Well, what now?
Losing Heppell is shattering for us, but I'm sure there's worse off.
EDIT: Well it looks like we really are the worst off.
Sucks that we traded in belcho and now this happens(not 100% sure if he is actually one effected but assume he is)
Oh well, lucky Tippett and Vardy have DPP
Just cop it on the chin like an LTI
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 12, 2016, 09:24:26 AM
Just cop it on the chin like an LTI
Yep, exactly.
If anything, put the 'top up players' in a draft pool and let affected clubs get their replacements like that.
I'd be curious to see if the timing was similar for when JThomas/Keefe copped their bans and what happened there in terms of XVs comps.
Surely we'd keep in line with whateva was done for those two boys
Quote from: Ricochet on January 12, 2016, 11:14:45 AM
I'd be curious to see if the timing was similar for when JThomas/Keefe copped their bans and what happened there in terms of XVs comps.
Surely we'd keep in line with whateva was done for those two boys
to be fair though those guys were pretty much spuds. losing Hurley Heppell however can hugely affect a team.
Quote from: Holz on January 12, 2016, 11:19:08 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on January 12, 2016, 11:14:45 AM
I'd be curious to see if the timing was similar for when JThomas/Keefe copped their bans and what happened there in terms of XVs comps.
Surely we'd keep in line with whateva was done for those two boys
to be fair though those guys were pretty much spuds. losing Hurley Heppell however can hugely affect a team.
JThomas was rated pretty highly though
Quote from: Ricochet on January 12, 2016, 11:24:25 AM
Quote from: Holz on January 12, 2016, 11:19:08 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on January 12, 2016, 11:14:45 AM
I'd be curious to see if the timing was similar for when JThomas/Keefe copped their bans and what happened there in terms of XVs comps.
Surely we'd keep in line with whateva was done for those two boys
to be fair though those guys were pretty much spuds. losing Hurley Heppell however can hugely affect a team.
JThomas was rated pretty highly though
We had him too,
Typical, :P
Quote from: Ricochet on January 12, 2016, 11:24:25 AM
Quote from: Holz on January 12, 2016, 11:19:08 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on January 12, 2016, 11:14:45 AM
I'd be curious to see if the timing was similar for when JThomas/Keefe copped their bans and what happened there in terms of XVs comps.
Surely we'd keep in line with whateva was done for those two boys
to be fair though those guys were pretty much spuds. losing Hurley Heppell however can hugely affect a team.
JThomas was rated pretty highly though
he is decent, but not a superstar like heppell. Plus his was kind of self inflicted opposed to the essendon boys. saying that its basically the same thing as me losing Shaz to inury this year, thats not self inflicted.
Quote from: Holz on January 12, 2016, 11:26:23 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on January 12, 2016, 11:24:25 AM
Quote from: Holz on January 12, 2016, 11:19:08 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on January 12, 2016, 11:14:45 AM
I'd be curious to see if the timing was similar for when JThomas/Keefe copped their bans and what happened there in terms of XVs comps.
Surely we'd keep in line with whateva was done for those two boys
to be fair though those guys were pretty much spuds. losing Hurley Heppell however can hugely affect a team.
JThomas was rated pretty highly though
he is decent, but not a superstar like heppell. Plus his was kind of self inflicted opposed to the essendon boys. saying that its basically the same thing as me losing Shaz to inury this year, thats not self inflicted.
I see your point, but being banned for drugs is not where near the same as an injury
Quote from: Ricochet on January 12, 2016, 11:29:18 AM
Quote from: Holz on January 12, 2016, 11:26:23 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on January 12, 2016, 11:24:25 AM
Quote from: Holz on January 12, 2016, 11:19:08 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on January 12, 2016, 11:14:45 AM
I'd be curious to see if the timing was similar for when JThomas/Keefe copped their bans and what happened there in terms of XVs comps.
Surely we'd keep in line with whateva was done for those two boys
to be fair though those guys were pretty much spuds. losing Hurley Heppell however can hugely affect a team.
JThomas was rated pretty highly though
he is decent, but not a superstar like heppell. Plus his was kind of self inflicted opposed to the essendon boys. saying that its basically the same thing as me losing Shaz to inury this year, thats not self inflicted.
I see your point, but being banned for drugs is not where near the same as an injury
well its both a bad luck case for your team that you couldnt see coming, you could argue in the essendon case people knew in advance so actually should get no compo
Hurley :'(
We will lost Stanton not ideal :-\
So what will happen regards to replacing them? Cause Essendon will get top up players. We would have a draft with teams affected such as myself wouldnt we
EDIT: Well apparently Baguley isn't one of the Bombers with suspensions
Quote from: JROO8 on January 12, 2016, 02:04:48 PM
We will lost Stanton and Baguley. Not ideal :-\
So what will happen regards to replacing them? Cause Essendon will get top up players. We would have a draft with teams affected such as myself wouldnt we
^ that's what I think
Open up the trade period again to a free-for-all I think.
And make top-up draft picks tradeable...
See what I reckon should happen is that everyone pulls a number out of a hat and then each top up player gets assigned a number. The corresponding number is the player that you get. Some good old fashioned luck should really fix this showerstorm of a situation that only a club like Essendon can cause. Just very selfish and overall terrible thing to do to us coaches who are putting blood, sweat and tears into this competition and they have the audacity to come out and pull this stunt. Absolute joke. Shocking and appalling.
Here's my one post for the year, savour it, enjoy it, live it. Just remember these parting words; If a kangaroo can jump around all day with a baby in its pouch, what's stopping you from doing the same?
Quote from: MajorLazer on January 13, 2016, 02:18:57 AM
Here's my one post for the year, savour it, enjoy it, live it. Just remember these parting words; If a kangaroo can jump around all day with a baby in its pouch, what's stopping you from doing the same?
a pouch ;D
Quote from: Bill Manspeaker on January 13, 2016, 02:43:32 AM
Quote from: MajorLazer on January 13, 2016, 02:18:57 AM
Here's my one post for the year, savour it, enjoy it, live it. Just remember these parting words; If a kangaroo can jump around all day with a baby in its pouch, what's stopping you from doing the same?
a pouch ;D
C'mon Kyle, you and I both know it's not that hard to attach one of those harness/carrier thingos parents put their kids in and jump around in one of those.
Quote from: Nige on January 13, 2016, 09:57:37 AM
Quote from: Bill Manspeaker on January 13, 2016, 02:43:32 AM
Quote from: MajorLazer on January 13, 2016, 02:18:57 AM
Here's my one post for the year, savour it, enjoy it, live it. Just remember these parting words; If a kangaroo can jump around all day with a baby in its pouch, what's stopping you from doing the same?
a pouch ;D
C'mon Kyle, you and I both know it's not that hard to attach one of those harness/carrier thingos parents put their kids in and jump around in one of those.
yeah and I guess if it worst comes to worst we could always staple the kid to our stomach and get around on pogo sticks
Quote from: Bill Manspeaker on January 13, 2016, 12:16:16 PM
Quote from: Nige on January 13, 2016, 09:57:37 AM
Quote from: Bill Manspeaker on January 13, 2016, 02:43:32 AM
Quote from: MajorLazer on January 13, 2016, 02:18:57 AM
Here's my one post for the year, savour it, enjoy it, live it. Just remember these parting words; If a kangaroo can jump around all day with a baby in its pouch, what's stopping you from doing the same?
a pouch ;D
C'mon Kyle, you and I both know it's not that hard to attach one of those harness/carrier thingos parents put their kids in and jump around in one of those.
yeah and I guess if it worst comes to worst we could always staple the kid to our stomach and get around on pogo sticks
Necessity is the mother of invention. 8)
The replacement players aren't going to be much guys, the real 'replacements' in a fantasy sense are players 23 to 34 on the Bombers list, all of which are already on Worlds lists somewhere.
So the disadvantage has been spread randomly, and the advantage has been spread randomly by the 12ish players who are getting a game when they wouldn't usually.
So I'd propose that you do a draft like any other - based on ladder positions.
The teams who have Essendon players on WXV Senior list have the oppurtunity to either:
- Promote a rookie
- Apply for top-up player
So, for example, if after that the competition had 7 vacant senior spots (5 teams with 1, and 1 team with 2) and 10 vacant rookie spots (6 teams with 1, 2 team with 2), the draft would be:
Round 1
Lowest ranked team from 2015 with a vacant senior spot: #1 pick
2nd lowest ranked team from 2015 with a vacant senior spot: #2 pick
etc
Highest ranked team from 2015 with a vacant senior spot: #6 pick
Round 2
Lowest ranked (and in this case only) team from 2015 with a 2nd vacant senior spot: #7 Pick
Rookie Draft
Round 1
Lowest ranked team from 2015 with a vacant rookie spot: #1 pick
2nd lowest ranked team from 2015 with a vacant rookie spot: #2 pick
3rd lowest ranked team from 2015 with a vacant rookie spot: #3 pick
And unfortunately the last spots are vacant because there aren't enough replacement players to replace the 17 suspended players.
Takes away the argument over which player is valued more other other.
Particularly as the replacements aren't going to be worth much
^^ that's interesting.
Also, regarding ex-WXV players being a top-up player:
I think the fairest way to do things, is that any top-up players selected will be selected regardless of whom they played with earlier, but should they get drafted by an AFL club afterwards, then the teams that had them before the 2016 season should have first rights, and not the team that had them during the 2016 year. Say if Moscow selected Aidan Riley (who might be a top up player) to replace Heppell... well, they won't have rights to Riley should he get drafted by an AFL club in November (that would be Rio), but they'll be getting Heppell back so it's not all bad.
^ that's fair
and I'm editing my post a bit cos I forgot that only a maximum 10 replacement players exist
maybe since PNL are benefiting huge from Lobbe they can give one of their players away to make it 11 in the draft.
Quote from: Holz on January 13, 2016, 04:30:01 PM
maybe since PNL are benefiting huge from Lobbe they can give one of their players away to make it 11 in the draft.
maybe the fact your direct rival took a hit you throw one of yours in to make it fairer :p...lol
seriously purps stole hams now he will tear it up so we gave already
not to mention i reckon out of those we delisted some could be a top up (ZOB) for instance and we wanted him we even knocked back a trade offer on the chance he got drafted
those with a chance to play that we delisted that have been mentioned are
Matthew Watson
Ayce Cordy
Elliott Kavanagh
ZOB
Robbie Warnock (someone else posted in essendon thread that fox nes brought his name up...we traded myers for him so only fair we get him back :P )
Quote from: DazBurg on January 13, 2016, 05:39:49 PM
Quote from: Holz on January 13, 2016, 04:30:01 PM
maybe since PNL are benefiting huge from Lobbe they can give one of their players away to make it 11 in the draft.
maybe the fact your direct rival took a hit you throw one of yours in to make it fairer :p...lol
I can give Matthew Scharenberg for the year as long as he is back on my list in November.
Quote from: Holz on January 13, 2016, 04:30:01 PM
maybe since PNL are benefiting huge from Lobbe they can give one of their players away to make it 11 in the draft.
Lobbe benefiting? Pfft
Tom "better than Mitch" Wallis will be the one to watch ;)
Have given the top-up draft order a lot of thought, and this is what I've come up with:
I looked at each of the player, and the team they play for. I assessed whether they were in the best XV, a direct back up (immediate depth player) or neither of those things.
If they were in the best XV, I gave them 0 points. If they were a direct back up, I gave them 50 points. If they were neither, I gave them 100 points.
Then, I recorded their position ranking entirely based on their 2015 average (I know it's not perfect, but it gives a good estimate); e.g, Dyson Heppell is the 20th best midfielder, so he gets 20 points.
I took both numbers I recorded for each player, and took that away from 300 (I wish I just added the numbers up, but I got too far into what I was doing to go back :P)
So what we have then, is the following;
Player Team Cripple Factor
Michael Hurley Pacific Islanders 292
Cale Hooker Moscow Spetsnaz 288
Paddy Ryder Tokyo Samurai 288
Dyson Heppell Moscow Spetsnaz 280
Michael Hibberd Berlin Brewers 270
Brent Stanton Mexico City Suns 264
Ben Howlett Pacific Islanders 264
Jobe Watson Christchurch Saints 235
Jake Carlisle Toronto Wolves 235
Stewart Crameri Cape Town Cobras 233
Travis Colyer Cairo Sands 220
Tom Bellchambers New York Revolution 215
Heath Hocking Cairo Sands 195
Angus Monfries Moscow Spetsnaz 171
Jake Melksham Toronto Wolves 104
Tayte Pears Beijing Thunder 82
David Myers Seoul Magpies 18
But then, I thought that it would be fairer if the teams that lost more than 1 player (such as Moscow, Pacific and Cairo), have a higher priority. So I added each team total up;
Team Cripple Factor
Moscow Spetsnaz 739
Pacific Islanders 556
Cairo Sands 415
Toronto Wolves 339
Tokyo Samurai 288
Berlin Brewers 270
Mexico City Suns 264
Christchurch Saints 235
Cape Town Cobras 227
New York Revolution 215
Beijing Thunder 82
Seoul Magpies 18
^^ I propose that the draft order be that. However, when Moscow take their pick, 300 points is taken away from the team total. So I see the draft order being something like this (assuming 12 players taken)
Moscow (for Cale Hooker)
Pacific (for Michael Hurley)
Moscow (for Dyson Heppell)
Cairo (for Travis Colyer & Heath Hocking)
Toronto (for Jake Carlisle & Jake Melksham)
Tokyo (for Paddy Ryder)
Berlin (for Michael Hibberd)
Mexico City (for Brent Stanton)
Pacific (for Ben Howlett)
Christchurch (for Jobe Watson)
Cape Town (for Stewart Crameri)
New York (for Tom Bellchambers)
Rookie Promotions:
Moscow (for Angus Monfries)
Cairo (for open spot on list)
Beijing (for Tayte Pears)
Toronto (for open spot on list)
Seoul (for David Myers)
Thoughts?
looks very involved and cant fault it excpet for Saints
Saints seem to get pretty hard with Travis Colyer & Heath Hocking, Ben Howlett, Stewart Crameri) far inferrior players.
given they are pushing for a flag and there guy is older the loss of watson is actually really big. Where other teams who arent pushing for flag and losing less important players will be fine.
Quote from: Holz on January 28, 2016, 11:59:32 AM
looks very involved and cant fault it excpet for Saints
Saints seem to get pretty hard with Travis Colyer & Heath Hocking, Ben Howlett, Stewart Crameri) far inferrior players.
given they are pushing for a flag and there guy is older the loss of watson is actually really big. Where other teams who arent pushing for flag and losing less important players will be fine.
Yeah I also think the Saints is the one thing I don't like about this :-\
Colyer & Hocking are best XV players for Cairo which is why they get a selection so high.
.... I actually just realised my rankings for forwards are a little out, because I didn't include M/F's, so I I would assume Cape Town's selection might slip a little, and Christchurch up a little.
EDIT: Just made those changes
Can you break down for me how you got 215 for Belcho?
Feel like we are getting stiffed here, considering he was picked to be our Number 1 ruck
Yes we have Tippett with DPP, but playing him as ruck then means we are a premo short in the fwd line as well as having to hope that Tippett plays all year
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 28, 2016, 12:07:50 PM
Can you break down for me how you got 215 for Belcho?
Feel like we are getting stiffed here, considering he was picked to be our Number 1 ruck
Yes we have Tippett with DPP, but playing him as ruck then means we are a premo short in the fwd line as well as having to hope that Tippett plays all year
When you have a fully fit list, would you play Isaac Heeney over Tom Bellchambers?
If yes, then Kurt Tippett is your number one ruck.
Which means I put Bellcho as a direct back up (50 points), he was the 35th best ruck, so 300 - 50 - 35 = 215.
Even if Vardy or Griffin was playing, they might even be a better choice then Bellcho IMO
Quote from: Purple 77 on January 28, 2016, 12:19:40 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 28, 2016, 12:07:50 PM
Can you break down for me how you got 215 for Belcho?
Feel like we are getting stiffed here, considering he was picked to be our Number 1 ruck
Yes we have Tippett with DPP, but playing him as ruck then means we are a premo short in the fwd line as well as having to hope that Tippett plays all year
When you have a fully fit list, would you play Isaac Heeney over Tom Bellchambers?
If yes, then Kurt Tippett is your number one ruck.
Which means I put Bellcho as a direct back up (50 points), he was the 35th best ruck, so 300 - 50 - 35 = 215.
Even if Vardy or Griffin was playing, they might even be a better choice then Bellcho IMO
RUC: Belcho
FWD: JJK, Tippett, Waite, Heeney
That's our Starting XV
Cant rely on guys like Griffin, Vardy etc because their JS is questionable where as Belly is best 22 which is why we chased him in the first place.
We now have to move Tippett to ruck, and then bring on one of Vardy, Walker, Menzel etc
Bellchambers played 10 games and averaged 62 last year, RD.. I wouldn't say you're being "stiffed".
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 28, 2016, 12:39:49 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on January 28, 2016, 12:19:40 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 28, 2016, 12:07:50 PM
Can you break down for me how you got 215 for Belcho?
Feel like we are getting stiffed here, considering he was picked to be our Number 1 ruck
Yes we have Tippett with DPP, but playing him as ruck then means we are a premo short in the fwd line as well as having to hope that Tippett plays all year
When you have a fully fit list, would you play Isaac Heeney over Tom Bellchambers?
If yes, then Kurt Tippett is your number one ruck.
Which means I put Bellcho as a direct back up (50 points), he was the 35th best ruck, so 300 - 50 - 35 = 215.
Even if Vardy or Griffin was playing, they might even be a better choice then Bellcho IMO
RUC: Belcho
FWD: JJK, Tippett, Waite, Heeney
That's our Starting XV
Cant rely on guys like Griffin, Vardy etc because their JS is questionable where as Belly is best 22 which is why we chased him in the first place.
We now have to move Tippett to ruck, and then bring on one of Vardy, Walker, Menzel etc
the guy didnt get games when you only had Mckernan. they just added burger. Its a pretty fair comment to say he wouldnt be playing at all unless burger got a LTI.
I would say being able to upgrade a rookie or pick up a top up player and not have him on your list for a year is a benefit to your team.
Woosha publicly stated that Belcho and Luey were going to be his ruck combo. He might be useless, but he was and is best 22 every day of the week
I understand he isn't exactly a top scorer and is injury prone, but with so much value being placed on Rucks around here I feel like we are getting short changed when guys like Colyer, Crameri etc are being valued higher
At the end of the day, the top ups are not going to be anywhere near as good as the players we are losing anyway, so us teams that do rely on Essendon players in our best XV are simply going to be at a disadvantage but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. It's just unlucky
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 28, 2016, 01:07:15 PM
At the end of the day, the top ups are not going to be anywhere near as good as the players we are losing anyway, so us teams that do rely on Essendon players in our best XV are simply going to be at a disadvantage but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. It's just unlucky
I don't fully agree with this. I think a guy like Simpkin for example could easily be as good as Hocking and produce a similar or better output. In certains cases like Heppell etc, obviously not, but I don't think it's completely fair apply that to every player.
Also, just to make sure I understand this, because I probably have it wrong, but with losing Colyer and Hocking, we get 2 'top up picks' for them, or 1 top up and 1 rookie promotion?
You're not getting Simpkin for Hocking anyway
Moscow, Pacific etc the teams with first picks will get the best of the bunch which are still massive downgrades for them and by the time it gets to you, us etc we won't be getting anyone really SC relevant
It's downgrades for all effected
Quote from: Nige on January 28, 2016, 06:17:28 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 28, 2016, 01:07:15 PM
At the end of the day, the top ups are not going to be anywhere near as good as the players we are losing anyway, so us teams that do rely on Essendon players in our best XV are simply going to be at a disadvantage but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. It's just unlucky
I don't fully agree with this. I think a guy like Simpkin for example could easily be as good as Hocking and produce a similar or better output. In certains cases like Heppell etc, obviously not, but I don't think it's completely fair apply that to every player.
Also, just to make sure I understand this, because I probably have it wrong, but with losing Colyer and Hocking, we get 2 'top up picks' for them, or 1 top up and 1 rookie promotion?
If we go this way, 1 top up pick and one rookie promotion
Based on 2015 averages Crameri would have been our F2 this season.
Hawkins (80), Crameri (73), Reid (73), Bird (72).
Bird should be our F2 given his move to the Bombers so that would make Crameri our F3 and a best XV starter.
I think you have factored this in Purps. Just wanted to point it out.
I highly doubt we'll get anyone remotely useful with Pick 11 in this draft but, that's okay.
The argument from Holz about teams who aren't pushing for flag is bogus as if you're compensating one team you have to do it fairly for everyone.
I assume the rookie promotions are because there are only 12 top-up players allowed so there won't be anyone else to pick from.
Which brings up another point - why do we need to draft every single player Purple? Can't we leave some (maybe two rounds worth) each season in case there needs to be a pick from a top-up pool for any reason (Ess bans, Thomas/Keefe bans etc) and then it also leaves a hidden gem or so for the next season's NAT/Rookie draft.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 28, 2016, 01:07:15 PM
but with so much value being placed on Rucks around here
Rucks aren't worth much. 84 average 25 year old isn't even worth pick 12.
Quote from: meow meow on January 28, 2016, 07:38:43 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 28, 2016, 01:07:15 PM
but with so much value being placed on Rucks around here
Rucks aren't worth much. 84 average 25 year old isn't even worth pick 12.
That chip still on your shoulder? :P
He is worth 12 now that half their team is suspended and his JS has improved
do we take into account people that have players that will nowe gets game that wouldn't have before?
we have non of the suspended players but we did have myers before trading him so just for this example lets say we hadn't traded him
we lose myers but means laverde and zerrett will get more games
or anther way Purps you lost hibberd but hams should get games now (damn you stealing him)
as well as redman may be thrust into it more now then might of been
or mitch brown is definitely going to play more for essendon then if hurley, hooker and pears were playing
again i know not the ruck New York lost but still a positive for the teams rather then not having any other essendon players at all
my point though is the fringe and young essendon players more likely to receive more games then they would of had no players been suspended
so those with players at least getting some positive compared those without other players?
speaking of that purps to make it easier to pinpoint i see you posted the lists after drafting do you still have it in a updated spreadsheet like during trading??
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 28, 2016, 08:01:37 PM
Quote from: meow meow on January 28, 2016, 07:38:43 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 28, 2016, 01:07:15 PM
but with so much value being placed on Rucks around here
Rucks aren't worth much. 84 average 25 year old isn't even worth pick 12.
That chip still on your shoulder? :P
He is worth 12 now that half their team is suspended and his JS has improved
It'll stay there ALL year since it cost me the chance to compete for the flag. I would have 110 Stefan but instead I've got 0 Watson. McKernan is better than Bellchambers and would have played ahead of him anyway. He played half a season and finished 10th in the B&F so his coaches rate him. If they rate him they'll pick him. He did kick 25 goals and average over 100 DT in the VFL playing predominantly forward too. He's a good player now.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on January 28, 2016, 07:28:18 PM
Which brings up another point - why do we need to draft every single player Purple? Can't we leave some (maybe two rounds worth) each season in case there needs to be a pick from a top-up pool for any reason (Ess bans, Thomas/Keefe bans etc) and then it also leaves a hidden gem or so for the next season's NAT/Rookie draft.
Fair enough point. I like to draft each player just because they are on an AFL list; to copy the AFL teams' list size. We don't need to, but it's what I would like to do. I like how the hidden gems (ala Mark Blicavs to Mexico City) get drafted to unexpected teams, rather than have them go to waste during the season.
With Keeffe/Thomas, there was no top-up players, but Moscow and Seoul could have promoted a rookie if they wanted to; just like St Kilda, Melbourne, Port and the Dogs, 5 clubs will have that "benefit" as well. I usually lean towards the way the AFL does it; if they bring in a top up player, we will, if they only offer rookie promotions, we will do that too.
Oh yeah, you can choose to promote a rookie instead of drafting a top-up player, for sure. Also, you don't have to promote a rookie right there and then, you can do it at any time of the season, because this rookie will be promoted for the rest of the year.
I like to think this is a one-off scenario were top-up players come in, so I'm hopeful we don't need to keep a "reserve" of two rounds worth of rookie-draft eligible players for situations like this.
But fair enough you bring that up; it's something I kinda decided myself.
Quote from: DazBurg on January 28, 2016, 08:02:00 PM
do we take into account people that have players that will nowe gets game that wouldn't have before?
we have non of the suspended players but we did have myers before trading him so just for this example lets say we hadn't traded him
we lose myers but means laverde and zerrett will get more games
or anther way Purps you lost hibberd but hams should get games now (damn you stealing him)
as well as redman may be thrust into it more now then might of been
or mitch brown is definitely going to play more for essendon then if hurley, hooker and pears were playing
again i know not the ruck New York lost but still a positive for the teams rather then not having any other essendon players at all
my point though is the fringe and young essendon players more likely to receive more games then they would of had no players been suspended
so those with players at least getting some positive compared those without other players?
speaking of that purps to make it easier to pinpoint i see you posted the lists after drafting do you still have it in a updated spreadsheet like during trading??
No, I haven't brought into account the essendon players that will benefit from the absence of the suspended players; that's just a natural added benefit for those oh so lucky few (like a William Hams owner ;)), so there is that too on top of the top-up players and rookie promotion spots.
.... do you mean, do I have a list of each team after each trade period week? I have a spreadsheet of all the players currently though?
Quote from: Purple 77 on January 28, 2016, 09:31:13 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on January 28, 2016, 07:28:18 PM
Which brings up another point - why do we need to draft every single player Purple? Can't we leave some (maybe two rounds worth) each season in case there needs to be a pick from a top-up pool for any reason (Ess bans, Thomas/Keefe bans etc) and then it also leaves a hidden gem or so for the next season's NAT/Rookie draft.
Fair enough point. I like to draft each player just because they are on an AFL list; to copy the AFL teams' list size. We don't need to, but it's what I would like to do. I like how the hidden gems (ala Mark Blicavs to Mexico City) get drafted to unexpected teams, rather than have them go to waste during the season.
With Keeffe/Thomas, there was no top-up players, but Moscow and Seoul could have promoted a rookie if they wanted to; just like St Kilda, Melbourne, Port and the Dogs, 5 clubs will have that "benefit" as well. I usually lean towards the way the AFL does it; if they bring in a top up player, we will, if they only offer rookie promotions, we will do that too.
Oh yeah, you can choose to promote a rookie instead of drafting a top-up player, for sure. Also, you don't have to promote a rookie right there and then, you can do it at any time of the season, because this rookie will be promoted for the rest of the year.
I like to think this is a one-off scenario were top-up players come in, so I'm hopeful we don't need to keep a "reserve" of two rounds worth of rookie-draft eligible players for situations like this.
But fair enough you bring that up; it's something I kinda decided myself.
Quote from: DazBurg on January 28, 2016, 08:02:00 PM
do we take into account people that have players that will nowe gets game that wouldn't have before?
we have non of the suspended players but we did have myers before trading him so just for this example lets say we hadn't traded him
we lose myers but means laverde and zerrett will get more games
or anther way Purps you lost hibberd but hams should get games now (damn you stealing him)
as well as redman may be thrust into it more now then might of been
or mitch brown is definitely going to play more for essendon then if hurley, hooker and pears were playing
again i know not the ruck New York lost but still a positive for the teams rather then not having any other essendon players at all
my point though is the fringe and young essendon players more likely to receive more games then they would of had no players been suspended
so those with players at least getting some positive compared those without other players?
speaking of that purps to make it easier to pinpoint i see you posted the lists after drafting do you still have it in a updated spreadsheet like during trading??
No, I haven't brought into account the essendon players that will benefit from the absence of the suspended players; that's just a natural added benefit for those oh so lucky few (like a William Hams owner ;)), so there is that too on top of the top-up players and rookie promotion spots.
.... do you mean, do I have a list of each team after each trade period week? I have a spreadsheet of all the players currently though?
yeah like every week you posted the link to the updated lists on a spreadsheet and just wondered if you had one for after the drafts etc since you posted the thread for the lists after drafting
meh as much as it birns i hope it just means zerrett continues his rise and so does laverde ;)
Bellcho isn't a great ruck anyway. The top up player probably won't be in our best 25 let alone XV so it doesn't bother me at all.
Quote from: meow meow on January 28, 2016, 08:15:55 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 28, 2016, 08:01:37 PM
Quote from: meow meow on January 28, 2016, 07:38:43 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 28, 2016, 01:07:15 PM
but with so much value being placed on Rucks around here
Rucks aren't worth much. 84 average 25 year old isn't even worth pick 12.
That chip still on your shoulder? :P
He is worth 12 now that half their team is suspended and his JS has improved
It'll stay there ALL year since it cost me the chance to compete for the flag. I would have 110 Stefan but instead I've got 0 Watson. McKernan is better than Bellchambers and would have played ahead of him anyway. He played half a season and finished 10th in the B&F so his coaches rate him. If they rate him they'll pick him. He did kick 25 goals and average over 100 DT in the VFL playing predominantly forward too. He's a good player now.
What a load of shower.
Woosha publicly came out before the bans were implemented and said that TBC and Leuey would be the ruck combo.
Mckernan would have been in the VFL.
Oh I see, yeah here you go... but this one has many more tabs :P it helped me organise things, but more or less useless to you:
WXV Current Lists (http://www.filehosting.org/file/details/538587/WXV%20Current%20Lists.xlsx)
It also has updated player positions for those interested.
Quote from: Purple 77 on January 28, 2016, 09:56:29 PM
Oh I see, yeah here you go... but this one has many more tabs :P it helped me organise things, but more or less useless to you:
WXV Current Lists (http://www.filehosting.org/file/details/538587/WXV%20Current%20Lists.xlsx)
It also has updated player positions for those interested.
absolute champion