2012 SC Rucks

[Ed D]

Also a lot of rucks went from 2 ruckmen sharing the duties to 1 with someone pinch hitting which would have made a slight difference to the key ruck.

 

[The Gentleman]

It's your team, and you'd clearly know better than I, so please tell us all where he'll play. I can't see him getting a game, barring injury.

Mcintosh will be in our starting 22 without doubt, he will be playing Ruck/Forward most of the year switching with Goldy.

Just a little tip if your thinking about getting Goldstein, last year Goldy was a lone wolf in the ruck this year will be different with Mcintosh back,
He'll be playing a bit up forward switching with big H, I think he'll be a better player, but he'll be getting less time in the ruck.

 

[Rik E Boy]

There doesn't seem to be much love for Zac Smith this year. I reckon this kid can play and he could 'do a Goldstien' this year. Anyone looking at Smiffy this year?

 

[thedaz47]

Mcintosh will be in our starting 22 without doubt, he will be playing Ruck/Forward most of the year switching with Goldy.

Did he get DPP? He'd be a lock if so.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

-Is Jarrod Witts going to play much next year?

If Witts plays it will probably be as a forward. He still has alot to learn about ruckwork as he has only played roughly 40 games of AFL in his life.
After the under 18's carnival he played 4 Games for the VFL side, did nothing in the first but kicked 8 goals in the last 3 games.

If he keeps putting up those types of numbers he will have to get a game, but i doubt he will play much of the season just so they don't burn him out being so big at 208.5 cm, and 113 kg's in his first year they will have to ease him into it to make sure his body holds up. Bucks saw firsthand what happend to Josh Fraser and i am sure he won't let the same thing happen to Witts.

 

[The Gentleman]

Did he get DPP? He'd be a lock if so.

I don't think so

 

[borrat]

There doesn't seem to be much love for Zac Smith this year. I reckon this kid can play and he could 'do a Goldstien' this year. Anyone looking at Smiffy this year?

no because goldstein was norths only ruck last year where as gold coast have gorringe,hickey and nicholls so it wont happen

 

[Liam Boy]

Goldy wasn't North's only ruck, Petrie actually spent a fair bit of time rucking, particularly towards the end of the year. He spent large amounts of time rucking vs. Essendon, and kicked two excellent goals from that position.

 

[shaun1800]

Leuenberger seems to be largely over his injuries, which is a plus. However (and this is the reason I won't be picking him up) bear in mind we recruited Ben Hudson and Billy Longer in the off-season. Both are genuine rucks.

Thanks this is exactly the info I needed. I had Leu but I wondering if anything happend in the off season that would effect his game time. He's gone now.

Mummy and Sandy for me.

 

[Cheannn]

Anyone starting with a non-premium ruck on the field will have no chance of winning. Think about all the heroes last year that started with Zac Smith, and look how much he bottomed out. Better off picking premiums in the rucks and leave your rookies/cash cows for the mids where way more points are to be won.

Rookie rucks on the field is an amateur move. But go ahead, start with Giles on the field in a team that'll lose by 100+ every week.

 

[Ed D]

Anyone starting with a non-premium ruck on the field will have no chance of winning. Think about all the heroes last year that started with Zac Smith, and look how much he bottomed out. Better off picking premiums in the rucks and leave your rookies/cash cows for the mids where way more points are to be won.

Rookie rucks on the field is an amateur move. But go ahead, start with Giles on the field in a team that'll lose by 100+ every week.

You do realise any team starting with rookies in the rucks will have more premiums in other areas? You can't have a team in round one without rookies playing (unless you're going for an entire team of midpricers) so what you're saying is incorrect. What's the difference if you having a rookie in your ruck scoring 70 vs a rookie in your forwards scoring 70 when you have a premium somewhere else getting 110?

 

[Cheannn]

You do realise any team starting with rookies in the rucks will have more premiums in other areas? You can't have a team in round one without rookies playing (unless you're going for an entire team of midpricers) so what you're saying is incorrect. What's the difference if you having a rookie in your ruck scoring 70 vs a rookie in your forwards scoring 70 when you have a premium somewhere else getting 110?

History tells us that rookie rucks and key position rookie forwards score abysmal. Or, if they show some promise, die off due to their bodies e.g. Zach Smith of 2011. Meant for the bench as cash cows and nothing else.

Save your rookie spots for your mids such as high draft picks, or mature-age players in other positions (e.g. Nick Lower 2011) where they have the biggest potential for scores/price rises. I would be astounded if someone like Giles averages over 70.

Think about the difference in scores of ruck + mid premiums, and then the difference in scores between your ruck + mid rookies. Major difference in the rookie element.

Set and forget in the rucks, nuff said.

 

[Ed D]

History tells us that rookie rucks and key position rookie forwards score abysmal. Or, if they show some promise, die off due to their bodies e.g. Zach Smith of 2011. Meant for the bench as cash cows and nothing else.

Save your rookie spots for your mids such as high draft picks, or mature-age players in other positions (e.g. Nick Lower 2011) where they have the biggest potential for scores/price rises. I would be astounded if someone like Giles averages over 70.

Think about the difference in scores of ruck + mid premiums, and then the difference in scores between your ruck + mid rookies. Major difference in the rookie element.

Set and forget in the rucks, nuff said.

Nuff said?!? That's your strategy, accept that other people have their own. In fact Impromtu won last year by doing things differently and taking risks. To say it'll cost 100 points a game is a joke, as you're also fogetting that premiums in other areas of the field can easily outscore premiums in the ruck. Then there is also less risk in picking an extra midfield premium than a ruck premium as they're more consistent scorers.

 

[September 27 2008]

History tells us that rookie rucks and key position rookie forwards score abysmal. Or, if they show some promise, die off due to their bodies e.g. Zach Smith of 2011. Meant for the bench as cash cows and nothing else.

Save your rookie spots for your mids such as high draft picks, or mature-age players in other positions (e.g. Nick Lower 2011) where they have the biggest potential for scores/price rises. I would be astounded if someone like Giles averages over 70.

Think about the difference in scores of ruck + mid premiums, and then the difference in scores between your ruck + mid rookies. Major difference in the rookie element.

Set and forget in the rucks, nuff said.

Agree with what you're saying in some points. Due to the past and lack of great premium ruck options it was very easy to lock in Sandilands and Cox, and there always seemed to be the 1 rookie to bank on for cover.

But this year is a completely different scenario. IMO there are 7 viable premium options, multiple midpriced options, and what looks like 4 genuine mature-aged rookies to choose from.

Now I'm not saying you are wrong in the set and forget method, but to completely dismiss entertaining the idea of a 1/3 or 0/4 set-up is rather silly. It's January, the NAB Cup will give everyone a clearer idea on ruck set-ups

 

[Cheannn]

Nuff said?!? That's your strategy, accept that other people have their own. In fact Impromtu won last year by doing things differently and taking risks. To say it'll cost 100 points a game is a joke, as you're also fogetting that premiums in other areas of the field can easily outscore premiums in the ruck. Then there is also less risk in picking an extra midfield premium than a ruck premium as they're more consistent scorers.

When you say Impromptu did things differently, there's differently (picking a couple of different premiums to everyone else rah rah rah/risky captain choices), and then there's differently (starting your ruck line up with rookies when for years starting with Sandi/Cox/whoever setting and forgetting has proven to be the way to go).

What you're not realising is that there is an exclusive amount of premiums just for the rucks with only 2 positions available for it, and it's a position where cash cows are few and far between. There are 6 spots for midfielder premiums, and a gazillion more midfielder premiums available to choose from than rucks. You can't set and forget in the mids, you can in the rucks.

Also it doesn't mean anything regarding consistency when you're gunning for overall ranking. If a midfielder scores 2 x 110 scores, and Sandi score 40 and then 180, I couldn't give a stuff.

 

[Cheannn]

Agree with what you're saying in some points. Due to the past and lack of great premium ruck options it was very easy to lock in Sandilands and Cox, and there always seemed to be the 1 rookie to bank on for cover.

But this year is a completely different scenario. IMO there are 7 viable premium options, multiple midpriced options, and what looks like 4 genuine mature-aged rookies to choose from.

Now I'm not saying you are wrong in the set and forget method, but to completely dismiss entertaining the idea of a 1/3 or 0/4 set-up is rather silly. It's January, the NAB Cup will give everyone a clearer idea on ruck set-ups

Good post ^

What I'm really trying to get at is basically midfielder rookies > ruck rookies.

Stock up on midfielder/Nick Lower-esque rookies.

 

[Ed D]

When you say Impromptu did things differently, there's differently (picking a couple of different premiums to everyone else rah rah rah/risky captain choices), and then there's differently (starting your ruck line up with rookies when for years starting with Sandi/Cox/whoever setting and forgetting has proven to be the way to go).

Do you know what Impromptu does? He started 2010 without a single premium in his midfield. You're too quick to write of ideas that you don't think will work.

What you're not realising is that there is an exclusive amount of premiums just for the rucks with only 2 positions available for it, and it's a position where cash cows are few and far between. There are 6 spots for midfielder premiums, and a gazillion more midfielder premiums available to choose from than rucks. You can't set and forget in the mids, you can in the rucks.

Which is exactly why some people will start rookies in the ruck, because of the lack of options and the chances of one or more failing. There is less risk in picking up Swan than Cox. And cash cows are few and far between? You only need 4 of them and at this stage that looks pretty easy to get.

You can't set and forget in the mids, you can in the rucks.

So you're saying you can't pick guys like Ablett, Pendlebury, Swan, Selwood and leave them there? It makes no difference where you have premiums. You pick premiums at the start of the year to "set and forget" no matter what their position is.

Also it doesn't mean anything regarding consistency when you're gunning for overall ranking. If a midfielder scores 2 x 110 scores, and Sandi score 40 and then 180, I couldn't give a stuff.

It means a hell of a lot when you're looking to upgrade. Someone inconsistent you have a lot more chance of picking up cheap.

You need to do the maths on this before writing it off.

 

[Ed D]

What I'm really trying to get at is basically midfielder rookies > ruck rookies.

And what you're ignoring is midfield premiums > ruck premiums.

 

[Cheannn]

And what you're ignoring is midfield premiums > ruck premiums.

Interesting. Cox was 3rd in point averages last year and Goldy 12th, scoring similar if not better than a large portion of midfield premiums on a weekly basis. Bad call.

 

[Ed D]

Interesting. Cox was 3rd in point averages last year and Goldy 12th, scoring similar if not better than a large portion of midfield premiums on a weekly basis. Bad call.

Again you overlook things. Do you assume everyone who had a set & forget ruck line up had both these ruckmen? Does that also mean anyone who needs to upgrade their rucks can't select these players? What happens if they started with Jolly & Sandilands? They're screwed. What happens if they had rookie rucks? They trade up to Cox & Goldstein while their other premiums score them points. Rucks are higher risk. It's a reason for and against starting with premiums.

Personally I have no problem with people starting 2 premium rucks or 2 rookie rucks as I can see both strategies have their merrits. It seems that you're not looking outside the box or bothering to do the maths, and instead are basically saying "this is what I do and it works, any other way is wrong".

 

[Cheannn]

Again you overlook things. Do you assume everyone who had a set & forget ruck line up had both these ruckmen? Does that also mean anyone who needs to upgrade their rucks can't select these players? What happens if they started with Jolly & Sandilands? They're screwed. What happens if they had rookie rucks? They trade up to Cox & Goldstein while their other premiums score them points. Rucks are higher risk. It's a reason for and against starting with premiums.

Personally I have no problem with people starting 2 premium rucks or 2 rookie rucks as I can see both strategies have their merrits. It seems that you're not looking outside the box or bothering to do the maths, and instead are basically saying "this is what I do and it works, any other way is wrong".

FYI, this was in response to you saying "midfield premiums > ruck premiums". Nothing about if you had them from the start or not. Oh well, enough bickering, guess time will tell on the ruck strategy.

 

[Ed D]

FYI, this was in response to you saying "midfield premiums > ruck premiums". Nothing about if you had them from the start or not. Oh well, enough bickering, guess time will tell on the ruck strategy.

That's what this thread was about, which players people are going to start with. Anyway I agree, this conversation has run it's course, I'm very interested to see which strategy works best.

 

[The Big Sauce]

Ed D everything you've written I pretty much agree with.

One small point of difference, back in 2010 Impromptu started with 7 midfield rookies & Gary Ablett as a captain option.

 

[Great 2008]

The obvious difference this year with picking a rookie ruck is that the two who seem to be in the frame Giles/Stephenson are probably not rookies in the true sense.

Stephenson will ruck and is a big mature body (Dawson Simpson out for an extend period now as well).

Giles is not new to the AFL and is a mature bodied player who will carry a fair amount of the ruck for GWS imo.

It is not out of the realms of possibility that they could both average 80.

By starting Giles I have squeezed Zaharakis (MID/FWD) into my forward line which now runs very deep. One of my first few money trades will be geared at upgrading to a premium ruck, however if one of Giles or Stephenson 'go off' I will be way in front.

There is no way on earth I would have started with Zac Smith last year (new team and a genuine rookie) but he was about the only real viable bench ruck available at the start of last season. This year there are a couple of potential gambles to start with.

If Stephenson fires early he may well start for me. The Cats midfield are quality and will turn a few hit outs into effective ones.

 

[Hondo]

One small point of difference, back in 2010 Impromptu started with 7 midfield rookies & Gary Ablett as a captain option.

I am pretty sure he started 8 rookies and no premium at all.