2011 Bench Strategy

mightyhawk · January 09, 2011, 02:58:01 PM

When I look at my fanplanner team, I notice that I have to cover players nearly every round. In some rounds up to 6 players are missing (no more than 2 in each position).

It is for this reason I am seriously considering going into 2011 with a lot more money on the bench than usual. I think it could be worth selecting bench players like Craig Bolton (dont laugh!) in the backs and Petrie in the forwards (with Majak Daw link) and even Josh Fraser in the rucks.

These types are guaranteed weekly games (if injury free, and will most likely make money). Big if I am aware... TBC...

T

mightyhawk · January 09, 2011, 03:04:38 PM

In all likelyhood, most rounds in at least 1 position on the field require at least one 'non best 22' player to be starting, more often than not this will occur in more than one position.

Add late withdrawals to this, and a minefield appears for 2010. I can see a lot of teams being burnt by lack of bench cover through the season, and many trades wasted sideways by front running teams trying to cover the inevitable donuts we are going to see in 2011. It was bad enough in 2010....

Anyway i just thought I'd put this out there to see what other people are thinking of doing to conquer the bye.

Barlow 21 · January 09, 2011, 03:19:19 PM

It really is a waste of money doing that as the rookies will average around or more than those cheap guys.

RiOtChEsS · January 09, 2011, 04:13:17 PM

Quote from: Barlow 21 on January 09, 2011, 03:19:19 PM
It really is a waste of money doing that as the rookies will average around or more than those cheap guys.

yeah agreed id even rather cop a donut here or there for the bigger picture

mightyhawk · January 09, 2011, 05:23:35 PM

Do you think you will be able to reliably have 2 rookies in each position playing every week, say 10 weeks into the season?

This is what you will need IMO. Otherwise she'll be donuts or trades....

Thanks for the replies, interesting to hear the thoughts of others on this.

Barlow 21 · January 09, 2011, 06:56:44 PM

Quote from: mightyhawk on January 09, 2011, 05:23:35 PM
Do you think you will be able to reliably have 2 rookies in each position playing every week, say 10 weeks into the season?

This is what you will need IMO. Otherwise she'll be donuts or trades....

Thanks for the replies, interesting to hear the thoughts of others on this.

They would be upgraded by then. 8)

mightyhawk · January 09, 2011, 07:35:06 PM

I am talking about bench rookies rather than playing rookies.

DT87 · January 09, 2011, 07:40:16 PM

Quote from: mightyhawk on January 09, 2011, 05:23:35 PMDo you think you will be able to reliably have 2 rookies in each position playing every week, say 10 weeks into the season?

No, but if you pick a good starting team with minimal bye clashes, you shouldn't need more than one starter in each position on the bench each week, which shouldn't be a problem most weeks thanks to the three extra bench players. A good team with no bye clashes and decent rookies on the bench should easily beat (in the overall standings) a team with lots of bye clashes but good bench cover.

I didn't laugh at the suggestion of Craig Bolton, he will be pretty cheap for a guy with good job security and the potential to average about 70, however I doubt that he will have a better season than Heppell and Jacobs. Also starting Petrie on the forward bench isn't a bad idea either. You definitely shouldn't spend much money on the ruck bench, though, because barring injury your best ruck bench player will only have to cover for four byes in the whole season, but the extra money you spent there will negatively affect your scoring for all 24 rounds.

Barlow 21 · January 10, 2011, 10:30:05 AM

Quote from: DT87 on January 09, 2011, 07:40:16 PM
Quote from: mightyhawk on January 09, 2011, 05:23:35 PMDo you think you will be able to reliably have 2 rookies in each position playing every week, say 10 weeks into the season?

No, but if you pick a good starting team with minimal bye clashes, you shouldn't need more than one starter in each position on the bench each week, which shouldn't be a problem most weeks thanks to the three extra bench players. A good team with no bye clashes and decent rookies on the bench should easily beat (in the overall standings) a team with lots of bye clashes but good bench cover.

I didn't laugh at the suggestion of Craig Bolton, he will be pretty cheap for a guy with good job security and the potential to average about 70, however I doubt that he will have a better season than Heppell and Jacobs. Also starting Petrie on the forward bench isn't a bad idea either. You definitely shouldn't spend much money on the ruck bench, though, because barring injury your best ruck bench player will only have to cover for four byes in the whole season, but the extra money you spent there will negatively affect your scoring for all 24 rounds.

Exactly DT it is important to make sure you don`t have more than 2 people out in each line every week.

mightyhawk · January 11, 2011, 10:27:37 PM

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Interesting to see people planning to only have one in each position with a bye each week. I thought about this, but it seemed to me that you would be robbing yourself of some of the best starting squad selections.

Anyway, I think this will be the best year of DT yet, so much more to think about and plan for!

Chopps · January 12, 2011, 11:07:38 AM

for me its about trades & good rookies

Trades- not starting montanga and brining him in as soon as i can after rd 4 if i can it will be someone that has two bye remaining, that way i don't get their two byes and montanga only needs to be covered for one then.

bomberboy0618 · January 12, 2011, 11:09:28 AM

nice idea :)
i think it will be dependent on if you know that you will have cover, so maybe using early trades is the best way to go.