BBFFL#2 2016 Discussion

Only reason for traditionally holding back the trade period is to see what clubs players are traded to etc. Also there is a chance a traded player could be delisted - which is still a risk come AFL trade period.

Yeah i didn’t think about that. Makes sense to hold off until then.

No doubt I’ll get smacked down as usual, but I would like to address the question of the number of keepers in this competition again.
Discarding 1/3 of the team and only having 20 keepers is far too harsh in my opinion.

  1. It really disadvantages sides with quality players who have very long term injuries.
  2. It makes it nearly impossible to invest long term in young players (especially rucks) and still field a competitive team each season.
    In the past I have suggested 25 keepers, but even a small change to 22 keepers would make for a much better balance.
    '51 Bewick.

Yeah i’ve always hated the 20 keepers too.
Would prefer it to be like floating with like min 20 - max 27 keepers.

I for one am against the small list of keepers. I draft for long term and to lose these players would suck. Some players take longer to develop. I reckon 27 keepers is a good thing

So the Draft would be three rounds? Nah.

22 absolute maximum imo. I should support more as someone who drafts kids, but there has to be an element of making tough calls.

You could make it 22 or 25 or whatever but it doesn’t hide the fact that we should increase the amount of keepers.

Agree with others here, would prefer more than 20.

I’ve argued for more keepers before, but I’m not actually sure it’s a good thing. 20 keepers forces teams to evaluate each keeper closely and balance potential versus week in and week out performance. If you can keep 25 or 27 (or whatever players) you don’t really need to make that call at all. Additionally, 20 keepers forces the top teams to cut 1/3 of their list which improves the depth of the draft and makes it harder for them to stay up there.

More keepers is probably one of those things that individually everyone would like, but might actually make the competition worse. If we do increase it I would think 22 should be the absolute maximum… that lets you keep your starting lineup and bench.

One thing I think we clearly need to talk about is positions. The last 2 seasons of using UF positions has caused a lot of angst, this year with Centres (after the swap from a utility position to a C spot), last year it was Rucks. Personally I just don’t think UF positions are working and we should probably figure out what the alternatives might be.

Don’t agree at all that keepers lists should be more than 20.

Part of the game is understanding that you’ve only got 20 keepers and planning as appropriate. Don’t blame the system for having to delist players you regard as good.

The more keepers you have firstly the weaker the draft, which in turn makes it harder for the weaker sides to catch up to the stronger ones.

Secondly plenty of teams, myself included often redraft players anyway after cutting them. It’s not like you are just handing players to other people.

On positions, pretty much all the C only issues would be resolved by reverting back to the 5-6-1-5 and one utility formation we had last year (rather than the 7 mids) which was probably a better balance.
Rucks we’ve talked about before, there isn’t a heap we can do. Potentially we could just make a judgement call on rucks now. I think using UF positions by and large is the answer, but if we had a list of rucks which were approved by the majority that could work.
Must admit I didn’t love the ruck relief rule. Think some coaches used that instead of making every effort to replace players.

I’ll post some more things when I get a chance but my quick comments are:

-20 keepers seems to balance lists well. It rewards good liste by allowing them to keep most of their team together while it also means enough players of quality are cut to allow teams to improve via the draft. I understand some developing teams think they are giving up young players with potential but top teams are also giving up proven performers so it’s swings and roundabouts. Also a big thing is that the draft is the largest interaction between coaches. If we lessen the need for the draft I would argue you lessen the overall appeal of our league.
-On player positions I agree we haven’t worked out the ruck issue to satisfactio. However I believe the centre issue will be resolved in 2017 when an additional 16 or so of the suspended players are back in the free agent pool. For this reason I’m not supportive of going back to utility player.

Some good points made so far.
You know the old saying that supporters always talk about, “Leave the rules alone” well we should listen to them.

There is nothing wrong with the standard format on UF, there is no shortage of C’s and R’s needed to be well managed by their coaches and there would have been no issue there either. As i pointed out earlier this year there were several opportunities for coaches to draft and or trade R’s but they chose not to do so, so they should not have the rules manipulated to suit them.

The coaches not drafting rucks are gaining advantages. Firstly they get to have an extra player in another area of the field and secondly they then get assistance to use an F as a ruck. It’s unfair hand holding and goes against the spirit of a competition.

My suggestion is that we revert to the standard way things were before we started tinkering and “leave the rules alone”

Yeah I’d prefer coaches cop the zero than get ruck relief.

Agree with everything Melk has said about squad lists and also the ruck situation. Haven’t got a reliable ruckman, then you need to make a trade, no different to if you have an issue with forwards or defenders. I’ll have to cut more than 10 this year because of the returns of Hooker, Carlisle and Monfries and it will be difficult decision to make, but the draft pool was as diluted as I can remember last season, allowing guys to keep 25 would make that even worse.

3 All Australians again for Burras - Tom Lynch (GCS), Toby Greene (GWS) and Dane Rampe (Swans).
An amazing performance for a team that finished 10th.

I could see as a compromise between those who want more keepers and those who don’t, maybe allow 1-2 keeper “rookie” spots for players who are rising star eligible still, 21 or under at season start and less than 10 games played.

I vote 22 keepers. Thats fair i reckon

I think

6 defenders
5 mids
6 forwards
1 ruck

Works best. But thats just my opinion. Definately not a fan of the current setup

I vote 22 keepers. Thats fair i reckon

I think

6 defenders
5 mids
6 forwards
1 ruck

Works best. But thats just my opinion. Definately not a fan of the current setup

A very reasonable suggestion that gives a little to both sides of the discussion.

I’d also like to apply for a priority pick this year.

Forgot to mention previously, everyone who has more than 30 players on their list needs to trim back to 30 ahead of the trade period.

This will affect both LTI players and the Ess suspended players.
My side for example currently has 35 (30 + 2 LTIs + 3 susp players) so I’ll need to delist 5 guys ahead of trade period.

So where needed:
On UF, Go to the ‘My Team’ page, and use the ‘Delist Player’ button which is under the ‘you have used x of your 30 available free agent signings for the season’ banner.