Which Sydney players you locking in for first two rounds?

[Hagebear]

Just brought in JPK for Boyd.

[powersuperkents]

Just brought in JPK for Boyd.

No point man...

Either JPK will drop and you'll lose money or JPK will score real high and you won't want Boyd back.. It's a lose/Lose situation

Bring in a guaranteed rook with good JS for boyd -> gain the cash -> upgrade him back to Boyd after Boyd's 2nd game with a showerload of cash in hand to hopefully upgrade another rook to Stevie J etc..

[Ricochet]

Just brought in JPK for Boyd.

No point man...

Either JPK will drop and you'll lose money or JPK will score real high and you won't want Boyd back.. It's a lose/Lose situation

Bring in a guaranteed rook with good JS for boyd -> gain the cash -> upgrade him back to Boyd after Boyd's 2nd game with a showerload of cash in hand to hopefully upgrade another rook to Stevie J etc..

I don't think people are picking up Swannies based on their early draw. They don't necessarily rate JPK/Jack/etc better than Boyd but are stepping stones to Boyd while taking advantage of the easy early fixture.

[powersuperkents]

Just brought in JPK for Boyd.

No point man...

Either JPK will drop and you'll lose money or JPK will score real high and you won't want Boyd back.. It's a lose/Lose situation

Bring in a guaranteed rook with good JS for boyd -> gain the cash -> upgrade him back to Boyd after Boyd's 2nd game with a showerload of cash in hand to hopefully upgrade another rook to Stevie J etc..

I don't think people are picking up Swannies based on their early draw. They don't necessarily rate JPK/Jack/etc better than Boyd but are stepping stones to Boyd while taking advantage of the easy early fixture.

haha yeah but it doesn't make sense. People assume that because that have an easy early draw that means every bloody player in the Swan will post 100 every week.

Do people seriously think that their early draw means
McVeigh 100+, 100+, 100+
JPK 100+, 100+, 100+
Jack 100+, 100+, 100+
O'Keefe 100+, 100+, 100+
Goodes 100+, 100+, 100+
Hannebery 100+, 100+, 100+

I know it's not you but that's just what everyone seems to assume. It's not practical. Two swans players will do good one week and maybe another two will do well the next. They're inconsistent due to the fact they are such a solid unit and play so well together as a team that they don't have a consistent major ball winner. This whole theory is like saying "Richmond is versing Melbourne this week - Cotchin 100, Deledio 100, Riewoldt 100, Dusty 100, Tuck 100". It doesn't mean that they all will do well and say JPK scores 120+ for the first straight 3 weeks, that most likely means the rest of the team are going to range somewhere between mediocre and crap because JPK isn't sharing the ball with them. Even when Geelong flogged the Demons in 2011 only 5 or 6 players posted 100+ if I recall and Geelong is a team of individual stars... Conversely Sydney isn't they share the ball with everyone and that's why the scores are s inconsistent and they have no real DT relevant players besides O'Keefe when he was a forward.. I think the whole assumption is just stupid

But it's the persons choice if they want to go with it :D that is just my opinion on the whole thing. I stay away from Swans (besides O'Keefe when he was a forward) and Eagles (besides Cox and Waters)

[Andrew]

haha yeah but it doesn't make sense. People assume that because that have an easy early draw that means every bloody player in the Swan will post 100 every week.

Do people seriously think that their early draw means
McVeigh 100+, 100+, 100+
JPK 100+, 100+, 100+
Jack 100+, 100+, 100+
O'Keefe 100+, 100+, 100+
Goodes 100+, 100+, 100+
Hannebery 100+, 100+, 100+

Nobody ever quoted those stats but outside of Goodes, around 100 is what these players scored against GWS and GC last year, so why wouldn't people seriously think they'll do it again? If a Swans selection fails in the first round you could easily sideways trade them to someone more trustworthy, but with great pre-season form behind them, JPK, Jack, McVeigh, and Hannebury all look like good picks and outside of JPK good value...

[tbagrocks]

None!

[Noz]

I don't see why everyone can't see big improvement on Hannebery the bloke is an out right gun. Averaged 80 in his first real season followed by a 79 and a 81 average last year.

Averaged 97 in the finals series in the 3 games the Swans played.

I deffinetly can see Hannebery moving into the 95-100 PPG bracket this year.

Only problem is he did struggle with consistency last year but will look to improve on that as he becomes one of the Swans most important players this year.

[powersuperkents]

I don't see why everyone can't see big improvement on Hannebery the bloke is an out right gun. Averaged 80 in his first real season followed by a 79 and a 81 average last year.

Averaged 97 in the finals series in the 3 games the Swans played.

I deffinetly can see Hannebery moving into the 95-100 PPG bracket this year.

Only problem is he did struggle with consistency last year but will look to improve on that as he becomes one of the Swans most important players this year.

That's right he average 80, 79 and then 81 no real improvement and nothing impressive. The Swan don't play a style of football which is relevant to dreamteam. Unless the coach makes some big changes in their gameplan (which would be stupid because it won them the premiership) the team will continue to score inconsistently unlike a team e.g. Geelong and Collingwood where certain players are always winning the ball and the team plays individual roles where they share the ball less. Sydney won the Grand Final but only one player in the entire team managed to just average 100. When Geelong won multiple players by-passed the 100 average, same with  Collingwood and St Kilda beforehand

Big difference in the playing style. Like I've said Sydney are a star team, Geelong, Collingwood, St Kilda (formerly) are teams of stars. Other examples are Richmond, Brisbane, Carlton and other Star teams are West Coast

It's simple mathematical observation.... Seriously how many Geelong players in 11 & 09 achieved 100+ averages LOTS! How many Saint in 09 & 10 (they didn't win but still had Hayes, Goddard, Montagna & Dal Santo maybe more that I couldn't recall and they didn't just manage a crap 101, Montag 116, Hayes 110, Goddard 103, Dal Santo 103 (even he beat JPK).. Likewise look at Collingwood even now!!! Sidey, Thomas, Swan, Beams, Pendlebury and back before Leon Davis and Didak...

In conclusion I still state Swans aren't DT relevant and it's best people stay away from them... Unless there is a change in their playing style but it's most likely that won't be the case.. 

[powersuperkents]

haha yeah but it doesn't make sense. People assume that because that have an easy early draw that means every bloody player in the Swan will post 100 every week.

Do people seriously think that their early draw means
McVeigh 100+, 100+, 100+
JPK 100+, 100+, 100+
Jack 100+, 100+, 100+
O'Keefe 100+, 100+, 100+
Goodes 100+, 100+, 100+
Hannebery 100+, 100+, 100+

Nobody ever quoted those stats but outside of Goodes, around 100 is what these players scored against GWS and GC last year, so why wouldn't people seriously think they'll do it again? If a Swans selection fails in the first round you could easily sideways trade them to someone more trustworthy, but with great pre-season form behind them, JPK, Jack, McVeigh, and Hannebury all look like good picks and outside of JPK good value...

Like I said it's a person's choice on who they want to select. I personally (subjectively) don't see the Swans as viable DT candidates. I just don't see the appeal on choosing these expensive players if you're only planning to have them for the first three rounds before trading.. Wouldn't you just pick a rookie and have the cash in hand and if they ended up playing well in the first 3 rounds why wouldn't someone become ensnare in the trap and keep them? In 2010 I had Stanton, Adam Selwood, Kade Simpson & Tuck based on how well they started, screwed me over in the long run. In 2012 I had Rockliff and Scooter Selwood (Selwood based on how well he started) and kept Ebert based on their starts and it screwed me over. I see the same thing happening with everyone who picks swans mids.. Don't flower yourself over and go with proven premiums instead.. The only risk I'm taking this year is Cotchin.. Trust me from personal experience "beware there is nothing worse than a premium midfielder that averages 90's"

[Noz]

So do you think every single Swans midfielder would average under 90?

[powersuperkents]

So do you think every single Swans midfielder would average under 90?

I think they will all average 90's like last year... With maybe one of them just breaking 100 like last year. Just because Kennedy broke 100 it was only 101 the poorest excuse for a premium mid. I think most likely it'll end up like last year all averaging 90-99 and maybe JPK can manage to weasel his way back into what is considered premium.. I myself don't consider him premium. I would rather Barlow, Mundy or Fyfe over him to be honest. He is really a semi premium who only keeps his premium status by having occasionally spectacular games but most weeks pumps out scores that if I had him myself I would find irritating. What is the point of having a premium midfielder who usually scores 90's? I'd rather Redden or even Swallow/Dangerfield for a bit extra money because at least the teams they are in can improve and up their scores. Swans won last year yet as I pointed out before only one player just averaged 100...

[Noz]

Wow you have just proved to me that you just like many others continue to under rate the Swans midfield.

The current core of midfielders

Kennedy - 25
Hannebery - 21
Jack - 24

3 future guns of not only dreamteam but of the competition

This was basically both Kennedy and Jacks break out year

Jack 2011 average: 78
       2012 average  98

Kennedy 2011 average: 86
             2012 average: 101

both roughly around the 20 point increase they will continue to improve.

[Ricochet]

Yeh they haven't even hit DT prime yet. 1 or 2 of them should improve to a 105+ average imo

[powersuperkents]

Wow you have just proved to me that you just like many others continue to under rate the Swans midfield.

The current core of midfielders

Kennedy - 25
Hannebery - 21
Jack - 24

3 future guns of not only dreamteam but of the competition

This was basically both Kennedy and Jacks break out year

Jack 2011 average: 78
       2012 average  98

Kennedy 2011 average: 86
             2012 average: 101

both roughly around the 20 point increase they will continue to improve.

Those previous years could mean a range of things. They could maintain.. They could drop... It doesn't necessarily mean they'll continue to raise.. It just shows they only have one season as proof of their potential nevertheless it is still a risk to pick them...

I could just state
Rockliff
2010: 87.2
2011: 112
2012: 93....

Shiels
2010: 53.3
2011: 102.7
2012: 79.5

Priddis
2010: 93.5
2011: 105.4
2012: 93.4

Tambling
2008: 74
2009: 88.8
2010: 57.1

I could even say Brock McLean is going to continue to break out because he went from 66.8 to 99.8 a much more impressive feat than both Jack and JPK. There are literally hundred of players you can use that argument for or against

[powersuperkents]

Bryce Gibbs
2007: 58
2008: 87.2
2009: 106.9
2010: 96.4
2011: 106.9
2012: 91.5

Luke Hodge
2008: 96
2009: 83
2010: 103.1
2011: 94

and these players have actually broke 100 unlike Jack, Hannebery etc.. All I'm stating is that it is a risk and the fact sydney play a different style of football adds to that risk