Money Shot 2018

[Money Shot]

Cash: $11,900

Few changes made here. Main one is Menegola out and Greene in.

If Greene doesn't get suspended which I think is a decent chance with him aging and maturing each and every year I think he has a good a chance of anyone to be the number one forward comes seasons end.

Rayner in the midfield gives me a DP link nice and early in the season which is always a bonus.

[Ringo]

Nice team here MS although I thought you would have found a place in mids for your trusted player  :D

Josh Kelly an interesting selection though but may come off.

Now to nail the rookies.

[Money Shot]

Nice team here MS although I thought you would have found a place in mids for your trusted player  :D

Josh Kelly an interesting selection though but may come off.

Now to nail the rookies.

Don't you worry mate I'm sure he will have the VC next to his name come round 1.

Kelly is young and only going to improve. I'm banking on him as being somewhat of a pod. Smith, Kennedy, Johnson, Mzungu and Wilson are no longer at the club and all of them would have rotated into the midfield meaning that Kelly could see even more minutes into the midfield. I am confident that he will be a top 10 midfielder and actually have him ranking 5th for most points come seasons end in my predictions.

Nailing the rookies is always the hardest part.

[SilverLion]

3 most expensive backs, 3 of the 4 most expensive mids and 3 of the 4 most expensive forwards.

Very interesting, based on previous years it is rare for such a large number of the top players to remain the best. I would strongly consider downgrading one in each line, not necessarily to a mid pricer or rookie, could even be to a cheaper prem. This would give you the funds to strengthen your midfield, as IMO 3 rookies on the ground in the MID is stretching it a bit, as the midfield as we know is the where the largest amount of points come from.

Also, I'd steer clear of Greene for now personally, way too much risk for his price.

[Money Shot]

3 most expensive backs, 3 of the 4 most expensive mids and 3 of the 4 most expensive forwards.

Very interesting, based on previous years it is rare for such a large number of the top players to remain the best. I would strongly consider downgrading one in each line, not necessarily to a mid pricer or rookie, could even be to a cheaper prem. This would give you the funds to strengthen your midfield, as IMO 3 rookies on the ground in the MID is stretching it a bit, as the midfield as we know is the where the largest amount of points come from.

Also, I'd steer clear of Greene for now personally, way too much risk for his price.

100% agree with you. Main reasoning behind it is I've gotten my structure the way I like it and now when it comes to the JLT I won't need to upgrade at all because I already have the most expensive players if that makes sense???

Hibberd over Hurley
Billings and Dahlhaus over Franklin and Greene
Are both likely but I'd rather downgrade then upgrade.

Greene I actually think could be a good pick with the new MRP rules haha.

[SilverLion]

3 most expensive backs, 3 of the 4 most expensive mids and 3 of the 4 most expensive forwards.

Very interesting, based on previous years it is rare for such a large number of the top players to remain the best. I would strongly consider downgrading one in each line, not necessarily to a mid pricer or rookie, could even be to a cheaper prem. This would give you the funds to strengthen your midfield, as IMO 3 rookies on the ground in the MID is stretching it a bit, as the midfield as we know is the where the largest amount of points come from.

Also, I'd steer clear of Greene for now personally, way too much risk for his price.

100% agree with you. Main reasoning behind it is I've gotten my structure the way I like it and now when it comes to the JLT I won't need to upgrade at all because I already have the most expensive players if that makes sense???

Hibberd over Hurley
Billings and Dahlhaus over Franklin and Greene
Are both likely but I'd rather downgrade then upgrade.

Greene I actually think could be a good pick with the new MRP rules haha.

Ah fair enough then, suppose it's good that you've left your options open in that sense.

Guarantee he'll still find a way to cop weeks ;)

[Money Shot]

3 most expensive backs, 3 of the 4 most expensive mids and 3 of the 4 most expensive forwards.

Very interesting, based on previous years it is rare for such a large number of the top players to remain the best. I would strongly consider downgrading one in each line, not necessarily to a mid pricer or rookie, could even be to a cheaper prem. This would give you the funds to strengthen your midfield, as IMO 3 rookies on the ground in the MID is stretching it a bit, as the midfield as we know is the where the largest amount of points come from.

Also, I'd steer clear of Greene for now personally, way too much risk for his price.

100% agree with you. Main reasoning behind it is I've gotten my structure the way I like it and now when it comes to the JLT I won't need to upgrade at all because I already have the most expensive players if that makes sense???

Hibberd over Hurley
Billings and Dahlhaus over Franklin and Greene
Are both likely but I'd rather downgrade then upgrade.

Greene I actually think could be a good pick with the new MRP rules haha.

Ah fair enough then, suppose it's good that you've left your options open in that sense.

Guarantee he'll still find a way to cop weeks ;)

Haha! No doubt he will ;D

Only reason Menegola isn't in the team is because he has only played 25 games and doesn't score well with Selwood in the team and with Ablett coming in it could be worse whereas other premiums have had a few years at the top and therefore are much more reliable.

[Money Shot]

As I am pretty set on my side at the moment I thought I would do a little write up on why I have chosen the players I have chosen...

PART 1: DEFENDERS

Michael Hurley: Although Hurley started his career as a forward he was then trialled down back and then used as a swingman for his early years at the bombers which resulted in a lot of variation is his supercoach scoring. After the year off, he played almost permanently as a Backman which saw his scores become more consistent with 73 being his lowest score for the season and an average of 107.6 from round 5 onwards. He is in his prime and with a stronger Essendon team he may get even more intercept marks than last season with more pressured kicks coming into the backline. I think he is worth the high price tag at this stage and can’t see why he wouldn’t average 100+ again this season. 

Elliot Yeo: Last season he had some variation between his best and his worst with 5 scores being 120+ and 4 scores 80 or below. Hopefully this season as he gets one more year of preseason under his belt he can get rid of those low scores and add some more of those high ones. At 24 he could easily breakout again and become a lock down back. One would assume he is destined for more midfield minutes with both Priddis and Mitchell retiring which means more of the pill and therefore more points. Confident in him at this stage but if he seems to be playing a role that isn’t supercoach friendly over the JLT he will be out of my side.

Rory Laird: One of my supercoach love child’s after picking him for the last 2 seasons. Has averaged 90+ for the past 3 seasons and he is only 23 years of age. Scored above 120 seven times last season with 10 games at 110 or more and only scored below 70 once. Smith being out for the season doesn’t help but Gibbs coming in does. He won’t be that high on other people’s tagging lists with Sloane, Crouch brothers and now Gibbs probably receiving the tag first meaning that he will be allowed to run free and continue to get plenty of those 30+ possession 110+ point games in 2018. Was the first picked in my side this year believe it or not.

Grant Birchall: Honestly, I am not sold on Birchall. I think a 75-80 average is what we can expect from him this season although I do think he is a good chance to play 20+ games. The question is does that make him worth a spot in my side? He will score 10 more points per game than a rookie who is 150K less than him but he does have security which rookies don't as he is without a doubt in the hawks best 22. On the other hand for 150K more you could get someone who is a real chance at being a premium and scoring 10-15 points more per game (think Hanley). Currently he fits my structure but by no means will he be in my side come round one.

Ed Richards: I don’t usually lock rookies in this early but with Murphy and Boyd retiring two spots are left open and this kid is a red-hot chance to take one. The best part about this is the role he is likely to play is very supercoach friendly as well. He will play a rebounding defender role which is possibly the best role for a defender to play in terms of supercoach. Docherty, Laird and Hibberd all played that role last season and it turned out well for them. Averaging 70 and playing all games up until his bye doesn’t seem like to big a stretch and at 135k he is locked in my side as a D5-D6 assuming he lines up round 1.

[Money Shot]

PART 2: MIDFIELDERS

Patrick Dangerfield: I have seen a few teams without him on this site which makes me happy because I know that they are teams I am going to beat. I don’t care how expensive he is he scored 138 or more in 15/21 games last season. I just don’t get peoples reasoning for not starting him. LOCK!

Dustin Martin: He is currently in my side for two reasons. 1 is his scoring ability which is evident with him scoring 120 or more in half his games last season. The second reason is he is just so good to watch, like many others I am fan girling over Dusty and I just want him in my team. Scoring may drop off a bit but he will be a top 5 midfielder without a doubt in my mind (I have him ranked 4th this season) So I may as well start with him and have another captain option from the get go.

Tom Mitchell: This guy is one of the few picks I got right last season bringing him in as my first upgrade after round 5/6. In my opinion he will average more this season than last because he will be playing in a team that will be winning more games. The only thing that stopped him from averaging 130 last season was his disposal efficiency and although it probably wont improve drastically him being in a stronger team that should win more games has to help.

Josh Kelly: This is the guy I am least confident in as he has only had one season as a super-premium. In saying that he is only 22 years of age and is still improving. The fact that he scored 176 in a game last season is the reason he is in my team at this stage because if he can become more consistent and have a couple more games that are 150+ he will be a top 5 mid for sure. The fact that 88 was his lowest score last season is also a bonus because it outlines that he doesn’t have bad games.

Nathan Fyfe: I think people are forgetting how good a player Fyfe is. In 2014/15 he averaged over 120 as a 22/23 year old. After the byes last season he averaged 121.3 and I can’t see why he won’t continue that form into next season. Thought he would be in pretty much every team but I am happy he isn’t. 597k for a return of a 120 average is good enough for me.

[SilverLion]

Patrick Dangerfield: I have seen a few teams without him on this site which makes me happy because I know that they are teams I am going to beat. I don’t care how expensive he is he scored 138 or more in 15/21 games last season. I just don’t get peoples reasoning for not starting him. LOCK!

Still not totally sold on this. I started without him last year which people viewed as crazy just as it appears people are doing this year. However, Danger started last year with the following scores:

138, 140, 138, 90, 120, 65, 110, 112, 151 (118.2 average)

After which I brought him in at a price of $586k (Dropped $135k from starting price)

The only issue was that the midfielders I chose instead of him were largely failures (Hannebery, Treloar).

I think provided you are able to pick other options in your mids that can average 110+, you can get away with not starting Danger, as it is inevitable he will go down in price over the first half a dozen rounds (unless he goes 140+ every week, but even so, not the end of the world). The bonus advantage of this is if Danger starts poorly or gets injured, you're well ahead of the pack. Even if Danger did start the year on fire, provided you have chosen wisely, the point difference won't be that noticeable.

Example:

Zorko ($608k) + Coniglio ($450k) + 117k Rookie  ($1.175m)
110 + 100 + 65 = 275

Danger ($750k) + Armitage ($310k) + 117k Rookie ($1.167m)
130 + 80 + 65 = 275

The key arguement against not picking Danger is the captain scores, however again there are other reliable options who'll often go 120+ (Crouch, Zorko, Mitchell, Martin, Fyfe), so overall I'd say the advantages for not picking Danger slightly out way the disadvantages.

Thats the logic I used last year, which turned out to work well, but of course it could easily backfire this year.

[DCAK]

Patrick Dangerfield: I have seen a few teams without him on this site which makes me happy because I know that they are teams I am going to beat. I don’t care how expensive he is he scored 138 or more in 15/21 games last season. I just don’t get peoples reasoning for not starting him. LOCK!

Still not totally sold on this. I started without him last year which people viewed as crazy just as it appears people are doing this year. However, Danger started last year with the following scores:

138, 140, 138, 90, 120, 65, 110, 112, 151 (118.2 average)

After which I brought him in at a price of $586k (Dropped $135k from starting price)

The only issue was that the midfielders I chose instead of him were largely failures (Hannebery, Treloar).

I think provided you are able to pick other options in your mids that can average 110+, you can get away with not starting Danger, as it is inevitable he will go down in price over the first half a dozen rounds (unless he goes 140+ every week, but even so, not the end of the world). The bonus advantage of this is if Danger starts poorly or gets injured, you're well ahead of the pack. Even if Danger did start the year on fire, provided you have chosen wisely, the point difference won't be that noticeable.

Example:

Zorko ($608k) + Coniglio ($450k) + 117k Rookie  ($1.175m)
110 + 100 + 65 = 275

Danger ($750k) + Armitage ($310k) + 117k Rookie ($1.167m)
130 + 80 + 65 = 275

The key arguement against not picking Danger is the captain scores, however again there are other reliable options who'll often go 120+ (Crouch, Zorko, Mitchell, Martin, Fyfe), so overall I'd say the advantages for not picking Danger slightly out way the disadvantages.

Thats the logic I used last year, which turned out to work well, but of course it could easily backfire this year.

It is not inevitable that Dangerfield's price will drop.

[Money Shot]

Patrick Dangerfield: I have seen a few teams without him on this site which makes me happy because I know that they are teams I am going to beat. I don’t care how expensive he is he scored 138 or more in 15/21 games last season. I just don’t get peoples reasoning for not starting him. LOCK!

Still not totally sold on this. I started without him last year which people viewed as crazy just as it appears people are doing this year. However, Danger started last year with the following scores:

138, 140, 138, 90, 120, 65, 110, 112, 151 (118.2 average)

After which I brought him in at a price of $586k (Dropped $135k from starting price)

The only issue was that the midfielders I chose instead of him were largely failures (Hannebery, Treloar).

I think provided you are able to pick other options in your mids that can average 110+, you can get away with not starting Danger, as it is inevitable he will go down in price over the first half a dozen rounds (unless he goes 140+ every week, but even so, not the end of the world). The bonus advantage of this is if Danger starts poorly or gets injured, you're well ahead of the pack. Even if Danger did start the year on fire, provided you have chosen wisely, the point difference won't be that noticeable.

Example:

Zorko ($608k) + Coniglio ($450k) + 117k Rookie  ($1.175m)
110 + 100 + 65 = 275

Danger ($750k) + Armitage ($310k) + 117k Rookie ($1.167m)
130 + 80 + 65 = 275

The key arguement against not picking Danger is the captain scores, however again there are other reliable options who'll often go 120+ (Crouch, Zorko, Mitchell, Martin, Fyfe), so overall I'd say the advantages for not picking Danger slightly out way the disadvantages.

Thats the logic I used last year, which turned out to work well, but of course it could easily backfire this year.

I also had Hanners and Trealor last year so I know how you feel on that one :(

118.2 would have still been one of the top averages in the leauge by round 9 and although he did drop in price I would rather just start him so I don't need to worry about finding a way to get him later in the season because this season rookies could flop or Danger could come out on fire and it could mean that you have to use upwards of 3 trades to get him in which is just a waste of trades in my opinion if you have the opportunity to start him from the get go.

Also I think he would have been in the top 3-4 scorers in rounds 1, 2, 3 and 9 looking at those scores so even though you could get lucky and pick the right captain for those rounds it would be so much easier just to put the VC or C on him and make sure you aren't falling behind the pack from the get go.

You make a valid point saying that you could use the extra 150k else where but for me I would personally take Danger/Rayner over Merrett/O'meara which is what I would probably do if I didn't use Danger. Just think it is more of a risk to start without Danger than it is to start with him.

[SilverLion]

Patrick Dangerfield: I have seen a few teams without him on this site which makes me happy because I know that they are teams I am going to beat. I don’t care how expensive he is he scored 138 or more in 15/21 games last season. I just don’t get peoples reasoning for not starting him. LOCK!

Still not totally sold on this. I started without him last year which people viewed as crazy just as it appears people are doing this year. However, Danger started last year with the following scores:

138, 140, 138, 90, 120, 65, 110, 112, 151 (118.2 average)

After which I brought him in at a price of $586k (Dropped $135k from starting price)

The only issue was that the midfielders I chose instead of him were largely failures (Hannebery, Treloar).

I think provided you are able to pick other options in your mids that can average 110+, you can get away with not starting Danger, as it is inevitable he will go down in price over the first half a dozen rounds (unless he goes 140+ every week, but even so, not the end of the world). The bonus advantage of this is if Danger starts poorly or gets injured, you're well ahead of the pack. Even if Danger did start the year on fire, provided you have chosen wisely, the point difference won't be that noticeable.

Example:

Zorko ($608k) + Coniglio ($450k) + 117k Rookie  ($1.175m)
110 + 100 + 65 = 275

Danger ($750k) + Armitage ($310k) + 117k Rookie ($1.167m)
130 + 80 + 65 = 275

The key arguement against not picking Danger is the captain scores, however again there are other reliable options who'll often go 120+ (Crouch, Zorko, Mitchell, Martin, Fyfe), so overall I'd say the advantages for not picking Danger slightly out way the disadvantages.

Thats the logic I used last year, which turned out to work well, but of course it could easily backfire this year.

I also had Hanners and Trealor last year so I know how you feel on that one :(

118.2 would have still been one of the top averages in the leauge by round 9 and although he did drop in price I would rather just start him so I don't need to worry about finding a way to get him later in the season because this season rookies could flop or Danger could come out on fire and it could mean that you have to use upwards of 3 trades to get him in which is just a waste of trades in my opinion if you have the opportunity to start him from the get go.

Also I think he would have been in the top 3-4 scorers in rounds 1, 2, 3 and 9 looking at those scores so even though you could get lucky and pick the right captain for those rounds it would be so much easier just to put the VC or C on him and make sure you aren't falling behind the pack from the get go.

You make a valid point saying that you could use the extra 150k else where but for me I would personally take Danger/Rayner over Merrett/O'meara which is what I would probably do if I didn't use Danger. Just think it is more of a risk to start without Danger than it is to start with him.

Yup he was around the top, but not 10+ points higher than anyone else like he is now ;)

I suppose you're right though, but I can definitely see reasons to pick him and reasons not to.

[Edgeovertherest]

I personally sit in the "Start Dangerfield" camp but I can also see why you wouldn't start him because of what happened last year and how he is 100k higher than the 2nd ranked player. Keep in mind that he was injured for a few games which lowered his output so his starting output may increase meaning his price might not drop that much.

I was listening to the Dr.Supercoach podcast and one of the members gave a pretty good summary on why you should pick him up
Basically...
1. Danger was without a doubt the best SC player last player with a difference of about 15 points between 1st and 2nd (Martin) in terms of avg
2. Danger missed 1 game but his total score was still 200 points higher than Martin's
3. He may be 740k+ but he is there for a reason and he is unlikely to drop his output when compared to Martin who has won every award under the sun last season meaning his output may lower a bit. Danger on the other hand may be more pumped next year with Geelong.

They went more in depth and they gave more reasons (the other 2 were also convinced by his speech) which in turn ended up convincing me as well.

[Money Shot]

I personally sit in the "Start Dangerfield" camp but I can also see why you wouldn't start him because of what happened last year and how he is 100k higher than the 2nd ranked player. Keep in mind that he was injured for a few games which lowered his output so his starting output may increase meaning his price might not drop that much.

I was listening to the Dr.Supercoach podcast and one of the members gave a pretty good summary on why you should pick him up
Basically...
1. Danger was without a doubt the best SC player last player with a difference of about 15 points between 1st and 2nd (Martin) in terms of avg
2. Danger missed 1 game but his total score was still 200 points higher than Martin's
3. He may be 740k+ but he is there for a reason and he is unlikely to drop his output when compared to Martin who has won every award under the sun last season meaning his output may lower a bit. Danger on the other hand may be more pumped next year with Geelong.

They went more in depth and they gave more reasons (the other 2 were also convinced by his speech) which in turn ended up convincing me as well.

Yeah it is just easier to start Danger than it is too not start him. Worst case scenario he plays one game and gets injured but you could literally trade him to anyone if he does and even if he has a bad start to the season and only averages 110 or so (yes that is a bad start for danger ;)) he will still be one of the top scorers regardless.

Yeah you could pick him up cheaper but you could pick up pretty much any mid premium at a cheaper price than what they started.

Im sure Martin/Mitchell/Kelly etc. will all drop in price too.

Pretty much what I am saying is no matter what I am starting Danger :P