Competitions Ultimate Footy 2015 Thread

[Hank93]

I'll just state here that i always voted for a non keeper league, so i haven't really changed my view because I'm sucking.

 

[DangerSloane]

Hahaha I know I know. I had a look at the list and thought that there would be enough rucks to go around. Maybe I was wrong the bigger lists have made people a lot more reluctant to let non playing players go, there's no squeeze or pressure.

Yeah but that was the whole idea of the keeper league, something a little different and a lot more tactical. Like I said, the top picks don't influence things nowhere near as much. It's what you do down the bottom end that makes or breaks your season. Obviously injuries don't help, but you get that playing keeper or normal.

And yes, there was some aspect of fun taken out of the draft, but I honestly thought that people might enjoy the more tactical and tricky method that is a keeper league. It's why I put it forward to the group, and i received a strong response to the idea.

Overall I liked the idea.
Just felt it was a bit unfair to make it keeper after the season. I would've drafted differently had that been the case. Happy to keep playing though. Im still involved every week, even though my team sucks with Ablett and Crouch out.

 

[Mego Red]

Because the situations were both completely different.

Masten for mzungu I consider fair enough if both coaches had agreed for it. Mzungu at the time wasn't in the side, but who knew he still wouldn't be back in. Mzungu is a 75 averaging back. Masten at the end of last year was an 85 averaging midfielder. They say as a general rule of thumb is add 10 points to the average of a forward when trading for a midfielder and 10-15 when trading a defender for a midfielder.

The trade with hank as I said was completely different. Hank having no rucks was not really a fault of his. And again, I was willing to give him one for free to help him along and even up the teams. Sure I wouldn't have a reserve, but it's not fair on hank being in the position he is in.

Mcevoy while not in the side atm is no better or worse than Sinclair imo. You're acting as if you've just traded him a no. 1 ruck. Sinclair could be out of the side just as easily as mcevoy could be back in. And it's not like Sinclair is a huge scorer either. Id consider mcevoy and Sinclair to be pretty even, Sinclair is probably ahead given he is actually playing. Then on the other end of the trade, Hank has given you an elite back AND forward which are fantasy GOLD and you give him Ben Jacobs a player you're forever playing Russian roulette with as to whether he's in the side, or if he's sub even. Not a fair trade by any means imaginable, and like I said taking advantage of Hanks misfortunes more than anything.


And in regards to my trades with you, I genuinely couldn't remember the whole trades which is why I didn't list it, but from what I remember they were not good. I remember you offering one half decent player and then absolute junk like Easton wood and or Ben Jacobs, for players like Yeo and Suckling. Suckling is miles ahead of Wood. Suckling has averaged 90+ before and sure, he was probably lucky to keep his spot in the side last week being a late in, but with a top of the line, elite defender in suckling im not trading him away for a key defender who you picked up off the FA list and who happens to be scoring OKAY at the moment.

Maybe it's just our player views are miles apart, I don't know, but can't say I agree with anything I've seen.

I'm actually really offended that you think I took advantage of Hank when I offered him a 60pt improvement in his side.

That you think Missy Higgins is an elite back when at any moment he could tear like a wet tissue is ridiculous. Ben Jacobs has played 19 of the last 22 games for NMFC and has shown this year that he can push his scoring into the 80s. Higgins is 10pts better - but he was getting a free player, one who had proven he was a part of the best 22 at a premium position while I was taking someone who wasn't playing.

Masten was averaging 95 over the last three years and continued that this year, but I'm fine that I lost out on that. You have to take risks.

You had depth in the backs - you want to trade out depth that you're not using to improve in other positions. The point of the trade I offered you was that you'd improve a LOT in the other position taking a small step back in defense, which you could do because you had depth there.

Suckling is ahead of Wood - except Suckling has been dropped a number of times the last few years and Wood won't be. Wood has upside and Suckling doesn't - but that wasn't the point of the trade. That was just my risk if you accepted it - that j gave up guaranteed scoring to get a player that then fell out of the first 22 and didn't get a game.

 

[Mego Red]

AND I offered my backup Ruck to a number of teams. hank was just the first who said yes.

 

[Danoz]

Is it possible to change the team setup mid way through the year? Drop one ruck and add a utility instead? What would people think of that idea?

Care to expand on the topic a little?

Ok so the league admin gives odds for each game each week. You start with a fictional $1000, and place bets (if you want to). The winner gets a mid first round pick, second gets an end of first round pick, third gets a mid second round pick and fourth gets an end of second round pick.

 

[Vantz]

Like I said, maybe I just have very different views on players.

As I thought would happen, Lachie Neale has been a huge bolter this year, and given his age in a keeper league, he's an elite prospect for the next 7-10 years. Don't get me wrong I still considered parker to be the better player and dream teamer, but not by far at all. Neale is younger and in a top side, currently averaging more than parker (who has had his injuries yes, I have him in my other league and that concussion killed him).

But the difference between franklin and cloke is almost a 20 point average and not something that gets me remotely close to accepting to give up Neale. Same applies for Benell and Mcveigh.

The fact that you also then offered "any 2" of Barlow/Yeo/Suckling etc for Parker and some steak knives is IMO a big no.

My turn. Before I start, Luke Parker is only 22 and also has 7-10 years left. He also plays for a top team...

Interesting view. Let me clear this up for others as you are painting a picture that is not quite accurate, in my opinion. You sent me a PM about doing a trade around 2 weeks ago.

Azza - "Have Sidebottom in my other leagues and would love him. Also happy with anyone of Parker/Beams and possibly Treloar.... But Im more so looking for a player that could provide me with a captain option.

As you can see from my team, I have Rockliff with moire broken ribs, Barlow playing a HFF role and not scoring well, and I don't trust any of Montagna, Neale or Rischitelli for obvious reasons."

I replied by saying I was highly unlikely to trade from my Midfield. Note I said highly unlikely, implying it would need a good trade to get it done, as the midfield is the strength of my team and stage one in my long term drafting strategy. I said Sidebottom was not an option as I only just got him in a trade.

I subsequently sent you what I would consider for Parker my third ranked midfielder behind Sidebottom and Beams, because you mentioned him in your message. I then told you what it would take for me to trade Parker.

I rated Neale below my starting 7 midfielders - Sidebottom, Beams, Parker, Steven, Ellis, Treloar and probably on par with Macrae at that time in my opinion. But that is debatable.

"I'll bracket the value I see in your players available. I like Lachie Neale and would include him in any trade. I do not however believe Lachie Neale is the value of any of my current starting midfielders.

Lachie Neale
+ 1 a combination of (Bennell, Yeo, Franklin, Mumford)
(EDIT: I was implying Neale plus one of these players, grammatical error on my part, but the +1 should have made it clear what i was saying.)
or +2 a combination of (Duncan, Wallis, Selwood, Barlow, McVeigh)

A return player(s) to even out on my side would be an option.

I'm not overly eager to trade from my midfield."

I never said i'll throw in the steak knives! I was presenting you with options to consider. You yourself said at the time Barlow was playing HFF and Neale and Montagna were not safe captain choices.

I don't think Parker as a captain plus a second player for Neale and one of Bennell, Yeo, Franklin, Mumford was unrealistic.

You never sent me an offer with a second player to even out the trade. I was downgrading in my midfield, I thought it was fair enough to upgrade in another position. You wanted a captain for the double points, they don't come easy, thats why they are valuable.

 

[Vantz]

Trade Alert:
I have traded Coniglio and Rich to Geoffa32 for Sloane and Griffen.

In the spirit of someone mentioning for players to explain their logic behind trading here is mine. (BTW I thought Hank won his trade with Kris :S)

It is an interesting trade. I think Rich will get defender status at some point, if not next year. Coniglio is a 95+ midfielder. Two long term keepers.

My sole target was Sloane. Griffen probably won't make my keepers list at seasons end, and will ride the emergency list for the season and be back up if needed.

 

[Geoffa32]

I guessed you wanted Sloane.

In my part was happy to part with him and get rid of Griffen for two guys that will be in my 15(or so) keepers.

 

[Mego Red]

Trade Alert:
I have traded Coniglio and Rich to Geoffa32 for Sloane and Griffen.

In the spirit of someone mentioning for players to explain their logic behind trading here is mine. (BTW I thought Hank won his trade with Kris :S)

It is an interesting trade. I think Rich will get defender status at some point, if not next year. Coniglio is a 95+ midfielder. Two long term keepers.

My sole target was Sloane. Griffen probably won't make my keepers list at seasons end, and will ride the emergency list for the season and be back up if needed.

Dammit, Vantz. You're going to end up with all of the midfielders.

Sloane is a 105+ midfielder and Griffin is a 90+ mid.

Rich is an 80+ POSSIBLE defender and Coniglio is a 90+ mid.

You smashed that. Geoffa better hope Griffin continues off the deep end and Rich gets multiposition. Both reasonably likely, IMO

 

[Mego Red]

Is it possible to change the team setup mid way through the year? Drop one ruck and add a utility instead? What would people think of that idea?

I'd absolutely hate it, considering how I have traded this year so far. I gave up some good assets to get Nick Nat as my second ruck.

 

[Vantz]

I'd absolutely hate it, considering how I have traded this year so far. I gave up some good assets to get Nick Nat as my second ruck.

Agree, it might be something we need to look at for next season.

 

[Danoz]

I'd absolutely hate it, considering how I have traded this year so far. I gave up some good assets to get Nick Nat as my second ruck.

Agree, it might be something we need to look at for next season.

Does possibly disadvantaging the two of you really matter to the rest of us though?

But seriously, despite having traded to get a second ruck (as I did early on, though now I have 4 playing), would an extra utility not be better for your team now than having that average scoring second ruck on the field?

 

[Allefgib]

Yeah certainly understand where you're coming from. I just thought we could take the next step from a live draft, to a keeper league where we would almost become list managers and have to manage our list from year to year and really look to the future when drafting / trading for players. It becomes a lot more serious and tricky to be good at the game.

I do agree that the FA pool is very week. We have probably over compensated for a keeper league and leaving spots open for our injured stars to actually remain on our bench rather than being delisted for someone else to swoop. I think we will definitely have to make a change in this area.

Trust me when I say this Hank, your list by no means "s**t" and certainly doesn't deserve to be 0-10 if it wasn't for your ruck situation. There is very little difference in players with the first 10, even 15 picks. Sure there are bolters and sliders and injuries start to take their toll, but you don't win or lose from there. It's your 16-22 that have the biggest impact imo. Finding players deep in the draft who can score well and play consistently is key. Obviously you couldn't do this to full effect as you didn't have the chance to draft first hand, so if I were you I would really get stuck into trading and look to swap some good midfielders directly for an equally back or forward. You could be back in the mix in no time, maybe not for his finals series but you could go into next season looking much more ominous.



If everyone agrees with the idea, I've been thinking about making a rule where for the remainder of this year, everyone only play one ruck. No 2nd ruck, no emergency. I think that would really even up the league and rectify a lot of your problems Hank.

Not in favor of that rule. Every game i play i probably always offset do the rucks for hanks very problem...then hope ppl wool trade with me for them.

So no to that rule from me

 

[Vantz]

Does possibly disadvantaging the two of you really matter to the rest of us though?

But seriously, despite having traded to get a second ruck (as I did early on, though now I have 4 playing), would an extra utility not be better for your team now than having that average scoring second ruck on the field?

I'm not fussed overly about 2 rucks. I think one works better, but not concerned either way. If the AFL removes the sub rule, we might see the 2nd ruck return and have more options to select.

 

[Danoz]

Not in favor of that rule. Every game i play i probably always offset do the rucks for hanks very problem...then hope ppl wool trade with me for them.

So no to that rule from me

Wat? Can't make sense of that.

 

[Allefgib]

I am not in favour of saying only one ruck counts. I have a stupid habit of drafting too many 'big guys' in fantasy games as that is what is appropriate in the real world (given how hard it is to get good ones who play games consistently.

If we go back to only one ruck counting - that's unfair on those like me who did draft sufficient ruck coverage (with the tradeoff being I didn't draft as many in other positions).

So if you say any one position on the field doesn't score anymore.. now we're being fair.

 

[azza77]

I am not in favour of saying only one ruck counts. I have a stupid habit of drafting too many 'big guys' in fantasy games as that is what is appropriate in the real world (given how hard it is to get good ones who play games consistently.

If we go back to only one ruck counting - that's unfair on those like me who did draft sufficient ruck coverage (with the tradeoff being I didn't draft as many in other positions).

So if you say any one position on the field doesn't score anymore.. now we're being fair.

Yeah and that's fine by me mate, just thought I'd ask and see what people thought of the idea.

 

[azza77]

Dammit, Vantz. You're going to end up with all of the midfielders.

Sloane is a 105+ midfielder and Griffin is a 90+ mid.

Rich is an 80+ POSSIBLE defender and Coniglio is a 90+ mid.

You smashed that. Geoffa better hope Griffin continues off the deep end and Rich gets multiposition. Both reasonably likely, IMO

Id agree with Kristof here, think Vantz is winning here, but at the end of the day, Id the trade is not seriously lopsided and both coaches agree, then it gets the go ahead from me.

 

[Vantz]

Dammit, Vantz. You're going to end up with all of the midfielders.

Sloane is a 105+ midfielder and Griffin is a 90+ mid.

Rich is an 80+ POSSIBLE defender and Coniglio is a 90+ mid.

You smashed that. Geoffa better hope Griffin continues off the deep end and Rich gets multiposition. Both reasonably likely, IMO

I'm pretty hesitant with this trade, as I really like Coniglio, I think he is underrated and Rich getting defender status would be huge. On the flip side, i'm taking on Griffen who has potential but has not really showed in two years.

The goal was Sloane. I felt bad not having enough Crows representation.

 

[Mego Red]

Yeah, the trade needs to go ahead.

All trades should go ahead, unless there's something suss going on.

 

[Mego Red]

I'm pretty hesitant with this trade, as I really like Coniglio, I think he is underrated and Rich getting defender status would be huge. On the flip side, i'm taking on Griffen who has potential but has not really showed in two years.

The goal was Sloane. I felt bad not having enough Crows representation.

C'mon. You won't even need to play Griffen, so you can give him away in another trade. You've vastly upgraded your final mid position. That's why you did it, you smashed it, and congrats.

Don't try and bullshit us. ;-)

 

[azza77]

My turn. Before I start, Luke Parker is only 22 and also has 7-10 years left. He also plays for a top team...

Interesting view. Let me clear this up for others as you are painting a picture that is not quite accurate, in my opinion. You sent me a PM about doing a trade around 2 weeks ago.

Azza - "Have Sidebottom in my other leagues and would love him. Also happy with anyone of Parker/Beams and possibly Treloar.... But Im more so looking for a player that could provide me with a captain option.

As you can see from my team, I have Rockliff with moire broken ribs, Barlow playing a HFF role and not scoring well, and I don't trust any of Montagna, Neale or Rischitelli for obvious reasons."

I replied by saying I was highly unlikely to trade from my Midfield. Note I said highly unlikely, implying it would need a good trade to get it done, as the midfield is the strength of my team and stage one in my long term drafting strategy. I said Sidebottom was not an option as I only just got him in a trade.

I subsequently sent you what I would consider for Parker my third ranked midfielder behind Sidebottom and Beams, because you mentioned him in your message. I then told you what it would take for me to trade Parker.

I rated Neale below my starting 7 midfielders - Sidebottom, Beams, Parker, Steven, Ellis, Treloar and probably on par with Macrae at that time in my opinion. But that is debatable.

"I'll bracket the value I see in your players available. I like Lachie Neale and would include him in any trade. I do not however believe Lachie Neale is the value of any of my current starting midfielders.

Lachie Neale
+ 1 a combination of (Bennell, Yeo, Franklin, Mumford)
(EDIT: I was implying Neale plus one of these players, grammatical error on my part, but the +1 should have made it clear what i was saying.)
or +2 a combination of (Duncan, Wallis, Selwood, Barlow, McVeigh)

A return player(s) to even out on my side would be an option.

I'm not overly eager to trade from my midfield."

I never said i'll throw in the steak knives! I was presenting you with options to consider. You yourself said at the time Barlow was playing HFF and Neale and Montagna were not safe captain choices.

I don't think Parker as a captain plus a second player for Neale and one of Bennell, Yeo, Franklin, Mumford was unrealistic.

You never sent me an offer with a second player to even out the trade. I was downgrading in my midfield, I thought it was fair enough to upgrade in another position. You wanted a captain for the double points, they don't come easy, thats why they are valuable.

Hahha I know how good parker is and just how reluctant I would be to trade to trade any of those midfielders too.

The part where I think we differ so much is how highly we rate Neale. Id consider him only just underneath a lot of a midfielders like Parker. Before the trashing against Richmond Neale was averaging 107! But the big problem I have is that to then want another one of my top top players in Franklin/Bennell/Mumford etc then it's also going to take a very, very good player from your end to make me even consider an offer. Not a 75 averaging hit and miss forward....

Although Barlow has been playing HFF and Montagna is not a safe captain option, they are still very, very good players.

Apologies for not getting back to you in the inbox with a counter offer, but I couldn't trade away the heart of my midfield and elite back or forward to receive another midfielder back along with some other player of yours.

If it's any food for thought, from that list you sent, Id be open to trading Scooter Selwood, montagna and possibly bennell and Wallis. It's going to take a good player to try and and pry away Mcveigh, Franklin, Barlow.

I want to add to my midfield options, not trade away one of my best for someone that will probably average 3 more points come season end.

 

[azza77]

C'mon. You won't even need to play Griffen, so you can give him away in another trade. You've vastly upgraded your final mid position. That's why you did it, you smashed it, and congrats.

Don't try and bullshit us. ;-)

Rich is also nowhere near getting back status.

Last round


Season

 

[azza77]

I'm actually really offended that you think I took advantage of Hank when I offered him a 60pt improvement in his side.

That you think Missy Higgins is an elite back when at any moment he could tear like a wet tissue is ridiculous. Ben Jacobs has played 19 of the last 22 games for NMFC and has shown this year that he can push his scoring into the 80s. Higgins is 10pts better - but he was getting a free player, one who had proven he was a part of the best 22 at a premium position while I was taking someone who wasn't playing.

Masten was averaging 95 over the last three years and continued that this year, but I'm fine that I lost out on that. You have to take risks.

You had depth in the backs - you want to trade out depth that you're not using to improve in other positions. The point of the trade I offered you was that you'd improve a LOT in the other position taking a small step back in defense, which you could do because you had depth there.

Suckling is ahead of Wood - except Suckling has been dropped a number of times the last few years and Wood won't be. Wood has upside and Suckling doesn't - but that wasn't the point of the trade. That was just my risk if you accepted it - that j gave up guaranteed scoring to get a player that then fell out of the first 22 and didn't get a game.

Apologies kris but I felt like something had to be said.

Higgins hasn't been injured for a long time now, and has been absolutely smashing it this year. I'm sure you are more than well aware of that. Like I said his DPP further increases his value.

Again, Sinclair is playing, but he's no certainty and he's no world beater either. Mcevoy could very easily be back in the side just as easily as Sinclair could be out, and then hank is back to square one again at a huge loss to him (IMO)

Yeah jacobs has played 19 out of 22 games, but how many of those were in the green vest? Not to mention him being a late in any way. His spot in the side is ridiculous shaky and even when he's named, he's most likely playing as sub. That is no benefit to hank.... Higgins is miles ahead of Jacobs, so please stop trying to make out as if Hank is still doing okay in this area.

I'm sure you can see why this trade concerned me greatly. There is no reluctance on Hanks behalf so it doesn't bother me as much as it originally did. But Hanks lost a very, very good player in Higgins and gained a somewhat risky but mediocre ruck in Sinclair and an average Jacobs.

IMO you've made out like a bandit in that trade too. Players from my other league who I told the trade to, agreed with my view completely if that's any merit.... Sorry to sit here and accuse you, but surely you see my reasons for concern as league manager.

 

[Vantz]

Rich is also nowhere near getting back status.

Last round
View attachment 142513

Season
View attachment 142514

This is one of the reasons I traded, however not certain for next season. Additionally having Rockliff back at some stage might push him back.