Competitions Ultimate Footy 2015 Thread

[Allefgib]

See my feeling is that when we were drafting, people had the option of picking up a dud scoring ruck, or a possible fantasy bolter at the tail end of the draft. Most people went for the possible draft bolter rather than securing an extra ruck. I think that's their own fault for not drafting properly. Rucks have been and always will be at a premium due to the short supply. Now, what is likely to happen this year, is that more teams will play a second ruck as the bench is extended. I think we'll find there are more playing available to pick this year.

So who are we now supposed to be pandering to because he's threatening to quit?

I tend to try and grab 2nd rukcs from teams whose first ruck I have in these types of games. Gives you great coverage if the first goes down.

 

[azza77]

At times last year I was short on ruckmen. So I went to coaches with extra rucks, and I sorted out trades to make sure I had enough playing. Isn't that the point? Keeping everyone involved? Maybe people should participate more in the game rather than sit back when copping donuts and complain that they can't field a side?

No that's all good and well, but I think the way fantasy should be played, does not involve being FORCED to trade.

If you are short of good defenders for example, you can either sit there and be contempt with that, and try and make do with who is available as a free agent. Or you can go ahead and trade and try to upgrade your backline.

The fact that you are FORCED to trade because there are legitimately no playing options in the free agency pool, see now I think that is crap and it shouldn't have to be that way.

However, given the ruck scenario and how little players there are, I don't think things will ever work out ideally. Hey, I would love it if everyone was involved and throwing around trade requests and trying to make the most of the market for themselves, but that's not gonna happen. There should IDEALLY always be players available in the pool, for short term fixes. It's unfair on people who may not be able to be as involved from time to time, and not have options at their disposal. Perfect example of this was CC last year, he was overseas for about 2 months of the footy season, hence his very little inactivity....


And Kristof, we are not trying to shaft you, please don't think of it that way. Maybe people didn't draft well and maybe those auto picks ended up with an uneven distribution of starting ruckmen. But surely you agree that not even having free agents from coaches to select from is an issue for some, and makes the game a hassle for people, rather than an enjoyment.

 

[azza77]

I tend to try and grab 2nd rukcs from teams whose first ruck I have in these types of games. Gives you great coverage if the first goes down.

This is what I try to do, and most others do I'm sure, but sometimes it doesn't pan out.

I think to help the scenario, people should also try to look at doing low value trades for reserve ruckmen of the same team their primary rucks play for.

 

[azza77]

Does anyone have the league ID number from last years season?

Was going to go have a look at the draft results

 

[azza77]

I'd be keen to join next year if there's a spot

Hey mate are you still keen? Looks like we might have a spot open up.

 

[DangerSloane]

No that's all good and well, but I think the way fantasy should be played, does not involve being FORCED to trade.

If you are short of good defenders for example, you can either sit there and be contempt with that, and try and make do with who is available as a free agent. Or you can go ahead and trade and try to upgrade your backline.

The fact that you are FORCED to trade because there are legitimately no playing options in the free agency pool, see now I think that is crap and it shouldn't have to be that way.

However, given the ruck scenario and how little players there are, I don't think things will ever work out ideally. Hey, I would love it if everyone was involved and throwing around trade requests and trying to make the most of the market for themselves, but that's not gonna happen. There should IDEALLY always be players available in the pool, for short term fixes. It's unfair on people who may not be able to be as involved from time to time, and not have options at their disposal. Perfect example of this was CC last year, he was overseas for about 2 months of the footy season, hence his very little inactivity....


And Kristof, we are not trying to shaft you, please don't think of it that way. Maybe people didn't draft well and maybe those auto picks ended up with an uneven distribution of starting ruckmen. But surely you agree that not even having free agents from coaches to select from is an issue for some, and makes the game a hassle for people, rather than an enjoyment.

Yeah and now people that have rucks are just going to sit there and blackmail players into losing massively valuable players just so they can put another ruck on the park.
How ridiculous.

Its like having 12 defender spots. Literally double what a realistic team plays.

 

[Danoz]

Yeah and now people that have rucks are just going to sit there and blackmail players into losing massively valuable players just so they can put another ruck on the park.
How ridiculous.

Its like having 12 defender spots. Literally double what a realistic team plays.

I'd be happy to trade you Longer and/or Z Clarke for anyone you will be delisting if you want them, so you don't go in completely empty handed. I won't be giving up Kreuzer and Maric though.

 

[Mego Red]

Yeah and now people that have rucks are just going to sit there and blackmail players into losing massively valuable players just so they can put another ruck on the park.

How ridiculous.

Its like having 12 defender spots. Literally double what a realistic team plays.

Yeah and now people that have rucks are going to just sit there and lose massively valuable players just because people couldn't work out how to get a ruck on the park.

How ridiculous.

It's like having two ruck spots. Literally exactly what a realistic team plays.


-- We will need 20 active rucks a week in a ten team league. We will have the 30 or so rucks playing that week, plus the forward rucks.

 

[Mego Red]

McEvoy on the waiver wire when?

About half way through the year. He was playing VFL and doing well and there was ample coverage about his return.

I was coming first, so if ANYONE else had claimed him they would have had him.

 

[Vantz]

No that's all good and well, but I think the way fantasy should be played, does not involve being FORCED to trade.

If you are short of good defenders for example, you can either sit there and be contempt with that, and try and make do with who is available as a free agent. Or you can go ahead and trade and try to upgrade your backline.

The fact that you are FORCED to trade because there are legitimately no playing options in the free agency pool, see now I think that is crap and it shouldn't have to be that way.

However, given the ruck scenario and how little players there are, I don't think things will ever work out ideally. Hey, I would love it if everyone was involved and throwing around trade requests and trying to make the most of the market for themselves, but that's not gonna happen. There should IDEALLY always be players available in the pool, for short term fixes. It's unfair on people who may not be able to be as involved from time to time, and not have options at their disposal. Perfect example of this was CC last year, he was overseas for about 2 months of the footy season, hence his very little inactivity....


And Kristof, we are not trying to shaft you, please don't think of it that way. Maybe people didn't draft well and maybe those auto picks ended up with an uneven distribution of starting ruckmen. But surely you agree that not even having free agents from coaches to select from is an issue for some, and makes the game a hassle for people, rather than an enjoyment.

I love annoying everyone with my trade requests. I think that we should make a limit on how many rucks we can have in our squad, to prevent this issue of teams hoarding players. Say we set that limit as a maximum of 4 ruckman per squad, including ruck/forwards.

 

[Vantz]

Hey mate are you still keen? Looks like we might have a spot open up.

8 Teams also helps with less rucks being stored away.

 

[Vantz]

Yeah and now people that have rucks are just going to sit there and blackmail players into losing massively valuable players just so they can put another ruck on the park.
How ridiculous.

Its like having 12 defender spots. Literally double what a realistic team plays.

Only 1 out of the 8 teams active has selected 3 ruckman as keepers (Kristof), every other team has selected only 1 or 2.

 

[Vantz]

About half way through the year. He was playing VFL and doing well and there was ample coverage about his return.

I was coming first, so if ANYONE else had claimed him they would have had him.

Not true I was behind you in the waivers, and also put in a claim. I was cursing you when you got him

 

[azza77]

Yeah and now people that have rucks are going to just sit there and lose massively valuable players just because people couldn't work out how to get a ruck on the park.

How ridiculous.

It's like having two ruck spots. Literally exactly what a realistic team plays.


-- We will need 20 active rucks a week in a ten team league. We will have the 30 or so rucks playing that week, plus the forward rucks.

Thats the simplistic way of looking at it, and you know that doesn't happen, given DPP players, as well as depth cover. What happens if your ruck pulls out, you're still copping 0s cos the players available are thin.

(Yes i know you can cop 0s in other positions cos of late outs, but just saying).

 

[azza77]

I love annoying everyone with my trade requests. I think that we should make a limit on how many rucks we can have in our squad, to prevent this issue of teams hoarding players. Say we set that limit as a maximum of 4 ruckman per squad, including ruck/forwards.

That would be one idea that I think could help the scenario.

8 Teams also helps with less rucks being stored away.

Well no, I'm not gonna kick out CC because he was one of the later ones to reply and because we are squabbling over player positions

 

[Mego Red]

Bloody hell Vantz.

Look - I'm pissed off. Let me calm down overnight.

 

[Vantz]

Bloody hell Vantz.

Look - I'm pissed off. Let me calm down overnight.

Deleted it bud.

 

[Vantz]

That would be one idea that I think could help the scenario.



Well no, I'm not gonna kick out CC because he was one of the later ones to reply and because we are squabbling over player positions

That was never the reason. The reason is we need people who are active players in the league and a year of evidence does not show much activity.

 

[azza77]

CC was overseas for close to a quarter, if not a third of the season.

I honestly think the decision should be left to the player himself. If he wants to play and has already completed one year in the system, then he wants to play...

I'll talk to him regardless.

 

[Allefgib]

Keep in mind his squad may be at a disadvantage given his abscence. And he's willing to play from that situation.

If he goes another year in a similar vein I think we'll all support removing a player in that circumstance.

Let's play on. Players in, no rule changes - go go go .