Position 2024 Fantasy Defenders

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

so annoying that Sheezel played so well. People had rocks in their head for not having him in their team. Had a better debut season in the history of afl and people were opting for 30 old Tom Stewart to have a breakout. Mind boggling logic.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

so annoying that Sheezel played so well. People had rocks in their head for not having him in their team. Had a better debut season in the history of afl and people were opting for 30 old Tom Stewart to have a breakout. Mind boggling logic.
You seem to regularly find it mind boggling that anyone could have a different opinion than yours. That is why people give you a hard time on here sometimes.

There are just as many valid arguments to start Sheezel vs not start Sheezel.
 
what are the valid arguments for not starting Sheezel?
1. Lack of exposed form given the price tag. Whilst different positions, he's within 10k of the price you are paying for Jack Steele in the midfield.
2. Second year blues is a possibility
3. Still no confirmation he's a permanent half back. When he didn't have the role last year, his scores were pretty average. Of McKertcher, Fisher and Sheezel, I'd say Sheezel is the first one you'd put into the midfield/half forward rotation if needed.
 
1. Lack of exposed form given the price tag. Whilst different positions, he's within 10k of the price you are paying for Jack Steele in the midfield.
2. Second year blues is a possibility
3. Still no confirmation he's a permanent half back. When he didn't have the role last year, his scores were pretty average. Of McKertcher, Fisher and Sheezel, I'd say Sheezel is the first one you'd put into the midfield/half forward rotation if needed.
Tag threat too I'd imagine.
 
1. Lack of exposed form given the price tag. Whilst different positions, he's within 10k of the price you are paying for Jack Steele in the midfield.
2. Second year blues is a possibility
3. Still no confirmation he's a permanent half back. When he didn't have the role last year, his scores were pretty average. Of McKertcher, Fisher and Sheezel, I'd say Sheezel is the first one you'd put into the midfield/half forward rotation if needed.
1. 23 games, a BnF, as well as a junior career that made him a high draft pick is enough exposed form.
2. 2nd year blues are as much a possibility as a 3rd year, 4th year or 9th year blues that Jack Steele had last year.
3. I think the odds of this happening were extremely small. And even if he did, we're talking about one of the best debut seasons in the history of AFL. He'd probably average 80 from the goal square with natural progression. There's talk about Stewart playing midfield, but that's not scaring people off him. Same should've been for Sheezel.

He was a lock in my team from the moment the game opened.
 
Most of them except Daicos are a lot more experienced and all play in better sides with better support.

He's in my team so not overly worried just pointing out an argument for not picking him.
Yeah, but none of those guys had a debut season like Sheezels. Not even Daicos or Ablett or Swan. Not sure why people were keen to put a ceiling on him.
 
We’re about to find out the answer to what happens when the easily stopped force meets the easily moved object.

Danster = starting with Sheez
Zevon = not starting with Sheez

Promises to be an epic battle this.
 
what are the valid arguments for not starting Sheezel?

Pretty much all and sundry were saying that he could be playing a mix of forward and mid - as he did in his underage years.

Only recently did it come out that he'd be keeping the half back role after experimenting in the others throughout the PS.

You could just have easily selected Sheezel and looked like a right idiot, after he wilted away in a forward pocket today. It's all about role, and his is incredible if he's playing down back.

I had him in my side prior to today, after I got confirmation via the the coaching staff piece on AFL.com.au a week or two back, that he would indeed stay down back - which then made him a lock. Prior to that, he wasn't.

Mindboggling if you can't see the nuance there.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top