BigFooty Dynasty (Ultimate Footy)

Daysy_12

Team Captain
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Posts
325
Likes
189
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I totally disagree - if people are planning for several years in the future, it is still shifting the goal posts after the game has started.

I oppose the one ruck proposal. I think it would be much better if we only played with one ruckman, but I think it's grossly unfair to change the rules now.
That is fair enough and your vote would count as a no at the end of the year if we went down that path. For the record, I am probably against it as well, but my opinion may or may not reflect that of the league as a whole, particularly because my vote is completely based upon self interest. Goal posts shift in any sport or competition. The AFL could make a rule change in two years that makes Rucks redundant and we would have to adjust. I'm not saying we have to change, I just think it is worthwhile considering voting on issues like this for potential change in the subsequent years.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Drew23

Premiership Player
Joined
May 12, 2011
Posts
3,844
Likes
985
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
North Melbourne
K
I totally disagree - if people are planning for several years in the future, it is still shifting the goal posts after the game has started.

I oppose the one ruck proposal. I think it would be much better if we only played with one ruckman, but I think it's grossly unfair to change the rules now.
:O you are alive angels.

Sttongly agree with this point and will be voting the same
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Posts
1,267
Likes
1,199
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
New York Knicks
Thread starter #2,303
At the risk of sounding like my 2 year old: Why? Why does it matter if the position has an impact on the players value? If we're going to change a ruck position to a utility position because of a ruck's high value then realistically then we need to vote to change some of the backs and forwards too, as a back has a significantly higher value than a similarly place mid (in keeping with your multipliers). Or, an even better way to ensure positions don't have an impact on the value of a player, let's just change it to 22 utilities and be done with it.
Of course position has an effect on value. I've taken into account positions for every trade I've reviewed. However, the value placed on rucks is so much higher that it leads to ridiculous trades like this one and the only justification for it being fair is the difference in position. There is no way a difference in position should ever hold more weight to a player's value than the position they play. Backs and forwards do not need changing as they are not significant outliers and most trades involving them place more emphasis on the quality of the player rather than their position.
 

Rockford

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Posts
8,913
Likes
3,080
Location
Halls Head
AFL Club
Geelong
Geez Sam Grimley got picked off waivers about 2 weeks ago for free. Lot more chance of him being played in the near future than Witts.
Firstly (and you know this) trades are not about a players chance of being played "in the near future". Secondly, in his 2 seasons at the Hawks, Grimley has only been good enough to crack 7 games for Box Hill! The rest of the time he's spent in the VFL reserves or the development squad. There was a reason he was sitting on the free agency list.

Witts is 2 years younger, has been in Collingwood's best 6 times in the VFL last season across 16 games and has more than held his own (dominated is probably too strong a word here) against AFL level rucks. There is not "more chance" of Grimley getting a game in the future than Witts, but I'd be interested to hear your reasoning for your statement all the same.
 

tenderwarrior

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Posts
4,406
Likes
3,454
Location
Launceston
AFL Club
Geelong
If there isn't enough rucks playing each week (28) to fill the positions, then I agree we have a problem - round that up to 33 to account for some teams deciding to play 3 etc.

If there are the numbers playing, then it is up to the teams who only have 1 of those 33 playing to trade for another one. The price will be what it will be. It is also up to the teams to trade strategically for insurance - for example, Rockford traded for Lycett to back up NicNat, and would have selected Sinclair in the draft also if he wasn't selected by another coach first.

Again, these trades will be worth what they are worth. We have the veto system to sort that out. No need to worry about it.

BUT, if there isn't 33 rucks playing each week (for example) I think we maybe do have to look to change it back to one ruck.

I disagree that we should change it just because of the 'inflated' price of ruckmen, but if the ruckman aren't available to even purchase at an inflated price, then I agree on changing it.

I am sure I will not be the only one monitoring how many rucks are playing each week. The other thing to consider is that there will be a few players 'playing' the ruck position in the AFL, but who will be listed as other positions (Blicavs, Lycett etc.) We obviously can't count them as Rucks, as even though they will be after round 7, they don't help a side currently fill a Ruck position.

If we do change - how do we decide? and how do we 'compensate'? for example do we vote? And do the teams who have a Nicholls or Sinclair type get to delist and have a free-agent selection that doesn't count as one of the five for the season? Likewise, those who have used one of their 5 free-agent signings already on a rookie ruckman, can they if they delist get that selection back?

It serves no purpose to keep quibbling about it. Let's sort it out and work out what we are going to do.

I suggest that we first need to actually work out if there are enough rucks available, and I put that number on an average of 33 per week playing. Lets see how the first few weeks of the season goes to get an idea. Maybe there are plenty of rucks - if so, you pay the price. Maybe there are not enough - in that case we probably need to change it..

Hope that makes sense..
 

StAnselm

Team Captain
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Posts
312
Likes
150
AFL Club
Hawthorn
:O you are alive angels.
Yes, for some reason I wasn't getting email notifications, and had no idea this discussion was going on.

For what it's worth, I have six ruckmen, and I am really hoping that Kepler Bradley becomes a ruck when the next positional changes are made. But I'm playing mrpez this week, and it doesn't look he will have any ruckmen on the park. Which means a lot of wasted hitouts.
 

richcogs

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,440
Likes
1,718
Location
Wodonga
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins
Yes, for some reason I wasn't getting email notifications, and had no idea this discussion was going on.

For what it's worth, I have six ruckmen, and I am really hoping that Kepler Bradley becomes a ruck when the next positional changes are made. But I'm playing mrpez this week, and it doesn't look he will have any ruckmen on the park. Which means a lot of wasted hitouts.
Definitely chuck some ruckmen on the market A&A.
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Posts
1,267
Likes
1,199
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
New York Knicks
Thread starter #2,308
If there isn't enough rucks playing each week (28) to fill the positions, then I agree we have a problem - round that up to 33 to account for some teams deciding to play 3 etc.

If there are the numbers playing, then it is up to the teams who only have 1 of those 33 playing to trade for another one. The price will be what it will be. It is also up to the teams to trade strategically for insurance - for example, Rockford traded for Lycett to back up NicNat, and would have selected Sinclair in the draft also if he wasn't selected by another coach first.

Again, these trades will be worth what they are worth. We have the veto system to sort that out. No need to worry about it.

BUT, if there isn't 33 rucks playing each week (for example) I think we maybe do have to look to change it back to one ruck.

I disagree that we should change it just because of the 'inflated' price of ruckmen, but if the ruckman aren't available to even purchase at an inflated price, then I agree on changing it.

I am sure I will not be the only one monitoring how many rucks are playing each week. The other thing to consider is that there will be a few players 'playing' the ruck position in the AFL, but who will be listed as other positions (Blicavs, Lycett etc.) We obviously can't count them as Rucks, as even though they will be after round 7, they don't help a side currently fill a Ruck position.

If we do change - how do we decide? and how do we 'compensate'? for example do we vote? And do the teams who have a Nicholls or Sinclair type get to delist and have a free-agent selection that doesn't count as one of the five for the season? Likewise, those who have used one of their 5 free-agent signings already on a rookie ruckman, can they if they delist get that selection back?
That's the problem which is causing the inflated price of ruckman. Teams are increasingly looking to play just the one ruckman and the proposed interchange caps will probably encourage more coaches to do just that.

I could see a reset of the five free agent signings happening.
 

Rockford

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Posts
8,913
Likes
3,080
Location
Halls Head
AFL Club
Geelong
Well, here's an example of the inflated price of ruckmen - I wouldn't trade Jack Hannath for anything less than Jobe Watson.
Which is pretty much where we got to in discussions... and I was still considering it.

The outlier isn't the Witts trade IMO, it's Hannath and Currie going as late in the draft as they did. I was looking at drafting both of them, and the only reason I didn't go a lot earlier is I didn't think they were on anyone else's radar (and I didn't think Currie would have quite as big an impact as he did so quickly with Goldstein and Daw ahead of him). We're all still learning though.

Again, rucks are that valuable because of their scarcity and the demand (every team wanting to field at least 2 of them). I agree with the conditions causing the price of rucks to be high but I don't see that as a problem. I don't see it as a problem if we've got 7 teams a week regularly getting 0's in one of their ruck spots too (if most of the AFL teams start playing only one ruck), that's the game. If you don't want that to happen then you'll plan ahead and trade for a Witts (or Hannath) and pay a J.Watson type player (or whatever you and the other player agree on) in return. Or, you live with the 0 if you think you can't cover losing the Watson type player.
 

Rockford

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Posts
8,913
Likes
3,080
Location
Halls Head
AFL Club
Geelong
On a totally separate note, does anyone have the game record info for kicks, score, marks, tackles etc.. from last season? Was thinking that it'd be interesting to keep those details season to season as well and have an overarching Kicks Record (etc.. for each category) for our league.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

richcogs

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,440
Likes
1,718
Location
Wodonga
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins
That's the problem which is causing the inflated price of ruckman. Teams are increasingly looking to play just the one ruckman and the proposed interchange caps will probably encourage more coaches to do just that.

I could see a reset of the five free agent signings happening.
We will wait and see if that happens though, at the moment there are 45 + ruckman being fielded taking into account the duel status!

On a totally separate note, does anyone have the game record info for kicks, score, marks, tackles etc.. from last season? Was thinking that it'd be interesting to keep those details season to season as well and have an overarching Kicks Record (etc.. for each category) for our league.
Can we just pay 3 dollars each to the bank account of UC and upgrade so UF do it all for us?
 

Rockford

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Posts
8,913
Likes
3,080
Location
Halls Head
AFL Club
Geelong
Can we just pay 3 dollars each to the bank account of UC and upgrade so UF do it all for us?
I don't mind personally but I think we've had this chat before and not everyone wanted to. I'm happy enough to check each of the match ups every round and keep a tally of the records, I just don't have them for last season :( Or, better yet, I'll keep them recorded for people to see them and then they can let me know if they break one of the records in their own matchup ;)
 

richcogs

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,440
Likes
1,718
Location
Wodonga
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins
I don't mind personally but I think we've had this chat before and not everyone wanted to. I'm happy enough to check each of the match ups every round and keep a tally of the records, I just don't have them for last season :( Or, better yet, I'll keep them recorded for people to see them and then they can let me know if they break one of the records in their own matchup ;)
If even 6 of us did it it would only cost 6 dollars? You, me, Tom, Unknown, Danny and Tender?
 

richcogs

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,440
Likes
1,718
Location
Wodonga
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins
There are only 76 players listed as Rucks (pure or dual-positional) in the League. Personally I reckon we will see between 30-35 play round one..
Lets wait and see, easy to find out!

....in other very exciting news pittsburgh penguins just became the miami heat of the NHL
 

richcogs

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,440
Likes
1,718
Location
Wodonga
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins
I got the two ruck man playing! :) Awaiting will only be playing 21 players this round as well. only 5 backs. My two little superstars named first and second rover for GWS, absolute fantasy guns! Also happy to see Rampe playing and Batchelor on the flank.
 
Top Bottom