Position 2023 Fantasy Midfielders

[Shadow89]

Nah Shadow stick with him please

People paying over a million dollars for a midfielder don’t deserve this advance warning and should have learnt their lesson last year

Oh trust me, Steele killed me last year...but Laird does tackle like a beast, so he should get to at least an 80 without having much disposal impact, IMO. After that, his draw is ridiculous when it comes to possible 'taggers.' Has Richmond, Port, Freo, Carlton, and then faces McGinness at the Hawks in Round 6. Every chance he goes 120+ in those 4 weeks, but a sub par score in between those rounds of 80 or so. Means he'd drop 125K, but still not be awful.

I'm tempted to do something I've done in previous years, which is pick the guy with the insane matchup first up, and then trade to Laird Round 2 - Cripps always goes beast mode Round 1 against Richmond, so 1 I'm considering (but that I don't want to keep). You're gonna want Laird come season's end, but Kingsley alluding to a tag/defensive effort going into him specifically, is enough to make me think twice given his astronomical cost.

 

[Tex Danger]

D

Doesn’t really mean much does it?

Can’t imagine a coach being asked and saying “we will let the oppositions clear best midfielder go completely unchecked”.

I’m sure he had the opposition “put some work into him” every week in his way to a 120 average

 

[Zevon]

Can't see him going 50 - that's KPP and small forward/lockdown defender numbers. Reckon he sits around 65, and with his JS, I'm comfortable with that. There are no other good options in between Ashcroft and Callaghan, so a very cheap Best 22 player who can average 65 and make me 200K, sits fine with me.

50 is absolutely KPP territory but it’s also “young winger who has a bad day/ gets ignored in a faster moving gameplan” territory as well. So yeah, I’m just not convinced that 65s or 70s are guaranteed. Worpel is not a safe bet himself but he looks far safer than Callaghan and worth paying the extra $50k for.

 

[Zevon]

Oh trust me, Steele killed me last year...but Laird does tackle like a beast, so he should get to at least an 80 without having much disposal impact, IMO. After that, his draw is ridiculous when it comes to possible 'taggers.' Has Richmond, Port, Freo, Carlton, and then faces McGinness at the Hawks in Round 6. Every chance he goes 120+ in those 4 weeks, but a sub par score in between those rounds of 80 or so. Means he'd drop 125K, but still not be awful.

I'm tempted to do something I've done in previous years, which is pick the guy with the insane matchup first up, and then trade to Laird Round 2 - Cripps always goes beast mode Round 1 against Richmond, so 1 I'm considering (but that I don't want to keep). You're gonna want Laird come season's end, but Kingsley alluding to a tag/defensive effort going into him specifically, is enough to make me think twice given his astronomical cost.

Yeah don’t mind this strategy; should work fine so long as there is there isn’t any carnage in the first couple of rounds that prevents you from being able to go back to him

 

[Shadow89]

50 is absolutely KPP territory but it’s also “young winger who has a bad day/ gets ignored in a faster moving gameplan” territory as well. So yeah, I’m just not convinced that 65s or 70s are guaranteed. Worpel is not a safe bet himself but he looks far safer than Callaghan and worth paying the extra $50k for.

Already got both, haha - so not a decision for me to have to make. IF there was some in that 300-400K bracket I could trust more for JS, I'd go Callaghan down to him...but I don't. I also don't trust Will Phillips on field, nor do I trust Ollie Hollands to not get the big sub at any moment, when they want to bring on a fresh player and he's still developing.

 

[Shadow89]

Yeah don’t mind this strategy; should work fine so long as there is there isn’t any carnage in the first couple of rounds that prevents you from being able to go back to him

My thought process has actually become to use Constable and Cripps to get Laird...which means I don't have to keep Constable/he'll get booted out by Powell and Weller anyway...but I can then bring a Wilmot on field, and take that 150K or so (should increase by 20K ish), and put it on top of Cripps (who should also increase by 10K or more), and to go straight to Laird (who will have decreased by 10-20K).

Risky AF, but at least it's different and fun - and I never usually have much to do with my Round 1 trades anyway.

 

[Tex Danger]

Already got both, haha - so not a decision for me to have to make. IF there was some in that 300-400K bracket I could trust more for JS, I'd go Callaghan down to him...but I don't. I also don't trust Will Phillips on field, nor do I trust Ollie Hollands to not get the big sub at any moment, when they want to bring on a fresh player and he's still developing.

What if Humphrey and bytel are named, would you be tempted by the downgrade option to an additional rookie? I’m same as yiu with both and this’d make me consider but still feel like I’d start Callaghan but consider a rd 1 downgrade if they looked the better money making options

 

[Shadow89]

What if Humphrey and bytel are named, would you be tempted by the downgrade option to an additional rookie? I’m same as yiu with both and this’d make me consider but still feel like I’d start Callaghan but consider a rd 1 downgrade if they looked the better money making options

Bytel is only in because Windy is out, so can't trust his JS and wouldn't bother (wouldn't score much more either I reckon). Humphrey has had niggles all PS, and isn't even guaranteed to be Best 26, let alone Best 22, so not one I'd feel comfortable with either. Callaghan at least is guaranteed to be on that team sheet every week, given a range of factors, so I feel comfortable taking some sub par scores here and there, knowing that Phillips will be on the bench and I can loop the higher of them every week in the future, if need be.

 

[tigs2010]

My thought process has actually become to use Constable and Cripps to get Laird...which means I don't have to keep Constable/he'll get booted out by Powell and Weller anyway...but I can then bring a Wilmot on field, and take that 150K or so (should increase by 20K ish), and put it on top of Cripps (who should also increase by 10K or more), and to go straight to Laird (who will have decreased by 10-20K).

Risky AF, but at least it's different and fun - and I never usually have much to do with my Round 1 trades anyway.

Can’t see that going pear shaped

 

[Shadow89]

Can’t see that going pear shaped

It's one way for me to not to get overly serious about things - to completely f*ck it all up come Round 1

In all seriousness though, will definitely be keeping cash aside, if I go with this strategy. Have 396K available at the moment (from going Laird to Cripps and Day to Constable - which are pretty much sideways moves in all honesty given what we know now), which I don't mind.

 

[Tex Danger]

It's one way for me to not to get overly serious about things - to completely f*ck it all up come Round 1

In all seriousness though, will definitely be keeping cash aside, if I go with this strategy. Have 396K available at the moment (from going Laird to Cripps and Day to Constable - which are pretty much sideways moves in all honesty given what we know now), which I don't mind.

So you won’t start Laird “in case” he gets a low score, but will give up a guaranteed 45points in unused salary?

 

[staffa002]

Re: Callaghan, he's priced at 45 and he's a Best 22 player at the Giants with a half decent role. No matter what happens (if he even scores 70's), you're taking that every day of the week - as he's always going to make you cash and very unlikely to be dropped given it's a contract year and they want to keep him.

In these sort of scenarios, JS means a lot more than scoring power or price - as they're always going to be making you money and still dishing out half decent scores on field. Same rationale with Toby McLean, and Bruhn if he cements his spot.

Wait bruhns not best 22. Who is he competing with.

 

[Shadow89]

So you won’t start Laird “in case” he gets a low score, but will give up a guaranteed 45points in unused salary?

This is an interesting discussion actually...as spending less does not necessarily mean you'll score less.

Using this example as a reference point, Constable scored 76 in his practice match, and Day scored 73. So 3 points more, for 205K less. Day would make around 15K, while Constable would make around 30K.

IF Laird is tagged, and he goes let's say 105...while Cripps himself goes 105...one player makes 5-10K, whilst the other loses 10-20K.

In this scenario, choosing the cheaper guys, actually nets me an extra 45-55K, just by virtue of picking them at the right times. On top of that, I have an extra 396K, which leaves me with close to 450K - but basically the same score.

While it is true that generally more cash spent on field means more points, in a lot of scenarios if you pick the right players, you could save yourself a metric sh*t ton of cash, whilst also scoring similar.

When I had my best start a couple of years back (11th by Round 3), I employed this model of doubling down, and then only upgrading when I knew exactly who the right players were to upgrade to. The minute I started spending all my cash on the highest priced players, it all went pear shaped.

Over the last 3 years, Jack Ziebell was a good example of this, as was Tex Walker and Charlie Curnow - all players I selected at different times. Jumping on Tex Round 1, and Charlie Round 5 or so (in different years), I made a lot of gains and ended up scoring more than others who had gone with the high priced picks. Ziebell on the other hand, was someone I jumped on after his 170, and he never hit those heights again and I ended up losing money. It's a delicate balance, but more often than not, the cheaper low risk/high reward option, always winds up better.

Will be interesting to see if this works, as I am genuinely considering it. There are valid points to be made either way, but high priced does not necessarily mean higher scores, IMO.

 

[Shadow89]

Wait bruhns not best 22. Who is he competing with.

Our depth is pretty ridiculous, so being a new player, he hasn't cemented that spot yet. With that said, he's done everything possible thus far to get there, and given our injuries, should play the first 6 weeks or so given he's already gone past Parfitt and O'Connor - and Menegola won't play for at least the first quarter of the season either. Selwood is gone, and J. Henry is out for half the season. Smith and Tuohy will play a fair bit of two's IMO, and guys like Duncan and Hawkins will be rested here and there. If he plays well and shows what he did in PS - which he is doing in training - the spot's his.

 

[Tex Danger]

This is an interesting discussion actually...as spending less does not necessarily mean you'll score less.

Using this example as a reference point, Constable scored 76 in his practice match, and Day scored 73. So 3 points more, for 205K less. Day would make around 15K, while Constable would make around 30K.

IF Laird is tagged, and he goes let's say 105...while Cripps himself goes 105...one player makes 5-10K, whilst the other loses 10-20K.

In this scenario, choosing the cheaper guys, actually nets me an extra 45-55K, just by virtue of picking them at the right times. On top of that, I have an extra 396K, which leaves me with close to 450K - but basically the same score.

While it is true that generally more cash spent on field means more points, in a lot of scenarios if you pick the right players, you could save yourself a metric sh*t ton of cash, whilst also scoring similar.

When I had my best start a couple of years back (11th by Round 3), I employed this model of doubling down, and then only upgrading when I knew exactly who the right players were to upgrade to. The minute I started spending all my cash on the highest priced players, it all went pear shaped.

Over the last 3 years, Jack Ziebell was a good example of this, as was Tex Walker and Charlie Curnow - all players I selected at different times. Jumping on Tex Round 1, and Charlie Round 5 or so (in different years), I made a lot of gains and ended up scoring more than others who had gone with the high priced picks. Ziebell on the other hand, was someone I jumped on after his 170, and he never hit those heights again and I ended up losing money. It's a delicate balance, but more often than not, the cheaper low risk/high reward option, always winds up better.

Will be interesting to see if this works, as I am genuinely considering it. There are valid points to be made either way, but high priced does not necessarily mean higher scores, IMO.

Yeah I did consider that before writing it but in general but there’s still going to be somewhere in your team that spend will result in considerable points increase (eg a midpricer to an underpriced premo) so somewhere you are losing out.

Then you’re also got to factor in is that 40k worth planning for that trade. I’d say not, especially when so many things could happen either meaning you have to do another trafe or there are more valuable trade options (eg a Tex Walker or ziebell appear, or a Martin/rachelle rd 1 rookie monster appear from
Nowhere) that you then miss out on

 

[4tune8]

 

[4tune8]

This is an interesting discussion actually...as spending less does not necessarily mean you'll score less.

Using this example as a reference point, Constable scored 76 in his practice match, and Day scored 73. So 3 points more, for 205K less. Day would make around 15K, while Constable would make around 30K.

IF Laird is tagged, and he goes let's say 105...while Cripps himself goes 105...one player makes 5-10K, whilst the other loses 10-20K.

In this scenario, choosing the cheaper guys, actually nets me an extra 45-55K, just by virtue of picking them at the right times. On top of that, I have an extra 396K, which leaves me with close to 450K - but basically the same score.

While it is true that generally more cash spent on field means more points, in a lot of scenarios if you pick the right players, you could save yourself a metric sh*t ton of cash, whilst also scoring similar.

When I had my best start a couple of years back (11th by Round 3), I employed this model of doubling down, and then only upgrading when I knew exactly who the right players were to upgrade to. The minute I started spending all my cash on the highest priced players, it all went pear shaped.

Over the last 3 years, Jack Ziebell was a good example of this, as was Tex Walker and Charlie Curnow - all players I selected at different times. Jumping on Tex Round 1, and Charlie Round 5 or so (in different years), I made a lot of gains and ended up scoring more than others who had gone with the high priced picks. Ziebell on the other hand, was someone I jumped on after his 170, and he never hit those heights again and I ended up losing money. It's a delicate balance, but more often than not, the cheaper low risk/high reward option, always winds up better.

Will be interesting to see if this works, as I am genuinely considering it. There are valid points to be made either way, but high priced does not necessarily mean higher scores, IMO.

You're right, it is interesting.

I've bolded the part that I think you need to reference with doubling down on early, isn't that exactly what you'd be doing by bringing Laird back?

As you said, by losing Laird and Day you've banked $400k for roughly the same score, isn't it logical then to use that cash and upgrade a speculative MP into an extra premo?

 

[Shadow89]

Yeah I did consider that before writing it but in general but there’s still going to be somewhere in your team that spend will result in considerable points increase (eg a midpricer to an underpriced premo) so somewhere you are losing out.

Then you’re also got to factor in is that 40k worth planning for that trade. I’d say not, especially when so many things could happen either meaning you have to do another trafe or there are more valuable trade options (eg a Tex Walker or ziebell appear, or a Martin/rachelle rd 1 rookie monster appear from
Nowhere) that you then miss out on

Oh definitely, and that's what makes this whacky game so much fun, haha - planning for all these eventualities and trying to predict the future, haha.

As a fun little experiment, I've kept basically the same structure as my current side (7K remaining) but made little adjustments everywhere to save me as much cash as possible. Try to guess how much cash I've saved on this one:



versus this one:



Essentially:

N. Daicos vs McGrath
Day vs Constable
L. Jones vs Wilmot
Laird vs Serong
T. Green vs De Goey
Callaghan vs W. Phillips
Gulden vs Cunnington
Sheezel vs Pedlar

 

[Shadow89]

You're right, it is interesting.

I've bolded the part that I think you need to reference with doubling down on early, isn't that exactly what you'd be doing by bringing Laird back?

As you said, by losing Laird and Day you've banked $400k for roughly the same score, isn't it logical then to use that cash and upgrade a speculative MP into an extra premo?

Depends, as I'd only be using the 150K I'd be getting from downgrading Constable to a rook/bringing Cowan or Wilmot on field in his place if either are good, and then upgrading Cripps - who would have increased a little bit - to Laird who would have decreased a little bit (not getting him at his 'highest').

I'd still have my original 400K, so wouldn't really have lost anything by doing so. You can get too 'cute' sometimes as well by avoiding players...but Laird's draw after Round 1 is very favourable, so he may increase again and score really well. Alternatively, I absolutely could go the other way and go down to a De Goey/Serong/Newcome type, and bank even more cash and play it that way.

One thing is for sure, it's fraught with danger, and doesn't always work out - but it does make things a lot more interesting!!

 

[Gold_Cat]

Setterfield averaged 95 playing inside at Carlton round 21-22 last year. Also dominated the VFL in that role. Pretty low ownership, anyone considering him?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[tigs2010]

Zevon you going old mate Brad Crouch

5

Brad Crouch

Age

30

Ht

186cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

26.1

5star

K

12.1

4star

HB

14.0

5star

M

2.7

3star

T

5.5

5star

CL

5.0

5star

D

20.3

5star

K

11.1

4star

HB

9.1

5star

M

1.5

2star

T

3.9

5star

CL

4.6

5star

D

21.6

5star

K

10.0

4star

HB

11.6

5star

M

3.4

4star

T

4.2

5star

CL

2.6

5star

again?

 

[11kgm]

Absolutely this. I’m astounded that McLean has fallen off the radar. Give me a 400k guy at D5 that’s priced at 45 that can do 80 any day of the week over a Phillipou

McClean was dreadful both practice games, was even over taken over the wing role

 

[11kgm]

Setterfield averaged 95 playing inside at Carlton round 21-22 last year. Also dominated the VFL in that role. Pretty low ownership, anyone considering him?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yes and no, he is going to tag a bit this year so you might get that Yo Yo scoring

But great early draw

 

[Zevon]

Zevon you going old mate Brad Crouch again?

Lol was actually a pretty fun ride late last year when he was banging out that 120 average over the final weeks with near-zero ownership. Not sure I can do it to start this year though

 

[Exambolor]

Lol was actually a pretty fun ride late last year when he was banging out that 120 average over the final weeks with near-zero ownership. Not sure I can do it to start this year though

Plus he costs way too much to risk starting . If he were around LDU price maybe.