Which Sydney players you locking in for first two rounds?

[Noz]

Sorry but your point became invalid when you used Tambling as an example.

[Ricochet]

Rockliff had a role change
Tambling only played 10 games in 2010 and started as sub in a lot of those games
Shiel was turned into a tagger in 2012
Priddis had an injury affected and sub affect 2012
Hodge battled with injuries
Gibbs is probably the only legitimate example but even he was forced into different roles

Can't predict injuries but we can be 99% sure that Kennedy and Jack will not get  different roles in 2013

[powersuperkents]

Sorry but your point became invalid when you used Tambling as an example.

that's not even a rebuttal.

Tambling is the same.. He followed the exact same jump in points as you displayed with the JPK/Jack argument. He jumped to 88.8 and if he followed your example he should've scored somewhere between 95-102 the next season. But no... The fact you didn't write anything back and went with that shows you're already seeing the risk involved with bringing unproven players in especially considering the team they are in

My opinion JPK<Redden/Murphy (locked for the season) & Barlow/Mundy/Fyfe/Anthony > Jack (locked for the season) ;D I'm assuring you if you plan on keeping these players for the rest of the season they'll be a pain and even if they manage to raise their prices in first 3 rounds they will eventually loss value

[powersuperkents]

Rockliff had a role change
Tambling only played 10 games in 2010 and started as sub in a lot of those games
Shiel was turned into a tagger in 2012
Priddis had an injury affected and sub affect 2012
Hodge battled with injuries
Gibbs is probably the only legitimate example but even he was forced into different roles

Can't predict injuries but we can be 99% sure that Kennedy and Jack will not get  different roles in 2013

The roles they already have aren't good. They are suppose to be the major ball winners in a grand final winning team and only one could just manage to average 100!!!!

Compare that to Montagna 116, Hayes 110 & Dal Santo 103, or Collingwoods Swan 123, Pendlebury 106 and Geelong's Ablett 118.7, Selwood 103, 109, Chapman 113, 102, Bartel 109, 97.4 (the 2011 one is where jack is at) and Joel Corey 106 and 92 (after injury or something..)

[Noz]

The fact I didn't write anything back because you clearly can not see that players do improve makes this argument invalid.

It's like arguing advanced mathematicaly equations with a newborn baby no point because the baby will never understand.

[powersuperkents]

I'm not trying to be the voice of reason or anything I'm just saying take all this into account. The Swan's are empirically not really DT relevant they won a grand final yet the Tigers who didn't make finals have more DT relevant players. Also as a port supporter I have to admit they are a shocking team yet Ebert scores 98.7 beating Jack and look at the difference in the two teams. If the Swans played like any other team and won the Grand Final their scores would be JPK at 110+ Jack, McVeigh & Hannebery 100-110 but their styles of play restricts any major ball winner. They may become like Hawthorne who like Sydney won the Grand Final with players averaging 80's and 90's who the next season scored 100+ but they didn't even make finals (obviously their style of play turned more Dt friendly or something). I think if Sydney continue to play the way they do and share the ball amongst everyone (they are the most timid team to watch on TV) they won't improve...

[powersuperkents]

The fact I didn't write anything back because you clearly can not see that players do improve makes this argument invalid.

It's like arguing advanced mathematicaly equations with a newborn baby no point because the baby will never understand.

I acknowledge players improve!!! But the fact that these players are in a team that is already at the top of the league and still can't manage a 100 average makes it something of a worry.. Seriously a premiership team should have players averaging 110+ not one player averaging 101!!!!!!! It is due to the way sydney play football!!! and if they continue this style is constricts a single ball winner!!! Therefore meaning that no player will improve by enough to make it worth selecting them!!!

Seriously a grand final team should have players averaging 110+

2009: Ablett 118.7 take into account Saints where favourites 116 Montagna
2010: Swan 123 Montagna averaged 112 Goddard averaged 113.4
2011: Selwood 109 take into account Collingwood were favourites Swan 120.9
2012: JPK 101 (disappointing)  take into account Hawks were favourites Sam Mitchell 101.3 and Franklin 101.3 (at least they had two players)

seriously look at the difference
now answer who is the Swans major ball winner? DT wise who do they have that can compare? Are they not already at the top of their game? Why could only one player average a tiny 101? Where is the major ball winner, The one that everyone picks, They won a grand final they are a good team... they are top of the afl.. That doesn't make any of their players prime candidates when there are so many better 'premiums' out there to choose from. Swan are already top of their game, the coach won't make any changes and despite how hard they played only one could manage a 100 average. Taking all that into account I can't foresee enough improvement/room for improvement to actually go ahead and pick one of these players.. I think DT wise it would be better for the players if the team began to lose at least then they can try out new styles where an obvious major ball winner can be seen   

[powersuperkents]

Seriously just answer this..
Would you actually choose JPK over;
Redden
Selwood
Swallow
Dangerfield
Mitchell
Murphy

Out of them it's between him and Mitchell for last preference...

Would you choose Jack over;
Ebert
Grigg
Scooter (hate him but I'd still rather him)
Chapman (I'd rather Chapman just to sub him into my forwards)
Ward
Griffen
Anthony
Greene
Montagna
Barlow
Mundy
Fyfe

Definitely wouldn't even make my top 5 out of these players..

Seriously say if there is any players out of all of them you'd rather have...

[Ricochet]

Rockliff had a role change
Tambling only played 10 games in 2010 and started as sub in a lot of those games
Shiel was turned into a tagger in 2012
Priddis had an injury affected and sub affect 2012
Hodge battled with injuries
Gibbs is probably the only legitimate example but even he was forced into different roles

Can't predict injuries but we can be 99% sure that Kennedy and Jack will not get  different roles in 2013

The roles they already have aren't good. They are suppose to be the major ball winners in a grand final winning team and only one could just manage to average 100!!!!

Compare that to Montagna 116, Hayes 110 & Dal Santo 103, or Collingwoods Swan 123, Pendlebury 106 and Geelong's Ablett 118.7, Selwood 103, 109, Chapman 113, 102, Bartel 109, 97.4 (the 2011 one is where jack is at) and Joel Corey 106 and 92 (after injury or something..)

I'm sorry mate I disagree. You really need to take into account their age and how young those Sydney boys are.
From those averages above when in their prime, Montagna was 26 then, Hayes 29, Dal Santo 25, Swan 26, Pendles 23, Ablett 25, Chappy 28, Selwood 23, Bartel 24

[Andrew]

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?

I just think you're completely under-rating the potential of these Swans players to go bang early, and how big an advantage it is to have someone score 120+ going 20-30 points above what their 2012 averages are. Then we've got 2 trades a week... why not use them? If McVeigh, for instance, wants to pull a 60 against GWS round 1, I would find a way to upgrade him. But a score like that would go against his pre-season form and scoring against GWS last year.

However, in the scenario that guys like Jack, McVeigh, Hannebury do go 110+ or better, well you wouldn't sell them after the first 3 rounds as barring catastrophe, they would likely have 2-3 rounds of price rise based on such a good start. So you would re-assess the situation after Round 5 or 6.

Your experiences of previous years in DT aren't that relevant when we have so many more trades to work with this year. Regardless, jumping on a player after a good start is different to starting with one who you expect/predict to go bang.

[powersuperkents]

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?

I just think you're completely under-rating the potential of these Swans players to go bang early, and how big an advantage it is to have someone score 120+ going 20-30 points above what their 2012 averages are. Then we've got 2 trades a week... why not use them? If McVeigh, for instance, wants to pull a 60 against GWS round 1, I would find a way to upgrade him. But a score like that would go against his pre-season form and scoring against GWS last year.

However, in the scenario that guys like Jack, McVeigh, Hannebury do go 110+ or better, well you wouldn't sell them after the first 3 rounds as barring catastrophe, they would likely have 2-3 rounds of price rise based on such a good start. So you would re-assess the situation after Round 5 or 6.

Your experiences of previous years in DT aren't that relevant when we have so many more trades to work with this year. Regardless, jumping on a player after a good start is different to starting with one who you expect/predict to go bang.

I agree with what your saying. I do acknowledge that they can most likely score 120+ in the first few rounds and that the new trade system does offer the advantage of making selections that can potentially benefit us that we usually wouldn't make. Even with that in mind I think picking the Sydney mids is a good way to start the season, but I personally won't be doing it on the grounds that I honestly can't see them maintaining a 100 average and would rather just start with premo's. I decided not to go with Wines and instead upgrade Boyd to Ablett because that was the general consensus on that way to start the season and it would save me the trouble of bringing him in later.. I think that people should go with the Swans players if they personally think it is a good way to start the season but like I said before all that was my own 'subjective' opinion. I was just trying to provide the people who read these forums for advice an alternative view on it because with everything there are the pros and cons even the Wines deal, haha to the point I decided to get Ablett in because if there's one thing we can all agree on, every decision in Dreamteam has it's ups and downs, except Ablett or Swan ;)

[Noz]

Apart from their proven players (Goodes, O'Keefe, Bolton and McVeigh) the rest of their midfield had break out years that is a contributing factor to winning the premiership,

Plus their defence is solid and they have several of the most under rated players alone down their in Richards and Smith.

Out of the list you put up I would deffinetly consider Kennedy as a keeper over some of them names.
Never really considered Jack at all to be honest

The fact that you still cannot see that their midfield is quickly becoming one of the best in the AFL makes me think either three things.
1. Your plain and simply a troll.
2. You are so one club minded that you can't see talent elsewhere
3. You are afraid of or can't see the change of the fantasy kingpins

[powersuperkents]

Apart from their proven players (Goodes, O'Keefe, Bolton and McVeigh) the rest of their midfield had break out years that is a contributing factor to winning the premiership,

Plus their defence is solid and they have several of the most under rated players alone down their in Richards and Smith.

Out of the list you put up I would deffinetly consider Kennedy as a keeper over some of them names.
Never really considered Jack at all to be honest

The fact that you still cannot see that their midfield is quickly becoming one of the best in the AFL makes me think either three things.
1. Your plain and simply a troll.
2. You are so one club minded that you can't see talent elsewhere
3. You are afraid of or can't see the change of the fantasy kingpins

Like I stated before my views have all been purely 'subjective'... Just because this is my opinion it doesn't mean I'm right likewise with your points of view as well. Like I stated before as well I'm just offering an alternative view for people who may base their selections on a bias forum.

Yes these players in my perspective don't show any real reasons for selection, but in your perspective you see it differently. Both our views are subjective and I can't change your opinion likewise with you and mine. I'm not arguing like I stated I'm just providing an alternative view something all democracy is based on...

Think of it through the eyes of someone who is less knowledgeable on this topic than the both of us.. He doesn't just want to read these one sided opinions from you and he wouldn't want to make a decision based primarily on my opinions either... I just added my own opinion so someone who read this has two points of view too base a selection on.. Maybe some players may reconsider picking Swans mids after my input and maybe some players selection in a swan's mid are stronger than ever after reading your input. I'm just offering people who need help more than one opinion to go with, because that is why we're all here right? To help one anther. If every forum was one sided every single person using fanfooty forums would have the exact same team instead I need to choose between Pendlebury and Cotchin and I see a post filled with multiple opinions, facts, statistics supporting both sides and that helps me make the decision. I'm not saying the Swan's mid is crap, I'm saying in my own opinion it doesn't look promising and it may appear forceful but I really don't intend it to be that way I just want to provide the users to be able to see every single available factor, variable and option before making a choice because there's more needed than just a single opinion when making a choice

P.S. I'm sorry but Ted Richards and Nick Smith shouldn't be considered for anyone's dreamteam 

[powersuperkents]

Haha any of you guys going to end up keeping your Swan's picks now? Because they most likely won't sky rocket in price like you predicted and there are about 10 better options in all their price ranges for keeps?  ;)

I think it's safe to say it is still a possibility that none will average 100 taking into account this was the top team in the league versing the bottom team and their top player was a tagger... And Jack and O'Keefe won't score 100 each week because there will be the odd game where McVeigh, Hannebery, Goodes or JPK will score 100 which would most likely demote them, 12 players in their team scored over 70, that is a lot. Adelaide only had 5, Collingwood.. Yes Collingwood only had 9 and Jolly was 71 and Maxwell was 70..

Like I said before they share the ball between to many players to the point that they aren't and if they continue this gameplay style never will be Dream team relevant. It'll be the same next week and there will be the odd game one scores 150+ but I can't see any averaging 100, maybe like I stated before one may just break 100 but I see most of them in the 90's

[Ricochet]

Haha any of you guys going to end up keeping your Swan's picks now? Because they most likely won't sky rocket in price like you predicted and there are about 10 better options in all their price ranges for keeps?  ;)

O'keefe, Jack and Mummy were still good picks and they have GC this week. I would keep those 3 if I had them