FanFooty Forum

AFL fantasy competitions => General Supercoach => Players & Trades in SC => Topic started by: Trindacut on January 10, 2018, 09:37:52 PM

Title: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Trindacut on January 10, 2018, 09:37:52 PM
I've seen this come up a few times among teams, and it's a question every coach asks themselves at the start of the year.

To Danger, or not to Danger.

2017 Analysis
Danger was without a doubt the most valuable player of 2017 for Supercoach coachs. He scored the most points (2864), a solid 239 points above second-comer Dustin Martin (2625). Incredibly, this is despite playing one less game due to suspension. He was the only player to average more than 120 per game (136.4), and had an insane 9 consecutive games over 140.

He started the year with 112,400 coaches putting him in the team on the back of his 2016 average of 131.8. This steadily rose throughout the year until the week of his suspension when 14,000 coaches trades him out. Evidently 6,000 of those coaches realized what a mistake they made and traded him back in.

In rounds 1, 2 and 3 Danger scored 138, 140 and 138, for an average of 138.66. This earned him a price drop of $900.

Interestingly, the following rounds 4,5 and 6 he scored 90, 120 and 65, earning a price drop of 23k, 25k and 52k.

In rounds 7 and 8 he scored modestly with 110 and 112. Due to the supercoach pricing algorithm being factored primarily by a 3 round average, this saw a further 55k drop off his price to be the lowest of the year at $560,300. This is $156,600 cheaper than his start price, and at an ideal time too, between Round 8 and 9.

2,700 coaches traded him in at this time, 10,000 got him for under $650,000 and overall 14,000 coaches got him for some kind of discount at all. This is important.

Past Best Players


(http://i68.tinypic.com/rjlgdd.png)

A few things to draw your attention to here:

Possible Positive of Not to Danger:


Possible Cons of Not to Danger:


Conclusion:

Ultimately, the risks outweigh the possible benefits. I recall a year I started without Ablett, and he opened up with two 160+ games. I couldn't trade him in with anything less than two trades, which was a gun to rookie and gun to Ablett. Two sidetrades of uninjured players like that is a devastating waste.

The best way to measure your trade value is to expect that you'll use around 14-18 trades on downgrading. Each of these trades should be worth approximately $200,000 each to your side. You aren't always going to get that, but a further 10-12 trade should be used to upgrade. You should expect to make money on some of these trades too, which means not buying players at their most expensive.

That being said, you'll either need to have your rookies make you enough cash, which takes about 8 weeks for them to really mature, so you also need him to be cheap at the right time too.

All the while you have made an alternate selection. You can measure the success of this decision on the total points differential on who you picked against who you would have picked along with Danger. Even if he drops in price, he's still likely to be scoring 120+. It's hard to make that up on 2 or even 3 improved selections with that extra cash.

For me the risk associated with not having Danger are far too high. If he plays well, there's going to be 150,000 people getting his scores each week. If he doesn't play well, you'll be in the same boat with 150,000 other players.

Make that money on a smarter rookie option. Stick to rookie/guns, minimise mid-prices breakout contenders. Consistency is the key. Good luck.

Get Danger.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on January 10, 2018, 09:46:35 PM
It's actually not out of the realm of possibility that he plays 50% forward this year and drops to a 115-120 average. Geelong don't have a 2nd key forward and we know how damaging Danger can be there. In saying that I would not have the balls to start without him.

He's also a captain option every week that means you can double up on his 150s which really hurt if you don't have him
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: crowls on January 10, 2018, 10:24:22 PM
It's actually not out of the realm of possibility that he plays 50% forward this year and drops to a 115-120 average. Geelong don't have a 2nd key forward and we know how damaging Danger can be there. In saying that I would not have the balls to start without him.

He's also a captain option every week that means you can double up on his 150s which really hurt if you don't have him
still average 130 playing forward.   Been on wrong side of GAJ and Pendles in the past by not starting superprems from round 1.    Welcome DANGER my perma C/VC
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: js19 on January 10, 2018, 11:29:36 PM
It's actually not out of the realm of possibility that he plays 50% forward this year and drops to a 115-120 average. Geelong don't have a 2nd key forward and we know how damaging Danger can be there. In saying that I would not have the balls to start without him.

He's also a captain option every week that means you can double up on his 150s which really hurt if you don't have him
still average 130 playing forward.   Been on wrong side of GAJ and Pendles in the past by not starting superprems from round 1.    Welcome DANGER my perma C/VC

This

You might get lucky not starting him, and having something occur, but more likely that you fall behind. Not the place to take a risk IMO
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: enzedder on January 11, 2018, 06:32:03 AM
It's actually not out of the realm of possibility that he plays 50% forward this year and drops to a 115-120 average. Geelong don't have a 2nd key forward and we know how damaging Danger can be there. In saying that I would not have the balls to start without him.

He's also a captain option every week that means you can double up on his 150s which really hurt if you don't have him
still average 130 playing forward.   Been on wrong side of GAJ and Pendles in the past by not starting superprems from round 1.    Welcome DANGER my perma C/VC

This

You might get lucky not starting him, and having something occur, but more likely that you fall behind. Not the place to take a risk IMO
Awesome write up Trindacut.
GET DANGER!!!
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on January 11, 2018, 09:32:39 AM
Good write up Trinda but I did not need any convincing to get Danger he was first picked , some interesting stats above being at there cheapest mostly towards the end of the season is one and really SC is won by scoring the most points so not starting the best scorer just does not make sense me , also trying to predict mid pricers that are going to breakout that always ends badly for me so I avoid but well done some good info  ;)
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on January 11, 2018, 09:44:53 AM
Basically stick the majority either way in this case, since such a large % of coaches will start him, regardless of whether or not it turns out to be good decision, there will be very few people who won't be in the same boat as you.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Trindacut on January 11, 2018, 07:07:32 PM
It's actually not out of the realm of possibility that he plays 50% forward this year and drops to a 115-120 average. Geelong don't have a 2nd key forward and we know how damaging Danger can be there. In saying that I would not have the balls to start without him.

He's also a captain option every week that means you can double up on his 150s which really hurt if you don't have him

Even if he did go forward he's still quite damaging, bit like Martin.

If anything I'm guessing Ablett will go forward, I think the coach is full of shower about not playing him forward.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Trindacut on January 11, 2018, 07:08:13 PM
It's actually not out of the realm of possibility that he plays 50% forward this year and drops to a 115-120 average. Geelong don't have a 2nd key forward and we know how damaging Danger can be there. In saying that I would not have the balls to start without him.

He's also a captain option every week that means you can double up on his 150s which really hurt if you don't have him
still average 130 playing forward.   Been on wrong side of GAJ and Pendles in the past by not starting superprems from round 1.    Welcome DANGER my perma C/VC

This

You might get lucky not starting him, and having something occur, but more likely that you fall behind. Not the place to take a risk IMO

That's pretty much my post in a nutshell haha
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on January 11, 2018, 08:11:22 PM
It's actually not out of the realm of possibility that he plays 50% forward this year and drops to a 115-120 average. Geelong don't have a 2nd key forward and we know how damaging Danger can be there. In saying that I would not have the balls to start without him.

He's also a captain option every week that means you can double up on his 150s which really hurt if you don't have him

Even if he did go forward he's still quite damaging, bit like Martin.

If anything I'm guessing Ablett will go forward, I think the coach is full of shower about not playing him forward.

Well he plays plenty of footy forward at the moment anyway but just mean If they increased that to half of his game rather than the 30% it is at the moment. Either way, Geelong will win most weeks and he will kick goals so don't think it would hurt too much
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Holz on January 11, 2018, 08:23:38 PM
I reckon he will drop to 120-125 so will lose 100k but ill still pick him 120+ is a must have.

Danger dmart locked in and titch too. Got to have the best of the best
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Torpedo10 on January 11, 2018, 08:56:17 PM
Danger is locked.

Can't say the same for DMart or Titch.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Nige on January 12, 2018, 11:38:26 AM
Good write up, great food for thought.

I'm still on the fence. I'm fully aware of the risk and understand the consequences of potentially going in without him but I still have like 2 months to decide.

At the end of the day, it's either madness or brilliance, and my entire SC career has tipped the way of the former (with glimpses of the latter ;D) and so at this stage, I think I'm on Team Not to Danger (with that said, he is actually in the last version I played with :P).
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Peter on January 13, 2018, 06:22:06 AM
Another aspect to consider is what you do with the $100-$150k you theoretically have saved on Danger. You will try and make up the points lost by having another premium, say MCrouch, or another 1-2 mid-pricers (Bennell, Christensen, Ah Chee, JOM or the like) over rookies or just better rookies. If you knew you there was a gun rookie that you just had to have, fair enough, but you are gambling compared to the security of at least 110 up to 140 from Danger
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ringo on January 26, 2018, 11:02:18 AM
Something to consider is Danger has a B/e of 138 for first round a score he exceeded 14 times last year. just advising to add to discussion and to consider if you think he will drop in value. Fair enough we do not know the Gazz influence but his scores against opponents for first 5 rounds from last year are at the same venue:
Essendon 112
Hawthorn 90
Eagles 141
St Kilda 120 (At etihad no game at Skilled)
Port 163 (St Skilled did not play Adelaide Oval)
So based on these scores there is a distinct possibility he could drop a bit in price. 
So basically the decision is risk not starting and pick up extra points by using extra cash on a prem elsewhere v increasing scoring by starting on fire.
So for me the decision will be whether to start with Danger who will be in team at end of year and save a trade or risk not starting and picking up points elsewhere.
Reminds of the debate we had over Gazz in previous years,
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Trindacut on January 26, 2018, 11:57:17 AM
Something to consider is Danger has a B/e of 138 for first round a score he exceeded 14 times last year. just advising to add to discussion and to consider if you think he will drop in value. Fair enough we do not know the Gazz influence but his scores against opponents for first 5 rounds from last year are at the same venue:
Essendon 112
Hawthorn 90
Eagles 141
St Kilda 120 (At etihad no game at Skilled)
Port 163 (St Skilled did not play Adelaide Oval)
So based on these scores there is a distinct possibility he could drop a bit in price. 
So basically the decision is risk not starting and pick up extra points by using extra cash on a prem elsewhere v increasing scoring by starting on fire.
So for me the decision will be whether to start with Danger who will be in team at end of year and save a trade or risk not starting and picking up points elsewhere.
Reminds of the debate we had over Gazz in previous years,

He still needs to drop 100k-150k to make that a wise desicision, and then you need to have the money to trade up a rookie (around 400k), or you upgrade an underperforming mid. It's harder to get him in than it sounds, and it's really easy to miss the window if your rookies are dropping off team sheets quick.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Thewizz71 on January 26, 2018, 12:17:02 PM
I reckon he will drop to 120-125 so will lose 100k but ill still pick him 120+ is a must have.

Danger dmart locked in and titch too. Got to have the best of the best

I'm heading this way as well. Cant guarantee they will drop enough.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: meow meow on January 26, 2018, 02:20:48 PM
If you don't start him you had better have a good plan of how to bring him in. Downgrading LDU and upgrading Kelly won't be enough to bring in Paddy if he drops to a mere 120 average. It's going to be hard unless you've got a dedicated stone like Redden or JOM (who carry their own risks).
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: frenzy on January 26, 2018, 04:43:33 PM
Yep, I think your in Danger if you don't Danger.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on January 26, 2018, 10:45:53 PM
The more you crunch the numbers and do all sorts of analysis the more you just end up wasting your time

Barring injury, he will be Top 3 in the comp for average and total points scored, regardless of where he spends his time on the ground

Lock him in, don't look back, and spend your time focusing on more pressing issues
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: js19 on January 26, 2018, 11:08:36 PM
The chances of the no.1 team at the end of the year not having started Danger is fairly slim you'd think, so best to focus the energy elsewhere
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Adamant on January 27, 2018, 01:32:35 AM
Hasn't been in my plans once and I don't see that changing.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: js19 on January 27, 2018, 02:05:53 AM
Hasn't been in my plans once and I don't see that changing.
Is this because you think he's too expensive full stop, or can you clearly see the numbers adding up elsewhere?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Adamant on January 27, 2018, 03:01:12 AM
Hasn't been in my plans once and I don't see that changing.
Is this because you think he's too expensive full stop, or can you clearly see the numbers adding up elsewhere?

A bit of both. I don't pick players if I don't think they can improve on their average and I don't see Danger going 136+ over the first 8 rounds or so. I'll bank on Prestia/Libba/Redden pumping out 100 over the first two months before I can get them to Paddy. In the meantime I'll also be fielding Patrick Cripps instead of Will Brodie.

I didn't start with him last year either and that worked out pretty well. Picked him up after Rd 9 when he was averaging 118.2 and had dropped over 150k.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: js19 on January 27, 2018, 03:16:02 AM
Hasn't been in my plans once and I don't see that changing.
Is this because you think he's too expensive full stop, or can you clearly see the numbers adding up elsewhere?

A bit of both. I don't pick players if I don't think they can improve on their average and I don't see Danger going 136+ over the first 8 rounds or so. I'll bank on Prestia/Libba/Redden pumping out 100 over the first two months before I can get them to Paddy. In the meantime I'll also be fielding Patrick Cripps instead of Will Brodie.

I didn't start with him last year either and that worked out pretty well. Picked him up after Rd 9 when he was averaging 118.2 and had dropped over 150k.

I guess it depends. I could see it working if going for league, but overall I wouldn't be game. The captains scores Danger can pump out can be a real problem if you don't have him
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on January 27, 2018, 08:41:44 AM
Hasn't been in my plans once and I don't see that changing.
Is this because you think he's too expensive full stop, or can you clearly see the numbers adding up elsewhere?

A bit of both. I don't pick players if I don't think they can improve on their average and I don't see Danger going 136+ over the first 8 rounds or so. I'll bank on Prestia/Libba/Redden pumping out 100 over the first two months before I can get them to Paddy. In the meantime I'll also be fielding Patrick Cripps instead of Will Brodie.

I didn't start with him last year either and that worked out pretty well. Picked him up after Rd 9 when he was averaging 118.2 and had dropped over 150k.

I guess it depends. I could see it working if going for league, but overall I wouldn't be game. The captains scores Danger can pump out can be a real problem if you don't have him
This ^ the only other player I can think of in recent times of pumping out monster score after monster score was Gaz when he was a bit younger just can't miss out on all those juicy captains scores :)
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: GoLions on January 28, 2018, 11:28:45 AM
Hasn't been in my plans once and I don't see that changing.
Is this because you think he's too expensive full stop, or can you clearly see the numbers adding up elsewhere?

A bit of both. I don't pick players if I don't think they can improve on their average and I don't see Danger going 136+ over the first 8 rounds or so. I'll bank on Prestia/Libba/Redden pumping out 100 over the first two months before I can get them to Paddy. In the meantime I'll also be fielding Patrick Cripps instead of Will Brodie.
I for one, really hope that Dion doesn't average 100 :P
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Adamant on January 28, 2018, 02:46:18 PM
Hasn't been in my plans once and I don't see that changing.
Is this because you think he's too expensive full stop, or can you clearly see the numbers adding up elsewhere?

A bit of both. I don't pick players if I don't think they can improve on their average and I don't see Danger going 136+ over the first 8 rounds or so. I'll bank on Prestia/Libba/Redden pumping out 100 over the first two months before I can get them to Paddy. In the meantime I'll also be fielding Patrick Cripps instead of Will Brodie.
I for one, really hope that Dion doesn't average 100 :P

Oh don't worry, he's more likely to play 14 games at 90 before getting injured again. Duncan, meanwhile, will be the top scoring Cats mid. Guaranteed.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Trindacut on February 18, 2018, 07:18:43 AM
Hasn't been in my plans once and I don't see that changing.
Is this because you think he's too expensive full stop, or can you clearly see the numbers adding up elsewhere?

A bit of both. I don't pick players if I don't think they can improve on their average and I don't see Danger going 136+ over the first 8 rounds or so. I'll bank on Prestia/Libba/Redden pumping out 100 over the first two months before I can get them to Paddy. In the meantime I'll also be fielding Patrick Cripps instead of Will Brodie.
I for one, really hope that Dion doesn't average 100 :P

Oh don't worry, he's more likely to play 14 games at 90 before getting injured again. Duncan, meanwhile, will be the top scoring Cats mid. Guaranteed.

That's brave. Duncan's good, but he isn't that good yet.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on March 11, 2018, 01:52:53 PM
Hah..haha....hah...heh....

:-X
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Torpedo10 on March 11, 2018, 02:05:04 PM
Hah..haha....hah...heh....

:-X
Yeah, SL?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on March 11, 2018, 02:05:47 PM
Hah..haha....hah...heh....

:-X
Yeah, SL?
Limped off during the first quarter of today's match.

Not ideal for a bloke who costs $749k.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: TomK on March 11, 2018, 02:06:50 PM
Hah..haha....hah...heh....

:-X
Yeah, SL?
Limped off during the first quarter of today's match.

Not ideal for a bloke who costs $749k.
Only if he misses games, we saw what he did against Hawthorn last year on one leg.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 11, 2018, 02:33:15 PM
Hah..haha....hah...heh....

:-X
Yeah, SL?
Limped off during the first quarter of today's match.

Not ideal for a bloke who costs $749k.
You've got that right far from ideal lets see what they say before we all go into panic mode but last thing anyone needs is a $750K player being a late out in the second last game of R1  :-\
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on March 11, 2018, 05:05:15 PM
Can I change my vote?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 11, 2018, 05:09:29 PM
Herald Sun saying he will likely miss Round 1, but scans tomorrow so should find out more over the next 24 hours

Kind of hope he does miss, because I could use the extra 100-200k!
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Gigantor on March 11, 2018, 05:12:58 PM
Herald Sun saying he will likely miss Round 1, but scans tomorrow so should find out more over the next 24 hours

Kind of hope he does miss, because I could use the extra 100-200k!

Late out Sunday would be a disaster

Jelwood, Oliver, JPK, Parker, Shuey the options
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Adamant on March 11, 2018, 05:16:27 PM
Hasn't been in my plans once and I don't see that changing.

I'll be picking him if he misses round one. Danger as a unique will be delicious.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Woppa15 on March 11, 2018, 05:17:50 PM
Hasn't been in my plans once and I don't see that changing.

I'll be picking him if he misses round one. Danger as a unique will be delicious.

A big +1....!!!!
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tommy10 on March 11, 2018, 05:19:16 PM
Herald Sun saying he will likely miss Round 1, but scans tomorrow so should find out more over the next 24 hours

Kind of hope he does miss, because I could use the extra 100-200k!
Well then....that makes it interesting......!!!!  :o
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 11, 2018, 05:33:23 PM
Will wait till scan results are in and we hear from the club but if he is going to miss R1 I can't see myself starting with $750K on the bench but that means having a plan to get him in , that also means rolling the dice that he is going to drop in price and that is really a bit of a headache
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Levi434 on March 11, 2018, 05:36:54 PM
Danger locked in for me.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: bowyanger on March 11, 2018, 07:45:55 PM
Will wait till scan results are in and we hear from the club but if he is going to miss R1 I can't see myself starting with $750K on the bench but that means having a plan to get him in , that also means rolling the dice that he is going to drop in price and that is really a bit of a headache
If he doesn't start rd 1 its a blessing for me...
The name of the game is to pick players that will  increase in price whilst  trading in premiums that have fallen in $ for a short time

Its much easier for Danger to fall in $ than gain $

Not having him in your team when he isnt playing Rd1 works much better to observe his performance and potential $ saving seeing as most other punters will not have him

Replacing Danger before Rd 1 lockout with 2 midpricer potential breakouts is an option for me...

If mid pricers breakout then its a definate win

If they dont and Danger comes back stronk ...then trade an underperforming midpricer (mid pricers generally dont drop in price too much) into a rook thats killing it I missed (theres always 1 or 2 I miss eaach year) , then trade another potential failed mid price selection into dangerpants

In my opinion we have so many trades that I can plan this way....keep your options open with some DPP at the start when trading is hectic is the key
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: eaglesman on March 11, 2018, 09:10:02 PM
Herald Sun saying he will likely miss Round 1, but scans tomorrow so should find out more over the next 24 hours

Kind of hope he does miss, because I could use the extra 100-200k!

Agree 100%
I have purely been starting him to get rid of that risk of going without.
If he misses round 1 this is the decision that can make and break a lot of sides Sc season.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 11, 2018, 09:18:45 PM
If he misses round 1 this is the decision that can make and break a lot of sides Sc season.

Certainly can shape your season that's for sure

If he misses Rd1 and you decide to start him you'd be bloody nervous in the lead up to Rd2 haha, but on the opposite side if you do start him and he does return Rd2 that could give you a massive edge over all the teams that don't start him and he won't be easy for them to bring in soon too - you'd probably have to wait a few rounds at least before it's even an option and by then you could be miles behind

I saw FantasyFreako tweeted Danger hasn't missed an H&A game since 2013, so he's super durable. If the news is positive I think I will actually still start him. Those that don't might get the jump on me Rd1, but I'll get them back and then some every round there after
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 11, 2018, 09:22:57 PM
If he misses round 1 this is the decision that can make and break a lot of sides Sc season.

Certainly can shape your season that's for sure

If he misses Rd1 and you decide to start him you'd be bloody nervous in the lead up to Rd2 haha, but on the opposite side if you do start him and he does return Rd2 that could give you a massive edge over all the teams that don't start him and he won't be easy for them to bring in soon too - you'd probably have to wait a few rounds at least before it's even an option and by then you could be miles behind

I saw FantasyFreako tweeted Danger hasn't missed an H&A game since 2013, so he's super durable. If the news is positive I think I will actually still start him. Those that don't might get the jump on me Rd1, but I'll get them back and then some every round there after

If the injury is similar to Billings it will be 2-3 weeks, that could mean first 2 rounds out.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 11, 2018, 09:27:53 PM
If he misses round 1 this is the decision that can make and break a lot of sides Sc season.

Certainly can shape your season that's for sure

If he misses Rd1 and you decide to start him you'd be bloody nervous in the lead up to Rd2 haha, but on the opposite side if you do start him and he does return Rd2 that could give you a massive edge over all the teams that don't start him and he won't be easy for them to bring in soon too - you'd probably have to wait a few rounds at least before it's even an option and by then you could be miles behind

I saw FantasyFreako tweeted Danger hasn't missed an H&A game since 2013, so he's super durable. If the news is positive I think I will actually still start him. Those that don't might get the jump on me Rd1, but I'll get them back and then some every round there after

If the injury is similar to Billings it will be 2-3 weeks, that could mean first 2 rounds out.

True

Let's say our Danger replacement scores 115 x 2 rounds, and those who start him have to field a rookie who scores 65

100 points down over first 2, vs having him for every week there after vs those who don't, not having to use a trade and not having to worry about how to get him in

I'll take the 100 hit, because the return long term will be much more
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: jvalles69 on March 11, 2018, 09:29:34 PM
If Danger looks like missing I'm willing to burn a trade on permacap.  Will finalise my team with Danger...straight swap him to someone with a good 2 round run, and switch straight back to Danger when he's back named.  You do not want to be caught out with not enough cash to bring him back in that's for sure.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Woppa15 on March 11, 2018, 09:39:55 PM
If he misses round 1 this is the decision that can make and break a lot of sides Sc season.

Certainly can shape your season that's for sure

If he misses Rd1 and you decide to start him you'd be bloody nervous in the lead up to Rd2 haha, but on the opposite side if you do start him and he does return Rd2 that could give you a massive edge over all the teams that don't start him and he won't be easy for them to bring in soon too - you'd probably have to wait a few rounds at least before it's even an option and by then you could be miles behind

I saw FantasyFreako tweeted Danger hasn't missed an H&A game since 2013, so he's super durable. If the news is positive I think I will actually still start him. Those that don't might get the jump on me Rd1, but I'll get them back and then some every round there after

+1. My thoughts exactly RD.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 11, 2018, 11:02:24 PM
If you're going for overall you can't start him if he misses surely? Will be no garuntee of a return the following week or if he takes a couple of weeks to get to his best after his return. That's of course if he even misses at all. I kind of hope he does because it will make things really interesting
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 11, 2018, 11:05:31 PM
If you're going for overall you can't start him if he misses surely? Will be no garuntee of a return the following week or if he takes a couple of weeks to get to his best after his return. That's of course if he even misses at all. I kind of hope he does because it will make things really interesting

It's just a hammy strain and he's Danger so he won't need time to get back to his best
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 11, 2018, 11:14:00 PM
If you're going for overall you can't start him if he misses surely? Will be no garuntee of a return the following week or if he takes a couple of weeks to get to his best after his return. That's of course if he even misses at all. I kind of hope he does because it will make things really interesting

It's just a hammy strain and he's Danger so he won't need time to get back to his best

Yeah I would still expect him to be good but might not explode out for 150s straight away
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: dmac07 on March 11, 2018, 11:15:30 PM
If you're going for overall you can't start him if he misses surely? Will be no garuntee of a return the following week or if he takes a couple of weeks to get to his best after his return. That's of course if he even misses at all. I kind of hope he does because it will make things really interesting

It's just a hammy strain and he's Danger so he won't need time to get back to his best

A hammy strain on a really explosive guy, wouldn't be surprised if they take an extra cautious approach and just give him to round 3 or play him more forward for a game or two
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: frenzy on March 11, 2018, 11:21:58 PM
If Danger looks like missing I'm willing to burn a trade on permacap.  Will finalise my team with Danger...straight swap him to someone with a good 2 round run, and switch straight back to Danger when he's back named.  You do not want to be caught out with not enough cash to bring him back in that's for sure.

This^ I will swap now for Jelwood and sit on the $200k, then bring him in upon his return. Better to sit with $200k in the bank than $750k on the bench.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ringo on March 12, 2018, 10:24:25 AM
If Danger looks like missing I'm willing to burn a trade on permacap.  Will finalise my team with Danger...straight swap him to someone with a good 2 round run, and switch straight back to Danger when he's back named.  You do not want to be caught out with not enough cash to bring him back in that's for sure.

This^ I will swap now for Jelwood and sit on the $200k, then bring him in upon his return. Better to sit with $200k in the bank than $750k on the bench.
Thinking this as well.  With Ablett still in a little doubt as well Jelwood should score reasonably well. Only has a B/e of 102 for the first 3 rounds so should make a little cash as well. Ideal situation for me is that Danger misses 2 rounds and scores a little below average and  selwood makes money Rounds 3 & 4. Then upgrade Selwood to Danger,
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Torpedo10 on March 12, 2018, 10:36:44 AM
It's an interesting prospect, Jelwood has had iffy starts to the season since Gaz left, usually being a post-bye specialist. Could this be the year to start with him, having Gaz back and all?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: hawkers65 on March 12, 2018, 11:20:35 AM
Ive been looking for an excuse to start Treloar for 2 weeks now. Danger out Treloar in has been made. A nice 150 against the hawks like usual to get his season off to a good start followed by collingwoods ridiculously easy draw and chance of finals
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 12, 2018, 11:34:30 AM
If Danger looks like missing I'm willing to burn a trade on permacap.  Will finalise my team with Danger...straight swap him to someone with a good 2 round run, and switch straight back to Danger when he's back named.  You do not want to be caught out with not enough cash to bring him back in that's for sure.

This^ I will swap now for Jelwood and sit on the $200k, then bring him in upon his return. Better to sit with $200k in the bank than $750k on the bench.
Thinking this as well.  With Ablett still in a little doubt as well Jelwood should score reasonably well. Only has a B/e of 102 for the first 3 rounds so should make a little cash as well. Ideal situation for me is that Danger misses 2 rounds and scores a little below average and  selwood makes money Rounds 3 & 4. Then upgrade Selwood to Danger,
If you are going to go down that path of getting a player to cover then bring Danger in as soon as he comes back you really have to look at the cover players draw Jelwood gets tagged a fair bit and with Danger out he would be likely candidate , Neale plays Port and Ebert is a very good tagger and whoever you pick getting a hard tag and scoring 50 would be a disaster.

The one I've singled out is Cripps B/E 98 I was not starting him but he has the Tiges which don't really hard tag players then GC at home then the Pies and Greenwood is doubtful then North a pretty good run and if he puts up monster scores like a lot think I can keep him and trade out another player that has not started well but first lets see what the report is on Danger  ;)

Plus if you don't start Danger it is probably a good move to see how he scores when he comes back for a week or two anyway.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Gigantor on March 12, 2018, 11:49:02 AM
I think people are overestimating how much premo guys like Jelwood will increase in price.

Due to the way the price changes are calculated compared to a players initial price a top end premo needs to average 10ppg more than the previous year just to maintain their starting price

If Jelwood comes out and averages 125 for the first 6 weeks he will only go up 50k


The trade off to this is the prices of players who start poorly crash very quickly

If Danger plays 5 games @ 110 he will be about 100k less
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ringo on March 12, 2018, 12:00:09 PM
I think people are overestimating how much premo guys like Jelwood will increase in price.

Due to the way the price changes are calculated compared to a players initial price a top end premo needs to average 10ppg more than the previous year just to maintain their starting price

If Jelwood comes out and averages 125 for the first 6 weeks he will only go up 50k


The trade off to this is the prices of players who start poorly crash very quickly

If Danger plays 5 games @ 110 he will be about 100k less
That is the ideal situation meaning only a 30k changeover,  ;) We can hope.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 12, 2018, 12:25:13 PM
If Danger plays 5 games @ 110 he will be about 100k less

This is the key, don't think Danger will explode out of the blocks. Even last year which was his statistical best, he stumbled a couple of times in the first 8 rounds. Only one 140+ score & would have hit 598k by the time rookies were ready to cull.

I can definitely see the reasoning behind stashing 200k to get him in early but that money could be put to good use with an extra keeper or the very best rookies.

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on March 12, 2018, 12:49:31 PM
What do people make of the fact u can get a combo of Coniglio/Redden/Libba + JOM/ Armitage for around the same price as Danger? 180 - 200 vs 130
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 12, 2018, 12:52:01 PM
What do people make of the fact u can get a combo of Coniglio/Redden/Libba + JOM/ Armitage for around the same price as Danger? 180 - 200 vs 130

No brainer to do this, also an easy stepping stone to grab Danger after 6 -7 games.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 12, 2018, 01:10:42 PM
What do people make of the fact u can get a combo of Coniglio/Redden/Libba + JOM/ Armitage for around the same price as Danger? 180 - 200 vs 130

Not exactly correct when it's 1 player vs 2

Danger + Rookie vs Conigs + Libba would be more accurate, but I get what you're saying

You're next best mid (Danger replacement) is the correct way to analyse it Eg/ Dusty + Brayshaw vs Libba + Conigs etc
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 12, 2018, 01:14:04 PM
"I will wait until (Tuesday) and see how it is, it feels pretty good," Dangerfield said at Geelong's headquarters on Monday.

"I've never done a hammy before, so without having done one, it's hard to say where it's at."
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 12, 2018, 01:28:18 PM
"I will wait until (Tuesday) and see how it is, it feels pretty good," Dangerfield said at Geelong's headquarters on Monday.

"I've never done a hammy before, so without having done one, it's hard to say where it's at."

2 weeks for anything hamstring related is too early I suspect.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 12, 2018, 01:40:12 PM
"I will wait until (Tuesday) and see how it is, it feels pretty good," Dangerfield said at Geelong's headquarters on Monday.

"I've never done a hammy before, so without having done one, it's hard to say where it's at."
Surely he will get a scan and not go by " it feels pretty good " then let the media know what the results are ?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: hawkers65 on March 12, 2018, 01:42:40 PM
"I will wait until (Tuesday) and see how it is, it feels pretty good," Dangerfield said at Geelong's headquarters on Monday.

"I've never done a hammy before, so without having done one, it's hard to say where it's at."
Surely he will get a scan and not go by " it feels pretty good " then let the media know what the results are ?

Happens every year with high profile players. The club knows exactly whats the go is and when he should be back or is playing but we'll be left till sunday afternoon to frantically get them back in or trade them out
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 12, 2018, 01:53:30 PM
"I will wait until (Tuesday) and see how it is, it feels pretty good," Dangerfield said at Geelong's headquarters on Monday.

"I've never done a hammy before, so without having done one, it's hard to say where it's at."
Surely he will get a scan and not go by " it feels pretty good " then let the media know what the results are ?

Happens every year with high profile players. The club knows exactly whats the go is and when he should be back or is playing but we'll be left till sunday afternoon to frantically get them back in or trade them out
Fantastic that would leave Duncan Oliver or Parker as a choice.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 12, 2018, 02:01:04 PM
What do people make of the fact u can get a combo of Coniglio/Redden/Libba + JOM/ Armitage for around the same price as Danger? 180 - 200 vs 130

No brainer to do this, also an easy stepping stone to grab Danger after 6 -7 games.

The only issue I see with that is if Libba or whoever you have are pumping out tons every week are you really going to make your first upgrade a good player to a better player or upgrade some rookies?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 12, 2018, 02:06:05 PM
What do people make of the fact u can get a combo of Coniglio/Redden/Libba + JOM/ Armitage for around the same price as Danger? 180 - 200 vs 130

No brainer to do this, also an easy stepping stone to grab Danger after 6 -7 games.

The only issue I see with that is if Libba or whoever you have are pumping out tons every week are you really going to make your first upgrade a good player to a better player or upgrade some rookies?

At the moment I have Coniglio, Libba & O'Meara, if all 3 dominate then bonus, but realistically 1 will under-perform, most likely O'Meara.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 12, 2018, 02:11:08 PM
What do people make of the fact u can get a combo of Coniglio/Redden/Libba + JOM/ Armitage for around the same price as Danger? 180 - 200 vs 130

No brainer to do this, also an easy stepping stone to grab Danger after 6 -7 games.

The only issue I see with that is if Libba or whoever you have are pumping out tons every week are you really going to make your first upgrade a good player to a better player or upgrade some rookies?

At the moment I have Coniglio, Libba & O'Meara, if all 3 dominate then bonus, but realistically 1 will under-perform, most likely O'Meara.

Yeah that makes sense. So ideally you'll be able to do it by downgrading a cash cow and upgrading Omeara to Danger. Makes me nervous hoping things like that pan out
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 12, 2018, 02:13:50 PM
What do people make of the fact u can get a combo of Coniglio/Redden/Libba + JOM/ Armitage for around the same price as Danger? 180 - 200 vs 130

No brainer to do this, also an easy stepping stone to grab Danger after 6 -7 games.

The only issue I see with that is if Libba or whoever you have are pumping out tons every week are you really going to make your first upgrade a good player to a better player or upgrade some rookies?

At the moment I have Coniglio, Libba & O'Meara, if all 3 dominate then bonus, but realistically 1 will under-perform, most likely O'Meara.

Yeah that makes sense. So ideally you'll be able to do it by downgrading a cash cow and upgrading Omeara to Danger. Makes me nervous hoping things like that pan out

Always a risk but no way I will start him if not named round 1.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 12, 2018, 02:16:29 PM
What do people make of the fact u can get a combo of Coniglio/Redden/Libba + JOM/ Armitage for around the same price as Danger? 180 - 200 vs 130

No brainer to do this, also an easy stepping stone to grab Danger after 6 -7 games.

The only issue I see with that is if Libba or whoever you have are pumping out tons every week are you really going to make your first upgrade a good player to a better player or upgrade some rookies?

At the moment I have Coniglio, Libba & O'Meara, if all 3 dominate then bonus, but realistically 1 will under-perform, most likely O'Meara.

Yeah that makes sense. So ideally you'll be able to do it by downgrading a cash cow and upgrading Omeara to Danger. Makes me nervous hoping things like that pan out

Always a risk but no way I will start him if not named round 1.

No me neither. Kind of hope he doesn't play because plenty will hold him
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: enzedder on March 12, 2018, 05:57:53 PM
I've been under a rock. Easy to do in NZ. Just heard about this dilemma.
My thoughts are you have to start him or at least plan to start him.
I'll be giving him every chance to start in my team.
At 750k though you can't have him sitting on you bench if he's out.
As RD has already quite rightly pointed out if you run with a rookie who scores 65 vs others who have a premo scoring 115 you're going to be down around 100 points or so if it stretches into 2 games. If you're going for overall that's hardly what you want.
As such, if Danger happens to be out I'll start Oliver. Same game as Danger so a late out poses no problem R1 and Melbourne play Brisbane R2.
Happy to keep the Danger change in the bank to trade for him R2 or when he starts. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: zoomba23 on March 12, 2018, 05:58:33 PM
Just putting it out there for the people that are offloading Danger cos of his injury. Are you replacing him with another uber premo (Zorko, Oliver, Crouch etc.) or are you downgrading him to a fallen premo or midpricer (Libba, Conigs) and saving the cash to bring him back in after a couple of rounds? Right now I feel like he's not an absolute necessity to have a spot for, but we all saw what he can do on one leg against Hawthorn last season, and given it's Danger he could probably pull a 150 out of the hat first game back.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Money Shot on March 13, 2018, 08:24:07 AM
Just putting it out there for the people that are offloading Danger cos of his injury. Are you replacing him with another uber premo (Zorko, Oliver, Crouch etc.) or are you downgrading him to a fallen premo or midpricer (Libba, Conigs) and saving the cash to bring him back in after a couple of rounds? Right now I feel like he's not an absolute necessity to have a spot for, but we all saw what he can do on one leg against Hawthorn last season, and given it's Danger he could probably pull a 150 out of the hat first game back.
If he misses the first game I won't be starting him. Leaning towards getting Matt Crouch in and banking that danger averages 110 for the first 6-7 rounds and getting him cheaper.

Gaz is in the team and injury cocerns could see him start slow.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Colty on March 13, 2018, 12:38:02 PM
If You dont get Danger now I think you will be selling the farm to get him in later, trades and cash will be wasted. You are better off taking a short term hit to avoid the pain.
He is a hypochondriac anyway so hes prob fine. 
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Hazza09 on March 13, 2018, 01:21:55 PM
im really unsure which way to go with Dangerfield, having him out of the team if he's out Round 1 will just cause headaches trying to get him back in when he's ready to go. Whats the worst case scenario? 1 week....possibly 2?
The only thing that might work in your advantage if you start without him is he misses 2 games max, then scores 90-100 for 5 weeks straight, then you pick him up for 600-650k.
You will still have to trade to bring him in and then the question after is who do you trade him in for?
There are to many case scenarios with this....the last thing you want is him playing Rd2 and belting out a 150+ which he most likely will.
But i do agree without him in your team all other lines look a lot stronger....F5 suddenly becomes more appealing than having Venables/Ryan in that position along with another rookie e.g. Fritsch.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tkringle on March 13, 2018, 01:27:20 PM
I'm still not sure which way I will go, but loving that Danger missing will  result in a lot more uniqueness to the starting teams.

It will really be one of those calls you look back on in 10 weeks and either smile or cry!
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Keeper27 on March 13, 2018, 01:31:14 PM
Currently Danger is dropped for Dusty, extra cash used on Libba (M7) & that moves JOM (M8)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3oFzm5BQp8i47cpxPa/source.gif)

but i can easily change it back, and will probably do that
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: dmac07 on March 13, 2018, 01:38:13 PM
Currently Danger is dropped for Dusty, extra cash used on Libba (M7) & that moves JOM (M8)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3oFzm5BQp8i47cpxPa/source.gif)

but i can easily change it back, and will probably do that

How does your fwd/def look?  :o
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 13, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
Gaz teaked his hammy and was sidelined for 4 weeks, Billings for 3 weeks. The odds of Danger missing the first 2 weeks would be reasonably high I think. For those stashing cash for 2 weeks I think it's a risk, then there's the prospect of Danger scoring a modest score in his comeback game & having that score in his rolling average. Do you jump on knowing fully well that others will pick him up cheap?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: meow meow on March 13, 2018, 01:41:58 PM
He hasn't even done his hammy, it's just tightness and he'll be there round 1. Trust me, I am a doctor and can tell from a mile away.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SydneyRox on March 13, 2018, 01:50:30 PM
its a no for me to start, happy to be wrong though

hope he is named though. so you either have to take the chance or not.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Keeper27 on March 13, 2018, 02:00:59 PM
How does your fwd/def look?  :o

not bad, pretty happy with it.

2-1-5/6-2-3/2-0-1/3-2-3

hope he is named though. so you either have to take the chance or not.

this
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: meow meow on March 13, 2018, 02:04:21 PM
He hasn't been in my team once this preseason and I'm a bit salty that he didn't do this in round 1 just to really flower everyone. I've had the son of god instead of the dangerous one all along. GAJ will produce Danger scores, then sideways when Gary has a rest.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 13, 2018, 04:03:48 PM
So what's the go? Surely they have the scan results by now
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on March 13, 2018, 04:05:52 PM
So what's the go? Surely they have the scan results by now
Wait for him to update us on his Insta :P
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 13, 2018, 04:08:29 PM
So what's the go? Surely they have the scan results by now
Cats medicos discussing results now and nothing said till Wednesday morning according to AFL site
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 13, 2018, 04:12:50 PM
Haha it's such a circus with the big names, could have torn it off the bone and he'll say he's still a chance for round 1
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 13, 2018, 04:17:15 PM
Haha it's such a circus with the big names, could have torn it off the bone and he'll say he's still a chance for round 1
Yeah pretty sure unless he has serious damage we will not know till final teams Sunday arvo R1  ;)
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 13, 2018, 05:12:59 PM
Haha it's such a circus with the big names, could have torn it off the bone and he'll say he's still a chance for round 1
Yeah pretty sure unless he has serious damage we will not know till final teams Sunday arvo R1  ;)

That's what I'm worried about haha
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Gigantor on March 13, 2018, 05:14:24 PM
Haha it's such a circus with the big names, could have torn it off the bone and he'll say he's still a chance for round 1
Yeah pretty sure unless he has serious damage we will not know till final teams Sunday arvo R1  ;)

That's what I'm worried about haha

Hopefully our emergency mid rookie goes 90+ so we can just hold him haha
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 13, 2018, 05:16:56 PM
Haha it's such a circus with the big names, could have torn it off the bone and he'll say he's still a chance for round 1
Yeah pretty sure unless he has serious damage we will not know till final teams Sunday arvo R1  ;)

That's what I'm worried about haha

Hopefully our emergency mid rookie goes 90+ so we can just hold him haha

My emergency rookie at this stage is Tim Kelly so that won't work for me haha. Might have to put it on someone else and if they score well I can hold Danger like you said
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Gigantor on March 13, 2018, 05:34:20 PM
Haha it's such a circus with the big names, could have torn it off the bone and he'll say he's still a chance for round 1
Yeah pretty sure unless he has serious damage we will not know till final teams Sunday arvo R1  ;)

That's what I'm worried about haha

Hopefully our emergency mid rookie goes 90+ so we can just hold him haha

My emergency rookie at this stage is Tim Kelly so that won't work for me haha. Might have to put it on someone else and if they score well I can hold Danger like you said
If Ablett and Danger are out Kelly might be worth the punt!
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 13, 2018, 05:47:59 PM
Just watched news and sports report and Danger is just to damn happy ..... he's playing R1  ;)
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on March 13, 2018, 07:06:11 PM
It's standing out to me that nearly every team I see with no Danger looks stronger and more balanced.
I really wish he'd just miss two weeks and have a slow start cos my team looks better without him lol.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: PowerBug on March 13, 2018, 07:17:51 PM
This is really a make or break decision, as has been posted above. For me, if we get confirmation that the Dangerfield injury is Round 1 only, it's going to be very difficult for me to NOT pick him. Words along the lines of "He was close but we took the cautious approach", or seeing him named then late out will convince me of such a thing. If it looks like he's a possibility to miss Round 2 then I think it's too much of a risk to start him.

The conundrum is obviously the trade-off you get in return. By not starting Dangerfield and picking another premium you save some money, but as soon as you spread those funds around, you're making it close to impossible to get him back easily. $150k saved by going for a Neale/Sloane etc, but if he goes bang bang on return and you want him back, and you've spread that $150k in your team elsewhere, you won't be able to find the funds to get him back.

If you hold onto the funds and leave $150k-$200k in the kitty heading into Rd 1, then you can't use the saved money as an argument for not starting him, and have to resort to the one week of the extra premium, and the possibility that he doesn't come back strongly.


For now, Dangerfield is in my squad, but I will admit it's hard to go into Round 1 with $750k on the bench.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ringo on March 13, 2018, 08:53:57 PM
I am seriously thinking of using one of Gazz or Duncan to start and then upgrade later. Leaning towards Gazz now that they reckon he will start Rd 1, just hoping he can stay on the park for first five games and make some cash.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Hoggyz_a_legend on March 13, 2018, 09:07:12 PM
I am seriously thinking of using one of Gazz or Duncan to start and then upgrade later. Leaning towards Gazz now that they reckon he will start Rd 1, just hoping he can stay on the park for first five games and make some cash.

This is exactly what I'm thinking. If Gaz plays, I'm going with him. More upside imo.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: LordSneeze on March 13, 2018, 09:19:52 PM
I haven't had Danger in my side all preseason as I feel this year he is too expensive to start (Even for what he can produce). The injury concern just locks that decision in for me. Yes he might go Bang Bang, but that is a risk im taking this year, side is so much better balanced without him.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Blues Blues Blues on March 14, 2018, 07:04:05 AM
SO torn.

Team looks great without him - agreed.

But he was on 12 touches and 44 SC points in the first quarter when he went down. I know only JLT, but it shows that the man is a freak and justifies his price tag.

Leave him out, and will be so hard to get him back in.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Keeper27 on March 14, 2018, 09:27:07 AM
SO torn.

Team looks great without him - agreed.

But he was on 12 touches and 44 SC points in the first quarter when he went down. I know only JLT, but it shows that the man is a freak and justifies his price tag.

Leave him out, and will be so hard to get him back in.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Holz on March 14, 2018, 10:09:38 AM
SO torn.

Team looks great without him - agreed.

But he was on 12 touches and 44 SC points in the first quarter when he went down. I know only JLT, but it shows that the man is a freak and justifies his price tag.

Leave him out, and will be so hard to get him back in.

What i did was took him out of my team and then set my team as best it could. It looked good but then i looked at how i could bring him back in, and it was way too hard. Basically tells me i cant get him in till round 6-7 at the earliest.

You never want to be in a spot where you need to do a trade, i feel this means your always missing out on better opportunities or you have to miss out on him.

Trading is how you win this game and I want Danger, so he is now back in my squad. The easiest way to get Danger in your squad is to start with him. If i lose 100k soo be it, ill make it up in trading with my increased flexibility to make whatever move i want.

The great thing with Danger is if he gets injured or has a few shockers you can trade him to anyone. If he kills it you cant bring him in for anyone, unless your keeping cash in the bank (which is never a good move)

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Money Shot on March 14, 2018, 10:57:12 AM
If Danger plays round 1 I am 100% starting him. Even if he drops 150k he will still be 600k which would be so hard to trade up too. If he doesn't start it will be a really tough decision for me.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ricochet on March 14, 2018, 11:08:36 AM
Danger did his hammy back on page 2
We're now on page 8 and still don't know the full extent of the injury

Just goes to show how important he is haha
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on March 14, 2018, 11:39:33 AM
http://m.geelongcats.com.au/news/2018-03-14/injury-update-dangerfield-and-stanley

Confirmation that we probably won't know whether he's playing or not until the day of the game.

Start at your own risk.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 14, 2018, 11:42:47 AM
@TomBrowne7
A low grade hamstring is 21 days. With Danger - arguably the best player in the comp - you'd lean on the side of caution and say 25. That puts him between round 2 and 3. I hope he plays round 1 like everyone. But a hamstring's a hamstring. In a sense pretty simple
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on March 14, 2018, 11:45:40 AM
@TomBrowne7
A low grade hamstring is 21 days. With Danger - arguably the best player in the comp - you'd lean on the side of caution and say 25. That puts him between round 2 and 3. I hope he plays round 1 like everyone. But a hamstring's a hamstring. In a sense pretty simple
It's arguable?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Huttabito on March 14, 2018, 11:46:01 AM
http://m.geelongcats.com.au/news/2018-03-14/injury-update-dangerfield-and-stanley

Confirmation that we probably won't know whether he's playing or not until the day of the game.

Start at your own risk.
If he is a late withdrawal, Oliver or Parker are the only two real options to bring in. Shame J.Kelly would have just played.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Money Shot on March 14, 2018, 11:53:45 AM
If he is named he will be in my side.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Football Factory on March 14, 2018, 12:06:26 PM
You would think he is pretty much guaranteed of a round 2 start then.

Think Geelong play the Easter Monday game in round 2 ..
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 14, 2018, 12:22:36 PM
Since when is a hamstring injury 2 weeks that's if it's a small tear or is it a strain really does not say?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Holz on March 14, 2018, 12:24:28 PM
@TomBrowne7
A low grade hamstring is 21 days. With Danger - arguably the best player in the comp - you'd lean on the side of caution and say 25. That puts him between round 2 and 3. I hope he plays round 1 like everyone. But a hamstring's a hamstring. In a sense pretty simple
It's arguable?

certainly I dont think Dusty is necessarily the lock #1 player in the comp. You could make a argument its Danger no doubt.

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: AaronKirk on March 14, 2018, 12:53:23 PM
Since when is a hamstring injury 2 weeks that's if it's a small tear or is it a strain really does not say?

The article states is a low grade hamstring tear.

https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/geelong-cats/low-grade-hamstring-tear-leaves-geelongs-patrick-dangerfield-in-mix-for-round-one-ng-b88773695z
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on March 14, 2018, 01:02:56 PM
http://m.geelongcats.com.au/news/2018-03-14/injury-update-dangerfield-and-stanley

Confirmation that we probably won't know whether he's playing or not until the day of the game.

Start at your own risk.
If he is a late withdrawal, Oliver or Parker are the only two real options to bring in. Shame J.Kelly would have just played.

So if you're forced to pick Oliver/Parker then you have 150-200 k in bank. Say whoever u choose has a blinder and scores 130 it would really suck dropping them for Danger. Especially if they back that up with a few big scores while Danger starts " slowly"'with a few 100-110 scores.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 14, 2018, 01:05:33 PM
Start all of Conigs, Libba and Arma

Once Danger is back and firing dump 2 of them to get him and keep the best one of the 3
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Woppa15 on March 14, 2018, 01:17:06 PM
A grade 1 hamstring strain recovery time is 1 - 3 weeks. I dare say Danger will play round 1. I for one will be starting the great man! Too much Capt potential
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on March 14, 2018, 01:24:46 PM
Start all of Conigs, Libba and Arma

Once Danger is back and firing dump 2 of them to get him and keep the best one of the 3
Interesting, could work in theory.
But if he's back round 2 (im saying he'll 99% be back then if not r1) how do you pick the "best" out of Libbs/Cogs/Armo/JOM after just one round or even 2?"Lets say Libba smashes it while your other 2 have a slow start. U drop the 2 who then have awesome scores for 5-6 'rounds and average 100, ur stuck with Libba who scores 80-85 avg thereafter. Really hard to pick who will be best to keep, and if u wait to "see if Danger is firing" u could miss out on a 150 captains score just to see who the best of ur midpricers are.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Huttabito on March 14, 2018, 02:10:50 PM
http://m.geelongcats.com.au/news/2018-03-14/injury-update-dangerfield-and-stanley

Confirmation that we probably won't know whether he's playing or not until the day of the game.

Start at your own risk.
If he is a late withdrawal, Oliver or Parker are the only two real options to bring in. Shame J.Kelly would have just played.

So if you're forced to pick Oliver/Parker then you have 150-200 k in bank. Say whoever u choose has a blinder and scores 130 it would really suck dropping them for Danger. Especially if they back that up with a few big scores while Danger starts " slowly"'with a few 100-110 scores.
I would sit on the money and use it to accelerate upgrades in a months time. No way I would be wasting a trade the very next week bringing him back in.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 14, 2018, 02:17:10 PM
Start all of Conigs, Libba and Arma

Once Danger is back and firing dump 2 of them to get him and keep the best one of the 3
Interesting, could work in theory.
But if he's back round 2 (im saying he'll 99% be back then if not r1) how do you pick the "best" out of Libbs/Cogs/Armo/JOM after just one round or even 2?"Lets say Libba smashes it while your other 2 have a slow start. U drop the 2 who then have awesome scores for 5-6 'rounds and average 100, ur stuck with Libba who scores 80-85 avg thereafter. Really hard to pick who will be best to keep, and if u wait to "see if Danger is firing" u could miss out on a 150 captains score just to see who the best of ur midpricers are.

Well you'd wait and see Danger play a game or two first just to make sure his hammy is ok and he is back firing, so you get to see 3-4 matches your mid pricers before making the call - might even be an extra week or two longer if Danger doesn't go boom and is projected to drop in price
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: PowerBug on March 14, 2018, 02:22:47 PM
And when he goes 160 on Easter Monday? Then what?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 14, 2018, 03:06:02 PM
Start all of Conigs, Libba and Arma

Once Danger is back and firing dump 2 of them to get him and keep the best one of the 3
Interesting, could work in theory.
But if he's back round 2 (im saying he'll 99% be back then if not r1) how do you pick the "best" out of Libbs/Cogs/Armo/JOM after just one round or even 2?"Lets say Libba smashes it while your other 2 have a slow start. U drop the 2 who then have awesome scores for 5-6 'rounds and average 100, ur stuck with Libba who scores 80-85 avg thereafter. Really hard to pick who will be best to keep, and if u wait to "see if Danger is firing" u could miss out on a 150 captains score just to see who the best of ur midpricers are.

Well you'd wait and see Danger play a game or two first just to make sure his hammy is ok and he is back firing, so you get to see 3-4 matches your mid pricers before making the call - might even be an extra week or two longer if Danger doesn't go boom and is projected to drop in price

I'm starting to think this might be the go RD. The only issue is that when you're dumping 2 you need there to be a rookie available on the bubble or atleast playing in that week that hasn't already had a price rise. If you wait it out on Danger for 3-4 weeks all of the rookies would have already gone up
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: frenzy on March 14, 2018, 03:21:47 PM
One trade, start Jelwood and bank the $200k, Danger misses rnd 2 aswell, keep Jelly another week. Danger starts, YOLO, welcome back.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 14, 2018, 03:23:17 PM
One trade, start Jelwood and bank the $200k, Danger misses rnd 2 aswell, keep Jelly another week. Danger starts, YOLO, welcome back.

Not a bad strategy & worth considering.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 14, 2018, 03:26:33 PM
One trade, start Jelwood and bank the $200k, Danger misses rnd 2 aswell, keep Jelly another week. Danger starts, YOLO, welcome back.

And if Jelly scores 130 both weeks? Really gonna trade him?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Money Shot on March 14, 2018, 04:00:19 PM
One trade, start Jelwood and bank the $200k, Danger misses rnd 2 aswell, keep Jelly another week. Danger starts, YOLO, welcome back.

And if Jelly scores 130 both weeks? Really gonna trade him?
That is the reason I am going to start Danger if possible.

Say you get Libba and O'meara and they come out over the first 5 rounds and are averaging 100 are you really going to want to trade them out when you have rookies scoring 50 and new rookies on the bubble???

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on March 14, 2018, 04:16:01 PM
One trade, start Jelwood and bank the $200k, Danger misses rnd 2 aswell, keep Jelly another week. Danger starts, YOLO, welcome back.

And if Jelly scores 130 both weeks? Really gonna trade him?
Exactly what worries me about this scenario.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Holz on March 14, 2018, 04:18:51 PM
One trade, start Jelwood and bank the $200k, Danger misses rnd 2 aswell, keep Jelly another week. Danger starts, YOLO, welcome back.

And if Jelly scores 130 both weeks? Really gonna trade him?
Exactly what worries me about this scenario.

I cant see a possible world where you pick 5 premo they all go huge and Danger also goes huge.

you could negate this even further by having Coefield at m8 then you could change any defender.

I dont like the strategy of 200k on the bench but you will 100% have a good way to find the way to get Danger in if he kills it. If you think he will kill it then start him if you think he wont then dont start him.

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: frenzy on March 14, 2018, 04:21:39 PM
One trade, start Jelwood and bank the $200k, Danger misses rnd 2 aswell, keep Jelly another week. Danger starts, YOLO, welcome back.

And if Jelly scores 130 both weeks? Really gonna trade him?

If your so desperate to Danger in your squad, close the eyes and press the trade button.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: jvalles69 on March 14, 2018, 04:23:31 PM
One trade, start Jelwood and bank the $200k, Danger misses rnd 2 aswell, keep Jelly another week. Danger starts, YOLO, welcome back.

And if Jelly scores 130 both weeks? Really gonna trade him?

If your so desperate to Danger in your squad, close the eyes and press the trade button.

There'll be someone worth trading to Danger though. Even might pay to watch Danger for 1 week when he comes back.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on March 14, 2018, 04:46:16 PM
One trade, start Jelwood and bank the $200k, Danger misses rnd 2 aswell, keep Jelly another week. Danger starts, YOLO, welcome back.

And if Jelly scores 130 both weeks? Really gonna trade him?

If your so desperate to Danger in your squad, close the eyes and press the trade button.

There'll be someone worth trading to Danger though. Even might pay to watch Danger for 1 week when he comes back.

There might be. There might not. Say u   have Oliver who has a few slightly off games of 90-95. Great u say I've found the trade out candidate. Then u trade him and he averages 120 till the byes and u want to get him back in. That would suck.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: jvalles69 on March 14, 2018, 05:04:39 PM
One trade, start Jelwood and bank the $200k, Danger misses rnd 2 aswell, keep Jelly another week. Danger starts, YOLO, welcome back.

And if Jelly scores 130 both weeks? Really gonna trade him?

If your so desperate to Danger in your squad, close the eyes and press the trade button.

There'll be someone worth trading to Danger though. Even might pay to watch Danger for 1 week when he comes back.

There might be. There might not. Say u   have Oliver who has a few slightly off games of 90-95. Great u say I've found the trade out candidate. Then u trade him and he averages 120 till the byes and u want to get him back in. That would suck.

This would be true, however I hold grudges on players that screw me over so he would never come back anyway...also Oliver is a cow...

Not that I agree/disagree with it, I'm just playing devils' advocate...Oliver is still a cow.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: frenzy on March 14, 2018, 05:13:54 PM
the reason I'm going Jelwood is what happens when Danger is named and then pulled out late in the warm up. Your left with limited options, sure you could grab Oliver this week.. So I can't see myself starting him week one even if he's named. Too much angst. I'm treating the great man as a correctional trade, something I seem to make plenty of.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: js19 on March 14, 2018, 06:07:43 PM
One trade, start Jelwood and bank the $200k, Danger misses rnd 2 aswell, keep Jelly another week. Danger starts, YOLO, welcome back.

And if Jelly scores 130 both weeks? Really gonna trade him?

If your so desperate to Danger in your squad, close the eyes and press the trade button.

There'll be someone worth trading to Danger though. Even might pay to watch Danger for 1 week when he comes back.

There might be. There might not. Say u   have Oliver who has a few slightly off games of 90-95. Great u say I've found the trade out candidate. Then u trade him and he averages 120 till the byes and u want to get him back in. That would suck.

This would be true, however I hold grudges on players that screw me over so he would never come back anyway...also Oliver is a cow...

Not that I agree/disagree with it, I'm just playing devils' advocate...Oliver is still a cow.

Problem is you still kick yourself. Golden rule is you don’t trade premos as a knee jerk, and you’d have to trade a premo to get Danger back early in the season so I reckon you either start him regardless, or build the side with the view of getting him in after some cows/midpricers have fattened
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: jvalles69 on March 14, 2018, 06:21:09 PM
One trade, start Jelwood and bank the $200k, Danger misses rnd 2 aswell, keep Jelly another week. Danger starts, YOLO, welcome back.

And if Jelly scores 130 both weeks? Really gonna trade him?

If your so desperate to Danger in your squad, close the eyes and press the trade button.

There'll be someone worth trading to Danger though. Even might pay to watch Danger for 1 week when he comes back.

There might be. There might not. Say u   have Oliver who has a few slightly off games of 90-95. Great u say I've found the trade out candidate. Then u trade him and he averages 120 till the byes and u want to get him back in. That would suck.

This would be true, however I hold grudges on players that screw me over so he would never come back anyway...also Oliver is a cow...

Not that I agree/disagree with it, I'm just playing devils' advocate...Oliver is still a cow.

Problem is you still kick yourself. Golden rule is you don’t trade premos as a knee jerk, and you’d have to trade a premo to get Danger back early in the season so I reckon you either start him regardless, or build the side with the view of getting him in after some cows/midpricers have fattened

It's definitely going to be interesting to see what strategy works out best if he does miss...
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: GoLions on March 14, 2018, 06:48:42 PM
Start all of Conigs, Libba and Arma

Once Danger is back and firing dump 2 of them to get him and keep the best one of the 3
Interesting, could work in theory.
But if he's back round 2 (im saying he'll 99% be back then if not r1) how do you pick the "best" out of Libbs/Cogs/Armo/JOM after just one round or even 2?"Lets say Libba smashes it while your other 2 have a slow start. U drop the 2 who then have awesome scores for 5-6 'rounds and average 100, ur stuck with Libba who scores 80-85 avg thereafter. Really hard to pick who will be best to keep, and if u wait to "see if Danger is firing" u could miss out on a 150 captains score just to see who the best of ur midpricers are.

Well you'd wait and see Danger play a game or two first just to make sure his hammy is ok and he is back firing, so you get to see 3-4 matches your mid pricers before making the call - might even be an extra week or two longer if Danger doesn't go boom and is projected to drop in price
This is what I was gonna do, but...

I usually go by the opposite of what RD says.

I'm flowering torn.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: _wato on March 14, 2018, 09:09:38 PM
Start Gaz and get god like scores and then when he breaks down trade to Danger easy
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: eaglesman on March 14, 2018, 09:34:01 PM
Start Gaz and get god like scores and then when he breaks down trade to Danger easy

Thought this but with Selwood .
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: frenzy on March 14, 2018, 09:40:20 PM
One trade, start Jelwood and bank the $200k, Danger misses rnd 2 aswell, keep Jelly another week. Danger starts, YOLO, welcome back.

And if Jelly scores 130 both weeks? Really gonna trade him?

If your so desperate to Danger in your squad, close the eyes and press the trade button.

There'll be someone worth trading to Danger though. Even might pay to watch Danger for 1 week when he comes back.

There might be. There might not. Say u   have Oliver who has a few slightly off games of 90-95. Great u say I've found the trade out candidate. Then u trade him and he averages 120 till the byes and u want to get him back in. That would suck.

This would be true, however I hold grudges on players that screw me over so he would never come back anyway...also Oliver is a cow...

Not that I agree/disagree with it, I'm just playing devils' advocate...Oliver is still a cow.

Problem is you still kick yourself. Golden rule is you don’t trade premos as a knee jerk, and you’d have to trade a premo to get Danger back early in the season so I reckon you either start him regardless, or build the side with the view of getting him in after some cows/midpricers have fattened

Use multiple trades to get him in later in the season? Umm no thanks, pass. I think you would be better off starting him on the bench and playing a rookie for a week or two, than burning 2-3 or more trades willy nilly. I gave you an option to bring the great man in with 1 trade, it's hardly knee jerk.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on March 15, 2018, 08:16:59 AM
But u use 2 trades to get premos in anyway. Trade a fattened cow to new rookie, trade a maxed out midpricer/cow to premo. What's the difference if its Danger or another premo? That's what trades are for. It not using them willy nilly it's how u trade normally.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Blues Blues Blues on March 15, 2018, 09:50:46 AM
But u use 2 trades to get premos in anyway. Trade a fattened cow to new rookie, trade a maxed out midpricer/cow to premo. What's the difference if its Danger or another premo? That's what trades are for. It not using them willy nilly it's how u trade normally.

I hate trading a premium for a premium - waste of a trade. Trades should be used to build cash stocks and convert your non premiums to premiums and get a full team as soon as possible.

But that’s just my opinion.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on March 15, 2018, 10:01:33 AM
But u use 2 trades to get premos in anyway. Trade a fattened cow to new rookie, trade a maxed out midpricer/cow to premo. What's the difference if its Danger or another premo? That's what trades are for. It not using them willy nilly it's how u trade normally.

I hate trading a premium for a premium - waste of a trade. Trades should be used to build cash stocks and convert your non premiums to premiums and get a full team as soon as possible.

But that’s just my opinion.

I agree u don't usually trade premo for premo( unless they are underperforming like Shaw last year)
I agree that u trade fattened cows to new rookies and premos. That's what I said. What im also saying is it doesn't matter if the premo u get is Danger or anyone else, it's the same trading strategy and not a willy nilly waste of trades.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on March 15, 2018, 10:05:27 AM
After all this debate on what to do about Danger, I reckon he plays round one anyways.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Samm79 on March 15, 2018, 10:15:46 AM
But u use 2 trades to get premos in anyway. Trade a fattened cow to new rookie, trade a maxed out midpricer/cow to premo. What's the difference if its Danger or another premo? That's what trades are for. It not using them willy nilly it's how u trade normally.

The extra cash saved by not having him can be used to upgrade another position and potentially save a trade too
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: jvalles69 on March 15, 2018, 10:39:00 AM
Reckon he will be named with the possibility of a late out, will prob have to start him and take a rooks score for week 1.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 15, 2018, 11:36:03 AM
Reckon he will be named with the possibility of a late out, will prob have to start him and take a rooks score for week 1.
Maybe but they say a small tear if that is true don't see how they can name him but then again it is Chris Scott , if he were to damage it more he would be out for a lot longer so for me he won't play R1 and possibly R2 as well
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: hawkers65 on March 15, 2018, 12:13:54 PM
I havent had Ablett all pre season purely because he wont play all year. But im warming to picking ablett for the first 3 rounds or so, in which he has a great record against those teams and then trading him back to Danger with a spare 100k left when we know hes fit again
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: batt on March 15, 2018, 12:17:13 PM
I havent had Ablett all pre season purely because he wont play all year. But im warming to picking ablett for the first 3 rounds or so, in which he has a great record against those teams and then trading him back to Danger with a spare 100k left when we know hes fit again
Keep in mind that if you sit on $100k you'll also have to make up the 10-15 points per week that you hold onto the cash (rather than spending it on your initial team).
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: hawkers65 on March 15, 2018, 12:19:56 PM
I havent had Ablett all pre season purely because he wont play all year. But im warming to picking ablett for the first 3 rounds or so, in which he has a great record against those teams and then trading him back to Danger with a spare 100k left when we know hes fit again
Keep in mind that if you sit on $100k you'll also have to make up the 10-15 points per week that you hold onto the cash (rather than spending it on your initial team).

I think Ablett can match what Danger was gonna score anyway
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Spite on March 15, 2018, 12:29:55 PM
Reckon he will be named with the possibility of a late out, will prob have to start him and take a rooks score for week 1.
Maybe but they say a small tear if that is true don't see how they can name him but then again it is Chris Scott , if he were to damage it more he would be out for a lot longer so for me he won't play R1 and possibly R2 as well

Not a small tear, a small strain. Big difference!
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on March 15, 2018, 12:58:00 PM
If he is named, I'll start him and if he's a late out swap for Oliver.

If he's not named, I'll start Martin.

Seems easy enough to me :P
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 15, 2018, 01:06:10 PM
I don't think he'll play. He kept making mention of the fact that it's  round 1 of a long season. He's a super human player but a strain is a strain and he is the last person they are going to try and rush, especially with an 8 day break after round 1 which means he'll be cherry ripe for round 2 and the season beyond
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: _wato on March 15, 2018, 01:07:54 PM
Danger in, if he’s a late out downgrade to Gaz and enjoy the ride.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Holz on March 15, 2018, 01:14:24 PM
annoying that is the 2nd last game, late out would be terrible.

There isnt really anything i can do with the 190k from going to Jelwood so will likely just hold. I guess it depends how much mid bench rookie goes aswell.

Good think is Kelly will be on my bench so i can use him (assuming he plays). If kelly not named and my mid rookie fails then i think you need to do the trade.

basically its too early to make any call on danger at the moment.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 15, 2018, 02:50:57 PM
Reckon he will be named with the possibility of a late out, will prob have to start him and take a rooks score for week 1.
Maybe but they say a small tear if that is true don't see how they can name him but then again it is Chris Scott , if he were to damage it more he would be out for a lot longer so for me he won't play R1 and possibly R2 as well

Not a small tear, a small strain. Big difference!
Some reports saying tear some saying strain report on page 8 of this thread says tear and have seen another saying that and one saying strain
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: frenzy on March 15, 2018, 02:56:40 PM
But u use 2 trades to get premos in anyway. Trade a fattened cow to new rookie, trade a maxed out midpricer/cow to premo. What's the difference if its Danger or another premo? That's what trades are for. It not using them willy nilly it's how u trade normally.

Cos rookies/ cash cows/ mid pricers are'nt fat round two. Why do people have Danger in their team?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 15, 2018, 03:34:51 PM
Im basically coming the realisation that if I dont start him then he needs to just become an upgrade target like any other premo.

Trying to manipulate my side with players I wouldnt usually start, or trying to hold cash just doesn't look or feel right.

So many things can change in the early rounds, with injuries and correctional trades needed for rookies that doing a 2 trade swap for Danger is only going to be possible if every other thing goes right for me.

If he plays round 1 he's in, if not I build a team without him and upgrade to him when I can. If he comes out and goes bang I'll live with it haha
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 15, 2018, 03:36:25 PM
Saints said 2 weeks for Billings, turned into 3. I reckon Danger will not be picked & if he is he won't be 100%. Pretty much made my mind up not to pick him.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Money Shot on March 15, 2018, 03:46:45 PM
Im basically coming the realisation that if I dont start him then he needs to just become an upgrade target like any other premo.

Trying to manipulate my side with players I wouldnt usually start, or trying to hold cash just doesn't look or feel right.

So many things can change in the early rounds, with injuries and correctional trades needed for rookies that doing a 2 trade swap for Danger is only going to be possible if every other thing goes right for me.

If he plays round 1 he's in, if not I build a team without him and upgrade to him when I can. If he comes out and goes bang I'll live with it haha
Yep.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on March 15, 2018, 03:48:26 PM
But u use 2 trades to get premos in anyway. Trade a fattened cow to new rookie, trade a maxed out midpricer/cow to premo. What's the difference if its Danger or another premo? That's what trades are for. It not using them willy nilly it's how u trade normally.

Cos rookies/ cash cows/ mid pricers are'nt fat round two. Why do people have Danger in their team?

I was referring to getting him in later when u have made cash.
People have Danger cos he might still play round one. If he doesn't he could still be worth picking as he's the best captains option and could pay off massively if most don't have him round 2 onwards. Starting with GAJ/Duncan/Selwood another option and trade to Danger wouldn't lose points but lose a trade.
I don't have Danger in my team but can see why u would.
He'll play imo.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: frenzy on March 15, 2018, 04:42:16 PM
But u use 2 trades to get premos in anyway. Trade a fattened cow to new rookie, trade a maxed out midpricer/cow to premo. What's the difference if its Danger or another premo? That's what trades are for. It not using them willy nilly it's how u trade normally.

Cos rookies/ cash cows/ mid pricers are'nt fat round two. Why do people have Danger in their team?

I was referring to getting him in later when u have made cash.
People have Danger cos he might still play round one. If he doesn't he could still be worth picking as he's the best captains option and could pay off massively if most don't have him round 2 onwards. Starting with GAJ/Duncan/Selwood another option and trade to Danger wouldn't lose points but lose a trade.
I don't have Danger in my team but can see why u would.
He'll play imo.

We were on different pages all along. I was talking about getting him Rnd 2 and you were talking about when you've made cash, so we'll just leave it at that.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: jvalles69 on March 15, 2018, 05:36:05 PM
Im basically coming the realisation that if I dont start him then he needs to just become an upgrade target like any other premo.

Trying to manipulate my side with players I wouldnt usually start, or trying to hold cash just doesn't look or feel right.

So many things can change in the early rounds, with injuries and correctional trades needed for rookies that doing a 2 trade swap for Danger is only going to be possible if every other thing goes right for me.

If he plays round 1 he's in, if not I build a team without him and upgrade to him when I can. If he comes out and goes bang I'll live with it haha
Yep.

This seems like a sensible strategy.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: zoomba23 on March 15, 2018, 05:59:33 PM
Team looks so much better without him, but I reckon if he's named R1 he's an absolute lock. It took a 65 score last season for him to bottom out to 560K, and even though he will inevitably lose cash I'm not risking it. Late out would be a shocker, but from the way he's talking to the media he seems pretty confident. Plus, Danger could score more with one good leg than most players could with two.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ringo on March 15, 2018, 06:34:48 PM
Currently in my team.

If Danger starts Danger and Dunkley and if he does not Ablett and Sicily.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Sonnydark on March 15, 2018, 08:17:25 PM
Im basically coming the realisation that if I dont start him then he needs to just become an upgrade target like any other premo.

Trying to manipulate my side with players I wouldnt usually start, or trying to hold cash just doesn't look or feel right.

So many things can change in the early rounds, with injuries and correctional trades needed for rookies that doing a 2 trade swap for Danger is only going to be possible if every other thing goes right for me.

If he plays round 1 he's in, if not I build a team without him and upgrade to him when I can. If he comes out and goes bang I'll live with it haha
Yep.

This seems like a sensible strategy.

Agree. Start Danger, or build a team without him. The above comments perfectly distill our options.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: meow meow on March 15, 2018, 08:32:10 PM
Build a team with him even if he misses round 1. If he missed one match in round 8 I doubt anyone would trade him out with outrageous tactics of how to bring him in later.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on March 15, 2018, 10:13:57 PM
Build a team with him even if he misses round 1. If he missed one match in round 8 I doubt anyone would trade him out with outrageous tactics of how to bring him in later.
In that scenario you're using a trade to get him out, then 2-3 to get him back. Potentially 4 trades.
If u start GAJ with 120k in bank (which u would spend on Danger anyway so it doesn't really compromise rest of team) and get him in when appropriate that's 1 trade. Compared to 4. Not saying i'll do this but u can't compare these two situations.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Mat0369 on March 15, 2018, 11:11:40 PM
Yeah, it's probably 3-4 trades to get him. Depending what he is priced at you will need a double downgrade and have to wait until the byes. I think it might be a little risky starting him though. 1 week could turn into 2 and unless you do it pre R1 lockout it is going to be a ton of cash on the bench and rookie points on the field. Just accept the fact you're going to have to burn the trades and get him later.

If you are going to wait until his game round 1 you could always sideways him to one of Parker or JPK.

I'm personally thinking of Sloane or Zorko. With Gibbs at the Crows it will be interesting to see if teams still tag Sloane. He started to break it at the end of last season. Here are his scores with and without a tag

77
146
168
124
139
140
177
91
92
140

1294 - 129.4 average

80
70
119
89
66
80
90
50
169
36
151
130

1130 - 94.1 average

If he explodes early he could be an adequate Danger replacement and give you a leg up on the comp that might scramble to get him in. I currently have Bryce in my team so I'm not sure if I start both or not.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Levi434 on March 15, 2018, 11:55:46 PM
No way I'm starting Danger. Way too risky. Can't have him scoring 75 early and dropping. Much prefer to wait for that drop.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: crowls on March 16, 2018, 07:43:29 AM
Danger in, if he’s a late out downgrade to Gaz and enjoy the ride.
agree wato,   gaz is the only premo i would be comfortable trading out.  we all believe he is not a season long option.     start danger, downgrade to gaz as option 2,  play rookie option 1.       
we will be laughinh at all the comments in 6 weeks time of people who cannot get Danger back in.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Woppa15 on March 16, 2018, 09:44:49 AM
No way I'm starting Danger. Way too risky. Can't have him scoring 75 early and dropping. Much prefer to wait for that drop.

And when that doesn’t happen what then? He doesn’t usually require ‘warm up’ games....
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Money Shot on March 16, 2018, 02:03:24 PM
If Danger is named I am sure most people will start him.

I have thought back and fourth about what to do if he either isn't named or is a late out. What I have decided too do is start him regardless and just put him on the bench for a week. If it was round 5 and this happened you wouldn't trade him out for just 1 round and then work out all the elaborate plans to get him back in. Kind of hope he doesn't get named round 1 so that I can have Danger as my pod :o

I am confident he will be back round 2 as they have a 9 day break after there first match which will give him plenty of time to recover.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: hawkers65 on March 16, 2018, 02:06:52 PM
If Danger is named I am sure most people will start him.

I have thought back and fourth about what to do if he either isn't named or is a late out. What I have decided too do is start him regardless and just put him on the bench for a week. If it was round 5 and this happened you wouldn't trade him out for just 1 round and then work out all the elaborate plans to get him back in. Kind of hope he doesn't get named round 1 so that I can have Danger as my pod :o

I am confident he will be back round 2 as they have a 9 day break after there first match which will give him plenty of time to recover.

I agree. Worst case scenario you start Kelly in a dangerless midfield and he is more than capable of a 90 score. So hopefully you're down 30 points off an A grade mids score but you'll have Danger from round 2 while everyone else is scrambling and wasting minimum 2 trades to get him back.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 16, 2018, 02:12:58 PM
If Danger is named I am sure most people will start him.

I have thought back and fourth about what to do if he either isn't named or is a late out. What I have decided too do is start him regardless and just put him on the bench for a week. If it was round 5 and this happened you wouldn't trade him out for just 1 round and then work out all the elaborate plans to get him back in. Kind of hope he doesn't get named round 1 so that I can have Danger as my pod :o

I am confident he will be back round 2 as they have a 9 day break after there first match which will give him plenty of time to recover.

If named & withdrawn you'd think he was 1 week away max, probably safer to start him.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 16, 2018, 02:20:45 PM
Don't worry

Just put the E on Holman on he'll ton up so you can just use Danger to bank it if he misses R1  ;D
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: enzedder on March 16, 2018, 02:25:45 PM
If Danger is named I am sure most people will start him.

I have thought back and fourth about what to do if he either isn't named or is a late out. What I have decided too do is start him regardless and just put him on the bench for a week. If it was round 5 and this happened you wouldn't trade him out for just 1 round and then work out all the elaborate plans to get him back in. Kind of hope he doesn't get named round 1 so that I can have Danger as my pod :o

I am confident he will be back round 2 as they have a 9 day break after there first match which will give him plenty of time to recover.

I agree. Worst case scenario you start Kelly in a dangerless midfield and he is more than capable of a 90 score. So hopefully you're down 30 points off an A grade mids score but you'll have Danger from round 2 while everyone else is scrambling and wasting minimum 2 trades to get him back.
1 trade.... cash in bank for Danger. Have to plan for these things.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 17, 2018, 02:56:07 AM
If Danger is named I am sure most people will start him.

I have thought back and fourth about what to do if he either isn't named or is a late out. What I have decided too do is start him regardless and just put him on the bench for a week. If it was round 5 and this happened you wouldn't trade him out for just 1 round and then work out all the elaborate plans to get him back in. Kind of hope he doesn't get named round 1 so that I can have Danger as my pod :o

I am confident he will be back round 2 as they have a 9 day break after there first match which will give him plenty of time to recover.

If named & withdrawn you'd think he was 1 week away max, probably safer to start him.

Usually but I've had that bite me a few times and they've missed another week. That's he only way that plan becomes a disaster. Unless of course your rookie kills it
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: crowls on March 17, 2018, 06:44:13 AM
If Danger is named I am sure most people will start him.

I have thought back and fourth about what to do if he either isn't named or is a late out. What I have decided too do is start him regardless and just put him on the bench for a week. If it was round 5 and this happened you wouldn't trade him out for just 1 round and then work out all the elaborate plans to get him back in. Kind of hope he doesn't get named round 1 so that I can have Danger as my pod :o

I am confident he will be back round 2 as they have a 9 day break after there first match which will give him plenty of time to recover.

I agree. Worst case scenario you start Kelly in a dangerless midfield and he is more than capable of a 90 score. So hopefully you're down 30 points off an A grade mids score but you'll have Danger from round 2 while everyone else is scrambling and wasting minimum 2 trades to get him back.
1 trade.... cash in bank for Danger. Have to plan for these things.
lot of people will have cash spent and be unable to one trade back in.  Be forums filled with how can I .....   Best option start danger, we are talking about a player who is likely to score 2600+ points from 20 games.  Go and look at past seasons and see how many players each season score over 2600.   Very Very few.    When you add in rookie scores for his out.   It is a really good decision to start danger
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on March 17, 2018, 07:10:26 PM
He's just testing us. He's probably completely fine and just wanted to see how many of us are going to doubt him and take him out of our sides ;D
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Southstorm on March 17, 2018, 07:28:32 PM
Have to start the guy. You might lose 100 points to somebody who doesn't start him if he is out for R1, but with a few good captains scores you would probably be back in front by R5.

Proverb 3:5-6, Trust in Patrick with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him and he will make your scores great.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 17, 2018, 07:35:45 PM
Think I'll start him, will loop with Holman & just hope I get an 80.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: frenzy on March 17, 2018, 09:16:59 PM
If Danger is named I am sure most people will start him.

I have thought back and fourth about what to do if he either isn't named or is a late out. What I have decided too do is start him regardless and just put him on the bench for a week. If it was round 5 and this happened you wouldn't trade him out for just 1 round and then work out all the elaborate plans to get him back in. Kind of hope he doesn't get named round 1 so that I can have Danger as my pod :o

I am confident he will be back round 2 as they have a 9 day break after there first match which will give him plenty of time to recover.

I agree. Worst case scenario you start Kelly in a dangerless midfield and he is more than capable of a 90 score. So hopefully you're down 30 points off an A grade mids score but you'll have Danger from round 2 while everyone else is scrambling and wasting minimum 2 trades to get him back.
1 trade.... cash in bank for Danger. Have to plan for these things.

SHhhhhhhh..., .... Lol    :-X
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Mahogany on March 18, 2018, 12:19:00 PM
A key question I’m keen to hear people’s thoughts on is - can you win overall WITHOUT Dangerfield at all??
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on March 18, 2018, 12:20:58 PM
A key question I’m keen to hear people’s thoughts on is - can you win overall WITHOUT Dangerfield at all??
No
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: crowls on March 18, 2018, 12:37:57 PM
A key question I’m keen to hear people’s thoughts on is - can you win overall WITHOUT Dangerfield at all??
No
No
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Sonnydark on March 18, 2018, 02:03:59 PM
A key question I’m keen to hear people’s thoughts on is - can you win overall WITHOUT Dangerfield at all??

Yes... if he is your first midfield upgrade target... and your team is structured to profit from it; and EVERYTHING falls into place.

This is the scenario from my team:

My Dangerfield team has a midfield that does not include D. Martin (Dangerfield; Mitchell; Kelly; Fyfe; Parker).

My Forward line F5 - F7: Christensen; Fritsch (Stephenson; F8)

If I downgrade Dangerfield > D. Martin & use the cash to upgrade Stephenson > Dunkley

A gain could be made if:
Dangerfield doesn't play Round 1
Danger takes a few games to warm-up
D. Martin averages 130 the first 8 rounds (ensuring 260 on your VC/C loophole)
Dunkley pushes Fritsch to F7, with a +15 gain per round
You have an Armitage/O'Meara/Coniglio/Libba type @ M6 to allow for a two-trade upgrade to Danger

I agree it's marginal, and there are a lot of IFs, but I think it's wrong to say you can't win overall without starting Danger. In fact, I think it's quite possible there's some person out there who has combination of players that will jump them ahead of the crowd by taking this risk.

The attraction for me is D. Martin + Christensen & Dunkley v. Dangerfield + Christensen & Fritsch. I don't want any Rookies on the field in my Forward line. I also have Sicily at F4, and so having Fritsch at F7 allows me to slide Sicily to D4 if required.

It's a very team specific question. I have Danger at the moment. I'll keep him if he's named, and is a late out. But if he's not named at all I'm seriously considering going the Martin / Dunkley route.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: MontyJnr on March 18, 2018, 02:11:25 PM
A key question I’m keen to hear people’s thoughts on is - can you win overall WITHOUT Dangerfield at all??

It’s realistic that starting Dangerfield could LOSE overall for you.

If he misses R1 and then has a slow start resulting in a huge cash drop (it’s his first hamstring ever remember, so his ability to bounce back is relatively unknown), then you could suddenly find yourself well behind the pack.

It’s a real make or break decision and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the eventual overall winner overlooking him end of season.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Torpedo10 on March 18, 2018, 02:12:14 PM
A key question I’m keen to hear people’s thoughts on is - can you win overall WITHOUT Dangerfield at all??

It’s realistic that starting Dangerfield could LOSE overall for you.

If he misses R1 and then has a slow start resulting in a huge cash drop (it’s his first hamstring ever remember, so his ability to bounce back is relatively unknown), then you could suddenly find yourself well behind the pack.
Unless the pack has Danger, which currently 21% do.

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on March 18, 2018, 02:13:53 PM
A key question I’m keen to hear people’s thoughts on is - can you win overall WITHOUT Dangerfield at all??

Yes... if he is your first midfield upgrade target... and your team is structured to profit from it; and EVERYTHING falls into place.

This is the scenario from my team:

My Dangerfield team has a midfield that does not include D. Martin (Dangerfield; Mitchell; Kelly; Fyfe; Parker).

My Forward line F5 - F7: Christensen; Fritsch (Stephenson; F8)

If I downgrade Dangerfield > D. Martin & use the cash to upgrade Stephenson > Dunkley

A gain could be made if:
Dangerfield doesn't play Round 1
Danger takes a few games to warm-up
D. Martin averages 130 the first 8 rounds (ensuring 260 on your VC/C loophole)
Dunkley pushes Fritsch to F7, with a +15 gain per round
You have an Armitage/O'Meara/Coniglio/Libba type @ M6 to allow for a two-trade upgrade to Danger

I agree it's marginal, and there are a lot of IFs, but I think it's wrong to say you can't win overall without starting Danger. In fact, I think it's quite possible there's some person out there who has combination of players that will jump them ahead of the crowd by taking this risk.

The attraction for me is D. Martin + Christensen & Dunkley v. Dangerfield + Christensen & Fritsch. I don't want any Rookies on the field in my Forward line. I also have Sicily at F4, and so having Fritsch at F7 allows me to slide Sicily to D4 if required.

It's a very team specific question. I have Danger at the moment. I'll keep him if he's named, and is a late out. But if he's not named at all I'm seriously considering going the Martin / Dunkley route.
They said at all, not just starting without him :P
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: MontyJnr on March 18, 2018, 02:17:55 PM
A key question I’m keen to hear people’s thoughts on is - can you win overall WITHOUT Dangerfield at all??

It’s realistic that starting Dangerfield could LOSE overall for you.

If he misses R1 and then has a slow start resulting in a huge cash drop (it’s his first hamstring ever remember, so his ability to bounce back is relatively unknown), then you could suddenly find yourself well behind the pack.
Unless the pack has Danger, which currently 21% do.

I can tell you right now that the Top 500 won’t be made up of teams carrying a 750k Dangerfield in their side if he’s throwing up 95s after missing a game..
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 18, 2018, 02:18:54 PM
If Holman scores an 80 I will be starting Danger, if Holman scores a 40 I will probably play Selwood for a couple of weeks and use a trade to get him back in. It's not just the fact he's a definite top 8 mid, it's the captain's scores you're missing out on.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Sonnydark on March 18, 2018, 02:19:18 PM
A key question I’m keen to hear people’s thoughts on is - can you win overall WITHOUT Dangerfield at all??

Yes... if he is your first midfield upgrade target... and your team is structured to profit from it; and EVERYTHING falls into place.

This is the scenario from my team:

My Dangerfield team has a midfield that does not include D. Martin (Dangerfield; Mitchell; Kelly; Fyfe; Parker).

My Forward line F5 - F7: Christensen; Fritsch (Stephenson; F8)

If I downgrade Dangerfield > D. Martin & use the cash to upgrade Stephenson > Dunkley

A gain could be made if:
Dangerfield doesn't play Round 1
Danger takes a few games to warm-up
D. Martin averages 130 the first 8 rounds (ensuring 260 on your VC/C loophole)
Dunkley pushes Fritsch to F7, with a +15 gain per round
You have an Armitage/O'Meara/Coniglio/Libba type @ M6 to allow for a two-trade upgrade to Danger

I agree it's marginal, and there are a lot of IFs, but I think it's wrong to say you can't win overall without starting Danger. In fact, I think it's quite possible there's some person out there who has combination of players that will jump them ahead of the crowd by taking this risk.

The attraction for me is D. Martin + Christensen & Dunkley v. Dangerfield + Christensen & Fritsch. I don't want any Rookies on the field in my Forward line. I also have Sicily at F4, and so having Fritsch at F7 allows me to slide Sicily to D4 if required.

It's a very team specific question. I have Danger at the moment. I'll keep him if he's named, and is a late out. But if he's not named at all I'm seriously considering going the Martin / Dunkley route.
They said at all, not just starting without him :P

I was also taking into consideration the theme of the thread: To Danger, or not to Danger; but apologies for wasting 30 seconds of your time in reading my considered response.

I'm a lowly Property Steward, and will now refrain from polluting this forum with my comments and thoughts.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: AaronKirk on March 18, 2018, 02:19:57 PM
If he plays he is in my side. If he doesn't play Oliver takes his spot as a premo mid in my side and will have $200k left over.

I am happy with my side as it is ATM. If Danger doesn't play I may keep the cash and make him a priority as my first upgrade.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on March 18, 2018, 02:42:22 PM
A key question I’m keen to hear people’s thoughts on is - can you win overall WITHOUT Dangerfield at all??

Yes... if he is your first midfield upgrade target... and your team is structured to profit from it; and EVERYTHING falls into place.

This is the scenario from my team:

My Dangerfield team has a midfield that does not include D. Martin (Dangerfield; Mitchell; Kelly; Fyfe; Parker).

My Forward line F5 - F7: Christensen; Fritsch (Stephenson; F8)

If I downgrade Dangerfield > D. Martin & use the cash to upgrade Stephenson > Dunkley

A gain could be made if:
Dangerfield doesn't play Round 1
Danger takes a few games to warm-up
D. Martin averages 130 the first 8 rounds (ensuring 260 on your VC/C loophole)
Dunkley pushes Fritsch to F7, with a +15 gain per round
You have an Armitage/O'Meara/Coniglio/Libba type @ M6 to allow for a two-trade upgrade to Danger

I agree it's marginal, and there are a lot of IFs, but I think it's wrong to say you can't win overall without starting Danger. In fact, I think it's quite possible there's some person out there who has combination of players that will jump them ahead of the crowd by taking this risk.

The attraction for me is D. Martin + Christensen & Dunkley v. Dangerfield + Christensen & Fritsch. I don't want any Rookies on the field in my Forward line. I also have Sicily at F4, and so having Fritsch at F7 allows me to slide Sicily to D4 if required.

It's a very team specific question. I have Danger at the moment. I'll keep him if he's named, and is a late out. But if he's not named at all I'm seriously considering going the Martin / Dunkley route.
They said at all, not just starting without him :P

I was also taking into consideration the theme of the thread: To Danger, or not to Danger; but apologies for wasting 30 seconds of your time in reading my considered response.

I'm a lowly Property Steward, and will now refrain from polluting this forum with my comments and thoughts.
Haha sorry if it seemed like I disregarded what you said mate.

I actually agreed with the vast majority of your post Sonny, especially given the likelihood that even if Danger plays, he won't be 100%. I've already stated on this thread that I'd do similar to what you are, except I would trade him, if he was a late out, to Oliver.

Was just sayin' that what you said had no relation to what you quoted was all ;)

If Holman scores an 80 I will be starting Danger, if Holman scores a 40 I will probably play Selwood for a couple of weeks and use a trade to get him back in. It's not just the fact he's a definite top 8 mid, it's the captain's scores you're missing out on.
You'd put Holman ahead of Banfield?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 18, 2018, 02:48:20 PM
A key question I’m keen to hear people’s thoughts on is - can you win overall WITHOUT Dangerfield at all??

Yes... if he is your first midfield upgrade target... and your team is structured to profit from it; and EVERYTHING falls into place.

This is the scenario from my team:

My Dangerfield team has a midfield that does not include D. Martin (Dangerfield; Mitchell; Kelly; Fyfe; Parker).

My Forward line F5 - F7: Christensen; Fritsch (Stephenson; F8)

If I downgrade Dangerfield > D. Martin & use the cash to upgrade Stephenson > Dunkley

A gain could be made if:
Dangerfield doesn't play Round 1
Danger takes a few games to warm-up
D. Martin averages 130 the first 8 rounds (ensuring 260 on your VC/C loophole)
Dunkley pushes Fritsch to F7, with a +15 gain per round
You have an Armitage/O'Meara/Coniglio/Libba type @ M6 to allow for a two-trade upgrade to Danger

I agree it's marginal, and there are a lot of IFs, but I think it's wrong to say you can't win overall without starting Danger. In fact, I think it's quite possible there's some person out there who has combination of players that will jump them ahead of the crowd by taking this risk.

The attraction for me is D. Martin + Christensen & Dunkley v. Dangerfield + Christensen & Fritsch. I don't want any Rookies on the field in my Forward line. I also have Sicily at F4, and so having Fritsch at F7 allows me to slide Sicily to D4 if required.

It's a very team specific question. I have Danger at the moment. I'll keep him if he's named, and is a late out. But if he's not named at all I'm seriously considering going the Martin / Dunkley route.
They said at all, not just starting without him :P

I was also taking into consideration the theme of the thread: To Danger, or not to Danger; but apologies for wasting 30 seconds of your time in reading my considered response.

I'm a lowly Property Steward, and will now refrain from polluting this forum with my comments and thoughts.
Haha sorry if it seemed like I disregarded what you said mate.

I actually agreed with the vast majority of your post Sonny, especially given the likelihood that even if Danger plays, he won't be 100%. I've already stated on this thread that I'd do similar to what you are, except I would trade him, if he was a late out, to Oliver.

Was just sayin' that what you said had no relation to what you quoted was all ;)

If Holman scores an 80 I will be starting Danger, if Holman scores a 40 I will probably play Selwood for a couple of weeks and use a trade to get him back in. It's not just the fact he's a definite top 8 mid, it's the captain's scores you're missing out on.
You'd put Holman ahead of Banfield?

Probably, seems to be producing big tackle numbers.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: frenzy on March 18, 2018, 04:05:44 PM
A key question I’m keen to hear people’s thoughts on is - can you win overall WITHOUT Dangerfield at all??

you would need your capt ( who's probably Dusty ) to take it to another level and bridge the gap, but that would be mind blowing, especially if Danger goes 130 + again.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: meow meow on March 18, 2018, 05:16:07 PM
I've never had Danger in any of my drafts and I am going to win overall, so yes. But only if you've got Ablett.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ringo on March 18, 2018, 06:39:12 PM
Danger is in my team atm but if not named will trade in Ablett and then upgrade Ablett when he gets rested.  Feel comfortable trading Ablett up to Danger when he is in form. Ideal situation Gazz pumps up 120+ and gains value Danger starts slow due to injury straight swap. Undecided what to do with the 118k gained though whether to upgrade in mids eg Bont to Dusty or not.

The concern for me were the reports that Gazz ran strongly in the intraclub whereas Danger stayed on sidelines.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: eaglesman on March 19, 2018, 06:44:05 PM
Plenty of time til his game and I already feel like it’s a mad scramble working out how I can fit this bloke back into my Sc side.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: hawkers65 on March 19, 2018, 06:50:12 PM
Danger playing round 1 - Fox Sports
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Mahogany on March 19, 2018, 07:00:09 PM
Danger NOT playing round 1 - Damien Barrett on triple M

Won’t know until teams are finalised, everyone thinks they know.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 19, 2018, 07:05:47 PM
Danger playing round 1 - Fox Sports

Danger NOT playing round 1 - Damien Barrett on triple M

Won’t know until teams are finalised, everyone thinks they know.

= Nobody knows

Danger locked in, and if he's a late out, hell even if he isn't named Thursday either way I'll just downgrade to GAJ and keep the 120k aside
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Levi434 on March 19, 2018, 07:09:43 PM
Danger playing round 1 - Fox Sports

Danger NOT playing round 1 - Damien Barrett on triple M

Won’t know until teams are finalised, everyone thinks they know.

= Nobody knows

Danger locked in, and if he's a late out, hell even if he isn't named Thursday either way I'll just downgrade to GAJ and keep the 120k aside

RD just go GAJ right now. Forget about Danger, he's only gonna be a late out and hurt everyone.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: PowerBug on March 19, 2018, 07:42:49 PM
RD just go GAJ right now. Forget about Danger, he's only gonna be a late out and hurt everyone.
I'm looking at it the other way. Pretending that Danger is locked into my side and I can't move him out, if he misses this week then I'll field the rookie (Which I'm already planning to have two shots at).
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: crowls on March 19, 2018, 09:22:20 PM
RD just go GAJ right now. Forget about Danger, he's only gonna be a late out and hurt everyone.
I'm looking at it the other way. Pretending that Danger is locked into my side and I can't move him out, if he misses this week then I'll field the rookie (Which I'm already planning to have two shots at).
PB  how do you get two cracks at the rookie?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: PowerBug on March 19, 2018, 09:29:12 PM
RD just go GAJ right now. Forget about Danger, he's only gonna be a late out and hurt everyone.
I'm looking at it the other way. Pretending that Danger is locked into my side and I can't move him out, if he misses this week then I'll field the rookie (Which I'm already planning to have two shots at).
PB  how do you get two cracks at the rookie?
I'll likely have Holman as emergency with Tim Kelly as the M10 ready to sub on if Danger is out (And Holman scores badly). Means I am starting both Freo rookies + Brodie but as someone that likes to start SC players that play against my club Port (for the win-win scenario, Port win or my SC wins) I don't mind going down that route.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 22, 2018, 04:35:14 PM
So what are people doing? Now confirmed out but almost 100% to start next week.

As I see it, you can take a rookie score for a week & then have a perma captain whose ownership will be under 20%.

Not sure 60 points is worth a trade either, so bringing in Jelwood or Gaz would need to be a long term position.

Gut says hold but that may change if the rookie score is shocking. Could even put the E on Banfield & get two bites of the cherry with Holman playing straight after.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: TomK on March 22, 2018, 04:38:47 PM
A trade is definitely not worth 60 points, I'll be using him to loophole Banfield and Holman.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 22, 2018, 04:41:22 PM
So what are people doing? Now confirmed out but almost 100% to start next week.

As I see it, you can take a rookie score for a week & then have a perma captain whose ownership will be under 20%.

Not sure 60 points is worth a trade either, so bringing in Jelwood or Gaz would need to be a long term position.

Gut says hold but that may change if the rookie score is shocking. Could even put the E on Banfield & get two bites of the cherry with Holman playing straight after.
Not starting him had a fair time off 3 weeks by then could have a slower start to season , take a risk he will drop a bit in price
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Marstar on March 22, 2018, 04:45:46 PM
Not starting him last year was a POD for me ... guess I can't repeat that now.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: john23132 on March 22, 2018, 04:50:50 PM
So what are people doing? Now confirmed out but almost 100% to start next week.

As I see it, you can take a rookie score for a week & then have a perma captain whose ownership will be under 20%.

Not sure 60 points is worth a trade either, so bringing in Jelwood or Gaz would need to be a long term position.

Gut says hold but that may change if the rookie score is shocking. Could even put the E on Banfield & get two bites of the cherry with Holman playing straight after.
60 points may not be worth a trade but how about 120? Could very easily end up being 2 weeks
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 22, 2018, 04:52:54 PM
So what are people doing? Now confirmed out but almost 100% to start next week.

As I see it, you can take a rookie score for a week & then have a perma captain whose ownership will be under 20%.

Not sure 60 points is worth a trade either, so bringing in Jelwood or Gaz would need to be a long term position.

Gut says hold but that may change if the rookie score is shocking. Could even put the E on Banfield & get two bites of the cherry with Holman playing straight after.
Not starting him had a fair time off 3 weeks by then could have a slower start to season , take a risk he will drop a bit in price

Billings had the same injury and didn't miss a beat. Danger's last score against the Hawks was 141. He then plays the Eagles and also scored 141. Saints after that (120) & Power (163). Risky waiting for drop that my never come.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Samm79 on March 22, 2018, 04:53:09 PM
Not starting him last year was a POD for me ... guess I can't repeat that now.

Was going to this this year, spewing he got injured...
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 22, 2018, 04:55:24 PM
So what are people doing? Now confirmed out but almost 100% to start next week.

As I see it, you can take a rookie score for a week & then have a perma captain whose ownership will be under 20%.

Not sure 60 points is worth a trade either, so bringing in Jelwood or Gaz would need to be a long term position.

Gut says hold but that may change if the rookie score is shocking. Could even put the E on Banfield & get two bites of the cherry with Holman playing straight after.
60 points may not be worth a trade but how about 120? Could very easily end up being 2 weeks

Yep there's certainly risk attached, you'd hope 20 days would be enough although that can blow out to four weeks.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Koop on March 22, 2018, 04:58:02 PM
Yeah not sure what to do here. Coffield being named would solve so many cash issues because right now I need that 100k between Danger and someone else to make a team I'm comfortable with haha.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Holz on March 22, 2018, 05:06:27 PM
no chance im sitting 750k on the pine, the only way i would do it  is if banfield comes out and puts up a big score as emergency. but by then Zorko or Crouch who are my danger replacements would have played.

abit of uncertainy surrounding the cats too with ablett in, i dont feel the gap in danger versus dmart and ticthell is enough to warrant him missing 1 game possibly 2 and coming in underdone.

i have JOM and armitage in the squad so im ready to bring in danger early if required.

your basically dammed if you do dammed if you dont with danger.

i used the cash to upgrade waterman to christenson so i just need Christo Crouch + 40 points to beat Danger Waterman in the first 7 weeks.

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 22, 2018, 05:07:33 PM
So what are people doing? Now confirmed out but almost 100% to start next week.

As I see it, you can take a rookie score for a week & then have a perma captain whose ownership will be under 20%.

Not sure 60 points is worth a trade either, so bringing in Jelwood or Gaz would need to be a long term position.

Gut says hold but that may change if the rookie score is shocking. Could even put the E on Banfield & get two bites of the cherry with Holman playing straight after.
Not starting him had a fair time off 3 weeks by then could have a slower start to season , take a risk he will drop a bit in price

Billings had the same injury and didn't miss a beat. Danger's last score against the Hawks was 141. He then plays the Eagles and also scored 141. Saints after that (120) & Power (163). Risky waiting for drop that my never come.
Could say the same thing about Dusty  :D
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: AaronKirk on March 22, 2018, 05:09:41 PM
I've taken Danger out of my side.

Used the cash to go Danger, Venables, Keeffe to Ablett, Cyril (as F5) and Byrne.

Waiting on rookies to finalise my side now.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: GoSaints3 on March 22, 2018, 05:10:27 PM
I’m thinking to sit him on the pine and cop the ~60 point loss by fielding a rookie. You should more than make that up in a few weeks of Danger. Saying that however the team looks much stronger across the other lines without Danger
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 22, 2018, 05:10:29 PM
Need to see full teams first as that will show all options, and then I can make a clear decision on what to do with Danger (and the rest of my side)

For the time being, I'll just plonk Garlett on the mid bench (without the E) and then use the next 24 hours to figure out the other 29 spots



Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Holz on March 22, 2018, 05:13:03 PM
basically 135 is hard to keep up for anyone even danger, doing that at not 100% with a new superstar in the squad even harder.

the scary thing is danger could do it.

but at the same time crouch could easily match danger in the first 7 rounds with a 40 point lead. all he has to do is get within 7 of him for the next 6 rounds totally possible. Then add in the cash your using to bump up the average elsewhere by 10 then crouch just needs to get within 16. Sounding easier.

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 22, 2018, 05:20:35 PM
Pretty certain I'll just start Ablett, and then as soon as he misses a game , make the switch to Danger

Reckon Ablett will come out firing and he is the only player in the comp who has the ability to go 125+ other than Danger (Excluding Fyfe that we all have anyway)
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 22, 2018, 05:28:37 PM
So what are people doing? Now confirmed out but almost 100% to start next week.

As I see it, you can take a rookie score for a week & then have a perma captain whose ownership will be under 20%.

Not sure 60 points is worth a trade either, so bringing in Jelwood or Gaz would need to be a long term position.

Gut says hold but that may change if the rookie score is shocking. Could even put the E on Banfield & get two bites of the cherry with Holman playing straight after.
Not starting him had a fair time off 3 weeks by then could have a slower start to season , take a risk he will drop a bit in price

Billings had the same injury and didn't miss a beat. Danger's last score against the Hawks was 141. He then plays the Eagles and also scored 141. Saints after that (120) & Power (163). Risky waiting for drop that my never come.
Could say the same thing about Dusty  :D

Have posted numerous stats on Dusty, first six rounds he's running at about 50% with century conversion.

Pretty certain I'll just start Ablett, and then as soon as he misses a game , make the switch to Danger

Reckon Ablett will come out firing and he is the only player in the comp who has the ability to go 125+ other than Danger (Excluding Fyfe that we all have anyway)

Gaz certainly a viable C option too. Reckon it will all come down to Banfield, 75+ and I hold.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: jvalles69 on March 22, 2018, 05:32:27 PM
Pretty certain I'll just start Ablett, and then as soon as he misses a game , make the switch to Danger

Reckon Ablett will come out firing and he is the only player in the comp who has the ability to go 125+ other than Danger (Excluding Fyfe that we all have anyway)

If Ablett plays!  I'm going next best option in Titch, and might use the extra cash to upgrade Libba to Cripps
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Money Shot on March 22, 2018, 05:41:59 PM
I told my self I would keep Danger so I have too now.

Obviously missing out on 50 or so points from a rookie too Matty Crouch isn't ideal but Danger as a pod from next round onwards is going to be amazing.

If he was going to miss a game in round 10 you wouldn't trade him out so why do it now is my theory.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Trindacut on March 24, 2018, 09:49:15 AM
After all of my song and dance about Danger, I dropped him for Cripps and am keeping a few hundred K on the bench to make it a single trade for the first faltering mid of the year.

With a hamstring injury, and Danger's history of being a bit over dramatic with his injuries, and missing at least Round 1, it's just too likely that he'll drop in price too. It's worth risking a week or two of his return from the injury anyway.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: GoLions on March 24, 2018, 10:17:54 AM
Locked.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 24, 2018, 11:17:42 AM
Danger down to 19%, Dusty up to 54%. Reckon I'm gonna hold & go the double shot with Banfield & Holman. Worst case is I lose 80 points (140 - 60). For those who picked Zerrett it's a 40 loss, for those who picked Crouch only a 40 point gain. 
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Trindacut on March 24, 2018, 11:21:21 AM
Danger down to 19%, Dusty up to 54%. Reckon I'm gonna hold & go the double shot with Banfield & Holman. Worst case is I lose 80 points (140 - 60). For those who picked Zerrett it's a 40 loss, for those who picked Crouch only a 40 point gain.

Those that picked Cripps..... 100 point gain :p
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 24, 2018, 11:34:38 AM
Danger down to 19%, Dusty up to 54%. Reckon I'm gonna hold & go the double shot with Banfield & Holman. Worst case is I lose 80 points (140 - 60). For those who picked Zerrett it's a 40 loss, for those who picked Crouch only a 40 point gain.

Those that picked Cripps..... 100 point gain :p

130 - 60 = 70 points
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Holz on March 24, 2018, 11:49:34 AM
Danger down to 19%, Dusty up to 54%. Reckon I'm gonna hold & go the double shot with Banfield & Holman. Worst case is I lose 80 points (140 - 60). For those who picked Zerrett it's a 40 loss, for those who picked Crouch only a 40 point gain.

Your forgeting the points from the 150k. Unless people kept the cash in the bank to bring in danger next week which is silly.

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ricochet on March 24, 2018, 12:03:38 PM
Danger down to 19%, Dusty up to 54%. Reckon I'm gonna hold & go the double shot with Banfield & Holman. Worst case is I lose 80 points (140 - 60). For those who picked Zerrett it's a 40 loss, for those who picked Crouch only a 40 point gain.

Your forgeting the points from the 150k. Unless people kept the cash in the bank to bring in danger next week which is silly.
If you didn't keep cash to bring in Danger eventually then you'll struggle to bring him in any time soon
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 24, 2018, 12:08:14 PM
Danger down to 19%, Dusty up to 54%. Reckon I'm gonna hold & go the double shot with Banfield & Holman. Worst case is I lose 80 points (140 - 60). For those who picked Zerrett it's a 40 loss, for those who picked Crouch only a 40 point gain.

Your forgeting the points from the 150k. Unless people kept the cash in the bank to bring in danger next week which is silly.
If you didn't keep cash to bring in Danger eventually then you'll struggle to bring him in any time soon

Pretty much the only reason I am starting Brayshaw and one of Bell/Bundy

Downgrade one of them to get the cash I need to get Danger

Costs me a trade, but worth it I think
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Woppa15 on March 24, 2018, 12:09:55 PM
Danger down to 19%, Dusty up to 54%. Reckon I'm gonna hold & go the double shot with Banfield & Holman. Worst case is I lose 80 points (140 - 60). For those who picked Zerrett it's a 40 loss, for those who picked Crouch only a 40 point gain.

Your forgeting the points from the 150k. Unless people kept the cash in the bank to bring in danger next week which is silly.
If you didn't keep cash to bring in Danger eventually then you'll struggle to bring him in any time soon

What if you aren’t running a non playing rookie at M11 so don’t have a ‘double bite’ at fielding the best rookie score? Would you still hold Danger on the bench for a week, possibly two?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ricochet on March 24, 2018, 12:13:16 PM
Danger down to 19%, Dusty up to 54%. Reckon I'm gonna hold & go the double shot with Banfield & Holman. Worst case is I lose 80 points (140 - 60). For those who picked Zerrett it's a 40 loss, for those who picked Crouch only a 40 point gain.

Your forgeting the points from the 150k. Unless people kept the cash in the bank to bring in danger next week which is silly.
If you didn't keep cash to bring in Danger eventually then you'll struggle to bring him in any time soon

What if you aren’t running a non playing rookie at M11 so don’t have a ‘double bite’ at fielding the best rookie score? Would you still hold Danger on the bench for a week, possibly two?
I wouldn't but I'm not starting Danger.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 24, 2018, 12:17:16 PM
Danger down to 19%, Dusty up to 54%. Reckon I'm gonna hold & go the double shot with Banfield & Holman. Worst case is I lose 80 points (140 - 60). For those who picked Zerrett it's a 40 loss, for those who picked Crouch only a 40 point gain.

Your forgeting the points from the 150k. Unless people kept the cash in the bank to bring in danger next week which is silly.
If you didn't keep cash to bring in Danger eventually then you'll struggle to bring him in any time soon

Pretty much the only reason I am starting Brayshaw and one of Bell/Bundy

Downgrade one of them to get the cash I need to get Danger

Costs me a trade, but worth it I think
I started Cripps instead and left the cash in the bank so I'm hoping someone like O'Meara has a good start and Danger has a quieter start currently with O'Meara's starting price and cash in bank just shy of 600K so one trade possible if all goes to plan if not and Danger comes out firing I will bite the bullet and get him anyway.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Marstar on March 24, 2018, 12:20:59 PM
If you are only interested in mini-League then keeping Danger will be a massive POD.

There are no head to head matches this week. So nothing is lost.

Add to that, if those without take him as the 1st upgrade target then that could be 6 weeks before they start banking his scores, otherwise it's a correction trade or 2 to bring him in earlier (trades that will be handy come finals).

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tommy10 on March 24, 2018, 12:28:01 PM
Danger down to 19%, Dusty up to 54%. Reckon I'm gonna hold & go the double shot with Banfield & Holman. Worst case is I lose 80 points (140 - 60). For those who picked Zerrett it's a 40 loss, for those who picked Crouch only a 40 point gain.

Your forgeting the points from the 150k. Unless people kept the cash in the bank to bring in danger next week which is silly.
If you didn't keep cash to bring in Danger eventually then you'll struggle to bring him in any time soon

What if you aren’t running a non playing rookie at M11 so don’t have a ‘double bite’ at fielding the best rookie score? Would you still hold Danger on the bench for a week, possibly two?
I wouldn't but I'm not starting Danger.
+1
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 24, 2018, 12:28:44 PM
Danger down to 19%, Dusty up to 54%. Reckon I'm gonna hold & go the double shot with Banfield & Holman. Worst case is I lose 80 points (140 - 60). For those who picked Zerrett it's a 40 loss, for those who picked Crouch only a 40 point gain.

Your forgeting the points from the 150k. Unless people kept the cash in the bank to bring in danger next week which is silly.

That's certainly another factor, in my situation I'm probably up 20 points by fielding Doedee so that is largely wiped. Would have been Sicily up to Heeney so will be watching with interest.

Once the dust settles this week I'm hoping to get a few of those points back with the C choices. Danger has recently dominated his next few opponents too -

vs Hawks (141 & 90)
vs West Coast (141)
vs Saints (120)
vs Port (163)
vs Swans (135)
vs GWS (163 & 196)

So if this is replicated there will be no discounts & will require some serious tinkering. Those with two mid pricers are best placed. Those without will need to offload a premo in all likelihood.

Dusty by comparison has -

vs Crows AAMI (93) *150 at MCG
vs Hawks (119)
vs Lions (111 & 54)
vs Demons (92)
vs Coll (118)
vs Freo (130 & 105)

So it's probably unlikely Dusty becomes a viable C option, that's what I'm hoping anyway.

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 24, 2018, 12:30:11 PM
If you are only interested in mini-League then keeping Danger will be a massive POD.

There are no head to head matches this week. So nothing is lost.

Add to that, if those without take him as the 1st upgrade target then that could be 6 weeks before they start banking his scores, otherwise it's a correction trade or 2 to bring him in earlier (trades that will be handy come finals).


Thinking more of overall and starting Cripps for Danger has worked so far , there is no point for me getting Danger if he plays next week I've committed to see how he goes now bit of a punt but you just have to do it sometimes  :D
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tkringle on March 24, 2018, 12:53:08 PM
I’m considering going Mitchell instead of Danger and dropping Libba for Armitage which gives me $260K to eventually bring Danger in..

If Armitage averages ~95, anyone know how long before he would hit ~$450K?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ricochet on March 24, 2018, 01:06:36 PM
I’m considering going Mitchell instead of Danger and dropping Libba for Armitage which gives me $260K to eventually bring Danger in..

If Armitage averages ~95, anyone know how long before he would hit ~$450K?
RD9 mate
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 24, 2018, 01:07:15 PM
I’m considering going Mitchell instead of Danger and dropping Libba for Armitage which gives me $260K to eventually bring Danger in..

If Armitage averages ~95, anyone know how long before he would hit ~$450K?

Armitage - 109 HS, likely 95, profit 125k by round 7
O'Meara - 97 HS, likely 90, profit 100k by round 7
Coniglio - 106 HS, likely 105, profit 60k by round 7
Redden - 103 HS, likely 95, profit 30k by round 7
Liberatore - 110 HS, likely 95, profit 30k by round 7
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tkringle on March 24, 2018, 01:11:09 PM
I’m considering going Mitchell instead of Danger and dropping Libba for Armitage which gives me $260K to eventually bring Danger in..

If Armitage averages ~95, anyone know how long before he would hit ~$450K?
RD9 mate

Thanks. Round 9 is a bit late to be bringing Danger in
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: GoLions on March 24, 2018, 01:21:42 PM
I’m considering going Mitchell instead of Danger and dropping Libba for Armitage which gives me $260K to eventually bring Danger in..

If Armitage averages ~95, anyone know how long before he would hit ~$450K?

Armitage - 109 HS, likely 95, profit 125k by round 7
O'Meara - 97 HS, likely 90, profit 100k by round 7
Coniglio - 106 HS, likely 105, profit 60k by round 7
Redden - 103 HS, likely 95, profit 30k by round 7
Liberatore - 110 HS, likely 95, profit 30k by round 7
Has hit 95+ once in the last 8 years...wouldn't say it is that likely haha
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 24, 2018, 01:27:30 PM
I’m considering going Mitchell instead of Danger and dropping Libba for Armitage which gives me $260K to eventually bring Danger in..

If Armitage averages ~95, anyone know how long before he would hit ~$450K?

Armitage - 109 HS, likely 95, profit 125k by round 7
O'Meara - 97 HS, likely 90, profit 100k by round 7
Coniglio - 106 HS, likely 105, profit 60k by round 7
Redden - 103 HS, likely 95, profit 30k by round 7
Liberatore - 110 HS, likely 95, profit 30k by round 7
Has hit 95+ once in the last 8 years...wouldn't say it is that likely haha

Has a very good draw, could start with two tons. But in any case he hasn't been too far off -

2013 - 92.4
2014 - 93.6
2015 - 109.7
2016 - 87.3

That last year he was given tagging duties too, from all reports that won't occur this year.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: js19 on March 25, 2018, 03:01:37 AM
I've currently got Danger on the bench, but starting to question the plan...

Here's why:

I've got Finlayson and Fritsch to play as the weakest links. As it stands, I can trade Danger to a combo of either:
Hibberd & Dunkley
Any combo of Shaw/Lloyd/Mills & Toby/Petracca to take the field instead via Finlayson to mid bench and trade out Venables to bench Fritsch.

I've got no idea who to pick on the FWD bench as rookies anyways, so foresee a correctional trade there regardless. Could live without Danger for a couple of weeks and then trade the worst performing ~400k to a rook/Danger.

I know it costs 2 trades, but if one is a likely correctional anyways, will it be worth it...?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tkringle on March 25, 2018, 07:17:41 AM
I've currently got Danger on the bench, but starting to question the plan...

Here's why:

I've got Finlayson and Fritsch to play as the weakest links. As it stands, I can trade Danger to a combo of either:
Hibberd & Dunkley
Any combo of Shaw/Lloyd/Mills & Toby/Petracca to take the field instead via Finlayson to mid bench and trade out Venables to bench Fritsch.

I've got no idea who to pick on the FWD bench as rookies anyways, so foresee a correctional trade there regardless. Could live without Danger for a couple of weeks and then trade the worst performing ~400k to a rook/Danger.

I know it costs 2 trades, but if one is a likely correctional anyways, will it be worth it...?

Assuming you will have no left $$ left over it would mean that you would need to get rid of two bad performing ~400-450K players?

One down to rookie, one midfielder up to Danger. Not sure how you know already that you will have two midprice players that will fail?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: js19 on March 25, 2018, 07:22:12 AM
I've currently got Danger on the bench, but starting to question the plan...

Here's why:

I've got Finlayson and Fritsch to play as the weakest links. As it stands, I can trade Danger to a combo of either:
Hibberd & Dunkley
Any combo of Shaw/Lloyd/Mills & Toby/Petracca to take the field instead via Finlayson to mid bench and trade out Venables to bench Fritsch.

I've got no idea who to pick on the FWD bench as rookies anyways, so foresee a correctional trade there regardless. Could live without Danger for a couple of weeks and then trade the worst performing ~400k to a rook/Danger.

I know it costs 2 trades, but if one is a likely correctional anyways, will it be worth it...?

Assuming you will have no left $$ left over it would mean that you would need to get rid of two bad performing ~400-450K players?

One down to rookie, one midfielder up to Danger. Not sure how you know already that you will have two midprice players that will fail?

 ;D Call it experience I guess...

Probably won't do it, but so tempting to eliminate rookie scores
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ringo on March 25, 2018, 02:46:34 PM
I think I posted elsewhere I went Danger down to Gazz with the intent of hopefully sideways trade to Danger when the inevitable resting occurs.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 25, 2018, 02:53:05 PM
I think I posted elsewhere I went Danger down to Gazz with the intent of hopefully sideways trade to Danger when the inevitable resting occurs.

+1

Specifically started 5 super prems this year to counter not having Danger for a while
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 25, 2018, 03:06:42 PM
I've had to trade down to deal with Libba, not sure if it's the right move but absolutely need to free up cash.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: no eye deer on March 25, 2018, 03:14:05 PM
I’m feeling pretty good about benching him atm, avoided carnage so far, got Titch C, Laird,  Billings, Sicily, Holman on the field. Could have kept Dusty as well, but I was worried about having zero cash for correction trades.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Holz on March 26, 2018, 12:54:30 AM
So bringing in zorko to avoid playing a rookie (kelly) didnt pan out soo good.

Spent the cash so i coild get christo.



Down about 85 points in an effort to start strong.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Adamant on March 26, 2018, 01:48:11 AM
So bringing in zorko to avoid playing a rookie (kelly) didnt pan out soo good.

Serves you right, Kelly is a gun!
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Hazza09 on March 26, 2018, 03:26:15 PM
Only realised today that 19% have Danger in the comp and only 3 have Danger in my cash league.

He could be a massive unique but hopefully the gamble for starting with him pays off.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on March 26, 2018, 04:59:00 PM
Got more than enough cash for Danger. But who do I trade? In hindsight should have started GAJ over Fyfe and done it that way. Figured Fyfe was a must for the price as did half the comp. Couldn't really leave Cripps out at his price either.
Couldn't decide between Titch and Dusty so got both.
That leaves Merrett who was my POD pick. Hindsight again says should have  got McGrath instead as I didn't want 3 Bombers (Smith fwds) premos.
Titch,Dusty,Fyfe,Merrett,Cripps,JOM
Hmmmm
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 26, 2018, 05:33:55 PM
Is Danger a certainty to play? Sounds like it's assumed he's playing but haven't actually heard anything yet
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 26, 2018, 05:35:09 PM
Is Danger a certainty to play? Sounds like it's assumed he's playing but haven't actually heard anything yet
Yeah pretty sure he'll have to pass a fitness test
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 26, 2018, 05:37:29 PM
Is Danger a certainty to play? Sounds like it's assumed he's playing but haven't actually heard anything yet
Yeah pretty sure he'll have to pass a fitness test

Will be 21 days on Monday which is about spot on for a minor hammy. Hoping they are caustious and give it another week  :P
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on March 26, 2018, 05:40:10 PM
Is Danger a certainty to play? Sounds like it's assumed he's playing but haven't actually heard anything yet
Yeah pretty sure he'll have to pass a fitness test

Will be 21 days on Monday which is about spot on for a minor hammy. Hoping they are caustious and give it another week  :P
Ahh don't have him ? haha me neither  ;D
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Torpedo10 on March 26, 2018, 05:50:08 PM
If Danger misses again, it means I play Tim Kelly on field.

I won't be rapt, but far from the worst case scenario.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 26, 2018, 05:50:34 PM
Is Danger a certainty to play? Sounds like it's assumed he's playing but haven't actually heard anything yet
Yeah pretty sure he'll have to pass a fitness test

Will be 21 days on Monday which is about spot on for a minor hammy. Hoping they are caustious and give it another week  :P
Ahh don't have him ? haha me neither  ;D

Trading him to Merrett so I'm extra filthy about it haha
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on March 26, 2018, 05:51:34 PM
If Danger misses again, it means I play Tim Kelly on field.

I won't be rapt, but far from the worst case scenario.

What rookies are you playing ahead of Kelly anyway? I'd have him on field reguardless
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Torpedo10 on March 26, 2018, 05:54:38 PM
Is Danger a certainty to play? Sounds like it's assumed he's playing but haven't actually heard anything yet
Yeah pretty sure he'll have to pass a fitness test

Will be 21 days on Monday which is about spot on for a minor hammy. Hoping they are caustious and give it another week  :P
Ahh don't have him ? haha me neither  ;D

Trading him to Merrett so I'm extra filthy about it haha
I'm hoping he does play, for our sakes' as I'm not sure we can beat the Dockers' without him. What would you do if he does miss?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 26, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
Is Danger a certainty to play? Sounds like it's assumed he's playing but haven't actually heard anything yet
Yeah pretty sure he'll have to pass a fitness test

Will be 21 days on Monday which is about spot on for a minor hammy. Hoping they are caustious and give it another week  :P

Same time frame as Billings, 90% certain he'll be right.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 26, 2018, 06:07:39 PM
If it was a final he would have played yesterday - they took the cautious approach

Certain he will be in this week
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on March 26, 2018, 06:11:39 PM
Is Danger a certainty to play? Sounds like it's assumed he's playing but haven't actually heard anything yet
Yeah pretty sure he'll have to pass a fitness test

Will be 21 days on Monday which is about spot on for a minor hammy. Hoping they are caustious and give it another week  :P
Ahh don't have him ? haha me neither  ;D

Trading him to Merrett so I'm extra filthy about it haha
I'm hoping he does play, for our sakes' as I'm not sure we can beat the Dockers' without him. What would you do if he does miss?
Can't beat the Dockers without him??
Cats are a potential top 4 side, Freo won't make the 8. Did u see them play Port? Hopeless, really regretting picking Walters. If Cats are the real deal ( I think they are) they should still be able to beat most teams without Danger. I mean u guys have GAJ and Selwood ffs.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Torpedo10 on March 26, 2018, 06:28:38 PM
Is Danger a certainty to play? Sounds like it's assumed he's playing but haven't actually heard anything yet
Yeah pretty sure he'll have to pass a fitness test

Will be 21 days on Monday which is about spot on for a minor hammy. Hoping they are caustious and give it another week  :P
Ahh don't have him ? haha me neither  ;D

Trading him to Merrett so I'm extra filthy about it haha
I'm hoping he does play, for our sakes' as I'm not sure we can beat the Dockers' without him. What would you do if he does miss?
Can't beat the Dockers without him??
Cats are a potential top 4 side, Freo won't make the 8. Did u see them play Port? Hopeless, really regretting picking Walters. If Cats are the real deal ( I think they are) they should still be able to beat most teams without Danger. I mean u guys have GAJ and Selwood ffs.
Sorry mate, I meant my Dons without Merrett.  :P
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on March 26, 2018, 07:32:02 PM
Ahh that makes sense I forgot we were playing Freo...and Cats play Hawks.. that's my bad mate haha.
I've got Merrett and hoping he plays, if he doesn't I might trade to Danger.
We can beat Freo without him tho, we just beat last year's Grand Finalists.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: no eye deer on March 27, 2018, 06:40:24 AM
2358 with Danger on the pine. I’m glad I kept him! ;D
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: AaronKirk on March 27, 2018, 10:15:37 AM
Ahh that makes sense I forgot we were playing Freo...and Cats play Hawks.. that's my bad mate haha.
I've got Merrett and hoping he plays, if he doesn't I might trade to Danger.
We can beat Freo without him tho, we just beat last year's Grand Finalists.

Danger on Triple M on Sunday said he definitely would be playing this week.

Also an article from The Age yesterday https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/dangerfield-all-but-confirmed-for-hawks-clash-20180325-p4z66y.html

I'd be surprised if Zerrett does play. Has had concussions before. Give him another week and get him right. Its a long season (not good for my AF and DT).

Are ppl with Danger not concerned that he could well play a lot more up forward in the next couple of weeks to ensure his hammy is 100% right to go back to his normal midfield role?

Last 2 games he has played mainly as a forward (Hawthorn in H/A and Sydney in the final) his SC scores were 141 and 135. The role suits him, particularly  with Gaz back in the mids.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on March 27, 2018, 10:23:35 AM
Ahh that makes sense I forgot we were playing Freo...and Cats play Hawks.. that's my bad mate haha.
I've got Merrett and hoping he plays, if he doesn't I might trade to Danger.
We can beat Freo without him tho, we just beat last year's Grand Finalists.

Danger on Triple M on Sunday said he definitely would be playing this week.

Also an article from The Age yesterday https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/dangerfield-all-but-confirmed-for-hawks-clash-20180325-p4z66y.html

I'd be surprised if Zerrett does play. Has had concussions before. Give him another week and get him right. Its a long season (not good for my AF and DT).

Are ppl with Danger not concerned that he could well play a lot more up forward in the next couple of weeks to ensure his hammy is 100% right to go back to his normal midfield role?

Last 2 games he has played mainly as a forward (Hawthorn in H/A and Sydney in the final) his SC scores were 141 and 135. The role suits him, particularly  with Gaz back in the mids.
Don't have Danger myself, but am thinking that with Selwood, Duncan, Ablett and co. all in the mids and Danger just coming back from a hammy issue that he won't be the main guy in the guts.

Perhaps I'm hopeful, but I don't think he's necessarily guaranteed to get his usual 150 odd this week.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: smashbox on March 27, 2018, 10:28:40 AM
I'm gonna wait another week before sideways Gaz to Danger. Want to see if Danger puts in a few below par and drops in price.

Gaz is looking in good nic and hopefully will continue
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: smashbox on March 27, 2018, 08:44:34 PM
What score does Danger need to average to maintain his price
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 27, 2018, 08:48:59 PM
What score does Danger need to average to maintain his price

136
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: AaronKirk on March 27, 2018, 11:06:37 PM
I'm gonna wait another week before sideways Gaz to Danger. Want to see if Danger puts in a few below par and drops in price.

Gaz is looking in good nic and hopefully will continue
There is no way at all I would be doing this. Ablett missed targets, didn't put his head over the ball at every single contest and got 39 touches.

With a couple more games and a bit more confidence in the body he'll get better. He is POD as well. Look at different options to get Danger in.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: smashbox on March 27, 2018, 11:14:20 PM
Sooner or later Ablett is going to be rested. In that time I will sideways to danger
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Gigantor on March 28, 2018, 07:32:52 AM
What score does Danger need to average to maintain his price

136

Not quite, he will have average around 145 to maintain his price
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on March 28, 2018, 08:57:21 AM
What score does Danger need to average to maintain his price

136

Not quite, he will have average around 145 to maintain his price
I'd almost bank on it that he drops to 600k-ish by Round 8 (I hope ;D).
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tommy10 on March 28, 2018, 09:13:56 AM
What score does Danger need to average to maintain his price

136

Not quite, he will have average around 145 to maintain his price
I'd almost bank on it that he drops to 600k-ish by Round 8 (I hope ;D).
Fingers and toes crossed!! Otherwise we’re stuffed  ;)
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 28, 2018, 12:05:34 PM
What score does Danger need to average to maintain his price

136

Not quite, he will have average around 145 to maintain his price

Correct you are, just did the calculations and a 120 average will see him at 670k by round 7. Certainly a fair discount but still awkward to get in.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Colty on March 28, 2018, 01:47:42 PM
What score does Danger need to average to maintain his price

136

Not quite, he will have average around 145 to maintain his price

120 pretty hopeful for Danger. It only takes a 160-70 score in his rotation to prevent any significant price change.

Correct you are, just did the calculations and a 120 average will see him at 670k by round 7. Certainly a fair discount but still awkward to get in.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: frenzy on March 28, 2018, 01:52:40 PM
What score does Danger need to average to maintain his price

136

Not quite, he will have average around 145 to maintain his price

He went 144.8 for his last 15 games of 2017 season.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: PowerBug on March 28, 2018, 02:00:33 PM
Since being at Geelong:
2016 Rd 1 - 163, 43 touches
2016 QF - 121, 35 touches
2017 Rd 4 - 90, 27 touches. Roughead gave him a knee to the kidney in Q1 and he still scored 90+.
2017 Rd 17 - 141, 20 touches 5.6. Roughead ran into him in Q1 again sending him forward for the rest of the match, he topped all players in the game.
In 2015 as a Crow he scored 106 and 121 against them as well.

Let's hope he stays away from Roughead in Q1 this Monday ;D I'll be captaining him over Titch if VC Fyfe doesn't work out.



As for future prospects and pricings, he's averaged 130 and 136 last two years, and without this niggle everyone would've penciled him in for the same again. Those without him will take solace from the following however:
2016 Rd 2-4: 77 (GWS, Conigs tag), 145, 99. [Only 2 more sub 100 scores for the season]
2017 Rd 4-6: 90, 120, 65 (Coll) [Went 100+ every other game after this]

He does something similar this season then yeah you'll get your price drop, but get ready to jump on you won't have long before it rises again!
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 28, 2018, 02:01:20 PM
What score does Danger need to average to maintain his price

136

Not quite, he will have average around 145 to maintain his price

He went 144.8 for his last 15 games of 2017 season.

Good record against upcoming opponents -

vs Hawks (141 & 90)
vs West Coast (141)
vs Saints (120)
vs Port (163)
vs Swans (135)
vs GWS (163 & 196)
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: AaronKirk on March 28, 2018, 04:42:39 PM
What score does Danger need to average to maintain his price

136

Not quite, he will have average around 145 to maintain his price

He went 144.8 for his last 15 games of 2017 season.

Good record against upcoming opponents -

vs Hawks (141 & 90)
vs West Coast (141)
vs Saints (120)
vs Port (163)
vs Swans (135)
vs GWS (163 & 196)


As a hypothetical if he plays 70% forward this week what do people think he will score?

I'd be surprised if he didn't play mid/forward around 50/50 just to ensure he is 100% right. Its the first hamstring tear he has had if I am correct.

I also want to see what they do with him, Ablett and Selwood in the side together before making him an absolute priority to get in.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SydneyRox on March 28, 2018, 04:51:23 PM
yeah I am not sold, if he come back this week I am more than happy to risk watching his 2 games before making any rash decisions
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on March 28, 2018, 05:00:07 PM
What score does Danger need to average to maintain his price

136

Not quite, he will have average around 145 to maintain his price

He went 144.8 for his last 15 games of 2017 season.

Good record against upcoming opponents -

vs Hawks (141 & 90)
vs West Coast (141)
vs Saints (120)
vs Port (163)
vs Swans (135)
vs GWS (163 & 196)


As a hypothetical if he plays 70% forward this week what do people think he will score?

I'd be surprised if he didn't play mid/forward around 50/50 just to ensure he is 100% right. Its the first hamstring tear he has had if I am correct.

I also want to see what they do with him, Ablett and Selwood in the side together before making him an absolute priority to get in.

Billings had the same injury and bounced back superbly. I reckon Danger would have played last week if it was a final, then maybe a stint in the forward line might be appropriate. It will be 25 days of recovery, that's probably right for this type of injury.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: elephants on March 28, 2018, 05:06:24 PM
I think he'll probably just score a so-so 120. I'll be trying to get him in asap after this week. Absolute must have and you're chasing the pack if you dont have the best supercoach scorer in the game
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: crowls on March 28, 2018, 08:34:54 PM
if he plays up front and hawk chf then 5 goals   120+ points.   with gaz in the team  danger is likely to kick 60+
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Sabretooth Tigers on March 28, 2018, 09:14:19 PM
if he plays up front and hawk chf then 5 goals   120+ points.   with gaz in the team  danger is likely to kick 60+

Can't remember, but what did he score last year when injured early in a game and played a lot up forward ?? And this time he has Gazza as an extra feeder.

 :)
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: AaronKirk on March 28, 2018, 09:49:38 PM
if he plays up front and hawk chf then 5 goals   120+ points.   with gaz in the team  danger is likely to kick 60+

Can't remember, but what did he score last year when injured early in a game and played a lot up forward ?? And this time he has Gazza as an extra feeder.

 :)

The 2 games I remember him playing mostly as a forward were the Hawthorn game he kicked 5 (scored 141) and the semi final v Sydney (135)

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Keeper27 on March 29, 2018, 10:41:58 PM
hope he avg's 120 for the next 3 weeks and i can bring him in
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: meow meow on March 30, 2018, 09:50:07 AM
if he plays up front and hawk chf then 5 goals   120+ points.   with gaz in the team  danger is likely to kick 60+

Can't remember, but what did he score last year when injured early in a game and played a lot up forward ?? And this time he has Gazza as an extra feeder.

 :)

The 2 games I remember him playing mostly as a forward were the Hawthorn game he kicked 5 (scored 141) and the semi final v Sydney (135)

Dusty last night. The Leigh Matthews role has returned.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: sidvicious on April 02, 2018, 07:35:12 PM
Not After tday with Gaz pinching points
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on April 02, 2018, 07:45:18 PM
I'll bring him in when he drops to 600k. Got Martin and Mitchell so don't really need him atm.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RoughRed on April 02, 2018, 07:46:25 PM
What a fantastic 1st 5 minutes (and the rest) with Gaz, Danger and Selwood all combining
Kelly still had an impact too
but no Duncan today (was my "placeholder" for Danger) but is he is back next week that is another mouth to feed
No doubt Danger can rack up the SC points quickly
May wait another week  :P
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on April 02, 2018, 07:55:58 PM
I'll bring him in when he drops to 600k. Got Martin and Mitchell so don't really need him atm.

Crouch to Dusty this week means I'll have Dusty, Titch and GAJ so I am hoping not having Danger for the first 5-6 rounds or so won't be too bad
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: elephants on April 02, 2018, 08:18:30 PM
Very keen on getting Danger asap. Bracing for when he pops a 180, just hope its later rather than sooner.

Feel like West Coast at Optus could be a big chance :-X Not sidewaysing a premo, and not able to cull a rookie early either. Ooft
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on April 02, 2018, 09:33:59 PM
Not After tday with Gaz pinching points
Kelly and Selwood getting quite a few as well.
Then there's Duncan and Scooter to come in.
Danger will still be up there he's too good not to be. But maybe 120 - 125 will be a more likely avg than the 140 you'd hope for a 750 k player.

My problem is bloody Merrett is my only trade out candidate and he will lose more cash than Danger after 17 + 95 points!

I kept Danger money but was hoping to see his scoring with GAJ over 3-4 rounds while also getting him cheaper round 4-5.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on April 02, 2018, 09:59:25 PM
Danger played a lot more forward than mid today and if not for an influential last quarter would have scored around 110.
Scott Selwood and Duncan to return to the team as well and I won't be surprised to see Danger play 70-30 fwd/mid.
Will still be a must have and I see him averaging 120+ but I'm happy to wait and get him as an upgrade rather than moving the world to get him in now
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: AaronKirk on April 02, 2018, 10:04:06 PM
I could go Hibberd/Armo to Ryan/Danger this week.

Would have a midfield of Danger, Dusty, Mitchell, Fyfe, Ablett, Conigs, Kelly, Holman.

The more I think about it the less I think it is a bad idea.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tommy10 on April 02, 2018, 10:05:30 PM
Not After tday with Gaz pinching points
Kelly and Selwood getting quite a few as well.
Then there's Duncan and Scooter to come in.
Danger will still be up there he's too good not to be. But maybe 120 - 125 will be a more likely avg than the 140 you'd hope for a 750 k player.

My problem is bloody Merrett is my only trade out candidate and he will lose more cash than Danger after 17 + 95 points!

I kept Danger money but was hoping to see his scoring with GAJ over 3-4 rounds while also getting him cheaper round 4-5.
Same here ubeaut, Zerrett will bleed cash and is getting a lot of attention from opposition so thinking him to Dusty. First trade is to fund cash and get rid of Brayshaw to Garlett/Fogarty who didn’t look good today so perhaps Garlett which will open up DPP and Naughton to Bonner as the other alternative to Dusty.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: elephants on April 02, 2018, 10:14:21 PM
Danger will be fine haha. People saying they won't get him will be battling to fin the coin to bring him in when he's averaging 145 by the byes
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: GoLions on April 02, 2018, 10:23:11 PM
Danger will be fine haha. People saying they won't get him will be battling to fin the coin to bring him in when he's averaging 1455 by the byes
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on April 03, 2018, 12:58:03 AM
Not After tday with Gaz pinching points
Kelly and Selwood getting quite a few as well.
Then there's Duncan and Scooter to come in.
Danger will still be up there he's too good not to be. But maybe 120 - 125 will be a more likely avg than the 140 you'd hope for a 750 k player.

My problem is bloody Merrett is my only trade out candidate and he will lose more cash than Danger after 17 + 95 points!

I kept Danger money but was hoping to see his scoring with GAJ over 3-4 rounds while also getting him cheaper round 4-5.
Same here ubeaut, Zerrett will bleed cash and is getting a lot of attention from opposition so thinking him to Dusty. First trade is to fund cash and get rid of Brayshaw to Garlett/Fogarty who didn’t look good today so perhaps Garlett which will open up DPP and Naughton to Bonner as the other alternative to Dusty.

You would seriously trade Brayshaw to Garlett?  :o
Garlett will be lucky to play next week
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ringo on April 03, 2018, 09:19:47 AM
Dangers ownership has jumped to 17% already.

Danger has a B/e of 181 so those that are hoping for a price drop may be licking their lips. Worth holding back a week me thinks just ensure you do not use the cash next week.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on April 03, 2018, 09:35:52 AM
Dangers ownership has jumped to 17% already.

Danger has a B/e of 181 so those that are hoping for a price drop may be licking their lips. Worth holding back a week me thinks just ensure you do not use the cash next week.
If he goes sub 130 this week, BE would be around 250 methinks?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: iZander on April 03, 2018, 09:40:17 AM
his BE wont be 180 surly....
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ringo on April 03, 2018, 09:49:29 AM
his BE wont be 180 surly....
Listed as 181 this week in SC.

(https://i.gyazo.com/02b0d1a84daa16f5722093f7b79ecdf4.png)
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Gigantor on April 03, 2018, 09:53:01 AM
his BE wont be 180 surly....

If he scores another 130 his BE will be around 175-180
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: jfitty on April 03, 2018, 10:01:33 AM
Interestingly on AFL 360 they mentioned Danger played 55% mid, 45% forward whilst Gaz was around 90/10.

Wonder if that will continue? Can't see it affecting Danger's scoring too much, but the Cats still need to add Duncan and Scooter into yesterday's rotations. Might wait a few weeks and see how it players out, no rush to get Danger in with Dusty and Titch playing the way they are.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on April 03, 2018, 10:03:12 AM
Interestingly on AFL 360 they mentioned Danger played 55% mid, 45% forward whilst Gaz was around 90/10.

Wonder if that will continue? Can't see it affecting Danger's scoring too much, but the Cats still need to add Duncan and Scooter into yesterday's rotations. Might wait a few weeks and see how it players out, no rush to get Danger in with Dusty and Titch playing the way they are.
Dangerfield MID/FWD 2019

It probably will continue tbh. Ablett doesn't wanna play forward, and what he wants, he generally gets.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: elephants on April 03, 2018, 10:17:13 AM
Certainly can't see the split being that high, maybe 70/30. If anyone goes forward its someone like Menegola or Guthrie goes back. Danger, Gaz, Selwood x2 and Duncan is a fine midfield - plenty of room for everyone.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: PowerBug on April 03, 2018, 11:12:50 AM
Certainly can't see the split being that high, maybe 70/30. If anyone goes forward its someone like Menegola or Guthrie goes back. Danger, Gaz, Selwood x2 and Duncan is a fine midfield - plenty of room for everyone.
+ Kelly
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: elephants on April 03, 2018, 11:45:06 AM
Certainly can't see the split being that high, maybe 70/30. If anyone goes forward its someone like Menegola or Guthrie goes back. Danger, Gaz, Selwood x2 and Duncan is a fine midfield - plenty of room for everyone.
+ Kelly

He was great yesterday but he's also in his first year of AFL-level football. It is early days but he seemed to be a lot more fwd half in round 1. I suspect he will be more of a 50/50 split as the season wears on
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on April 03, 2018, 03:54:14 PM
Interestingly on AFL 360 they mentioned Danger played 55% mid, 45% forward whilst Gaz was around 90/10.

Wonder if that will continue? Can't see it affecting Danger's scoring too much, but the Cats still need to add Duncan and Scooter into yesterday's rotations. Might wait a few weeks and see how it players out, no rush to get Danger in with Dusty and Titch playing the way they are.
Think they where easing him back and he will be better after first run , was forward a lot but the coach realized they were not going to win without him on ball and when put there in the last it was an instant lift for the cats and his scoring took off , he is not far off lighting it up could be this week.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on April 03, 2018, 03:58:16 PM
The coach made it sound like they want him forward more. Will be interesting to see
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: crowls on April 04, 2018, 07:39:32 AM
The coach made it sound like they want him forward more. Will be interesting to see
danger mid kicking to danger fwd...      clones required
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Huttabito on April 04, 2018, 09:56:29 AM
Still smashed out 130 points playing 55% forward in a 1 point loss.

How many will they lose? WCE this week at home, surely if he plays forward the same time he'll get just as many looks at goal if not more.

Don't see him dropping his average too much.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Holz on April 04, 2018, 10:58:23 AM
its just too dangerous not having him, i was watching the scores and he was looking a little quiet then you blink and he goes +30.

Even if he just goes 125 i think he is a must have. We have seen how hard it is to compete if you dont have Dusty and Titch.

Dusty Titch Danger to me are the 3 guys you just need to have.

I had to go crouch to conigs due to injury and that gave me the cash to go Zorko (who is decent) to Danger even though i have byrne and langdon injured.

Barring injury i cant see him going below 115 as a worst case scenario and thats still top 8. Best case he pumps out monsters as your captain.

Im trading him in and putting him captain over Dusty and Titch.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: no eye deer on April 04, 2018, 01:23:20 PM
its just too dangerous not having him, i was watching the scores and he was looking a little quiet then you blink and he goes +30.

Even if he just goes 125 i think he is a must have. We have seen how hard it is to compete if you dont have Dusty and Titch.

Dusty Titch Danger to me are the 3 guys you just need to have.

I had to go crouch to conigs due to injury and that gave me the cash to go Zorko (who is decent) to Danger even though i have byrne and langdon injured.

Barring injury i cant see him going below 115 as a worst case scenario and thats still top 8. Best case he pumps out monsters as your captain.

Im trading him in and putting him captain over Dusty and Titch.

I feel the same abut Dusty this year. I stupidly dropped him before round one. But I’m not willing to risk him becoming out of reach. So it’s Hibberd to Taranto (via Sicily) and Armitage to Dusty, giving me the holy trinity of Danger, Dusty and Titch. I’ll build the rest of my team around them.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on April 04, 2018, 04:28:57 PM
Still smashed out 130 points playing 55% forward in a 1 point loss.

How many will they lose? WCE this week at home, surely if he plays forward the same time he'll get just as many looks at goal if not more.

Don't see him dropping his average too much.
Good question. It's hard to read the Cats atm. If Gawn kicked that goal they would be 0 - 2. Hawks and Dees are decent sides, but are they as good as Tiges,Swans,Port,GWS,Crows? I don't think so and feel Geelong will struggle against these 5 and the Bombers who are on par with Hawks/Dees.
I along with many others had Cats top 4 but as good as their midfield is they are exposed fwd and back. No Lonegran or Mackie really hurts and Hawkins has been missing form for ages. Then there's the ruck where Smith was dropped only for Stanley to get pantsed by McEvoy. They need Taylor back badly and need to play Danger fwd.
What I'm trying to say is they can't rely on Paddy Ablettwood to win every game and really need 2 Dangers, one mid and one fwd. They also need Hawkins to step up or drop him and give Crameri and Buzza along with Ratugolea a run.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Holz on April 04, 2018, 04:38:12 PM
Still smashed out 130 points playing 55% forward in a 1 point loss.

How many will they lose? WCE this week at home, surely if he plays forward the same time he'll get just as many looks at goal if not more.

Don't see him dropping his average too much.
Good question. It's hard to read the Cats atm. If Gawn kicked that goal they would be 0 - 2. Hawks and Dees are decent sides, but are they as good as Tiges,Swans,Port,GWS,Crows? I don't think so and feel Geelong will struggle against these 5 and the Bombers who are on par with Hawks/Dees.
I along with many others had Cats top 4 but as good as their midfield is they are exposed fwd and back. No Lonegran or Mackie really hurts and Hawkins has been missing form for ages. Then there's the ruck where Smith was dropped only for Stanley to get pantsed by McEvoy. They need Taylor back badly and need to play Danger fwd.
What I'm trying to say is they can't rely on Paddy Ablettwood to win every game and really need 2 Dangers, one mid and one fwd. They also need Hawkins to step up or drop him and give Crameri and Buzza along with Ratugolea a run.

If cats had Danger in round 1 and Duncan in round 2 id back both of them to add a goal so they would be 2-0 against 2 fdecent teams.

they do look thin down back though but that doesnt really hurt the cats mids if anything it will mean more centre bounces. We still havent seen what Ablett Duncan Selwood Danger can do.

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on April 04, 2018, 04:45:46 PM
I'm in a bind over Danger.
I saved money for him with the idea of trading worst performing mid after he plays 3-4 games, see how he gels with Joel,GAJ and co, hopefully dropping in price in the process.

Unfortunately I have Merrett who will bleed cash thanks to concussion, in hindsight should have picked GAJ instead. Merrett was my POD pick but feel he may suffer due to a renewed tagging trend.
If I don't move now any money Danger drops will be offset by Merretts cash loss.
Can't see me trading Titch,Dusty,Cripps or Fyfe either. Only other option is hope for JOM to start scoring 90+ while Danger drops. OR drop Hibberd/Sicily to Bonner and upgrade JOM.
If I keep Merrett I'll have over 200k itb doing nothing. If I trade he'll probably score 140 vs the Doggies! (But still lose 50k)
What should I do? Get Danger,keep Merrett or get GAJ, save a heap for minimal point loss, then trade to Danger when he's cheaper and GAJ gets rested?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on April 04, 2018, 04:49:13 PM
 Just wanna see Danger with the full midfield in. Scooter and Duncan should play this week so will be watching very closely
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on April 04, 2018, 04:57:20 PM
I'm in a bind over Danger.
I saved money for him with the idea of trading worst performing mid after he plays 3-4 games, see how he gels with Joel,GAJ and co, hopefully dropping in price in the process.

Unfortunately I have Merrett who will bleed cash thanks to concussion, in hindsight should have picked GAJ instead. Merrett was my POD pick but feel he may suffer due to a renewed tagging trend.
If I don't move now any money Danger drops will be offset by Merretts cash loss.
Can't see me trading Titch,Dusty,Cripps or Fyfe either. Only other option is hope for JOM to start scoring 90+ while Danger drops. OR drop Hibberd/Sicily to Bonner and upgrade JOM.
If I keep Merrett I'll have over 200k itb doing nothing. If I trade he'll probably score 140 vs the Doggies! (But still lose 50k)
What should I do? Get Danger,keep Merrett or get GAJ, save a heap for minimal point loss, then trade to Danger when he's cheaper and GAJ gets rested?

You picked Zerrett as a keeper

Not a great start getting knocked out, but I'd back him in so even if he drops 50k it doesn't matter as he's a keeper for you

The panic to get Danger is probably a bit over the top

If he puts up 120-140 most weeks, then although you'd like to have him it shouldn't hurt you too much not having him. I'd come up with a plan to get funds without involving Zerrett, and then turn JOM into Danger, and if it takes you a few weeks to get there then that's alright
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: smashbox on April 04, 2018, 05:00:14 PM
That's my plan now unless GAJ gets injured. I originally had GAJ as a stepping stone with cash in bank to sideways but GAJ looks like he's killing it so unless he gets injured I'm gonna look at upgrading JOM to Danger in the next couple weeks
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on April 04, 2018, 05:47:31 PM
I'm in a bind over Danger.
I saved money for him with the idea of trading worst performing mid after he plays 3-4 games, see how he gels with Joel,GAJ and co, hopefully dropping in price in the process.

Unfortunately I have Merrett who will bleed cash thanks to concussion, in hindsight should have picked GAJ instead. Merrett was my POD pick but feel he may suffer due to a renewed tagging trend.
If I don't move now any money Danger drops will be offset by Merretts cash loss.
Can't see me trading Titch,Dusty,Cripps or Fyfe either. Only other option is hope for JOM to start scoring 90+ while Danger drops. OR drop Hibberd/Sicily to Bonner and upgrade JOM.
If I keep Merrett I'll have over 200k itb doing nothing. If I trade he'll probably score 140 vs the Doggies! (But still lose 50k)
What should I do? Get Danger,keep Merrett or get GAJ, save a heap for minimal point loss, then trade to Danger when he's cheaper and GAJ gets rested?

You picked Zerrett as a keeper

Not a great start getting knocked out, but I'd back him in so even if he drops 50k it doesn't matter as he's a keeper for you

The panic to get Danger is probably a bit over the top

If he puts up 120-140 most weeks, then although you'd like to have him it shouldn't hurt you too much not having him. I'd come up with a plan to get funds without involving Zerrett, and then turn JOM into Danger, and if it takes you a few weeks to get there then that's alright
Cheers RD. I did pick Zerrett as a keeper but I really thought tagging was going to continue it's decline. Instead I see coaches more and more going the hard tag which will hurt players like Zerrett,Zorko,Sloane.
JOM is playing well, getting heaps of it and looking good, but is fading late in games so hasn't scored well enough. He should improve, however will it be soon enough to make enough money to coincide with Danger dropping?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Southstorm on April 04, 2018, 07:11:10 PM
I'm in a bind over Danger.
I saved money for him with the idea of trading worst performing mid after he plays 3-4 games, see how he gels with Joel,GAJ and co, hopefully dropping in price in the process.

Unfortunately I have Merrett who will bleed cash thanks to concussion, in hindsight should have picked GAJ instead. Merrett was my POD pick but feel he may suffer due to a renewed tagging trend.
If I don't move now any money Danger drops will be offset by Merretts cash loss.
Can't see me trading Titch,Dusty,Cripps or Fyfe either. Only other option is hope for JOM to start scoring 90+ while Danger drops. OR drop Hibberd/Sicily to Bonner and upgrade JOM.
If I keep Merrett I'll have over 200k itb doing nothing. If I trade he'll probably score 140 vs the Doggies! (But still lose 50k)
What should I do? Get Danger,keep Merrett or get GAJ, save a heap for minimal point loss, then trade to Danger when he's cheaper and GAJ gets rested?

You picked Zerrett as a keeper

Not a great start getting knocked out, but I'd back him in so even if he drops 50k it doesn't matter as he's a keeper for you

The panic to get Danger is probably a bit over the top

If he puts up 120-140 most weeks, then although you'd like to have him it shouldn't hurt you too much not having him. I'd come up with a plan to get funds without involving Zerrett, and then turn JOM into Danger, and if it takes you a few weeks to get there then that's alright
Cheers RD. I did pick Zerrett as a keeper but I really thought tagging was going to continue it's decline. Instead I see coaches more and more going the hard tag which will hurt players like Zerrett,Zorko,Sloane.
JOM is playing well, getting heaps of it and looking good, but is fading late in games so hasn't scored well enough. He should improve, however will it be soon enough to make enough money to coincide with Danger dropping?
Thing with Zerrett though is that he still got his usual 15 contested touches and his clearances, so the tag wasn't really affecting his ability to work at the coalface. But there wasn't a single Essendon midfielder that can be proud of that performance on Saturday night, well and truly outworked in open space by a much better disciplined Freo side. Hopefully that's the worst Zach scores this year.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on April 04, 2018, 08:51:59 PM
True. But his outside game was affected, as happens with most good players that are tagged, it affects outside more, which is why players like Oliver,Cripps,Titch etc. are rarely tagged or still perform if they are.
Merretts outside game is very damaging so I think he'll continue to be targeted. Same with Sloane and Zorko, inside is good, outside is very good.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Jelemas on April 05, 2018, 09:25:57 AM
True. But his outside game was affected, as happens with most good players that are tagged, it affects outside more, which is why players like Oliver,Cripps,Titch etc. are rarely tagged or still perform if they are.
Merretts outside game is very damaging so I think he'll continue to be targeted. Same with Sloane and Zorko, inside is good, outside is very good.

He still scored 95 in a down game for him with only 21 possessions. He also only went at 52%.
To me that screams that big scores will come, a few more touches and better efficiency and he will score big.
Not sure why everyone is making at like he got tagged out of the game and scored 30.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: crowls on April 09, 2018, 04:48:03 PM
Still smashed out 130 points playing 55% forward in a 1 point loss.

How many will they lose? WCE this week at home, surely if he plays forward the same time he'll get just as many looks at goal if not more.

Don't see him dropping his average too much.
Good question. It's hard to read the Cats atm. If Gawn kicked that goal they would be 0 - 2. Hawks and Dees are decent sides, but are they as good as Tiges,Swans,Port,GWS,Crows? I don't think so and feel Geelong will struggle against these 5 and the Bombers who are on par with Hawks/Dees.
I along with many others had Cats top 4 but as good as their midfield is they are exposed fwd and back. No Lonegran or Mackie really hurts and Hawkins has been missing form for ages. Then there's the ruck where Smith was dropped only for Stanley to get pantsed by McEvoy. They need Taylor back badly and need to play Danger fwd.
What I'm trying to say is they can't rely on Paddy Ablettwood to win every game and really need 2 Dangers, one mid and one fwd. They also need Hawkins to step up or drop him and give Crameri and Buzza along with Ratugolea a run.
Well said Ubeaut.   I would be inclinded to try the Selwood boys down back to shore them up a bit and provide better attacking options coming out..     Hawkins - time to go back to farm for him.  Not sure Crameri is the answer though and Buzza and Rat very inexperienced.   As we saw with Daniher it takes time and games.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on April 09, 2018, 07:20:38 PM
True. But his outside game was affected, as happens with most good players that are tagged, it affects outside more, which is why players like Oliver,Cripps,Titch etc. are rarely tagged or still perform if they are.
Merretts outside game is very damaging so I think he'll continue to be targeted. Same with Sloane and Zorko, inside is good, outside is very good.

He still scored 95 in a down game for him with only 21 possessions. He also only went at 52%.
To me that screams that big scores will come, a few more touches and better efficiency and he will score big.
Not sure why everyone is making at like he got tagged out of the game and scored 30.
Well bugger me I was right about Merrett, unfortunately I doubted myself too long and missed the lockout to trade to Danger.
Really sux to be right on this occasion.:(
Oh yeah now he's got Ebert to deal with this week. Ideally I'd wait a few games for Danger to drop and Merrett to have a few games and rise, but don't see it happening.
I'll have to trade Zerrett for someone cheaper and hopefully turn JOM into Danger instead.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on April 09, 2018, 07:44:17 PM
Proving to not be an absolute must as of yet, which is fantastic for us waiting for him to plummet in price (like myself ;D)
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RoughRed on April 09, 2018, 08:21:54 PM
With a BE of 216 but only a $40K drop on projected 125 ...

Worthwhile to just take the 125 and not worry about the money drop!

What would we be looking at if he goes 150? or down to 100?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on April 09, 2018, 10:31:54 PM
If only Gary did his hammy in two weeks time - would have been perfect timing to make the switch

And now we cop the double whammy because Danger will probably start going bigger with Gary out of the side

I'll be waiting 2 weeks to get Danger under 700k
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: DunnyBrush on April 09, 2018, 10:44:34 PM
Hoping Danger goes massive now to affect everyone's upgrade plans muahahahhahahah
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on April 09, 2018, 11:03:39 PM
If only Gary did his hammy in two weeks time - would have been perfect timing to make the switch

And now we cop the double whammy because Danger will probably start going bigger with Gary out of the side

I'll be waiting 2 weeks to get Danger under 700k

All I wanted to wait for was to see ALL of the Geelong mids in action together a couple of times to see how Danger scored. He missed the first, Duncan and Scooter missed  when he came back, Duncan was still out last week and now Gaz goes out. May never see them all together so may as well just get him in asap and hope it doesn't affect him too much
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: fanTCfool on April 09, 2018, 11:33:38 PM
With a BE of 216 but only a $40K drop on projected 125 ...

Worthwhile to just take the 125 and not worry about the money drop!

What would we be looking at if he goes 150? or down to 100?

Dangerfield scores 150 - Price estimation: $728,000
Dangerfield scores 100 - Price estimation: $711,300
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on April 10, 2018, 10:58:08 AM
With a BE of 216 but only a $40K drop on projected 125 ...

Worthwhile to just take the 125 and not worry about the money drop!

What would we be looking at if he goes 150? or down to 100?

Dangerfield scores 150 - Price estimation: $728,000
Dangerfield scores 100 - Price estimation: $711,300

Not much of a discount, probably worth just bringing in now. Last year scored thirteen 140+ scores, reckon he's due over the next fortnight.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on April 10, 2018, 11:26:37 AM
With a BE of 216 but only a $40K drop on projected 125 ...

Worthwhile to just take the 125 and not worry about the money drop!

What would we be looking at if he goes 150? or down to 100?

Dangerfield scores 150 - Price estimation: $728,000
Dangerfield scores 100 - Price estimation: $711,300

Not much of a discount, probably worth just bringing in now. Last year scored thirteen 140+ scores, reckon he's due over the next fortnight.
3rd game after hammy , playing at there fortress for the 1st time this year , Gaz out , playing the Saints , could be Danger time  ;)
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RoughRed on April 10, 2018, 02:30:12 PM
With a BE of 216 but only a $40K drop on projected 125 ...

Worthwhile to just take the 125 and not worry about the money drop!

What would we be looking at if he goes 150? or down to 100?

Dangerfield scores 150 - Price estimation: $728,000
Dangerfield scores 100 - Price estimation: $711,300

Not much of a discount, probably worth just bringing in now. Last year scored thirteen 140+ scores, reckon he's due over the next fortnight.
That is clarifying my thoughts - when people talk about price drops you really need two bads and that has not been Dangerfield style over the journey
Thanks for the input everyone!
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on April 30, 2018, 07:12:00 PM
Am I the only one who isn't phased by not having Danger?

I just don't see the rush to get him at all based on his scoring and general impact/role

With guys like Titch, Dusty, Fyfe, Macrae, Cripps and Gawn being more than good enough for the C I just don't think Danger is the must have he once was

I'm sure he will bang out some big scores soon, but I can't see the constant 135+ every week like we have seen

He'll probably come out and smash a 180 this week now that I've said it haha, but I'm honestly more interested in getting Macrae and Cripps then I am Danger
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: enzedder on April 30, 2018, 07:17:09 PM
Am I the only one who isn't phased by not having Danger?

I just don't see the rush to get him at all based on his scoring and general impact/role

With guys like Titch, Dusty, Fyfe, Macrae, Cripps and Gawn being more than good enough for the C I just don't think Danger is the must have he once was

I'm sure he will bang out some big scores soon, but I can't see the constant 135+ every week like we have seen

He'll probably come out and smash a 180 this week now that I've said it haha, but I'm honestly more interested in getting Macrae and Cripps then I am Danger
Having Danger has been a liability. Not missing much. How I feel.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on April 30, 2018, 07:25:11 PM
Surely he'll come good.
I'm convinced he's carrying a niggle. Not his usual dominating self.
Trick will be to time the jump on. Not worth the price right now although can't see him dropping much further.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ringo on April 30, 2018, 07:31:57 PM
I am still without Danger and more interested in Macrae or Treloar as an upgrade this week.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Dudge on April 30, 2018, 07:42:32 PM
Danger is/was my no. 1 get, but may just wait a week or 2
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: duffercoat on April 30, 2018, 07:58:03 PM
Danger definitely isn't playing well enough to justify him as the trade target/price he once was. I was interested to read though that Geelong has the worst average clearance differential in the competition at -9 with the next worst at -3. Means that there's a chance Geelong change their way realising that playing Danger in the forward line a lot just isn't worth it.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: no eye deer on April 30, 2018, 08:10:19 PM
Danger definitely isn't playing well enough to justify him as the trade target/price he once was. I was interested to read though that Geelong has the worst average clearance differential in the competition at -9 with the next worst at -3. Means that there's a chance Geelong change their way realising that playing Danger in the forward line a lot just isn't worth it.

I regret starting him, but if Scott finally moves him back to mids, he will dominate.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ringo on April 30, 2018, 08:35:18 PM
Just reading an article that says Cats are worst clearance team this year. This can partly be attributed to their lack of Rucks - Zac Smith has not played since rd 1 with cats prefering Stanley and Ratugolea due to their better athleticism around the ground.
Really noticed it against Swans in 4th quarter where Selwood, Dangerfield and Duncan were all at centre bounces in last quarter and did not get the clearance and the cats lost all 7 centre bounces. So is it Dangers loss of form or lack of ruck hit outs to advantage.
Will be watching Danger over the next few weeks with Ablet back and see if there is any improvement at all.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: _wato on April 30, 2018, 09:03:25 PM
Don't know for the life of me why they don't play Zac Smith.

Danger playing way too much forward for me and much like Dusty with all the time forward, if goals don't come you can expect some average 90-110 scores. With the time spent up there like they are both doing you need 4-5 goals each game for your normal 140's and this simply isn't sustainable.

Will be looking elsewhere until he proves he's the must he was last 2 years.

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: PowerBug on April 30, 2018, 09:24:34 PM
Am I the only one who isn't phased by not having Danger?

I just don't see the rush to get him at all based on his scoring and general impact/role

With guys like Titch, Dusty, Fyfe, Macrae, Cripps and Gawn being more than good enough for the C I just don't think Danger is the must have he once was

I'm sure he will bang out some big scores soon, but I can't see the constant 135+ every week like we have seen

He'll probably come out and smash a 180 this week now that I've said it haha, but I'm honestly more interested in getting Macrae and Cripps then I am Danger
Pretty much spot on I think. As someone that started him I have been baffled at how many are trading him in thinking they are somehow missing out. His playtime and position does not warrant his price. I mentioned after the Port game where I sat in the top stand and watched my captain play 80% fwd time that he was not a C option for me, still stand by that.

I would be more worried about Macrae going 160 than Danger going 160. And even then as you said RD those without have other captaincy options
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tommy10 on April 30, 2018, 09:33:43 PM
My priority is getting MCrouch next week as he will be cheap as chips. Will try and get in Danger somehow but it looks likely it’ll be after the bye.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: batt on April 30, 2018, 09:52:03 PM
Will be looking elsewhere until he proves he's the must he was last 2 years.
A matter of when, not if IMO.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: fanTCfool on April 30, 2018, 10:37:31 PM
Quote
Scott also said Ablett's star midfield teammates, Patrick Dangerfield and skipper Joel Selwood, have been playing under some duress.

"Pat, I think it's reasonably well-known that he had an interrupted pre-season with a back issue. He's not at his best at the moment," Scott said.

"I think it's a little bit of lack of preparation and we knew that going in. He got a decent corked calf one week, he's clearly good enough to be out there.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: batt on April 30, 2018, 10:47:34 PM
Quote
Scott also said Ablett's star midfield teammates, Patrick Dangerfield and skipper Joel Selwood, have been playing under some duress.

"Pat, I think it's reasonably well-known that he had an interrupted pre-season with a back issue. He's not at his best at the moment," Scott said.

"I think it's a little bit of lack of preparation and we knew that going in. He got a decent corked calf one week, he's clearly good enough to be out there.
What, between you and your coaching staff Chris?

Am I crazy or was this definitely not "well known" during preseason?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ingram on May 01, 2018, 03:47:08 AM
I remember Freako retweeting that.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on May 01, 2018, 08:13:03 AM
Quote
Scott also said Ablett's star midfield teammates, Patrick Dangerfield and skipper Joel Selwood, have been playing under some duress.

"Pat, I think it's reasonably well-known that he had an interrupted pre-season with a back issue. He's not at his best at the moment," Scott said.

"I think it's a little bit of lack of preparation and we knew that going in. He got a decent corked calf one week, he's clearly good enough to be out there.
What, between you and your coaching staff Chris?

Am I crazy or was this definitely not "well known" during preseason?
I knew he had a back issue preseason.
Pretty sure someone posted about it on here.
Didn't know it was still an issue till now but I had my suspicions.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Huttabito on May 01, 2018, 09:25:03 AM
Quote
Scott also said Ablett's star midfield teammates, Patrick Dangerfield and skipper Joel Selwood, have been playing under some duress.

"Pat, I think it's reasonably well-known that he had an interrupted pre-season with a back issue. He's not at his best at the moment," Scott said.

"I think it's a little bit of lack of preparation and we knew that going in. He got a decent corked calf one week, he's clearly good enough to be out there.
What, between you and your coaching staff Chris?

Am I crazy or was this definitely not "well known" during preseason?
Was definitely made public. Then tweaked his hammy reassuring there was probably a back issue.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Miss Pies on May 01, 2018, 09:37:16 AM
He's gonna have to drop in price, lift his game and be more consistent if I decide to get him in. Had to trade Crouch out early with his injury and wasn't happy bout that so will be focusing more on getting him back in.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Jelemas on May 01, 2018, 03:50:03 PM
Danger has probably settled as my last mid upgrade for T.Kelly when ready. I'm happy it hasn't cost me too badly not having him yet but will certainly get him in. The fact that Kelly has done so well I think should allow me to bring him in just like any other upgrade. The reason I get him last for my midfield though is cause I wanna use all my $$ value at this stage.For example, I'd prefer to bring in Crouch next week +100k then Danger next week. However he is only one score of 150+ away from being almost must get.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on May 01, 2018, 04:10:39 PM
If this is what he scores when injured/out of position then it's pretty bloody solid. Glad I didn't pay top dollar to get him in though. Will upgrade to him eventually
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: crowls on May 01, 2018, 04:41:11 PM
To be honest I feel a bit twisted.   In the past been willing to skip one superprem each year.   Has been Gaz and Pendles, dusty upforward.   Did not go that way this year as I could not see Danger only averaging 100. and dropping 150k quickly.   Felt he would have a few low games with his normal 140-160 in between.  In those circumstances it is difficult to find the cash to bring him in before or during the byes.    This year that guy is grundy.   

Those who held off on Danger have the advantage through additional 100-150k in funds to disperse and not missing
out on the points.   

Congratulations to the coaches who started Grundy and left out Danger.   You are probably doing very well so far.   Well played.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on May 01, 2018, 07:02:07 PM
In the end Danger should average 110+ so no drama, will probably get down to 580k so paying up at the beginning was the wrong move.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on May 01, 2018, 07:33:01 PM
In the end Danger should average 110+ so no drama, will probably get down to 580k so paying up at the beginning was the wrong move.
Yeah he'll still be a top 8 mid. 120+ very doable given he's going 112 with a niggle or two.
Think Crouch is a higher priority for me and many others given how cheap he'll be next week.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: YoungGun on May 01, 2018, 11:41:27 PM
As part of the group that were rolling the dice on not starting danger irrelevant of that hammy that scared everyone off, I feel like this slow start is just what was hoped for. And in saying that, I can het him this week and at a decent discount. Sure his BE is 150 but he could hit it Friday night and if he does I want those points.

More a matter of when he will resume dominating for mine - so I'm gonna take the chance this week and lock him in.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: bkimm32 on May 02, 2018, 11:48:48 AM
As part of the group that were rolling the dice on not starting danger irrelevant of that hammy that scared everyone off, I feel like this slow start is just what was hoped for. And in saying that, I can het him this week and at a decent discount. Sure his BE is 150 but he could hit it Friday night and if he does I want those points.

More a matter of when he will resume dominating for mine - so I'm gonna take the chance this week and lock him in.
I'm with you on this one. Now is the time. I feel like if I wait until next week I will regret it massively.

Although hoping Buddy will be close to playing this week if not next otherwise I might need to do something about that... wish I started Heeney now :(
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on May 04, 2018, 08:43:21 AM
I'm starting to get the feeling that he could go bang and explode vs a depleted GWS tonight. His last 3 scores vs them have been huge too

Do I bring him in? I think I would prefer Crouch for 100k cheaper next week

Can't get both due to bye
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: jvalles69 on May 04, 2018, 09:47:36 AM
I'm starting to get the feeling that he could go bang and explode vs a depleted GWS tonight. His last 3 scores vs them have been huge too

Do I bring him in? I think I would prefer Crouch for 100k cheaper next week

Can't get both due to bye

I was almost swayed by the mass to get Macrae this week, but have gone with Danger the proven premo.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ricochet on May 04, 2018, 04:18:26 PM
Was going to bring him in early but Scott's comments earlier in the week about him being sore put a little doubt in my mind. Might just be the general week in week out soreness, or might be a little bit more. Either way I'm going to wait a week or two.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tommy10 on May 04, 2018, 04:37:38 PM
Will wait and see if he’s back to his best before jumping on him. Crouch at $100k less is much more tempting and I want Danger to string a couple of big scores before deciding on bringing him in.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on May 04, 2018, 04:40:18 PM
Was going to bring him in early but Scott's comments earlier in the week about him being sore put a little doubt in my mind. Might just be the general week in week out soreness, or might be a little bit more. Either way I'm going to wait a week or two.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on May 04, 2018, 10:18:19 PM
Feel like I'm not missing out on much by not having him atm.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on May 04, 2018, 10:25:12 PM
Still gonna lose a stack load of cash. Probably won't bother till after the byes, he's not a must have this year
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Gigantor on May 04, 2018, 10:38:44 PM
Still gonna lose a stack load of cash. Probably won't bother till after the byes, he's not a must have this year

Will be around 620k with a be of 170 odd
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tommy10 on May 04, 2018, 10:42:48 PM
Hoping to get him for around $550k...now that would be a bargain  8)
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on May 04, 2018, 10:43:21 PM
Still gonna lose a stack load of cash. Probably won't bother till after the byes, he's not a must have this year

Will be around 620k with a be of 170 odd

Perfect. Gonna probably dip below 600 over the next couple
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tor01doc on May 04, 2018, 10:44:51 PM
Still gonna lose a stack load of cash. Probably won't bother till after the byes, he's not a must have this year

Will be around 620k with a be of 170 odd

630 160
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: sammy123 on May 04, 2018, 10:48:32 PM
Hoping to get him for around $550k...now that would be a bargain  8)

I would love for him to stink up until his bye then go  ballistic  ah that eould b perfert
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Gigantor on May 04, 2018, 11:01:27 PM
Still gonna lose a stack load of cash. Probably won't bother till after the byes, he's not a must have this year

Will be around 620k with a be of 170 odd

630 160

Think you are being a bit generous but either way he is dropping!
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tor01doc on May 04, 2018, 11:59:24 PM
Like a stone  ;)

And very reminiscent of how I felt after that fateful phone call from my first girlfriend
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on May 05, 2018, 12:22:30 AM
Was close to bringing him in, but just couldn't pull the trigger based on his average scoring to date and price - glad I passed

Definitely not looking like a must that's for sure

Kelly (and GAJ) coming in are impacting his mid time, so even though he's so good up forward I can't see how he can go 130+ week in week out, and because guys like Duncan, Kelly, Scooter etc can't play forward (and GAJ doesn't really want to) he won't get the mid minutes he was getting the past 2 years, and based on all of that he is no longer the must have player

I'll look to bring him in if he does improve, but he's probably a post bye upgrade target now - maybe even Kelly to Danger after their bye if Kelly starts to slow down

Sub 600k Danger is the goal now, which looks a near lock
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Maca24 on May 05, 2018, 10:45:32 AM
Was close to bringing him in, but just couldn't pull the trigger based on his average scoring to date and price - glad I passed

Definitely not looking like a must that's for sure

Kelly (and GAJ) coming in are impacting his mid time, so even though he's so good up forward I can't see how he can go 130+ week in week out, and because guys like Duncan, Kelly, Scooter etc can't play forward (and GAJ doesn't really want to) he won't get the mid minutes he was getting the past 2 years, and based on all of that he is no longer the must have player

I'll look to bring him in if he does improve, but he's probably a post bye upgrade target now - maybe even Kelly to Danger after their bye if Kelly starts to slow down

Sub 600k Danger is the goal now, which looks a near lock
I just traded him in and am a little annoyed, but not overly worried.
He is obviously carrying something and still scoring pretty decent and when he comes good everyone will want him in there team.
It’s a matter of when not if
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: H1bb3i2d on May 05, 2018, 12:48:23 PM
Didn't look like he did much when I watched the game, still tonned up. I'd still like to get him in ASAP, maybe next week
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: shaker on May 05, 2018, 12:53:24 PM
Didn't look like he did much when I watched the game, still tonned up. I'd still like to get him in ASAP, maybe next week
His first half was ordinary but he looked more like the real Danger in the second half , don't think it's down to being sore just looks like he's down on form to me .... sure he will come good  ;)
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: jfitty on May 05, 2018, 12:59:23 PM
Kelly > Danger for 100k? ;D
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: jvalles69 on May 05, 2018, 01:06:29 PM
I'm not unhappy that I brought him, looked real good in patches, once he gets his consistency back he'll be the top dog, one less thing I need to worry about.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ringo on May 05, 2018, 01:44:07 PM
Didn't look like he did much when I watched the game, still tonned up. I'd still like to get him in ASAP, maybe next week
His first half was ordinary but he looked more like the real Danger in the second half , don't think it's down to being sore just looks like he's down on form to me .... sure he will come good  ;)
Agree with this he was only on 37 points at HT. 2 goals in second half also helped.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: quinny88 on May 06, 2018, 03:15:04 AM
I'm not unhappy that I brought him, looked real good in patches, once he gets his consistency back he'll be the top dog, one less thing I need to worry about.

Macrae is the new top dog. Danger has been dethroned!
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Gigantor on May 06, 2018, 09:14:10 PM
Still gonna lose a stack load of cash. Probably won't bother till after the byes, he's not a must have this year

Will be around 620k with a be of 170 odd

So close!

619.8k be 168
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tor01doc on May 06, 2018, 09:23:09 PM
Still gonna lose a stack load of cash. Probably won't bother till after the byes, he's not a must have this year

Will be around 620k with a be of 170 odd

So close!

619.8k be 168

"Defiantly" nearest the pin

Good maths
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: _wato on May 06, 2018, 09:46:25 PM
Not a must have.

These forward stints are killing his scores.

Happy to pick him up way down the track.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Gigantor on May 06, 2018, 09:52:18 PM
Not a must have.

These forward stints are killing his scores.

Happy to pick him up way down the track.

Yeah with JOM and Tkelly my M7/M8 I've got bigger problems on field to sort out!
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: PowerBug on May 06, 2018, 09:52:24 PM
Fantasy Freako @FantasyFreako14h14 hours ago
Dangerfield has had a 40-60 (Mid-Fwd) split in his past three games.

Why anyone would trade him in knowing this is baffling.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: upthemaidens on May 07, 2018, 05:27:36 AM
Fantasy Freako @FantasyFreako14h14 hours ago
Dangerfield has had a 40-60 (Mid-Fwd) split in his past three games.

Why anyone would trade him in knowing this is baffling.
He'll be popular next season as the best Forward.   Expect he'll get dpp in this years mid season position changes in AF.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Maca24 on May 07, 2018, 02:06:37 PM
Fantasy Freako @FantasyFreako14h14 hours ago
Dangerfield has had a 40-60 (Mid-Fwd) split in his past three games.

Why anyone would trade him in knowing this is baffling.
That can easily change!
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on May 07, 2018, 02:42:25 PM
Fantasy Freako @FantasyFreako14h14 hours ago
Dangerfield has had a 40-60 (Mid-Fwd) split in his past three games.

Why anyone would trade him in knowing this is baffling.
That can easily change!
Yes it can. But will it? And when?
Hawkins will miss one maybe two? So he's needed fwd there.
Then there's GAJ to come back, even more reason to play Danger fwd.
And he's still carrying a niggle.
The cat's midfield depth with Selwood bros.,Kelly,Duncan,Menegola,even Blicavs when Taylor comes back means they can afford to play him fwd.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Woppa15 on May 07, 2018, 02:44:55 PM
Not a must have.

These forward stints are killing his scores.

Happy to pick him up way down the track.

Might be nice Mid/Fwd selection for 2019 along with Dusty...... :)
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Marstar on May 07, 2018, 08:35:18 PM
Not a must have.

These forward stints are killing his scores.

Happy to pick him up way down the track.

Not a must right now definitely ... but his forward stints have only killed his 130 average.

His 110-115 average is not affected ... and there's only upside should he get more mid time.

That means he's ahead of M.Crouch, Treloar, JPK, Selwood, Neale, Oliver, Cripps and all those others who can match him if they perform well.

It's only a matter of how much you want to pay for security.  Maybe $620K is too much right now ... maybe Menzel and Ablett come back into the forward line and this is the cheapest he'll ever be.

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: batt on May 07, 2018, 09:36:03 PM
How many more weeks do we have to wait for Danger's back to uncrook itself?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: tor01doc on May 07, 2018, 10:37:54 PM
Not a must have.

These forward stints are killing his scores.

Happy to pick him up way down the track.

Not a must right now definitely ... but his forward stints have only killed his 130 average.

His 110-115 average is not affected ... and there's only upside should he get more mid time.

That means he's ahead of M.Crouch, Treloar, JPK, Selwood, Neale, Oliver, Cripps and all those others who can match him if they perform well.

It's only a matter of how much you want to pay for security.  Maybe $620K is too much right now ... maybe Menzel and Ablett come back into the forward line and this is the cheapest he'll ever be.

Needs 168 to break even?

He will get cheaper.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: _wato on May 07, 2018, 10:55:59 PM
Not a must have.

These forward stints are killing his scores.

Happy to pick him up way down the track.

Not a must right now definitely ... but his forward stints have only killed his 130 average.

His 110-115 average is not affected ... and there's only upside should he get more mid time.

That means he's ahead of M.Crouch, Treloar, JPK, Selwood, Neale, Oliver, Cripps and all those others who can match him if they perform well.

It's only a matter of how much you want to pay for security.  Maybe $620K is too much right now ... maybe Menzel and Ablett come back into the forward line and this is the cheapest he'll ever be.

The big question is and people keep forgetting this

Will Danger get the mid time he once had? My answer is no
They picked up two recruits, Ablett and Kelly because they needed to fill a hole. Geelong have been good but haven’t been great enough in the two years Danger has been there to push deep into finals. He is a natural forward as he is midfielder and I can tell you right now that the role he is playing is more beneficial to the team than what we care about in terms of Fantasy.

Jelwood can’t play forward as good as he does, Duncan cannot, Scooter cannot, Kelly cannot and then there’s blokes like Menegola, GHS, Blicavs, Guthrie etc who can play through the mids and do a good enough job. That eats into his time.

It’s no secret that both Danger and Dusty are playing very similar roles. Start in the centre at clearances and then push forward and plug a hole at Full forward.

For the scores where Danger goes 130+ there’ll also be the 80’s and 90’s and that’s when he doesn’t kick goals. Look at Dusty, 3 rd average of 90 odd and not playing spectacularly. Why? He isn’t kicking goals.
I’d be surprised if the split went anywhere past a 60/40 mid forward and atm we’re seeing a 40/60 and 110 average.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RoughRed on May 07, 2018, 11:32:16 PM
Not a must have.

These forward stints are killing his scores.

Happy to pick him up way down the track.

Not a must right now definitely ... but his forward stints have only killed his 130 average.

His 110-115 average is not affected ... and there's only upside should he get more mid time.

That means he's ahead of M.Crouch, Treloar, JPK, Selwood, Neale, Oliver, Cripps and all those others who can match him if they perform well.

It's only a matter of how much you want to pay for security.  Maybe $620K is too much right now ... maybe Menzel and Ablett come back into the forward line and this is the cheapest he'll ever be.

The big question is and people keep forgetting this

Will Danger get the mid time he once had? My answer is no
They picked up two recruits, Ablett and Kelly because they needed to fill a hole. Geelong have been good but haven’t been great enough in the two years Danger has been there to push deep into finals. He is a natural forward as he is midfielder and I can tell you right now that the role he is playing is more beneficial to the team than what we care about in terms of Fantasy.

Jelwood can’t play forward as good as he does, Duncan cannot, Scooter cannot, Kelly cannot and then there’s blokes like Menegola, GHS, Blicavs, Guthrie etc who can play through the mids and do a good enough job. That eats into his time.

It’s no secret that both Danger and Dusty are playing very similar roles. Start in the centre at clearances and then push forward and plug a hole at Full forward.

For the scores where Danger goes 130+ there’ll also be the 80’s and 90’s and that’s when he doesn’t kick goals. Look at Dusty, 3 rd average of 90 odd and not playing spectacularly. Why? He isn’t kicking goals.
I’d be surprised if the split went anywhere past a 60/40 mid forward and atm we’re seeing a 40/60 and 110 average.
Great observations
only problem with Danger as a more forward-mid at the moment is he is playing on 2 legs
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Marstar on May 08, 2018, 12:12:41 AM
Not a must have.

These forward stints are killing his scores.

Happy to pick him up way down the track.

Not a must right now definitely ... but his forward stints have only killed his 130 average.

His 110-115 average is not affected ... and there's only upside should he get more mid time.

That means he's ahead of M.Crouch, Treloar, JPK, Selwood, Neale, Oliver, Cripps and all those others who can match him if they perform well.

It's only a matter of how much you want to pay for security.  Maybe $620K is too much right now ... maybe Menzel and Ablett come back into the forward line and this is the cheapest he'll ever be.

The big question is and people keep forgetting this

Will Danger get the mid time he once had? My answer is no
They picked up two recruits, Ablett and Kelly because they needed to fill a hole. Geelong have been good but haven’t been great enough in the two years Danger has been there to push deep into finals. He is a natural forward as he is midfielder and I can tell you right now that the role he is playing is more beneficial to the team than what we care about in terms of Fantasy.

Jelwood can’t play forward as good as he does, Duncan cannot, Scooter cannot, Kelly cannot and then there’s blokes like Menegola, GHS, Blicavs, Guthrie etc who can play through the mids and do a good enough job. That eats into his time.

It’s no secret that both Danger and Dusty are playing very similar roles. Start in the centre at clearances and then push forward and plug a hole at Full forward.

For the scores where Danger goes 130+ there’ll also be the 80’s and 90’s and that’s when he doesn’t kick goals. Look at Dusty, 3 rd average of 90 odd and not playing spectacularly. Why? He isn’t kicking goals.
I’d be surprised if the split went anywhere past a 60/40 mid forward and atm we’re seeing a 40/60 and 110 average.

Not disagreeing with your evaluation, but let me add to it.

Ablett was given his chance to fill that midfield roll and he broke down after 3 games.  What are the odds he and Danger swap roles when he gets back into fitness? Also note that Hawkins missed R5 and Menzel has missed rounds 5-7.  When Richmond need an extra target deep forward they don't have any1 but Dusty ... Geelong structure up differently.

Also the split by timemight be 40/60, but according to the Heat Map (via the AFL Live Pass) Danger has a perfect 50:50 split between forward and defense for possessions.

7 touches in the back 50
76 in the in the back half of midfield
55 in the forward half of midfield
29 in the forward 50

The key thing to note is his virtual absence in the back 50 compared to other mids.  6/7 of those touches came in Round 2 and 3 when Ablett , Menzel and Hawkins all played.

Will he get the opportunity to compete more in the back 50 when Menzel and Ablett return? Maybe wait till then to re-access and pick him up at a cheaper price? Happy to agree this is a wise choice for those that aren't convinced.

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on May 08, 2018, 08:13:09 AM
Signs looked good from Danger last week in second half. Will be a big game vs Pies and it may be the week he explodes.
Many said that last week mind you.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bluesalltheway on May 08, 2018, 08:05:52 PM
Signs looked good from Danger last week in second half. Will be a big game vs Pies and it may be the week he explodes.
Many said that last week mind you.

People have been saying this for the last few weeks now. I have him, and have accepted the fact that due to injury or Geelong's team composition, he is simply playing forward for too much of the game to put together a consistent, 4-quarter game, let alone do that over a number of games.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: MontyJnr on May 09, 2018, 02:10:43 PM
You’re only essential in the midfield if you are a genuine captaincy option.

I wouldn’t trust him anywhere near the C right now.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Woppa15 on May 09, 2018, 03:34:23 PM
With Hawk out and it looking like Ablett will be back I’d almost guarantee Danger will play most of the game fwd against the Pies....
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Judd Magic on May 11, 2018, 04:20:33 AM
With Hawk out and it looking like Ablett will be back I’d almost guarantee Danger will play most of the game fwd against the Pies....
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: duffercoat on May 26, 2018, 11:11:58 PM
Played a ripper first half tonight in the middle but then had to play forward once Ratugolea went down. I feel thats likely to force him forward more is going to return to scoring below his best. Does anyone know if the Cats have any other possible tall forwards they could bring in to let Danger play in the mids?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: MontyJnr on May 27, 2018, 12:08:11 AM
Played a ripper first half tonight in the middle but then had to play forward once Ratugolea went down. I feel thats likely to force him forward more is going to return to scoring below his best. Does anyone know if the Cats have any other possible tall forwards they could bring in to let Danger play in the mids?

Along with Hawkins & Crameri, Geelong have played Taylor (late out tonight), Stanley (played ruck tonight) & Black (played defence tonight) up forward in the past. Buzza is another tall forward/ruck option who is playing VFL currently.

Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Rusty00 on May 27, 2018, 08:11:02 AM
Played a ripper first half tonight in the middle but then had to play forward once Ratugolea went down. I feel thats likely to force him forward more is going to return to scoring below his best. Does anyone know if the Cats have any other possible tall forwards they could bring in to let Danger play in the mids?

Along with Hawkins & Crameri, Geelong have played Taylor (late out tonight), Stanley (played ruck tonight) & Black (played defence tonight) up forward in the past. Buzza is another tall forward/ruck option who is playing VFL currently.
Zac Smith could come back in as well. Menzel’s the one we need to come back to limit Danger’s forward time
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Maca24 on May 27, 2018, 09:25:01 AM
Played a ripper first half tonight in the middle but then had to play forward once Ratugolea went down. I feel thats likely to force him forward more is going to return to scoring below his best. Does anyone know if the Cats have any other possible tall forwards they could bring in to let Danger play in the mids?

Along with Hawkins & Crameri, Geelong have played Taylor (late out tonight), Stanley (played ruck tonight) & Black (played defence tonight) up forward in the past. Buzza is another tall forward/ruck option who is playing VFL currently.
Zac Smith could come back in as well. Menzel’s the one we need to come back to limit Danger’s forward time
Add Taylor back as well and structurally Danger will be a predominate mid
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: sammy123 on May 27, 2018, 10:02:53 AM
Do people think jelwood to danger is to sideways. Was considering it come rd 14 as i only have 6 players out that round atm
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: elephants on May 28, 2018, 08:15:01 PM
Wouldn't be surprised to see Geelong play Zac Smith with Rhys Stanley fwd/ruck in the Rat role now
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: PowerBug on August 16, 2018, 04:30:58 PM
If you were told at the start of the season Danger would only go below 100 once from Rd 2 to Rd 21, and that was a 94, and miss no more games, would you have started with him?

I'm looking back on this one now and although at around the bye I was thinking it was a mistake to start him because he hasn't replicated last year, he's gone at 120 for the year, hit the ton 18/19 games and has started been in captaincy consideration on the run home. It was a saved trade, many that had him ended up fielding Holman's 90 in the first round because of it so didn't lose out there.

Has done alright I think, as long as he gets through the next 2 weeks of course :P
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Gigantor on August 16, 2018, 05:03:39 PM
If you were told at the start of the season Danger would only go below 100 once from Rd 2 to Rd 21, and that was a 94, and miss no more games, would you have started with him?

I'm looking back on this one now and although at around the bye I was thinking it was a mistake to start him because he hasn't replicated last year, he's gone at 120 for the year, hit the ton 18/19 games and has started been in captaincy consideration on the run home. It was a saved trade, many that had him ended up fielding Holman's 90 in the first round because of it so didn't lose out there.

Has done alright I think, as long as he gets through the next 2 weeks of course :P

Definitely would have started him with that hindsight, especially considering how so many of 2017's premo mids were dud starting picks this year, Martin, Sloane, Zorko, Zerrett, Kelly, GAJ just to name a few

Danger, TMitch, Oliver, Cripps, Conigs was probably the best combo for this year.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Torpedo10 on August 16, 2018, 05:09:31 PM
Highly satisfied having started him + Holman's 90 in R1.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: frenzy on August 16, 2018, 05:14:40 PM
If you were told at the start of the season Danger would only go below 100 once from Rd 2 to Rd 21, and that was a 94, and miss no more games, would you have started with him?

I'm looking back on this one now and although at around the bye I was thinking it was a mistake to start him because he hasn't replicated last year, he's gone at 120 for the year, hit the ton 18/19 games and has started been in captaincy consideration on the run home. It was a saved trade, many that had him ended up fielding Holman's 90 in the first round because of it so didn't lose out there.

Has done alright I think, as long as he gets through the next 2 weeks of course :P

I started him, but $749k was way too much to spend. Could of started Cripps and the cash saved could go to starting Conigs instead of rookie Brayshaw. I reckon he's priced spot on atm.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 16, 2018, 05:21:58 PM
No regrets not starting him

750k for someone who barely put up a C worthy score has to be considered a fail

Getting him in that 575-600k was the optimal play, but I didn't end up getting him at all
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: ubeaut on August 16, 2018, 05:22:19 PM
If you were told at the start of the season Danger would only go below 100 once from Rd 2 to Rd 21, and that was a 94, and miss no more games, would you have started with him?

I'm looking back on this one now and although at around the bye I was thinking it was a mistake to start him because he hasn't replicated last year, he's gone at 120 for the year, hit the ton 18/19 games and has started been in captaincy consideration on the run home. It was a saved trade, many that had him ended up fielding Holman's 90 in the first round because of it so didn't lose out there.

Has done alright I think, as long as he gets through the next 2 weeks of course :P
Still happy not to have started him. Didn't go below 94, but didn't have a superior average to others and was not captain worthy most weeks. At 750k u need captain scores regularly. Picked him up 130+k cheaper at the right time, and Titch,Cripps,Oliver and Fyfe held the fort till then.
Wish I'd left Dusty out as well.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: SilverLion on August 16, 2018, 05:30:56 PM
Got him for around 596k in Round 10. Hasn't gone under 100 yet since I've had him. No regrets not starting him.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bluesalltheway on August 16, 2018, 06:43:50 PM
As someone who started him, I think it was the wrong move. Even though he's been a great midfield premo, the 750k outlay for him hampered the rest of my team, and meant I had to take more risks on guys like Armitage and Lobb, rather than shell out the extra money for 'set and forget' types like Heeney.

Picking him up for 600k mid-year was definitely the right move
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Marstar on August 17, 2018, 06:45:30 AM
As someone who started him, I think it was the wrong move. Even though he's been a great midfield premo, the 750k outlay for him hampered the rest of my team, and meant I had to take more risks on guys like Armitage and Lobb, rather than shell out the extra money for 'set and forget' types like Heeney.

Picking him up for 600k mid-year was definitely the right move

I got him in b4 round 3 as a correction trade and don’t think he hampered me at all. I got to an OR of 34 by round 9 and only ballooned out over top 200 after the byes due to poor choices rather than lack of funds.

I agree that those who got him at 600K did better ... but for me the surety of premo scores with his injury history (or lack there of) was worth the premium.
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: GoLions on August 17, 2018, 07:45:16 AM
No regrets not starting him

750k for someone who barely put up a C worthy score has to be considered a fail

Getting him in that 575-600k was the optimal play, but I didn't end up getting him at all
I would say not having him at all was the biggest fail tbh
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Bully on August 17, 2018, 05:36:44 PM
What was the biggest fail? Staring Dusty or starting Danger?
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: no eye deer on August 17, 2018, 06:06:10 PM
What was the biggest fail? Staring Dusty or starting Danger?

How about starting Danger and bringing in Dusty in round three? :-\
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Ricochet on August 17, 2018, 06:11:10 PM
What was the biggest fail? Staring Dusty or starting Danger?

How about starting Danger and bringing in Dusty in round three? :-\
:-X
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: Torpedo10 on August 18, 2018, 10:36:16 AM
What was the biggest fail? Staring Dusty or starting Danger?

How about starting Danger and bringing in Dusty in round three? :-\
;D :'(
Title: Re: To Danger, or Not to Danger
Post by: no eye deer on August 19, 2018, 09:39:41 AM
What was the biggest fail? Staring Dusty or starting Danger?

How about starting Danger and bringing in Dusty in round three? :-\
;D :'(

Well it did allow me to unload Hibberd, so it wasn’t all bad I suppose. Cripps would have been a better choice though.