Tell me what you think

[fezwah]

Hey Guys,
tell me what you think

Defenders

1. Enright, C
2. Hodge, L
3. Gilbee, L
4. Gram, J
5. Krakouer, N
6. Malceski, N
7. Waters, B
23. Maguire, M
24. Davis, P

Midfield
   
8. Ablett, G
9. Swan, D
10. Gibbs, B
11. Armitage, D
12. McVeigh, M
13. Scully, T
25. Trengove, J
26. Shuey, L

Rucks

14. Hille, D   
15. Naitanui, N   
27. Skipper, W
28. Lobbe, M

forwards

16. Riewoldt, N
17. Franklin, L
18. Giansiracusa, D
19. Tippett, K
20. Hall, B
21. Dangerfield, P
22. Ballantyne, H
29. Rockliff, T
30. Podsiadly, J

[ossie85]

that it looks the same as everyone else's team! Very solid

[hespey]

much work to do.

no to starting waters. rest of backline is great.

no to scully and trengove. martin barlow banner jetta and moles all better options.

rucks are average. dont like hille, he is injury risk. nic nat is not a number 1 ruck. lobbe wont play.

fwds are great.

7.5-8/10

[hawk_88]

no to scully and trengove. martin barlow banner jetta and moles all better options.

The fact of the matter is that we really don't know who are better options. What we have to go on is NAB form, which isn't really indicative of the real season. If you want to suggest rookie A over rookie B, you better be ready to eat humble pie later on in the season.

If you want to suggest a player is a better option, explain why, otherwise what reason would anyone have to take your word over someone elses?

[hespey]

hawk. that is true. but why spend an extra 70k-100k on players who we dont know are going to be better options?? seems awfully silly to me. i think if this gentleman trades those two for the cheaper mids, then he will have an extra 200k to upgrade players like waters and danger.

[ossie85]

OR Scully and Trengove could be keepers for the year. I reckon both are more likely to play every game then Moles, Barlow and Jetta (Moles is great, but all 22 rounds?)

[hawk_88]

hawk. that is true. but why spend an extra 70k-100k on players who we dont know are going to be better options?? seems awfully silly to me. i think if this gentleman trades those two for the cheaper mids, then he will have an extra 200k to upgrade players like waters and danger.

Players like Dangerfield and Waters are growth players, not keepers. Generally "upgrading them" is actually a negative action, because you aren't going to get the growth from a player that is 100-200K more expensive.

Now apart from Scully and Trengove being 70K more expensive (which there is a reason for by the way) why would you pick Martin, Banner, Moles and L.Jetta over them? That is the question. Simply saying they are better options doesn't really help anyone.

Take Moles for example, his advantages are that he is mature aged (24yo) and generally older players with more senior experience at a state level preform better from the get go as they have adjusted to an adult level of physicality and pace. He has demonstrated this in NAB games as well. However he is a rookie listed player, which means a long term injury is required for him to be temporarily elevated to the senior list and hence be available for selection, and that is only if he is selected in front of the other rookies to be elevated, which may depend on who was injured. So the chances of him playing 22 games is quite slim.

It doesn't have to be in that depth, but that is useful. It allows people to make educated decisions. I'm not saying you are wrong (or right) but justify why you believe something and, if possible, acknowledge the other side of the coin.