DT 2011 Rucks Thread

[longytap]

Hey guys thought it would be a good idea to have seperate threads for each position on the ground. eg Fwd,Mid,Ruck,Def, i remember last year it seemed easier to discuss certain Positions and players in there own thread. I'll kick things off With Darren Jolly:

I personally have almost locked jolly in as second ruck. I think the pies can go on to win another in 2011 and jolly should have another great year. Super durable playing 22 games in his last 5 seasons and being number one ruck without much competiton is a big tick for me.

 

[Lakey91]

If Jolly is locked in as your second ruck, then is it fair to assume you are going two premiums?

I think that there is fair value in the rookies/mid pricers this year, and with the premium rucks seemingly always struggling with injuries and inconsistent output, it makes some sense to not start with 2 premiums in order to give yourself a look at what is going on. Cox has struggled with injury, and NicNat seems likely to demand for TOG as primary ruck. Sandilands got tired as the season went on in 2010, and also had a few niggles that can become worrying for ruckman. Hille struggles with injuries too. McIntosh has concerns over roll and TOG with the Roos holding a number of strong talls. Petrie, Fraser and even Jacobs offer great potential value in 2011 and should be considered amongst others - starting with guys like these and then upgrading seems a solid option.

 

[Thorgils]

A fair call Lakey, Rucks are always a difficult one. A lot of people were burnt last year. Those that payed the $$$ picking Cox, Clark, McIntosh were left with a bitter taste in there mouth whilst the more shrewd Ryder, Hille, Mumford were very happy with there picks. Jacobs, Petrie, Fraser look a great options and is perhaps a safer option so DTeamers may survery the players in action before picking a 'keeper' risk and reward once again.

Value picks:

M Johnson ?
Petrie ?
Fraser ?
Jacobs ?

 

[54Dogs]

Hey guys thought it would be a good idea to have seperate threads for each position on the ground. eg Fwd,Mid,Ruck,Def, i remember last year it seemed easier to discuss certain Positions and players in there own thread. I'll kick things off With Darren Jolly:

I personally have almost locked jolly in as second ruck. I think the pies can go on to win another in 2011 and jolly should have another great year. Super durable playing 22 games in his last 5 seasons and being number one ruck without much competiton is a big tick for me.

Cheers LT. Great idea and worked well when the board picked up speed last year.

Petrie the obvious cheap option if a ruck / DP. Fraser will no doubt create discussion, as will Hale if eligible plus 211 as the gun premium

 

[longytap]

Cheers LT. Great idea and worked well when the board picked up speed last year.

Petrie the obvious cheap option if a ruck / DP. Fraser will no doubt create discussion, as will Hale if eligible plus 211 as the gun premium

cheers guys, yeah was planning on shelling out for the Sandi/Jolly combo but you all make valid points. Plenty of value around as well as uncertainty.

 

[Ollies]

Petrie is the interesting one for me. If he is travelling OK through NAB cup, and is priced near where FF has him, he demands to be picked. Where to pick him if a DP becomes a tricky question. With a few attractive discounted options likely to be forwards, and with the possibility of the small forwards getting more mid time under the new rules, it might end up being better strategy picking Petrie as a ruck.

 

[Joshen]

Someone I am considering for second ruck spot is Kurt Tippett simply because of the improvement I predict from Adelaide this coming year. In 2010 he averaged:

Overall (22 games) - 63
Adelaide wins (9 games) - 76
Adelaide losses (13 games) - 56

Included in the wins are games against Fremantle and Geelong both were top 5 teams so defenses were obviously stronger/better midfield reducing supply to the tall forwards, if we exclude those scores he averages 87 from Adelaide wins. Out of the sides in the bottom 8 the Crows are widely tipped to be one of the more likely to push for finals next year which means 2-3 extra wins (if the improvement eventuates).

He is unlikely to be a keeper but his position as FF means there is going to be massive fluctuations in his scoring from week to week which obviously means a great variance in price so the opportunity to pick up fallen premiums will be there when he is on a hot streak.

Another thing I like is his dual position eligibility as a F/R. People may say they already have that position covered with the Petrie/Daw proposed scenario but as a Roos supporter I'm still concerned about Drew's feet which could seem him miss a game or two having Kurt in your team would mean that the position swapping is still available.

Adelaide has their byes in Round 2 and Round 16 (with Fremantle aswell which is cause for concern if Sandi is your other Ruckman), ideally he'd be upgraded between those rounds.

Other problems are inconsistency (as with all key forwards) and also the development of the other forwards in the Adelaide team whether they will take points away from him.

Apologies if that is not clear; it was just musings as I watch the cricket but if you did understand it's food for thought. A point for another debate would be how much predicted team improvement/worsening (whats the word for opposite of improvement) has a say in whether a player is included in your team or not?

 

[Ollies]

Someone I am considering for second ruck spot is Kurt Tippett simply because of the improvement I predict from Adelaide this coming year. In 2010 he averaged:

Overall (22 games) - 63
Adelaide wins (9 games) - 76
Adelaide losses (13 games) - 56

Included in the wins are games against Fremantle and Geelong both were top 5 teams so defenses were obviously stronger/better midfield reducing supply to the tall forwards, if we exclude those scores he averages 87 from Adelaide wins. Out of the sides in the bottom 8 the Crows are widely tipped to be one of the more likely to push for finals next year which means 2-3 extra wins (if the improvement eventuates).

He is unlikely to be a keeper but his position as FF means there is going to be massive fluctuations in his scoring from week to week which obviously means a great variance in price so the opportunity to pick up fallen premiums will be there when he is on a hot streak.

Another thing I like is his dual position eligibility as a F/R. People may say they already have that position covered with the Petrie/Daw proposed scenario but as a Roos supporter I'm still concerned about Drew's feet which could seem him miss a game or two having Kurt in your team would mean that the position swapping is still available.

Adelaide has their byes in Round 2 and Round 16 (with Fremantle aswell which is cause for concern if Sandi is your other Ruckman), ideally he'd be upgraded between those rounds.

Other problems are inconsistency (as with all key forwards) and also the development of the other forwards in the Adelaide team whether they will take points away from him.

Apologies if that is not clear; it was just musings as I watch the cricket but if you did understand it's food for thought. A point for another debate would be how much predicted team improvement/worsening (whats the word for opposite of improvement) has a say in whether a player is included in your team or not?

The word would be decline.

 

[Joshen]

^ Haha thank you, spent a good 2-3 minutes thinking about it.

 

[favourites]

I think there is plenty of value in the rucks but the issue with the bye is really frustrating. A guy like Fraser will be a good pick imo, will easily improve 20points on his average. The issue is you would like to bring him in as a midpricer with the hope of upgrading him to a Sandilands/Cox however he has two byes in the first 10 rounds meaning his money growth will be slower and you are likely to have 3 byes for the one position.

I feel the only option if you get Fraser is the hope he makes enough money prior to the second bye and you upgrade him round 9.

A lot depends on the strength of rookies, whether you go with Max Bailey who is likely to be given the number one ruck role or a dp link to your fwds so that Petrie can cover the four byes....

A lot to ponder before round 1.

 

[54Dogs]

I think there is plenty of value in the rucks but the issue with the bye is really frustrating. A guy like Fraser will be a good pick imo, will easily improve 20points on his average. The issue is you would like to bring him in as a midpricer with the hope of upgrading him to a Sandilands/Cox however he has two byes in the first 10 rounds meaning his money growth will be slower and you are likely to have 3 byes for the one position.

I feel the only option if you get Fraser is the hope he makes enough money prior to the second bye and you upgrade him round 9.

A lot depends on the strength of rookies, whether you go with Max Bailey who is likely to be given the number one ruck role or a dp link to your fwds so that Petrie can cover the four byes....

A lot to ponder before round 1.

Nice post.

If Petrie can pay his way as your 7th fwd it has merit. Averaging 80 plus covering all ruck byes makes it worthwhile. The bye coverage of rucks is probably worth 40 ppg so 160 points upside less whatever your fwd emerg averages less than Petrie (maybe 10 ppg). So 120 bonus points on top of his average through DP. 5 extra ppg so his effective average for the team would be 85 which is fine for a number 7 fwd.

Then again, I worked on this theory with Tippett last year and look how that finished.

 

[Jolldo87]

Nice post.

If Petrie can pay his way as your 7th fwd it has merit. Averaging 80 plus covering all ruck byes makes it worthwhile. The bye coverage of rucks is probably worth 40 ppg so 160 points upside less whatever your fwd emerg averages less than Petrie (maybe 10 ppg). So 120 bonus points on top of his average through DP. 5 extra ppg so his effective average for the team would be 85 which is fine for a number 7 fwd.

Then again, I worked on this theory with Tippett last year and look how that finished.

And that's if both ruckmen play 22 games. The advantages will be even greater if your ruckmen miss a couple of games, assuming Petrie plays all games where he's needed.

 

[Walesy]

For mine, ruck strategies will be dictated by DPP allocations. With it, we have options- without it, it will become a huge question on having the right rookie bencher at the right time- and there does seem to be at least one rookie ruck worth his salt each year!

 

[Chunky]

My two cents on a few players.

Kruezer is travelling very well and is earmarked for more of a ruck roving role this season. Has been very durable other than his knee injury. If he comes up alright and gets some game time in the NAB, I will be keen to get on him.

Sandilands isn't a definate lock for me. His foot problem toward the end of last season is a worry and he has only played all 22 games once in his career. I consider him fully priced and a bit of an injury risk.

A Kruezer/Jolly combo is very tempting. Both players are well priced and unlikely to surprise on the downside IMO.

It seems most are on the Petrie bandwagon but keep in mind that he will be playing deep in the forward 50 according to Scott, not in his traditional role of a roaming half forward. This is sure to affect his DT scoring. So I think he will be a fair way off his 2008/9 averages. Also, can we be sure that his foot problems are behind him ? At his price, he is probably worth the risk but my expectations of him are more conservative.

A possible alternative to Petrie is Trengove (assuming that he is listed as a multi position B/R). He's just been added to the Port leagership group which shows that Port think highly of him. Brogan is surely on the way out so perhaps there will be more game time for Trengove in 2011.

 

[Ollies]

My two cents on a few players.

Kruezer is travelling very well and is earmarked for more of a ruck roving role this season. Has been very durable other than his knee injury. If he comes up alright and gets some game time in the NAB, I will be keen to get on him.

Sandilands isn't a definate lock for me. His foot problem toward the end of last season is a worry and he has only played all 22 games once in his career. I consider him fully priced and a bit of an injury risk.

A Kruezer/Jolly combo is very tempting. Both players are well priced and unlikely to surprise on the downside IMO.

It seems most are on the Petrie bandwagon but keep in mind that he will be playing deep in the forward 50 according to Scott, not in his traditional role of a roaming half forward. This is sure to affect his DT scoring. So I think he will be a fair way off his 2008/9 averages. Also, can we be sure that his foot problems are behind him ? At his price, he is probably worth the risk but my expectations of him are more conservative.

A possible alternative to Petrie is Trengove (assuming that he is listed as a multi position B/R). He's just been added to the Port leagership group which shows that Port think highly of him. Brogan is surely on the way out so perhaps there will be more game time for Trengove in 2011.

Good post Chunky. Trengove certainly worth plenty of thought. Highly regarded at the club and has come back in great shape. Most people have gone the Petrie/Daw combo but Trengove/Pederson might be better if Peederson gets DP as he is more likely to get a few games especially if Petrie does go down which as you say must be a risk. Remember how long it took Hird to get over similar injuries?

I really like Kruezer but not for me in 2011. A big man coming back from an AC and expecting to play like a ruck rover is a big worry. While he obviously still has plenty of natural improvement at his age he is fully priced on 2010 performance levels and it is likely to take him a while to hit top gear.

I share your views on Sandi.

 

[Chunky]

If Pederson is classed as a DP, is there a case for having both him and Daw as ruck emergencies and both Petrie and Trengove on the ground (as a forward and backman respectively). Would give you double cover with potential upside in their output as well.

 

[Ollies]

If Pederson is classed as a DP, is there a case for having both him and Daw as ruck emergencies and both Petrie and Trengove on the ground (as a forward and backman respectively). Would give you double cover with potential upside in their output as well.

Not really. Zac Smith looks far and away the best rookie ruck. You'd have to forgo having him to fit both Daw and Pederson in for two DP links.

 

[Chunky]

My concern is if Petrie goes down there may be no decent cover available at a reasonable price in the rucks. And we know because of the byes that we need rock solid cover this season. I may be prepared to forgo Zac Smith just to have the security of knowing that I am fully covererd in the rucks.

Just throwing it out there.

 

[Ollies]

My concern is if Petrie goes down there may be no decent cover available at a reasonable price in the rucks. And we know because of the byes that we need rock solid cover this season. I may be prepared to forgo Zac Smith just to have the security of knowing that I am fully covererd in the rucks.

Just throwing it out there.

Yep, quite a reasonable position to take given Petrie's injury. I prefer to choose one or the other of Petrie and Trengove and get Zac who of course can also cover the rucks if Petrie had gone down.

 

[favourites]

Speaking with someone in the know at the roos and he reckons daw/peterson are very unlikely to get games this year.

Surely Zac Smith and Bailey are the ones to go after if there is no DP involved.

 

[Ollies]

Speaking with someone in the know at the roos and he reckons daw/peterson are very unlikely to get games this year.

Surely Zac Smith and Bailey are the ones to go after if there is no DP involved.

Daw is raw. Agree would be very lucky to get a game. Pederson on the other hand is 24 in March and at 193cms and 100kgs is a big unit. Not there for his looks nor for development. He's there for insurance and if Petrie goes down he would most likely slot into a KPB spot with a shuffle of Hansen etc. I agree that without DP status he'd be a no go zone though.

 

[favourites]

Peterson is still very raw as well, most of that weight is actual weight rather than muscle. He is still another year off imo. He might play this year but it would be a surprise to me. I still don't think he will get a ruck position though, played most of his footy at Box Hill as a defender/fwd.

 

[Pocket_Pears]

If you're only going for a league win, a Sandilands/Mumford or Sandilands/Jamar combo would mean you don't need to overthink your ruck emergencies too much, and just play it like any other year.

 

[soreplums]

Jolly and one of Fraser/Mummy/Goldstein

 

[Joshen]

^ Goldstein is an interesting one. Apparently will take the No.1 ruck role this year but will still share the load with McIntosh. The question is how the new sub rule will effect his scoring etc. with one less on the bench he could spend less time off the ground instead resting up forward which you expect to net him a few more points. Conversely he could easily be the man chosen to be subbed off in favour of extra runners. Definitely someone to think about as natural improvement should mean an increase in his average provided some of the factors outlined above fall his way.

But then you have to consider, if you are planning on utilising the Petrie dual positioning eligibility it will prove ineffective in this instance as they are in the same team and thus will both not be playing. Unfortunately our first bye is early in the season meaning Goldy will not have been upgraded yet (if that was what you were planning).