Is anyone looking at Dixon this year?
Up until his injury last year the kid was flying - been in the system 3 years now, and with GCS on the up, thoughts on a potential breakout? Also DPP and at $484K could be a steal
Averaged 103 from Rounds 1-6 (he went down in Round 6 delivering 52 points that game, take it out and his average jumps to 113). But not quite the same when he returned from Rounds 18-23 (82 average).
Thoughts?
Personally I'm thinking he might make a much better R2 than Grundy and/or an F4
I always like having a R/F dpp in my forward line, and he's definitely the pick of the bunch. I might consider him as an upgrade if he shows good form but doubt I'd take the risk of starting with him.
I see a lot of teams picking him just becausevof his dual position status, but dont actually think he is a good pick. Would take franklin at similar price any day, or even cloke or wingard in the same ball park price.
I like Dixon, he's made for Supercoach because he does a bit of everything and doesn't need to touch the ball too often to rack up big points.
Top scores from 2013 include -
143 from 16 possessions, 6 HO, 6 goals
130 from 16 possessions, 9 HO, 2 goals
123 from 18 possessions, 21 HO, 3 goals
104 from 17 possessions, 10 HO, 2 goals
103 from 18 possessions, 9 HO, 0 goals
102 from 12 possessions, 15 HO, 1 goal
There's also a number of games that were injury affected so I wouldn't read too much into his average. Perhaps most importantly, he's excellent insurance for your starting ruckmen. I think if fit, and with a good NAB Cup behind him, he must come under serious consideration.
Just to add to Dixon's appeal, I just checked the fixture and he also becomes an excellent loophole candidate in the event Sandi goes missing.
Rd 1 - Coll vs Freo (Fri)
GC vs Rich (Sat)
Rd 3 - Haw vs Freo (Fri)
GC vs Bris (Sat)
Rd 5 - Syd vs Freo (Sat)
Melb vs GC (Sun)
Rd 6 - Freo vs North (Fri)
GC vs GWS (Sat)
Rd 9 - Freo vs Geel (Sat)
St Kilda vs GC (Sun)
So basically a Sandi catastrophe can be covered provided people pick a Max King or Ben Brown. By round 9, I would also expect his value to be decent enough to do a straight swap for a premo.
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 02:31:50 PM
Just to add to Dixon's appeal, I just checked the fixture and he also becomes an excellent loophole candidate in the event Sandi goes missing.
Rd 1 - Coll vs Freo (Fri)
GC vs Rich (Sat)
Rd 3 - Haw vs Freo (Fri)
GC vs Bris (Sat)
Rd 5 - Syd vs Freo (Sat)
Melb vs GC (Sun)
Rd 6 - Freo vs North (Fri)
GC vs GWS (Sat)
Rd 9 - Freo vs Geel (Sat)
St Kilda vs GC (Sun)
So basically a Sandi catastrophe can be covered provided people pick a Max King or Ben Brown. By round 9, I would also expect his value to be decent enough to do a straight swap for a premo.
I'd really be wanting to take both their scores tbh... not paying to have either of them on my bench!
And if you swing Dixon from your forwards, who says the forward rookie will score more than a missing (or more likely subbed) Sandi
Quote from: dmac07 on February 06, 2014, 01:04:16 PM
I see a lot of teams picking him just becausevof his dual position status, but dont actually think he is a good pick. Would take franklin at similar price any day, or even cloke or wingard in the same ball park price.
Agree but I'm looking at Dixon at being my F4/back-up ruck...
FWD line looking like: Danger, Wingard, Buddy, Dixon, J.Daniher, L.Taylor (rookie, rookie)
Injury affected games definitely bring down his 2013 average, but putting those aside I think he can average 100 this year
Quote from: H1bb3i2d on February 06, 2014, 02:40:18 PM
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 02:31:50 PM
Just to add to Dixon's appeal, I just checked the fixture and he also becomes an excellent loophole candidate in the event Sandi goes missing.
Rd 1 - Coll vs Freo (Fri)
GC vs Rich (Sat)
Rd 3 - Haw vs Freo (Fri)
GC vs Bris (Sat)
Rd 5 - Syd vs Freo (Sat)
Melb vs GC (Sun)
Rd 6 - Freo vs North (Fri)
GC vs GWS (Sat)
Rd 9 - Freo vs Geel (Sat)
St Kilda vs GC (Sun)
So basically a Sandi catastrophe can be covered provided people pick a Max King or Ben Brown. By round 9, I would also expect his value to be decent enough to do a straight swap for a premo.
I'd really be wanting to take both their scores tbh... not paying to have either of them on my bench!
And if you swing Dixon from your forwards, who says the forward rookie will score more than a missing (or more likely subbed) Sandi
Dixon starts in the forwards, Sandi starts with the 'E'. If he performs leave Brown or King on the ground. If he doesn't, swing Dixon into R2, and use a forward emergency score. This is simply a contingency in case he either gets subbed, injured or completely spuds it up.
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 02:50:00 PM
Quote from: H1bb3i2d on February 06, 2014, 02:40:18 PM
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 02:31:50 PM
Just to add to Dixon's appeal, I just checked the fixture and he also becomes an excellent loophole candidate in the event Sandi goes missing.
Rd 1 - Coll vs Freo (Fri)
GC vs Rich (Sat)
Rd 3 - Haw vs Freo (Fri)
GC vs Bris (Sat)
Rd 5 - Syd vs Freo (Sat)
Melb vs GC (Sun)
Rd 6 - Freo vs North (Fri)
GC vs GWS (Sat)
Rd 9 - Freo vs Geel (Sat)
St Kilda vs GC (Sun)
So basically a Sandi catastrophe can be covered provided people pick a Max King or Ben Brown. By round 9, I would also expect his value to be decent enough to do a straight swap for a premo.
I'd really be wanting to take both their scores tbh... not paying to have either of them on my bench!
And if you swing Dixon from your forwards, who says the forward rookie will score more than a missing (or more likely subbed) Sandi
Dixon starts in the forwards, Sandi starts with the 'E'. If he performs leave Brown or King on the ground. If he doesn't, swing Dixon into R2, and use a forward emergency score. This is simply a contingency in case he either gets subbed, injured or completely spuds it up.
yeah exactly I understand, would definitely do that if I had them... but you'll need both R3 and R4 purely for loopholes (one to cop a ruck donut, one to swing forward...) and for what, an F7 who's only going to score 60 if not green-vested himself. R3 should at least be a potential cashcow/cover if any do start round 1.
And as is SC, Sandi having a shocker, your F7 having a blinder, with now 5 (Sandi, ruck donut, Dixon, F7, swingman) all having conveniently timed lockouts... May the SC gods be with you haha.
Nah but on a serious note, I think Dixon will be in my team after his round 8 bye. Get a chance to see if he's performing, shouldn't rise toooo much if he is, avoid a potential round 8 donut, and that way my rucks "only" have to play 7 games early on when they're fresh until I have better cover.. Thoughts?
Quote from: H1bb3i2d on February 06, 2014, 03:05:29 PM
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 02:50:00 PM
Quote from: H1bb3i2d on February 06, 2014, 02:40:18 PM
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 02:31:50 PM
Just to add to Dixon's appeal, I just checked the fixture and he also becomes an excellent loophole candidate in the event Sandi goes missing.
Rd 1 - Coll vs Freo (Fri)
GC vs Rich (Sat)
Rd 3 - Haw vs Freo (Fri)
GC vs Bris (Sat)
Rd 5 - Syd vs Freo (Sat)
Melb vs GC (Sun)
Rd 6 - Freo vs North (Fri)
GC vs GWS (Sat)
Rd 9 - Freo vs Geel (Sat)
St Kilda vs GC (Sun)
So basically a Sandi catastrophe can be covered provided people pick a Max King or Ben Brown. By round 9, I would also expect his value to be decent enough to do a straight swap for a premo.
I'd really be wanting to take both their scores tbh... not paying to have either of them on my bench!
And if you swing Dixon from your forwards, who says the forward rookie will score more than a missing (or more likely subbed) Sandi
Dixon starts in the forwards, Sandi starts with the 'E'. If he performs leave Brown or King on the ground. If he doesn't, swing Dixon into R2, and use a forward emergency score. This is simply a contingency in case he either gets subbed, injured or completely spuds it up.
yeah exactly I understand, would definitely do that if I had them... but you'll need both R3 and R4 purely for loopholes (one to cop a ruck donut, one to swing forward...) and for what, an F7 who's only going to score 60 if not green-vested himself. R3 should at least be a potential cashcow/cover if any do start round 1.
And as is SC, Sandi having a shocker, your F7 having a blinder, with now 5 (Sandi, ruck donut, Dixon, F7, swingman) all having conveniently timed lockouts... May the SC gods be with you haha.
Nah but on a serious note, I think Dixon will be in my team after his round 8 bye. Get a chance to see if he's performing, shouldn't rise toooo much if he is, avoid a potential round 8 donut, and that way my rucks "only" have to play 7 games early on when they're fresh until I have better cover.. Thoughts?
The lockouts for the forwards don't really come into play because they are already on the bench with an 'E', it's actually better if they play early because one can match their score with Sandi's output. As for R3 & R4, i don't see too many candidates putting their hand up, maybe Thurlow, but he's also got DPP status so he'll be a handy with all the shuffling.
The case for Max King as R4 also gains traction, he plays after Sandi R1, R3, R5 & R6. Thurlow also can be moved around R1, R3, R5.
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 03:24:08 PM
Quote from: H1bb3i2d on February 06, 2014, 03:05:29 PM
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 02:50:00 PM
Quote from: H1bb3i2d on February 06, 2014, 02:40:18 PM
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 02:31:50 PM
Just to add to Dixon's appeal, I just checked the fixture and he also becomes an excellent loophole candidate in the event Sandi goes missing.
Rd 1 - Coll vs Freo (Fri)
GC vs Rich (Sat)
Rd 3 - Haw vs Freo (Fri)
GC vs Bris (Sat)
Rd 5 - Syd vs Freo (Sat)
Melb vs GC (Sun)
Rd 6 - Freo vs North (Fri)
GC vs GWS (Sat)
Rd 9 - Freo vs Geel (Sat)
St Kilda vs GC (Sun)
So basically a Sandi catastrophe can be covered provided people pick a Max King or Ben Brown. By round 9, I would also expect his value to be decent enough to do a straight swap for a premo.
I'd really be wanting to take both their scores tbh... not paying to have either of them on my bench!
And if you swing Dixon from your forwards, who says the forward rookie will score more than a missing (or more likely subbed) Sandi
Dixon starts in the forwards, Sandi starts with the 'E'. If he performs leave Brown or King on the ground. If he doesn't, swing Dixon into R2, and use a forward emergency score. This is simply a contingency in case he either gets subbed, injured or completely spuds it up.
yeah exactly I understand, would definitely do that if I had them... but you'll need both R3 and R4 purely for loopholes (one to cop a ruck donut, one to swing forward...) and for what, an F7 who's only going to score 60 if not green-vested himself. R3 should at least be a potential cashcow/cover if any do start round 1.
And as is SC, Sandi having a shocker, your F7 having a blinder, with now 5 (Sandi, ruck donut, Dixon, F7, swingman) all having conveniently timed lockouts... May the SC gods be with you haha.
Nah but on a serious note, I think Dixon will be in my team after his round 8 bye. Get a chance to see if he's performing, shouldn't rise toooo much if he is, avoid a potential round 8 donut, and that way my rucks "only" have to play 7 games early on when they're fresh until I have better cover.. Thoughts?
The lockouts for the forwards don't really come into play because they are already on the bench with an 'E', it's actually better if they play early because one can match their score with Sandi's output. As for R3 & R4, i don't see too many candidates putting their hand up, maybe Thurlow, but he's also got DPP status so he'll be a handy with all the shuffling.
The case for Max King as R4 also gains traction, he plays after Sandi R1, R3, R5 & R6. Thurlow also can be moved around R1, R3, R5.
Touche, guess it could work quite well... wouldn't structure my team for that reason alone, but I guess Thrulow is close to a lock, DPP even if he doesnt play early... and if no one else is named round 1, I guess King it is.
But personally, probably won't start Dixon round 1, for reasons underlined. Tempting though... I'm sure a lot will happen between now and lockout!!
Quote from: H1bb3i2d on February 06, 2014, 03:29:20 PM
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 03:24:08 PM
Quote from: H1bb3i2d on February 06, 2014, 03:05:29 PM
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 02:50:00 PM
Quote from: H1bb3i2d on February 06, 2014, 02:40:18 PM
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 02:31:50 PM
Just to add to Dixon's appeal, I just checked the fixture and he also becomes an excellent loophole candidate in the event Sandi goes missing.
Rd 1 - Coll vs Freo (Fri)
GC vs Rich (Sat)
Rd 3 - Haw vs Freo (Fri)
GC vs Bris (Sat)
Rd 5 - Syd vs Freo (Sat)
Melb vs GC (Sun)
Rd 6 - Freo vs North (Fri)
GC vs GWS (Sat)
Rd 9 - Freo vs Geel (Sat)
St Kilda vs GC (Sun)
So basically a Sandi catastrophe can be covered provided people pick a Max King or Ben Brown. By round 9, I would also expect his value to be decent enough to do a straight swap for a premo.
I'd really be wanting to take both their scores tbh... not paying to have either of them on my bench!
And if you swing Dixon from your forwards, who says the forward rookie will score more than a missing (or more likely subbed) Sandi
Dixon starts in the forwards, Sandi starts with the 'E'. If he performs leave Brown or King on the ground. If he doesn't, swing Dixon into R2, and use a forward emergency score. This is simply a contingency in case he either gets subbed, injured or completely spuds it up.
yeah exactly I understand, would definitely do that if I had them... but you'll need both R3 and R4 purely for loopholes (one to cop a ruck donut, one to swing forward...) and for what, an F7 who's only going to score 60 if not green-vested himself. R3 should at least be a potential cashcow/cover if any do start round 1.
And as is SC, Sandi having a shocker, your F7 having a blinder, with now 5 (Sandi, ruck donut, Dixon, F7, swingman) all having conveniently timed lockouts... May the SC gods be with you haha.
Nah but on a serious note, I think Dixon will be in my team after his round 8 bye. Get a chance to see if he's performing, shouldn't rise toooo much if he is, avoid a potential round 8 donut, and that way my rucks "only" have to play 7 games early on when they're fresh until I have better cover.. Thoughts?
The lockouts for the forwards don't really come into play because they are already on the bench with an 'E', it's actually better if they play early because one can match their score with Sandi's output. As for R3 & R4, i don't see too many candidates putting their hand up, maybe Thurlow, but he's also got DPP status so he'll be a handy with all the shuffling.
The case for Max King as R4 also gains traction, he plays after Sandi R1, R3, R5 & R6. Thurlow also can be moved around R1, R3, R5.
Touche, guess it could work quite well... wouldn't structure my team for that reason alone, but I guess Thrulow is close to a lock, DPP even if he doesnt play early... and if no one else is named round 1, I guess King it is.
But personally, probably won't start Dixon round 1, for reasons underlined. Tempting though... I'm sure a lot will happen between now and lockout!!
The move isn't without risk but it's a good move if Ruck 3 & 4 don't look like being safe rookies. One needs to consider the ramifications of Sandi missing 1-2 games. Do people jump ship even if he's producing tons? And if a trade is the preferred option, will people be happy enough with Hmac, Grundy or Longer?
At the moment I'm pretty serious about starting both Hmac & Sandi as my two starting rucks, but to do this I need a solid back-up plan in the event one gets injured in the first 6 rounds. Dixon doesn't have the upside of Franklin but as a makeshift ruck 3 and semi-permanent forward he makes for an excellent insurance policy. And even if I don't go down this path immediately, I would bring him in the moment my rucks start to break down or under perform.
Owned him last year, one of my first picks this year.
He is a SC monster. I remember multiple games last year where he'd almost double his DT in SC. Plays contested footy, pinch hits, gets contested marks and kicks goals. My only real concern is his injury proneness.
In terms of his pre-season, he had surgery on his bung ankle, went to Arizona but has been with the main group for all of Jan. courtesy of BF (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/gold-coast-suns-in-dt-sc-for-2014.1045601/#post-31348519)
What do people think his role will be this year? I havent been following gc preseason, but will his role stay the same? Last year Dixon spent time out injured, then Smith went down for the year, then nicholls emerged late in the year as a great ruck option. If these three are all fit where do people see them fitting? Smith back to number 1 ruck, nicholls as back up ruck/fwd, and Dixon as permanent fwd as he is probably the best goalkicker of the bunch? Also bock back from injury as a permnant fwd, day and lynch can run through the fwds as well.
These guys have rarely been all available so GC have jyst used who is available, will be interesting to to see how GC set up if all these guys are available.
Quote from: dmac07 on February 06, 2014, 04:44:28 PM
What do people think his role will be this year? I havent been following gc preseason, but will his role stay the same? Last year Dixon spent time out injured, then Smith went down for the year, then nicholls emerged late in the year as a great ruck option. If these three are all fit where do people see them fitting? Smith back to number 1 ruck, nicholls as back up ruck/fwd, and Dixon as permanent fwd as he is probably the best goalkicker of the bunch? Also bock back from injury as a permnant fwd, day and lynch can run through the fwds as well.
These guys have rarely been all available so GC have jyst used who is available, will be interesting to to see how GC set up if all these guys are available.
Dixon has and always will be GC's permanent second ruck, no way he doesn't get named if fully fit. The beauty of Dixon is he doesn't rely on ruck work to beef up his scores.
I believe what dmac is saying though is, with Zac Smith and Tom Nicholls fit again, Dixon will lose that valuable ruck time and be turned into a perma key forward. This will most likely hurt his scoring somewhat.
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:03:11 PM
I believe what dmac is saying though is, with Zac Smith and Tom Nicholls fit again, Dixon will lose that valuable ruck time and be turned into a perma key forward. This will most likely hurt his scoring somewhat.
Yes but I think what Bully is saying is that even with a fit Smith and Nicholls, Dixon will still play R2 meaning that Nicholls will probably not play?
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:03:11 PM
I believe what dmac is saying though is, with Zac Smith and Tom Nicholls fit again, Dixon will lose that valuable ruck time and be turned into a perma key forward. This will most likely hurt his scoring somewhat.
Also for what it's worth I've just had a quick look at all three's stats in 2013:
- Dixon played with Smith 6 times - ave 103 (113 when you take out the injury affected 52)
- Dixon played with Nicholls 1 time - output 50 (but this was also injury affected, he came back for one game then out for the next 6 weeks)
- Dixon never played with Smith AND Nicholls
- Dixon played 6 games without Smith or Nicholls - ave 82
Quote from: timtim on February 06, 2014, 05:09:03 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:03:11 PM
I believe what dmac is saying though is, with Zac Smith and Tom Nicholls fit again, Dixon will lose that valuable ruck time and be turned into a perma key forward. This will most likely hurt his scoring somewhat.
Yes but I think what Bully is saying is that even with a fit Smith and Nicholls, Dixon will still play R2 meaning that Nicholls will probably not play?
Yeah I know.. I just don't see Nicholls plying his trade in the NEAFL..
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:03:11 PM
I believe what dmac is saying though is, with Zac Smith and Tom Nicholls fit again, Dixon will lose that valuable ruck time and be turned into a perma key forward. This will most likely hurt his scoring somewhat.
That doesn't concern me given some of his best scores weren't ruck reliant.
Top scores from 2013 include -
143 from 16 possessions, 6 HO, 6 goals
130 from 16 possessions, 9 HO, 2 goals
123 from 18 possessions, 21 HO, 3 goals
104 from 17 possessions, 10 HO, 2 goals
103 from 18 possessions, 9 HO, 0 goals
102 from 12 possessions, 15 HO, 1 goal
Aside from the 21 hit outs, his ruck work is what you'd expect of a second stringer. It's also debatable whether GC would play both Nicholls & Smith. For team balance, I'd say this is pretty unlikely.
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:27:46 PM
Quote from: timtim on February 06, 2014, 05:09:03 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:03:11 PM
I believe what dmac is saying though is, with Zac Smith and Tom Nicholls fit again, Dixon will lose that valuable ruck time and be turned into a perma key forward. This will most likely hurt his scoring somewhat.
Yes but I think what Bully is saying is that even with a fit Smith and Nicholls, Dixon will still play R2 meaning that Nicholls will probably not play?
Yeah I know.. I just don't see Nicholls plying his trade in the NEAFL..
Nicholls is too good to play neafl. Honestly see it making more sense for dixon and bock to play permanent fwd, and nicholls and smith to swap ruck and 3rd fwd. Dixon is as good in the ruck, but a better key fwd than smith and nicholls.
Quote from: dmac07 on February 06, 2014, 05:34:35 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:27:46 PM
Quote from: timtim on February 06, 2014, 05:09:03 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:03:11 PM
I believe what dmac is saying though is, with Zac Smith and Tom Nicholls fit again, Dixon will lose that valuable ruck time and be turned into a perma key forward. This will most likely hurt his scoring somewhat.
Yes but I think what Bully is saying is that even with a fit Smith and Nicholls, Dixon will still play R2 meaning that Nicholls will probably not play?
Yeah I know.. I just don't see Nicholls plying his trade in the NEAFL..
Nicholls is too good to play neafl. Honestly see it making more sense for dixon and bock to play permanent fwd, and nicholls and smith to swap ruck and 3rd fwd. Dixon is as good in the ruck, but a better key fwd than smith and nicholls.
Yep, agreed.
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:03:11 PM
I believe what dmac is saying though is, with Zac Smith and Tom Nicholls fit again, Dixon will lose that valuable ruck time and be turned into a perma key forward. This will most likely hurt his scoring somewhat.
That doesn't concern me given some of his best scores weren't ruck reliant.
Top scores from 2013 include -
143 from 16 possessions, 6 HO, 6 goals
130 from 16 possessions, 9 HO, 2 goals
123 from 18 possessions, 21 HO, 3 goals
104 from 17 possessions, 10 HO, 2 goals
103 from 18 possessions, 9 HO, 0 goals
102 from 12 possessions, 15 HO, 1 goal
Aside from the 21 hit outs, his ruck work is what you'd expect of a second stringer. It's also debatable whether GC would play both Nicholls & Smith. For team balance, I'd say this is pretty unlikely.
It's not just hitouts that are gained in the ruck though. He's around the ball a whole lot more in the ruck than he is when playing deep forward. Possession and tackle counts are also inflated when playing on the ball.
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:37:07 PM
Quote from: dmac07 on February 06, 2014, 05:34:35 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:27:46 PM
Quote from: timtim on February 06, 2014, 05:09:03 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:03:11 PM
I believe what dmac is saying though is, with Zac Smith and Tom Nicholls fit again, Dixon will lose that valuable ruck time and be turned into a perma key forward. This will most likely hurt his scoring somewhat.
Yes but I think what Bully is saying is that even with a fit Smith and Nicholls, Dixon will still play R2 meaning that Nicholls will probably not play?
Yeah I know.. I just don't see Nicholls plying his trade in the NEAFL..
Nicholls is too good to play neafl. Honestly see it making more sense for dixon and bock to play permanent fwd, and nicholls and smith to swap ruck and 3rd fwd. Dixon is as good in the ruck, but a better key fwd than smith and nicholls.
Yep, agreed.
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:03:11 PM
I believe what dmac is saying though is, with Zac Smith and Tom Nicholls fit again, Dixon will lose that valuable ruck time and be turned into a perma key forward. This will most likely hurt his scoring somewhat.
That doesn't concern me given some of his best scores weren't ruck reliant.
Top scores from 2013 include -
143 from 16 possessions, 6 HO, 6 goals
130 from 16 possessions, 9 HO, 2 goals
123 from 18 possessions, 21 HO, 3 goals
104 from 17 possessions, 10 HO, 2 goals
103 from 18 possessions, 9 HO, 0 goals
102 from 12 possessions, 15 HO, 1 goal
Aside from the 21 hit outs, his ruck work is what you'd expect of a second stringer. It's also debatable whether GC would play both Nicholls & Smith. For team balance, I'd say this is pretty unlikely.
It's not just hitouts that are gained in the ruck though. He's around the ball a whole lot more in the ruck than he is when playing deep forward. Possession and tackle counts are also inflated when playing on the ball.
He can still score well without the ruck time, and besides, I doubt both Nicholls and Smith will be playing alongside each other on too many occasions. I actually prefer Nicholls to Smith anyway, I think carrying both and Dixon is a case of ruck overkill. It's not like either of those two are natural forwards.
Dixon is a lock for me.
Not so much for his scoring potential, but for his MPP.
Quote from: Footyrulz on February 06, 2014, 05:48:06 PM
Dixon is a lock for me.
Not so much for his scoring potential, but for his MPP.
This is the nuts and bolts of the argument, any injury to any starting ruck will have serious ramifications unless people plan on spending 300k on a third ruckman. There's also the byes to take into account, being able to switch Dixon to either line will probably come in very handy.
I really like Dixon, my problem is I can't squeeze him in ahead of Danger/Dusty/Buddy/L.Parker. I think all of those 4 will outscore him.
He's next cab off the rank for me if one of those go down
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 05:47:35 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:37:07 PM
Quote from: dmac07 on February 06, 2014, 05:34:35 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:27:46 PM
Quote from: timtim on February 06, 2014, 05:09:03 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:03:11 PM
I believe what dmac is saying though is, with Zac Smith and Tom Nicholls fit again, Dixon will lose that valuable ruck time and be turned into a perma key forward. This will most likely hurt his scoring somewhat.
Yes but I think what Bully is saying is that even with a fit Smith and Nicholls, Dixon will still play R2 meaning that Nicholls will probably not play?
Yeah I know.. I just don't see Nicholls plying his trade in the NEAFL..
Nicholls is too good to play neafl. Honestly see it making more sense for dixon and bock to play permanent fwd, and nicholls and smith to swap ruck and 3rd fwd. Dixon is as good in the ruck, but a better key fwd than smith and nicholls.
Yep, agreed.
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:03:11 PM
I believe what dmac is saying though is, with Zac Smith and Tom Nicholls fit again, Dixon will lose that valuable ruck time and be turned into a perma key forward. This will most likely hurt his scoring somewhat.
That doesn't concern me given some of his best scores weren't ruck reliant.
Top scores from 2013 include -
143 from 16 possessions, 6 HO, 6 goals
130 from 16 possessions, 9 HO, 2 goals
123 from 18 possessions, 21 HO, 3 goals
104 from 17 possessions, 10 HO, 2 goals
103 from 18 possessions, 9 HO, 0 goals
102 from 12 possessions, 15 HO, 1 goal
Aside from the 21 hit outs, his ruck work is what you'd expect of a second stringer. It's also debatable whether GC would play both Nicholls & Smith. For team balance, I'd say this is pretty unlikely.
It's not just hitouts that are gained in the ruck though. He's around the ball a whole lot more in the ruck than he is when playing deep forward. Possession and tackle counts are also inflated when playing on the ball.
He can still score well without the ruck time, and besides, I doubt both Nicholls and Smith will be playing alongside each other on too many occasions. I actually prefer Nicholls to Smith anyway, I think carrying both and Dixon is a case of ruck overkill. It's not like either of those two are natural forwards.
So you reckon Zac Smith will be in the NEAFL while GC use a kid and their best key forward in the ruck all season? Ok.
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 07:01:50 PM
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 05:47:35 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:37:07 PM
Quote from: dmac07 on February 06, 2014, 05:34:35 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:27:46 PM
Quote from: timtim on February 06, 2014, 05:09:03 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:03:11 PM
I believe what dmac is saying though is, with Zac Smith and Tom Nicholls fit again, Dixon will lose that valuable ruck time and be turned into a perma key forward. This will most likely hurt his scoring somewhat.
Yes but I think what Bully is saying is that even with a fit Smith and Nicholls, Dixon will still play R2 meaning that Nicholls will probably not play?
Yeah I know.. I just don't see Nicholls plying his trade in the NEAFL..
Nicholls is too good to play neafl. Honestly see it making more sense for dixon and bock to play permanent fwd, and nicholls and smith to swap ruck and 3rd fwd. Dixon is as good in the ruck, but a better key fwd than smith and nicholls.
Yep, agreed.
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: elephants on February 06, 2014, 05:03:11 PM
I believe what dmac is saying though is, with Zac Smith and Tom Nicholls fit again, Dixon will lose that valuable ruck time and be turned into a perma key forward. This will most likely hurt his scoring somewhat.
That doesn't concern me given some of his best scores weren't ruck reliant.
Top scores from 2013 include -
143 from 16 possessions, 6 HO, 6 goals
130 from 16 possessions, 9 HO, 2 goals
123 from 18 possessions, 21 HO, 3 goals
104 from 17 possessions, 10 HO, 2 goals
103 from 18 possessions, 9 HO, 0 goals
102 from 12 possessions, 15 HO, 1 goal
Aside from the 21 hit outs, his ruck work is what you'd expect of a second stringer. It's also debatable whether GC would play both Nicholls & Smith. For team balance, I'd say this is pretty unlikely.
It's not just hitouts that are gained in the ruck though. He's around the ball a whole lot more in the ruck than he is when playing deep forward. Possession and tackle counts are also inflated when playing on the ball.
He can still score well without the ruck time, and besides, I doubt both Nicholls and Smith will be playing alongside each other on too many occasions. I actually prefer Nicholls to Smith anyway, I think carrying both and Dixon is a case of ruck overkill. It's not like either of those two are natural forwards.
So you reckon Zac Smith will be in the NEAFL while GC use a kid and their best key forward in the ruck all season? Ok.
Nicholls may or may not play first ruck, who knows, he may even get a run for a few weeks and then be rested. My point is that GC won't play Smith & Nicholls together for the entire season, neither are bona fide forwards and I can't see McKenna hiding them on the bench for prolonged periods. It may be done from time to time but with a fit Dixon, it seems to buck the trend of playing only one pure ruckman.
Quote from: Bully on February 06, 2014, 04:56:19 PM
Dixon has and always will be GC's permanent second ruck, no way he doesn't get named if fully fit. The beauty of Dixon is he doesn't rely on ruck work to beef up his scores.
Indeed. There wasn't any noticeable difference in playing with vs without Nicholls.
List depth is getting crazy in the AFL. Very hard to predict which players will get regular games and who misses out.
So far in this thread the players mentioned playing ruck or tall forward roles have been Dixon, Smith, Nicholls and Bock but the Suns also have Tom Lynch (who is in the leadership group and highly respected) and I think Sam Day is a tall forward too. That's just off the top of my head without looking into their list.
Some good players are going to miss out.
Hard to pick best 22 for any team these days and that makes it hard to know player roles too.
The other chestnut that people need to take into account is the likelihood of Thurlow or Rory Lobb or any other rookies not being named in the round 1 side. It will then become a question of either selecting Dixon or spending more cash on R3. Some may feel that trading is the best way to go but what happens if there's a late withdrawl, a 1-2 week suspension or a surprise vest? Relying on 22 games from both starting ruckman is a pretty big call, not to mention the carnage that awaits during the bye period.
Quote from: Speculator on February 07, 2014, 08:58:47 AM
I'm playing sandi at R3. I toyed with the idea of Dixon at F4 but couldn't bring myself to sacrifice franklin or pav for it. It also provides me with ruck bench loophole options.
I like this idea, someone mentioned it before and it makes perfect sense. The rookies this year look to be very thin on the ground, having Sandi with a loophole option pretty much secures your ruck department for the entire year as well.
Interesting comparison, Minson + Goldy + Rookie + Rookie = 1.45 million
Naitanui + Hmac + Sandi + Rookie = 1.28 million
I think option 2 is by far the more sensible move, it's cheaper, it has loophole cover, managing injuries shouldn't be a problem and the byes look to be covered.
Thought long and hard about this but have decided against it.
Was considering him for F3 as cover for rucks but at his price it robs my team in other places.
Will put my trust in Sandi at R2 and run with conventional ruck rookies I think. Hopefully Sandi lasts the distance or at least until he has made money to be traded to a premium keeper.
The other thing to remember is that Dixon has the dreaded round 8 bye.
If you're going for overall and you have Ablett, Pendles and D Beams in your MIDS along with Danger, Dusty and Dixon in your FWDS then you are going to lose some serious points during round 8.
A team with a good bye structure can really put itself in contention for overall.
Quote from: ben_020285 on February 08, 2014, 09:05:19 AM
The other thing to remember is that Dixon has the dreaded round 8 bye.
If you're going for overall and you have Ablett, Pendles and D Beams in your MIDS along with Danger, Dusty and Dixon in your FWDS then you are going to lose some serious points during round 8.
A team with a good bye structure can really put itself in contention for overall.
Excellent point, it just adds weight to having Naitanui, Hmac & Sandi all in the starting line-up. The bye rounds will be covered and hopefully the ruck becomes a case of set and forget.
took the punt on dixon, believe it's time to correct that punt now!
Not. Giving. Up.
I dunno, I just can't do it. I feel he has it in him. Don't think I can fully assess him on a game and a half. I'm sure I'll be in the minority that keep the faith in Charlie.
If you backed him in at a premo price it makes little sense to get rid of him this early on unless you're convinced he's not going to improve.
I got him anticipating a 90 average leading to the byes. So far we have a concussion and wet weather game. Not happy.
I started him over Wingard purely because I wanted insurance for Sandi. Obviously it hasn't exactly played out well but I still think Dixon can average about 95 which I will be happy with. There's not much you can do when freak things like concussion happen and then we get a wet weather game. I'll be holding him for now and reassess after rd 3. If he puts in an average game against Brisbane then I'll move him on for Zorko, most likely (only an absolute blinder by Zorko and shocker from Dixon would prevent me from being able to do a straight swap.)
What people see in this guy is beyond me now that a couple of cheap rucks look like getting a go get rid of him before he bleeds you dry of cash
Quote from: redfield on March 31, 2014, 09:44:04 AM
I started him over Wingard purely because I wanted insurance for Sandi. Obviously it hasn't exactly played out well but I still think Dixon can average about 95 which I will be happy with. There's not much you can do when freak things like concussion happen and then we get a wet weather game. I'll be holding him for now and reassess after rd 3. If he puts in an average game against Brisbane then I'll move him on for Zorko, most likely (only an absolute blinder by Zorko and shocker from Dixon would prevent me from being able to do a straight swap.)
This is an option for me too. i got backline and forward problems. could go down to hickey and trade up cameron to swallow, giving me 4 prem backs. or hold off another week but swallow out of price range unless i td m wright to rookie? who taylor/impey
got a massive BE of 199, and looks to lose $67K
#cheekyupgradetarget