Essendon Dilemma

[Purple 77]

Can you break down for me how you got 215 for Belcho?

Feel like we are getting stiffed here, considering he was picked to be our Number 1 ruck

Yes we have Tippett with DPP, but playing him as ruck then means we are a premo short in the fwd line as well as having to hope that Tippett plays all year

When you have a fully fit list, would you play Isaac Heeney over Tom Bellchambers?

If yes, then Kurt Tippett is your number one ruck.

Which means I put Bellcho as a direct back up (50 points), he was the 35th best ruck, so 300 - 50 - 35 = 215.

Even if Vardy or Griffin was playing, they might even be a better choice then Bellcho IMO

[RaisyDaisy]

Can you break down for me how you got 215 for Belcho?

Feel like we are getting stiffed here, considering he was picked to be our Number 1 ruck

Yes we have Tippett with DPP, but playing him as ruck then means we are a premo short in the fwd line as well as having to hope that Tippett plays all year

When you have a fully fit list, would you play Isaac Heeney over Tom Bellchambers?

If yes, then Kurt Tippett is your number one ruck.

Which means I put Bellcho as a direct back up (50 points), he was the 35th best ruck, so 300 - 50 - 35 = 215.

Even if Vardy or Griffin was playing, they might even be a better choice then Bellcho IMO

RUC: Belcho
FWD: JJK, Tippett, Waite, Heeney

That's our Starting XV

Cant rely on guys like Griffin, Vardy etc because their JS is questionable where as Belly is best 22 which is why we chased him in the first place.

We now have to move Tippett to ruck, and then bring on one of Vardy, Walker, Menzel etc

[Jay]

Bellchambers played 10 games and averaged 62 last year, RD.. I wouldn't say you're being "stiffed".

[Holz]

Can you break down for me how you got 215 for Belcho?

Feel like we are getting stiffed here, considering he was picked to be our Number 1 ruck

Yes we have Tippett with DPP, but playing him as ruck then means we are a premo short in the fwd line as well as having to hope that Tippett plays all year

When you have a fully fit list, would you play Isaac Heeney over Tom Bellchambers?

If yes, then Kurt Tippett is your number one ruck.

Which means I put Bellcho as a direct back up (50 points), he was the 35th best ruck, so 300 - 50 - 35 = 215.

Even if Vardy or Griffin was playing, they might even be a better choice then Bellcho IMO

RUC: Belcho
FWD: JJK, Tippett, Waite, Heeney

That's our Starting XV

Cant rely on guys like Griffin, Vardy etc because their JS is questionable where as Belly is best 22 which is why we chased him in the first place.

We now have to move Tippett to ruck, and then bring on one of Vardy, Walker, Menzel etc

the guy didnt get games when you only had Mckernan. they just added burger. Its a pretty fair comment to say he wouldnt be playing at all unless burger got a LTI.

I would say being able to upgrade a rookie or pick up a top up player and not have him on your list for a year is a benefit to your team.

[RaisyDaisy]

Woosha publicly stated that Belcho and Luey were going to be his ruck combo. He might be useless, but he was and is best 22 every day of the week

I understand he isn't exactly a top scorer and is injury prone, but with so much value being placed on Rucks around here I feel like we are getting short changed when guys like Colyer, Crameri etc are being valued higher

At the end of the day, the top ups are not going to be anywhere near as good as the players we are losing anyway, so us teams that do rely on Essendon players in our best XV are simply going to be at a disadvantage but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. It's just unlucky

[Nige]

At the end of the day, the top ups are not going to be anywhere near as good as the players we are losing anyway, so us teams that do rely on Essendon players in our best XV are simply going to be at a disadvantage but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. It's just unlucky

I don't fully agree with this. I think a guy like Simpkin for example could easily be as good as Hocking and produce a similar or better output. In certains cases like Heppell etc, obviously not, but I don't think it's completely fair apply that to every player.



Also, just to make sure I understand this, because I probably have it wrong, but with losing Colyer and Hocking, we get 2 'top up picks' for them, or 1 top up and 1 rookie promotion?

[RaisyDaisy]

You're not getting Simpkin for Hocking anyway

Moscow, Pacific etc the teams with first picks will get the best of the bunch which are still massive downgrades for them and by the time it gets to you, us etc we won't be getting anyone really SC relevant

It's downgrades for all effected

[Purple 77]

At the end of the day, the top ups are not going to be anywhere near as good as the players we are losing anyway, so us teams that do rely on Essendon players in our best XV are simply going to be at a disadvantage but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. It's just unlucky

I don't fully agree with this. I think a guy like Simpkin for example could easily be as good as Hocking and produce a similar or better output. In certains cases like Heppell etc, obviously not, but I don't think it's completely fair apply that to every player.



Also, just to make sure I understand this, because I probably have it wrong, but with losing Colyer and Hocking, we get 2 'top up picks' for them, or 1 top up and 1 rookie promotion?

If we go this way, 1 top up pick and one rookie promotion

[Memphistopheles]

Based on 2015 averages Crameri would have been our F2 this season.

Hawkins (80), Crameri (73), Reid (73), Bird (72).

Bird should be our F2 given his move to the Bombers so that would make Crameri our F3 and a best XV starter.

I think you have factored this in Purps. Just wanted to point it out.

I highly doubt we'll get anyone remotely useful with Pick 11 in this draft but, that's okay.

The argument from Holz about teams who aren't pushing for flag is bogus as if you're compensating one team you have to do it fairly for everyone.

I assume the rookie promotions are because there are only 12 top-up players allowed so there won't be anyone else to pick from.

Which brings up another point - why do we need to draft every single player Purple? Can't we leave some (maybe two rounds worth) each season in case there needs to be a pick from a top-up pool for any reason (Ess bans, Thomas/Keefe bans etc) and then it also leaves a hidden gem or so for the next season's NAT/Rookie draft.

[meow meow]

but with so much value being placed on Rucks around here

Rucks aren't worth much. 84 average 25 year old isn't even worth pick 12.

[RaisyDaisy]

but with so much value being placed on Rucks around here

Rucks aren't worth much. 84 average 25 year old isn't even worth pick 12.

That chip still on your shoulder?  :P

He is worth 12 now that half their team is suspended and his JS has improved

[DazBurg]

do we take into account people that have players that will nowe gets game that wouldn't have before?
we have non of the suspended players but we did have myers before trading him so just for this example lets say we hadn't traded him

we lose myers but means laverde and zerrett will get more games

or anther way Purps you lost hibberd but hams should get games now (damn you stealing him)
as well as redman may be thrust into it more now then might of been

or mitch brown is definitely going to play more for essendon then if hurley, hooker and pears were playing
again i know not the ruck New York lost but still a positive for the teams rather then not having any other essendon players at all
my point though is the fringe and young essendon players more likely to receive more games then they would of had no players been suspended

so those with players at least getting some positive compared those without other players?

speaking of that purps to make it easier to pinpoint i see you posted the lists after drafting do you still have it in a updated spreadsheet like during trading??

[meow meow]

but with so much value being placed on Rucks around here

Rucks aren't worth much. 84 average 25 year old isn't even worth pick 12.

That chip still on your shoulder?  :P

He is worth 12 now that half their team is suspended and his JS has improved

It'll stay there ALL year since it cost me the chance to compete for the flag. I would have 110 Stefan but instead I've got 0 Watson. McKernan is better than Bellchambers and would have played ahead of him anyway. He played half a season and finished 10th in the B&F so his coaches rate him. If they rate him they'll pick him. He did kick 25 goals and average over 100 DT in the VFL playing predominantly forward too. He's a good player now.

[Purple 77]

Which brings up another point - why do we need to draft every single player Purple? Can't we leave some (maybe two rounds worth) each season in case there needs to be a pick from a top-up pool for any reason (Ess bans, Thomas/Keefe bans etc) and then it also leaves a hidden gem or so for the next season's NAT/Rookie draft.

Fair enough point. I like to draft each player just because they are on an AFL list; to copy the AFL teams' list size. We don't need to, but it's what I would like to do. I like how the hidden gems (ala Mark Blicavs to Mexico City) get drafted to unexpected teams, rather than have them go to waste during the season.

With Keeffe/Thomas, there was no top-up players, but Moscow and Seoul could have promoted a rookie if they wanted to; just like St Kilda, Melbourne, Port and the Dogs, 5 clubs will have that "benefit" as well. I usually lean towards the way the AFL does it; if they bring in a top up player, we will, if they only offer rookie promotions, we will do that too.

Oh yeah, you can choose to promote a rookie instead of drafting a top-up player, for sure. Also, you don't have to promote a rookie right there and then, you can do it at any time of the season, because this rookie will be promoted for the rest of the year.

I like to think this is a one-off scenario were top-up players come in, so I'm hopeful we don't need to keep a "reserve" of two rounds worth of rookie-draft eligible players for situations like this.

But fair enough you bring that up; it's something I kinda decided myself.

do we take into account people that have players that will nowe gets game that wouldn't have before?
we have non of the suspended players but we did have myers before trading him so just for this example lets say we hadn't traded him

we lose myers but means laverde and zerrett will get more games

or anther way Purps you lost hibberd but hams should get games now (damn you stealing him)
as well as redman may be thrust into it more now then might of been

or mitch brown is definitely going to play more for essendon then if hurley, hooker and pears were playing
again i know not the ruck New York lost but still a positive for the teams rather then not having any other essendon players at all
my point though is the fringe and young essendon players more likely to receive more games then they would of had no players been suspended

so those with players at least getting some positive compared those without other players?

speaking of that purps to make it easier to pinpoint i see you posted the lists after drafting do you still have it in a updated spreadsheet like during trading??

No, I haven't brought into account the essendon players that will benefit from the absence of the suspended players; that's just a natural added benefit for those oh so lucky few (like a William Hams owner ;)), so there is that too on top of the top-up players and rookie promotion spots.

.... do you mean, do I have a list of each team after each trade period week? I have a spreadsheet of all the players currently though?

[DazBurg]

Which brings up another point - why do we need to draft every single player Purple? Can't we leave some (maybe two rounds worth) each season in case there needs to be a pick from a top-up pool for any reason (Ess bans, Thomas/Keefe bans etc) and then it also leaves a hidden gem or so for the next season's NAT/Rookie draft.

Fair enough point. I like to draft each player just because they are on an AFL list; to copy the AFL teams' list size. We don't need to, but it's what I would like to do. I like how the hidden gems (ala Mark Blicavs to Mexico City) get drafted to unexpected teams, rather than have them go to waste during the season.

With Keeffe/Thomas, there was no top-up players, but Moscow and Seoul could have promoted a rookie if they wanted to; just like St Kilda, Melbourne, Port and the Dogs, 5 clubs will have that "benefit" as well. I usually lean towards the way the AFL does it; if they bring in a top up player, we will, if they only offer rookie promotions, we will do that too.

Oh yeah, you can choose to promote a rookie instead of drafting a top-up player, for sure. Also, you don't have to promote a rookie right there and then, you can do it at any time of the season, because this rookie will be promoted for the rest of the year.

I like to think this is a one-off scenario were top-up players come in, so I'm hopeful we don't need to keep a "reserve" of two rounds worth of rookie-draft eligible players for situations like this.

But fair enough you bring that up; it's something I kinda decided myself.

do we take into account people that have players that will nowe gets game that wouldn't have before?
we have non of the suspended players but we did have myers before trading him so just for this example lets say we hadn't traded him

we lose myers but means laverde and zerrett will get more games

or anther way Purps you lost hibberd but hams should get games now (damn you stealing him)
as well as redman may be thrust into it more now then might of been

or mitch brown is definitely going to play more for essendon then if hurley, hooker and pears were playing
again i know not the ruck New York lost but still a positive for the teams rather then not having any other essendon players at all
my point though is the fringe and young essendon players more likely to receive more games then they would of had no players been suspended

so those with players at least getting some positive compared those without other players?

speaking of that purps to make it easier to pinpoint i see you posted the lists after drafting do you still have it in a updated spreadsheet like during trading??

No, I haven't brought into account the essendon players that will benefit from the absence of the suspended players; that's just a natural added benefit for those oh so lucky few (like a William Hams owner ;)), so there is that too on top of the top-up players and rookie promotion spots.

.... do you mean, do I have a list of each team after each trade period week? I have a spreadsheet of all the players currently though?

yeah like every week you posted the link to the updated lists on a spreadsheet and just wondered if you had one for after the drafts etc since you posted the thread for the lists after drafting

meh as much as it birns i hope it just means zerrett continues his rise and so does laverde ;)