Geez, hope Gaff ends up somewhere next season… Sheed’s been damn good in his role, would be awesome for my team :P.
Anthony Miles to Gold Coast makes him fantasy relevant again! Looks like I will have some mids up for trade again this year.
Before we get into trading, as usual there were a number of big issues raised during this season that were never really dealt with/decided on. I don’t really have time to go re-read 1300 odd posts right now, does anyone remember what they were?
We seem to do this every year, people get upset/want to change things mid year and by the end of year everyone’s forgotten :P.
I will put a summary together of what I see as the main issues raised by the collective group of coaches.
I’ve been allowed in. Low expectations of blitz allowed for it.
Really looking forward to it.
I’m probably up for a season of learning and building.
But seriously who goes undefeated in any fantasy football. Insane.
Someone call security.
Sorry I did - responded now.
And just like that, Georgie Porgie may suddenly have some Fantasy Footy value. Maybe. Perhaps. Or not.
Bit of turnover on the O’Razzle Dazzlers this off-season. 3 retirees, 2 delistings and 4 players changing clubs. Hopefully the latter means better playing opportunities/situations and therefore better scoring!
Anyone else have similar turnover with their players?
Is there a good summary of retirees/delistees anywhere?
This is the best I have seen.
A lot of stuff has happened in the AFL that I didn’t know about, based on that list.
Sorry mate. I will try to get it done over the weekend.
So the major issues I believe raised during the season are as follows:
-dual position players
Let me know if there are any others.
Dual Position Players
This issue has a number of limbs. Firstly the lack of dual position players in my view increase the number of 0 scoring players. Secondly the use Champion Data player positions means that a player can easily jump position which makes long term list managemt in a keepers league like our more problematic.
My suggestion to this is that we blend CD’s positions from one season to another. So basically a player is guaranteed to keep their nominated position from one season to the next despite what changes CD make. Basically if CD decide a player was to go from a forward in 2018 to a mid in 2019, the player would be classed as a CF. Note this rule would not apply if CD allocates two positions to a player. Using this method would mean that more players end up with dual positions, while it also means lost management is less exposed to CD’s resetting of positions.
Proposal is to ensure teams don’t lose out with the double up fixtures. To me this is an easy fix with all teams playing 2 teams who had similar ladder finishes the previous season.
This is more an issue with the likely increase in Thursday night fixtures. I’m not certain on the work around. Selecting free agents post team selections seems to have worked well but Thursday night games makes this problematic (unless UF actually changes it functionality) with manual intervention required. Happy to hear suggestions.
For my money…
I think this is an overly convoluted solution to the problem. I’d prefer we go back to having the “utility” position of one spot that doesn’t have a positional requirement. Also think this is more reflective of the AFL in general with different teams playing to their strengths.
If you have an extra mid you can still play them there, if you have an extra ruckman you can play them or whatever else you have. Doesn’t require all the effort of fixing all the UF positions after they’re released, also avoids the issue of what if (using your example) after UF sets them to F and we set the player to CF, UF upgrades them to BF during the season?
Seems the fairest solution. How many double ups do we actually have in our fixture?
I think Thursday night games are just bad luck, you can’t get FA’s for that game and put them in your team, timing should stay the same. I would far prefer that we manually processed Waivers and FA to avoid the massive advantage currently granted to those who can stay up for it to go live. Would be willing to volunteer to process this if people voted for it and none of our current admins wanted to do it.
How would this work for someone like Wayne Milera who may move from two positions (CF) into one (B)?
I’m also pro the utility position. I think this worked very well and gives the best coverage for playing less zeroes.
Aside from anything else, it means a team could potentially play 7 defenders and field a full team when last year there always seemed to be plenty of defenders on the FA market.