-3 setup.
This to me is a flawed strategy. Common risk mitigation practice suggests that when risks are identified, the most effective method to counter is to minimise the risk, not increase it.
This suggests to me that an increase of back line spend (to have more premos not less) is more prudent. This reduces risk exposure and increases the likelihood of consistent point scoring IMO.

I agree to an extent, people with 3-4 mid pricers are in for a world of pain. If you get a miracle, one of them will be a keeper. The others won't score enough points, they can't be traded sideways, they won't make enough cash to upgrade easily. Its a high chance of failure.

 

[stevebbb]

It has been noted that this years back line premo options are both fewer AND have a lower ceiling than previous years noted scorers.
In the past many have gone with the 4-0-4 setup (premo-mid-rookies).
The biggest mistake this year and what will differentiate alot of teams IMO is the apparent prevalence of teams attempting to mitigate the risk in the back line, by introducing more risk, in the form of more mid pricers or a reduction in overall back line spend. Alot of back lines I have seen this year have either a 2-3-3 or 3-2-3 setup.
This to me is a flawed strategy. Common risk mitigation practice suggests that when risks are identified, the most effective method to counter is to minimise the risk, not increase it.
This suggests to me that an increase of back line spend (to have more premos not less) is more prudent. This reduces risk exposure and increases the likelihood of consistent point scoring IMO.

agree completely!

 

[stevebbb]

the temptation is strong

 

[timtamWB]

It has been noted that this years back line premo options are both fewer AND have a lower ceiling than previous years noted scorers.
In the past many have gone with the 4-0-4 setup (premo-mid-rookies).
The biggest mistake this year and what will differentiate alot of teams IMO is the apparent prevalence of teams attempting to mitigate the risk in the back line, by introducing more risk, in the form of more mid pricers or a reduction in overall back line spend. Alot of back lines I have seen this year have either a 2-3-3 or 3-2-3 setup.
This to me is a flawed strategy. Common risk mitigation practice suggests that when risks are identified, the most effective method to counter is to minimise the risk, not increase it.
This suggests to me that an increase of back line spend (to have more premos not less) is more prudent. This reduces risk exposure and increases the likelihood of consistent point scoring IMO.

You raise a good point, but the fact is that none of the premos are without risk either. Whether it be tagging issues, consistency issues, ASADA issues, age issues, or some other risk, the mid pricers are almost as risky as the premos.

It's very likely that the majority of premos will spud it up this year one way or another, and then you've wasted a lot of money in the backline on premos that have gone backwards. The less you spend on the backline, the more you can spend on the midfield or forwards, where the far better options are.

 

[King_Steele]

the temptation is strong

Get KK in there!

 

[Benson FC]

It has been noted that this years back line premo options are both fewer AND have a lower ceiling than previous years noted scorers.
In the past many have gone with the 4-0-4 setup (premo-mid-rookies).
The biggest mistake this year and what will differentiate alot of teams IMO is the apparent prevalence of teams attempting to mitigate the risk in the back line, by introducing more risk, in the form of more mid pricers or a reduction in overall back line spend. Alot of back lines I have seen this year have either a 2-3-3 or 3-2-3 setup.
This to me is a flawed strategy. Common risk mitigation practice suggests that when risks are identified, the most effective method to counter is to minimise the risk, not increase it.
This suggests to me that an increase of back line spend (to have more premos not less) is more prudent. This reduces risk exposure and increases the likelihood of consistent point scoring IMO.

Great post
Atm I have Shaw, Hodge, Hibberd, Newnes, Rookie, Rookie
Would you suggest me upgrading that rookie to a) a 400k keeper, or b)taking a punt on a mid prices (docherty, Mayes, Langdon, KK)
This would mean taking a premium out of either the forwards or mids

 

[stevebbb]

Get KK in there!

I think Pittard and Sutcliffe are better options then KK, Ibbotson, etc... if I decide with a mid pricer, it'll be one of those boys

 

[felsty]

It has been noted that this years back line premo options are both fewer AND have a lower ceiling than previous years noted scorers.
In the past many have gone with the 4-0-4 setup (premo-mid-rookies).
The biggest mistake this year and what will differentiate alot of teams IMO is the apparent prevalence of teams attempting to mitigate the risk in the back line, by introducing more risk, in the form of more mid pricers or a reduction in overall back line spend. Alot of back lines I have seen this year have either a 2-3-3 or 3-2-3 setup.
This to me is a flawed strategy. Common risk mitigation practice suggests that when risks are identified, the most effective method to counter is to minimise the risk, not increase it.
This suggests to me that an increase of back line spend (to have more premos not less) is more prudent. This reduces risk exposure and increases the likelihood of consistent point scoring IMO.

You raise a good point, but the fact is that none of the premos are without risk either. Whether it be tagging issues, consistency issues, ASADA issues, age issues, or some other risk, the mid pricers are almost as risky as the premos.

It's very likely that the majority of premos will spud it up this year one way or another, and then you've wasted a lot of money in the backline on premos that have gone backwards. The less you spend on the backline, the more you can spend on the midfield or forwards, where the far better options are.

Agree with both of these.. the way I see it soo many good defenders have left that the blokes between $400-$450k are going to score almost exactly the same as any $450k+ defenders, bar a few top players and these players also mitigate some risk because they are somewhat proven during their time.

Personally I have gone with Smith, Kelly, Newnes as my premos/set and forgets with Macmillan taking the 4th spot because he is the cheapest player in that mid priced range that should make me at least $100k and is also a Round 13er which will help during bye rounds.

If 4 good defence rookies dont pop their heads up come round 1 I'll be downgrading a premo somewhere else and getting Simpson.

Gives me a starting side of 14 keepers (including Wines, Swan, Newnes) and Macmillan as my only mid pricer. MITIGATE RISK!

 

[KardiniaPark]

Nah im on goodes now

Did he even play on the weekend?

 

[cdcanman]

I don't have one premo in my backline at the moment.

Most expensive player is Kelly and Newnes.

Not getting sucked in to paying for full price defender premos when all the sudden they turn to s**t!

Man I had them all last year (Enright, Hibberd, Janench, Simpson, etc)

Just don't think they are worth it IMO.

I'm totally trying something new this year and going back to how it was when I picked my team and not being influenced by looking at billions of other teams on here and then changing it all last minute (AKA last year!)

Webster, Enright (double agghhh!) but they were both my fault though!

So you're not going to change it all at the last minute, you'll just wait until the season starts and rage trade to your hearts content? One must remain true to oneself after all, right? You have a reputation to uphold Mr Judd_Magic, and we love it!

 

[GOAUS!]

It has been noted that this years back line premo options are both fewer AND have a lower ceiling than previous years noted scorers.
In the past many have gone with the 4-0-4 setup (premo-mid-rookies).
The biggest mistake this year and what will differentiate alot of teams IMO is the apparent prevalence of teams attempting to mitigate the risk in the back line, by introducing more risk, in the form of more mid pricers or a reduction in overall back line spend. Alot of back lines I have seen this year have either a 2-3-3 or 3-2-3 setup.
This to me is a flawed strategy. Common risk mitigation practice suggests that when risks are identified, the most effective method to counter is to minimise the risk, not increase it.
This suggests to me that an increase of back line spend (to have more premos not less) is more prudent. This reduces risk exposure and increases the likelihood of consistent point scoring IMO.

I think the general theory is that the defenders generally score less than everyone else, 90+ is keeper territory for defenders. Therefore, if you can get a player that averages about 80-85 and spend up on the midfield instead (this is where the big points are made 110-115+ ppg for the premos) I think it leaves you in a better position.

 

[NT.Thunder]

It has been noted that this years back line premo options are both fewer AND have a lower ceiling than previous years noted scorers.
In the past many have gone with the 4-0-4 setup (premo-mid-rookies).
The biggest mistake this year and what will differentiate alot of teams IMO is the apparent prevalence of teams attempting to mitigate the risk in the back line, by introducing more risk, in the form of more mid pricers or a reduction in overall back line spend. Alot of back lines I have seen this year have either a 2-3-3 or 3-2-3 setup.
This to me is a flawed strategy. Common risk mitigation practice suggests that when risks are identified, the most effective method to counter is to minimise the risk, not increase it.
This suggests to me that an increase of back line spend (to have more premos not less) is more prudent. This reduces risk exposure and increases the likelihood of consistent point scoring IMO.

Needs more risk - Do you work risk and compliance by any chance

 

[Th3 DoG FaTh3R]

You raise a good point, but the fact is that none of the premos are without risk either. Whether it be tagging issues, consistency issues, ASADA issues, age issues, or some other risk, the mid pricers are almost as risky as the premos.

It's very likely that the majority of premos will spud it up this year one way or another, and then you've wasted a lot of money in the backline on premos that have gone backwards. The less you spend on the backline, the more you can spend on the midfield or forwards, where the far better options are.

You are correct, and I would argue that every single player, from Ablett down, has an inherent risk attached in one form or another.
Risk is generally assessed from two angles, likelihood and impact. Thus a high likelihood of failure coupled with severe impact would rate as the most risky option.

Your belief that it is "very likely the majority of premos will spud it up" is contrary to my belief that the likelihood is not as high as you have rated. Further more I would argue that the likelihood for a mid priced player to perform sub par (break even or immaterial price rise) is greater than that of a premo.

To me the perception is not that the premos will be bad scorers BUT that there is no value in the defender premos this year, meaning that their initial pricing reflects their scoring potential. Whilst it would be good to have undervalued premos, The current situation to me is not a total tragedy.

 

[Th3 DoG FaTh3R]

Needs more risk - Do you work risk and compliance by any chance

You would be shocked to know that I have studied risk management.

 

[Th3 DoG FaTh3R]

Great post
Atm I have Shaw, Hodge, Hibberd, Newnes, Rookie, Rookie
Would you suggest me upgrading that rookie to a) a 400k keeper, or b)taking a punt on a mid prices (docherty, Mayes, Langdon, KK)
This would mean taking a premium out of either the forwards or mids

That depends, do you think there are 4 rookies that will consistently play2 of which will have to start? Also do you consider Newnes a premo and thus a keeper?
I think you could do alot worse than a 4-1-3 setup this year. This limits onfield rookies to only one, allows for value to be had with one midpricer and gives the security of having four premos.

 

[Souup]

I think the general theory is that the defenders generally score less than everyone else, 90+ is keeper territory for defenders. Therefore, if you can get a player that averages about 80-85 and spend up on the midfield instead (this is where the big points are made 110-115+ ppg for the premos) I think it leaves you in a better position.

I've never understood this "theory".

You pay 470K for a defender who averaged 88 last season, let's say he bumps that up to 93ppg. You've gotten basically what you've paid for.

Let's say you pay 710K for a midfielder who averaged 130 last season, he bumps that up to 135. You've basically gotten what you paid for.

In fact, you save 240K to put towards another position which can elevate a risky mid-pricer to a solid premium.

I dont understand how "spend big in the midfield because this is where the big points are made" is somehow a guiding principle in creating a team. I've noticed a trend that many are severely weakening other positions in their side in order to stack their midfield of top 10 priced midfielders. All things being equal (they hold their price, no injuries or suspensions etc.) , you get what you pay for regardless of where you spend the money. Where it all changes is choosing the players who will hopefully increase their average, play 20+ games and finish top 6 in their position (midfield top 8, rucks top 2).

You can spend 710K on Rockliff, lets say he averages 125PPG, he loses 7PPG on last season. You're not getting value for money. However, you are getting "big points"
You can spend 425K on Newnes, he'll hopefully bump his average up to 90PPG or so. You are getting value for money. However, you are not getting the "big points".

Yes, midfield is where the big points are scored, but midfield is also where the big money is spent. You get what you pay for, simply spending more for more points isn't a recipe for success, that makes no sense. In fact, I'd argue most of the top 10 midfielders are overpriced, and there's more value to be found in the defense.

I'd still argue for AT LEAST 3 starting midfield premiums, but the theory of stacking your midfield because "that's where the big points are made" makes no sense to me.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Will Picken and geary both tag ? Both know how to find the footy Picken new coach unsure if he will be used more in the mids.
Looking for a keeper at D4 to be my D5/6/7 at years end.

Picken is going to play FWD apparently. He did during NAB hitout last week and Beveridge, when asked if that was going to continue during the presser, was quick to confirm yes it would.

 

[stevebbb]

I've never understood this "theory".

You pay 470K for a defender who averaged 88 last season, let's say he bumps that up to 93ppg. You've gotten basically what you've paid for.

Let's say you pay 710K for a midfielder who averaged 130 last season, he bumps that up to 135. You've basically gotten what you paid for.

In fact, you save 240K to put towards another position which can elevate a risky mid-pricer to a solid premium.

I dont understand how "spend big in the midfield because this is where the big points are made" is somehow a guiding principle in creating a team. I've noticed a trend that many are severely weakening other positions in their side in order to stack their midfield of top 10 priced midfielders. All things being equal (they hold their price, no injuries or suspensions etc.) , you get what you pay for regardless of where you spend the money. Where it all changes is choosing the players who will hopefully increase their average, play 20+ games and finish top 6 in their position (midfield top 8, rucks top 2).

You can spend 710K on Rockliff, lets say he averages 125PPG, he loses 7PPG on last season. You're not getting value for money. However, you are getting "big points)
You can spend 425K on Newnes, he'll hopefully bump his average up to 90PPG or so. You are getting value for money. However, you are not getting the "big points".

Yes, midfield is where the big points are scored, but midfield is also where the big money is spent. You get what you pay for, simply spending more for more points isn't a recipe for success, that makes no sense. In fact, I'd argue most of the top 10 midfielders are overpriced, and there's more value to be found in the defense.

I'd still argue for AT LEAST 3 starting midfield premiums, but the theory of stacking your midfield because "that's where the big points are made" makes no sense to me.

well said, agree

 

[Daniels]

I've never understood this "theory".

You pay 470K for a defender who averaged 88 last season, let's say he bumps that up to 93ppg. You've gotten basically what you've paid for.

Let's say you pay 710K for a midfielder who averaged 130 last season, he bumps that up to 135. You've basically gotten what you paid for.

In fact, you save 240K to put towards another position which can elevate a risky mid-pricer to a solid premium.

I dont understand how "spend big in the midfield because this is where the big points are made" is somehow a guiding principle in creating a team. I've noticed a trend that many are severely weakening other positions in their side in order to stack their midfield of top 10 priced midfielders. All things being equal (they hold their price, no injuries or suspensions etc.) , you get what you pay for regardless of where you spend the money. Where it all changes is choosing the players who will hopefully increase their average, play 20+ games and finish top 6 in their position (midfield top 8, rucks top 2).

You can spend 710K on Rockliff, lets say he averages 125PPG, he loses 7PPG on last season. You're not getting value for money. However, you are getting "big points"
You can spend 425K on Newnes, he'll hopefully bump his average up to 90PPG or so. You are getting value for money. However, you are not getting the "big points".

Yes, midfield is where the big points are scored, but midfield is also where the big money is spent. You get what you pay for, simply spending more for more points isn't a recipe for success, that makes no sense. In fact, I'd argue most of the top 10 midfielders are overpriced, and there's more value to be found in the defense.

I'd still argue for AT LEAST 3 starting midfield premiums, but the theory of stacking your midfield because "that's where the big points are made" makes no sense to me.

Who you got at M1 and M2 this year?