Position 2015 SuperCoach defenders

[Lums23]

Seen a few people with Jamie MacMillian (270k) from North in their squad. Thoughts on him?

Underpriced and very good job security, but not going to pump out 100s

 

[Keno1991]

Not many differences between yours and mine. I have Fisher-Higgins-Edwards whereas you have KK-Pittard-JK. I'm looking at injury-risk whereas you are hoping for improvement out of some guys who have been in the system for a bit now. Different risk-reward profile, but nothing I can particularly fault.

Haven't seen JK's name too much, how confident at you that he is in the 22?

Much talk of Geelong playing some younger guys in to setup their defence for the future I reckon he's a chance but can always swap him for playing rookie come Rd1.

 

[TheOz]

Seen a few people with Jamie MacMillian (270k) from North in their squad. Thoughts on him?

Reckon he is too defensive to be a decent scorer.

 

[toxic]

Reckon he is too defensive to be a decent scorer.

Reckon your right

 

[Mercuri Rising]

What average is everyone looking for from a DEF keeper this year?

Last year's averages for this year's DEFs:

100+: 1 (Malceski 105.4)
95-100: 1 (Simpson 95.4)
90-95: 6
85-90: 13
80-85: 12

There's quite a few midpricers that look like they could get to that awkward sub-premo ~85 average, but is 90+ what we should be aiming at?

 

[TheOz]

What average is everyone looking for from a DEF keeper this year?

Last year's averages for this year's DEFs:

100+: 1 (Malceski 105.4)
95-100: 1 (Simpson 95.4)
90-95: 6
85-90: 13
80-85: 12

There's quite a few midpricers that look like they could get to that awkward sub-premo ~85 average, but is 90+ what we should be aiming at?

Yes I think 90 is the minimum you would want from your D6 by year's end.

 

[markm106]

My aim will be to find as many mid price and rookie defenders. I don't like the top priced defenders. Of course I'll fit a couple in. But it'll be a wait and see as to how my backline will take place.

 

[Judd_Magic]

My backline is still up in the air.

Have about 10 players in consideration for the main 6 spots.

Am happy with the rest of my team, just the backline is causing me headaches as there is so many options back there.

I just have to make sure I pick the right ones. LOL!

 

[toxic]

My backline is still up in the air.

Have about 10 players in consideration for the main 6 spots.

Am happy with the rest of my team, just the backline is causing me headaches as there is so many options back there.

I just have to make sure I pick the right ones. LOL!

Hi newby welcome

 

[Judd_Magic]

Hi newby welcome

LOL!

I'll be more of a regular on here once the season starts Toxic, promise.

Just don't want to get burnt out by mid season again like I did last season.

 

[stevebbb]

locked in.

 

[SnappyHappy]

locked in.

What do you think they will both average? I'm keen on Jaensch but Smith's inconsistency last year worries me.

 

[stevebbb]

What do you think they will both average? I'm keen on Jaensch but Smith's inconsistency last year worries me.

95+ for both imo
Smith marked for more wing and mid time
Jaensch should be free more often with Crows stronger in the back (Hendo fit, Cheney coming in, etc)

 

[Souup]

Question that's always puzzled me a bit - Why do people avoid players because they're inconsistent? How is this a drawback?

If i pick a player at the start of the season and he averages 110, but does it with highs of 160 and lows of 50, what does it matter? How is this any less than a player who consistently gets 110 a week? By the end of the season they've both averaged the same ammount, so either does the job.

To avoid a player because they're inconsistent doesn't seem to make sense

Some may say the price of the inconsistent player will drop. Well, not necessarily. If a player valued at 110 goes with scores of 70, 90 and 170, his BE is the same as someone who goes 110-100-130 over the same period is it not?

 

[SnappyHappy]

Question that's always puzzled me a bit - Why do people avoid players because they're inconsistent? How is this a drawback?

If i pick a player at the start of the season and he averages 110, but does it with highs of 160 and lows of 50, what does it matter? How is this any less than a player who consistently gets 110 a week? By the end of the season they've both averaged the same ammount, so either does the job.

To avoid a player because they're inconsistent doesn't seem to make sense

Some may say the price of the inconsistent player will drop. Well, not necessarily. If a player valued at 110 goes with scores of 70, 90 and 170, his BE is the same as someone who goes 110-100-130 over the same period is it not?

This is the reason why. Inconsistent players like Smith will more than likely suffer a drop in price at some point. (Eg. Kade Simpson last year at one point was worth 600k, about 4-6 weeks later his value had dropped to about 420k due to a couple of really low scores. A score of 170 is probably a bit unrealistic too. With regards to B Smith his highest score was 144, his lowest was 32.

 

[Souup]

This is the reason why. Inconsistent players like Smith will more than likely suffer a drop in price at some point. (Eg. Kade Simpson last year at one point was worth 600k, about 4-6 weeks later his value had dropped to about 420k due to a couple of really low scores. A score of 170 is probably a bit unrealistic too. With regards to B Smith his highest score was 144, his lowest was 32.

I was just using a hypothetical to make the point. Inconsistent players also have the tendency to score big weeks running, which raises their price too. It all tends to even out in the end. Also, consistency tends to come with experience, so it's no real surprise Smith wasn't the most consistent player.

 

[Lums23]

Question that's always puzzled me a bit - Why do people avoid players because they're inconsistent? How is this a drawback?

If i pick a player at the start of the season and he averages 110, but does it with highs of 160 and lows of 50, what does it matter? How is this any less than a player who consistently gets 110 a week? By the end of the season they've both averaged the same ammount, so either does the job.

To avoid a player because they're inconsistent doesn't seem to make sense

Some may say the price of the inconsistent player will drop. Well, not necessarily. If a player valued at 110 goes with scores of 70, 90 and 170, his BE is the same as someone who goes 110-100-130 over the same period is it not?

Inconsistency can be frustrating if you're looking for league wins as well

 

[Souup]

OK, I'll bite.

I'll contend that key forwards are inconsistent. This means that even if Franklin averages 100+ over the season, his price will fluctuate and particularly will dip after his inevitable low scores.

The astute SC player will grab him at a low point in his price cycle, rather than pay full price at the start of the year. i.e. look to upgrade into players like Franklin instead of starting with them.

This isn't a good case though. As I mentioned earlier, inconsistent players generally have a higher ceiling, meaning they could also go the opposite way and hit a high price quickly. They play a couple of bad games and just drop down to their original price before they potentially pull out another couple of big games.

 

[Souup]

Inconsistency can be frustrating if you're looking for league wins as well

I'm more sympathetic to this argument, although i've never been one to care much about league wins. Couldn't the case be made that their high scores result in them winning you some league games too? I tend to think that this inconsistency argument evens out in the end.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

This isn't a good case though. As I mentioned earlier, inconsistent players generally have a higher ceiling, meaning they could also go the opposite way and hit a high price quickly. They play a couple of bad games and just drop down to their original price before they potentially pull out another couple of big games.

If you don't have them, you only need them to hit a low price somewhere between about R8 and R13 though.

The point is about how much you have to spend to assemble a keeper team. If I start with the consistent player and upgrade to the inconsistent player when they are cheap, I will not need to spend as much as you who start with the inconsistent player and upgrade to the same consistent player that I started with.

 

[karaoke]

I was just using a hypothetical to make the point. Inconsistent players also have the tendency to score big weeks running, which raises their price too. It all tends to even out in the end. Also, consistency tends to come with experience, so it's no real surprise Smith wasn't the most consistent player.

Inconsistent players can be good Capt loophole options as well,

Like when Ruff went 180 last year.

 

[rocker_oz33]

I liked when Scotland was a soild 100 every week down back,no fuss just a ton week to week.

 

[GOAUS!]

I see a fair few are going with only having 1 starting rookie on the ground. I'm just hoping that we get enough starting defenders because I quite like the looks of my side otherwise.

 

[stevebbb]

I see a fair few are going with only having 1 starting rookie on the ground. I'm just hoping that we get enough starting defenders because I quite like the looks of my side otherwise.

not looking good atm we haven't even seen McKenzie yet, Goddard is far from a lock, Saad might not get elevated, Bombers Edwards is unknown, Hamling fighting for a spot with 2 senior players, no way we'll see Maynard play early, looks like Nathan Brown is the only rookie priced lock

what happens if noboody under 150k (besides Brown) is named? are we all going mid price madness and having Clancee at D6? lol
if that's the case, I'm going Newnes at D5

 

[Lums23]

not looking good atm we haven't even seen McKenzie yet, Goddard is far from a lock, Saad might not get elevated, Bombers Edwards is unknown, Hamling fighting for a spot with 2 senior players, no way we'll see Maynard play early, looks like Nathan Brown is the only rookie priced lock

what happens if noboody under 150k (besides Brown) is named? are we all going mid price madness and having Clancee at D6? lol
if that's the case, I'm going Newnes at D5

If it gets that bad I'll nearly give it up week 1