Position 2017 Rucks

[Super Hans]

I'm starting to consider Tippett now that these other options keep falling over..

 

[Me Myself and I]

I'm starting to consider Tippett now that these other options keep falling over..

Same here. Just a pity that he's not ruck/fwd like last season. Would have made the decision easier to make.

 

[dlanod]

Only other comment natedt2013 is that Witts is effectively a very dear rookie, ordinarily you wouldn't spend that much on a rookie unless you were starting them on the ground.

By playing Witts at R3 with Strnadica at F8 youre foregoing the fwd rookie you would have had at F8. So you need to consider whether Witts at $217.6k will generate more cash than Rioli, Bolton, Eddy, Smith etc.

Agreed. I started with Witts as R3, but it has pretty severe limitations. I think you can only pick Witts if you're playing him.

 

[Seymour Skinner]

I think Witts could definitely work out.
Only issue is him and Ryder sharing the round 9 bye. He'd have to have a guaranteed price rise before his bye that in conjunction with another cash cow or two can net you a premo ruckman that you are happy with.
Or else you'll get stuck with a 0, unless you go with Darcy Cameron and he is getting a game that week.

 

[Feerits Elf]

Stupid Rd 9 bye

 

[Feerits Elf]

Even if Witts is named in the ruck for Rd 1, what’s to stop Eade from dropping him for Nicholls at some stage during the first 10 games? It’s not like Nicholls has done a knee and will be out for the year or anything – a minor calf complaint which should be resolved by the start of the season. I know Witts has shown more in terms of endeavour and wanting to play top-level footy and Nicholls came back carrying a bit of pudding but so what? If Witts spuds it up for a couple of weeks and there’s a 25-year-old AFL-quality athletic ruckman plying his trade in the magoos and champing at the bit to get back and prove his worth, isn’t it at least conceivable that Witts will be dropped?

Even Suns supporters recognise Witts will have the ruck position for Rd 1 but thereafter it's his to lose. With an emphasis on the lose.

 

[TheBeardAmigos]

Even if Witts is named in the ruck for Rd 1, what’s to stop Eade from dropping him for Nicholls at some stage during the first 10 games? It’s not like Nicholls has done a knee and will be out for the year or anything – a minor calf complaint which should be resolved by the start of the season. I know Witts has shown more in terms of endeavour and wanting to play top-level footy and Nicholls came back carrying a bit of pudding but so what? If Witts spuds it up for a couple of weeks and there’s a 25-year-old AFL-quality athletic ruckman plying his trade in the magoos and champing at the bit to get back and prove his worth, isn’t it at least conceivable that Witts will be dropped?

Even Suns supporters recognise Witts will have the ruck position for Rd 1 but thereafter it's his to lose. With an emphasis on the lose.

Nicholls came back looking like Steve Motlop....

Nicholls would have to get all 6 votes in the NEAFL to get back into the side IMO

still not picking Witts, not enough reward for the risk IMO

 

[stevebbb]

Even if Witts is named in the ruck for Rd 1, what’s to stop Eade from dropping him for Nicholls at some stage during the first 10 games? It’s not like Nicholls has done a knee and will be out for the year or anything – a minor calf complaint which should be resolved by the start of the season. I know Witts has shown more in terms of endeavour and wanting to play top-level footy and Nicholls came back carrying a bit of pudding but so what? If Witts spuds it up for a couple of weeks and there’s a 25-year-old AFL-quality athletic ruckman plying his trade in the magoos and champing at the bit to get back and prove his worth, isn’t it at least conceivable that Witts will be dropped?

Even Suns supporters recognise Witts will have the ruck position for Rd 1 but thereafter it's his to lose. With an emphasis on the lose.

Of course it's conceivable that he will be dropped, my issue is that people are blatantly saying no based on not much at all

It's SC, we take picks, some work, some don't
We weigh up the risk vs reward for every pick

At the end of the day, there's going to be somebody saying "i told you so"

ps. there's also Currie, who'll most definitely get a run in the JLT to prove his worth

 

[Feerits Elf]

Of course it's conceivable that he will be dropped, my issue is that people are blatantly saying no based on not much at all

It's SC, we take picks, some work, some don't
We weigh up the risk vs reward for every pick

At the end of the day, there's going to be somebody saying "i told you so"

ps. there's also Currie, who'll most definitely get a run in the JLT to prove his worth

What's the acceptable risk, to your mind?

Witts at R2, or Witts at R3?

 

[stevebbb]

What's the acceptable risk, to your mind?

Witts at R2, or Witts at R3?

Witts at R2, ruck/fwd donut locked away at R3

Reward =
He plays 8 matches in a row, averages 80+ and gets close to or above $400k.
In round 9 I'll trade him to the best ruck available (could be Grundy averaging 100+, could be Goldy, Mummy or Jacobs who have reached full fitness after interrupted preseasons, etc)

Risk =
He plays (and scores) terribly in the first round or 2 or 3 or 4, and then gets dropped
It forces me to trade him out to a forward rookie, and deal with Ryder at R2 for a while

Having Ryder is my insurance, makes the risk lower

 

[Feerits Elf]

Witts at R2, ruck/fwd donut locked away at R3

Reward =
He plays 8 matches in a row, averages 80+ and gets close to or above $400k.
In round 9 I'll trade him to the best ruck available (could be Grundy averaging 100+, could be Goldy, Mummy or Jacobs who have reached full fitness after interrupted preseasons, etc)

Risk =
He plays (and scores) terribly in the first round or 2 or 3 or 4, and then gets dropped
It forces me to trade him out to a forward rookie, and deal with Ryder at R2 for a while

Having Ryder is my insurance, makes the risk lower

OK

I have strong reservations about Witts at R3

 

[SC fish]

Does any one know how Witts has scored when he has been first ruck, e.g. when Grundy was not playing?

 

[SC fish]

Just listened to a SC RUCK discussion on the SC site: http://supercoach.heraldsun.com.au/afl/classic/feed_news

 

[strauchanie59]

Any reason why Lycett isn't being mentioned? Will take on the number 1 ruck role at West Coast and less of a forward role.

 

[Didstar]

Does any one know how Witts has scored when he has been first ruck, e.g. when Grundy was not playing?

Since 2014, these are Witt's scores in games Grundy did not play.
85, 81, 135, 47, 88, 68, 59, 71, 82, 81, 58 (average of 78). Somewhat inflated by the 135, so removing the highest and lowest scores gives an average of 75. It's a small sample, but certainly is reason to think he could average 80-85 as first ruck. A 78 average will see him rise to around 350k and 73 to around 330k by round 9. So imo would need to average around 85 until his bye to be viable.

 

[Feerits Elf]

Since 2014, these are Witt's scores in games Grundy did not play.
85, 81, 135, 47, 88, 68, 59, 71, 82, 81, 58 (average of 78). Somewhat inflated by the 135, so removing the highest and lowest scores gives an average of 75. It's a small sample, but certainly is reason to think he could average 80-85 as first ruck. A 78 average will see him rise to around 350k and 73 to around 330k by round 9. So imo would need to average around 85 until his bye to be viable.

Also played six games in 2013 before Grundy had debuted.

45, 29 43 versus Jolly 124, 103, 69
69, 83, 63 versus Hudson 80, 82, 66

In Grundy's first match in Rd 18 he scored 75 versus Witts's 116. Hudson and Jolly were injured, they returned to the VFL side but the Pies stuck with Grundy for the final five matches plus the EF against Port.

Witts was dropped after that 116, obviously the Pies wanted to pump games into Grundy.

 

[mr_niceguy_1979]

Does any one know how Witts has scored when he has been first ruck, e.g. when Grundy was not playing?

Discounting 2013 (rookie year) and 2016 (Witts injured), Witts averaged 80 points when Grundy wasn't playing, compared to 68 when sharing Ruck duties. Witts scored 68+ in 8 out of 10 games when Rucking alone, with a 135 being his top score.

Witts scores without Grundy, 2014-2015
85 81 135 47 88 68 59 / 71 82 81

2016 - 58
2 games total
w Grundy (1g) = 42
w/o Grundy (1g) = 58

2015 - 71 82 81
11 games total
av w Grundy (8g) = 71
av w/o Grundy (3g) = 78

2014 - 85 81 135 47 88 68 59
20 games total
av w Grundy (13g) = 67
av w/o Grundy (7g) = 80

2013 - 45 29 43 69 83 63
7 games for Witts, 6 games for Grundy (rookie year for both)
av w Grundy (1g) = 116
av w/o Grundy (6g) = 55

 

[Hairy Lager]

Any reason why Lycett isn't being mentioned? Will take on the number 1 ruck role at West Coast and less of a forward role.

Lycett won't be ready Rd 1 mate.

 

[Here2tellyouwhy]

I missed this thread last night so haven't read the last 4 pages.
I just came here to say Im locking in
Ryder at R1 and Witts at R2.

 

[Hairy Lager]

I missed this thread last night so haven't read the last 4 pages.
I just came here to say Im locking in
Ryder at R1 and Witts at R2.

Gawn...

 

[Here2tellyouwhy]

Gawn...

Nah not enough risk

 

[Hairy Lager]

Nah not enough risk

Giles, under the tutalage of this Centuries best Ruckman, awkward price, should get a good group of games though.
Thoughts?

 

[windbreaker]

Witts at R2, ruck/fwd donut locked away at R3

Reward =
He plays 8 matches in a row, averages 80+ and gets close to or above $400k.
In round 9 I'll trade him to the best ruck available (could be Grundy averaging 100+, could be Goldy, Mummy or Jacobs who have reached full fitness after interrupted preseasons, etc)

Risk =
He plays (and scores) terribly in the first round or 2 or 3 or 4, and then gets dropped
It forces me to trade him out to a forward rookie, and deal with Ryder at R2 for a while

Having Ryder is my insurance, makes the risk lower

I agree with this and have changed Goldy from r2 to Witts for the time being. The extra cash I've used in the fwd line bringing in Ryder. So there's that coverage if Witts spuds it up.
So tempting not to go with Ryder tho and spend the extra 350k elsewhere! If Witts does spud it then he becomes r3 and pretty much back to square one.

 

[Flandersss]

Giles, under the tutalage of this Centuries best Ruckman, awkward price, should get a good group of games though.
Thoughts?

 

[Here2tellyouwhy]

Giles, under the tutalage of this Centuries best Ruckman, awkward price, should get a good group of games though.
Thoughts?

Hasn't completed half the training session.
Pass.