Competitions Ultimate Footy 2015 Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

azza77 said:
The biggest issue I see with only selecting 2 rucks, is if there is a team who currently has 2 very good rucks, as well as a good R/F. That would be unfair on them being forced to drop one. But again, it encourages trading and they can use it to strengthen another area of their team. Everyone is in the same boat here...



10 teams has worked perfectly fine in a 6/8/2/6 set up that I've seen across multiple boards. As I said earlier, I think the initial crap auto-drafting made things a little lob-sided, and now people are coming in with very weak ruck departments.

To be honest, we could just leave it all and say bad luck to those particular players, and either trade or go to the draft in search of rucks.
Click to expand...
Yup. bad luck - trade away.
 
Danoz said:
1. People's ruck situations last year were entirely of their own doing. If they didn't pick rucks when they should have, that was entirely their own fault.

2. This was obviously not the case with Hank, and unfortunately due to events unfolding as they did, it limited his enjoyment of the game and has tragically resulted in his forfeit. Thsi sucks as I know how good at fantasy footy Hank is.

3. We've had 2 years of playing to where we are now. There will always be turnover in fantasy leagues. It's not ideal, and I can see the benefit of dropping to 8 teams. But I would suggest we should then increase our list size as a result. We should certainly not change our keeper number, nor should we change our on field disposition, nor should we limit who we can keep from our current teams. azza77 needs to find out whether Campbell's Chunky is wanting to play or not, and then we should make a group decision based on that answer.

4. Until we know who's in, we shouldn't be making any decisions. Kristof should not be disadvantage because of his scruples.
Click to expand...
I love Hank, he knows that.

But if he can't fit playing into his schedule that is as much bad luck as the guys who didn't draft rucks.

We ALL make time sacrifices to waste time doing s**t like this. My marriage would be better if I didn't play fantasy football. It's a tradeoff choice I make EVERY day ;)
 
Allefgib said:
I love Hank, he knows that.

But if he can't fit playing into his schedule that is as much bad luck as the guys who didn't draft rucks.

We ALL make time sacrifices to waste time doing s**t like this. My marriage would be better if I didn't play fantasy football. It's a tradeoff choice I make EVERY day ;)
Click to expand...

I have a browser on my work PC which just has my fantasy and tipping tabs open.

Chrome for work, Mozilla for AFL. :)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Allefgib said:
I love Hank, he knows that.

But if he can't fit playing into his schedule that is as much bad luck as the guys who didn't draft rucks.

We ALL make time sacrifices to waste time doing s**t like this. My marriage would be better if I didn't play fantasy football. It's a tradeoff choice I make EVERY day ;)
Click to expand...
Nothing like spending Valentines Day reading through the AFL Record while my wife is out shopping. I think it's a win/win.
 
azza77 said:
The fact that you'd be forced to trade way overs, for a ruckmen to even complete your own starting 22 is complete bullshit imo. There should always be a handful of playing players in the reserves at least so people can complete their team from free agents, regardless of how good or bad they are.

The fact that there are 0 available players playing in the pool is just not how the game is played.

Last year there were multiple people copping 0s of no fault of their own, purely as there weren't enough rucks to go around. I copped a few 0s when I had ruckmen pull out late or wasn't able to pick up a playing ruckmen fast enough between teams and lockout.
Click to expand...

I had 3 rucks and at one point none of them were playing.
Its not like the other positions where you can just fill the hole with a scrap player, because there literally weren't any available.
 
I had 3 rucks last year but none of them are likely to play in 2016 due to list changes etc.

To be honest, almost every league I've ever seen or played has 1 ruck for this exact reason.

Just putting it out there, I know its the current rule, but I was against it at the start and I still see it as ridiculous.
 
DangerSloane said:
Laird for Ziebell seems fair enough? Laird about 88 and Ziebell mid 90s?
Click to expand...

Yeah it does, ill sit on it for a bit and let you know.

With Barlow and Montagna going forward I really need a mid now to fill out that position, and I won't find much in the draft either at this point.
 
azza77 said:
Yeah it does, ill sit on it for a bit and let you know.

With Barlow and Montagna going forward I really need a mid now to fill out that position, and I won't find much in the draft either at this point.
Click to expand...

Yeah let me know.
If I cant get a hold of a Ruck though, I dont know if I will be forced to trade.
 
DangerSloane said:
I had 3 rucks last year but none of them are likely to play in 2016 due to list changes etc.

To be honest, almost every league I've ever seen or played has 1 ruck for this exact reason.

Just putting it out there, I know its the current rule, but I was against it at the start and I still see it as ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You can't just flippantly change the rules of keeper leagues, though.

There was a reason true first rucks were prized last year. If the rule is changed and that value falls, I'm immediately disadvantaged.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kristof said:
You can't just flippantly change the rules of keeper leagues, though.

There was a reason true first rucks were prized last year. If the rule is changed and that value falls, I'm immediately disadvantaged.
Click to expand...

Kristof I don't think you understand. You're at an advantage yes, because you got in early and selected 2 rucks, but when there aren't even enough playing rucks for people to even field a 22, what even is the point??? Its unfair in every way, shape and form.

That's what you seem to be missing. It's all about your team and not a 'possible' blatant oversight by the whole league in general.

If all 10 coaches can't field a 22 that is actually playing week in and week out, then that is an error in the league rules and a change needs to be made accordingly. Its got nothing to do with advantages to coach X and coach Y, and player values at the trade table and whatever. Its not supposed to be about the early bird gets the worm, that's not how this fantasy football system works, it's never been about that. Making the rules that everyone needs to select 2 rucks, and then there not even being enough rucks to go around, you can't just sit there say 'well bad luck for you'. IMO if there aren't enough available players going around for the # of positions WE collectively have agreed upon, then that is a problem that needs to be rectified.

If it was any other position on the ground, it doesn't matter because you can literally pick up anyone and at least they wills score you 60 odd points.


I can't really remember EXACTLY how bad the ruck scenario was last year to make a huge call. I know I struggled personally, as did a couple of others, which suggests a possible change MAY be required. I personally think there are JUST enough rucks to go around from what I can see going into the player pool and etc. I think the change we need to make for now is to reduce coach bench sizes and try to prevent player hoarding.

But still, 2 rucks and possibly a backup on the bench is 30 ruckmen if divided evenly between the league. Surely even you can see that number of players, compared to how many actually start for one of the 18 AFL teams is going to cause issues throughout the season.


Im more than happy to roll with 2 rucks again this year and monitor the situation very closely throughout the year and then address it again if need be heading into 2017.

But to just sit there and say bad luck to everyone else who can't physically select a scoring player of any value whatsoever in that position? Im sorry, but no that's just not the aim of the game.
 
I posted previously that from what I understand of teams approximate best 22's, I see around 25 "definite" starting ruckmen. That leaves enough for everyone to have 2 starting rucks "theoretically"

There are other ruckmen that could potentially be in the 22 also, adding to the numbers, but as I discussed earlier, you then start to run into issues with DPP and people wanting to use DPP ruckmen in other areas of the ground, as well as their 2 starting ruckmen. Add to this people who were early enough to score decent depth and have a playing ruck on the bench, and the numbers have pretty much dwindled.

I vote to keep the 2 ruckmen rule and we go around again this year with a close eye on it as I said. But I'm not going sit by and ignore a potential problem within the league rules because my team isn't suffering from it...
 
Kristof said:
You can't just flippantly change the rules of keeper leagues, though.

There was a reason true first rucks were prized last year. If the rule is changed and that value falls, I'm immediately disadvantaged.
Click to expand...

Well to be honest it shouldn't have been that way to start with, but that's just my opinion, man.

I voted against 2 rucks to start with because of this exact problem. There aren't enough rucks and someone takes the opportunity to stash them all and essentially blackmail other players not to get 0s.
Perfectly legit strategy, just ruins the league really.
 
azza77 said:
Kristof I don't think you understand. You're at an advantage yes, because you got in early and selected 2 rucks, but when there aren't even enough playing rucks for people to even field a 22, what even is the point??? Its unfair in every way, shape and form.

That's what you seem to be missing. It's all about your team and not a 'possible' blatant oversight by the whole league in general.

If all 10 coaches can't field a 22 that is actually playing week in and week out, then that is an error in the league rules and a change needs to be made accordingly. Its got nothing to do with advantages to coach X and coach Y, and player values at the trade table and whatever. Its not supposed to be about the early bird gets the worm, that's not how this fantasy football system works, it's never been about that. Making the rules that everyone needs to select 2 rucks, and then there not even being enough rucks to go around, you can't just sit there say 'well bad luck for you'. IMO if there aren't enough available players going around for the # of positions WE collectively have agreed upon, then that is a problem that needs to be rectified.

If it was any other position on the ground, it doesn't matter because you can literally pick up anyone and at least they wills score you 60 odd points.


I can't really remember EXACTLY how bad the ruck scenario was last year to make a huge call. I know I struggled personally, as did a couple of others, which suggests a possible change MAY be required. I personally think there are JUST enough rucks to go around from what I can see going into the player pool and etc. I think the change we need to make for now is to reduce coach bench sizes and try to prevent player hoarding.

But still, 2 rucks and possibly a backup on the bench is 30 ruckmen if divided evenly between the league. Surely even you can see that number of players, compared to how many actually start for one of the 18 AFL teams is going to cause issues throughout the season.


Im more than happy to roll with 2 rucks again this year and monitor the situation very closely throughout the year and then address it again if need be heading into 2017.

But to just sit there and say bad luck to everyone else who can't physically select a scoring player of any value whatsoever in that position? Im sorry, but no that's just not the aim of the game.
Click to expand...

Put simply there aren't 30 rucks playing in the AFL.

Then you get the problem of people having more than 3 given that some are R/F eligible.

Then you get the problem of the high injury rate for ruckmen

Just seems like we're pandering to one player because he's threatening to quit.
 
azza77 said:
I posted previously that from what I understand of teams approximate best 22's, I see around 25 "definite" starting ruckmen. That leaves enough for everyone to have 2 starting rucks "theoretically"

There are other ruckmen that could potentially be in the 22 also, adding to the numbers, but as I discussed earlier, you then start to run into issues with DPP and people wanting to use DPP ruckmen in other areas of the ground, as well as their 2 starting ruckmen. Add to this people who were early enough to score decent depth and have a playing ruck on the bench, and the numbers have pretty much dwindled.

I vote to keep the 2 ruckmen rule and we go around again this year with a close eye on it as I said. But I'm not going sit by and ignore a potential problem within the league rules because my team isn't suffering from it...
Click to expand...
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?
 
DangerSloane said:
Put simply there aren't 30 rucks playing in the AFL.

Then you get the problem of people having more than 3 given that some are R/F eligible.

Then you get the problem of the high injury rate for ruckmen

Just seems like we're pandering to one player because he's threatening to quit.
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, but that's bullshit. There are at least 4 of us arguing against changing the rules. That's half of the still participating players.
 
Danoz said:
Sorry mate, but that's bullshit. There are at least 4 of us arguing against changing the rules. That's half of the still participating players.
Click to expand...
None of it is bs except for maybe the last line. Every other bit of it is a fact.

You essentially need 40 rucks to make 2 rucks per team work, and there is absolutely nowhere near that number playing in the AFL week to week.

OK well looks like I'm in the minority.

May as well find a new league that actually has some semblance of sensible rules.

I'd normally be against changing the rules too, but considering some people decided to find a loop hole just to ruin the league, it seems a bit pointless.
 
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.
DangerSloane said:
OK well looks like I'm in the minority.

May as well find a new league that actually has some semblance of sensible rules.

I'd normally be against changing the rules too, but considering some people decided to find a loop hole just to ruin the league, it seems a bit pointless.
Click to expand...
So who are we now supposed to be pandering to because he's threatening to quit?
 
Danoz said:
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?
Click to expand...

Bolded is rubbish. Otherwise why wouldnt these rucks be available later in the season when people are scoring 0s? That is blatant crud.

Dont pander to me. I personally couldnt give a s**t.

Keep the two rucks, just dont expect any kind of competition, and expect the turnover to be the same if not increase.

Quite frankly anyone that plays fantasy regularly knows that 2 rucks is dumb.

I mean hell, half the teams don't even play 2 rucks.
 
DangerSloane said:
None of it is bs except for maybe the last line. Every other bit of it is a fact.

You essentially need 40 rucks to make 2 rucks per team work, and there is absolutely nowhere near that number playing in the AFL week to week.

OK well looks like I'm in the minority.

May as well find a new league that actually has some semblance of sensible rules.

I'd normally be against changing the rules too, but considering some people decided to find a loop hole just to ruin the league, it seems a bit pointless.
Click to expand...

Found a loop hole to ruin the league?

Honestly, that is a really s**t thing to claim.

I traded for Nic Nat and I signed McEvoy off the waiver wire. I drafted Martin pretty late.

Anyone else could have done that. It was obvious rucks were scarce and their scoring was increasing because of more stoppages.

But no one did. They did other things and now they want a do over. It wasn't a loophole, FFS.

They want to keep those players they took INSTEAD of rucks, and they want rucks to be cheaper and easier to get.

AND I'VE SAID I'M HAPPY TO CHANGE THE RULES.

But I'm not happy to be the one shafted.
 
Kristof said:
Found a loop hole to ruin the league?

Honestly, that is a really s**t thing to claim.

I traded for Nic Nat and I signed McEvoy off the waiver wire. I drafted Martin pretty late.

Anyone else could have done that. It was obvious rucks were scarce and their scoring was increasing because of more stoppages.

But no one did. They did other things and now they want a do over. It wasn't a loophole, FFS.

They want to keep those players they took INSTEAD of rucks, and they want rucks to be cheaper and easier to get.

AND I'VE SAID I'M HAPPY TO CHANGE THE RULES.

But I'm not happy to be the one shafted.
Click to expand...

McEvoy on the waiver wire when?

Put it this way when my rucks got injured or dropped there were ZERO available on the wire.
I couldn't field a team, because others hoarded rucks to take advantage of the rules.

Is that my fault because i didn't have 5 rucks on my list?
Why should one position have no chance to replace, and every single other position has 40+ options?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cap
  • Locked
The Cookers/Conspiracy thread
Replies
1
Views
223
relapse
relapse
Cap
The Wine thread
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
3K
Cap
Cap
Punchy Bassett
The Bakery Thread.
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
arrowman
arrowman
Mutineer
  • Locked
Opinion The Adelaide Board Politics Thread Part 4
387 388 389 390 391
Replies
10K
Views
122K
Scorpus
Scorpus
Scorpus
  • Locked
Opinion The Adelaide Board Politics/COVID Thread Part 3
402 403 404 405 406
Replies
10K
Views
234K
Scorpus
Scorpus
Scorpus
  • Locked
Banter The Adelaide Board Politics/COVID Thread Part 2 (WARNING NOT FOR THE FAINT-HEARTED)
397 398 399 400 401
Replies
10K
Views
150K
Scorpus
Scorpus

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top