Tom Boyd actually said...

[hujsh]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

Except Picken had a preseason wiuth Pies and two with US and they didn't see it.

I just don't accept a blanket view that fits all like Boyd's.

To be fair Boyd isn't saying it's right 100% of the time. And to be doubly fair for every Boyd or Picken there probably are 8-9 others that didn't make it who never really looked like it. Whether it's a Declan Hamilton who has some skills but not the strength, a Goetz who you'd have to imagine had serious attitude issues, or guys who simply aren't good enough like McComb and Hayes.

We don't really know his personal judgement on who he thought would struggle aside from being surprised with Roarke Smith and Zaine Cordy playing as much footy as they have and being impressed with Vandermeer. He's not going to tell us who he was right about because it's not really fair to those players.

Getting back to the original question raised by the thread. Don't you have any examples of players you felt the club held onto too long despite knowing what their limits were? Gave them an extra year or two, re-rooked them maybe, and you couldn't help but wonder why? I know you've championed the list management on the topic of delisting enough players but don't you feel there are maybe some strange ones we held onto for too long that were never going to make it?

I definitely have and would love to see us rotate those fringe players out quicker if they don't show signs of making it. I think we've done a pretty good job of that this year and hope to see more of the same.

That said I don't have an issue with the club trying players who don't work out, just let them go sooner maybe.

[Bornadog]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

Don't you have any examples of players you felt the club held onto too long despite knowing what their limits were? Gave them an extra year or two, re-rooked them maybe, and you couldn't help but wonder why? I know you've championed the list management on the topic of delisting enough players but don't you feel there are maybe some strange ones we held onto for too long that were never going to make it?

There are some players we probably held on to, too long, but I am sure there are good reasons. Take the years of recruiting JUH and Darcy where we had no picks in round 2 or even 3 (I am going on memory). The choice would have been do we use a Pick 85 or 90 (whatever it was) to recruit some complete unknown or do we take someone from the VFL that we know or leave someone on our list that probably won't make it, but has shown a little bit of ability.

Another good example is Rourke Smith - go back and search him and you will find posters wanting him delisted, saying he is no good, we held on to him too long - yet he turned out ok. Injuries killed his career. Then you have Hayes which you mentioned. Hayes showed some ability and when he was finally delisted ended up at Carlton - must have shown something to be recruited twice.

In the end there are reasons for keeping and delisting players, but you can't afford to delist 10 plus players - eg North. 6 to 8 is about right, if you have the picks/trades -0 and that is what we have done over the Bevo years.

[hujsh]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

There are some players we probably held on to, too long, but I am sure there are good reasons. Take the years of recruiting JUH and Darcy where we had no picks in round 2 or even 3 (I am going on memory). The choice would have been do we use a Pick 85 or 90 (whatever it was) to recruit some complete unknown or do we take someone from the VFL that we know or leave someone on our list that probably won't make it, but has shown a little bit of ability.

Another good example is Rourke Smith - go back and search him and you will find posters wanting him delisted, saying he is no good, we held on to him too long - yet he turned out ok. Injuries killed his career. Then you have Hayes which you mentioned. Hayes showed some ability and when he was finally delisted ended up at Carlton - must have shown something to be recruited twice.

In the end there are reasons for keeping and delisting players, but you can't afford to delist 10 plus players - eg North. 6 to 8 is about right, if you have the picks/trades -0 and that is what we have done over the Bevo years.

Ah, but that's exactly what we did with the likes of Morris, Picken, M.Boyd, JJ, Dahl. These guys are the exception yes, so the question is do you roll the dice knowing you might have a 10% chance of finding a good AFL player, or hold on to the guy who has shown he won't be that but might play a role for a few games next season. I think, for many different reasons, we've been too hesitant to roll the dice in recent years.

I love the crop of draftees this year and it feels like a long time since we've had a batch of 5 18 year olds roll into the club with all the promise that brings. Even if only 1 of Freyja, Smith and O'Donnell play 100-200 games, that's a big win (assuming Croft and Sanders are a lock for that). I just hope next year we don't go back to 3 picks and 1 current player being (re)rookied as our list changes.

Roarke is an exception but even then the people calling for him to be delisted weren't entirely refuted. He played how many games post 2021? Granted a lot were probably calling for him to go because he's no good or he skates with Bevo (the greatest of sins).

[soupman]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

There are some players we probably held on to, too long, but I am sure there are good reasons. Take the years of recruiting JUH and Darcy where we had no picks in round 2 or even 3 (I am going on memory). The choice would have been do we use a Pick 85 or 90 (whatever it was) to recruit some complete unknown or do we take someone from the VFL that we know or leave someone on our list that probably won't make it, but has shown a little bit of ability.

I did a post that kind of addresses this, and absolutely we should be turning these guys over.

Here it is:

It would be so much more beneficial for list turnover and uncovering new talent if we made the call, that if they aren't in the mix by year 2 for gametime they get cut, and if they make it to year 3 if there aren't clear signs of being an AFL talent by then then we cut them. Would also apply if they have two stagnant seasons as not comfortably being in the mix.

If we followed this rule we would have cut:
Ben Cavarra after 2, Khamis after 2, Porter after 2, Greene after 2, Lynch after 2, Roarke after 2, Collins after 2,
Will Hayes after 3 years, Young after 3, Webb after 3,
Bedendo now after 3 years, Sweet* after 3 years (two seasons ago),
and Garcia has stagnated at that year 2 stage for years 3 and 4, so i think would be cut now after 4 years, likewise Crozier is just sitting there

We do that and we free up 24 one year contracts in Bevo's reign, which is 2 and a bit a year, and the total cost is basically one and a half solid seasons from Roarke and a handful of serviceable games from Young. This is moneyball.


*Sweet may also be able to disprove this, but he plays a weird position and contrary to popular opinion is still not a sure thing.

[hujsh]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

I did a post that kind of addresses this, and absolutely we should be turning these guys over.

Here it is:

That's actually a great summary.

[Mofra]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

Didn't Morris put Andrew McLeod to sleep in his first ever senior AFL game from memory? From that moment on, you knew he was a lock to have a fantastic career.

Chris Grant's 300th too IIRC

[GVGjr]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

Chris Grant's 300th too IIRC

Was it Brad Johnsons?

[Bornadog]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

Was it Brad Johnsons?

Brads was at Marvel.

[Bornadog]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

I did a post that kind of addresses this, and absolutely we should be turning these guys over.

Here it is:

Thanks, I missed that or forgot about it.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

Chris Grant's 300th too IIRC

Morris played his first game in Round 5 2005 in Rocket's first year as coach.
It was Grant's 300th game.
Darcy dominated the second half as a forward.
Unfortunately it was Luke's last really good game for us as he did his knee at Geelong the following week.

Was it Brad Johnsons?

Brad Johnson played his 300th in round 1 (I think 2009) and kicked about 3 goals in the last 5 minutes to win the game.

Interesting that both of those milestone games were against Adelaide and both at Docklands (Colonial/Telstra/Etihad) - or whatever its naming rights name was at the time.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

Morris played his first game in Round 5 2005 in Rocket's first year as coach.
It was Grant's 300th game.
Darcy dominated the second half as a forward.
Unfortunately it was Luke's last really good game for us as he did his knee at Geelong the following week.


Brad Johnson played his 300th in round 1 (I think 2009) and kicked about 3 goals in the last 5 minutes to win the game.

Interesting that both of those milestone games were against Adelaide and both at Docklands (Colonial/Telstra/Etihad) - or whatever its naming rights name was at the time.

Brad?s was also against the Crows from memory? Cooney had 30+ and kicked 3 goals

[Bulldog4life]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

To be fair Boyd isn't saying it's right 100% of the time. And to be doubly fair for every Boyd or Picken there probably are 8-9 others that didn't make it who never really looked like it. Whether it's a Declan Hamilton who has some skills but not the strength, a Goetz who you'd have to imagine had serious attitude issues, or guys who simply aren't good enough like McComb and Hayes.

We don't really know his personal judgement on who he thought would struggle aside from with Roarke Smith and Zaine Cordy playing as much footy as they have and being impressed with Vandermeer. He's not going to tell us who he was right about because it's not really fair to those players.being surprised

Getting back to the original question raised by the thread. Don't you have any examples of players you felt the club held onto too long despite knowing what their limits were? Gave them an extra year or two, re-rooked them maybe, and you couldn't help but wonder why? I know you've championed the list management on the topic of delisting enough players but don't you feel there are maybe some strange ones we held onto for too long that were never going to make it?

I definitely have and would love to see us rotate those fringe players out quicker if they don't show signs of making it. I think we've done a pretty good job of that this year and hope to see more of the same.

That said I don't have an issue with the club trying players who don't work out, just let them go sooner maybe.

Aside from their play wrestle or fight whatever you want to call it I thought Tom and Cordy were tight.

[hujsh]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

Brad?s was also against the Crows from memory? Cooney had 30+ and kicked 3 goals

Nah Cooney didn't have a goal in Johnno's 300th. I think I know the game you're thinking of because I was there. He kicked 5 at the MCG against them and had 30+

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=2543

Brad's was against the Crows and Cooney had nearly 30.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

Nah Cooney didn't have a goal in Johnno's 300th. I think I know the game you're thinking of because I was there. He kicked 5 at the MCG against them and had 30+

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=2543

Brad's was against the Crows and Cooney had nearly 30.

Ahhh good get.

[Jumping Jones]

Re: Tom Boyd actually said...

I?m guessing the stats on how often the ?turn around story? proves to be true and getting a high performing recruit are similar at ~1 in 10 for both. If you had 1 in 5 from the draft become elite then there would be no discussion.