Draft Game 2016 V2

Not really. That'slike saying Slater is the best FB in NRL. Disagree. Not only does he have contenders for that title, who the fuck knows because we saw shit all of him this year. And in Radradra's case what I did see was mediocre at best.

Honeysett wrote:One good year/bad year doesn't make a player. Ask TRex

This, this and holy shit this! Also, Taupau, Hunt and others.

If I had known everyone was going to rate on this years results only would I have selected differently? Maybe.. but then again my main aim was to select a team I personally like and I achieved that. Would love to see my lineup play a few games together. Would be awesome viewing IMO.

Ok, Lunch time, before I get started on my reasoning, time to weigh in on the past form vs current form. I agree SOMEWHAT with the "form is temporary, class is permanent" saying and think it does have a place in evaluating players, I just don't agree with how its used or how often.

Firstly I think its important to recognise how having a "name" influences they way people evaluate your form in the first place. Lets take Cronk and Brooks as our example if both play a game in which they have a mix of great and terrible moments, people will more often than not ignore Cronks bad moments and talk about how his good moments prove to you how good he is. The complete opposite will happen for Brooks, where people will highlight the bad moments and discuss how that shows the difference between him and someone like Cronk "Who just wouldn't make those mistakes". You can even extend that over 2 months of matches, where they play great matches and average to bad. People will use the good matches to highlight how good Cronk is and the bad games for Brooks. Now I'm not saying Brooks is even close to Cronk, no way, its just an example of how players without a name have to achieve even more to be recognised as being in better form in the first place. Personally I think Jennings is a great example of how having a "name" skews perception, I don't remember the last season I worried he might tear my team to shreds, yet he still gets a mention as one of the top in his position.

Now, on to how its used and how often.

If someone like Luke Lewis or Cam Smith have a quiet/bad 2 months, it definitely applies and only someone extremely foolish/brave would write them off. Fair enough, go with the 'class over form' in this case. If however someone like Roberts or Klemmer has a quiet/average 12 months, then I don't agree with the statement, the ratio of average form to good form is just too big to say oh "ignore the average form, this previous period of good games is a better indicator" because it might just turn out, that that period is the outlier and he was just in a purple patch and never regains it.

Finally, let me use Roberts and BJ in a comparison. What's the difference between the two if we are evaluating them. Well, both have had 1 absolute standout season. The only difference is BJ is just finishing his, whereas Roberts has had a season after his big one, which wasn't in the same ballpark. Now, If I asked you to compare the two, or who would you rather, people would probably rate them pretty close, perhaps even equal... which makes no sense to me. If i was to ask you to compare or choose who you would rather have between 2015 Roberts and 2016 Roberts, I dare say everyone would choose 2015 in a heartbeat.

Id choose Roberts over Leilua because at any moment BJ could start eating 3 bags of doritos a day again.

Sure, and Roberts could start stuffing his nose with the nearest talcum powder

Mearcats wrote:

This, this and holy shit this! Also, Taupau, Hunt and others.

think Honeysett was agreeing with my side of the debate fella

Welshy wrote:
think Honeysett was agreeing with my side of the debate fella

And if he was it could be interpreted entirely the other way. A'la Radradra was awesome 2015 and easily the best winger but in 2016... Nah, not so much. Not even close.

Archer wrote:Sure, and Roberts could start stuffing his nose with the nearest talcum powder

Maybe talc powder is performance enhancing. Would explain Joey Johns run of form.

Archer wrote:Ok, Lunch time, before I get started on my reasoning, time to weigh in on the past form vs current form. I agree SOMEWHAT with the "form is temporary, class is permanent" saying and think it does have a place in evaluating players, I just don't agree with how its used or how often.

Firstly I think its important to recognise how having a "name" influences they way people evaluate your form in the first place. Lets take Cronk and Brooks as our example if both play a game in which they have a mix of great and terrible moments, people will more often than not ignore Cronks bad moments and talk about how his good moments prove to you how good he is. The complete opposite will happen for Brooks, where people will highlight the bad moments and discuss how that shows the difference between him and someone like Cronk "Who just wouldn't make those mistakes". You can even extend that over 2 months of matches, where they play great matches and average to bad. People will use the good matches to highlight how good Cronk is and the bad games for Brooks. Now I'm not saying Brooks is even close to Cronk, no way, its just an example of how players without a name have to achieve even more to be recognised as being in better form in the first place. Personally I think Jennings is a great example of how having a "name" skews perception, I don't remember the last season I worried he might tear my team to shreds, yet he still gets a mention as one of the top in his position.

Now, on to how its used and how often.

If someone like Luke Lewis or Cam Smith have a quiet/bad 2 months, it definitely applies and only someone extremely foolish/brave would write them off. Fair enough, go with the 'class over form' in this case. If however someone like Roberts or Klemmer has a quiet/average 12 months, then I don't agree with the statement, the ratio of average form to good form is just too big to say oh "ignore the average form, this previous period of good games is a better indicator" because it might just turn out, that that period is the outlier and he was just in a purple patch and never regains it.

Finally, let me use Roberts and BJ in a comparison. What's the difference between the two if we are evaluating them. Well, both have had 1 absolute standout season. The only difference is BJ is just finishing his, whereas Roberts has had a season after his big one, which wasn't in the same ballpark. Now, If I asked you to compare the two, or who would you rather, people would probably rate them pretty close, perhaps even equal... which makes no sense to me. If i was to ask you to compare or choose who you would rather have between 2015 Roberts and 2016 Roberts, I dare say everyone would choose 2015 in a heartbeat.

apples and oranges.

Roberts didn't get anywhere near the usage at the broncos as he did at the Titans, he was merely a cog compared to the crown

BJ was a staple in the Raiders attack every week, was decent at the knights but not nearly enough

you have to go on all round talent and consistency of that talent

Mearcats wrote:

And if he was it could be interpreted entirely the other way. A'la Radradra was awesome 2015 and easily the best winger but in 2016... Nah, not so much. Not even close.

but over his career he has been better than say the best winger in 2016 Rapana?

Sure BJ has talent but losing all that weight surely had a part in his performance this year.

Welshy wrote:

but over his career he has been better than say the best winger in 2016 Rapana?

But am I looking at that when I'm playing a 2016 post season draft? No.

Let me put it this way, you join a draft comp 2017 preseason. You pick Rapana or Radradra?

Archer wrote:Ok, Lunch time, before I get started on my reasoning, time to weigh in on the past form vs current form. I agree SOMEWHAT with the "form is temporary, class is permanent" saying and think it does have a place in evaluating players, I just don't agree with how its used or how often.

Firstly I think its important to recognise how having a "name" influences they way people evaluate your form in the first place. Lets take Cronk and Brooks as our example if both play a game in which they have a mix of great and terrible moments, people will more often than not ignore Cronks bad moments and talk about how his good moments prove to you how good he is. The complete opposite will happen for Brooks, where people will highlight the bad moments and discuss how that shows the difference between him and someone like Cronk "Who just wouldn't make those mistakes". You can even extend that over 2 months of matches, where they play great matches and average to bad. People will use the good matches to highlight how good Cronk is and the bad games for Brooks. Now I'm not saying Brooks is even close to Cronk, no way, its just an example of how players without a name have to achieve even more to be recognised as being in better form in the first place. Personally I think Jennings is a great example of how having a "name" skews perception, I don't remember the last season I worried he might tear my team to shreds, yet he still gets a mention as one of the top in his position.

Now, on to how its used and how often.

If someone like Luke Lewis or Cam Smith have a quiet/bad 2 months, it definitely applies and only someone extremely foolish/brave would write them off. Fair enough, go with the 'class over form' in this case. If however someone like Roberts or Klemmer has a quiet/average 12 months, then I don't agree with the statement, the ratio of average form to good form is just too big to say oh "ignore the average form, this previous period of good games is a better indicator" because it might just turn out, that that period is the outlier and he was just in a purple patch and never regains it.

Finally, let me use Roberts and BJ in a comparison. What's the difference between the two if we are evaluating them. Well, both have had 1 absolute standout season. The only difference is BJ is just finishing his, whereas Roberts has had a season after his big one, which wasn't in the same ballpark. Now, If I asked you to compare the two, or who would you rather, people would probably rate them pretty close, perhaps even equal... which makes no sense to me. If i was to ask you to compare or choose who you would rather have between 2015 Roberts and 2016 Roberts, I dare say everyone would choose 2015 in a heartbeat.

difference is ceiling and floors. everyone can have a great game

brooks when bad, is absolutely fucking atrocious and can lose games on his own
cronk when bad is still above most of the halves in the NRL

Welshy wrote:

but over his career he has been better than say the best winger in 2016 Rapana?

Rapana wasn't the best winger this year.

Welshy wrote:
apples and oranges.

Roberts didn't get anywhere near the usage at the broncos as he did at the Titans, he was merely a cog compared to the crown

BJ was a staple in the Raiders attack every week, was decent at the knights but not nearly enough

you have to go on all round talent and consistency of that talent

I'm not sure you could have made my point any better about how people are skewed by a name in how they evaluate a player. BJ was definitely not a staple of our attack, but he did have a lot of involvement. That's because he got himself involved, looking for the ball. He scored tries on the opposite side of the field, he set up Croker of all people in the middle of the field, he did it all, because that's the form he was in. Roberts sat out wide hoping the ball wouldn't come near him and wondering what the fuck happened to his last month's worth of nights.

Welshy wrote:
difference is ceiling and floors. everyone can have a great game

brooks when bad, is absolutely fucking atrocious and can lose games on his own
cronk when bad is still above most of the halves in the NRL

For the sake of the argument, imagine they both had identical games. As in, its the exact same game you just change the players name.

Mearcats wrote:

But am I looking at that when I'm playing a 2016 post season draft? No.

Let me put it this way, you join a draft comp 2017 preseason. You pick Rapana or Radradra?

Yes I would pick Semi over Rapana. 100%

in a 2016 draft. Would you pick Blake Austin 2015 form over Cronk because he has a better year?

Welshy wrote:
Yes I would pick Semi over Rapana. 100%

in a 2016 draft. Would you pick Blake Austin 2015 form over Cronk because he has a better year?

Different positions. Austin is a 5/8th Cronk is a halfback. A better example would be Ben Hunt 2015 and Cronk.

Welshy wrote:

Mearcats wrote:

But am I looking at that when I'm playing a 2016 post season draft? No.

Let me put it this way, you join a draft comp 2017 preseason. You pick Rapana or Radradra?

Yes I would pick Semi over Rapana. 100%

in a 2016 draft. Would you pick Blake Austin 2015 form over Cronk because he has a better year?

Why not both...