Competitions Ultimate Footy 2016 Thread

[DangerSloane]

Ok so we're in a situation where kristof is threatening to quit because he doesn't want to lose his rucks and dangersloane is threatening to quit because he doesn't have any.

What we need to do is vote on how we want to proceed.

So the vote here is to work out if we are changing the league rules, changing team numbers, or staying the same.

It appears to me we only have 8 confirmed starters, given Hank, Bacon and Campbell's Chunky have either handed in resignations or not responded, and knobby has stepped in.

I'll tag everyone in the next few posts. If you can vote please, we can go forward as one rather than continue to squabble.

Let me know if you want any different choices added.

Uh no.
Where did you see that?

Please dont put words in my mouth.

I just said it will be pointless me playing with no rucks, so I may as well just pick a team each week and not actually focus on it.

 

[DangerSloane]

I think it's better with ten teams than eight as it is more balanced.

Will CC show interest?

By more balanced you mean you have all the rucks and other people have none.
Thats not balanced.

 

[DangerSloane]

To be honest this has been a most painful experience.

I quite frankly couldnt give two shits.

Make the league and tell me what rules I'm playing by.

 

[Mego Red]

By more balanced you mean you have all the rucks and other people have none.
Thats not balanced.

Honestly mate, you can get stuffed.

You're the one with no rucks wanting the rules changed.

You don't hear all the players who have two rucks complaining. Bigfella has two top five rucks.

There's a lot more players with one or two really good rucks.

I'm not complaining that Ventz has all the good mids.

People made choices. But you don't like yours so you want a do over, despite the fact we set the rules for a keeper league. And because I'm pointing that out, I'm somehow blackmailing people.

And the entire time I've said I'm willing to change the rules but I'm not willing to be shafted to give a leg up to players that couldn't organise one reasonable ruckman.

 

[Mego Red]

My suggestion is everyone has to have two rucks by the second round of the draft.

Then, the people that couldn't organise their rucks last year have to use early picks, and the people that did aren't disadvantaged.

I'm putting Nic Nat and McEvoy on the table to a reasonable trade off. I'm not doing a fire sale for players that will do 85+, but I am willing to trade.

 

[Vantz]

CC is not original! He only joined last year and from what I've demonstrated did not play, surely if 10 is the magic number there are ppl who will be actually active and not placeholders. I'd rather go another new random who might be active than risk repeating history. But it looks like we are content with placeholders. I hope my comments work and he does play this year, unlike last, that means it will be a better league than the 4 ppl who played last year while 6 did nothing.

 

[DangerSloane]

Honestly mate, you can get stuffed.

You're the one with no rucks wanting the rules changed.

You don't hear all the players who have two rucks complaining. Bigfella has two top five rucks.

There's a lot more players with one or two really good rucks.

I'm not complaining that Ventz has all the good mids.

People made choices. But you don't like yours so you want a do over, despite the fact we set the rules for a keeper league. And because I'm pointing that out, I'm somehow blackmailing people.

And the entire time I've said I'm willing to change the rules but I'm not willing to be shafted to give a leg up to players that couldn't organise one reasonable ruckman.

Nobody has all the good mids or all the good backs or all the good forwards.
This is my point, having 2 rucks just means that people hoard them and hold everyone else over a barrel.

Its like having two goalkeepers in a fantasy soccer game, its not only unrealistic, also leaves the league in a ridiculous position.

I realise nobody wants it changed, and thats fine, lets just get on with it.

You cant see the logic because it doesnt suit you, but thats fine.

 

[Danoz]

Nobody has all the good mids or all the good backs or all the good forwards.
This is my point, having 2 rucks just means that people hoard them and hold everyone else over a barrel.

Its like having two goalkeepers in a fantasy soccer game, its not only unrealistic, also leaves the league in a ridiculous position.

I realise nobody wants it changed, and thats fine, lets just get on with it.

You cant see the logic because it doesnt suit you, but thats fine.

Kristof and I have indicated we are both not keeping Longer and Hickey. Why don't you do a couple of trades for meaningless players, keep those two and Jamar. Then you're set for the year.

 

[DangerSloane]

Kristof and I have indicated we are both not keeping Longer and Hickey. Why don't you do a couple of trades for meaningless players, keep those two and Jamar. Then you're set for the year.

Because people with rucks have made it abundantly clear that they wont be trading them for anything remotely even.

I mean, after all, that was the whole point of grabbing all the rucks. According to Kristof anyway.

Another problem, now rucks are worth far more than any other player.

 

[Danoz]

Because people with rucks have made it abundantly clear that they wont be trading them for anything remotely even.

I mean, after all, that was the whole point of grabbing all the rucks. According to Kristof anyway.

Wut? I have offered to trade you Longer for nothing twice now

 

[Mego Red]

Because people with rucks have made it abundantly clear that they wont be trading them for anything remotely even.

I mean, after all, that was the whole point of grabbing all the rucks. According to Kristof anyway.

Another problem, now rucks are worth far more than any other player.

Who are the people that have said they won't trade them for anything even?

Anyway - we should have all been like you. Not taken any decent rucks and then complained to get the rules changed to give me a leg up.

I overpaid to get a ruck. But I should have been like you and just changed the rules to get one cheap.

 

[DangerSloane]

Wut? I have offered to trade you Longer for nothing twice now

Are you keeping Longer?
If not why wouldnt I just pick him up with a draft pick and not waste one of my keepers on him?

I'm confused as to how that benefits me in the slightest? I end up with a 60 ruck but have to forfeit keeping a 90 a game mid for it?

Now see I'd happily trade one of my 90 mids for a decent ruck, but so far I get the feeling that I'd get about a 70 ruck for a 90 mid.

 

[Danoz]

Are you keeping Longer?
If not why wouldnt I just pick him up with a draft pick and not waste one of my keepers on him?

I'm confused as to how that benefits me in the slightest? I end up with a 60 ruck but have to forfeit keeping a 90 a game mid for it?

Not sure you are understanding me.

I will trade you Longer.

You trade me someone you're not keeping.

 

[Mego Red]

Are you keeping Longer?
If not why wouldnt I just pick him up with a draft pick and not waste one of my keepers on him?

I'm confused as to how that benefits me in the slightest? I end up with a 60 ruck but have to forfeit keeping a 90 a game mid for it?

Right - so it's actually that you don't want to give up anything? You want the rules changed to limit the bad position you're in.

 

[Danoz]

Are you keeping Longer?
If not why wouldnt I just pick him up with a draft pick and not waste one of my keepers on him?

I'm confused as to how that benefits me in the slightest? I end up with a 60 ruck but have to forfeit keeping a 90 a game mid for it?

Actually maybe it's me not understanding. By keeping Longer you need to release a 90 mid.

 

[DangerSloane]

Not sure you are understanding me.

I will trade you Longer.

You trade me someone you're not keeping.

And how exactly does that benefit me?
I then have to keep Longer, and have to forfeit a 90 a game mid because I cant keep an extra player. So I'm essentially putting Jack Ziebell back in the pool to keep Billy Longer.

Why wouldnt I let you drop Longer, then pick him up with my first draft pick?

 

[Danoz]

And how exactly does that benefit me?
I then have to keep Longer, and have to forfeit a 90 a game mid because I cant keep an extra player. So I'm essentially putting Jack Ziebell back in the pool to keep Billy Longer.

Why wouldnt I let you drop Longer, then pick him up with my first draft pick?

Go for it, if that's what you want to do.

 

[DangerSloane]

Right - so it's actually that you don't want to give up anything? You want the rules changed to limit the bad position you're in.

No, I want a fair trade.

Look lets just get on with it.
Ill take my chances in the draft I guess.

 

[DangerSloane]

Go for it, if that's what you want to do.

But what I'm saying is your offering actually doesnt benefit me at all.

I thank you for trying to sort something out, but it doesnt work.

 

[Vantz]

And how exactly does that benefit me?
I then have to keep Longer, and have to forfeit a 90 a game mid because I cant keep an extra player. So I'm essentially putting Jack Ziebell back in the pool to keep Billy Longer.

Why wouldnt I let you drop Longer, then pick him up with my first draft pick?

The reason you have so many higher scoring players is because you have not drafted or traded for a ruck. In your team you are keeping Elliot who averages around 78. I also have a player in a similar situation, Duryea averaging around the same. However I'm putting him back in the draft reluctantly because I know I need to keep 2 rucks. That's why I drafted and traded for rucks last year. I traded players like Gaff and Parker last year to make other positions in my team good. If I still had those players along with Stevens (top mid), Beams, Macrae, Treloar, Ellis, Sidebottom, Sloane, I'd have a crazy midfield, but I realised that each position has a limit and I looked to maximise scoring in each section.

The overall net score from not having a ruck, or trading for one will be large.

 

[DangerSloane]

The reason you have so many higher scoring players is because you have not drafted or traded for a ruck. In your team you are keeping Elliot who averages around 78. I also have a player in a similar situation, Duryea averaging around the same. However I'm putting him back in the draft reluctantly because I know I need to keep 2 rucks. That's why I drafted and traded for rucks last year. I traded players like Gaff and Parker last year to make other positions in my team good. If I still had those players along with Stevens (top mid), Beams, Macrae, Treloar, Ellis, Sidebottom, Sloane, I'd have a crazy midfield, but I realised that each position has a limit and I looked to maximise scoring in each section.

The overall net score from not having a ruck, or trading for one will be large.

We'll see.
If people want to carry 3 rucks, they will lose out more than me playing a crappy one.

 

[azza77]

My suggestion is everyone has to have two rucks by the second round of the draft.

Then, the people that couldn't organise their rucks last year have to use early picks, and the people that did aren't disadvantaged.

I'm putting Nic Nat and McEvoy on the table to a reasonable trade off. I'm not doing a fire sale for players that will do 85+, but I am willing to trade.

To be honest this issue has been discussed to death, and we should just go ahead with everything and leave people be.

People would be well aware of the ruck scenario and how many rucks they have in their squad. If they choose to continue not picking rucks, well then bad luck. All these rules make it too complicated.

 

[azza77]

Allefgib DangerSloane Geoffa32 Kristof Danoz Campbell's Chunky knobby Vantz

If you guys wanted to look through last years draft results, you can by clicking on the link
http://ultimate-footy2.theage.com.au/912542/draft/results.

You can also see which keepers people have nominated so far and who's going back into the pool by going to...
http://ultimate-footy2.theage.com.au/577600/keepers/view

This should all help with your research for this year and how you attack the draft.

 

[azza77]

Vantz were you still open to trading Sidebottom?

I have Laird possibly on the table who I might be trading so far, with a whole host of good forwards if you were open to a trade?

 

[Danoz]

Vantz were you still open to trading Sidebottom?

I have Laird possibly on the table who I might be trading so far, with a whole host of good forwards if you were open to a trade?

Man I told you I would be open to trading a week ago. Now you're offering players to people who haven't even fielded anything!