ruck division

[Shakermaker94]

hey guys im just struggling on the rucks this year. just wanna no bout lade, what will his role be like, another year older will brogan get the nod as the number 1 ruckman. also not really too sure on a few of the young guys who may be playing as a 2nd ruckman. ive heard currie's name from sydney been thrown around as sydneys back up. apart from that havent heard much, just wondering what thoughts on tyrone vickery will he get a run this year. natanui, leuenberger & goldstein i aint sure bout either.

if someone could help me out that would be gold. ta

 

[Kahuna]

Firstly, get Cox it doesn't matter how much he costs.

On Lade I would be worried if the Power team starts losing as there might be a repeat of last year.

Sorry, I can't help you with the rookies and whether they will play, I assume one of them will get a game. Leuy will probably get a game but he might be too expensive for the bench.

Do some research on here and you will find the answers you are looking for, also buy the AFL prospectus it will help you in chosing other players in your team.

 

[Virgil]

hey guys im just struggling on the rucks this year. just wanna no bout lade, what will his role be like, another year older will brogan get the nod as the number 1 ruckman. also not really too sure on a few of the young guys who may be playing as a 2nd ruckman. ive heard currie's name from sydney been thrown around as sydneys back up. apart from that havent heard much, just wondering what thoughts on tyrone vickery will he get a run this year. natanui, leuenberger & goldstein i aint sure bout either.

if someone could help me out that would be gold. ta

Leuenberger, Currie and Goldstein will all be their team's second ruckman IMO. Generally speaking, you don't want to select the team's second ruckman, as they tend not to get a whole lot of game time.

(Edit: I wouldn't start them on the field, bench back up is fine though).

As for Lade/Brogan, I believe the torch has been passed on to Brogan, who finished the year as their dominant ruckman. Not too sure I can trust the numbers either produced at the end of the season though, with Port tanking rather shamelessly (up until Round 22 that is ).

I believe Naitanui is still injured, so that's a no go zone for me. I don't honestly know a lot about Vickery.

I'd recommend checking out this thread as well, all about the rucks, very good read: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=515953&highlight=rucks.

 

[Shakermaker94]

thanks lads

 

[SkankDanker]

Firstly, get Cox it doesn't matter how much he costs.

On Lade I would be worried if the Power team starts losing as there might be a repeat of last year.

Sorry, I can't help you with the rookies and whether they will play, I assume one of them will get a game. Leuy will probably get a game but he might be too expensive for the bench.

Do some research on here and you will find the answers you are looking for, also buy the AFL prospectus it will help you in chosing other players in your team.

There is a big thread on rucks which obviously revolves around Cox to a large extent.

Kahuna would you care to elaborate a bit on why he should get Cox in regardless of cost? Just a bit of your thinking behind the recommendation.

 

[54Dogs]

There is a big thread on rucks which obviously revolves around Cox to a large extent.

Kahuna would you care to elaborate a bit on why he should get Cox in regardless of cost? Just a bit of your thinking behind the recommendation.

Nice question Skank.

If Cox is 850,000 Kahuna do I still get him regardless of cost? Or is there actually a cost cut off where he is no longer value?

 

[Schulzenfest]

Lade was apparently BOG in the internal trials, you can decide for yourself whether that's important to you or not.

 

[Saint KFC]

Nice question Skank.

If Cox is 850,000 Kahuna do I still get him regardless of cost? Or is there actually a cost cut off where he is no longer value?

At 850k he would be averaging around 200 points, which is effectively 400 per week as a captain choice.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

At 850k he would be averaging around 200 points, which is effectively 400 per week as a captain choice.

lets just say he is 850k because they have raise the player prices by about 1.5 or whatever it is. Hes still only averaging 110. Is he worth picking ??

Their always has to be a limit to price no matter how good the player.

 

[Saint KFC]

lets just say he is 850k because they have raise the player prices by about 1.5 or whatever it is. Hes still only averaging 110. Is he worth picking ??

Everyone elses price would have risen to the same coefficiant (1.5), so I don't see any difference between the two situations.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Everyone elses price would have risen by the same amount, so I don't see any difference between the two situations.

Were just talking about cox lets say he is 700k would you take him. He has had a 1.5 increase others only 1.1 for some reason. Its for the sake of the exercise.

Would you still take him??

You cant just say "you have to get cox" without an explanation

Thats what im getting at??

You have to explain your picks

 

[Colin D'Cops]

He has had a 1.5 increase others only 1.1 for some reason. Its for the sake of the exercise.

That's a pointless exercise IMO, because it has zero chance of happening.

 

[Saint KFC]

Were just talking about cox lets say he is 700k would you take him. He has had a 1.5 increase others only 1.1 for some reason. Its for the sake of the exercise.

Would you still take him??

You cant just say "you have to get cox" without an explanation

Thats what im getting at??

You have to explain your picks

If you honestly take someone saying 'Cox is a must' as that he is a must every single year at any price, you are the one in the wrong. Personally, when someone says that "Cox is a must", I interpret it as them thinking that "Cox is a must (this year)." You're kidding yourself if you think that they are referring to unforeseen circumstances in the future such as an unbalanced price rise (obviously, they wouldn't be saying that he is a must if he was priced above his average whilst everyone else was priced on their average)

It's ludicrous to assume that someone is saying that "Cox is a must (even if he's priced at 5mil based on an 107avg)"

 

[SkankDanker]

That's a pointless exercise IMO, because it has zero chance of happening.

I think someone said "Get Cox in regardless of the cost" - as Dogs said, what if he costs 750K?

It is an example only and basically it's about exploring the value in a player over and above what they average - for Cox its possibly weaknesses in the alternative rucks (ielack of an alternative who can get within cooee of him).

So as DWD has quite reasonably put it in response to that argument, how much is Cox really worth?

 

[SkankDanker]

Firstly, get Cox it doesn't matter how much he costs.

On Lade I would be worried if the Power team starts losing as there might be a repeat of last year.

Sorry, I can't help you with the rookies and whether they will play, I assume one of them will get a game. Leuy will probably get a game but he might be too expensive for the bench.

Do some research on here and you will find the answers you are looking for, also buy the AFL prospectus it will help you in chosing other players in your team.

If you honestly take someone saying 'Cox is a must' as that he is a must every single year at any price, you are the one in the wrong. Personally, when someone says that "Cox is a must", I interpret it as them thinking that "Cox is a must (this year)." You're kidding yourself if you think that they are referring to unforeseen circumstances in the future such as an unbalanced price rise (obviously, they wouldn't be saying that he is a must if he was priced above his average whilst everyone else was priced on their average)

It's ludicrous to assume that someone is saying that "Cox is a must (even if he's priced at 5mil based on an 107avg)"

You should be responding to Kahuna (quoted above for your convenience)not DWD if that's your point of view.

 

[Colin D'Cops]

So as DWD has quite reasonably put it in response to that argument, how much is Cox really worth?

That's fair enough. But trying to find his true value by using some unrealistic situations, is pointless. I know what he's trying to get across, but I think he was going down the wrong path with that point.

 

[Saint KFC]

I think someone said "Get Cox in regardless of the cost" - as Dogs said, what if he costs 750K?

Considering that players are priced off of their averages, if Cox was 750k it would mean around a 175avg. At that price, I would take him as a captain choice.

This situation remind me alot of the EPL this season with Ronaldo - priced 2mil ahead of anyone else, I dismissed him due to his price. What happens? He goes on to average something ridiculous like 16 points in his first 5-10 games back, single-handedly knocking me out of the competition.

If players weren't priced according to their averages and someone said "Get Cox at any cost", I would definitely disagree with them. But, they are based on cost, so the claim really isn't as invalid as it may seem.

 

[SkankDanker]

Considering that players are priced off of their averages, if Cox was 750k it would mean around a 175avg. At that price, I would take him as a captain choice.

This situation remind me alot of the EPL this season with Ronaldo - priced 2mil ahead of anyone else, I dismissed him due to his price. What happens? He goes on to average something ridiculous like 16 points in his first 5-10 games back, single-handedly knocking me out of the competition.

If players weren't priced according to their averages and someone said "Get Cox at any cost", I would definitely disagree with them. But, they are based on cost, so the claim really isn't as invalid as it may seem.

Good point. The debate was a bit more philosophical than that I guess.

 

[54Dogs]

I guess what I was driving at is that you can't simply say "Get a player no matter what the cost".

Cox has averaged 107 last year, his best by 7 ppg and the real question is whether he represents value at that price.

Firstly, can he sustain the average. This is subjective based on your own analysis. Secondly, if I don't take him, where do I spend the money and can I make more out of it. Thirdly, who do I choose in his place and are they greater value. And finally, do I want him in my final team and can I afford the 2 trades to get him in if I do.

This is probably a more rational way to approach the argument and make the decision from there. Not only with Cox but with all players.

 

[Saint KFC]

Firstly, can he sustain the average. This is subjective based on your own analysis.

Just on this point, you have to ask yourself, 'what has changed/variated since last season that could effect his output?'

Firstly, this year Cox (hopefully) won't be hampered by injury, which is a positive.

Secondly, I doubt Daniel Kerr will restrict his output, especially seeing as Cox averaged a tad over 112 during 2008 in games that Kerr participated in. It does beg the question though, will the improvement of Masten/Ebert effect him at all? What effect will Naitanui have on his ToG when he returns to full fitness?

Secondly, age isn't an issue for Cox, as he is in his prime age for a ruckman.

Cox seems to get the majority of his points doing the scrounging work in the back half, acting as a halfback/midfield link player. The only way I can see his output significantly decreasing is if the Eagles improve as a side meaning that he doesn't have to fill this void, something I can't see happening during 2009.

 

[Lakey91]

Yeh fair call. I was just thinking about cox, and to be honest, if he averaged 102 in 2009, i would not be all that disapointed. Yes it would be a decrease by 5ppg, and i probably could of saved some cash, but you know, i would of probably had lock and leave from the start, so knowing my rucks were set and forget as such would of still been fine for me. I guess, question is, what would cox have to average for me to feel 'ripped off' - i think if he averages over 100, i wont be complaining.

Sorry for rambling with my thoughts!

 

[54Dogs]

Just on this point, you have to ask yourself, 'what has changed/variated since last season that could effect his output?'

Firstly, this year Cox (hopefully) won't be hampered by injury, which is a positive.

Secondly, I doubt Daniel Kerr will restrict his output, especially seeing as Cox averaged a tad over 112 during 2008 in games that Kerr participated in. It does beg the question though, will the improvement of Masten/Ebert effect him at all? What effect will Naitanui have on his ToG when he returns to full fitness?

Secondly, age isn't an issue for Cox, as he is in his prime age for a ruckman.

Cox seems to get the majority of his points doing the scrounging work in the back half, acting as a halfback/midfield link player. The only way I can see his output significantly decreasing is if the Eagles improve as a side meaning that he doesn't have to fill this void, something I can't see happening during 2009.

Exactly my point Saint. Look at what he did last year, assess what you believe he will do this year and herein lies the value equation. Probably going back over old ground here, after all there's 600 posts on the rucks already, but I see Cox's output as directly linked to WC poor performance. Consider the following:



I think Cox's season in 2008 needs to be taken in isolation given the midfield dynamics at the Eagles have changed so dramatically. No Judd, Cousins and basically no Kerr. Decimated springs to mind. With these 3 in the mix there is less need to use Cox as the 4th mid. When they are gone the urgency is greater and Cox is in play more often. So it's for this reason I talk purely about 2008 rather than his trends over previous seasons.

Here's the 2008 breakdown of his scores in losses by 6 goals or more:-

Rd 2, Crows (lost by 86 pts) - Score 140
Rd 4, Swans (lost by 62 pts) - Score 75
Rd 6, Dogs (lost by 60 Pts) - Score 85
Rd 7, Blues (lost by 37) - Score 114
Rd 10, Pies (lost by 100 pts) - Score 152
Rd 13, Cats (lost by 135 pts) - Score 115
Rd 14, Hawks (lost by 57 pts) - Score 124
Rd 15, Tigers (lost by 77) - Score 152
Rd 16, Lions (lost by 46) - Score 157
Rd 21 Hawks (lost by 61) - Score 96
Rd 22 Cats (lost by 99) - Score 83


Cox 2008 average when WC lose by 6 goals or more: 117.5

Cox 2008 average when WC win or lose by less than 6 goals : 95.9


Also interesting to note that Cox had 6 games over 120 this year and 5 are on this list with an average losing margin of 73 points. The other game was in Rd1.


So it's possible with Kerr, Priddis, Masten and co this year he may not be required as much but I think how West Coast perform is inversely related to how Cox will perform.

 

[Daz]

Again, it has been discussed already but another thing that seems to have an impact on Cox's scoring is Seaby. In games that Seaby played last year, Cox averaged 97.7. In games where Seaby was left out, Cox averaged 123.

 

[Saint KFC]

Cox 2008 average when WC lose by 6 goals or more: 117.5

Cox 2008 average when WC win or lose by less than 6 goals : 95.9

Some solid correlation there.

Personally, I can't see West Coast improving enough in 2009 to significantly nullify the output of big Cox.

I think that the improvement in Masten and Ebert will only marginally effect Cox, especially if they end up suffering from the second-year blues due to having only Priddis and Kerr ahead of them in the midfield and the attention that they will likely receive if Kerr and/or Priddis goes down with an injury/suspension

I think that the affect of Butler on Cox must also be looked at - it's only a small sample size (5 games), but in 2008 when Butler played Cox averaged 90.8 - albeit one of these games was a 68 against Sydney.

I think how West Coast perform is inversely related to how Cox will perform.

Hit the nail on the head, and this seems to be the case with all the ruckman.

Ruckman | Season Avg | 2008 Team Placing

Cox__________ 106.7__________15
Hille__________ 86.0___________12
Simmonds_____ 83.7____________9
Sandilands_____81.9____________14
Fraser_________75.4____________8
Jolly__________74.2_____________6
Cloke_________74.0_____________11
Lade__________73.6_____________13
Johnson_______69.0_____________16

 

[the_insid3r]

So it's possible with Kerr, Priddis, Masten and co this year he may not be required as much but I think how West Coast perform is inversely related to how Cox will perform.

Cox is one tough and reliable unit with a big engine who just loves being in the mix, meaning that the only way for Cox to significantly drop his numbers would be if his TOG was reduced or his role in the team changed and I highly doubt that this will happen this season...

Kerr, Masten and Priddis can all have outstanding season but I can't see that as having a huge negative impact on Cox as highlighted by season 05 and 06 where he was part of the fab 5 of Judd, Cousins, Kerr, Braun and Fletcher and still averaged around 97ppg.

This season I'm not expecting WC to make significant improvements to their game plan, playing style and the ability of their new midfield to such an extent that it would have a negative impact on Cox and his contributions.