Tom Rockliff v Jobe Watson

[_wato]

He went past 120 seven times, compared with Watson's nine times. Taking away Watson's sub score he averaged 116 coming off a year where he averaged 120. Rockliff average 109 coming off a year where he averaged 97.

I'm thinking as Watson has the history I may choose him. He also has a larger ceiling and also doesn't cop the tag much.

My mind always changes though, hahaha.

[Vinny]

Watson is 29 or 30 though and Rocky is 23, who is more likely to improve?

Both good options though.

[Bones Bombers]

Both great picks. Just think everyone should reign in the predicted averages a bit. Only Gaz and Pendles averaged over 120 in 2013. Anything over 110 would be good, 115-120 awesome, 120+ godlike.
Also can't take away sub scores, injuries, games played forward etc. Every game counts.

[_wato]

Both great picks. Just think everyone should reign in the predicted averages a bit. Only Gaz and Pendles averaged over 120 in 2013. Anything over 110 would be good, 115-120 awesome, 120+ godlike.
Also can't take away sub scores, injuries, games played forward etc. Every game counts.

Of course you can take away sub games? Watson went out in the first 20 minutes of the first quarter and was on track for a 120+.

It you really want a consistent analysis of averages you take away sub affected games otherwise you don't get a true representation of their scores across the year. One game can ruin averages by upto 5ppg which is a huge difference. Watson at 110.9 is meh, him at 116.4 is very tasty.

The only games where I will argue your point, is games where they're tagged, because of course that is a true representation of their scores. But injuries, no not for me when I look at players averages.

[eaglesman]

Both great picks. Just think everyone should reign in the predicted averages a bit. Only Gaz and Pendles averaged over 120 in 2013. Anything over 110 would be good, 115-120 awesome, 120+ godlike.
Also can't take away sub scores, injuries, games played forward etc. Every game counts.

that is exactly what i am getting at .. people are getting carried away thinking people like rocky is gonna rival scores of ablett and pendlebury ... listen here folks it will not happen!!! i guarantee you

watson and rocky are both good picks that are suitable to our byes ... gotta say if there were no byes i dont think i would be picking either

[Vinny]

Yes I reckon most of the predicted averages are inflated.

I think Gaz Selwood and Pendles will all go similar.

Rocky will push though.

[eaglesman]

Yes I reckon most of the predicted averages are inflated.

I think Gaz Selwood and Pendles will all go similar.

Rocky will push though.

I have gone Stevie J over Jelwood :/ ... Honestly cant see Jelwood matching the other 2

[Vinny]

Fair enough.

Selwood nearly won the brownlow but then again SJ would have raped it if he played 22 or even 20.

Selwood is far younger though and will still improve, SJ has peaked I reckon.

[GoLions]

Both great picks. Just think everyone should reign in the predicted averages a bit. Only Gaz and Pendles averaged over 120 in 2013. Anything over 110 would be good, 115-120 awesome, 120+ godlike.
Also can't take away sub scores, injuries, games played forward etc. Every game counts.

that is exactly what i am getting at .. people are getting carried away thinking people like rocky is gonna rival scores of ablett and pendlebury ... listen here folks it will not happen!!! i guarantee you

watson and rocky are both good picks that are suitable to our byes ... gotta say if there were no byes i dont think i would be picking either

You don't think either of them will go top 8 or 10 in mids this year? Watson 116 avg without sub, rockliff 120+ avg when a pure mid.

[GoLions]

Yes I reckon most of the predicted averages are inflated.

I think Gaz Selwood and Pendles will all go similar.

Rocky will push though.

I have gone Stevie J over Jelwood :/ ... Honestly cant see Jelwood matching the other 2

SJ won't play enough games to match any of these guys, late upgrade target only for me, if that.

[Vinny]

Without a doubt they will all be Top 8 Mids, maybe the Top 5 even!

SJ will be Top 8 I think maybe.

He will also play 22.

just kidding that'd be silly. :P

[eaglesman]

Yes I reckon most of the predicted averages are inflated.

I think Gaz Selwood and Pendles will all go similar.

Rocky will push though.

I have gone Stevie J over Jelwood :/ ... Honestly cant see Jelwood matching the other 2

SJ won't play enough games to match any of these guys, late upgrade target only for me, if that.

fair call that ... just tweaked it and chucked in ryan griffen and now have a 10 10 10 bye structure ...

[Bones Bombers]

Both great picks. Just think everyone should reign in the predicted averages a bit. Only Gaz and Pendles averaged over 120 in 2013. Anything over 110 would be good, 115-120 awesome, 120+ godlike.
Also can't take away sub scores, injuries, games played forward etc. Every game counts.

Of course you can take away sub games? Watson went out in the first 20 minutes of the first quarter and was on track for a 120+.

It you really want a consistent analysis of averages you take away sub affected games otherwise you don't get a true representation of their scores across the year. One game can ruin averages by upto 5ppg which is a huge difference. Watson at 110.9 is meh, him at 116.4 is very tasty.

The only games where I will argue your point, is games where they're tagged, because of course that is a true representation of their scores. But injuries, no not for me when I look at players averages.

You can take them out if you want but SC won't! These things happen.

[Ziplock]

If it's an injury prone player, and you're using them as a keeper rather than a stepping stone, then I'd make the argument you can't take out injury affected scores.

However, one off freak injuries, like a concussion in the first 20 seconds, I think it's more accurate to take out those scores, if the event isn't likely to reoccur.

I'd also make the argument for greenvested players in their debut year, although I can see why you would keep those scores in if you thought they were likely to be vested again.

[_wato]

If it's an injury prone player, and you're using them as a keeper rather than a stepping stone, then I'd make the argument you can't take out injury affected scores.

However, one off freak injuries, like a concussion in the first 20 seconds, I think it's more accurate to take out those scores, if the event isn't likely to reoccur.

I'd also make the argument for greenvested players in their debut year, although I can see why you would keep those scores in if you thought they were likely to be vested again.

Yes I do agree with that 100%. I should have also pointed out what you said mate, you are spot on.