My 2017 team

[Cripps Kru]

Got two options this week

View attachment 368108
View attachment 368109

That option means I have 56.9k and better structure, not sure Mutimer will be any good though but he has a good bye round if he lasts to there.


View attachment 368110
View attachment 368111

Going McNiece means I have 80k instead which the extra 23.1k will be damn handy to use for further upgrades, but it is riskier with Stewart, McNiece and Newman all dropped/rested on the weekend and largely relies on those guys returning.

My PPG may be better with option 1 also.

18 trades left after two this week. Goal is to have my team completed by the end of the byes and hopefully have some coverage also. If I use max amount of trades until the end of the byes I then will have 5 trades remaining which is not bad to sit on for a while if I had about 24 keepers, but having 6-8 would be better, but I likely only have rookie coverage if I have 6-8 left.

Would be a godsend if Dayne Zorko and Sam Gibson 2012, Anthony Miles and Stef Martin 2014 or a Max Gawn 2015 type popped up midseason. Clay Smith was ok last year as coverage, but he cost me one week with getting concussed against North and that was when my rucks went down too

So what were the actual trades for the 2 options? Too much scrolling

 

[go you pups]

So what were the actual trades for the 2 options? Too much scrolling

Yeo is the primary trade in option and with the DPPs I have on every line I can bring him in no matter what pretty much

Just working out what to do on Mutimer/McNiece, that one depends on team selection but being the penny pincher that I am I'd rather go McNiece and hope Stewart/Newman come back and hold their spot in the team until it's time to move them on.

I will bring in Myers when he's on the bubble and potentially that Scheer kid too, but slim pickings on downgrades at the moment. I hope Ainsworth returns soon though, I like his scoring potential and he's DPP, he potentially could be a great bye option as a GC player and offer some coverage with his DPP.

Hampton and Butler are my outs at this stage, if Sandi is rested I could turf him instead though and DPP Nank into the rucks and hold Butler for this week as he could get his 55 BE.

 

[Cripps Kru]

Yeo is the primary trade in option and with the DPPs I have on every line I can bring him in no matter what pretty much

Just working out what to do on Mutimer/McNiece, that one depends on team selection but being the penny pincher that I am I'd rather go McNiece and hope Stewart/Newman come back and hold their spot in the team until it's time to move them on.

I will bring in Myers when he's on the bubble and potentially that Scheer kid too, but slim pickings on downgrades at the moment. I hope Ainsworth returns soon though, I like his scoring potential and he's DPP, he potentially could be a great bye option as a GC player and offer some coverage with his DPP.

Hampton and Butler are my outs at this stage, if Sandi is rested I could turf him instead though and DPP Nank into the rucks and hold Butler for this week as he could get his 55 BE.

Newman 1/2 a change for a re-call this week. Was BOG in the ressies.

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2017-05-08/neafl-swans-fight-back-against-lions

 

[Kadog]

I can't trust Pendles missus not to go into labour this weekend & cop a mid doughnut so yeh, Beams has to go. Just have to decide between Zac Merrett & Tom Mitchell (can afford both) Who would you choose if you could only have 1 of them this week? Most of the teams in the top 20 have both or at least 1 of them already.

Zerrett

 

[Kadog]

Pending selections, my squad if I go through with the following trades:

Hampton>McNiece
Preuss>Yeo



Want to flip Heppell > Zerrett when I get a chance but my first priority is to upgrade Otten>premo def next week.

 

[Cripps Kru]

If I was you, I'd be looking to pull a trade off to catch the 9 above you off guard.

Hampton to who cares and then Beams to Zach Merrett.

Beams likely to play next week according to club Doc. Hmmm


Think I might hang on to Beams until his bye now & downgrade Hampton>McNiece & WHE>Merrett instead. Means I have to start one of Balic/Parsons/Hannan in the forwards for a few weeks though.

 

[Cripps Kru]

Pending selections, my squad if I go through with the following trades:

Hampton>McNiece
Preuss>Yeo

View attachment 368420

Want to flip Heppell > Zerrett when I get a chance but my first priority is to upgrade Otten>premo def next week.

Side looks much better balanced after those trades.

A lot of trades (yours & mine included) depending on Newman playing this week.

 

[Bandicoot]

As stated a week or so ago I requested the AFL to explain why a player who kicks the ball out of bounds on the full is not debited with a "free kick against" and received a reply this morning. What do you think about their wisdom on this?

This is a very good question. Apparently it was determined in the late 90’s that as more of a match event than a decision at the discretion of umpires, it was not put in the free against category.

I would therefore argue that any player who scores a goal or behind should not have that shown statistically because the field umpire has not made that decision.

 

[Mezzoculo]

As stated a week or so ago I requested the AFL to explain why a player who kicks the ball out of bounds on the full is not debited with a "free kick against" and received a reply this morning. What do you think about their wisdom on this?

This is a very good question. Apparently it was determined in the late 90’s that as more of a match event than a decision at the discretion of umpires, it was not put in the free against category.

I would therefore argue that any player who scores a goal or behind should not have that shown statistically because the field umpire has not made that decision.

So, you want the afl to make an academic law change that will not impact the actual game but would lead to our players losing more points?

 

[Bandicoot]

So, you want the afl to make an academic law change that will not impact the actual game but would lead to our players losing more points?

Only my opponents.

 

[go you pups]

Only my opponents.

As I said earlier, with DT it's probably a trade off in scoring why a FKF is only +1 to a FKA a -3

 

[Mezzoculo]

As I said earlier, with DT it's probably a trade off in scoring why a FKF is only +1 to a FKA a -3

If someone could explain to me why there is a scoring discrepancy between frees for and frees against, that'd be great. I don't understand why players don't lose the same number of points for a free against that they'd get for a free for.

 

[CrozaN]

If someone could explain to me why there is a scoring discrepancy between frees for and frees against, that'd be great. I don't understand why players don't lose the same number of points for a free against that they'd get for a free for.

Just the way it is and has been since the dawn of DT.

 

[happy_eagle]

I never understood why tapping the ball on your foot from a kick in all of a sudden makes it a stat, but standard kick ins don't. Some might argue that technically the player hasn't earnt the kick, but its the same around the ground. The player closest to the ball when out on the full takes the kick, and they get the stat for it.

I think you either make them all kicks, or none of them

 

[SELFCONFESDAFLNERD]

I actually don't mind frees for being only 1 point because you get the possession so that is always 3 or 4 points unless advantage is paid.

 

[SELFCONFESDAFLNERD]

I never understood why tapping the ball on your foot from a kick in all of a sudden makes it a stat, but standard kick ins don't. Some might argue that technically the player hasn't earnt the kick, but its the same around the ground. The player closest to the ball when out on the full takes the kick, and they get the stat for it.

I think you either make them all kicks, or none of them

I suppose if you want to make a distinction between kick ins and kicks from OOTF, you can choose which player takes the kick in therefore you can 'artificially' inflate a player of your choosing's statistics. It may seem minor but for practicality I actually don't mind the current system.

EDIT: As for the bolded part, I agree with you in that I don't think the kick following 'kicking it to yourself' should count as a possession. I suppose the logic is since the kick to yourself creates the 'play on' call the ball is in play but in my mind the distinction is rather arbitrary.

 

[Mezzoculo]

Just the way it is and has been since the dawn of DT.

That is a terrible reason. DT has changed in many other ways since its inception so"just coz" doesn't really cut it anymore.

 

[PepeSilvia]

Probably not the actual reason, but I would guess that it's because you don't necessarily have to do something good to receive a free kick, whereas you've clearly done something wrong if you've given away a free kick. That's my rationale anyway.

 

[go you pups]

That is a terrible reason. DT has changed in many other ways since its inception so"just coz" doesn't really cut it anymore.

It has significantly changed the pricing of players and things to do with trades. 20 trades becoming 24, then 30. Ultra-flexibility with DPP, whereas back then you had to trade in DPPs between positions to create links, there was no "swap" button with trades. Reverse trades has been a godsend also since 2013 IIRC. Premium players cost more than ever before now, but at least good rookies/midpricers make money fast also to compensate, not the same with Supercoach in that regard imo.

It has stayed consistent with the scoring process however, one ever-consistent it has on Supercoach which CD ****s around with every bloody year.....

The higher scoring nature of DT at the moment comes down to the way the game is played, teams are reluctant to blaze away now and work on keeping possession so they're happy to chip it around which sees defenders and midfielders become much more consistent scorers (+6s) than the forwards who don't play in midfield. Defensive pressure in the front half is a must also so midfielders and forwards should get good tackle numbers too which helps scoring.

They are the major things I've noticed with DT since I started playing consistently every year since 2011 (dabbled with it a few years beforehand but school/work got in the way).

 

[Mezzoculo]

It has significantly changed the pricing of players and things to do with trades. 20 trades becoming 24, then 30. Ultra-flexibility with DPP, whereas back then you had to trade in DPPs between positions to create links, there was no "swap" button with trades. Reverse trades has been a godsend also since 2013 IIRC. Premium players cost more than ever before now, but at least good rookies/midpricers make money fast also to compensate, not the same with Supercoach in that regard imo.

It has stayed consistent with the scoring process however, one ever-consistent it has on Supercoach which CD ****s around with every bloody year.....

The higher scoring nature of DT at the moment comes down to the way the game is played, teams are reluctant to blaze away now and work on keeping possession so they're happy to chip it around which sees defenders and midfielders become much more consistent scorers (+6s) than the forwards who don't play in midfield. Defensive pressure in the front half is a must also so midfielders and forwards should get good tackle numbers too which helps scoring.

They are the major things I've noticed with DT since I started playing consistently every year since 2011 (dabbled with it a few years beforehand but school/work got in the way).

All true. Doesn't change my mind that the +3 / -1 scoring makes any sense though.

 

[go you pups]

All true. Doesn't change my mind that the +3 / -1 scoring makes any sense though.

It is weird but they've never changed it

Could be worse, could get absolutely robbed like what CD does... FKA, clangers, DE

 

[CrozaN]

All true. Doesn't change my mind that the +3 / -1 scoring makes any sense though.

I hope you dont play SC.....

 

[go you pups]

I hope you dont play SC.....

Should've seen my melts over there about Swannie 2 years ago

Oh boy.....

 

[Bandicoot]

EDIT: As for the bolded part, I agree with you in that I don't think the kick following 'kicking it to yourself' should count as a possession. I suppose the logic is since the kick to yourself creates the 'play on' call the ball is in play but in my mind the distinction is rather arbitrary.

I disagree. Once you have kicked it to yourself you are then "in play". He can be tackled, hit etc, etc unlike someone merely kicking it from the square.
What's the difference between that and someone constantly running around players (particularly ruckmen) saying "give it to me" and off they go.

 

[Bandicoot]

All true. Doesn't change my mind that the +3 / -1 scoring makes any sense though.

Why should you get double the points when given a free kick. You're suggesting they get 3 for the free and then another 3 when they take the kick making 6 in total. The fact that you have conceded a free kick warrants -3 because you have given a kick to your opponent because of what you did.