FanFooty Forum

which one do you have in your team? reasons on why or why you haven't picked one/both     8) 8)

I have both due to limited back rookies. I don't want to pay 180k for luke mcdonald. A kid untried at AFL level. Webster is EXTREMELY efficient with his ball use and Suckling is a proven 80+ average player.

Quote from: BlackOrWhite on March 12, 2014, 07:15:47 PM
I have both due to limited back rookies. I don't want to pay 180k for luke mcdonald. A kid untried at AFL level. Webster is EXTREMELY efficient with his ball use and Suckling is a proven 80+ average player.

at what defensive position have you got suckling? B1? B2? B3? B4? B5?

suckling is my D4

Webster because my backs are mostly R9/10 so I can use him round 9 as a stepping stone into a R8 premium.  Otherwise I'd probably have Brodie Smith.

Not convinced Suckers is worth the extra dough.  Webster has a well defined role, SC scoring friendly.

Quote from: batt on March 12, 2014, 07:38:34 PM
Webster because my backs are mostly R9/10 so I can use him round 9 as a stepping stone into a R8 premium.  Otherwise I'd probably have Brodie Smith.

Not convinced Suckers is worth the extra dough.  Webster has a well defined role, SC scoring friendly.

was thinking the same thing

Quote from: BlackOrWhite on March 12, 2014, 07:15:47 PM
I have both due to limited back rookies. I don't want to pay 180k for luke mcdonald. A kid untried at AFL level

I still believe Luke is a must, as a north supporter he's so highly rated and with a season of vfl under his belt he's a walk up start. If he starts the season well, he'll definitely solidify his JS

Quote from: batt on March 12, 2014, 07:38:34 PM
Webster because my backs are mostly R9/10 so I can use him round 9 as a stepping stone into a R8 premium.  Otherwise I'd probably have Brodie Smith.

Not convinced Suckers is worth the extra dough.  Webster has a well defined role, SC scoring friendly.

Wats his role batt?
Is he defensive distributer where they try and give him the ball when coming outta def?

Have both for the same reason. Too much uncertainty with back rookies.

Both for me.
Both designated kickers off half back.
Points potential and job security xcellent

Just went Suckling > Webster after having Suckers all pre season. Was never keen on Webster, but having a look at how to spread my byes better, he works better with McVeigh. Simpson, Mitchell, Suckling and maybe Langford was just R9 overkill.
Dropped Pendlebury to Libba and possibly Martin to Roughead for the same reasons.

Webster doesnt have to average as highly to make the same money, and any lost points would probably be made up over the byes anyway. ( hopefully).

I have Suckling, Webster, McDonald & Martin, All starting on the field atm too.

I reckon Suckling. Proven and Hawks will go ok again this season.
Webster unproven and will be up and down

Byes really shouldn't matter in defence. There are enough options to spread the load.

Suckling - should score higher / winning team / proven BUT higher injury concerns

Webster - how much of him have we seen / won't score as much probably but could make the same money so as long as you make up the scoring elsewhere that is not important / JS not certain but should be OK

Both would be fine but I have Suckling as I also really want McDonald so feel my defence looks better by more than I can make up for elsewhere with current structure.

people's thoughts on suckling/webster/mcd at D4/5/6? feels bit too weak on instinct (esp with d swallow at D3)

Quote from: fever on March 13, 2014, 09:41:27 AM
people's thoughts on suckling/webster/mcd at D4/5/6? feels bit too weak on instinct (esp with d swallow at D3)

Have toyed around with this myself, and yeah its too weak for me

Even Suckling at D4 just looks to weak for me. I'm pretty sure I am not going to start with Suckling. When you think about it, his priced the same as Daisy/Shiels/MaCrae/Caddy and I just think he has no where near as much potential as those guys, so 300k+ for a mid pricer just seems too much. I am actually thinking of dropping him all together and going with Webster instead. They both serve the same purpose for me at D5, so might as well save the 70k

i disagree that they serve the same purpose. suckling will almost certainly score a lot more and has outside potential to be a keeper (he was flirting with that status a few years ago iirc).
that said, i do think you make a good argument re midpricers and it may not be worth starting with him dep on the makeup of your side

it only seems weak because we arent used to it.
im taking a risk in the backline as i think its got the lowest avg of all the lines.

got swallow,Suckers & webster
suckers priced @ 58, webs @ 45, if they go 80 (realistically) you can upgrade.
swallow should go 90.

So you guys reckon something like this is OK to start?

McVeigh, Mitchell, Simpson, Suckling, Webster, McDonald (Langford, Rookie)

Not too weak?

I've gone Hurn over Swallow at d3 with Suckling and Webster at d4 & d5 with Martin my d6. Have gone with McDonald in my mids so if any of those don't score as well as I'd like I can chuck McDonald back there, being Langdon on to mid bench and bring Ellis or Dunstan on for McDonald :)

If people are taking Higgins then there's not much argument against Webster at the same price?

Have Suckling Webster McD at D4-6 ATM. Backline is still somewhere to save $$$ as it's the lowest scoring line. As long as 2 of McVeigh,Mitchell,Walker,anyone else who u think will be top 6 are there.

Quote from: ubeaut on March 13, 2014, 10:16:35 AM
If people are taking Higgins then there's not much argument against Webster at the same price?

Have Suckling Webster McD at D4-6 ATM. Backline is still somewhere to save $$$ as it's the lowest scoring line. As long as 2 of McVeigh,Mitchell,Walker,anyone else who u think will be top 6 are there.

higgins and webster are completely different.

always take the player you know who can score but the risk is injury over the player who your not sure if they can score or not.

Webster has shown nothing yet. Even when webster stopped getting the vest he only went 44 50 59 74 35 so a 52.5 average at 240k thats a big no way. Had a good NAB but what happens when stkilda are getting destroyed week in week out.

Suckling for only an extra 70k has gone 91, 83. Not sure why this is even a question. Plays for the best SC team in the comp and the Hawks will share plenty of points.

i have tinkered with my defense a little and gone a little mid priced mad at this stage

really am not happy that suckling is still there ... even dropped swallow this morning ... if all of clurey georgiou and landford get named I think the overhyped suckling will get the chop

90 average when they let him off the leash that year
82 average got more attention this year and showed disgusting scoring to end that year

oh both of these was when he wasn't coming off a knee reconstruction as well  :/ ... OVERHYPED!!!

Quote from: tigertops on March 12, 2014, 09:29:59 PM

Quote from: batt on March 12, 2014, 07:38:34 PM
Webster because my backs are mostly R9/10 so I can use him round 9 as a stepping stone into a R8 premium.  Otherwise I'd probably have Brodie Smith.

Not convinced Suckers is worth the extra dough.  Webster has a well defined role, SC scoring friendly.

Wats his role batt?
Is he defensive distributer where they try and give him the ball when coming outta def?

It looks like he'll be used off half back, may drift onto a wing and may also drift further back into defense.  But for the most part playing HB.

Suckers on the other hand I'm just not sure about. 

I'm taking Webster because I haven't seen anything which would reinforce the idea of Luke McDonald being a good D6. He's not in competition with Suckling for a D5 spot. Really, it should be a question of Webster or McDonald.

I've currently got Suckling, Webster and McDonald as my D5,6,7 but 182 grand is too much to have sitting on the bench I reckon. So it's a question of which one to cull?

Quote from: no eye deer on March 13, 2014, 02:29:20 PM
I've currently got Suckling, Webster and McDonald as my D5,6,7 but 182 grand is too much to have sitting on the bench I reckon. So it's a question of which one to cull?

I had the Same problem, have put McDonald in to mids.

Quote from: batt on March 13, 2014, 01:54:44 PM

Quote from: tigertops on March 12, 2014, 09:29:59 PM

Quote from: batt on March 12, 2014, 07:38:34 PM
Webster because my backs are mostly R9/10 so I can use him round 9 as a stepping stone into a R8 premium.  Otherwise I'd probably have Brodie Smith.

Not convinced Suckers is worth the extra dough.  Webster has a well defined role, SC scoring friendly.

Wats his role batt?
Is he defensive distributer where they try and give him the ball when coming outta def?

It looks like he'll be used off half back, may drift onto a wing and may also drift further back into defense.  But for the most part playing HB.

Suckers on the other hand I'm just not sure about.

This is pretty much Suckling's role as well ;)

Quote from: cortez on March 13, 2014, 02:38:31 PM

Quote from: no eye deer on March 13, 2014, 02:29:20 PM
I've currently got Suckling, Webster and McDonald as my D5,6,7 but 182 grand is too much to have sitting on the bench I reckon. So it's a question of which one to cull?

I had the Same problem, have put McDonald in to mids.

At the expense of who? Too many good mid rooks already, plus I've slotted in Langdon at M10 for DPP.

Quote from: batt on March 13, 2014, 01:54:44 PM

Quote from: tigertops on March 12, 2014, 09:29:59 PM

Quote from: batt on March 12, 2014, 07:38:34 PM
Webster because my backs are mostly R9/10 so I can use him round 9 as a stepping stone into a R8 premium.  Otherwise I'd probably have Brodie Smith.

Not convinced Suckers is worth the extra dough.  Webster has a well defined role, SC scoring friendly.

Wats his role batt?
Is he defensive distributer where they try and give him the ball when coming outta def?

It looks like he'll be used off half back, may drift onto a wing and may also drift further back into defense.  But for the most part playing HB.

Suckers on the other hand I'm just not sure about.

Ok cheers. Sounds decent for SC scoring then

Quote from: Holzman on March 13, 2014, 10:36:31 AM

Quote from: ubeaut on March 13, 2014, 10:16:35 AM
If people are taking Higgins then there's not much argument against Webster at the same price?

Have Suckling Webster McD at D4-6 ATM. Backline is still somewhere to save $$$ as it's the lowest scoring line. As long as 2 of McVeigh,Mitchell,Walker,anyone else who u think will be top 6 are there.

higgins and webster are completely different.

always take the player you know who can score but the risk is injury over the player who your not sure if they can score or not.

Webster has shown nothing yet. Even when webster stopped getting the vest he only went 44 50 59 74 35 so a 52.5 average at 240k thats a big no way. Had a good NAB but what happens when stkilda are getting destroyed week in week out.

Suckling for only an extra 70k has gone 91, 83. Not sure why this is even a question. Plays for the best SC team in the comp and the Hawks will share plenty of points.

[/thread]

I think the real question is if the risk is worth $70k