Petrie - Ruck v Forward

[Colley Dogs]

Can somebody please explain to me the virtue of selecting Petrie as an MPP forward rather than a straightforward ruck.

There seems to be this idea floating around that Petrie in the forward line with Joel Tippet as a bench ruck is the obvious strategy.

It doesn't make sense to me.

If I were to start Petrie in my forward line it would be in the number seven spot. The cheapest number two ruck I would be prepared to have would be Natainui. With Joel Tippet on the bench the sum total of those three players comes to $688,100. It's much more economical to start with Petrie as the number two ruck and Josh Fraser as the first emergency ruck, with Cameron Richardson in the number 7 forward spot (I personally don't want to have two North Melbourne players on my forward line).

Not only does that give me an additional ruck who actually plays, it gives me $124,600 to invest elsewhere (in my team the difference between having three elite guns rather than simply three guns). This strategy will generate more overall points, as well as to help navigate my rucks through the bye rounds in a less fussy and uncomplicated manner.

Petrie in the forward line seems to me to be creating an MPP siutation for the sake of having an MPP situation. Is my thinking way off track?       

[Prospector_1]

There is plenty of debate around, along exactly the lines you have said.

I'll be very interested to follow the thread - my hope is Petrie becomes either a keeper or great trade material up forward. I will refuse to anchor him purely for the mpp - I had the other Tippet last year doing the same, and it saved me nicely a few times, but last year was a bad year for ruck injuries.

[dread_lord09]

Hey guys
I'm doing the "Petire in foward line and J.Tippett in ruck on bench" strat. The idea is when Cox or Sandi has a bye and none of my ruck bench is playing, simply swap J.Tippett with Petrie and put Petrie on the field as a ruck. That's my way of seeing it

[c4v3m4n]

At the moment, I've got Petrie in my forward line as my 7th forward and its not because of his MPP.

The two reasons are:

1. I feel that he'll return to his previous average, and with that in mind, there's more value to be had having him in the forward. Very great trade material IMO.

2. I'm not worrying at all with MPPs for my ruck, simply because when it's my ruck's turn for a bye, I'll have him covered with my bench players. That's what they are there for. With the new bench/sub rules, I don't think we'll be seeing much of Joel Tippett this year. Bit of a waste putting him in your team IMO.

Dreadlord, if you are swapping Tippett for Petrie when Cox are Sandi are away, and then using a bench player to cover Tippett, wouldn't it be more sensible just using a bench player to cover Cox or Sandi and leave Petrie be? Cut out the middle man so to speak?

[freezer]

I toyed with the idea of him in my forward line but with my structure I will start him in the rucks and not worry about MPP eligibility. I hope that my bench scoring ruckman will cover the byes.

[madskill55]

At the moment, I've got Petrie in my forward line as my 7th forward and its not because of his MPP.

The two reasons are:

1. I feel that he'll return to his previous average, and with that in mind, there's more value to be had having him in the forward. Very great trade material IMO.

2. I'm not worrying at all with MPPs for my ruck, simply because when it's my ruck's turn for a bye, I'll have him covered with my bench players. That's what they are there for. With the new bench/sub rules, I don't think we'll be seeing much of Joel Tippett this year. Bit of a waste putting him in your team IMO.

Dreadlord, if you are swapping Tippett for Petrie when Cox are Sandi are away, and then using a bench player to cover Tippett, wouldn't it be more sensible just using a bench player to cover Cox or Sandi and leave Petrie be? Cut out the middle man so to speak?

Id haveta agree with c4v3m4n 100%. If you think about it slowly and logically why would u have him in the ruck? Say if he returns back to his 75+ average at the minimum he'll go up to maybe 375k+. You could easily upgrade Petrie in the forward line to a fallen premium or even a top notch premium depending on how much money you have in the bank... If you leave him in the forward line, what are you going to do? sideways trade or a minute upgrade to jolly/cox?

No point of MPP, cause joel tippett is likely not to play so why not just put in a cheap R3/R4 ruckman that will play (Campbell, Bailey, Smith, Hale or even Fraser) who can cover you for the byes instead of having mpp and chucking petrie in the ruck. This way if you need to if R4 goes up in value you can downgrade him and free up some cash, if you leave tippett in there he wont increase in value.. You're basically loosing out on free budget value cash here in my opinion.

IMO, put petrie in forwards...if it backfires you always have 3 subs...

[ZEDDOG]

I think strategy is sound if locking in 2 premium rucks

Sonnydark, take your option of rucks sandi,Petrie and emerg Fraser
With rookie 7 fwd.
The best your ruck will be is sandi and Petrie. However, take this option.
Rucks sandi, cox sub jtippett and fwd MPP Petrie.
Best case is cox  with sandi.  Worst case is cox &petrie
Beats the he'll out of Fraser & Petrie IMO.
Yes it is at a cost, but that's the risk of it

[hawk_88]

I also agree with c4v3m4n almost 100%, the only difference being that I chose him in the ruck instead of the forward line.

Every year I always find the "inform" ruckman always change. I like that Petrie has good trade potential and I think a trade to the "inform" ruckman of 2011. There is a lot of good trade material up forward but very little in the ruck.

So if you go say Sandi and Petrie as your rucks, you need to account for a Petrie bye round 3, but then don't have to have him upgraded until round 21. Both of Sandi's byes fall in no league rounds so he is fine.

The MPP strategy is low risk high cost. I can see why people would do it, but generally high risk low cost options are the ones that get you ahead, that is if you intelligently assess the high risk option.

[Prospector_1]

No point of MPP, cause joel tippett is likely not to play so why not just put in a cheap R3/R4 ruckman that will play (Campbell, Bailey, Smith, Hale or even Fraser) who can cover you for the byes instead of having mpp and chucking petrie in the ruck. This way if you need to if R4 goes up in value you can downgrade him and free up some cash, if you leave tippett in there he wont increase in value.. You're basically loosing out on free budget value cash here in my opinion.

Well, I started that way last year and got talked out of it. The benefit for me was KTippett did fill in well a few times.

My bottom line is this - how often are you ever going to cash in on money made by a rookie ruck? It's almost never worth using a trade on. Last year was weird, but I still bet very few people actually made money from a "cash cow" ruck rookie.

Set and forget your rucks. If you have to trade, you will be able to afford the next best (except last year when the next best, and the next next, etc. also failed.)

[c4v3m4n]

Set and forget your rucks.

Amen, Prospector.

[Fletch74]

At the moment I am toying with the MPP strategy, but with K Tippett as my second ruck becuase I know Adelaide will be better this year, and Tippett will also be better.

Adelaide played pretty well in the second half of last season, and I see Tippett's value as below what he is capable of achieving. Also my bench players ATM are Smith and Bailey. I'm unsure as to how well Smith will go, and whilst Bailey will play he may not score a great deal especially with the injuries he's had.

I'm prepared to take the gamble with Tippett as I know he has the potential, whether he's a keeper, well that remains to be seen, but at least I know I have that handy option and Smith and Bailey are not scoring the way everyone wants them to be

[nas]

Agree Fletch as Tipp would be a lot different & being burnt last year a lot of people would not have him. Say a Sandi & Tip / Petrie plus Smith & a very low 4th would mean a few extra bob in the sky rocket also.

[hawk_88]

Kurt is definitely an option... bit of a risk given his previous inconsistency and the large amount of unknowns at the crows given all of the changes.

Not a risk I will take but I could see him doing well this year.

[Fletch74]

Yeah hawk he burnt me last year, like so many others, but I feel that lightning doesn't necessarily strike twice. He has potential, and so do the Crows. We'll see how they play in the pre-season, and how he's going before I make my final decision.

Risks are sometimes what the difference can be, but I know it could also backfire!!

[8-6 Suited]

I'm going for an overall top 100 place this season, and I can assure you, scoring is more important as you all know. Therefore, Petrie will be in my forward-line and Joel Tippet, the cheap R/F rookie will be in my Rucks as a 4th to swap Petrie with when Sandilands has his bye.

You guys all seem to miss the point of MPP here. Sure, if he gets his average back, that will be fantastic but Sandilands was a 100 a game scorer. There isn't going to be a 3rd ruck that can replace that. Petrie is and has the potential to be a mild replacement, when if you select your forward line right, wont be missed on the bench for the week as forwards should be scoring the same as he does.


I'd much rather prefer to upgrade Petrie to the likes of Jack Reiwoldt or someone of the sorts later in the season than have him in my side as a ruck at the end.