Ruckmen scoring low! Perhaps it's not a good idea to outlay 600k+ for Jacobs etc

ScottieD · April 04, 2015, 10:55:58 PM

No ruckman has reached 3 figures yet (in 5 games).

New SC scoring rule for ruckmen has really impacted their scores. NicNat's stats read like a 150 for him rather than 92 (15 possessions, 14 of them contested, 1 straight goal and 38 hitouts).

I know Jacobs had the most hitouts to advantage last year - but he'll certainly need to keep that up.

Bully · April 04, 2015, 11:02:44 PM

I was shocked by Nic Nats score, watched the game and thought he had way more HOTA than he was credited for. Belly scored 82 by comparison and I thought he was ordinary.

Glad I went with budget priced rucks, this new rule is a game changer, particularly the way it's interpreted.

Mat0369 · April 04, 2015, 11:05:01 PM

Bellcho had a lot of HOTA in the first half, he slowed down big time in the 2nd half and then was helped late in the game by the weighting on touches etc. I didn't see the Eagles game so I can't comment but it is good to see Nic Nat killed it.

Bully · April 04, 2015, 11:08:52 PM

Quote from: Mat0369 on April 04, 2015, 11:05:01 PM
Bellcho had a lot of HOTA in the first half, he slowed down big time in the 2nd half and then was helped late in the game by the weighting on touches etc. I didn't see the Eagles game so I can't comment but it is good to see Nic Nat killed it.

Played really well,he seemed to be the only one trying in the last quarter (McGovern aside). I also think he didn't get many of the party points in the last, most of those went to Doggies. I'm still happy I have him in the side.

AaronKirk · April 04, 2015, 11:10:10 PM

Belly was very good in the first half and then fell away- can only improve, satisfied with the 82

Didn't watch the dogs v eagles but ill take the 92 for Nic Nat

ScottieD · April 04, 2015, 11:22:25 PM

Actually on further examination, NN had 0 marks (unusual for him) and only 4 kicks (11 handballs) with 3 clangers. Perhaps all the ruckmen have just had quiet games so far. None of the real premiums have played yet (sorry Maric owners).

Bully · April 04, 2015, 11:25:38 PM

Quote from: ScottieD on April 04, 2015, 11:22:25 PM
Actually on further examination, NN had 0 marks (unusual for him) and only 4 kicks (11 handballs) with 3 clangers. Perhaps all the ruckmen have just had quiet games so far. None of the real premiums have played yet (sorry Maric owners).

Goldy versus Jacobs will be interesting, if they nullify each other the scoring could be ordinary.

frenzy · April 04, 2015, 11:29:34 PM

Leueyberger was rotting in the forward line in the first half and stef martin was getting towelled up by Grundy. Then leuey went into the ruck and did quite well finished on 106 SC, then got scaled back to 96. but still ok.

eaglesman · April 04, 2015, 11:30:07 PM

I agree ... Nic nat I was sure would crack the 100 from that game ... Feeling a little nervous about having Mumford ... But against just longer surely he belts him ... Sticking the C On him

RaisyDaisy · April 05, 2015, 12:05:45 AM

Yeah the rule change is definitely having an impact

I watched the game and NicNat was very good. When he was in the ruck he was just dominant, and those stats are better than 92 usually, but the rules have changed

I thought Maric was pretty damn good on Thursday too and he only scored 80odd

Very early stages, but from what I've seen so far I'm glad I spent less than 800k in the rucks and picked NicNat and Belly

Mat0369 · April 05, 2015, 03:26:53 AM

Quote from: ScottieD on April 04, 2015, 11:22:25 PM
Actually on further examination, NN had 0 marks (unusual for him) and only 4 kicks (11 handballs) with 3 clangers. Perhaps all the ruckmen have just had quiet games so far. None of the real premiums have played yet (sorry Maric owners).

It actually isn't. One of the big criticisms of Nic Nat is the fact he doesn't take many marks

Hoggyz_a_legend · April 05, 2015, 06:43:41 AM

I've got Mummy as C today against Saints. Coud go 140+ quite easily against Longer, Bruce, and whoever else will pinch hit.

Footyrulz · April 05, 2015, 07:37:55 AM

Well if the top scoring ruckmen are gonna score worse, then so are the cheap ruckmen!

You can't win either way, but Jacobs will be affected less cause he's so effective, so basing it purely that, he's the best ruck pick.

ossie85 · April 05, 2015, 07:39:58 AM

Liking my Luey Bellchambers combo, but only round 1

LordSneeze · April 05, 2015, 10:14:47 AM

Im tempted to drop Goldy for Ryder. Rucks just aren't getting the points so he may be worth the risk at a slightly cheaper price.
Would also allow Bartel to Gray and Shaw to Smith.