Conca anyone?

[quinny88]

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.

That's because of injury. Has said himself it's been his best pre season and best shape he's ever been in. I think he'll have his best year but what that equates too I'm not sure. Highly unlikely I'll start with him

[Mat0369]

That's because of injury. Has said himself it's been his best pre season and best shape he's ever been in. I think he'll have his best year but what that equates too I'm not sure. Highly unlikely I'll start with him

Same goes for about another 720 guys. They've all been soft tissue injuries as well from memory. I can't see him playing over 18 games but most people would only need him to play the first 10 or so anyway if they are picking him so it's probably redundant when looking at him as a selection

[Bully]

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

Don't think you are reading me, Kerridge is already on the field. Most are traveling with Martin, Barlow, Franklin, Wells, _______Kerridge. If say none of Pickett, Adams, Petracca etc get up in time then it becomes a question of paying extra.

Many here are suggesting B.Kenndedy, 187k but has never cemented his place in a starting 22, he also has woeful kicking so would need a radical reversal to become SC relevant.

Simpkin is another popular choice around here, maybe he's a good choice but the difference in price isn't monumental and he still hasn't proven anything.

Anderson is another popular choice, again he has potential but hasn't backed it up on the field in 4 years of playing AFL.

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

Just as an exrecise in rationality, how many 200k-300k players are you carrying? Maybe you've gone McKenzie at 245k, a player who routinely scores in the 60's. Others have selected Parish, a skinny onballer who will be smashed week after week. Some have justified the spend on Mills, a guy who will play in defence and is more than likely to be rested from time to time.

I don't normally like mid-priced players but I also don't like haemorrhaging points at F6, those who have gone for a 4 premo forward line may have the best answer but I'm a little wary of paying 600k for Deledio who is the only player I'm interested in.

[quinny88]

That's because of injury. Has said himself it's been his best pre season and best shape he's ever been in. I think he'll have his best year but what that equates too I'm not sure. Highly unlikely I'll start with him

Same goes for about another 720 guys. They've all been soft tissue injuries as well from memory. I can't see him playing over 18 games but most people would only need him to play the first 10 or so anyway if they are picking him so it's probably redundant when looking at him as a selection

Haha I know it's said a lot but as a Richmond supporter I know it to be a fact in this case as he's usually having operations and missing large chunks of the pre season where this year he's been fit and completed the whole pre season

[RaisyDaisy]

Just as an exrecise in rationality, how many 200k-300k players are you carrying? Maybe you've gone McKenzie at 245k, a player who routinely scores in the 60's. Others have selected Parish, a skinny onballer who will be smashed week after week. Some have justified the spend on Mills, a guy who will play in defence and is more than likely to be rested from time to time.

I don't normally like mid-priced players but I also don't like haemorrhaging points at F6, those who have gone for a 4 premo forward line may have the best answer but I'm a little wary of paying 600k for Deledio who is the only player I'm interested in.

I've had a 4 prem forward line all along with Wells and Kerridge at 5 and 6, but I have now just removed Lids because I am not entirely convinced on starting him for 600k when I can get another gun mid for the same price

EMack and Wells are the only 200-300k player I have, both at D4 and F4 respectively with rookies at 5 and 6. This is a new structure I have just changed to and am still playing around with, but the benefit it gives me is having a ridiculous mid and ruck line which are the highest point scoring lines which is why I am doing it for now

Structure will change I'm sure because it comes down to how many rookies are available rd1, but for now I am going with this

[Bully]

Just as an exrecise in rationality, how many 200k-300k players are you carrying? Maybe you've gone McKenzie at 245k, a player who routinely scores in the 60's. Others have selected Parish, a skinny onballer who will be smashed week after week. Some have justified the spend on Mills, a guy who will play in defence and is more than likely to be rested from time to time.

I don't normally like mid-priced players but I also don't like haemorrhaging points at F6, those who have gone for a 4 premo forward line may have the best answer but I'm a little wary of paying 600k for Deledio who is the only player I'm interested in.

I've had a 4 prem forward line all along with Wells and Kerridge at 5 and 6, but I have now just removed Lids because I am not entirely convinced on starting him for 600k when I can get another gun mid for the same price

EMack and Wells are the only 200-300k player I have, both at D4 and F4 respectively with rookies at 5 and 6. This is a new structure I have just changed to and am still playing around with

McKenzie is in exactly the same boat as Conca, in fact with the long list of defensive rookies I think Conca is more valuable.

On a sidenote, Jed Anderson was very ordinary today and shanked most of his kicks. Can't see how some punters are labeling him a better option than Conca.

[RaisyDaisy]

I've personally never even looked at Anderson - too much over hype around here

EMack is 40k cheaper, and with it looking like there will be more defensive rookies available than forwards it makes it even easier for me start him at D4. He simply provides me with solid JS whilst slowly making 150k or more. Not too concerned about his scoring, because 70+ will make the money I need, whilst Conca really needs to go 80+ to make enough and that's questionable

TBH, EMack's spot is pretty much the last spot in my team I filled - so it's just the best I can afford. Happy to go cheap down back while strong in other lines

[Bully]

I've personally never even looked at Anderson - too much over hype around here

EMack is 40k cheaper, and with it looking like there will be more defensive rookies available than forwards it makes it even easier for me start him at D4. He simply provides me with solid JS whilst slowly making 150k or more. Not too concerned about his scoring, because 70+ will make the money I need, whilst Conca really needs to go 80+ to make enough and that's questionable

TBH, EMack's spot is pretty much the last spot in my team I filled - so it's just the best I can afford. Happy to go cheap down back while strong in other lines

This is where your bias is coming through, E Mack has scored in the 70's once in eight years, Conca has shown he's good for an 80 average, in fact in 2014 was averaging 90 in the first 9 rounds. Would much rather pick a 117k defensive rookie and Conca than the other way around, anyway horses for courses, have said enough.

[AaronKirk]

For the sake of comparison lets not include 2015 as Simpkin only played the 1 game and Conca only the 2.

Simpkin averaged 86.66 in 2013 in games not affected by the green or red vest and 84.12 in 2014

Conca in 2012 when not affected by the vest averaged 72.35, 2013 averaged 81.25 and in 2014 averaged 80.29

History says they will average similar. Given their history and price I would prefer to spend less coin and select Simpkin over Conca.

I can see however why there is an interest in Conca.

[Bully]

For the sake of comparison lets not include 2015 as Simpkin only played the 1 game and Conca only the 2.

Simpkin averaged 86.66 in 2013 in games not affected by the green or red vest and 84.12 in 2014

Conca in 2012 when not affected by the vest averaged 72.35, 2013 averaged 81.25 and in 2014 averaged 80.29

History says they will average similar. Given their history and price I would prefer to spend less coin and select Simpkin over Conca.

I can see however why there is an interest in Conca.

I certainly haven't ruled out Simpkin, he's still in the frame but I want to see some runs on the board and be assured he'll be getting plenty of midfield time.

[Sabretooth Tigers]

 ::)

Love the Tigers to death. When I was a kid I was taken into the Punt Rd rooms to meet the players before training. Fred Swift was getting a rub down before going out, he gad a smoke in one hand and a bottle of beer in the other. Paddy Guinnane shook hands with me and I couldn't use my right hand for weeks after.  And the legendary  and tight property steward, Charlie Callender presented me with a second hand football. Should of seen the look of awe come on to the players faces, should of seen the look of sheer horror that came over mine when I first kicked it and the flowering thing burst. Now even with all that I still can't pick Conca

;)

[RaisyDaisy]

I've personally never even looked at Anderson - too much over hype around here

EMack is 40k cheaper, and with it looking like there will be more defensive rookies available than forwards it makes it even easier for me start him at D4. He simply provides me with solid JS whilst slowly making 150k or more. Not too concerned about his scoring, because 70+ will make the money I need, whilst Conca really needs to go 80+ to make enough and that's questionable

TBH, EMack's spot is pretty much the last spot in my team I filled - so it's just the best I can afford. Happy to go cheap down back while strong in other lines

This is where your bias is coming through, E Mack has scored in the 70's once in eight years, Conca has shown he's good for an 80 average, in fact in 2014 was averaging 90 in the first 9 rounds. Would much rather pick a 117k defensive rookie and Conca than the other way around, anyway horses for courses, have said enough.

I'm not sure how what I said there is bias? If there are 5 decent def rookies lining up rd1 then I'll probably grab all of them and not even pick Emack. I don't expect him to average more than 70ish. I've simply got him because his JS allows me to go cheap in defence and load up elsewhere. It's never been about his scoring ability for me

The discussion is around Conca, and like I've said on more than one occasion, if he was priced similar to Wells and simpkin he becomes a much more attractive pick, but I just think he's a bit too much for a stepping stone at this stage

[RaisyDaisy]

Not sure if it's been mentioned here but wouldn't Daisy be a better pick for the extra 20k?

[Bully]

Not sure if it's been mentioned here but wouldn't Daisy be a better pick for the extra 20k?

If he could stay on the park then possibly, in saying that he's been the number one burnman for 2 years, sometimes there are players you swear never to touch again. 

[Grazz]

For the sake of comparison lets not include 2015 as Simpkin only played the 1 game and Conca only the 2.

Simpkin averaged 86.66 in 2013 in games not affected by the green or red vest and 84.12 in 2014

Conca in 2012 when not affected by the vest averaged 72.35, 2013 averaged 81.25 and in 2014 averaged 80.29

History says they will average similar. Given their history and price I would prefer to spend less coin and select Simpkin over Conca.

I can see however why there is an interest in Conca.

Nice, i'm with ya. ;)