BigFooty Dynasty (Ultimate Footy)

(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
I lost by a kick or 3 hit outs or him scoring two points or 9 handballs or 20 points richcogs well played. Will be better when I have those 7 best 22 blokes I was missing
Cheers Drew23 , close one that is for sure, thankfully Frankling got a few kicks late.

Gunston after a impressive preseason dropped off. Greene had his worst game ever (was he tagged?). Armstrong only played 16 % game time (bloody sub). Watts had his worst game ever as well. Trengove is not in my best 22.

But even with those let downs, next time I think you will be too strong. Reid, Crameri, Schofield and Day didn't perform and your backline was not all there. That is where you have a problem though in defense

Day out, Johnson in
Crameri out, Waite in
MacMillian out, Montagna in
OKeefe out, Ibbotson in

I have Cornes, Tippett, Gray and Thomas to come in for Trengove, Gunston, Cornelius and Armstrong.
 

Zim^zuM

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Posts
3,865
Likes
1,779
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Western Bulldogs
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.
Great way to say it. I traded hard to get rucks because of the rules you guys set. And now you want to change it because others didn't do the same and are upset they're a man down. Bad luck
 

Zim^zuM

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Posts
3,865
Likes
1,779
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Western Bulldogs
Cheers StAnselm. I hadn't counted you in the 6 approvers/non-voters that said they liked the trade. My memory might have failed me but I thought both Drew23 and flaps said they thought the trade was fine but opted not to vote. It's not just the veto at the end of the day and I'm not looking for the decision to be reversed.
If I read this I would have approved
 

matty_boy08

All Australian
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Posts
788
Likes
227
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Liverpool & Miami Heat
Got my first win which is good, need to restock my team and see who's playing this weekend none of this split round shit!
 

Zim^zuM

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Posts
3,865
Likes
1,779
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Western Bulldogs
I don't particularly want to leave the league in the lurch but I'm not getting much satisfaction or enjoyment from the game anymore. There was no collusion on this trade. There were 6 players that either voted to approve the trade or opted not to veto it and only 3 that voted to veto (one of which has messaged me that he's already sent offers on the players that mrpez and I had agreed a trade for).

I just can't justify putting this much time and effort into the league when the rewards aren't there. I could go into my reasons in greater detail but there's just no point, the end result is the same. I'm out guys. I'll do my best to field a team for my match ups until a new manager is found.
I think if someone veto's a trade they should be barred from doing a deal with those players for a few weeks. I've always assumed the veto process was to avoid really bad and unfair trades, not so people can then try get the player themselves.

How long was the trade up for a vote?
 

Ironmonger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Posts
10,014
Likes
15,856
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
I bet Unknown Caller is hoping at some point he gets to play Maroons with a full list.

No Ball, no McIntosh, no Fisher, Embley and Adams starting as subs, LeCras gets injured.

Not one word of complaint from the man, though. Good stuff.

I expect if he bites the bullet and trades out some of his young stars later in the season for some reliable old hands Deft Touch is going to be very hard to beat.
 

richcogs

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,440
Likes
1,718
Location
Wodonga
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins
Geez a fair few free agents were picked up this week. Jackson Merrett is a good get, pick 32 in last years draft and nice game on the weekend. It's like Tender got a free third round draft pick.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

StAnselm

Team Captain
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Posts
312
Likes
150
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Geez a fair few free agents were picked up this week. Jackson Merrett is a good get, pick 32 in last years draft and nice game on the weekend. It's like Tender got a free third round draft pick.
How does this work, anyway? I just got a notification this morning that I was unsuccessful in getting Merrett? Was it that tender got in first? I requested Merrett pretty much straight after the Essendon game. The notification says "There was another coach with a higher waiver priority requesting this player." What does "higher waiver priority" mean?
 

Ironmonger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Posts
10,014
Likes
15,856
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
How does this work, anyway? I just got a notification this morning that I was unsuccessful in getting Merrett? Was it that tender got in first? I requested Merrett pretty much straight after the Essendon game. The notification says "There was another coach with a higher waiver priority requesting this player." What does "higher waiver priority" mean?
According to our league settings, waiver priority is based on ladder position.

So if you swapped Merrett into your side, and TW did the same within three days, he would get the player and your swap wouldn't go through, because he is lower on the ladder.

I don't think this has ever come up in our league before.
 

tenderwarrior

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Posts
4,406
Likes
3,454
Location
Launceston
AFL Club
Geelong
How does this work, anyway? I just got a notification this morning that I was unsuccessful in getting Merrett? Was it that tender got in first? I requested Merrett pretty much straight after the Essendon game. The notification says "There was another coach with a higher waiver priority requesting this player." What does "higher waiver priority" mean?
Priority Waiver is a reverse of last years ladder position. Now that I have used it, I go to the bottom - now I am 12th in line or something. This is only for 'restricted free-agents' - normal free agents is first in best dressed. For example, if Merrett was available now (all players become restricted agents while games are being played and for their first three days on the free agents list) he would go to the first team that selected him - if you wait to see how he went on the weekend, you would have to 'win the priority waiver' or wait until after the weekend's game..

Check the league ladder - it is the final column :)

I don't think this has ever come up in our league before.
It happened quite a lot to me last year, and maybe others - I just understood what was happening :p


Picking Merrett was a big decision as I knew with the number one pick, I could have first dibs at any free agent at any time.

In the end it was based more so on his potential than his game on the weekend, and for the future rather than for this season. I had to delist Ledger which could very well end up the better player. Ledger seems to be out of favour at the moment but has shown that he can find the ball easily enough when given a game. Another reason I went for Merrett is that I expect that if he continues playing to gain Forward statues, as that is where I think he will play most of his footy early in his career - saying that, I didn't see his game on the weekend, so I could have that wrong.
 

Zim^zuM

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Posts
3,865
Likes
1,779
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Western Bulldogs
I agree with this. Would mrpez still value Witts as highly as he does if teams only had to play one ruckman?
I think even if one ruckman needs to be played there is a potential for them to be rated so highly.

1) you still need backup
2) with 14 teams there will many times be fringe players filling the last positional or utility spot where you can anticipate only a few possessions. Having a ruck in the utility spot can still give you a free pass at a category win.

i'll use tender warriors as an example. As it stands before he finalises his lineup he has jones, hrovat, wright, murdoch, butcher who either didn;t play or hardly touched the ball. A combination of 2 not so could ruckman could provide the hitouts needed and still get more over stats than those players. I've seen in many regular leagues where Hale, Ryder go early because of their DPP. And Cox has been the first ruck picked purely to play FWD for more hitouts. It can obviously work for or against but rucks are valued because only they can provide a dent in a whole category. Because the likely hood is there will be other players that stink it up and the low possessions will be equaled out.

Some people may agree, some will disagree. Some people may value a goal kicker with low stats, some might not. Someone might want to pay a hefty price for priddis or cross to get some handballs and give up a better player because they dont need so many kicks or goals. It's a matter of opinion and opinion should not dictate the way it is.

Also this is a dynasty league. Witts may be seen as way off because Hudson was elevated but regardless of that both him and Jolly are on their last legs and they will get a regular gig quicker than hannath and Currie.

And everyone for the witts trade completely dismissed Young. 11 kicks, 6 handballs and 7 marks is not a bad start for a young backman in a rebuilding side who gave up Lake and are pushing bob murphy fwd.

This whole veto process IMO is getting out of control. It's not like he gave up Mundy. Personal opinion should NOT be able to stop a trade so easily. People will say there is a voting system yet for this trade there where no tags to get a more fair vote. And if people are not aware of a vote I dont think the vote should just go ahead. There should be a minimum number of votes against like 8-9 that way its a bit more clear that its a veto. This one was not. Why don't we use the voting tool on the site? that way it needs to be vetoed properly. What's next? are we going to start vetoing players being delisted and signed from the free agent list?

I log into UF everyday, big footy I dont. Every time I do there is pages of arguments on a trade being vetoed lol. IMO a trade is always going to favour someone. It cant be equal, otherwise there is no point in trading. It seems like it would be easier to not allow in season trading. Or take the time to make some factual guidlines where opinion wont matter.

EG the ranking differnce can only be x amount. Which can be difficult with rookies so perhaps their actual draft pick in real life comes into calculation. Not purely personal opinion.

While on the topic of this particular trade I would also like some clarification on one of my earlier posts. Rockford claimed that one of the vetoing players immediately made offers for players involved. This is a little suspect and I think we need some clarification to eliminate the possibility that a trade was vetoed purely to get a crack at those players themselves. OR if it's just sour grapes from rockford.
 

Ironmonger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Posts
10,014
Likes
15,856
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
This whole veto process IMO is getting out of control.
In what possible sense is the veto process getting out of control? When was the last veto before this one?

The biggest problem I see at the moment is that some coaches seem to have decided to vote to accept every single trade, regardless of how equal it is.
 

Zim^zuM

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Posts
3,865
Likes
1,779
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Western Bulldogs
I think someone vetoing a trade then going for the players is even more of a problem TBH.

It may be one trade but to me it got out of control. It is pages upon pages of posts, arguments to the point people were calling for rule changes with no regard to the fact the original draft was based on those rules including a second draft and a trading period.

I dont think the problem you raised is that big of a deal. Everyone values player differently, in fantasy and in real life. You win some you lose one. A trade being vetoed based on other peoples opinions quite frankly is bullshit. Especially when it's justification is because some think lineup rules all of a sudden need to be reviewed. The way MrPez squad is atm the only rule change that will help him is if we firstly take away all rucks and take away the hitout category.

Equal trades is simply bullshit. Nothing is equal. Whats the point in trading if it has to be 100% equal? Whats the point in a dynasty league and positions if when it looks like someone is going to struggle we change the rules because they decided not to invest in rucks from the onset. The whole point in this league is to then make them figure out how to get back into it through trading. IF that means they have to pay a higher price then so be it. Which is why the game is so fun. Are we going to start vetoing the PSD because whoever has pick one uses it on a long shot ruck instead of an obvious Jet that is ready to play? Everyone has to adopt different strategies We have all committed to a long term leagues which adds so much more need for advanced thinking. Mr Pez has identified that he will probably have the worst hit out count in the history of UF. No one has budged on starting ruckmen so he has gone for Witts who even if he is shit will be given a go quickly because Hudson and Jolly could very well be retiring or only capable of playing 10 games sooner rather than later. It is a better option than waiting for the next draft, clearly that equals he needs to pay for it in a short term unequal trade. Peoples opinions are getting in the way of forward thinking. A couple of years ago if someone offered Didak and Embley for Barlow and Christensen some people would say they are mad and veto it. Meaning that player with forward thinking that was going to lose, loses but for different reasons because thy have missed two long term guns. We lose a huge element of skill and research.

In my own situation obvioulsy I didn't draft anything lol. I asked if I could join because I loved the concept and ended up getting a team. I didn;t notice for a few months that we had two starting rucks. At thi point I had Griffen and Redden to my name. Reddens immediate playing time was not that clear cut yet. The assumption was Sandilands would start the season. I was staring down the barrel of playing one or two short. So I went hard for rucks. I messaged nearly everyone about their rucks. I was prepared to pay for them. Not at ridiculous levels, i bargained hard and done well I think. I lucked out with Griffin, I have Minson and West too. So I'm now ok in the ruck. I'd be pissed if I went through all that negotiating and trading only for the rules to change because others did not do the same. In a few years I will have an issue again. I gave up a young ruck in redden focused on the short term gain. There will be a time I have to pay a price to replace Minson. And I'd rather negotiate than have a rule change. I think a positional rule change would have to be agreed now, but take place in 3-4 seasons. That or we all chip in for plus and make any player 196cm or taller a ruck lol.

Having different opinions on the prospect of a player is fine, but dictating what happens based on jut opinion to me is not. This type of league is not black and white. It's not as simple as finding the best scorers and thats that. There are 10 categories to consider. If you average the most in handballs and struggle in kicks it could be worth giving up a highly ranked player like Priddis that just handballs for a much lower player that gets kicks.



Anyways for the record disagreements I have are not personal and I think you're a good bunch of blokes. Just dont want to come across heated lol xoxo
 

Ironmonger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Posts
10,014
Likes
15,856
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
Anyways for the record disagreements I have are not personal and I think you're a good bunch of blokes. Just dont want to come across heated lol xoxo
In that case, use the word 'bullshit' less.

Suggesting rule changes is not 'out of control'. It's just plain wrong to suggest that I or anyone else had no regard to the original draft.

This is really stupid. And I don't care if I come across heated.

I'm tired of the constant whinging and histrionics on this thread. Not just from Zimzum but from many of you.
 

Zim^zuM

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Posts
3,865
Likes
1,779
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Western Bulldogs
In that case, use the word 'bullshit' less.

Suggesting rule changes is not 'out of control'. It's just plain wrong to suggest that I or anyone else had no regard to the original draft.

This is really stupid. And I don't care if I come across heated.

I'm tired of the constant whinging and histrionics on this thread. Not just from Zimzum but from many of you.
rofl. No its not really stupid. Calling for a rule change does not have regard to the original draft/trading period because you take away an advantage people have created using the original rules. If people have ignored rucks to gain something else its simply bad luck now. How about take away a midfield spot too since people with rucks may have passed on a good midfielder to get the ruck?

Tired of the constant whinging yet I don't check the forum for a week and you're heavily involved in whinging about how you think a ruck should be valued after you where one of the few that vetoed a trade on a ruck. This coming from a bloke who stated he exploits the veto process on purpose and will continue to do yet, yet cry at what is fair and not fair rofl. Each squad had the same opportunity to draft rucks. If they ignored that bad luck, if more rucks went early then you think should have thats jut bad luck too. You guys all agreed to the rule.
 

Ironmonger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Posts
10,014
Likes
15,856
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
rofl. No its not really stupid. Calling for a rule change does not have regard to the original draft/trading period because you take away an advantage people have created using the original rules. If people have ignored rucks to gain something else its simply bad luck now. How about take away a midfield spot too since people with rucks may have passed on a good midfielder to get the ruck?
So by that logic it would be impossible to call for any change to the rules without regard to the original draft? That makes it a pretty redundant thing to mention then, doesn't it?

Tired of the constant whinging yet I don't check the forum for a week and you're heavily involved in whinging about how you think a ruck should be valued after you where one of the few that vetoed a trade on a ruck.
You mean where I proposed a rule change that wouldn't have benefited me in the slightest? Go back through the thread and tally up how much time I spent whining about unfair the current rule was on me (none), and compare it to the space devoted by others to plaintive whining about how unfair my proposed rule change would be to their own team (lots).

This coming from a bloke who stated he exploits the veto process on purpose and will continue to do
What, because I said I'm going to exploit the rules even if I think they're stupid? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Why would anyone take you seriously when you can't make an argument honestly?

You and that idiot Drew23 are two peas in a pod, aren't you? Just not capable of backing up anything you say.
 

Ironmonger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Posts
10,014
Likes
15,856
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
With all due respect fellas, this is just a game. You have opposing views on the issue, fine. I know its the bigfooty norm, but leave the personal attacks out of it.
Normally I'd agree, but that just won't cut it anymore. The constant bitching and nastiness just drives me insane. It's the same people again and again, and it's time to start calling them out for it.
 

Drew23

Premiership Player
Joined
May 12, 2011
Posts
3,843
Likes
982
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
North Melbourne
You and that idiot Drew23 are two peas in a pod, aren't you? Just not capable of backing up anything you say.
Now I think that's a little rough. Dont quite know what I did to deserve that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and guess what if you dont like it. ...then it's your problem, I'm glad no one has been influenced by the consistancy and repetitiveness of your posts. You seem to aay the same thing in different ways 20 times with the idea that you think it makes it look like it everyone agree s or that it will influence them. Well it wont, it's just tiresome reading through 10 of your long posts without anyone else having said anything.

You keep saying you are tired of people coming out with crap...take a look around and you will see you are in the minority and most people want you to quit with the rubbish posting. The majority of the arguements around here stem and are continued by you adding fuel and rubbish long posts to the fire. You seem to think your opinion is the only one that matters and everyone else has to put up with it. But it isn't. Uc has an amount of power and authority but even he knows if he exercises and abuses that power then thete will be a mutiny.

The rule will not be changed unless uc does that abusing, because the majority of people agree with Zim that teams drafted and traded based on what they thought would give them an advantage. To take the grass they have laid from beneath theur feet would be like I have said many times before...to the dertiment of the league.
 
Top Bottom