Remove this Banner Ad

DT Strategies

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Skank, you should go through the year again but instead of keeping Anthony traded him for Zaharakis. I personally kept Anthony and look back and think it was the wrong idea, i didnt think Zaha would hold his spot, but grabbing him wouldve improved my scoring, cash flow and rank.

I also think their is a right and a wrong, you either wouldve got more points with the Anthony to Zaha trade or got less by the Anthony to Zaha trade.
 
Dunn - Well Done said:
Skank, you should go through the year again but instead of keeping Anthony traded him for Zaharakis. I personally kept Anthony and look back and think it was the wrong idea, i didnt think Zaha would hold his spot, but grabbing him wouldve improved my scoring, cash flow and rank.

I also think their is a right and a wrong, you either wouldve got more points with the Anthony to Zaha trade or got less by the Anthony to Zaha trade.
Click to expand...

Skank pretty stubborn. He still holding firm to his drug induced theroy of HOLDING Anthony. ;)

Skank = Right Wing Liberal Party Member = Mr.Conservative
 
Yeah DWD what you are saying might be right if I had 21 trades but I didn't. I used all 20 so my trade for Anthony would have to result in another trade not being done. I would have to choose that trade to be considered not done so could sway the outcome to being a good move or a bad move. I hope you get it.

If I had my time again I would do the same thing. I don't see how that's conservative Hodgey - not trading is harder than trading but that does not = conservative. Plus I have a floral shirt so I cannot be considered conservative, I'm maybe even a little metro.
 
SkankDanker said:
Yeah DWD what you are saying might be right if I had 21 trades but I didn't. I used all 20 so my trade for Anthony would have to result in another trade not being done. I would have to choose that trade to be considered not done so could sway the outcome to being a good move or a bad move. I hope you get it.

If I had my time again I would do the same thing. I don't see how that's conservative Hodgey - not trading is harder than trading but that does not = conservative. Plus I have a floral shirt so I cannot be considered conservative, I'm maybe even a little metro.
Click to expand...

I woke up in a shit stirring mood. Saw u in this thread and thought this should be fun. Expected a better bite than that.

P.S Discussed the Anthony situation many times and im still not sure which way i sit on this. If im honest with myself, im actually maybe sitting in ur Right Wing corner on this one.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

IMO on the Anthony debate, for the record I kept him but will attempt to give an honest opinion.

I think beside the missed rise in cash another playing rookie would have generated by keeping him saved 2 trades by not trading him out and back in. I think it depends on each individual team to whether a zero was copped early on in the year due to other injuries and also as skank mentioned if the 20 trades were actually used fully on required trades which is likely in 2009.

Personally for a year such as 2009 with many injuries, assuming you had 6 solid (maybe even 7) scoring midfielders with Anthony sitting there saving you 2 trades would have been the best decision.

Only my opinion but on the same hand can see the benefits of trading and taking the risk of high reward. This is all in hindsight as if Anthony did not return or returned for an average of 30 people who kept him would look silly.
 
The Anthony debate is hard one to get a handle on IMO.

1. "Ur eyes told u this kid was a STAR!!!!!!!!!!!", not only DT, but real footy as well. Thats the bottom line on this one.

2. Collingwood crying out for an in and under mid to give them a spark and it was clear he was in front of Rusty early in the season.

3. Anthony had stress fracture in his legs IIRC. No guarentees he would even back in "09"

4. Just went Beams was supposed to sky rocket in price as predicted by the owners who snapped him up. Bang, injury hits. Shoulder injury by memory.

5. Beams DT scores

Round 2 - 94
Round 3 - 84
Round 4 - 46
Round 5 - 65
Round 6 - INJURED 35
Round 7 - INJURED
Round 8 - INJURED - Still carrying shoulder 37
Round 9 -12 - Collingwood 2nds
Round 13 - 102
Round 14 - 110
Round 15 - 48
Round 16 - 96
Round 17 - 98
Round 18 - 80
Round 19 - 78
Round 20 - 105
Round 21 - 90
Round 22 - 47

In the back end of the season in his last 10 games Beams had 8 scores of over 78. With an average of 86.

Bottom line is i would do this trade again with the infomation i had at hand at the time. If my aunty had balls she would be my uncle, but barring that shoulder injury, cashing in Beams for 350k midyear could have realistically been on the cards.
 
The Anthony --> Beams trade only had merit if you needed the back up. My brother kept Anthony and his trade and was laughing at season end when Anthony was in his starting line up and he had the extra trade to help out the growing injury numbers. I took the Beams option and although I would have loved Anthony the fact is Beams saved me some donuts.
 
West123 said:
The Anthony --> Beams trade only had merit if you needed the back up. My brother kept Anthony and his trade and was laughing at season end when Anthony was in his starting line up and he had the extra trade to help out the growing injury numbers. I took the Beams option and although I would have loved Anthony the fact is Beams saved me some donuts.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

No-one knew the time frame of Liam Anthony. At best it was looking like Round 12ish. Thats at best. History shows it ended up being Round 13. Round 4 was when the Beams train was leaving the station. Had him projected to get over 300k and figured that 250k would come in very handy midseason when i traded him down to a rookie. Shit Anthony was even an option in my mind when he had nailed 2 games for me to see.

Again in terms of my team, i had Robinson as well who wasnt exactly setting the world on fire after his Round 1 Bang!. Rich and Ottens filled Mid Roster spots #5 and #6 for me. So in essence i probably half agreeing with u as Robinson was looking shakey. :p
 
I suppose the point i'm trying to make here in this thread. Is u can crunch all the numbers u like, but nothing beats what ur eyes tell u when u actually watch games of footy.
 
LukeHodge15 said:
I suppose the point i'm trying to make here in this thread. Is u can crunch all the numbers u like, but nothing beats what ur eyes tell u when u actually watch games of footy.
Click to expand...

I agree Hodgey. However, I also think that this is the part that 'luck' has to play in DT. If Beams hadn't have got injured in those 3 weeks with his shoulder, or if Robinson hadn't been given the cull by Ratten or if Zaka was given more of an opportunity to roam rather than be a super sub the equation might have been different. Even though we can watch as much footy as we like, unless we have an inside source (which some do) we do need to take calculated punts. Half the time as you would know Hodgey we find ourselves scrutinizing over media reports or web blogs with coaches comments trying to get inside their head and read their playbook to find out where out cow fits in. More often than not a little bit of luck can be the decider to whether the calculated punt you made was the correct one. However, the overall rounding point is as Hodgey said, watch the footy and give a judgement on a player, numbers don't explain football ability, hell, kane cornes has been a top 10 DT'er for the last 5 years, he certainly isn't a top 10 player......easy chad, it's true.
 
Crows88 said:
I agree Hodgey. However, I also think that this is the part that 'luck' has to play in DT. If Beams hadn't have got injured in those 3 weeks with his shoulder, or if Robinson hadn't been given the cull by Ratten or if Zaka was given more of an opportunity to roam rather than be a super sub the equation might have been different. Even though we can watch as much footy as we like, unless we have an inside source (which some do) we do need to take calculated punts. Half the time as you would know Hodgey we find ourselves scrutinizing over media reports or web blogs with coaches comments trying to get inside their head and read their playbook to find out where out cow fits in. More often than not a little bit of luck can be the decider to whether the calculated punt you made was the correct one. However, the overall rounding point is as Hodgey said, watch the footy and give a judgement on a player, numbers don't explain football ability, hell, kane cornes has been a top 10 DT'er for the last 5 years, he certainly isn't a top 10 player......easy chad, it's true.
Click to expand...

Good Post, and thats why i would do the Beams trade again and again when i crunch the factors in Round 4 this year. Did i get a little screwed maybe because of Beams shoulder injury. Yeah i did. But if u make correct calls like that, in the end u will be well ahead of the pack. And thats ultimately what this game is about. I had a Beams Stiffy when i watched the NAB pre-season cup this year. When he didnt get a game in Round 1, i managed to sub Robinson in his place Pre-Lockout. After watching both of his games in Round 2 & 3 against Melbourne and then Geelong. I just couldnt see how u could miss this boat, his ceiling was through the roof as a rookie. And ultimately this decision was proven to be correct with a back end 10 game average of 86.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

It was 8.25 AM and I was extremely late for work, slight headache and that Luke Hodge guy is wearing me down big time. I feel tired, need a break.

BUT - I liked his post about Beams, and I agree a bit of luck comes into the equation. I also agree about "use ur eyes" I think it is, though what you see is not always what you get (refer Higgins, refer Stig).

The two critical trades for the year were (for many) Ablett and Anthony (and maybe Higgins!). I think the winner ended up without Ablett, so you could say that the proof of the pudding is in the tasting (or the driving of a brand new car, wowsers), but without wanting to sound stupid if he had kept Ablett would he not have won, or would he have won my a lot more? these questions can't be answered.

When I mentioned synchronicity of a team it is less about what the term means more about how DT works. Have you ever taken over someone's team halfway through a season and tried to run it for them? Hard work because you weren't involved in the initial structure or the trading decision and therefore you have to sort of learn how that team can work with itself for the best outcome.

Anthony and Ablett are two examples of this - if you are "aggressive" you probably would have ditched both, using two trades but making cash. If the rest of your trading is not aggressive or if your starting squad was say mid price instead of gun rookie these trades would probably be out of synch with your overall strategy and would probably cost you points big time.

So, in short, Hodgey please get stuffed.
 
Crows88 said:
However, the overall rounding point is as Hodgey said, watch the footy and give a judgement on a player, numbers don't explain football ability, hell, kane cornes has been a top 10 DT'er for the last 5 years, he certainly isn't a top 10 player.
Click to expand...

This is the constant argument I have with my friends and they prefer Super Coach. They feel that players who are the stars in the AFL are Super Coach stars. Where DT you don't base players on their talent alone, you actually prefer your DT players to be the player always getting that cheap mark and kick combo.

I guess this is also part of strategy, remove pure talent, toughness, skill and effectiveness and just reading the pure numbers. While the factors before to determine a players ability to hold their place in the team, they're not always important in DT.

Lockyer is the prime example of a player that just screams DT. He may not be the most talented player but he just screams DT. The rookie mistake is to select players in DT based on names and not numbers, the Goodes theory as I like to call it.
 
Subanite said:
This is the constant argument I have with my friends and they prefer Super Coach. They feel that players who are the stars in the AFL are Super Coach stars. Where DT you don't base players on their talent alone, you actually prefer your DT players to be the player always getting that cheap mark and kick combo.

I guess this is also part of strategy, remove pure talent, toughness, skill and effectiveness and just reading the pure numbers. While the factors before to determine a players ability to hold their place in the team, they're not always important in DT.

Lockyer is the prime example of a player that just screams DT. He may not be the most talented player but he just screams DT. The rookie mistake is to select players in DT based on names and not numbers, the Goodes theory as I like to call it.
Click to expand...

Watch how popular Kerr is next year, and also watch to see how many pick Judd from the start even though he wont play the opening 3 rounds.
 
Last year I was getting ready to play a rookie or two on the field, finally breaking my conservative nature with my starting squad. The creators of DT then decided in their wisdom to increase the rookie prices. Once again I struggled to justify selecting this completely unknown rookie at an inflated price.


Just wondering if others are thinking of not starting as many rookies if the prices stay the same? The rookie prices increase?

At what draft pick do the rookies reach basement prices?

Why did the pre season draft players and I think rookie draft players get scaled?

I guess my main problem or strategy issue is that I struggle to justify spending $140,000+ for a rookie when I could potentially get a mid priced player for a little more. It seems like the creators of DT have done a good job of reducing the benefits of rookies.

Or have I got my wires crossed and the Scully, Trengove, Martin, Morabito, Cunningtons are still worth paying a premium to get?

I was really looking forward to starting a rookie on the field, but I just don't see the risk is worth the reward. Maybe I should pay attention to junior football a little more.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I always have at least one cheap player in my side normally two, sometimes three. That's the idea isn't it? Pick the standouts like Rhys Palmer (he missed rd one last year so I actually didn't have him :eek:). WHy do you call them rookies it is confusing.

This year I had Rich and Hill. But I see what you mean about the increased prices. I guess it makes it better because instead of everyone having Hill you could get Suban cheaper and have better guns.
 
I think your losing value if you dont start rookies only my opinion, but i think you need to be able to identify the good rookies from the bad. In the modern game it seems more and more rookies are being given a go to play more games from a younger age. Look at Hill, defiatnly wasnt ready to play AFL regarding his body ect, but he played 22 and it wouldnt suprise me to see players like Bastinac or Melksham get plenty of games.

If you dont select players such as Palmer, Rich, Selwood ect in their first years starting on the field your defiantly losing some value.

Im on the other side to this argument, im very happy to have players such as Trengove, Cunnington, Martin, Morabito, Scully in my squad even though highly priced.

Its about knowing which draftees/rookies to pick, which ones will play alot of games and which ones have the potential to score well. It also depends on your strategy aswell. I cant see the point in not selecting a 140k player if you think they will play most if not all games and avg above 60.

I also dont think the prices will inflate mainly due to the draft being considered weak, but not the opening round and the midfielders are as good as ever.
 
Dunn - Well Done said:
I think your losing value if you dont start rookies only my opinion, but i think you need to be able to identify the good rookies from the bad. In the modern game it seems more and more rookies are being given a go to play more games from a younger age. Look at Hill, defiatnly wasnt ready to play AFL regarding his body ect, but he played 22 and it wouldnt suprise me to see players like Bastinac or Melksham get plenty of games.

If you dont select players such as Palmer, Rich, Selwood ect in their first years starting on the field your defiantly losing some value.
Click to expand...

This depends on your definition of value. I agree you will lose out in terms of points early but what do you save in not having to use forced trades?

Rookies do look good in PS but when they're dropped after 5 rounds (hello Robinson) or play 8 minutes per game (welcome Petrenko) you have a problem.

Not saying don't start a rookie but if you do you then have the issue of finding 2 others in that position who will actually be decent bench coverage.
 
54Dogs said:
This depends on your definition of value. I agree you will lose out in terms of points early but what do you save in not having to use forced trades?

Rookies do look good in PS but when they're dropped after 5 rounds (hello Robinson) or play 8 minutes per game (welcome Petrenko) you have a problem.

Not saying don't start a rookie but if you do you then have the issue of finding 2 others in that position who will actually be decent bench coverage.
Click to expand...
Can you really see Trengove being dropped after 5 games or scully playing 5 minutes?
 
Selecting the right rookies is a key component to DT success. They have the biggest upside and generate the most cash for the round 9-12 metamorphosis of your side.

In my experience the selection of rookies is still a bit of a crapshoot. Sure you can do your due diligence on these and identify the likely candidates through draft pick, afl ready body-type, likely position, team drafted to, stats/games in junior leagues/pre-season, visual cues/signs from either watching them live or on TV/Foxtel etc.

However, the horrible 2 hour performance of afl.virtualsports.com.au before the first round lock-out often prevents any changes to your line-up. Arghhh.

Combine that with the non-confirmed line-ups for Saturday and Sunday teams (first game starts on a Thursday) means that there is a chance you can get your initial rookie selections drastically wrong and be forced to burn some trades in round 3 to restructure your team. This is a real bummer. :(

Then there are the rookie candidates that tear is up in the pre-season and first couple of AFL games, only to be dropped for lengthy periods and not reach fruition in that critical 9-12 week period. See Mitch Robinson, Wade Thompson, Brent Macaffer...

Having the DT gods working in your favour and your rookies doing their bit is a requirement for DT success.
 
I try to get my team right and not touch it on the last day but I have had the odd player not play. I just feel sick when I look at live stats to see if my player is there or not.

It is a crapshoot, I agree there is no way you can really tell. Look at N Brown, Ibbotson, Grima, Zaharakis. None of theseplayers were in calculatoin for me but they would prove to be far more useful than someone who plays well for a game or two and as 54Dogs suggested they don't continue. But those players either made money or could actually play on teh field. Suban another - 30 from someone who was cheap is better than a zero.

Footycool that is a very strange question at this time of year and in general. How many games had you pegged Jack Watts for in December last year? You can't just assume that high draft picks are going to get games there are so many other factors. I can see anyone getting dropped after 5 games.

My team doesn't metamorphosise (not a real word) between rounds 9 - 12??I don't get that concept. I would think any attempt to change your team too much at any time of year probably makes you run out of trades for injury cover.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

DT Strategies

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top