Conca anyone?

[RaisyDaisy]

If Petracca doesn't play round 1 he is the guy I will use to loophole early. I can use him in the midfield or forward line. He's going to get games at some point so I'll keep him

Will probably end up doing the same, especially if a cheap r3 lines up rd1

[Bully]

Good signs, Conca working into to some nice form tonight.

[eaglesman]

With Petracca looking very doubtful, Conca is edging closer to my starting team. Will be hoping for some other rookies but if not, I'll go with another mid-pricer.

Still can't work out why

[Bully]

With Petracca looking very doubtful, Conca is edging closer to my starting team. Will be hoping for some other rookies but if not, I'll go with another mid-pricer.

Still can't work out why

F5 & F6 will make or break the season for many, I've been over this numerous times but if a decent rookie doesn't emerge then it will have to be a mid-pricer. You think Anderson & Simpkin are better and maybe you are correct, however I think you're underestimating Conca.

[eaglesman]

With Petracca looking very doubtful, Conca is edging closer to my starting team. Will be hoping for some other rookies but if not, I'll go with another mid-pricer.

Still can't work out why

F5 & F6 will make or break the season for many, I've been over this numerous times but if a decent rookie doesn't emerge then it will have to be a mid-pricer. You think Anderson & Simpkin are better and maybe you are correct, however I think you're underestimating Conca.

You are a good judge so there is a chance I'll be wrong.
But I will be extremely surprised! Good luck with it

[ubeaut]

With Petracca looking very doubtful, Conca is edging closer to my starting team. Will be hoping for some other rookies but if not, I'll go with another mid-pricer.

Still can't work out why

F5 & F6 will make or break the season for many, I've been over this numerous times but if a decent rookie doesn't emerge then it will have to be a mid-pricer. You think Anderson & Simpkin are better and maybe you are correct, however I think you're underestimating Conca.

Have to agree. Conca is a decent player and with a little luck with role and opportunity... Tigers to do well again IMO if only he was 50 K cheaper...

[Mat0369]

So you can effectively start one of Simpkin/Wells who are cheaper then Conca and have Kerridge at F6. Now if you're effectively saying you will start Conca and Wells as your F5 and F6 and Kerridge at F7 over a team that has no Conca and Kerridge at F6 it effectively comes down to how you use the cash between Conca vs Kerridge.

To get the cash for Conca it effectively means you would have to start weaker elsewhere on the field. The one example I can think of is Lobbe over Nic Nat. So it's Lobbe/Conca and 60k vs Nic Nat and Kerridge on field. Looking at the numbers, lets say Lobbe averages 90, Conca around 77 and the 60k gets you another 5ppg somewhere else. That's 172 ppg and 0 keepers meaning you would have to burn the trades down the track to upgrade these guys anyway.

Now lets say Nic Nat averages 104 (same as last year) and being conservative Kerridge averages 60. You're 8 ppg down, but up in trades as you don't have to upgrade Nic Nat. It's still all relative, there is less risk in starting Kerridge at F6 then there is starting Conca at F5/F6.

It doesn't make sense to start him as he is 300k and would have to have a career best year to average over 80. I'd 100% prefer combo 2

[dosstheboss]

So you can effectively start one of Simpkin/Wells who are cheaper then Conca and have Kerridge at F6. Now if you're effectively saying you will start Conca and Wells as your F5 and F6 and Kerridge at F7 over a team that has no Conca and Kerridge at F6 it effectively comes down to how you use the cash between Conca vs Kerridge.

To get the cash for Conca it effectively means you would have to start weaker elsewhere on the field. The one example I can think of is Lobbe over Nic Nat. So it's Lobbe/Conca and 60k vs Nic Nat and Kerridge on field. Looking at the numbers, lets say Lobbe averages 90, Conca around 77 and the 60k gets you another 5ppg somewhere else. That's 172 ppg and 0 keepers meaning you would have to burn the trades down the track to upgrade these guys anyway.

Now lets say Nic Nat averages 104 (same as last year) and being conservative Kerridge averages 60. You're 8 ppg down, but up in trades as you don't have to upgrade Nic Nat. It's still all relative, there is less risk in starting Kerridge at F6 then there is starting Conca at F5/F6.

It doesn't make sense to start him as he is 300k and would have to have a career best year to average over 80. I'd 100% prefer combo 2

+1
And that's being very conservative with Kerridge. Won't be surprised with he pushes that average up towards 80! I'll happily take his scores for an F6, absolute bargain!

[RaisyDaisy]

So you can effectively start one of Simpkin/Wells who are cheaper then Conca and have Kerridge at F6. Now if you're effectively saying you will start Conca and Wells as your F5 and F6 and Kerridge at F7 over a team that has no Conca and Kerridge at F6 it effectively comes down to how you use the cash between Conca vs Kerridge.

To get the cash for Conca it effectively means you would have to start weaker elsewhere on the field. The one example I can think of is Lobbe over Nic Nat. So it's Lobbe/Conca and 60k vs Nic Nat and Kerridge on field. Looking at the numbers, lets say Lobbe averages 90, Conca around 77 and the 60k gets you another 5ppg somewhere else. That's 172 ppg and 0 keepers meaning you would have to burn the trades down the track to upgrade these guys anyway.

Now lets say Nic Nat averages 104 (same as last year) and being conservative Kerridge averages 60. You're 8 ppg down, but up in trades as you don't have to upgrade Nic Nat. It's still all relative, there is less risk in starting Kerridge at F6 then there is starting Conca at F5/F6.

It doesn't make sense to start him as he is 300k and would have to have a career best year to average over 80. I'd 100% prefer combo 2

Exactly Matt

I think this is something so many people don't seem to consider when selecting their players. You need to take an holistic view of your overall team and look at everything.

Conca tonned up last night, but their best 6 players were not playing. The flow on effect of starting him at that price means you are taking a hit somewhere else. Like I said you need to look at your overall side and not just each player on each line - it's all about getting maximum points on field whilst generating as much cash as you can on the bench.

I've said numerous times that if he was 50k cheaper he becomes a much more valuable option, but not at near 300k

Don't focus on the position of a player. Crouch is 20k more and will run rings around Conca in terms of scoring

With the likes of Wells, Simpkin, Kerridge, Petracca, Grimley, Tippa, Bennedy, Cockatoo etc there is enough options to fill your forward line

[eaglesman]

Exactly this ... I just can't work it out for the life of me

[sammy123]

can't fit him in too pricey

[eaglesman]

The pick is genius if he will
Be a top 10-15 forward .. But he won't be

[Keeper27]

What do you guys REALISTICALLY think he will avg??
80-85?? Or less?? Or more??

[eaglesman]

What do you guys REALISTICALLY think he will avg??
80-85?? Or less?? Or more??

I'll go 80 n play 15 games

[Mat0369]

What do you guys REALISTICALLY think he will avg??
80-85?? Or less?? Or more??

Never played more then 18 games and never averaged more then 81. I'd say 17 games max at an average of a tad under 80 based on history.