Essendon Saga in British xv

Started by Ringo, January 12, 2016, 05:00:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

nostradamus

l tend to agree with Spite, it does seem inconsistent and a bit unfair.

I also agree with Rids comments and suggestion, simple and fair.

At Grope Lane we knew the inherent risk with trading in Melksham, so stiff bikkies for us. Every other coach (who now has Essendon player(s) on their list) has known for years of the potential for serious sanctions and has chosen to either keep or trade in Bomber players, an informed conscious decision.

Pkbaldy

Just had a chat with Nige on facey... And I can see his pain.. even though i myself still see it as a LTI sort of thing. Except we suspected this COULD happen.

If we do this mini draft thing, we MUST be picking from that same position. So the ranking system in that form is pretty useless...

Based on avgs, team value, and positioning value.

Mid;
Dyson Heppell  Liverpool Rams (Mid only)
Jobe Watson    Huddersfield Hawks (Mid only)
Paddy Ryder    Blackpool Bunnies ( Ruck or Fwd only)
Cale Hooker      Wrexham Knights (Def or Fwd only)
Michael Hurley   Hastings Hurricanes (Def only)
Brent Stanton  Hebden Bridge Hedgehogs (Mid Only)
Josh Thomas Hebden Bridge Hedgehogs (Mid or Fwd only)
Michael Hibberd  Winchester Werewolves (Def only)
Ben Howlett     Birmingham Dragons (Mid only)
Stewart Crameri Bradford Badgers (Fwd only)
Jake Carlisle       Blackpool Bunnies (Fwd or Def only)
Travis Colyer     Wrexham Knights (Fwd only)
Tom Bellchambers Birmingham Dragons (Ruck only)
Heath Hocking  Blackpool Bunnies (Mid only)
Jake Melksham   Grope Lane Giants (Mid or Fwd only)
David Myers        Winchester Werewolves (Mid only)
Angus Monfries  Hastings Hurricanes ( Fwd only)
Tayte Pears       Birmingham Dragons (Def only)

So don't go sooking saying like "Bellchambers is worth more then Colyer" like it doesn't matter, Wrexham can't pick a ruckmen, and Birmingham can't pick a fwd. So it's pointless for those arguments.

Nige

Cheers, that's kinda what I was getting at.

nostradamus

hmmmmm Melksham goes from 10th on Ringo's list to 15th on pk's  :o

GoLions

Quote from: nostradamus on January 13, 2016, 12:31:54 PM
hmmmmm Melksham goes from 10th on Ringo's list to 15th on pk's  :o
Melk doesn't go great compared to the others here under Ringos proposed scoring system

nostradamus

Quote from: GoLions on January 13, 2016, 12:34:04 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on January 13, 2016, 12:31:54 PM
hmmmmm Melksham goes from 10th on Ringo's list to 15th on pk's  :o
Melk doesn't go great compared to the others here under Ringos proposed scoring system

l thought importance to team was a factor too, currently on our team thread Melksham is M2 ........... realistically though he is M3 behind Zaka in our midfield.

Pkbaldy

Quote from: nostradamus on January 13, 2016, 12:31:54 PM
hmmmmm Melksham goes from 10th on Ringo's list to 15th on pk's  :o

Well technically he's 12th. As Hurley, Hibberd and Bellchambers don't effect his positioning.

nostradamus

Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 13, 2016, 12:50:46 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on January 13, 2016, 12:31:54 PM
hmmmmm Melksham goes from 10th on Ringo's list to 15th on pk's  :o

Well technically he's 12th. As Hurley, Hibberd and Bellchambers don't effect his positioning.

well technically he was 8th on Ringo's list on the same standards then.........either way, still 50% further down your list

GoLions

Quote from: nostradamus on January 13, 2016, 12:56:33 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 13, 2016, 12:50:46 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on January 13, 2016, 12:31:54 PM
hmmmmm Melksham goes from 10th on Ringo's list to 15th on pk's  :o

Well technically he's 12th. As Hurley, Hibberd and Bellchambers don't effect his positioning.

well technically he was 8th on Ringo's list on the same standards then.........either way, still 50% further down your list
Ringo also used ladder position I believe, me and pk weren't. The way I see it, ladder position shouldn't matter, because the teams pushing for a flag getting hurt is just as important as the lower teams getting hurt by this situation as well. Just my opinion though.

Pkbaldy

Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 13, 2016, 11:14:32 AM
Just had a chat with Nige on facey... And I can see his pain.. even though i myself still see it as a LTI sort of thing. Except we suspected this COULD happen.

If we do this mini draft thing, we MUST be picking from that same position. So the ranking system in that form is pretty useless...

Based on avgs, team value, and positioning value.

Mid;
Dyson Heppell  Liverpool Rams (Mid only) (131avg)
Jobe Watson    Huddersfield Hawks (Mid only) (114avg) Would be much higher without injury year imo.
Paddy Ryder    Blackpool Bunnies ( Ruck or Fwd only) (97avg)
Cale Hooker      Wrexham Knights (Def or Fwd only) (107avg)
Michael Hurley   Hastings Hurricanes (Def only) (101avg)
Brent Stanton  Hebden Bridge Hedgehogs (Mid Only) (121avg)
Josh Thomas Hebden Bridge Hedgehogs (Mid or Fwd only)
Michael Hibberd  Winchester Werewolves (Def only) (91avg)
Ben Howlett     Birmingham Dragons (Mid only) (95avg)
Stewart Crameri Bradford Badgers (Fwd only) (92avg)
Jake Carlisle       Blackpool Bunnies (Fwd or Def only) (83avg)
Travis Colyer     Wrexham Knights (Fwd only) (84avg)
Tom Bellchambers Birmingham Dragons (Ruck only)
Jake Melksham   Grope Lane Giants (Mid or Fwd only) (82avg)
Heath Hocking  Blackpool Bunnies (Mid only) (79avg)
David Myers        Winchester Werewolves (Mid only)
Angus Monfries  Hastings Hurricanes ( Fwd only)
Tayte Pears       Birmingham Dragons (Def only)

So don't go sooking saying like "Bellchambers is worth more then Colyer" like it doesn't matter, Wrexham can't pick a ruckmen, and Birmingham can't pick a fwd. So it's pointless for those arguments.

I actually stuffed up before. Melks was supposed to be above Hocking. The scores bolded are excluding Free Againsts. Feel free to re-check them. I've just done these at work.

Pkbaldy

And to add what other elite players are at, Dangerfield is about 152 (Loses 24 points from UP but gains 16 from Clangers), and Pendlebury is 136 (Loses 36 points from UP but gains 10 from Clangers). UP are going to be more damaging then I thought :P But only being 5 points different from Heppell... It's a HUGE loss for Nige. 

Rids

Melksham is irrelevant anyway to this discussion.

There cant be much left in the pool to draft from. And how this is meant to help a team losing a best 22 player is lost on me totally.

The best bet is allow the coaches to cover for who they have lost by extra movements. As I said before, there is no need to over complicate things for this.

Rids

Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 13, 2016, 01:33:54 PM
And to add what other elite players are at, Dangerfield is about 152 (Loses 24 points from UP but gains 16 from Clangers), and Pendlebury is 136 (Loses 36 points from UP but gains 10 from Clangers). UP are going to be more damaging then I thought :P But only being 5 points different from Heppell... It's a HUGE loss for Nige.



Yes it is a huge loss for Nige but how does getting the number 1 pick of the left overs help? At least if he has extra movements he can then go and trade for a replacement etc.

GoLions

Quote from: Rids on January 13, 2016, 01:34:07 PM
The best bet is allow the coaches to cover for who they have lost by extra movements. As I said before, there is no need to over complicate things for this.
I said this ages ago, PM'd Ringo the same thing. We still have the rest of the trade period for coaches to try and fix (to an extent) the situation they've been left in if they don't believe they can cover it at the moment.

nostradamus

Quote from: GoLions on January 13, 2016, 01:39:15 PM
Quote from: Rids on January 13, 2016, 01:34:07 PM
The best bet is allow the coaches to cover for who they have lost by extra movements. As I said before, there is no need to over complicate things for this.
I said this ages ago, PM'd Ringo the same thing. We still have the rest of the trade period for coaches to try and fix (to an extent) the situation they've been left in if they don't believe they can cover it at the moment.

This is definately the way we should