The Jimmy Webster or Matt Suckling debate

[mancityfc]

which one do you have in your team? reasons on why or why you haven't picked one/both     8) 8)

[BlackOrWhite]

I have both due to limited back rookies. I don't want to pay 180k for luke mcdonald. A kid untried at AFL level. Webster is EXTREMELY efficient with his ball use and Suckling is a proven 80+ average player.

[mancityfc]

I have both due to limited back rookies. I don't want to pay 180k for luke mcdonald. A kid untried at AFL level. Webster is EXTREMELY efficient with his ball use and Suckling is a proven 80+ average player.

at what defensive position have you got suckling? B1? B2? B3? B4? B5?

[BlackOrWhite]

suckling is my D4

[batt]

Webster because my backs are mostly R9/10 so I can use him round 9 as a stepping stone into a R8 premium.  Otherwise I'd probably have Brodie Smith.

Not convinced Suckers is worth the extra dough.  Webster has a well defined role, SC scoring friendly.

[mancityfc]

Webster because my backs are mostly R9/10 so I can use him round 9 as a stepping stone into a R8 premium.  Otherwise I'd probably have Brodie Smith.

Not convinced Suckers is worth the extra dough.  Webster has a well defined role, SC scoring friendly.

was thinking the same thing

[lowry]

I have both due to limited back rookies. I don't want to pay 180k for luke mcdonald. A kid untried at AFL level

I still believe Luke is a must, as a north supporter he's so highly rated and with a season of vfl under his belt he's a walk up start. If he starts the season well, he'll definitely solidify his JS

[tigertops]

Webster because my backs are mostly R9/10 so I can use him round 9 as a stepping stone into a R8 premium.  Otherwise I'd probably have Brodie Smith.

Not convinced Suckers is worth the extra dough.  Webster has a well defined role, SC scoring friendly.

Wats his role batt?
Is he defensive distributer where they try and give him the ball when coming outta def?

[Marcos83]

Have both for the same reason. Too much uncertainty with back rookies.

[Dayze]

Both for me.
Both designated kickers off half back.
Points potential and job security xcellent

[H1bb3i2d]

Just went Suckling > Webster after having Suckers all pre season. Was never keen on Webster, but having a look at how to spread my byes better, he works better with McVeigh. Simpson, Mitchell, Suckling and maybe Langford was just R9 overkill.
Dropped Pendlebury to Libba and possibly Martin to Roughead for the same reasons.

Webster doesnt have to average as highly to make the same money, and any lost points would probably be made up over the byes anyway. ( hopefully).

[cortez]

I have Suckling, Webster, McDonald & Martin, All starting on the field atm too.

[Slammer]

I reckon Suckling. Proven and Hawks will go ok again this season.
Webster unproven and will be up and down

[tor01doc]

Byes really shouldn't matter in defence. There are enough options to spread the load.

Suckling - should score higher / winning team / proven BUT higher injury concerns

Webster - how much of him have we seen / won't score as much probably but could make the same money so as long as you make up the scoring elsewhere that is not important / JS not certain but should be OK

Both would be fine but I have Suckling as I also really want McDonald so feel my defence looks better by more than I can make up for elsewhere with current structure.

[fever]

people's thoughts on suckling/webster/mcd at D4/5/6? feels bit too weak on instinct (esp with d swallow at D3)