Rucks with DPP fwd cover

GoLions · February 23, 2014, 04:13:16 PM

Quote from: Grufflez on February 23, 2014, 02:34:53 PM
Edit. Also think that trading Sandilands out should he get injured ect ect is extremely counter-productive as you would be trading to another cheap ruck who himself may not be a keeper...

That's the whole point of it being a risk though. If he gets injured, then bad luck. If he doesn't, I am backing him to score well enough to make enough cash to almost be a straight swap for a fallen premium, depending on what round I trade him.

Grufflez · February 23, 2014, 05:52:47 PM

Quote from: GoLions16 on February 23, 2014, 04:13:16 PM
Quote from: Grufflez on February 23, 2014, 02:34:53 PM
Edit. Also think that trading Sandilands out should he get injured ect ect is extremely counter-productive as you would be trading to another cheap ruck who himself may not be a keeper...
That's the whole point of it being a risk though. If he gets injured, then bad luck. If he doesn't, I am backing him to score well enough to make enough cash to almost be a straight swap for a fallen premium, depending on what round I trade him.

Wouldn't a smart person minimize that risk if they were able to?

GoLions · February 23, 2014, 06:01:15 PM

Quote from: Grufflez on February 23, 2014, 05:52:47 PM
Quote from: GoLions16 on February 23, 2014, 04:13:16 PM
Quote from: Grufflez on February 23, 2014, 02:34:53 PM
Edit. Also think that trading Sandilands out should he get injured ect ect is extremely counter-productive as you would be trading to another cheap ruck who himself may not be a keeper...
That's the whole point of it being a risk though. If he gets injured, then bad luck. If he doesn't, I am backing him to score well enough to make enough cash to almost be a straight swap for a fallen premium, depending on what round I trade him.

Wouldn't a smart person minimize that risk if they were able to?

I don't see any fwd/ruck eligible players that I would want in my final team. For this example, let's say I start with Dixon.

So let's say Sandi gets injured, I have to trade him. I bring Dixon into my ruck to cover, and trade Sandi for a cheap forward. That's 1 trade gone. Then at some point I will need to trade Dixon, which is another trade wasted. So 2 trades gone in this scenario.

Now let's say Sandi doesn't get injured and does fine up until the byes or thereabouts. I use a trade to sideways him to a premo ruck, but I will also have to waste a trade on getting rid of Dixon, as he is not needed anymore. Once again, 2 trades.

If I don't start with Dixon, and all goes well, I end up using one trade. If Sandi does get injured, I'll either sideways him to one of the other cheap rucks, or downgrade a rookie and use the cash to upgrade him to a premium ruck.

Basically, having no backup means 1 or 2 trades used, having backup means I will definitely be using 2 trades. Unless you see Dixon as a keeper, I don't see the point.

shaker · February 23, 2014, 06:15:30 PM

Quote from: GoLions16 on February 23, 2014, 06:01:15 PM
Quote from: Grufflez on February 23, 2014, 05:52:47 PM
Quote from: GoLions16 on February 23, 2014, 04:13:16 PM
Quote from: Grufflez on February 23, 2014, 02:34:53 PM
Edit. Also think that trading Sandilands out should he get injured ect ect is extremely counter-productive as you would be trading to another cheap ruck who himself may not be a keeper...
That's the whole point of it being a risk though. If he gets injured, then bad luck. If he doesn't, I am backing him to score well enough to make enough cash to almost be a straight swap for a fallen premium, depending on what round I trade him.

Wouldn't a smart person minimize that risk if they were able to?
I don't see any fwd/ruck eligible players that I would want in my final team. For this example, let's say I start with Dixon.

So let's say Sandi gets injured, I have to trade him. I bring Dixon into my ruck to cover, and trade Sandi for a cheap forward. That's 1 trade gone. Then at some point I will need to trade Dixon, which is another trade wasted. So 2 trades gone in this scenario.

Now let's say Sandi doesn't get injured and does fine up until the byes or thereabouts. I use a trade to sideways him to a premo ruck, but I will also have to waste a trade on getting rid of Dixon, as he is not needed anymore. Once again, 2 trades.

If I don't start with Dixon, and all goes well, I end up using one trade. If Sandi does get injured, I'll either sideways him to one of the other cheap rucks, or downgrade a rookie and use the cash to upgrade him to a premium ruck.

Basically, having no backup means 1 or 2 trades used, having backup means I will definitely be using 2 trades. Unless you see Dixon as a keeper, I don't see the point.

I can't see how spending nearly 490K on Dixon to cover for 300 - 350K rucks that you must not be confident in unless you think Dixon is a keeper that's going to score well all year , like you said trades down the toilet

Gigantor · February 23, 2014, 08:20:48 PM

Thanks for the feedback gents, given me plenty to think about.
I can't imagine I'll be the only one stressing over ruck selection this year! Not to mention back line rookies.

Sabretooth Tigers · February 23, 2014, 10:35:38 PM

:)
Perhaps the best and only back up may be to hold cash over to avoid sideways trading. ::)

Gigantor · February 23, 2014, 11:06:39 PM

Yeah thats something Ive been considering, Pav instead of Dixon frees up 50K

Vinny · February 23, 2014, 11:10:41 PM

The way I see it is that you take the risk with a cheap ruckmen in order to use the cash elsewhere. It's the whole point if taking the risk, getting a mid-priced ruckmen on the bench defeats the purpose of using the cash elsewhere. You might aswell spend that little more and get Minson/Goldy. If the risk doesn't pay off bad luck, lets just hope one of Hampson, HMac or Hickey are killing it at the time, haha.

Grufflez · February 23, 2014, 11:10:47 PM

Quote from: GoLions16 on February 23, 2014, 06:01:15 PM
Quote from: Grufflez on February 23, 2014, 05:52:47 PM
Quote from: GoLions16 on February 23, 2014, 04:13:16 PM
Quote from: Grufflez on February 23, 2014, 02:34:53 PM
Edit. Also think that trading Sandilands out should he get injured ect ect is extremely counter-productive as you would be trading to another cheap ruck who himself may not be a keeper...
That's the whole point of it being a risk though. If he gets injured, then bad luck. If he doesn't, I am backing him to score well enough to make enough cash to almost be a straight swap for a fallen premium, depending on what round I trade him.

BTW if Sandilands was to get injured and you were to as you as ''sideways trade him to another cheap ruck like Hickey or downgrade him to a rookie'' you would then still have to use 1 or more trades to get that other cheap ruck/rookie out of your team anyway,as im sure if you couldn't stand for having Dixon in your final side you surely wouldn't want Hickey/whoever was your cheap sideways trade or a rookie on field in your final team either :D

BTW if Sandi gets injured and as you have stated will ''sideways trade to a cheap ruck or downgrade to a rookie'' that's another trade or more my friend as i gather you won't want another cheap ruck like Hickey or a rookie ruck on field in your final team either. :D

Wouldn't a smart person minimize that risk if they were able to?
I don't see any fwd/ruck eligible players that I would want in my final team. For this example, let's say I start with Dixon.

So let's say Sandi gets injured, I have to trade him. I bring Dixon into my ruck to cover, and trade Sandi for a cheap forward. That's 1 trade gone. Then at some point I will need to trade Dixon, which is another trade wasted. So 2 trades gone in this scenario.

Now let's say Sandi doesn't get injured and does fine up until the byes or thereabouts. I use a trade to sideways him to a premo ruck, but I will also have to waste a trade on getting rid of Dixon, as he is not needed anymore. Once again, 2 trades.

If I don't start with Dixon, and all goes well, I end up using one trade. If Sandi does get injured, I'll either sideways him to one of the other cheap rucks, or downgrade a rookie and use the cash to upgrade him to a premium ruck.

Basically, having no backup means 1 or 2 trades used, having backup means I will definitely be using 2 trades. Unless you see Dixon as a keeper, I don't see the point.

Mate ..see your whole theory doesn't work for me as i am happy to keep Dixon as cover for the entire year..this is clearly where our opinions differ.
If Dixon can average 90 i'll be happy with that + the cover he provides which may in fact save me trades during the year if short term ruck injuries occur.
As iv said before in other threads i may yet still decide not to go with Dixon,if i do this though i can not willfully pick Sandilands and just cross my fingers in blind hope that he makes 9 games in a row without resting or injury..and i believe they will rest him whenever possible can't see the bloke stringing more than 3 games together unless they have no other fit ruckmen and decide they must ride Sandilands into the dirt! ;)
People seem to be assuming Dixon is worthless or rubbish..i can't agree, he isn't a proven long term scorer but i think he is a decent pick if fit...and with GC improving should only get more opportunity.

Grufflez · February 23, 2014, 11:31:54 PM

Quote from: Gigantor on February 23, 2014, 11:06:39 PM
Yeah thats something Ive been considering, Pav instead of Dixon frees up 50K

I have both...KPP's don't bother me as much because i only care about overall not league wins..so a 65 one week and 135 the next suits me fine as long as that player averages what i need thoughout the season.

shaker · February 24, 2014, 09:15:46 AM

Dixons two scores in NAB 25, 48 for nearly 490K no thanks

GCSkiwi · February 24, 2014, 10:58:02 AM

Yeah spot on GL unless you see Dixon as a keeper, which I think is a big if, then having a cheapy with Dixon as cover is guaranteed to be 2 trades - possibly even 3. The only possibility of getting away with just 1 trade is backing your cheapy to become a sideways trade to prem. Higher risk, higher reward, attempting to minimise the risk with DPP cover also minimises the reward when you either trade him out or put up with an F5/F6 who isn't as good as you could have...

DCAK · February 24, 2014, 11:22:12 AM

I had Hale as a Fwd (DPP) all last season and he gave me great cover for my rucks, so I think there is some value in having a Fwd ruck DPP, so long as they're playing regularly and scoring well.

batt · February 24, 2014, 01:03:42 PM

I'm not really dissuaded by Dixon's NAB form. Yesterday's game shouldn't be considered at all given the lack of forward delivery.

He's inconsistent, but he scores big. Last year's average is injury affected. Gold Coast are on the up, more I50's = more opportunities for him. In my mind he could still push 95 with ease. The main problem is staying healthy.

The DPP is just a nice little bonus, would only consider it if I rated 2 players equally.

Pokerface · February 24, 2014, 05:49:13 PM

Quote from: batt on February 24, 2014, 01:03:42 PM
I'm not really dissuaded by Dixon's NAB form. Yesterday's game shouldn't be considered at all given the lack of forward delivery.

He's inconsistent, but he scores big. Last year's average is injury affected. Gold Coast are on the up, more I50's = more opportunities for him. In my mind he could still push 95 with ease. The main problem is staying healthy.

The DPP is just a nice little bonus, would only consider it if I rated 2 players equally.

I was really looking at picking Dixon in the forwards thinking he would be a keeper until the nab. Its not his form that turned me off so much as his role. Last year he benefited with the ruck injuries and spent alot of time rucking. It was quite clear from the nabs that unless GC rucks get injured again, that won't happen this year.