Petracca as a loophole option.

[RaisyDaisy]

So if you don't start with a non playing player, who gets the C? I want to put the vc on Ablett, but not just straight up C considering he hasn't played yet

Every other year r3 has been a donut from the get go. Why is it all of a sudden a problem not starting a donut elsewhere?

[Ringo]

I am actually thinking of using Archie Smith as loophole with Stef in Ruck given the number of late games Brisbane play and Smith will play if Stef goes down 2 birds with one stone.

[Bully]

So if you don't start with a non playing player, who gets the C? I want to put the vc on Ablett, but not just straight up C considering he hasn't played yet

Every other year r3 has been a donut from the get go. Why is it all of a sudden a problem not starting a donut elsewhere?

I guess it's your call, I know of one decent coach who will be paying Declan Hamilton of the Dogs, can't say I agree with it because there's no chance he will play but as a loophole strategy it's ironclad for the first 3rd of the season, with the exception of round 6. As to why he's gone for a M/F rookie, he said Menadue is the one he wants to cash in on, as well as the VC/C set up.

It's basically your call, Petracca still has massive ownership so there will be many people playing him as a loophole option. I personally don't like it because he's useless in the first two rounds and I'd rather use him as a downgrade so I can beef up my other lines.

If Milera doesn't make the final cut I will strongly consider Cocky and use him for the first two weeks and then see which other players have fallen by the wayside. It could even be a case of Cocky for the first couple and then Adams or McCarthy face the axe. This really is at the heart of the issue, once you deliberately create a hole in your bench, you are then vulnerable when others get dropped. As a worst case scenario, Davis gets the axe and Menadue gets a battering from being a skinny kid playing against men. How do you deal with that situation?

[Grazz]

Start another rookie make cash and grab Petracca on the bubble. I can't bring myself to give up an opportunity to get money into the team for a loophole that can wait till later in the year if desired. Old school to much me probably.

[Capper]

Start another rookie make cash and grab Petracca on the bubble. I can't bring myself to give up an opportunity to get money into the team for a loophole that can wait till later in the year if desired. Old school to much me probably.

Depends who gets a start R1 though

[Grazz]

Start another rookie make cash and grab Petracca on the bubble. I can't bring myself to give up an opportunity to get money into the team for a loophole that can wait till later in the year if desired. Old school to much me probably.

Depends who gets a start R1 though

This is true and the cost.

[plumdog millionaire]

I am actually thinking of using Archie Smith as loophole with Stef in Ruck given the number of late games Brisbane play and Smith will play if Stef goes down 2 birds with one stone.

Do you think he comes into the team ahead of big Trent West?

[Ringo]

I am actually thinking of using Archie Smith as loophole with Stef in Ruck given the number of late games Brisbane play and Smith will play if Stef goes down 2 birds with one stone.

Do you think he comes into the team ahead of big Trent West?

Fogrot about West in my thinking - West is still recovering from injury but he is the obvious replacement if fit.

[Holz]

People keep saying Petracca will be the perfect downgrade option

Do you not understand that he will be our loophole? What is the difference between using him or a ruck like King?

When Petracca does come into the side and we need a downgrade option, guess what? We downgrade to a non playing DPP M11 option who becomes our new loophole

The whole "cash generation" argument doesn't bother me, because R3 Grimley is making me money which replaces the M11

Either way, it's just 1 player from the 29 who is my loophole, and have a DPP option at M11 is better than R3 anyway

Not like there's a queue of mid rookie options lining up and were missing out on their cash generation

1. I can fairly confidently say my forward/mid will make more cash then grimley who looks like he wont make much.
2. to actually benefit from the cash that grimely makes you will need to use a trade.
3. Grimley could get dropped easily and recca might take time to come back so there you have two loopholes.


If you want to waste a midfield position go ahead. Spend an extra 80k on Oliver if you need to to make cash, will make more then grimley.

one of the basic rules of fantasy is dont pick a non playing rookie round 1. This was negated by the loophole but still you dont waste a mid spot.

Jack Trengove
Ryan Mathieson
Jacob Hopper
Matt Kennedy
Ben Keays
Lachie Weller
Christian Petrecca

thats just some of the guys who could pop up and you will be less likely to get as one spot is wasted.

there might not be alot of mids but there is enough with the forwards to pick a playing bench.


your only argument for getting him is if you use the emergency loophole in the mid.

[Keeper27]

What's the difference if r3 or m11 not playing, either way you only have 29 playing.

because any midfield player even a rookie will outscore any ruck rookie.
R3 vs. M11 (M11 = 65-70 vs. R3 = 50)

Problem with r3 as you're loophole is that you have no protection should there be a late out, unless you have a ruck up forward, whereas you have that with m11 with 2 other bench players.

Loophole R3 donut with Grimley/cox @ F8, problem solved.
again with R3/M11 points differential

But are you losing out sacraficing a better scoring f8 for a floating non playing ruc/fwd?

A fwd rookie will outscore a ruck rookie, so isn't your argument against  loopholing Petracca a little conflicting? I also realise a mid rookie also will likely outscore a fwd rookie.

Interesting discussion here

It's not conflicting. Mid rookies tend to outscore fwd rookies too.
You just gotta weigh up the points differential.
Mid rookie 65-70. Fwd rookie 60. Ruck rookie 50.
I'd rather a ruck rookie who can swing with grimley/Cox and lose 10 points then have a donut on the mid bench and lose 15-20 points.

People keep saying Petracca will be the perfect downgrade option

Do you not understand that he will be our loophole? What is the difference between using him or a ruck like King?

When Petracca does come into the side and we need a downgrade option, guess what? We downgrade to a non playing DPP M11 option who becomes our new loophole

The whole "cash generation" argument doesn't bother me, because R3 Grimley is making me money which replaces the M11

Either way, it's just 1 player from the 29 who is my loophole, and have a DPP option at M11 is better than R3 anyway

Not like there's a queue of mid rookie options lining up and were missing out on their cash generation

1. I can fairly confidently say my forward/mid will make more cash then grimley who looks like he wont make much.
2. to actually benefit from the cash that grimely makes you will need to use a trade.
3. Grimley could get dropped easily and recca might take time to come back so there you have two loopholes.


If you want to waste a midfield position go ahead. Spend an extra 80k on Oliver if you need to to make cash, will make more then grimley.

one of the basic rules of fantasy is dont pick a non playing rookie round 1. This was negated by the loophole but still you dont waste a mid spot.

Jack Trengove
Ryan Mathieson
Jacob Hopper
Matt Kennedy
Ben Keays
Lachie Weller
Christian Petrecca

thats just some of the guys who could pop up and you will be less likely to get as one spot is wasted.

there might not be alot of mids but there is enough with the forwards to pick a playing bench.


your only argument for getting him is if you use the emergency loophole in the mid.

This.

[enzedder]

In my case I am looking at guys like: McGovern>Hewett>Dunkley>Papley>Colledge

Petracca might be back sooner rather than later but really who knows?
The guys above have low to average JS and Petracca will be in everyone's team eventually plus can be loopholed early on.
If you had the choice of one of the above or Petracca what would you do?
Leaning to Petracca but it's a unknown risk.

[colmullet]

Personally, i don't think you can start him, not only do you miss cash generation from someone who is playing, you miss a good downgrade option later when he does get to the bubble.

[enzedder]

Personally, i don't think you can start him, not only do you miss cash generation from someone who is playing, you miss a good downgrade option later when he does get to the bubble.

The downgrade option is a consideration but say he is named R3...on the bubble R5...that's only 2 price rises. Not ideal.
Just read a post before saying he killed it for Casey. Any chance he is back R2?

[colmullet]

Personally, i don't think you can start him, not only do you miss cash generation from someone who is playing, you miss a good downgrade option later when he does get to the bubble.

The downgrade option is a consideration but say he is named R3...on the bubble R5...that's only 2 price rises. Not ideal.
Just read a post before saying he killed it for Casey. Any chance he is back R2?

True, then for me he becomes a correction trade for the worst performing rookie i currently have

[Marstar]

Personally, i don't think you can start him, not only do you miss cash generation from someone who is playing, you miss a good downgrade option later when he does get to the bubble.

Not needing to downgrade = 1 saved trade.

Each trade has a value.

The cash generation needs to exceed the trade value.

Petracca playing b4 round 4 is better than 3 price rises on Dunkley IMO, and he's very likely to achieve than now.