The TEAM 2017 – Permanent Loophole

Written by Schwarzwalder on March 3 2017

If you’re on the site, then you’re part of the TEAM!

Today we’re voting on the possibility of a permanent loophole for our TEAM in 2017.  As I pointed out earlier in the Pre-Season, a permanent loophole can be extremely beneficial to your line-up over the entire season.  After researching the topic, Luke Strdanica (RUCK/FWD) of Freo looks to be the best option going around for that.

As it stands now, Preuss (back-up Ruckman) of North Melbourne might be in line for Rd1.  Given there seems to be enough good rookies in the other positions, should we sacrifice the R3 spot for the entire season?  Choose your answers carefully as it will affect the final line-up of the TEAM!

** If we decide on Preuss and he isn’t named for Rd1, he WON’T be in our starting line-up.  Just setting up the parameters of the TEAM for now. **

 

Should the TEAM make use of a permanent loophole for the entire season?

  • YES - Strnadica is the perfect fit for that (52%, 69 Votes)
  • NO - maximise cash cows, start with Preuss at R3 (48%, 64 Votes)

Total Voters: 133

Loading ... Loading ...

 

Would you be open to the idea of Preuss at R3 & Strnadica at F8? (depending on final R1 selections)

  • YES (56%, 69 Votes)
  • NO (44%, 55 Votes)

Total Voters: 124

Loading ... Loading ...

 

2
0


Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

23 thoughts on “The TEAM 2017 – Permanent Loophole”

  1. Doing Preuss at R3 & Strnadica at F8

    Pruess is a must have rookie, with crappy forward rooks shown up to the JLT. Once Pruess has made his $$ will swing Strnadica back to R3 and either upgrade Pruess intoa premo or downgrade him into a fwd rook

    14

    2
  2. Just something else to think about is if we had say Sandi at R2, and Strnadica at R3, and the big Turf Toe gets injured, what are Freo’s other rucks looking like at the moment? How are Jon Griffen and Zac Clarke travelling – the big Zac injured as we speak I think? The rookie might end up getting a gig depending on how long Sani was out if he did get injured early?

    3

    0
    1. Sandilands hasn’t had turn toe since 2012/13 and last year was a freak accident. He obviously has had the calf niggle this pre-season but tracking better than thought if he’s ready with still 2 JLT games to go.

      Clarke probably won’t play until mid season so we still have Griffin with chop outs from Taberner/Apeness. Strnadica would be a long long shot of debuting this season, Darcy would be more likely if we were required.

      11

      0
  3. If Preuss gets a gig why wouldn’t you use him at F8? With dual citizenship and cash cow potential. Solves the Ryder question also 🙂

    2

    1
    1. Listed as Ruck only unfortunately. Unless the SC Gods change him to dual position (not without precedent), R3 it will have to be.

      2

      0
  4. I requested ‘delete’ as I obviously stuffed it up 🙁
    The point my tiny little mind was trying to make was if you use R3 & F8 as mentioned then you get your permanent loophole, reserve ruck if Preuss gets the gig and a possible cashcow…….with the bonus of not having to risk including Ryder!

    2

    0
    1. Assuming we haven’t fallen for the whole “pre-season form equals real season form” thing, and that Preuss is going to get a lot of TOG. Not sure how the Rucks Poll came out, but that should probably influence us here.

      4

      0
  5. Why not get a player who we feel will play later in the season e.g Jarrod Berry or David Myers, from the get go and use them as the loophole. Should save a trade.

    11

    1
    1. Probably depends when their respective teams are fixtured to play (and when they get on the park is unknown).

      3

      0
  6. I submit that Danger is going to be in The Team at Round 1, and that he will most likely be C or VC every week. Therefore, we need to think about how we are hedging our bets.

    Father Dougal is WAY better at this kind of analysis than I, but looking over the draw, the Cats have very late fixtures in 5 of the first 6 rounds – hmm, when I started typing, I was going to suggest that meant we don’t need a loophole, but I think the opposite applies. Having Danger play late means we want to be able to swap the C away if our other selection fires up.

    All I’ve achieved is confusing myself. Any upcoming analysis by a resident guru to look into the way Danger and Strnadica complement each other, with respect to the whole loophole thing?

    10

    0
    1. I think you’re on the right track and as you said previously, what IF Preuss is a good cashcow option? The only position he can go in is Ruck.

      4

      0
    2. Thanks mate. 🙂

      I’ve started looking at who plays before and after the Dockers up to the byes, but I have a few things I need to get to first. But as far as just the Cats and Dockers

      1 Vs each other last match Sunday
      2 Sunday 1 before Sunday 4
      3 Saturday 4 before Saturday 7
      4 Monday after Saturday
      5 Sunday after Saturday
      6 Sunday after Saturday
      7 Saturday before Sunday
      8 Saturday before Sunday
      9 Friday
      10 Friday before Sunday
      11 Friday
      12 —
      13 Thursday
      14 Vs on Sunday
      15 Saturday before Sunday
      16 Saturday before Sunday
      17 Saturday before Sunday
      18 Friday before Saturday
      19 Saturday 7 after Saturday 2
      20 Friday before Saturday
      21 Saturday 2 after Saturday 1
      22 Saturday before Sunday
      23 ???

      So:
      3 byes, All with Danger early
      11 befores
      7 afters (including two vs each other)
      1 unscheduled

      The loophole is huge for avoiding a bad score. I assume I will take a 120 or better from my VC, and that less and I go to my Captain. That means I want my best player, meaning Danger, as the VC in the hopes of a killer score. If my best player comes after the VC, there is a big risk in going for a huge score over a good one, and I prefer to not take it.

      I think the Luke-hole is a gift horse not to be looked in the mouth

      5

      0
      1. I think overall I’m for the loophole, but last year i felt like it went against me a bit. On numerous occasions (maybe 4 or 5 times), I took a decent VC score (120ish) and subsequently missed out on the massive Dangerfield score. In hindsight i would have been better off setting and forgetting Dangerfield week by week.

        However, in the year where Fyfe and ablett were both on, it was pretty much impossible to get a bad score.

        2

        0
  7. Preuss getting time now doesn’t mean he will be rucking or even playing in the regular season. It means the Roos want to get him as much experience as they can in case Goldy goes down.

    11

    1
  8. My thoughts exactly Father. Preuss is a depth player. Depending on Brown’s knee maybe he plays round 1 but I doubt it.

    2

    1
  9. Seems like this loophole debate comes up every year. I’ve never been a fan of starting with a floating donut, as ive always thought that through injuries and such I’d always have a donut to loophole. But last year I thought I’d keep track each week to see if my gut feel was right.
    Sadly I was a bit lazy and didn’t keep great records, but I remember there was 1 rnd in the whole year where I couldn’t use the captains loophole, and about 50% of the time, I was able to use one of my donuts as an emergency loophole up until I brought in a permanent loophole after the byes. And to top it off there was at least 1 rnd, maybe 2 where I would’ve copped a donut, and I don’t even think I was that unlucky with injuries last year.
    So unless we’re thinking the teams gonna breeze through the season with hardly any injuries, what’s the point of a permanent loophole?

    8

    0
    1. Valid question but need to set parameters on the TEAM as to avoid conflicts later. Judging by early polling, we’re heading for a Set&Forget Ruck set-up for the season. As good as Preuss was last week, he’s not guaranteed any game time this year, let alone RD1 selection. With a lack of Ruck rookies coming through, I felt the question needed to be asked before the season starts. With Dangerfield playing late in five of the first six Rds, a permanent loophole would give us a good crack at VC options early on…….

      1

      0
      1. I’m not doubting the question needs to be asked, just sharing my experience from last year. If there’s no rookie rucks named round 1, I vote to pick someone who can be a loophole and has potential to be play in the future. Last year I went with Cox who wasn’t named rnd 1 but turned out to be great cover/cash cow.

        3

        0
    1. Would appear to still be behind Naismith/Tippet for rucking but more than capable in the FWD line but they probably wouldn’t go as tall as Buddy, Tippett, Naismith, Reid and Cameron in a team. Tippett/Cameron are probably fighting for that second RUC/FWD position.

      1

      0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *