The conundrum for Bevo

[Rocket Science]

Boyd's taken about 3 marks this year so just as well he's not forward.

His inability to grab anything this year is a concern.

[GVGjr]

His inability to grab anything this year is a concern.

I wonder if off season shoulder surgery has contributed to this? Earlier last year we were considering shutting him down from playing and getting the surgery done.

[comrade]

And yet in the grand final he was a genuine threat and looked comfortable in the role. I think people are way to quick to write him off as a key forward.

He barely took a mark as a key forward that day. His big marks were around the ground with a free jump at the ball, not with a big defender on his hammer.

He's not a KPF. Bevo knows it and has been quite public about it in recent weeks.

[GVGjr]

He barely took a mark as a key forward that day. His big marks were around the ground with a free jump at the ball, not with a big defender on his hammer.

He's not a KPF. Bevo knows it and has been quite public about it in recent weeks.

I think Bevo is putting him forward as a ruckman in the media because it explains why he has been using him there.

At the moment he is an average ruckman and that might be stretching things. If we have already given up on him as a key forward then it's an awful advertisement for our ability to develop players and the likes of Barrett and others in the media that have focused on him and his massive contract since his arrival might be vindicated.

I will have the chance to ask a few at the club why we appear to be giving up on Boyd as a forward and I will be interested in their responses.

[Topdog]

My reference to cellar dweller stuff was directly referencing our goalkicking ratio.
Clearly we are doing lots right. My point being that unless we fix the other parts of our game that are off then we're going to struggle this year.

Yes my point being that I dont believe there is such a conundrum.

Every injury plays its part. People write off the impact of Boyd as a forward by pointing to his lack of marks but him missing from the fwd line means that 2 big guys go to Stringer or that its easier to intercept our F50 entries.

We have been smashed by injuries early, are 1 win off first and are in every game to the final whistle.

I'm just not even close to being worried.

[MrMahatma]

He barely took a mark as a key forward that day. His big marks were around the ground with a free jump at the ball, not with a big defender on his hammer.

He's not a KPF. Bevo knows it and has been quite public about it in recent weeks.

He's 21 and has been forced to play most of his career with us as ruck.

Reckon it's a couple of years before we can make that call.

[comrade]

I think Bevo is putting him forward as a ruckman in the media because it explains why he has been using him there.

At the moment he is an average ruckman and that might be stretching things. If we have already given up on him as a key forward then it's an awful advertisement for our ability to develop players and the likes of Barrett and others in the media that have focused on him and his massive contract since his arrival might be vindicated.

I will have the chance to ask a few at the club why we appear to be giving up on Boyd as a forward and I will be interested in their responses.

I'd give Bevo more credit than that but I understand why you'd think that.

Barrett vindicated? His performance in the finals as a ruck who went forward won us a flag. Let's not get hysterical because he's not turning out to be one of the greatest KPF of all time despite being paid like one. And his signing was symbolic of something much bigger, which I'm sure you know.

You seem to be stuck in the old fashioned thinking that a ruckman must win taps and that's it, and a key forward must stay inside 50. He's becoming a very good modern ruck man, not in the old fashioned way, but in the new way of being able to navigate a zone by hands, can use it well by foot etc. He doesn't win 40+ taps a game, but he doesn't need to.

Our development isn't the problem. An AFL flag and 2 VFL flags in a 3 year period with an historically young list is evidence enough. The player is the issue here. He's just not a KPF. We had a junior career and 1 year of senior footy to base our decision on. He spent most of his formative years as a ruckman I understand, before going forward at the Ranges. He was a 200cm kid up against beanpoles and dominated them, shock horror. Roles change with the environment.

I look forward to hearing what your contacts at the club say about it all.

[bulldogtragic]

Simon Dalrymple said this week that he has absolutely no doubt that Tom Boyd will still become a commanding KPF. I'm happy that Dal knows his stuff. There's no other fit tall that Bevo wants in the team to ruck. So that's fine. I agree with Dal, Boyd will be a commanding KPF. He's still only 21 and writing him off now is not something I would do, especially that since his GF performance he's had to ruck by himself for half of the season to date. You can't develop as a KPF when other rucks aren't selected and you're forced to ruck alone and not spend time forward. But when that changes, like guru Dalrymple says, I have no doubt he will be a commanding KPF.

[bulldogtragic]

I think Bevo is putting him forward as a ruckman in the media because it explains why he has been using him there.

At the moment he is an average ruckman and that might be stretching things. If we have already given up on him as a key forward then it's an awful advertisement for our ability to develop players and the likes of Barrett and others in the media that have focused on him and his massive contract since his arrival might be vindicated.b

I will have the chance to ask a few at the club why we appear to be giving up on Boyd as a forward and I will be interested in their responses.

Is it all about Tom Boyd though? Campbell & English aren't being selected, so by default Boyd has to play ruck. I think it's not solely giving up on Boyd as a KPF, but that it speaks to the match committee and coach and their views on the rucks we have fit. When Roughy is back, and English forces his way in, then we will know if we've given up. Dalrymple still has no doubt about Boyd becoming a commanding KPF with more time to develop.

[comrade]

Simon Dalrymple said this week that he has absolutely no doubt that Tom Boyd will still become a commanding KPF. I'm happy that Dal knows his stuff. There's no other fit tall that Bevo wants in the team to ruck. So that's fine. I agree with Dal, Boyd will be a commanding KPF. He's still only 21 and writing him off now is not something I would do, especially that since his GF performance he's had to ruck by himself for half of the season to date. You can't develop as a KPF when other rucks aren't selected and you're forced to ruck alone and not spend time forward. But when that changes, like guru Dalrymple says, I have no doubt he will be a commanding KPF.

You know I respect Dalrymple but he wouldn't be the first recruiter to overrate a junior who dominated smaller opponents. I mean, what else do you expect him to say?

I'm fairly confident that even when Roughy is back, Boyd won't be spending a heap of time up forward.

[chef]

He doesn't have the hands to become a dominant KPF or the mobility.

Ruck/forward is what he's born to do and he's very good at it. He'll never be a commanding KF and the sooner Roughie is back the better.

[GVGjr]

I'd give Bevo more credit than that but I understand why you'd think that.

Barrett vindicated? His performance in the finals as a ruck who went forward won us a flag. Let's not get hysterical because he's not turning out to be one of the greatest KPF of all time despite being paid like one. And his signing was symbolic of something much bigger, which I'm sure you know.

In what game in the finals series last year did he start as a ruckman? He was a forward that helped out in the ruck. Lets not ignore the facts to suit a viewpoint. Did he start any games at all last year as the main ruckman?

I haven't given up on him as an effective key forward, why would I given he is just 21 and and has battled injuries since he arrived.

You seem to be stuck in the old fashioned thinking that a ruckman must win taps and that's it, and a key forward must stay inside 50. He's becoming a very good modern ruck man, not in the old fashioned way, but in the new way of being able to navigate a zone by hands, can use it well by foot etc. He doesn't win 40+ taps a game, but he doesn't need to.

Can you show we one post where I have apparently said hit outs are the measure of the modern day ruckman and that I have applied them to Tom Boyd? I don't believe that it is a good measure and you are making assumptions on my POV that aren't correct.

Our development isn't the problem. An AFL flag and 2 VFL flags in a 3 year period with an historically young list is evidence enough. The player is the issue here. He's just not a KPF. We had a junior career and 1 year of senior footy to base our decision on. He spent most of his formative years as a ruckman I understand, before going forward at the Ranges. He was a 200cm kid up against beanpoles and dominated them, shock horror. Roles change with the environment.

If we use an early draft pick and trade away the captain to recruit a key forward prospect and of course put forward our biggest player contract to date to do so and then, as you have implied, now assess him as a ruckman first who goes forward then I don't think that reflects that well on our development with Tom Boyd. We were that desperate to land a key forward that year we also put forward a bid for Darcy Moore.

The only reason he is being used primarily in the ruck this season is because Roughead is injured and we didn't close other deals for ruckman we were interested in. We started the season with the view that Roughead would ruck the majority of game time and that Cloke would play alongside of Boyd as the key forwards.

We've adapted to the hand injuries have dealt us and in my opinion it was never planned that Boyd would be the number one ruckman this year.

[comrade]

In what game in the finals series last year did he start as a ruckman? He was a forward that helped out in the ruck. Lets not ignore the facts to suit a viewpoint. Did he start any games at all last year as the main ruckman?

A ruck that helps out up forward or a forward who rucks. Same thing. What he isn't is a stay at home KPF.

Can you show we one post where I have apparently said hit outs are the measure of the modern day ruckman and that I have applied them to Tom Boyd? I don't believe that it is a good measure and you are making assumptions on my POV that aren't correct.

You said Boyd is 'average ruckman and that might be stretching things'.

If we use an early draft pick and trade away the captain to recruit a key forward prospect and of course put forward our biggest player contract to date to do so and then, as you have implied, now assess him as a ruckman first who goes forward then I don't think that reflects that well on our development with Tom Boyd. We were that desperate to land a key forward that year we also put forward a bid for Darcy Moore.

It says more about our identification process than our development, which is a proven success (2 VFL flags + 1 AFL flags is definitive proof). We also played the hand dealt to us, for symbolic reasons as much as anything. Just because we sold the farm to get him, doesn't mean we shoe horn him into a role he's not suited to. Have you heard of the 'sunk cost' fallacy?

The only reason he is being used primarily in the ruck this season is because Roughead is injured and we didn't close other deals for ruckman we were interested in. We started the season with the view that Roughead would ruck the majority of game time and that Cloke would play alongside of Boyd as the key forwards.

Incorrect. We have a perfectly healthy ruckman with AFL experience toiling away in the VFL. We also had one on the list last year but decided not to keep him on, likely because when we rated our list needs, Boyd was considered a ruck option.

We've adapted to the hand injuries have dealt us and in my opinion it was never planned that Boyd would be the number one ruckman this year.

I agree we've adapted to injuries and Boyd isn't considered the number one ruckman.

My point is he's not also considered the number one KPF, because he isn't one.

Bevo has been quite public about tempering those expectations, for good reason. He's not stupid and says things for no reason. Also explains why we were so keen to bring Cloke into the fold.

[ledge]

Boyd's taken about 3 marks this year so just as well he's not forward.

Because he is in the ruck where the ball is, not where the ball is going.
You can't take marks up forward when your in the ruck.
Once Roughead comes back he will give us more up forward.
If we can get him and Redpath teaming and getting their patterns right , what team can stop them ?

[bulldogtragic]

You know I respect Dalrymple but he wouldn't be the first recruiter to overrate a junior who dominated smaller opponents. I mean, what else do you expect him to say?

I'm fairly confident that even when Roughy is back, Boyd won't be spending a heap of time up forward.

I'd actually expect him to say 'I'm 100% with Bevo, he's a ruckman' and tow the new company line. That Dal didn't hesitate for a nanosecond in his statement to me has a sense of strong confidence in his assertion. With the greatest of respect to those arguing against Simon Dalrymple, I personally accept his opinions to hold greater weight than mine and other members. So when Dal says he has no doubt Boyd will be a commanding KPF and needs time to develop into the role as he's still just 21, I think the gun AFL recruiter whose watched Tom Boyd for probably 7-8 years is a very decent authority on Tom Boyd. We can all agree to disagree, but I'm happy to side with Simon Dalrymple.