Essendon Saga in British xv

[nostradamus]

Curious as to the method of deciding order.

On page one Melksham was listed as 10th, since then I've seen him listed as 15th on pk's list and now he's 13th on this latest one.

Just seems a bit all over the shop, some transperancy might help.

[GoLions]

Curious as to the method of deciding order.

On page one Melksham was listed as 10th, since then I've seen him listed as 15th on pk's list and now he's 13th on this latest one.

Just seems a bit all over the shop, some transperancy might help.

Because we worked out what his avg would be with the proposed scoring sytem, and it's not great (in comparison to the guys above him anyway)

[nostradamus]

ok, so there's no factoring in relative importance of the effected players to each team?

**also thought l saw it mentioned that Melksham averaged more than Hocking

[GoLions]

ok, so there's no factoring in relative importance of the effected players to each team?

**also thought l saw it mentioned that Melksham averaged more than Hocking

Melksham 106, Hocking 124

EDIT: And I don't know if we're factoring importance to each team

[nostradamus]

ok, so there's no factoring in relative importance of the effected players to each team?

**also thought l saw it mentioned that Melksham averaged more than Hocking

Melksham 106, Hocking 124

EDIT: And I don't know if we're factoring importance to each team

Thanks for clearing that up for us GL, do appreciate it.

Really do hope there is some "relative importance" factoring done..........I'm sure Melksham was more important to our team than some of those above him were to theirs.

[Ringo]

Not factoring importance to Teams due to the fact we are drafting like for like so using projected averages under new scoring system is the best we can do.

[nostradamus]

Not factoring importance to Teams due to the fact we are drafting like for like so using projected averages under new scoring system is the best we can do.

Oh well not to worry, it's not like we're a threat anyway

[Spite]

Stanton should be above Watson. He's younger and averaged more last season and was pick 6 in the first ever draft so can't say Watson just had a bad year, because Stanton did too and gets affected by Watson missing

[iZander]

Stanton should be above Watson. He's younger and averaged more last season and was pick 6 in the first ever draft so can't say Watson just had a bad year, because Stanton did too and gets affected by Watson missing

I agree with you, but Stanton had his best year based on DT average, which id assume would translate to this format.

[JBs-Hawks]

Stanton should be above Watson. He's younger and averaged more last season and was pick 6 in the first ever draft so can't say Watson just had a bad year, because Stanton did too and gets affected by Watson missing

Age doesnt mean shower when there both banned for one season only.

And everyone knows if both were fit for this season Watson would average more in this format.

[Spite]

Stanton should be above Watson. He's younger and averaged more last season and was pick 6 in the first ever draft so can't say Watson just had a bad year, because Stanton did too and gets affected by Watson missing

Age doesnt mean shower when there both banned for one season only.

And everyone knows if both were fit for this season Watson would average more in this format.

I agree about the age, I just wanted to say it because someone is going to bring it up at some stage about other players.

I don't agree with the second part, we picked Stanton at pick 6 originally because he averaged the 6th most amount of points in the sportal scoring system. Which was more than Watson. So no there's no guarantee that Watson would have, could have, should have scored more, can't base the mini draft order based on those, just by cold hard facts. And stants averaged more than Watson period.

[Ringo]

Have switched Watson and Stanton in the order based on proposed projected scoring from averages.

[Rids]

I am not too worried about our position but do think it is odd that the player's relevance to their team isnt taken into consideration. Melksham had a down 2015 no doubt about it but he would have been close to being best XV for the Giants where I think a few other guys listed above him wouldnt be best XV.

Anyways, not sure there is a right or wrong way to do the order but wanted to make sure I expressed this.

[Ringo]

Just remember you still have trade period 2 open to rectify. 

Just to re-iterate
Coaches will have the option to rectify during the remaining trade period 2.
Trading rules will be relaxed a little in that if trading for the like position for a suspended player it will not count as a movement.
I would expect coaches to take advantage of this relaxation to strengthen teams and expect other coaches to try and accommodate as much as possible.
As administrator when assessing trades will take team situations into consideration.

To date have not seen a lot of action in trade period 2 despite the concessions.

[GoLions]

I've been working on it :P