Jaeger O’Meara

[RaisyDaisy]

wines libba crouch scooter JOM wells simpkin luey all in my team at the moment, I'm happy as larry.

Helluva lot of risk there

Dump Scooter - doubtful to be fit by rd1 and not a lock for the 22

[hawkboy80]

wines libba crouch scooter JOM wells simpkin luey all in my team at the moment, I'm happy as larry.

Helluva lot of risk there

Dump Scooter - doubtful to be fit by rd1 and not a lock for the 22

u can add luey to that last quote too

[Capper]

Why not start all 3? If one of them fails then downgrade/corrective trade to Mills  Hopper etc

At their prices they are musts if they line up rd1

Don't mind the idea of a corrective trade at all

My query is ... If we select all 3, I feel we select all 3 as season keepers. I think a majority would have omeara at m7 ... to become full premium we would only have 1 place for an upgrade in our midfields which would probably be a Fyfe or Dangerfield type whom most see as upgrade targets

Most likely omeara becomes a season keeper but as an m9???

Crouch and O'Meara I am intent on trading, whether that is in round 1 or 7 or 15 will be decided by their scores

Yeah, they're like 300k! If they avg 100, they make about 200k I assume? That's definitely worth starting, then require only 50-100k for a super premium. Even Libba I don't mind if I have to trade, but if he scores well enough he'll be a great M8.

Not quite.
For Libba to make 150k he needs to average 105 over 10 rounds, 156k max. If he averages 103, he never generates 150k. 
Crouch @ 105 hits +150k after 7 rounds, 196k max.
O'Meara @105 hits +150k after 6 rounds, 200k after 11, 206k max.
**Assuming no massive scores lift their rolling average etc.

So in summary, Libba is picked as a keeper, Crouch/O'Meara could be stepping stones.
*Credit: KLo30

I'd be interested to see something similar for 95averages if you have them man??

95 i'm not sure, but:
A 300k player averaging 90 takes 9 rounds to make 130k and then evens out, peaking at 138k after 14 rounds.

In comparison, a rookie (117k) averaging 60 hits 159k in the same 9 rounds, peaking at 166k after 14.

and a 70 ave rookie?
With the sub rule gone we could get some decent scoring rookies this year

Thanks man

if liba, jom and Crouch are averaging over 100, why would you trade them out?

[Ringo]

Comment from Eade in todays press "Eade expects O'Meara to be fit for Round 1 but whether in AFL or NEAFL would not say."

So may not be the lock for Rd 1.

[MC]

Why not start all 3? If one of them fails then downgrade/corrective trade to Mills  Hopper etc

At their prices they are musts if they line up rd1

Don't mind the idea of a corrective trade at all

My query is ... If we select all 3, I feel we select all 3 as season keepers. I think a majority would have omeara at m7 ... to become full premium we would only have 1 place for an upgrade in our midfields which would probably be a Fyfe or Dangerfield type whom most see as upgrade targets

Most likely omeara becomes a season keeper but as an m9???

Crouch and O'Meara I am intent on trading, whether that is in round 1 or 7 or 15 will be decided by their scores

Yeah, they're like 300k! If they avg 100, they make about 200k I assume? That's definitely worth starting, then require only 50-100k for a super premium. Even Libba I don't mind if I have to trade, but if he scores well enough he'll be a great M8.

Not quite.
For Libba to make 150k he needs to average 105 over 10 rounds, 156k max. If he averages 103, he never generates 150k. 
Crouch @ 105 hits +150k after 7 rounds, 196k max.
O'Meara @105 hits +150k after 6 rounds, 200k after 11, 206k max.
**Assuming no massive scores lift their rolling average etc.

So in summary, Libba is picked as a keeper, Crouch/O'Meara could be stepping stones.
*Credit: KLo30

I'd be interested to see something similar for 95averages if you have them man??

95 i'm not sure, but:
A 300k player averaging 90 takes 9 rounds to make 130k and then evens out, peaking at 138k after 14 rounds.

In comparison, a rookie (117k) averaging 60 hits 159k in the same 9 rounds, peaking at 166k after 14.

and a 70 ave rookie?
With the sub rule gone we could get some decent scoring rookies this year

Thanks man

if liba, jom and Crouch are averaging over 100, why would you trade them out?

I have two answers to this question:
1. Exactly! If JOM or Crouch are averaging say, 101 or 102, do you trade them? You're bleeding points with a mid ranked around 40th or 50th but probably won't trade because you have bigger fish to fry. It leaves you in a pretty average spot.
2. Because the best mids will be up at around 120, and you perhaps could afford the luxury at some point.

[Holz]

Why not start all 3? If one of them fails then downgrade/corrective trade to Mills  Hopper etc

At their prices they are musts if they line up rd1

Don't mind the idea of a corrective trade at all

My query is ... If we select all 3, I feel we select all 3 as season keepers. I think a majority would have omeara at m7 ... to become full premium we would only have 1 place for an upgrade in our midfields which would probably be a Fyfe or Dangerfield type whom most see as upgrade targets

Most likely omeara becomes a season keeper but as an m9???

Crouch and O'Meara I am intent on trading, whether that is in round 1 or 7 or 15 will be decided by their scores

Yeah, they're like 300k! If they avg 100, they make about 200k I assume? That's definitely worth starting, then require only 50-100k for a super premium. Even Libba I don't mind if I have to trade, but if he scores well enough he'll be a great M8.

Not quite.
For Libba to make 150k he needs to average 105 over 10 rounds, 156k max. If he averages 103, he never generates 150k. 
Crouch @ 105 hits +150k after 7 rounds, 196k max.
O'Meara @105 hits +150k after 6 rounds, 200k after 11, 206k max.
**Assuming no massive scores lift their rolling average etc.

So in summary, Libba is picked as a keeper, Crouch/O'Meara could be stepping stones.
*Credit: KLo30

I'd be interested to see something similar for 95averages if you have them man??

95 i'm not sure, but:
A 300k player averaging 90 takes 9 rounds to make 130k and then evens out, peaking at 138k after 14 rounds.

In comparison, a rookie (117k) averaging 60 hits 159k in the same 9 rounds, peaking at 166k after 14.

and a 70 ave rookie?
With the sub rule gone we could get some decent scoring rookies this year

Thanks man

if liba, jom and Crouch are averaging over 100, why would you trade them out?

I have two answers to this question:
1. Exactly! If JOM or Crouch are averaging say, 101 or 102, do you trade them? You're bleeding points with a mid ranked around 40th or 50th but probably won't trade because you have bigger fish to fry. It leaves you in a pretty average spot.
2. Because the best mids will be up at around 120, and you perhaps could afford the luxury at some point.

they are stepping stones. if you want to get fyfe after he gets he starts a tiny bit slow in my opinion its tough to do with a rookie but easy to do with crouch.

Im only going 3 premos in the mids but plan on turning crouch libba into fyfe beams etc.. in the first 8 rounds. Yes you are using trades but it takes 3 trades to turn a rookie into a super premo and only 2 to turn a stepping stone into a super premo. Also i have 4 premo already up front and in defence with 2 in the ruck. So only need 4 outside the mids. with the 2 stepping stones that 5 premo mids so only 3 more needed.

[MC]

Yes that sounds good in theory, but all it takes is for a rd 3 shocker from either of those two blokes (who aren't 100%) for your plan to go up in flames, with 2 trades becoming 4. I don't agree with your two trade idea anyway, can't see them being straight swaps at any point of the year, barring first qtr concussions from Beams/Fyfe. Unless you meant two trades per super-prem? In which case i'd argue that picking two awesome rookies would provide the same result. 

[Big Mac]

Yes that sounds good in theory, but all it takes is for a rd 3 shocker from either of those two blokes (who aren't 100%) for your plan to go up in flames, with 2 trades becoming 4. I don't agree with your two trade idea anyway, can't see them being straight swaps at any point of the year, barring first qtr concussions from Beams/Fyfe. Unless you meant two trades per super-prem? In which case i'd argue that picking two awesome rookies would provide the same result.

I think he means 2 trades per super-prem upgrade

Yes, picking two awesome rookies instead would be ideal, but chances are he already has 4-5 other mid rookies. The chances of the 6th and 7th best mid rookies also being 'awesome' would be incredibly low

[cortez]

going with Libba, Jager and Crouch.
All should average 90+ and should be great to upgrade to super prems halfway through the year.
If they get injured then they get injured. just need a bit of luck

[DaveElNacho]

if liba, jom and Crouch are averaging over 100, why would you trade them out?

I have two answers to this question:
1. Exactly! If JOM or Crouch are averaging say, 101 or 102, do you trade them? You're bleeding points with a mid ranked around 40th or 50th but probably won't trade because you have bigger fish to fry. It leaves you in a pretty average spot.
2. Because the best mids will be up at around 120, and you perhaps could afford the luxury at some point.

I disagree that you're necessarily bleeding points. You could actually be doing quite well points per dollar.

Crouch and O'meara cost about 622k and you'd hope for atleast 190 points between them.
Otherwise you can pick a 600k premo and a rookie which for arguments sake gets you 190 points as well. But you've spent an extra 100k minimum.
So how does the midprice team spend the extra 100k?
How much money does the premo team get from the extra rookie?
What does the midprice team do with Crouch and JOM towards the end of the season?

Lots of variables. But if you think Crouch and JOM will average well and play lots of games then they're good picks.

[_wato]

Never thought of it that way.

$622k for 180-220 points per week. Will not get that value anywhere else.

Rookie min $117k so only really have $505k to spend if trying to compare. Rookie averages say 65, so you need to find a a player who can average at minimum 115 for $505k, also won't find a player who could do that. Even though yes, the rookie will increase at price, let's say +$200k that amounts to $330-340k plus your initial premium of $600k. So to start your $100k-200k down, more so $200k. Probably won't make that money back as JOM/Crouch should both get to $450-500k. So then the question is, would you rather consistent scoring from two young but future elites, or a captain score and high inconsistentcy, as well as a saved trade. So for an extra $150-200k in my starting team, and we all say trades are worth that much, then I can't see myself not picking both if fit.

Plus who's not to say the rookie who looked good in NAB and plays Round 1 is dropped because well he's a rookie and JS is low. JOM & Crouch will both play every game if fit.

[Football Factory]

Comment from Eade in todays press "Eade expects O'Meara to be fit for Round 1 but whether in AFL or NEAFL would not say."

So may not be the lock for Rd 1.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-11/young-sun-star-omeara-is-in-no-hurry-to-return

[MC]

Never thought of it that way.

$622k for 180-220 points per week. Will not get that value anywhere else.

Rookie min $117k so only really have $505k to spend if trying to compare. Rookie averages say 65, so you need to find a a player who can average at minimum 115 for $505k, also won't find a player who could do that. Even though yes, the rookie will increase at price, let's say +$200k that amounts to $330-340k plus your initial premium of $600k. So to start your $100k-200k down, more so $200k. Probably won't make that money back as JOM/Crouch should both get to $450-500k. So then the question is, would you rather consistent scoring from two young but future elites, or a captain score and high inconsistentcy, as well as a saved trade. So for an extra $150-200k in my starting team, and we all say trades are worth that much, then I can't see myself not picking both if fit.

Plus who's not to say the rookie who looked good in NAB and plays Round 1 is dropped because well he's a rookie and JS is low. JOM & Crouch will both play every game if fit.

I think you're being a bit optimistic with your scoring predictions for the pair. Your minimum of 180 suggests 90 each, which I think is actually pretty optimistic (early on in the season) in itself. The top end of 220 means you expect Libba to match his best season and Crouch/JOM to exceed theirs by 10+ points, a year after a serious injury. I think by the mid-point of the season they will be lucky to combine for that 180.

When Libba averaged 110 he had Minson in his best season feeding it down his throat, who rucks at the Doggies now? Jordan Spud Roughead? For those who remember, when Minno had a stinker, so did Libba!

Wines at 520k is a fair/good chance to go for 110, meaning you need 70 from a rookie, which is certainly attaniable.

In summary, choosing one of these mid-priced blokes could work out to be the best decision of the year. If any one of the three stands out to the point where it would be stupid to avoid them, then i'll jump on with the rest. However, I can't foresee any of the three waltzing back into the AFL and destroying it straight away, meaning I will be avoiding the carnage as it stands. Choosing 3 would be absolute madness I think, two not much better.

[YoungGun]

wines libba crouch scooter JOM wells simpkin luey all in my team at the moment, I'm happy as larry.

Helluva lot of risk there

Dump Scooter - doubtful to be fit by rd1 and not a lock for the 22

didn't realise scooter still having injury issues - love the bloke. the year he has a full pre season he is in my team.

pretty keen on leuey wells simpkin wines and the 3 common midpricers

[Torpedo10]

Never thought of it that way.

$622k for 180-220 points per week. Will not get that value anywhere else.

Rookie min $117k so only really have $505k to spend if trying to compare. Rookie averages say 65, so you need to find a a player who can average at minimum 115 for $505k, also won't find a player who could do that. Even though yes, the rookie will increase at price, let's say +$200k that amounts to $330-340k plus your initial premium of $600k. So to start your $100k-200k down, more so $200k. Probably won't make that money back as JOM/Crouch should both get to $450-500k. So then the question is, would you rather consistent scoring from two young but future elites, or a captain score and high inconsistentcy, as well as a saved trade. So for an extra $150-200k in my starting team, and we all say trades are worth that much, then I can't see myself not picking both if fit.

Plus who's not to say the rookie who looked good in NAB and plays Round 1 is dropped because well he's a rookie and JS is low. JOM & Crouch will both play every game if fit.

I think you're being a bit optimistic with your scoring predictions for the pair. Your minimum of 180 suggests 90 each, which I think is actually pretty optimistic (early on in the season) in itself. The top end of 220 means you expect Libba to match his best season and Crouch/JOM to exceed theirs by 10+ points, a year after a serious injury. I think by the mid-point of the season they will be lucky to combine for that 180.

When Libba averaged 110 he had Minson in his best season feeding it down his throat, who rucks at the Doggies now? Jordan Spud Roughead? For those who remember, when Minno had a stinker, so did Libba!

Wines at 520k is a fair/good chance to go for 110, meaning you need 70 from a rookie, which is certainly attaniable.

In summary, choosing one of these mid-priced blokes could work out to be the best decision of the year. If any one of the three stands out to the point where it would be stupid to avoid them, then i'll jump on with the rest. However, I can't foresee any of the three waltzing back into the AFL and destroying it straight away, meaning I will be avoiding the carnage as it stands. Choosing 3 would be absolute madness I think, two not much better.

If they all go 95 from the start though, how far ahead does that put you? Quite significantly I'd imagine.