All three players were ranked, by draft selection, as the three best KPP/KPFs in their draft:
Pick 1. Tom Boyd
Pick 2. Josh Schache
Pick 9. Aaron Naughton
I mean, FMD, the little old Bulldogs land three gun KPPs. But it seems the players further up the ground aren't overly skilled and we are watching Boyd be turned into a ruckman/forward. Schache a forward/ruckman. Naughton a swingman without mastering either first.
I'll defend all three players until I'm blue in the face. And have done especially with Boyd. But after the initial burst for Naughton, he's gone stone cold as a forward too. A fate that Schache & Boyd have felt with poor delivery.
At Boyd, you can say maybe it's just the player. But add in Schache & Naughton, then that's three of the best KPFs of their draft year who are struggling at the club and the forward coaching and skills of theirs and their team mates. At some point we have to nuance the debate about these players and ask if a Hawthorn or Geelong had three exciting KPFs would they be doing the same as us? Be it match committee philosophy, head coach, forward coach, skills coach etc.
I mean if Boyd, Schache & Naughton can't make a prolonged impact as a KPF, then maybe no one can. Seriously, maybe no one can. Dropping Boyd & Schache for lack of rucking ability, or low output, or after 7 quarters of low output swinging Naughton back, doesn't to me seem to address that we have highly talented players who all can't seem to make the circumstances work. Yo-yo'ing them later in the year won't help either. I for one don't think it's the players complete fault that KPF in this side is one of the worst jobs in the league, not to mention they were very good set shots before spending too much time at the club.
This is now a trend, with the sample size of three top end KPP/KPFs. So what do we do? How do we turn this around? We have a lot of salary cap and a lot of contracted years in these very talented young men, and we will piss that and their potential away if we can't work out a scenario by which the selected 22 benefit from them achieving their very, very high potential. There's a lot of very strong cases for 'priority one'. But this is my nomination.
Pick 1. Tom Boyd
Pick 2. Josh Schache
Pick 9. Aaron Naughton
I mean, FMD, the little old Bulldogs land three gun KPPs. But it seems the players further up the ground aren't overly skilled and we are watching Boyd be turned into a ruckman/forward. Schache a forward/ruckman. Naughton a swingman without mastering either first.
I'll defend all three players until I'm blue in the face. And have done especially with Boyd. But after the initial burst for Naughton, he's gone stone cold as a forward too. A fate that Schache & Boyd have felt with poor delivery.
At Boyd, you can say maybe it's just the player. But add in Schache & Naughton, then that's three of the best KPFs of their draft year who are struggling at the club and the forward coaching and skills of theirs and their team mates. At some point we have to nuance the debate about these players and ask if a Hawthorn or Geelong had three exciting KPFs would they be doing the same as us? Be it match committee philosophy, head coach, forward coach, skills coach etc.
I mean if Boyd, Schache & Naughton can't make a prolonged impact as a KPF, then maybe no one can. Seriously, maybe no one can. Dropping Boyd & Schache for lack of rucking ability, or low output, or after 7 quarters of low output swinging Naughton back, doesn't to me seem to address that we have highly talented players who all can't seem to make the circumstances work. Yo-yo'ing them later in the year won't help either. I for one don't think it's the players complete fault that KPF in this side is one of the worst jobs in the league, not to mention they were very good set shots before spending too much time at the club.
This is now a trend, with the sample size of three top end KPP/KPFs. So what do we do? How do we turn this around? We have a lot of salary cap and a lot of contracted years in these very talented young men, and we will piss that and their potential away if we can't work out a scenario by which the selected 22 benefit from them achieving their very, very high potential. There's a lot of very strong cases for 'priority one'. But this is my nomination.
Comment