Position 2020 Rucks

[Schulzenfest]

With Ryder on board, Marshall is literally the last playing ruck that I would pick. I'd predict that by the end of the year he'll have lost more value than any other ruck.

 

[SC fish]

The problem with the Gawn injury is, if he spuds up the first few rounds we'll be kicking ourselves for holding him, and if he smashes it the first few rounds we'll be kicking ourselves for switching him for a lesser ruck.

 

[ForeverHardcore]

The same saints that wanted Goldie ?

I think that’s overblown due to the fact Marshall is so good overhead and a great target up forward. Ryder is ageing and by all reports has taught a lot of craft to Marshall in the ruck this pre season. I feel they wanted goldy to teach Marshall to become a better ruck and now Ryder is doing that. They’ll always play the young A grader in the important game moments so I have no worries he’ll play more ruck then forward.

 

[Ash1337]

Last year it was grundy who was injured and beside 1 poor score he retained his value and avg. Not saying Gawn will do the same but he's at peak age now and taking a chance he will be hampered by his injury is too much of risk. It's better to stick with him unless there is a setback.

 

[buttox]

The problem with the Gawn injury is, if he spuds up the first few rounds we'll be kicking ourselves for holding him, and if he smashes it the first few rounds we'll be kicking ourselves for switching him for a lesser ruck.

no preuss makes it interesting.
if gawn misses the first couple of games the dee's have to play a rookie priced ruck.
they dont really have other options.
gawndy + jackson/bradke (whoever they play to replace gawn)
its not ideal obviously. But i think its an option.

 

[balmainforever]

Only person outside of Gawn I’ll be considering is English.
if I really had balls, I’d also consider Naismith as R1.

 

[Northernsoul74]

Only person outside of Gawn I’ll be considering is English.
if I really had balls, I’d also consider Naismith as R1.

I was keen on Lycett until the news that Ladhams is really pushing him for R1 spot.

 

[stevebbb]

Only person outside of Gawn I’ll be considering is English.
if I really had balls, I’d also consider Naismith as R1.

Yep, same here. I actually LOVE the look of my team with English at R2, the other lines are so strong

My team with Gawn at R2 is crap

 

[SELFCONFESDAFLNERD]

To be honest, i refuse to even look at my team without the Grundy and Gawn combination. I feel like i may be too easily swayed by the evil temptress that is a mid-priced 2nd ruck. Rucks are the only position where you can be 95%+ sure who will be the top 2 and that counts for something. So yeah, i just hope i can remain headstrong and resist the urge to change my rucks. It could be a slippery slope from there...if you cant be sure of Gawn and Grundy averaging 120+ then what can you be sure about? Honestly at this stage it is as much about peace of mind as it is about actual scoring.

Yes, i think IF you nail a mid-pricer it will validate starting without 1 of Gawn or Grundy (and lets face it, that will be Gawn). However, will you be able to sleep at night when Gawn knocks out a 160 and your star value pick scraps for an 80? How many trades will you blow if Gawn starts fast and maintains his price or (heaven forbid) gains value. How will you console yourself when Gawn's 160 is used as a VC loophole or just a captains score? These are the pertinent questions that need to be asked.

Yes, maybe you can benefit more from dropping Gawn and upgrading elsewhere but what are you doing with that extra cash? Apart from Whitfield who looks like a lock to be top 2 in his position (based on average, not total points) who are you bringing in that gives you the scoring potential of Gawn, and more significantly, the security? Also, what is your backup plan if injury strikes? At least with Gawn, you can trade to anyone, if your mid-pricer goes down, who do you turn to?

If you think that Jacobs is better value than ANY potential mid-pricer of a similar price that is not already in your team, in another position then more power to you. I'm just not sure i see it. The points equation can obviously become very complicated the more variables (players) you plug in but essentially even if you make up the points left on the table by picking Jacobs over Gawn (say 25-30 points at least) then what about the points left on the table from the other selections you make.

I guess what im trying to say is that you basically need to 'lock in' points somewhere in your team as you cant have a team that both maximises points and maximises team value. You need to find a balance between guns, mid-pricers and rookies. Yes, some of your guns will only reach their average from last season and will lose value but the points are in the bank and you aren trading the gun so the lost value is inconsequential to you...yet the lost value is useful to someone else who chooses to start a mid-pricer or rookie and then upgrade to said gun.

My argument is that even with full blown mid-priced madness, you will either need to forego valuable rookies in the favour of mid-pricers and forego the points from the guns you did not select. So what is the solution? Well, we know it, you fill your team with who you deem the best of the best in each category. You pick a selection of guns who you will keep and offer scoring certainty while not offering any value for money (but that is ok, you get your value elsewhere), then you pick the mid-pricers who are 'the in-betweeners' and they may offer both value for money and point scoring ability as they could both increase their average by 10%+ (which on average will see an increase in price) as well as potentially offering enough point scoring power to become guns that you keep. In this case, since you have kept them, your team 'does not realise' the gain in value as you never cash the mid-pricer-turned-gun 'in'. These are the wildcards. Then there are the rookies. The rookies are almost always cashed in at some stage of the game and thus make 'realisable' gains. However, these gains can come at a cost as although their point per $ value is extremely high, they dont have the same scoring punch of the good mid-pricers and guns but you need them as you need those 'realisable gains'.

Anyway, ive rambled on for a while but my point is that if you are foregoing 20+ points in one position you better be making it up with points/value/'realisable gains' in another. For me, even if Gawn goes backwards, he will be 10+ points ahead of the 3rd best ruck. Yes, you can make up those points elsewhere by picking a gun but then you are forgoing a spot in your that could well be used 'more valuably'. It is all give and take! Personally, ill take the risk that Gawn only goes 10+ points ahead of his nearest rival and loses value so others can pick him up cheaper - that is essentially the worst (foreseeable) case scenario, barring something crazy happening - touch wood. While in my team Gawn doesnt reach his height in terms of scoring but he also doesnt offer 'negative value' as i never trade him. Then it rests on me to pick another mid-pricer/rookie/lower priced gun in another position to make up for the difference between those that didnt start Gawn and went with a different gun/mid-pricer or rookie combination. I'm backing my own ability to pick a mid-pricer/rookie that will be inherently valuable to my team from a position that has a plethora of options - as opposed to the rucks who dont have the same volume of options.

To summarise, in order to win this game your team simply has to be balanced and that means you need the genuine guns as if you dont have them all you dont score enough but you also need the rookies because if you dont cash them in you can never achieve a team with enough guns to maximise your scoring potential. Then there are the mid-pricers, definitely the most expendable of the 3 categories (Guns, MPs, rookies) but maybe just maybe these 'wildcards' are able to accomplish both lifting your scoring potential and making you cash/saving you trades. Point is, everything affects everything in this game. There are no simple solutions and there are no certainties. That is what makes it so much fun to play!

There it is, my longwinded way of saying that im going Gawndy all the way. To me, Gawn is a known quantity in a position where there are very few.
If i thought Jacobs was the most valuable player in the comp at 350k i think id take the risk with him but i simply dont see his upside being as high as a couple others. Secondly, im going to bank the security and peace of mind that Gawn offers and search for my value elsewhere - likely in positions where there are more than just 1 or 2 viable options (e.g Jacobs and NicNat in the rucks).

So yeah, Gawndy it is for me. However, i know this game well enough to know that 1 bad selection can't cost you your season. In hindsight it may appear that way but its not the case, there are billions of permutations meaning you have almost countless options available to you at any one time. Yes, you can spiral downwards after ******* up a selection/trade or 2 but you can always recover. So no, ill never say that Gawndy is a lock. However, currently i cant see a better option. Thats really it in a nutshell.

 

[Ljam]

That is quite a read

 

[A Bit Dusty]

To be honest, i refuse to even look at my team without the Grundy and Gawn combination. I feel like i may be too easily swayed by the evil temptress that is a mid-priced 2nd ruck. Rucks are the only position where you can be 95%+ sure who will be the top 2 and that counts for something. So yeah, i just hope i can remain headstrong and resist the urge to change my rucks. It could be a slippery slope from there...if you cant be sure of Gawn and Grundy averaging 120+ then what can you be sure about? Honestly at this stage it is as much about peace of mind as it is about actual scoring.

Yes, i think IF you nail a mid-pricer it will validate starting without 1 of Gawn or Grundy (and lets face it, that will be Gawn). However, will you be able to sleep at night when Gawn knocks out a 160 and your star value pick scraps for an 80? How many trades will you blow if Gawn starts fast and maintains his price or (heaven forbid) gains value. How will you console yourself when Gawn's 160 is used as a VC loophole or just a captains score? These are the pertinent questions that need to be asked.

Yes, maybe you can benefit more from dropping Gawn and upgrading elsewhere but what are you doing with that extra cash? Apart from Whitfield who looks like a lock to be top 2 in his position (based on average, not total points) who are you bringing in that gives you the scoring potential of Gawn, and more significantly, the security? Also, what is your backup plan if injury strikes? At least with Gawn, you can trade to anyone, if your mid-pricer goes down, who do you turn to?

If you think that Jacobs is better value than ANY potential mid-pricer of a similar price that is not already in your team, in another position then more power to you. I'm just not sure i see it. The points equation can obviously become very complicated the more variables (players) you plug in but essentially even if you make up the points left on the table by picking Jacobs over Gawn (say 25-30 points at least) then what about the points left on the table from the other selections you make.

I guess what im trying to say is that you basically need to 'lock in' points somewhere in your team as you cant have a team that both maximises points and maximises team value. You need to find a balance between guns, mid-pricers and rookies. Yes, some of your guns will only reach their average from last season and will lose value but the points are in the bank and you aren trading the gun so the lost value is inconsequential to you...yet the lost value is useful to someone else who chooses to start a mid-pricer or rookie and then upgrade to said gun.

My argument is that even with full blown mid-priced madness, you will either need to forego valuable rookies in the favour of mid-pricers and forego the points from the guns you did not select. So what is the solution? Well, we know it, you fill your team with who you deem the best of the best in each category. You pick a selection of guns who you will keep and offer scoring certainty while not offering any value for money (but that is ok, you get your value elsewhere), then you pick the mid-pricers who are 'the in-betweeners' and they may offer both value for money and point scoring ability as they could both increase their average by 10%+ (which on average will see an increase in price) as well as potentially offering enough point scoring power to become guns that you keep. In this case, since you have kept them, your team 'does not realise' the gain in value as you never cash the mid-pricer-turned-gun 'in'. These are the wildcards. Then there are the rookies. The rookies are almost always cashed in at some stage of the game and thus make 'realisable' gains. However, these gains can come at a cost as although their point per $ value is extremely high, they dont have the same scoring punch of the good mid-pricers and guns but you need them as you need those 'realisable gains'.

Anyway, ive rambled on for a while but my point is that if you are foregoing 20+ points in one position you better be making it up with points/value/'realisable gains' in another. For me, even if Gawn goes backwards, he will be 10+ points ahead of the 3rd best ruck. Yes, you can make up those points elsewhere by picking a gun but then you are forgoing a spot in your that could well be used 'more valuably'. It is all give and take! Personally, ill take the risk that Gawn only goes 10+ points ahead of his nearest rival and loses value so others can pick him up cheaper - that is essentially the worst (foreseeable) case scenario, barring something crazy happening - touch wood. While in my team Gawn doesnt reach his height in terms of scoring but he also doesnt offer 'negative value' as i never trade him. Then it rests on me to pick another mid-pricer/rookie/lower priced gun in another position to make up for the difference between those that didnt start Gawn and went with a different gun/mid-pricer or rookie combination. I'm backing my own ability to pick a mid-pricer/rookie that will be inherently valuable to my team from a position that has a plethora of options - as opposed to the rucks who dont have the same volume of options.

To summarise, in order to win this game your team simply has to be balanced and that means you need the genuine guns as if you dont have them all you dont score enough but you also need the rookies because if you dont cash them in you can never achieve a team with enough guns to maximise your scoring potential. Then there are the mid-pricers, definitely the most expendable of the 3 categories (Guns, MPs, rookies) but maybe just maybe these 'wildcards' are able to accomplish both lifting your scoring potential and making you cash/saving you trades. Point is, everything affects everything in this game. There are no simple solutions and there are no certainties. That is what makes it so much fun to play!

There it is, my longwinded way of saying that im going Gawndy all the way. To me, Gawn is a known quantity in a position where there are very few.
If i thought Jacobs was the most valuable player in the comp at 350k i think id take the risk with him but i simply dont see his upside being as high as a couple others. Secondly, im going to bank the security and peace of mind that Gawn offers and search for my value elsewhere - likely in positions where there are more than just 1 or 2 viable options (e.g Jacobs and NicNat in the rucks).

So yeah, Gawndy it is for me. However, i know this game well enough to know that 1 bad selection can't cost you your season. In hindsight it may appear that way but its not the case, there are billions of permutations meaning you have almost countless options available to you at any one time. Yes, you can spiral downwards after ******* up a selection/trade or 2 but you can always recover. So no, ill never say that Gawndy is a lock. However, currently i cant see a better option. Thats really it in a nutshell.

 

[Seymour Skinner]

Am I the only one who values Gawn over Grundy?
Up until his little knee scare the other week Gawn was always my #1 pick, with Grundy still being #2.

 

[Sydney Kicker]

To be honest, i refuse to even look at my team without the Grundy and Gawn combination. I feel like i may be too easily swayed by the evil temptress that is a mid-priced 2nd ruck. Rucks are the only position where you can be 95%+ sure who will be the top 2 and that counts for something. So yeah, i just hope i can remain headstrong and resist the urge to change my rucks. It could be a slippery slope from there...if you cant be sure of Gawn and Grundy averaging 120+ then what can you be sure about? Honestly at this stage it is as much about peace of mind as it is about actual scoring.

Yes, i think IF you nail a mid-pricer it will validate starting without 1 of Gawn or Grundy (and lets face it, that will be Gawn). However, will you be able to sleep at night when Gawn knocks out a 160 and your star value pick scraps for an 80? How many trades will you blow if Gawn starts fast and maintains his price or (heaven forbid) gains value. How will you console yourself when Gawn's 160 is used as a VC loophole or just a captains score? These are the pertinent questions that need to be asked.

Yes, maybe you can benefit more from dropping Gawn and upgrading elsewhere but what are you doing with that extra cash? Apart from Whitfield who looks like a lock to be top 2 in his position (based on average, not total points) who are you bringing in that gives you the scoring potential of Gawn, and more significantly, the security? Also, what is your backup plan if injury strikes? At least with Gawn, you can trade to anyone, if your mid-pricer goes down, who do you turn to?

If you think that Jacobs is better value than ANY potential mid-pricer of a similar price that is not already in your team, in another position then more power to you. I'm just not sure i see it. The points equation can obviously become very complicated the more variables (players) you plug in but essentially even if you make up the points left on the table by picking Jacobs over Gawn (say 25-30 points at least) then what about the points left on the table from the other selections you make.

I guess what im trying to say is that you basically need to 'lock in' points somewhere in your team as you cant have a team that both maximises points and maximises team value. You need to find a balance between guns, mid-pricers and rookies. Yes, some of your guns will only reach their average from last season and will lose value but the points are in the bank and you aren trading the gun so the lost value is inconsequential to you...yet the lost value is useful to someone else who chooses to start a mid-pricer or rookie and then upgrade to said gun.

My argument is that even with full blown mid-priced madness, you will either need to forego valuable rookies in the favour of mid-pricers and forego the points from the guns you did not select. So what is the solution? Well, we know it, you fill your team with who you deem the best of the best in each category. You pick a selection of guns who you will keep and offer scoring certainty while not offering any value for money (but that is ok, you get your value elsewhere), then you pick the mid-pricers who are 'the in-betweeners' and they may offer both value for money and point scoring ability as they could both increase their average by 10%+ (which on average will see an increase in price) as well as potentially offering enough point scoring power to become guns that you keep. In this case, since you have kept them, your team 'does not realise' the gain in value as you never cash the mid-pricer-turned-gun 'in'. These are the wildcards. Then there are the rookies. The rookies are almost always cashed in at some stage of the game and thus make 'realisable' gains. However, these gains can come at a cost as although their point per $ value is extremely high, they dont have the same scoring punch of the good mid-pricers and guns but you need them as you need those 'realisable gains'.

Anyway, ive rambled on for a while but my point is that if you are foregoing 20+ points in one position you better be making it up with points/value/'realisable gains' in another. For me, even if Gawn goes backwards, he will be 10+ points ahead of the 3rd best ruck. Yes, you can make up those points elsewhere by picking a gun but then you are forgoing a spot in your that could well be used 'more valuably'. It is all give and take! Personally, ill take the risk that Gawn only goes 10+ points ahead of his nearest rival and loses value so others can pick him up cheaper - that is essentially the worst (foreseeable) case scenario, barring something crazy happening - touch wood. While in my team Gawn doesnt reach his height in terms of scoring but he also doesnt offer 'negative value' as i never trade him. Then it rests on me to pick another mid-pricer/rookie/lower priced gun in another position to make up for the difference between those that didnt start Gawn and went with a different gun/mid-pricer or rookie combination. I'm backing my own ability to pick a mid-pricer/rookie that will be inherently valuable to my team from a position that has a plethora of options - as opposed to the rucks who dont have the same volume of options.

To summarise, in order to win this game your team simply has to be balanced and that means you need the genuine guns as if you dont have them all you dont score enough but you also need the rookies because if you dont cash them in you can never achieve a team with enough guns to maximise your scoring potential. Then there are the mid-pricers, definitely the most expendable of the 3 categories (Guns, MPs, rookies) but maybe just maybe these 'wildcards' are able to accomplish both lifting your scoring potential and making you cash/saving you trades. Point is, everything affects everything in this game. There are no simple solutions and there are no certainties. That is what makes it so much fun to play!

There it is, my longwinded way of saying that im going Gawndy all the way. To me, Gawn is a known quantity in a position where there are very few.
If i thought Jacobs was the most valuable player in the comp at 350k i think id take the risk with him but i simply dont see his upside being as high as a couple others. Secondly, im going to bank the security and peace of mind that Gawn offers and search for my value elsewhere - likely in positions where there are more than just 1 or 2 viable options (e.g Jacobs and NicNat in the rucks).

So yeah, Gawndy it is for me. However, i know this game well enough to know that 1 bad selection can't cost you your season. In hindsight it may appear that way but its not the case, there are billions of permutations meaning you have almost countless options available to you at any one time. Yes, you can spiral downwards after ******* up a selection/trade or 2 but you can always recover. So no, ill never say that Gawndy is a lock. However, currently i cant see a better option. Thats really it in a nutshell.

I can see where your username comes from

That said you make a good argument even if I think you underestimate the points impact if a midprice ruck starts the season really well and Gawn has a slow start or even an average start.

For me though the real issue is that one of the key attributes in a ruck has to be that they are fairly safe from injury. And that's where Gawn has lost much of his appeal. Instead of coming into the season cherry ripe he's coming of an interrupted preparation with a knee injury which may hamper both output and add to the risk of missing games. So now I'm thinking if I start Gawn, would it be better to also take a R/F just in case Gawn misses a week or two? And this is another cost to consider given the paucity of good R/F choices this year. So if I do select a R/F, suddenly the idea of say Naismith at R2 becomes quite appealing. 450k cheaper than Gawn, number 1 ruck at his club and likely will deliver rookie level profits, an average in the 80s and I have backup if he misses. Then I'm also batting a full premo deeper in midfield or an extra premo and 200k rookie in defence or forward which could make a huge difference if rookies are light on one line or another (obviously we'll see when teams are named R1).

So yeah Gawn was a great pick a month ago. But not as much anymore for me.

 

[4tune8]

To be honest, i refuse to even look at my team without the Grundy and Gawn combination. I feel like i may be too easily swayed by the evil temptress that is a mid-priced 2nd ruck. Rucks are the only position where you can be 95%+ sure who will be the top 2 and that counts for something. So yeah, i just hope i can remain headstrong and resist the urge to change my rucks. It could be a slippery slope from there...if you cant be sure of Gawn and Grundy averaging 120+ then what can you be sure about? Honestly at this stage it is as much about peace of mind as it is about actual scoring.

Yes, i think IF you nail a mid-pricer it will validate starting without 1 of Gawn or Grundy (and lets face it, that will be Gawn). However, will you be able to sleep at night when Gawn knocks out a 160 and your star value pick scraps for an 80? How many trades will you blow if Gawn starts fast and maintains his price or (heaven forbid) gains value. How will you console yourself when Gawn's 160 is used as a VC loophole or just a captains score? These are the pertinent questions that need to be asked.

Yes, maybe you can benefit more from dropping Gawn and upgrading elsewhere but what are you doing with that extra cash? Apart from Whitfield who looks like a lock to be top 2 in his position (based on average, not total points) who are you bringing in that gives you the scoring potential of Gawn, and more significantly, the security? Also, what is your backup plan if injury strikes? At least with Gawn, you can trade to anyone, if your mid-pricer goes down, who do you turn to?

If you think that Jacobs is better value than ANY potential mid-pricer of a similar price that is not already in your team, in another position then more power to you. I'm just not sure i see it. The points equation can obviously become very complicated the more variables (players) you plug in but essentially even if you make up the points left on the table by picking Jacobs over Gawn (say 25-30 points at least) then what about the points left on the table from the other selections you make.

I guess what im trying to say is that you basically need to 'lock in' points somewhere in your team as you cant have a team that both maximises points and maximises team value. You need to find a balance between guns, mid-pricers and rookies. Yes, some of your guns will only reach their average from last season and will lose value but the points are in the bank and you aren trading the gun so the lost value is inconsequential to you...yet the lost value is useful to someone else who chooses to start a mid-pricer or rookie and then upgrade to said gun.

My argument is that even with full blown mid-priced madness, you will either need to forego valuable rookies in the favour of mid-pricers and forego the points from the guns you did not select. So what is the solution? Well, we know it, you fill your team with who you deem the best of the best in each category. You pick a selection of guns who you will keep and offer scoring certainty while not offering any value for money (but that is ok, you get your value elsewhere), then you pick the mid-pricers who are 'the in-betweeners' and they may offer both value for money and point scoring ability as they could both increase their average by 10%+ (which on average will see an increase in price) as well as potentially offering enough point scoring power to become guns that you keep. In this case, since you have kept them, your team 'does not realise' the gain in value as you never cash the mid-pricer-turned-gun 'in'. These are the wildcards. Then there are the rookies. The rookies are almost always cashed in at some stage of the game and thus make 'realisable' gains. However, these gains can come at a cost as although their point per $ value is extremely high, they dont have the same scoring punch of the good mid-pricers and guns but you need them as you need those 'realisable gains'.

Anyway, ive rambled on for a while but my point is that if you are foregoing 20+ points in one position you better be making it up with points/value/'realisable gains' in another. For me, even if Gawn goes backwards, he will be 10+ points ahead of the 3rd best ruck. Yes, you can make up those points elsewhere by picking a gun but then you are forgoing a spot in your that could well be used 'more valuably'. It is all give and take! Personally, ill take the risk that Gawn only goes 10+ points ahead of his nearest rival and loses value so others can pick him up cheaper - that is essentially the worst (foreseeable) case scenario, barring something crazy happening - touch wood. While in my team Gawn doesnt reach his height in terms of scoring but he also doesnt offer 'negative value' as i never trade him. Then it rests on me to pick another mid-pricer/rookie/lower priced gun in another position to make up for the difference between those that didnt start Gawn and went with a different gun/mid-pricer or rookie combination. I'm backing my own ability to pick a mid-pricer/rookie that will be inherently valuable to my team from a position that has a plethora of options - as opposed to the rucks who dont have the same volume of options.

To summarise, in order to win this game your team simply has to be balanced and that means you need the genuine guns as if you dont have them all you dont score enough but you also need the rookies because if you dont cash them in you can never achieve a team with enough guns to maximise your scoring potential. Then there are the mid-pricers, definitely the most expendable of the 3 categories (Guns, MPs, rookies) but maybe just maybe these 'wildcards' are able to accomplish both lifting your scoring potential and making you cash/saving you trades. Point is, everything affects everything in this game. There are no simple solutions and there are no certainties. That is what makes it so much fun to play!

There it is, my longwinded way of saying that im going Gawndy all the way. To me, Gawn is a known quantity in a position where there are very few.
If i thought Jacobs was the most valuable player in the comp at 350k i think id take the risk with him but i simply dont see his upside being as high as a couple others. Secondly, im going to bank the security and peace of mind that Gawn offers and search for my value elsewhere - likely in positions where there are more than just 1 or 2 viable options (e.g Jacobs and NicNat in the rucks).

So yeah, Gawndy it is for me. However, i know this game well enough to know that 1 bad selection can't cost you your season. In hindsight it may appear that way but its not the case, there are billions of permutations meaning you have almost countless options available to you at any one time. Yes, you can spiral downwards after ******* up a selection/trade or 2 but you can always recover. So no, ill never say that Gawndy is a lock. However, currently i cant see a better option. Thats really it in a nutshell.

I haven't read this yet, need to get a couple of beers and settle in for the long haul

 

[4tune8]

To be honest, i refuse to even look at my team without the Grundy and Gawn combination. I feel like i may be too easily swayed by the evil temptress that is a mid-priced 2nd ruck. Rucks are the only position where you can be 95%+ sure who will be the top 2 and that counts for something. So yeah, i just hope i can remain headstrong and resist the urge to change my rucks. It could be a slippery slope from there...if you cant be sure of Gawn and Grundy averaging 120+ then what can you be sure about? Honestly at this stage it is as much about peace of mind as it is about actual scoring.

Yes, i think IF you nail a mid-pricer it will validate starting without 1 of Gawn or Grundy (and lets face it, that will be Gawn). However, will you be able to sleep at night when Gawn knocks out a 160 and your star value pick scraps for an 80? How many trades will you blow if Gawn starts fast and maintains his price or (heaven forbid) gains value. How will you console yourself when Gawn's 160 is used as a VC loophole or just a captains score? These are the pertinent questions that need to be asked.

Yes, maybe you can benefit more from dropping Gawn and upgrading elsewhere but what are you doing with that extra cash? Apart from Whitfield who looks like a lock to be top 2 in his position (based on average, not total points) who are you bringing in that gives you the scoring potential of Gawn, and more significantly, the security? Also, what is your backup plan if injury strikes? At least with Gawn, you can trade to anyone, if your mid-pricer goes down, who do you turn to?

If you think that Jacobs is better value than ANY potential mid-pricer of a similar price that is not already in your team, in another position then more power to you. I'm just not sure i see it. The points equation can obviously become very complicated the more variables (players) you plug in but essentially even if you make up the points left on the table by picking Jacobs over Gawn (say 25-30 points at least) then what about the points left on the table from the other selections you make.

I guess what im trying to say is that you basically need to 'lock in' points somewhere in your team as you cant have a team that both maximises points and maximises team value. You need to find a balance between guns, mid-pricers and rookies. Yes, some of your guns will only reach their average from last season and will lose value but the points are in the bank and you aren trading the gun so the lost value is inconsequential to you...yet the lost value is useful to someone else who chooses to start a mid-pricer or rookie and then upgrade to said gun.

My argument is that even with full blown mid-priced madness, you will either need to forego valuable rookies in the favour of mid-pricers and forego the points from the guns you did not select. So what is the solution? Well, we know it, you fill your team with who you deem the best of the best in each category. You pick a selection of guns who you will keep and offer scoring certainty while not offering any value for money (but that is ok, you get your value elsewhere), then you pick the mid-pricers who are 'the in-betweeners' and they may offer both value for money and point scoring ability as they could both increase their average by 10%+ (which on average will see an increase in price) as well as potentially offering enough point scoring power to become guns that you keep. In this case, since you have kept them, your team 'does not realise' the gain in value as you never cash the mid-pricer-turned-gun 'in'. These are the wildcards. Then there are the rookies. The rookies are almost always cashed in at some stage of the game and thus make 'realisable' gains. However, these gains can come at a cost as although their point per $ value is extremely high, they dont have the same scoring punch of the good mid-pricers and guns but you need them as you need those 'realisable gains'.

Anyway, ive rambled on for a while but my point is that if you are foregoing 20+ points in one position you better be making it up with points/value/'realisable gains' in another. For me, even if Gawn goes backwards, he will be 10+ points ahead of the 3rd best ruck. Yes, you can make up those points elsewhere by picking a gun but then you are forgoing a spot in your that could well be used 'more valuably'. It is all give and take! Personally, ill take the risk that Gawn only goes 10+ points ahead of his nearest rival and loses value so others can pick him up cheaper - that is essentially the worst (foreseeable) case scenario, barring something crazy happening - touch wood. While in my team Gawn doesnt reach his height in terms of scoring but he also doesnt offer 'negative value' as i never trade him. Then it rests on me to pick another mid-pricer/rookie/lower priced gun in another position to make up for the difference between those that didnt start Gawn and went with a different gun/mid-pricer or rookie combination. I'm backing my own ability to pick a mid-pricer/rookie that will be inherently valuable to my team from a position that has a plethora of options - as opposed to the rucks who dont have the same volume of options.

To summarise, in order to win this game your team simply has to be balanced and that means you need the genuine guns as if you dont have them all you dont score enough but you also need the rookies because if you dont cash them in you can never achieve a team with enough guns to maximise your scoring potential. Then there are the mid-pricers, definitely the most expendable of the 3 categories (Guns, MPs, rookies) but maybe just maybe these 'wildcards' are able to accomplish both lifting your scoring potential and making you cash/saving you trades. Point is, everything affects everything in this game. There are no simple solutions and there are no certainties. That is what makes it so much fun to play!

There it is, my longwinded way of saying that im going Gawndy all the way. To me, Gawn is a known quantity in a position where there are very few.
If i thought Jacobs was the most valuable player in the comp at 350k i think id take the risk with him but i simply dont see his upside being as high as a couple others. Secondly, im going to bank the security and peace of mind that Gawn offers and search for my value elsewhere - likely in positions where there are more than just 1 or 2 viable options (e.g Jacobs and NicNat in the rucks).

So yeah, Gawndy it is for me. However, i know this game well enough to know that 1 bad selection can't cost you your season. In hindsight it may appear that way but its not the case, there are billions of permutations meaning you have almost countless options available to you at any one time. Yes, you can spiral downwards after ******* up a selection/trade or 2 but you can always recover. So no, ill never say that Gawndy is a lock. However, currently i cant see a better option. Thats really it in a nutshell.

Some very pertinent points there with regard to 'realisable' gains and locked in value, but as you said, there are so many combinations of teams available and the ability of removing a few of those combinations in the ruck does allow you to concentrate on the other areas.

I've been putting a team together that has a different strategy, just because I can and there's probably 0 possibility of going ahead with it. Have a look and see what you think.




There's obviously a few assumptions here that need to go right but here's the basic premise

I think there's more to this than just cash generation, the points equation has to be factored in too. I've seen mention that a trade is worth ? many $ (150k?) and others have mentioned that you need maybe 200 pts to make a trade worthwhile, but what would be the outcome needed when you combine both pts and $?

Looking at $....

IF Gawn averaged 105 over 5 rounds he'd drop to 618k
IF Jackson averaged 75 over 5 rounds he'd rise to 260k
IF Lyons averaged 120 over 5 rounds he'd rise to 561k

That would then give me enough to trade Lyons > Gawn with 197k to pick up a rookie on the bubble (which I would have to use a trade on anyway to access said rookie)so I'm thinking 2 trades v 1 trade. That scenario is certainly not worth the risk given the amount of IF's

But if I also factor in the points differential then it becomes more interesting, so.....

Gawn 105, Anderson 60, Young 50, Starcevich 50 = 265 x 5 = 1325
v's
Jackson 75, Danger 115, Doedee 80, Roberton 75 = 335 x 5 = 1675 (remembering that I swapped Gawn out to get Danger in, Lyons was already in)

That's a 350 pt gain over the first 5 rounds, which is significant. Even a 200 pt gain is worth it for the cost of, effectively, one trade. (worst case 2)

Of course there are a myriad of other things to take into consideration, mainly the reduced cash generation from the more expensive D5 & 6, also the shuffling of other cash cows out to help fund the defence and ruck cover, but I'm enjoying mucking around with different scenarios and structures that don't really get talked about.

*Edit........I assume the 150k and 200pts cost/trade is over the whole year/rest of year, not just the first 5 rounds.

 

[Sydney Kicker]

Some very pertinent points there with regard to 'realisable' gains and locked in value, but as you said, there are so many combinations of teams available and the ability of removing a few of those combinations in the ruck does allow you to concentrate on the other areas.

I've been putting a team together that has a different strategy, just because I can and there's probably 0 possibility of going ahead with it. Have a look and see what you think.

View attachment 825049


There's obviously a few assumptions here that need to go right but here's the basic premise

I think there's more to this than just cash generation, the points equation has to be factored in too. I've seen mention that a trade is worth ? many $ (150k?) and others have mentioned that you need maybe 200 pts to make a trade worthwhile, but what would be the outcome needed when you combine both pts and $?

Looking at $....

IF Gawn averaged 105 over 5 rounds he'd drop to 618k
IF Jackson averaged 75 over 5 rounds he'd rise to 260k
IF Lyons averaged 120 over 5 rounds he'd rise to 561k

That would then give me enough to trade Lyons > Gawn with 197k to pick up a rookie on the bubble (which I would have to use a trade on anyway to access said rookie)so I'm thinking 2 trades v 1 trade. That scenario is certainly not worth the risk given the amount of IF's

But if I also factor in the points differential then it becomes more interesting, so.....

Gawn 105, Anderson 60, Young 50, Starcevich 50 = 265 x 5 = 1325
v's
Jackson 75, Danger 115, Doedee 80, Roberton 75 = 335 x 5 = 1675 (remembering that I swapped Gawn out to get Danger in, Lyons was already in)

That's a 350 pt gain over the first 5 rounds, which is significant. Even a 200 pt gain is worth it for the cost of, effectively, one trade. (worst case 2)

Of course there are a myriad of other things to take into consideration, mainly the reduced cash generation from the more expensive D5 & 6, also the shuffling of other cash cows out to help fund the defence and ruck cover, but I'm enjoying mucking around with different scenarios and structures that don't really get talked about.

*Edit........I assume the 150k and 200pts cost/trade is over the whole year/rest of year, not just the first 5 rounds.

I'm experimenting with something very similar. Like you probably wouldn't start with this but...

 

[MITS]

To be honest, i refuse to even look at my team without the Grundy and Gawn combination. I feel like i may be too easily swayed by the evil temptress that is a mid-priced 2nd ruck. Rucks are the only position where you can be 95%+ sure who will be the top 2 and that counts for something. So yeah, i just hope i can remain headstrong and resist the urge to change my rucks. It could be a slippery slope from there...if you cant be sure of Gawn and Grundy averaging 120+ then what can you be sure about? Honestly at this stage it is as much about peace of mind as it is about actual scoring.

Yes, i think IF you nail a mid-pricer it will validate starting without 1 of Gawn or Grundy (and lets face it, that will be Gawn). However, will you be able to sleep at night when Gawn knocks out a 160 and your star value pick scraps for an 80? How many trades will you blow if Gawn starts fast and maintains his price or (heaven forbid) gains value. How will you console yourself when Gawn's 160 is used as a VC loophole or just a captains score? These are the pertinent questions that need to be asked.

Yes, maybe you can benefit more from dropping Gawn and upgrading elsewhere but what are you doing with that extra cash? Apart from Whitfield who looks like a lock to be top 2 in his position (based on average, not total points) who are you bringing in that gives you the scoring potential of Gawn, and more significantly, the security? Also, what is your backup plan if injury strikes? At least with Gawn, you can trade to anyone, if your mid-pricer goes down, who do you turn to?

If you think that Jacobs is better value than ANY potential mid-pricer of a similar price that is not already in your team, in another position then more power to you. I'm just not sure i see it. The points equation can obviously become very complicated the more variables (players) you plug in but essentially even if you make up the points left on the table by picking Jacobs over Gawn (say 25-30 points at least) then what about the points left on the table from the other selections you make.

I guess what im trying to say is that you basically need to 'lock in' points somewhere in your team as you cant have a team that both maximises points and maximises team value. You need to find a balance between guns, mid-pricers and rookies. Yes, some of your guns will only reach their average from last season and will lose value but the points are in the bank and you aren trading the gun so the lost value is inconsequential to you...yet the lost value is useful to someone else who chooses to start a mid-pricer or rookie and then upgrade to said gun.

My argument is that even with full blown mid-priced madness, you will either need to forego valuable rookies in the favour of mid-pricers and forego the points from the guns you did not select. So what is the solution? Well, we know it, you fill your team with who you deem the best of the best in each category. You pick a selection of guns who you will keep and offer scoring certainty while not offering any value for money (but that is ok, you get your value elsewhere), then you pick the mid-pricers who are 'the in-betweeners' and they may offer both value for money and point scoring ability as they could both increase their average by 10%+ (which on average will see an increase in price) as well as potentially offering enough point scoring power to become guns that you keep. In this case, since you have kept them, your team 'does not realise' the gain in value as you never cash the mid-pricer-turned-gun 'in'. These are the wildcards. Then there are the rookies. The rookies are almost always cashed in at some stage of the game and thus make 'realisable' gains. However, these gains can come at a cost as although their point per $ value is extremely high, they dont have the same scoring punch of the good mid-pricers and guns but you need them as you need those 'realisable gains'.

Anyway, ive rambled on for a while but my point is that if you are foregoing 20+ points in one position you better be making it up with points/value/'realisable gains' in another. For me, even if Gawn goes backwards, he will be 10+ points ahead of the 3rd best ruck. Yes, you can make up those points elsewhere by picking a gun but then you are forgoing a spot in your that could well be used 'more valuably'. It is all give and take! Personally, ill take the risk that Gawn only goes 10+ points ahead of his nearest rival and loses value so others can pick him up cheaper - that is essentially the worst (foreseeable) case scenario, barring something crazy happening - touch wood. While in my team Gawn doesnt reach his height in terms of scoring but he also doesnt offer 'negative value' as i never trade him. Then it rests on me to pick another mid-pricer/rookie/lower priced gun in another position to make up for the difference between those that didnt start Gawn and went with a different gun/mid-pricer or rookie combination. I'm backing my own ability to pick a mid-pricer/rookie that will be inherently valuable to my team from a position that has a plethora of options - as opposed to the rucks who dont have the same volume of options.

To summarise, in order to win this game your team simply has to be balanced and that means you need the genuine guns as if you dont have them all you dont score enough but you also need the rookies because if you dont cash them in you can never achieve a team with enough guns to maximise your scoring potential. Then there are the mid-pricers, definitely the most expendable of the 3 categories (Guns, MPs, rookies) but maybe just maybe these 'wildcards' are able to accomplish both lifting your scoring potential and making you cash/saving you trades. Point is, everything affects everything in this game. There are no simple solutions and there are no certainties. That is what makes it so much fun to play!

There it is, my longwinded way of saying that im going Gawndy all the way. To me, Gawn is a known quantity in a position where there are very few.
If i thought Jacobs was the most valuable player in the comp at 350k i think id take the risk with him but i simply dont see his upside being as high as a couple others. Secondly, im going to bank the security and peace of mind that Gawn offers and search for my value elsewhere - likely in positions where there are more than just 1 or 2 viable options (e.g Jacobs and NicNat in the rucks).

So yeah, Gawndy it is for me. However, i know this game well enough to know that 1 bad selection can't cost you your season. In hindsight it may appear that way but its not the case, there are billions of permutations meaning you have almost countless options available to you at any one time. Yes, you can spiral downwards after ******* up a selection/trade or 2 but you can always recover. So no, ill never say that Gawndy is a lock. However, currently i cant see a better option. Thats really it in a nutshell.

Wow. I just read that and missed both my kids birthdays

 

[SELFCONFESDAFLNERD]

I can see where your username comes from

That said you make a good argument even if I think you underestimate the points impact if a midprice ruck starts the season really well and Gawn has a slow start or even an average start.

For me though the real issue is that one of the key attributes in a ruck has to be that they are fairly safe from injury. And that's where Gawn has lost much of his appeal. Instead of coming into the season cherry ripe he's coming of an interrupted preparation with a knee injury which may hamper both output and add to the risk of missing games. So now I'm thinking if I start Gawn, would it be better to also take a R/F just in case Gawn misses a week or two? And this is another cost to consider given the paucity of good R/F choices this year. So if I do select a R/F, suddenly the idea of say Naismith at R2 becomes quite appealing. 450k cheaper than Gawn, number 1 ruck at his club and likely will deliver rookie level profits, an average in the 80s and I have backup if he misses. Then I'm also batting a full premo deeper in midfield or an extra premo and 200k rookie in defence or forward which could make a huge difference if rookies are light on one line or another (obviously we'll see when teams are named R1).

So yeah Gawn was a great pick a month ago. But not as much anymore for me.

It is interesting to factor in the fact that Gawn has copped an injury leading into the season and thus there should be concerns about how long it takes him to get back to his best and/or the chance of recurrence. Im still happy to pick him even if his average drops a bit to start the season as i think he will make up for it in the long haul. There are no certainties, so in some respects i dont mind the fact he copped an injury now as it has opened up other options and created discussion. I think you can make it work both ways, but for me, i dont see enough value in any other rucks. Most seem to have ? marks.

 

[4tune8]

I'm experimenting with something very similar. Like you probably wouldn't start with this but...
View attachment 825061

You're not kidding it's similar......

I'd assume that Hannebery is your 'get out' clause.

I think the 'whole' team is better to start with, particularly if you're gambling on Gawn having a slow start and Hannebery being ok for the first 5-6 rounds.

The round 13 bye is a whole lot better having Ceglar/Patton as cover. Currently I have 4 premos missing round 13 and fielding 20 players if all rookies are still warm. Who's to say that Grundy/Gawn wont miss a few games this year? From what I'm seeing very, very few have cover for that eventuality. Sure, they've been durable over the last 2 years, can that continue into the 3rd year? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[4tune8]

Wow. I just read that and missed both my kids birthdays

Lucky you....

 

[SELFCONFESDAFLNERD]

Some very pertinent points there with regard to 'realisable' gains and locked in value, but as you said, there are so many combinations of teams available and the ability of removing a few of those combinations in the ruck does allow you to concentrate on the other areas.

I've been putting a team together that has a different strategy, just because I can and there's probably 0 possibility of going ahead with it. Have a look and see what you think.

View attachment 825049


There's obviously a few assumptions here that need to go right but here's the basic premise

I think there's more to this than just cash generation, the points equation has to be factored in too. I've seen mention that a trade is worth ? many $ (150k?) and others have mentioned that you need maybe 200 pts to make a trade worthwhile, but what would be the outcome needed when you combine both pts and $?

Looking at $....

IF Gawn averaged 105 over 5 rounds he'd drop to 618k
IF Jackson averaged 75 over 5 rounds he'd rise to 260k
IF Lyons averaged 120 over 5 rounds he'd rise to 561k

That would then give me enough to trade Lyons > Gawn with 197k to pick up a rookie on the bubble (which I would have to use a trade on anyway to access said rookie)so I'm thinking 2 trades v 1 trade. That scenario is certainly not worth the risk given the amount of IF's

But if I also factor in the points differential then it becomes more interesting, so.....

Gawn 105, Anderson 60, Young 50, Starcevich 50 = 265 x 5 = 1325
v's
Jackson 75, Danger 115, Doedee 80, Roberton 75 = 335 x 5 = 1675 (remembering that I swapped Gawn out to get Danger in, Lyons was already in)

That's a 350 pt gain over the first 5 rounds, which is significant. Even a 200 pt gain is worth it for the cost of, effectively, one trade. (worst case 2)

Of course there are a myriad of other things to take into consideration, mainly the reduced cash generation from the more expensive D5 & 6, also the shuffling of other cash cows out to help fund the defence and ruck cover, but I'm enjoying mucking around with different scenarios and structures that don't really get talked about.

*Edit........I assume the 150k and 200pts cost/trade is over the whole year/rest of year, not just the first 5 rounds.

Yeah it is definitely interesting discussing the flow on effect from 1 little change and in theory i fully support thinking outside the box and trialling different strategies, sometimes in practice it leads to weird outcomes. For instance, only a week ago i found myself picking 6 mid-priced forwards. I guess my point that is kinda obvious is that you can try to consider everything in this game and go wrong and you can definitely overthink things. On the other hand, as much as we try to simplify and reduce the game to a series of player X v Y v Z decisions, it is way more complex!

 

[Northernsoul74]

You're not kidding it's similar......

I'd assume that Hannebery is your 'get out' clause.

I think the 'whole' team is better to start with, particularly if you're gambling on Gawn having a slow start and Hannebery being ok for the first 5-6 rounds.

The round 13 bye is a whole lot better having Ceglar/Patton as cover. Currently I have 4 premos missing round 13 and fielding 20 players if all rookies are still warm. Who's to say that Grundy/Gawn wont miss a few games this year? From what I'm seeing very, very few have cover for that eventuality. Sure, they've been durable over the last 2 years, can that continue into the 3rd year? Maybe, maybe not.

I do agree we’re ‘due’ Gawndy missing a couple. Praying for a cheap playing R3 as I’m not excited by any R/F starters at their price.

 

[4tune8]

I can see where your username comes from

That said you make a good argument even if I think you underestimate the points impact if a midprice ruck starts the season really well and Gawn has a slow start or even an average start.

For me though the real issue is that one of the key attributes in a ruck has to be that they are fairly safe from injury. And that's where Gawn has lost much of his appeal. Instead of coming into the season cherry ripe he's coming of an interrupted preparation with a knee injury which may hamper both output and add to the risk of missing games. So now I'm thinking if I start Gawn, would it be better to also take a R/F just in case Gawn misses a week or two? And this is another cost to consider given the paucity of good R/F choices this year. So if I do select a R/F, suddenly the idea of say Naismith at R2 becomes quite appealing. 450k cheaper than Gawn, number 1 ruck at his club and likely will deliver rookie level profits, an average in the 80s and I have backup if he misses. Then I'm also batting a full premo deeper in midfield or an extra premo and 200k rookie in defence or forward which could make a huge difference if rookies are light on one line or another (obviously we'll see when teams are named R1).

So yeah Gawn was a great pick a month ago. But not as much anymore for me.

I do like the word 'paucity'. Seeing the same with Def rookies, not so poor in the Fwd rookies.

I've replied to your team post further down, so don't really need to respond to your observations here.

 

[4tune8]

Yeah it is definitely interesting discussing the flow on effect from 1 little change and in theory i fully support thinking outside the box and trialling different strategies, sometimes in practice it leads to weird outcomes. For instance, only a week ago i found myself picking 6 mid-priced forwards. I guess my point that is kinda obvious is that you can try to consider everything in this game and go wrong and you can definitely overthink things. On the other hand, as much as we try to simplify and reduce the game to a series of player X v Y v Z decisions, it is way more complex!

Haha, too complex for my brain cell reduced grey matter, s**t I had * all to start with.

 

[Sydney Kicker]

You're not kidding it's similar......

I'd assume that Hannebery is your 'get out' clause.

I think the 'whole' team is better to start with, particularly if you're gambling on Gawn having a slow start and Hannebery being ok for the first 5-6 rounds.

The round 13 bye is a whole lot better having Ceglar/Patton as cover. Currently I have 4 premos missing round 13 and fielding 20 players if all rookies are still warm. Who's to say that Grundy/Gawn wont miss a few games this year? From what I'm seeing very, very few have cover for that eventuality. Sure, they've been durable over the last 2 years, can that continue into the 3rd year? Maybe, maybe not.

Yes with Hannebery. Of course Hannebery and a fattened Naismith to a fallen Gawn and fresh rookie on the bubble sometime around R7 would be a dream.

The ruck cover thing kills me every year. The last 2 years I've started with a forward with DPP ruck and not only haven't I needed to use them in the ruck, but they've scored like absolute $h|t. So sods law says if I don't take the cover this year I'm almost certainly going to need it.

I'm embarrassed to say I choose Vardy for my cover last year. He spouted some b/s about how he was primed for a huge year and proceeded to score worse than a rookie and got dropped. I've been too embarrassed to admit that in public until now but have finally come clean as part of the recovery process.