DT 2011 Rucks Thread

[54Dogs]

FWD rookie on the park?? Sorry don't follow??

Especially as seeing as I was only ever considering Petrie as a fwd, purely beause there is plenty of scoring potential in rookie fwd's and having a Lobbe type ruck/fwd sitting there didn't seem like the best option.

Pretty sure I will start with Petrie as a fwd; best case scenario is that he plays all games and gets back to 80avg, in that case I will leave him as my 6/7th fwd.
Worst case he gets injured for the season and as a fwd there are plenty of good rookies have on the bench or trade in.

I guess if you take this further, I see it a better option to take less risks in the ruck division as you only have 2 bench spots and they can be volatile.

I would like my 2 main ruckman to avg 170+ for the season and the least risky way I see of doing this is Cox and Jolly.

Fwd rookie on park.

What I was driving at here is if you play Petrie as a fwd, the benefit of him as DP ruck cover is the difference between Zac Smith and the Fwd bench player you will use in place of Petrie. Petrie would have been on the park either way.

So say you played Petrie to cover Jolly's bye, you would need one of your fwd bench to cover Petrie. Say this was Callinan, then the amount Callinan scores more than Zac Smith is the benefit you get from DP. Plus obviously the bonus of an extra player who can cover if you cop injuries.

 

[Wheedus]

Fwd rookie on park.

What I was driving at here is if you play Petrie as a fwd, the benefit of him as DP ruck cover is the difference between Zac Smith and the Fwd bench player you will use in place of Petrie. Petrie would have been on the park either way.

So say you played Petrie to cover Jolly's bye, you would need one of your fwd bench to cover Petrie. Say this was Callinan, then the amount Callinan scores more than Zac Smith is the benefit you get from DP. Plus obviously the bonus of an extra player who can cover if you cop injuries.

Agree with that. A FWD rookie is more likely to score well than a RUCK rookie. The flip side is starting Petrie in the RUCK allows one more premium elsewhere on the field so effectively it's a choice between a RUCK premium and a FWD or BACK premium. I just think there are more options in those parts of the field. Obviously the risk is higher from an injury standpoint (ie if Petrie goes down => forces a trade)

 

[NinjaHamster]

Ah - all the uncertainty and doubt - the postulations and theories and ultimately the reality being revealed ... God, I love the smell of Supercoach in the morning ... !!

 

[Joshen]

Ah - all the uncertainty and doubt - the postulations and theories and ultimately the reality being revealed ... God, I love the smell of Dreamteam in the morning ... !!

Efa..

 

[NinjaHamster]

Efa..

AAAaaarghg - You CAN'T make my Supercoach goodness into Dreamteam garbage ...

Whoops - except that this is a D/T thread - sorry guys !!

 

[mezaire]

AAAaaarghg - You CAN'T make my Supercoach garbage into Dreamteam goodness...

Whoops - except that this is a D/T thread - sorry guys !!

There fixed!!

Speaking os S/C rubbish, it still gave its usual 3300 points per game for the 40min NAB games!!!
Saw one player score 130 odd and hade 2 kicks and 2 tackles

 

[Juzz]

I Don't think hille will play thr opening rounds...

While he may play Round 1, he's had a very interrupted pre-season and I would expect him to start the season even more slowly than last year when he was coming back from his knee reco...

 

[mezaire]

Fwd rookie on park.

What I was driving at here is if you play Petrie as a fwd, the benefit of him as DP ruck cover is the difference between Zac Smith and the Fwd bench player you will use in place of Petrie. Petrie would have been on the park either way.

So say you played Petrie to cover Jolly's bye, you would need one of your fwd bench to cover Petrie. Say this was Callinan, then the amount Callinan scores more than Zac Smith is the benefit you get from DP. Plus obviously the bonus of an extra player who can cover if you cop injuries.

Ahh I see, yeah very good point and definately one I shall have to think about!!

On the flip side, there is also no real rucks with DPP that will play many games so you also have to play the above off against having 2 ruck bench players that are making you cash from rd. 4 onwards. So if that is $100k extra the it equates to 25 points trade value which is pretty much 1 for 1 with what a fwd rookie might score over a ruck rookie. That is of course until that $100k is used for an upgrade and then it is 25 points a week

Wow that is complex!!!

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

With Hille a possible chance to miss the start of season proper and be underdone slightly are people now looking towards Ryder. I mean he keeps in the back of my head but im very happy and almost locked with one of my rucks while the other im fairly happy with aswell.

I see it a bit of both ways if Hille is to miss a solid amount of the season. It means Ryder will get more TOG and more TOG in the ruck. However i can see him burning out quite badly and struggling to finish the year, I dont see him as a ruck in the perfect world i see him as a KPF with stints in the ruck. What im saying is he isnt built just yet so he can handle 90% TOG in the ruck.

Thoughts?

 

[Atavistic]

Is Zac Clarke DT-relevant this year, or are people looking more at Derrickx, Z Smith and the Petrie-J Tippett combo?

I think I might get Clarke if I go a Cox-Jolly combo as he could be decent back-up, especially if Sandi suffers an injury.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Is Zac Clarke DT-relevant this year, or are people looking more at Derrickx, Z Smith and the Petrie-J Tippett combo?

I think I might get Clarke if I go a Cox-Jolly combo as he could be decent back-up, especially if Sandi suffers an injury.

Fairly pricey isnt he for a bench spot??

Also fremantle have Griffen now aswell so im not quite sure if Z.Clarke is ahead of him or behind him. Clarke will be DT relevant one day, ive always liked what i saw.

 

[Atavistic]

Fairly pricey isnt he for a bench spot??

Also fremantle have Griffen now aswell so im not quite sure if Z.Clarke is ahead of him or behind him. Clarke will be DT relevant one day, ive always liked what i saw.

He's only about 40k more expensive than most other rookies and is highly-rated. If it turns out that he is favoured over Griffin then I'll definitely consider adding him. It's arguably as or less risky than going for Petrie/J Tippett combo - which could leave you with two deadweights if Petrie gets an LTI.

At the moment I'm inclined toward selecting Z Smith and Derrickx, but that could change if Clarke looks like getting significant TOG.

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

Agree with that. A FWD rookie is more likely to score well than a RUCK rookie. The flip side is starting Petrie in the RUCK allows one more premium elsewhere on the field so effectively it's a choice between a RUCK premium and a FWD or BACK premium. I just think there are more options in those parts of the field. Obviously the risk is higher from an injury standpoint (ie if Petrie goes down => forces a trade)

Starting with a premium/mid-pricer ruck combination has worked well in the past. The reasons for adopting this strategy was:

• using the saved cash for other positions
• the cashcow income generated
• eventual trading in of a bona fide premium ruckman

With the extra rookies and trades available this year, cash generation will be MUCH easier and therefore the benefits of
the premium/mid-pricer ruck combination is marginalised. While some extra cash is always welcome, a single starting ruck cashcow will contribute significantly less to your team's total value than in previous years.

Petrie and Fraser, for mine, represent unacceptable risk. They could score anywhere from 60-90 in the early part of the season. If they score at the lower end, you could be bleeding 30+ points per week to a premium. This is tantamount to DT hara-kiri. Ruckman also get injured alot. If they cop an early injury, their cashcow benefit is snuffed out and you may have very limited trade options due to a lack of cash. If you manage to avoid the injury curse, the eventual ruck upgrade will likely interfere with your all important midfield upgrades and possibly delay the finalising of your team.

With one standout premium (Sandilands) and three low-risk premiums, all with apparent upside (Jolly, Cox, Ryder), it seems that starting two ruck premiums is a good strategy in DT 2011.

 

[Dr Awkward]

Starting with a premium/mid-pricer ruck combination has worked well in the past. The reasons for adopting this strategy was:

• using the saved cash for other positions
• the cashcow income generated
• eventual trading in of a bona fide premium ruckman

With the extra rookies and trades available this year, cash generation will be MUCH easier and therefore the benefits of
the premium/mid-pricer ruck combination is marginalised. While some extra cash is always welcome, a single starting ruck cashcow will contribute significantly less to your team's total value than in previous years.

Petrie and Fraser, for mine, represent unacceptable risk. They could score anywhere from 60-90 in the early part of the season. If they score at the lower end, you could be bleeding 30+ points per week to a premium. This is tantamount to DT hara-kiri. Ruckman also get injured alot. If they cop an early injury, their cashcow benefit is snuffed out and you may have very limited trade options due to a lack of cash. If you manage to avoid the injury curse, the eventual ruck upgrade will likely interfere with your all important midfield upgrades and possibly delay the finalising of your team.

With one standout premium (Sandilands) and three low-risk premiums, all with apparent upside (Jolly, Cox, Ryder), it seems that starting two ruck premiums is a good strategy in DT 2011.

Good post. Although I reckon Leuenberger will become premium this year.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Starting with a premium/mid-pricer ruck combination has worked well in the past. The reasons for adopting this strategy was:

• using the saved cash for other positions
• the cashcow income generated
• eventual trading in of a bona fide premium ruckman

With the extra rookies and trades available this year, cash generation will be MUCH easier and therefore the benefits of
the premium/mid-pricer ruck combination is marginalised. While some extra cash is always welcome, a single starting ruck cashcow will contribute significantly less to your team's total value than in previous years.

Petrie and Fraser, for mine, represent unacceptable risk. They could score anywhere from 60-90 in the early part of the season. If they score at the lower end, you could be bleeding 30+ points per week to a premium. This is tantamount to DT hara-kiri. Ruckman also get injured alot. If they cop an early injury, their cashcow benefit is snuffed out and you may have very limited trade options due to a lack of cash. If you manage to avoid the injury curse, the eventual ruck upgrade will likely interfere with your all important midfield upgrades and possibly delay the finalising of your team.

With one standout premium (Sandilands) and three low-risk premiums, all with apparent upside (Jolly, Cox, Ryder), it seems that starting two ruck premiums is a good strategy in DT 2011.

The strategy can still work and may even work even better for this year, although maybe the talent isnt there like other years in this area. The benefit of past years is that we have always had a HMAC, Simmonds and Hille sitting there for us to pick. Fraser could be that man, but i doubt it and Petrie is quite possibly that player this year.

None of those 3 points stand up and really mean anything (I dont know what your trying to say, big words that mean little).

But saving of cash in one area contributes to spending it in another area, thus you dont lose points and probably make points and value because players besides rucks improve more than ruckmen do.

Unsure by your second point, but its the same for this year. As is the 3rd point.

There is also no such thing as extra rookies this year in comparison to other years. Sure you have one more team, but you also have less players on the field and less players playing the full game (20 players this year not 22). Also there arnt really any more rookies this year than others, the more rookies due to the new team means just as many more ready made players get a go at other clubs and also at GC. It levels out.

The benefits of starting 2 ruck premiums over 1 premium and 1 midprice is little if your confident on the midpricer improving and staying injury free. Just like the last 3 years that i can remember. Petrie has the same potential that Simmonds 08, HMAC 09, Hille 2010 all had its just whether your willing to take the risk or not. If you take the risk and he gets injured early which none of the above did that i can remember than your in a terrible situation. WHY?

Because you cant downgrade to a gun rookie very often in the rucks, why? because there are none and it than means starting a rookie every week. You also struggle to upgrade to a premium ruck because you need alot of money to make the upgrade and it may mean you need to downgrade in another area.

All the reasons you gave either didnt come across properly or havnt changed since any other year. The extra trades advantages the midprice players not the other way around. eg: by this i mean if Petrie doesnt avg 85+ and not become a keeper than the extra trades means you can still upgrade him.

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

By rookies, I meant a 40% increase in your team's bench warmers.
If you believe a ruck cashcow has merit this year, by all means knock yourself out.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

By rookies, I meant a 40% increase in your team's bench warmers.
If you believe a ruck cashcow has merit this year, by all means knock yourself out.

Let me know where i said this, unless your referring to Petrie as a cash cow than we obviousily have very different definitions.

The rookies havnt changed in the ruck position from last year

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

I don't see Petrie being even remotely close to being a ruck keeper. If he can bang out a 75 ppg average as a cashcow then many will be thankful.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

I don't see Petrie being even remotely close to being a ruck keeper. If he can bang out a 75 ppg average as a cashcow then many will be thankful.

What would be bad about that for a 50 priced player? as i said more trades means this is allowed more than last year.

You didnt really anwser much of my longer post?

 

[PepperShaker]

What would be bad about that for a 50 priced player? as i said more trades means this is allowed more than last year.

You didnt really anwser much of my longer post?

Correct me if I'm wrong RNS, but I think what you are trying to say, and what DWD is missing (but will probably agree with), is that you think that using the rucks to generate cash is a bad idea. I agree. There is far more risk involved in picking a rookie ruck as a cash cow that in any other position. I'll be using a 'set and forget' ruck combination with the obvious rookie rucks to cover in case of injury/suspension.

Also, I couldn't bear the heartache of using a midpricer (e.g. Petrie) who goes down with an LTI, has to be traded out and picking a premium (whilst costing me another trade elsewhere to generate cash to make up the difference in going up to the premium I should have picked in the first place). In hindsight, this was the problem for a huge number of people last year (including myself) that traded sideways from someone like Tippett (who we hoped would be a midpricer improving to premium status) to Seaby (another midpricer) before he went down with a LTI. Cost a couple of trades and a downgrade in another area to generate cash. Should have gone premium to start with and locked in 211 and Cox.

 

[Chicharito]

Hi guys if possible I would like some feedback on what I think is going to be my ruck strategy this year.

I'll start with Cox and Sandilands on the field, Smith and Derickx on the bench.

Petrie in the forward line to be used as a DP later.

I'm thinking of using Derickx as a cash cow, if he is named to play early in the season.

He's probably their 2nd ruckman at the moment behind Graham so he should get games.

Richmond's first bye is in round 11, with Fremantle and West Coast having 1 bye each before that, in different rounds.

I'm banking on one or both of my bench ruckmen to be playing in the rounds that one of Cox and Sandilands will be out.

Then when it comes to round 11 and time for Richmond's first bye, hopefully Derickx has played a fair few games and made some money. I can then trade him to J.Tippett who is a DP who can be substituted with Petrie for greater flexibility.

Is there merit to this strategy? Or is it too risky and am I better off going with Cox, Sandilands, Smith, J.Tippett with Petrie in the forward line from the start of the season?

Keep in mind that Tippett is very unlikely to play so won't be making any cash and would only be there for DP purposes.

Thanks guys.

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

What would be bad about that for a 50 priced player? as i said more trades means this is allowed more than last year.

You didnt really anwser much of my longer post?

In summary, you stated that starting ruck cashcows may be better than previous years and that trouble could be averted with the extra 4 trades.

In practise, I'm not so sure about this. If you cop an early long term injury to a starting ruck cashcow you'll most likely need to replace him immediately to avoid donuts during the rounds 4-6 bye period. The preferred option would be a single sideways trade around the same price point. However finding a suitable player that has already had their first bye might prove difficult. In all likelyhood a double trade will be required to sort out the mess. Not ideal and compromises a top DT finish.

An aside to this is the ruck personnel in 2011. We have premiums with upside and slim pickings in the starting ruck cashcow stakes. Why take unnecessary ruck risks with all that GC gold waiting to be mined.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

In summary, you stated that starting ruck cashcows may be better than previous years and that trouble could be averted with the extra 4 trades.

In practise, I'm not so sure about this. If you cop an early long term injury to a starting ruck cashcow you'll most likely need to replace him immediately to avoid donuts during the rounds 4-6 bye period. The preferred option would be a single sideways trade around the same price point. However finding a suitable player that has already had their first bye might prove difficult. In all likelyhood a double trade will be required to sort out the mess. Not ideal and compromises a top DT finish.

An aside to this is the ruck personnel in 2011. We have premiums with upside and slim pickings in the starting ruck cashcow stakes. Why take unnecessary ruck risks with all that GC gold waiting to be mined.

I agree. Last year I started with Hille, Warnock, Natanui, and Lleuenberger, all reasonably priced.
All went up in value.
I was able to play two reasonable rucks each week, and eventually traded Natanui for a nobody rookie, to allow an upgrade elswhere.
I can be nowhere near as confident of doing something similar going into this season.

 

[Wheedus]

In summary, you stated that starting ruck cashcows may be better than previous years and that trouble could be averted with the extra 4 trades.

In practise, I'm not so sure about this. If you cop an early long term injury to a starting ruck cashcow you'll most likely need to replace him immediately to avoid donuts during the rounds 4-6 bye period. The preferred option would be a single sideways trade around the same price point. However finding a suitable player that has already had their first bye might prove difficult. In all likelyhood a double trade will be required to sort out the mess. Not ideal and compromises a top DT finish.

An aside to this is the ruck personnel in 2011. We have premiums with upside and slim pickings in the starting ruck cashcow stakes. Why take unnecessary ruck risks with all that GC gold waiting to be mined.

Arguments are good both ways. I can definitely see the logic in the ruck risk argument. If Petrie cops an early serious injury, there's no easy fix in the Ruck unless you've held back a serious amount of cash for that contingency. If you start him as a FWD and he goes down / doesn't perform in the early rounds there are far more straight swap / downgrade options with the added advantage of having had a few rounds to see who is playing / has job security.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Correct me if I'm wrong RNS, but I think what you are trying to say, and what DWD is missing (but will probably agree with), is that you think that using the rucks to generate cash is a bad idea. I agree. There is far more risk involved in picking a rookie ruck as a cash cow that in any other position. I'll be using a 'set and forget' ruck combination with the obvious rookie rucks to cover in case of injury/suspension.

Also, I couldn't bear the heartache of using a midpricer (e.g. Petrie) who goes down with an LTI, has to be traded out and picking a premium (whilst costing me another trade elsewhere to generate cash to make up the difference in going up to the premium I should have picked in the first place). In hindsight, this was the problem for a huge number of people last year (including myself) that traded sideways from someone like Tippett (who we hoped would be a midpricer improving to premium status) to Seaby (another midpricer) before he went down with a LTI. Cost a couple of trades and a downgrade in another area to generate cash. Should have gone premium to start with and locked in 211 and Cox.

Great post, and yes i agree about the comment that generating cash in the rucks is a bad idea, but im talking about genuine cash cows like Z.Smith ect, these players shouldnt be used to create cash, if they do its a bonus. Petrie on the other hand isnt a cash cow, he is a midpricer that people are selecting for 2 reasons, he improves his avg and thus gains more points than his price or he becomes a keeper in the rucks which could well be 80+.

Exactly great example with the Tippett one. He cost me a bit last year although i didnt bring in Seaby like many others. But thats the risk you take. Had Tippett avg 85+ people wouldve been laughing at those that didnt pick him.

In summary, you stated that starting ruck cashcows may be better than previous years and that trouble could be averted with the extra 4 trades.

In practise, I'm not so sure about this. If you cop an early long term injury to a starting ruck cashcow you'll most likely need to replace him immediately to avoid donuts during the rounds 4-6 bye period. The preferred option would be a single sideways trade around the same price point. However finding a suitable player that has already had their first bye might prove difficult. In all likelyhood a double trade will be required to sort out the mess. Not ideal and compromises a top DT finish.

An aside to this is the ruck personnel in 2011. We have premiums with upside and slim pickings in the starting ruck cashcow stakes. Why take unnecessary ruck risks with all that GC gold waiting to be mined.

Yes but Petrie i dont see as a cash cow, he is a midpricer that you are wanting to either become a keeper or score higher than his price suggest thus your making great value in this selection. Im guessing you see Knights as a cash cow??

But IMO the extra 4 trades does also advantage the midprice strategy see my other post on this in the rookies thread. Basically people these days dont pick midpricers because they need to be top 10-15 best scorers in that required position. So there is no chance of this happening with many true midpricers around that 50-85 avg depending on position of course requiring upgrades thus trades aswell.

However the extra trades means you can pick these value players that will improve by 15-25 points (petrie) and even if they dont make keeper status than the extra trades allows for you to upgrade them.

You cant possibly say that Petrie is any different than other years to the likes of HMAC, Simmonds or Hille. He can score just aswell as them and also make just as much money as them shown by past history. In fact his history holds up alot stronger than the above 3 mentioned at there time of selection.

Nothing has changes in the rucks since these years and if anything starting a cashcow (petrie is what your saying) is probably stronger for this year than the previous 3 years.

Lets have a look at the rucks ast few years
- Highest avg in rucks hasnt increased actually decreased
- Amount of rookies on the bench is the same
- We still have an underpriced gem that can potentially reach keeper status like all other years

The only case you could probably mount is what your saying "No need to take unnecessary risk when you have rucks on the verge of top premium status with upside" (Cox, Jolly, Ryder, Leuy).

Having said that its the same risk as the past 3 years, Petrie is no different as i showed the scoring hasnt changed in the rucks.