ruck division

[54Dogs]

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.

And herein lies the issue, if he averages 97 he will drop by 100K and be an upgrade target given he is priced at an average of 107. I'm not saying he's not a good pick, just that his value needs to be considered. An average of 107 for a ruckman (even as good as Cox) will be tough to maintain.

 

[Blinger]

And herein lies the issue, if he averages 97 he will drop by 100K and be an upgrade target given he is priced at an average of 107. I'm not saying he's not a good pick, just that his value needs to be considered. An average of 107 for a ruckman (even as good as Cox) will be tough to maintain.

Well it's a risk if you do & it's a risk if you don't. The other factor is even though he was injured for most of the season, he was still out there playing. He is also one of the more reliable players in the AFL, so imo he is well worth what you have to pay for him.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

I wont be unhappy if he avgs only 102 which is also what Lakey said. If he however avgs 97 i think i would be disappointed because most will get him into their side. I would like to have a look at his opponents in the first 6 rounds and determine if
1) he scores well against them and
2) are the eagles likely to win or lose

Also ST KFC gave some interesting facts about the rucks. The top ruckmen these days seem to be playing for the worst sides. This has also been a case for a while the team thats wins grand finals over the last few years has never seemed to have a standout ruck.

I was getting at the point that SD and 54D were getting out that "Get a player no matter what the cost". You always have to regard their price no matter who the player. I hope this is clearer now.

I havnt seen a whole lot of change for WCE since last year in fact they may win the spoon in 09. Which could well be a good thing for Cox. However i think their midfield will be better dues to Kerr playing more games, allowing priddis to perform better. Also youngsters like Masten and Ebert can only get better with games and experience.

So i think the midfield will be slighlty better but they may still lose more IMO. Cox to avg 100-105 i reckon which im happy enough with as not choosen him causes
1) use of trades - if he does avg 102+ than you may never get him and may also lose more than 1 trade doing so
2) you need your 2nd ruck to be a certainty to improve and i cant see much value their
3) you probably need to buy a really expensive mid as captain material
4) this means your more likely to miss out on where the value lies in the mids or get less of those players
5) lets say you pick MAC and he gets injured than you dont have enough money to get anyone good so you either replace him with a currie or get another useless ruck. I DONT want to be in that case it could cost you 20% of your trades for 1 position to be happy.

 

[brent-83]

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.




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

My thoughts go something along the lines of... out of all of those people on the list, Cox still seems to me to have the most upside, even at his price and high average last year because of what he is capable of.

 

[Waspy79]

I think the best way to analyse this dilemma of Cox or no Cox is to look at the next best ruck option, which is Hille. Hille should average 90+, yet costs $90 K less than Cox.

How do people see Hille performing in 2009? For me, he has plenty of upside, and should improve on his 2008 form, kick more goals, and grab more marks.

 

[samwise]

i also dont have cox in my team at the moment. he is too expensive. you can upgrade 2 fair players if you get someone else instead of him.
i only think he will average about 97 and i think he will be much more flucutating in scores each week and not be a solid week in week out captain choice. i think he will get a few 70s and therefore go down in price for a while where i can upgrade my 2nd ruck to him who should go up at least 20/30k
fraser is my first ruck atm i think he is great value.

also, with the whole argument with kerr and priddis etc. coming back, west coast are already a bad team who will not get a whole heap of possessions each game (averaging 350 last year) to share with so many ball magnets. especially against the top clubs.

in rounds 4-9 west coast plays st kilda(101), bulldogs(85), hawthorn(124,96), fremantle(98,96), melbourne(93), sydney(75,63) - brackets are the scores he got last year averaging 93 against them. even if he does the same as last year he will still go nicely down in price to upgarde half way through the season

thoughts?

 

[Lakey91]

On your first paragraph, id like to ask WHY you think he will get a few 70s, and average 97, and not be a great captain choice? Just a hunch? Or whats your theory?

 

[Marchos]

Don't forget Cox played with only 1 foot for half 2008...

 

[samwise]

On your first paragraph, id like to ask WHY you think he will get a few 70s, and average 97, and not be a great captain choice? Just a hunch? Or whats your theory?

well firstly last year he got a couple of them and this year i think he will go down a few possesions a game due to the midfielders returning so his 4 80s last year will go down to 70s and against the good teams and his 90s down to 80s etc. this will drop his average to somewhere between 90-102 ill just say 97 and i said a bad week in week out captain choice which he will be as unlike ablett he will have some bad games.

and of course this is simply personal opinion or a mixture of "hunch" and theory/stats

 

[Chris25]

Every year people try to justify not picking Cox, by claiming he is over-priced and his average is going to drop. It hasn't happened so far. And I can't see why this year will be any different.

 

[samwise]

Every year people try to justify not picking Cox, by claiming he is over-priced and his average is going to drop. It hasn't happened so far. And I can't see why this year will be any different.

yeah but he's never been this expensive

 

[afl16]

i also dont have cox in my team at the moment. he is too expensive. you can upgrade 2 fair players if you get someone else instead of him.
i only think he will average about 97 and i think he will be much more flucutating in scores each week and not be a solid week in week out captain choice. i think he will get a few 70s and therefore go down in price for a while where i can upgrade my 2nd ruck to him who should go up at least 20/30k
fraser is my first ruck atm i think he is great value.

also, with the whole argument with kerr and priddis etc. coming back, west coast are already a bad team who will not get a whole heap of possessions each game (averaging 350 last year) to share with so many ball magnets. especially against the top clubs.

in rounds 4-9 west coast plays st kilda(101), bulldogs(85), hawthorn(124,96), fremantle(98,96), melbourne(93), sydney(75,63) - brackets are the scores he got last year averaging 93 against them. even if he does the same as last year he will still go nicely down in price to upgarde half way through the season

thoughts?

I just hope you enjoy waiting 12 weeks for him to drop in value while the rest of us enjoy the extra 20 ppg he will pick up on his nearest rival (and even more to fraiser)

 

[Lakey91]

yeah but he's never been this expensive

Every year, people would say that too!

 

[samwise]

I just hope you enjoy waiting 12 weeks for him to drop in value while the rest of us enjoy the extra 20 ppg he will pick up on his nearest rival (and even more to fraiser)

im happy you think its only 20ppg cuz i think that will be made up in the other players you get by not picking him

Every year, people would say that too!

i dont remember there being many real arguments against him in previous years. last year i definately had him in my side even with price but this year i think its different but im sure i will probably change after nab cup when better value comes out in other positions

 

[FredNerk69]

I just have to agree with the "do nots" with the 150K that you save you can upgrade two ordinary players into two keepers which also saves you a trade. Yes its a risk hoping he will go down in price but a calculated one. At some stage he will have a bad week or two and has to reduce in price. At no point in the history of DT has a player scored more than a 100 points each week of the year and I am sure Cox will not be the first.
Also worth considering is that if you upgrade 2 players with the extra cash you are spreading your risk. It takes two players to have bad score to effect you team.
Personally I hope everyone picks up Cox it will just make my team more unique and make it easier or me to finish higher up the tree.
While I'm at it please why dont you all pick up Bartel and Abblet as well .
1.5 Mill on three players worth it I think

 

[Lakey91]

You know, i find, i dont really like downgrading cox and using the extra cash. Often means i get rid of a mid pricer to a keeper yes, but i actually like the mid pricers for the upside they provide. Just a thought.

 

[brent-83]

Everyone seems to assume that spending the money on upgrading other players is guaranteed points. Its not. Likely, possibly, but there are plenty of mid rangers who improve every year, just like there are plenty of keepers that decline yearly. I think Cox is far more likely to stay above 100 this year than not..

 

[LemmingMaster]

Lets just say his averages 105, he still represents negative value, that is what most people forget.

Not saying don't select Cox, but just understand the potential for him to drop in price as the MN decreases.

 

[swansfan51]

The reason why you should pick Cox

The difference between the rucks and other positions is the depth in high point scorers, and the number of elites. In midfield there are 15 players who you could choose who would score massively and be gun selections. In the rucks, there is only one - Cox.

If you elect to buy cheaper players in the midfield and trade them to guns later, you have much more variety. This means at any given time, at least some of them will have dropped substantially in price. In the rucks, it is either Cox or nobody. So you are not playing the percentages effectively - for it to be a call, he has to drop in price personally - no one else's price is important.

Dream Team isn't about absolutes, it is all about trade offs. Every dollar spent in one area is a dollar not spent somewhere else. Given the choice of trading up a midfielder, forward (who are notoriously erratic in terms of points and price) or a ruck, you simply have to take Cox. He is the highest scoring ruckman, followed by daylight. If I want to trade up one of my forwards, I simply find who out of Brown, Giansiracusa, Riewoldt, Pavlich, Richardson and Deledio has had the worst start to the season. If I want to trade up a ruckman, I don't have that luxury.

You can't afford to start with a gun in every one of the 22 positions, so again it is about tradeoffs. I'd rather pick the only player in his position, rather than one for whom there are a dozen alternatives.

 

[thebaxters]

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

Dogs makes an excellent point here. It's worth looking at what changed last year to give Cox the extra points. Here's a hint... same number of kicks as 06 and 07, but an extra 100 handballs. Why did he get these extra handballs? What will change this year to stop him getting them again?

Every year people try to justify not picking Cox, by claiming he is over-priced and his average is going to drop. It hasn't happened so far. And I can't see why this year will be any different.

You also need to consider that no player increases their avg year on year indefinitely. None. At some point, his avg will decrease. I'm not saying it will or won't be this year, but it will happen.

<snip>Personally I hope everyone picks up Cox it will just make my team more unique and make it easier or me to finish higher up the tree.

I think you're stuffed either way. The bulk of coaches will pick him to begin with, if he goes on a tear, the rest will try and trade him in. If he sheds value, the rest will trade him in at a discounted price.

It's not a question of having Cox at any point in the season, as the vast majority will, it's more a question of whether to start with him.

Also worth noting that unique alone won't win you DT...

Lets just say his averages 105, he still represents negative value, that is what most people forget.

Not saying don't select Cox, but just understand the potential for him to drop in price as the MN decreases.

Spot on. If he scores his 08 avg, he will still shed close to 50K in value. He'll have to avg more over the first third of the season than he's ever avg'd over that period to stay at the same price.

 

[sante]

IMO, choosing Cox or not choosing him is more to do with how it affects your team. Will the replacement Ruck average 90+? Will there be enough cash to upgrade a mid-pricer to a guaranteed premium?

I don't think there will ever be a clear way of deciding this. The right way to go will be decided half way through the season. Have those with Cox starting, saved themselves a much needed trade or did Cox average under 100 and Hille/Ottens around the same?

 

[Bease Lo]

Cox is a no-brainer. It is more of a risk not to get him. It's hard enough to find a decent ruck for DT let alone 2. He is the only ruck keeper IMO.

What's the worse that can happen if you pick him? He may get a really bad injury. So what? You use a trade and go shopping.

The only rational reasoning to not pick him is the 'uniqueness' factor, in that you may fluke a good & unique team makeup.

For me though, I'm going with the percentages, which may be unique enough judging by some peoples way of logic shown here.

 

[TwoBeaus]

The real issue in the rucks is the lack of cashcows. (or even mid pricers who will rise enough)

In the mids you can trade a cc into bartel at some point in the season. eg Palmer

In the rucks there are no cc to trade into cox during the season.

sure loonyburger or HMac will rise in value, but not enough to be considered a cc.

The question you need to ask "what is the minumum amount of money I want to make on each trade?"

 

[4#Didak#4]

To Cox or not to Cox? This is still a tough decision.

I thought I had made my mind up & take him - less worries, however what are the other options? This is my way of working out what is best.

Take the extra cash on downgrading from Cox & upgrade your worst other player on your list. Think about the points lost on Cox compared to points gained on the upgrade. I keep getting the same answer not much difference, definitely less points but nothing substantial.

So the question is do you want to bet against the house and leave Cox out? I am a betting man so this appeals to me a little. Lets say we leave him out:

If Cox plays the majority of the year, based on the above you may not have lost much (providing your other players selected lived up to expectations). If he gets injured, particularly if its a niggly little 1 or 2 weeks here & there, you may have a massive win, plus if you trade well you may pick him up when his price slides. Those with Cox need to have a good reserve ruck to cover this situation or use a trade & hope that he hasn't dropped a lot in value. Given most people will have Cox it could turn the competition on its head. If you like to take a punt its not a bad one.

The safe bet is still Cox & there is less worry in selecting him.........as long as he stays fit.

 

[Tidus]

I think the reason that many people are willing to select Cox in their team is not so much that he is the best ruckman in the competition, but moreso for the apparent lack of other 'premium' ruckmen available. In past years there have been players like White, Everitt, Darcy etc that have all provided great ruck options, however this year there seems to be a huge gap between Cox and the next best ruckmen (Hille, Simmonds, Sandilands, etc).

So if you don't want to select Cox, the questions you have to face are:
1) Do you want to trade him in during the year; and consequently what is the result if you do (points lost, money required to upgrade)

2) If you decide not to trade him in during the year, can you make up the potential points lost from not selecting Cox elsewhere, and just as importantly, can you find at least one ruckman that can step up into the 'premium' range (say 90+) and play close to 22 games?

I'll talk about question #2 here.

In my opinion, there are a couple of ruckmen that could step up into 'premium' status this year, but there's a lot of uncertainty in these players. If you believe that one of Hille/Sandilands/Simmonds can step up into premium status as well as one of Ottens/McIntosh/Jolly improving on their average by say 10 points AND play 22 games (or as close as possible) then go for it. Otherwise I'd play it safe and select Cox as your #1 ruck.