Which Sydney players you locking in for first two rounds?

[powersuperkents]

Haha any of you guys going to end up keeping your Swan's picks now? Because they most likely won't sky rocket in price like you predicted and there are about 10 better options in all their price ranges for keeps?  ;)

O'keefe, Jack and Mummy were still good picks and they have GC this week. I would keep those 3 if I had them

I don't think they'll score 100 this weekend, it'll most likely be one of them and two different players. They are too unpredictable a team

Like I said I'd only consider them if they had a consistent major ball winner, Jpk gets like 30+ possessions a game and still can't score 100 each week.. You got to admit for someone who manages to easily find the ball that much he is a pretty useless dreamteam player

I think if you want a POD keep the Swans players if you want a consistent scorer upgrade or even downgrade to a proven player :)

[powersuperkents]

I admit JPK would make a great M8 in my team (that's considering Fyfe goes 102-105 or more). But he's behind a fair few players including Dangerfield for that position. ;)

[Ricochet]

Haha any of you guys going to end up keeping your Swan's picks now? Because they most likely won't sky rocket in price like you predicted and there are about 10 better options in all their price ranges for keeps?  ;)

O'keefe, Jack and Mummy were still good picks and they have GC this week. I would keep those 3 if I had them

I don't think they'll score 100 this weekend, it'll most likely be one of them and two different players. They are too unpredictable a team

Like I said I'd only consider them if they had a consistent major ball winner, Jpk gets like 30+ possessions a game and still can't score 100 each week.. You got to admit for someone who manages to easily find the ball that much he is a pretty useless dreamteam player

I think if you want a POD keep the Swans players if you want a consistent scorer upgrade or even downgrade to a proven player :)

Averaged 102 last year... i wouldn't consider him a useless DT player
Also they have GC this week so they have a chance to redeem themselves
All have the ability to go big.

[powersuperkents]

Haha any of you guys going to end up keeping your Swan's picks now? Because they most likely won't sky rocket in price like you predicted and there are about 10 better options in all their price ranges for keeps?  ;)

O'keefe, Jack and Mummy were still good picks and they have GC this week. I would keep those 3 if I had them

I don't think they'll score 100 this weekend, it'll most likely be one of them and two different players. They are too unpredictable a team

Like I said I'd only consider them if they had a consistent major ball winner, Jpk gets like 30+ possessions a game and still can't score 100 each week.. You got to admit for someone who manages to easily find the ball that much he is a pretty useless dreamteam player

I think if you want a POD keep the Swans players if you want a consistent scorer upgrade or even downgrade to a proven player :)

Averaged 102 last year... i wouldn't consider him a useless DT player
Also they have GC this week so they have a chance to redeem themselves
All have the ability to go big.

I think only some of them do man, last time they played GCS 54-126 (the score will not be like that again, I think it'll be a 20-30 point margin man, I'm sorry about this but you've got to be realistic when discussing players)  :-\
McVeigh: 93
Jack: 125
O'Keefe: 131
JPK: 99
Hannebery:90
Goodes: 75

Like I said a lot of 90's and two premium scores, and I'm pretty sure O'Keefe is not highly selected plus the addition of Mumford could have an impact because it creates a lesser chance of the player selected in your team (hypothetically) of being one of those 100+ players. That's why I don't like the Swan only 2 or 3 players score 100+ one week and than a completely different 2 or 3 players will score the 100+ the next week. Like I said good if you want a POD but I don't believe in POD's in the midfield. It's the most important position and it's worth not going cheap over with unproven players. If I was to pick a Swan it would be Towers/Cunningham as a rookie, O'Keefe as a forward (if it was possible I'd have him now!) but this season it would probably be the rookies second (rookies don't tend to fair well dt wise at Sydney :( ) and probably 1st choice would be Mumford (too injury prone), 3rd Adam Goodes. I'd rather free up cash and do better than JPK and Jack in the midfield to inconsistent and can cost you valuable points every second or third week when you really want 100+ week in and week out ;)

[Ricochet]

Haha any of you guys going to end up keeping your Swan's picks now? Because they most likely won't sky rocket in price like you predicted and there are about 10 better options in all their price ranges for keeps?  ;)

O'keefe, Jack and Mummy were still good picks and they have GC this week. I would keep those 3 if I had them

I don't think they'll score 100 this weekend, it'll most likely be one of them and two different players. They are too unpredictable a team

Like I said I'd only consider them if they had a consistent major ball winner, Jpk gets like 30+ possessions a game and still can't score 100 each week.. You got to admit for someone who manages to easily find the ball that much he is a pretty useless dreamteam player

I think if you want a POD keep the Swans players if you want a consistent scorer upgrade or even downgrade to a proven player :)

Averaged 102 last year... i wouldn't consider him a useless DT player
Also they have GC this week so they have a chance to redeem themselves
All have the ability to go big.

I think only some of them do man, last time they played GCS 54-126 (the score will not be like that again, I think it'll be a 20-30 point margin man, I'm sorry about this but you've got to be realistic when discussing players)  :-\
McVeigh: 93
Jack: 125
O'Keefe: 131
JPK: 99
Hannebery:90
Goodes: 75

Like I said a lot of 90's and two premium scores, and I'm pretty sure O'Keefe is not highly selected plus the addition of Mumford could have an impact because it creates a lesser chance of the player selected in your team (hypothetically) of being one of those 100+ players. That's why I don't like the Swan only 2 or 3 players score 100+ one week and than a completely different 2 or 3 players will score the 100+ the next week. Like I said good if you want a POD but I don't believe in POD's in the midfield. It's the most important position and it's worth not going cheap over with unproven players. If I was to pick a Swan it would be Towers/Cunningham as a rookie, O'Keefe as a forward (if it was possible I'd have him now!) but this season it would probably be the rookies second (rookies don't tend to fair well dt wise at Sydney :( ) and probably 1st choice would be Mumford (too injury prone), 3rd Adam Goodes. I'd rather free up cash and do better than JPK and Jack in the midfield to inconsistent and can cost you valuable points every second or third week when you really want 100+ week in and week out ;)

I'm not really sure what your argument is man? Jack's 107 beat some proven players like Murphy, Cotchin, Deledio, Redden, etc.
People picked 1 or 2 Swans to 1) save money to be spent elsewhere for little point loss and 2) get a price rise and bridge the gap between them and the super premiums.
So those that picked Jack, O'keefe or Mummy have done well and their plan is on track.
And with GC next week they could also destroy it. We can't judge a player selection based on one game.

[powersuperkents]

Haha any of you guys going to end up keeping your Swan's picks now? Because they most likely won't sky rocket in price like you predicted and there are about 10 better options in all their price ranges for keeps?  ;)

O'keefe, Jack and Mummy were still good picks and they have GC this week. I would keep those 3 if I had them

I don't think they'll score 100 this weekend, it'll most likely be one of them and two different players. They are too unpredictable a team

Like I said I'd only consider them if they had a consistent major ball winner, Jpk gets like 30+ possessions a game and still can't score 100 each week.. You got to admit for someone who manages to easily find the ball that much he is a pretty useless dreamteam player

I think if you want a POD keep the Swans players if you want a consistent scorer upgrade or even downgrade to a proven player :)

Averaged 102 last year... i wouldn't consider him a useless DT player
Also they have GC this week so they have a chance to redeem themselves
All have the ability to go big.

I think only some of them do man, last time they played GCS 54-126 (the score will not be like that again, I think it'll be a 20-30 point margin man, I'm sorry about this but you've got to be realistic when discussing players)  :-\
McVeigh: 93
Jack: 125
O'Keefe: 131
JPK: 99
Hannebery:90
Goodes: 75

Like I said a lot of 90's and two premium scores, and I'm pretty sure O'Keefe is not highly selected plus the addition of Mumford could have an impact because it creates a lesser chance of the player selected in your team (hypothetically) of being one of those 100+ players. That's why I don't like the Swan only 2 or 3 players score 100+ one week and than a completely different 2 or 3 players will score the 100+ the next week. Like I said good if you want a POD but I don't believe in POD's in the midfield. It's the most important position and it's worth not going cheap over with unproven players. If I was to pick a Swan it would be Towers/Cunningham as a rookie, O'Keefe as a forward (if it was possible I'd have him now!) but this season it would probably be the rookies second (rookies don't tend to fair well dt wise at Sydney :( ) and probably 1st choice would be Mumford (too injury prone), 3rd Adam Goodes. I'd rather free up cash and do better than JPK and Jack in the midfield to inconsistent and can cost you valuable points every second or third week when you really want 100+ week in and week out ;)

I'm not really sure what your argument is man? Jack's 107 beat some proven players like Murphy, Cotchin, Deledio, Redden, etc.
People picked 1 or 2 Swans to 1) save money to be spent elsewhere for little point loss and 2) get a price rise and bridge the gap between them and the super premiums.
So those that picked Jack, O'keefe or Mummy have done well and their plan is on track.
And with GC next week they could also destroy it. We can't judge a player selection based on one game.

haha yeah I know this whole argument was more directed at Noz not anyone else ;) , Who stated "the kingpins of dreamteam are changing". This isn't any gap bridges but players who seriously believed that these guys could hold up against proven guns like Cotchin, Murphy, Redden, Deledio for an overall average.

He literally said

"I deffinetly can see Hannebery moving into the 95-100 PPG bracket this year."

I'm sorry but he has lost all credibility with me because after just one game a 78 isn't really on it's way to proving it.. You got to admit that was a 100% emotionally based prediction, no logic or math at all in it, the guy just wants to discover the next premo hahhaha  ;)

[Ricochet]

Haha any of you guys going to end up keeping your Swan's picks now? Because they most likely won't sky rocket in price like you predicted and there are about 10 better options in all their price ranges for keeps?  ;)

O'keefe, Jack and Mummy were still good picks and they have GC this week. I would keep those 3 if I had them

I don't think they'll score 100 this weekend, it'll most likely be one of them and two different players. They are too unpredictable a team

Like I said I'd only consider them if they had a consistent major ball winner, Jpk gets like 30+ possessions a game and still can't score 100 each week.. You got to admit for someone who manages to easily find the ball that much he is a pretty useless dreamteam player

I think if you want a POD keep the Swans players if you want a consistent scorer upgrade or even downgrade to a proven player :)

Averaged 102 last year... i wouldn't consider him a useless DT player
Also they have GC this week so they have a chance to redeem themselves
All have the ability to go big.

I think only some of them do man, last time they played GCS 54-126 (the score will not be like that again, I think it'll be a 20-30 point margin man, I'm sorry about this but you've got to be realistic when discussing players)  :-\
McVeigh: 93
Jack: 125
O'Keefe: 131
JPK: 99
Hannebery:90
Goodes: 75

Like I said a lot of 90's and two premium scores, and I'm pretty sure O'Keefe is not highly selected plus the addition of Mumford could have an impact because it creates a lesser chance of the player selected in your team (hypothetically) of being one of those 100+ players. That's why I don't like the Swan only 2 or 3 players score 100+ one week and than a completely different 2 or 3 players will score the 100+ the next week. Like I said good if you want a POD but I don't believe in POD's in the midfield. It's the most important position and it's worth not going cheap over with unproven players. If I was to pick a Swan it would be Towers/Cunningham as a rookie, O'Keefe as a forward (if it was possible I'd have him now!) but this season it would probably be the rookies second (rookies don't tend to fair well dt wise at Sydney :( ) and probably 1st choice would be Mumford (too injury prone), 3rd Adam Goodes. I'd rather free up cash and do better than JPK and Jack in the midfield to inconsistent and can cost you valuable points every second or third week when you really want 100+ week in and week out ;)

I'm not really sure what your argument is man? Jack's 107 beat some proven players like Murphy, Cotchin, Deledio, Redden, etc.
People picked 1 or 2 Swans to 1) save money to be spent elsewhere for little point loss and 2) get a price rise and bridge the gap between them and the super premiums.
So those that picked Jack, O'keefe or Mummy have done well and their plan is on track.
And with GC next week they could also destroy it. We can't judge a player selection based on one game.

haha yeah I know this whole argument was more directed at Noz not anyone else ;) , Who stated "the kingpins of dreamteam are changing". This isn't any gap bridges but players who seriously believed that these guys could hold up against proven guns like Cotchin, Murphy, Redden, Deledio for an overall average.

He literally said

"I deffinetly can see Hannebery moving into the 95-100 PPG bracket this year."

I'm sorry but he has lost all credibility with me because after just one game a 78 isn't really on it's way to proving it..

No worries mate, just be careful because it was only one game

[powersuperkents]

Haha any of you guys going to end up keeping your Swan's picks now? Because they most likely won't sky rocket in price like you predicted and there are about 10 better options in all their price ranges for keeps?  ;)

O'keefe, Jack and Mummy were still good picks and they have GC this week. I would keep those 3 if I had them

I don't think they'll score 100 this weekend, it'll most likely be one of them and two different players. They are too unpredictable a team

Like I said I'd only consider them if they had a consistent major ball winner, Jpk gets like 30+ possessions a game and still can't score 100 each week.. You got to admit for someone who manages to easily find the ball that much he is a pretty useless dreamteam player

I think if you want a POD keep the Swans players if you want a consistent scorer upgrade or even downgrade to a proven player :)

Averaged 102 last year... i wouldn't consider him a useless DT player
Also they have GC this week so they have a chance to redeem themselves
All have the ability to go big.

I think only some of them do man, last time they played GCS 54-126 (the score will not be like that again, I think it'll be a 20-30 point margin man, I'm sorry about this but you've got to be realistic when discussing players)  :-\
McVeigh: 93
Jack: 125
O'Keefe: 131
JPK: 99
Hannebery:90
Goodes: 75

Like I said a lot of 90's and two premium scores, and I'm pretty sure O'Keefe is not highly selected plus the addition of Mumford could have an impact because it creates a lesser chance of the player selected in your team (hypothetically) of being one of those 100+ players. That's why I don't like the Swan only 2 or 3 players score 100+ one week and than a completely different 2 or 3 players will score the 100+ the next week. Like I said good if you want a POD but I don't believe in POD's in the midfield. It's the most important position and it's worth not going cheap over with unproven players. If I was to pick a Swan it would be Towers/Cunningham as a rookie, O'Keefe as a forward (if it was possible I'd have him now!) but this season it would probably be the rookies second (rookies don't tend to fair well dt wise at Sydney :( ) and probably 1st choice would be Mumford (too injury prone), 3rd Adam Goodes. I'd rather free up cash and do better than JPK and Jack in the midfield to inconsistent and can cost you valuable points every second or third week when you really want 100+ week in and week out ;)

I'm not really sure what your argument is man? Jack's 107 beat some proven players like Murphy, Cotchin, Deledio, Redden, etc.
People picked 1 or 2 Swans to 1) save money to be spent elsewhere for little point loss and 2) get a price rise and bridge the gap between them and the super premiums.
So those that picked Jack, O'keefe or Mummy have done well and their plan is on track.
And with GC next week they could also destroy it. We can't judge a player selection based on one game.

haha yeah I know this whole argument was more directed at Noz not anyone else ;) , Who stated "the kingpins of dreamteam are changing". This isn't any gap bridges but players who seriously believed that these guys could hold up against proven guns like Cotchin, Murphy, Redden, Deledio for an overall average.

He literally said

"I deffinetly can see Hannebery moving into the 95-100 PPG bracket this year."

I'm sorry but he has lost all credibility with me because after just one game a 78 isn't really on it's way to proving it..

No worries mate, just be careful because it was only one game

haha yeah I know, If by seasons end any of them becomes a kingpin of dreamteam (115+ average(Beams, Boyd, Swan, Ablett status), or Hannebery averages 95-100ppg Noz can fully hold me to that ;) I'll even make a topic called Noz was right. But I still think the the Swan's will perform the same as last year, maybe a little better, maybe a little worse. I can see why people would use them as upgrade targets and like I said before it's more than fair and should still be a good deal especially with players like Jack but O'Keefe the most :) But I don't see any of them as keepers because they shouldn't change that much :)