Tom Boyd/Jordan Roughead ruck combo

[Rocco Jones]

I am a big believer that if your #1 ruckman is a gun, you need to think of alternative ways to use your ruck. I think Campbell was been alright in his first two games, definitely prefer him over Will but I think we have another option.

First of all we will need Hamling and Roberts both back. When that happens I would like to see Roughy and T Boyd having a go at sharing ruck duties. If they can both prove to be at least competitive in the ruck, I think they will offer the massive advantage of being able to play an extra tall forward or defender depending on the situation of the game. This can help us when we lose a play to injury or the opposition does, depending on the flow of the game (forward like too top heavy, need another tall down back etc) and if one of the pair is struggling up forward/down back.

Once again, I am pretty happy with Tom. Just that I thin it is an option, one I prefer over Will or Ayce.

[JohnGentStand]

I think they all bring a different strength. I cant dismiss Will as against hard-bodied teams he is crucial.

[Rocco Jones]

I think they all bring a different strength. I cant dismiss Will as against hard-bodied teams he is crucial.

Yeah I think we can use our lack of a clear #1 in a positive way. Go with a ruck team that suits what we need.

[bulldogtragic]

I think we need to move Minson on, for his sake and for salary cap relief. So we need to work ahead and think of a gameplan with him not around so the rest of the year we should be looking at all options. I still think we need to look at Luey, Bellchambers and Kruezer for next year with campbell as i'm not sold on Ayce getting another contract. So i'd be keen to have a look at this.

[stefoid]

I dont see how Roughy isnt our #1 ruck.

[boydogs]

If they can both prove to be at least competitive in the ruck, I think they will offer the massive advantage of being able to play an extra tall forward or defender depending on the situation of the game. This can help us when we lose a play to injury or the opposition does, depending on the flow of the game (forward like too top heavy, need another tall down back etc) and if one of the pair is struggling up forward/down back.

Read this 3 times but couldn't make sense of it

Having players that can play multiple positions helps you move things around and get matchups you like but I'm not understanding how it means you can play more talls

[Rocco Jones]

I dont see how Roughy isnt our #1 ruck.

I would have Roughy as our 1st ruck but think T Boyd is a bit more than someone who just offers respite when a ruckman is too tired. The combo would allow for Roughy to play down back when we need another tall or get Tom out of the forward line if it is too top heavy.

[Rocco Jones]

Read this 3 times but couldn't make sense of it

Having players that can play multiple positions helps you move things around and get matchups you like but I'm not understanding how it means you can play more talls

Haha maybe a few too many wines but what I mean is that it gives us the option to play a tall forward OR a defender.

For example, we went in with Campbell and Redpath yesterday. Campbell is limited to just the ruck and Redpath can obviously play forward. With the Boyd/Roughy combo, we have the flexibility of having one who can go back and the other forward. It means we can play Tom Boyd without getting too top heavy. Campbell, T Boyd, Redpath, Roughead, Roberts and Hamling = too many limited talls IMO.

[always right]

I like your thinking Rocco. Really tough decision to make with Will who has been a great warrior for our club. Part ofme says he deserves some loyalty but the other part says that we have a chance to build a genuine premiership winning side over the next couple of years if we get this right.

Will is not going to get any better and his best is not match winning. Luenberger and Bellchambers are no better and Kruezer is injury prone. A ruck combo of Roughy and Boyd appeals and Redpath if he continues to improve could nail CHF and be a good pinchhitter in the ruck if needed. He regularly surprises how competitive he is as a relief ruckman.

[F'scary]

Will would have smashed the 2 Collingwood ruckmen. Campbell was just ok and I think he still behind Will and Roughy in the pecking order.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Haha maybe a few too many wines but what I mean is that it gives us the option to play a tall forward OR a defender.

For example, we went in with Campbell and Redpath yesterday. Campbell is limited to just the ruck and Redpath can obviously play forward. With the Boyd/Roughy combo, we have the flexibility of having one who can go back and the other forward. It means we can play Tom Boyd without getting too top heavy. Campbell, T Boyd, Redpath, Roughead, Roberts and Hamling = too many limited talls IMO.

Rocco thank you for the thread and your thoughts. I still rate Campbell and believe he is currently our best ruck option. I have a theory that we still lack a marking key forward and that Roughead might be better suited to slot in at CHF. I would be very happy to use Tom Boyd as the support ruck man where I think he would be better suited than at FF. This would allow Stringer who does his best work closer to goal to become the leading full forward allowing Campbell to change with Boyd in the forward pocket. Redpath looks out of his depth as a change ruck man. With Hamling and Roberts to return we really do not need Roughead to play in defence.

[boydogs]

With the Boyd/Roughy combo, we have the flexibility of having one who can go back and the other forward

If you mean only Boyd & Roughy and no other ruckman, then it's disruptive as much as flexible. We constantly have to choose whether to break up our forward line or backline, and we can't keep either of them there all game if they really need to stay there. Which means you need an extra tall in each line to cover for when they are in the ruck, and end up overly tall

If you go with Campbell, Boyd & Roughy, then you've got flexibility because you can send Boyd or Roughy in if you like but you don't have to, and Campbell is a decent forward target too

[GVGjr]

Is Roughead physically able to ruck a lot of games? He just seems to get more niggling injuries when he does more ruckwork.

I don't mind what NBP is suggesting but if it's Campbell and Boyd does that mean Roughead is still a defender?

[1eyedog]

I'm loathe to use our best forward option since Chris Grant willy nilly in the ruck. I understand he needs to do a bit of relief work but it sure makes me nervous. My other issue is, as GVGjr says, will Roughie hold up and exactly how much work will Tom need to do?

Are we really so better off playing Roughie and Boyd in the ruck rather than giving Campbell an extended shot at it? Cordy got 6 games to prove what he's got (or hasn't got) so why don't we afford the same opportunity to Campbell before relegating him to the VFL?

Let him finish off the year and see where he's at.

[comrade]

I hope we play TC for an extended stretch....and then test the trade waters at the end of the year.

Ultimately I see our ruck set up similar to what Rocco has described here.

TC and Minson are both similar types, yet TC would be considered a valuable asset, IMO. He's contracted, younger and plenty of teams need a young 1st ruck.

If he could net us a good pick or help facilitate trading in a gun defender (Carlisle) or mid (Bennell), I'd certainly have a good hard think about it.

[soupman]

I hope we play TC for an extended stretch....and then test the trade waters at the end of the year.

Ultimately I see our ruck set up similar to what Rocco has described here.

TC and Minson are both similar types, yet TC would be considered a valuable asset, IMO. He's contracted, younger and plenty of teams need a young 1st ruck.

If he could net us a good pick or help facilitate trading in a gun defender (Carlisle) or mid (Bennell), I'd certainly have a good hard think about it.
Could work well in a deal with Essendon, who desperately need a ruck and used to have him in their reserves.

[azabob]

If we trade Campbell who is our ruckman in 2016?

[bornadog]

If we trade Campbell who is our ruckman in 2016?

Roughead

[comrade]

If we trade Campbell who is our ruckman in 2016?

You'd have to bank on Roughead.

If this is the way we go, I'd certainly look at rookie listing a mature state league ruck man.

[1eyedog]

I hope we play TC for an extended stretch....and then test the trade waters at the end of the year.

Ultimately I see our ruck set up similar to what Rocco has described here.

TC and Minson are both similar types, yet TC would be considered a valuable asset, IMO. He's contracted, younger and plenty of teams need a young 1st ruck.

If he could net us a good pick or help facilitate trading in a gun defender (Carlisle) or mid (Bennell), I'd certainly have a good hard think about it.

Absolutely but he would be a sweetener to the deal rather than a major component of it. If he can get to Will's standard with his actual ruck work and use his marking ability to go forward and hurt the opposition on the scoreboard ala Jolly he would be a worthy asset to the team. If he is one or the other he won't make it.

[Go_Dogs]

It was interesting to see Roughead on AFL360 (video on the Club website) where he stated he prefers to play in the ruck, rather than down back. He's obviously a very team orientated player, so no doubt he's happy to play wherever the MC requires - but I found it interesting.

I don't see why we couldn't go in with 3 talls, Campbell (first ruck), Roughead (second ruck) and Boyd (full forward) which would mean that one of Campbell or Roughead is resting forward or back throughout the game. If we got our forward structures right, not a lot of teams would be able to cover a Boyd + Campbell/Roughead combination in the air. The only issue of course is that it means we are perhaps too top heavy with Redpath in that side as well.

Ultimately it may depend on opposition and whether we favour run or height against certain sides, and of course injury and form dictating who gets a game.

I don't mind your idea Rocco, it has merit and it may be something we see before the year is out.

[The Pie Man]

It was interesting to see Roughead on AFL360 (video on the Club website) where he stated he prefers to play in the ruck, rather than down back. He's obviously a very team orientated player, so no doubt he's happy to play wherever the MC requires - but I found it interesting.

I don't see why we couldn't go in with 3 talls, Campbell (first ruck), Roughead (second ruck) and Boyd (full forward) which would mean that one of Campbell or Roughead is resting forward or back throughout the game. If we got our forward structures right, not a lot of teams would be able to cover a Boyd + Campbell/Roughead combination in the air. The only issue of course is that it means we are perhaps too top heavy with Redpath in that side as well.

Ultimately it may depend on opposition and whether we favour run or height against certain sides, and of course injury and form dictating who gets a game.

I don't mind your idea Rocco, it has merit and it may be something we see before the year is out.

I found it interesting too - he went on to clarify that the quality KD stocks coming through are pushing him out (which has element of truth of course) but he was fairly clear about where he'd prefer to play.

Just wondered what the coach thought of it - probably nothing.

FWIW I'd love to see him play 1st ruck with one of our forwards back up.

[Happy Days]

I'm loathe to use our best forward option since Chris Grant willy nilly in the ruck. I understand he needs to do a bit of relief work but it sure makes me nervous. My other issue is, as GVGjr says, will Roughie hold up and exactly how much work will Tom need to do?

Are we really so better off playing Roughie and Boyd in the ruck rather than giving Campbell an extended shot at it? Cordy got 6 games to prove what he's got (or hasn't got) so why don't we afford the same opportunity to Campbell before relegating him to the VFL?

Let him finish off the year and see where he's at.

Had me at hello. If Boyd ends up a ruck or even a ruck-forward I'll be kind of angry; it doesn't make fiscal list management sense to have that much cash tied up in one of the least valuable positions on the ground. I'd rather he be given every chance to make it as a forward, given his pedigree, potential and the fact that he's only done it about 15 times with pretty okay success.

[bornadog]

Had me at hello. If Boyd ends up a ruck or even a ruck-forward I'll be kind of angry; it doesn't make fiscal list management sense to have that much cash tied up in one of the least valuable positions on the ground. I'd rather he be given every chance to make it as a forward, given his pedigree, potential and the fact that he's only done it about 15 times with pretty okay success.

Completely agree with you. We have been crying out for a big powerful FF and when we go out and splurge the big dollars, only to move him into the crappy ruck well I would not be happy at all.

[Bulldog Joe]

Had me at hello. If Boyd ends up a ruck or even a ruck-forward I'll be kind of angry; it doesn't make fiscal list management sense to have that much cash tied up in one of the least valuable positions on the ground. I'd rather he be given every chance to make it as a forward, given his pedigree, potential and the fact that he's only done it about 15 times with pretty okay success.

It is a team game and the forwards finish the work from up the field.

Domination around the ball coupled with good ball use will make good forwards.

If Tom Boyd could be that ruckman coupled with the mids we have I would be very happy.

I know we have committed big dollars for Tom, but happy to play him where he best serves the team.

[1eyedog]

Had me at hello. If Boyd ends up a ruck or even a ruck-forward I'll be kind of angry; it doesn't make fiscal list management sense to have that much cash tied up in one of the least valuable positions on the ground. I'd rather he be given every chance to make it as a forward, given his pedigree, potential and the fact that he's only done it about 15 times with pretty okay success.

I understand the need to fill a gap but I don't like the idea of him playing ruck or even ruck forward for long periods of time (or even into much of next year). I think it helps him to get into the game to play him there for 5 minutes but we either put our eggs in the Campbell basket or play Roughie in the ruck with support from Boyd for the rest of the year with a view to Roughie doing most of the work by himself next season. After that, try to draft / trade for best available.

[Happy Days]

It is a team game and the forwards finish the work from up the field.

Domination around the ball coupled with good ball use will make good forwards.

If Tom Boyd could be that ruckman coupled with the mids we have I would be very happy.

I know we have committed big dollars for Tom, but happy to play him where he best serves the team.

Disagree. I don't think that anything more than adequacy is required in the ruck in combination with the ability to spread; Hawthorn have been trucking opposition through such an allocation of resources, as have the premier before them, the premier before them, the premier before them, and so on. I do not want $1 million a year in the ruck.

[Bulldog Joe]

Disagree. I don't think that anything more than adequacy is required in the ruck in combination with the ability to spread; Hawthorn have been trucking opposition through such an allocation of resources, as have the premier before them, the premier before them, the premier before them, and so on. I do not want $1 million a year in the ruck.

We can agree to disagree. Personally, I don't want $1m a year restricted to a certain role when he may be a match winner in another role that he is clearly capable of fulfilling.

If he can create an average 5 plus goals a game I would prefer that to him averaging 3 goals a game as a forward.

Just do what will win a flag.

[comrade]

If he helps us win a flag by playing in the back pocket, I couldn't care less :D

[Rocco Jones]

Not a fan of his price tag being a factor of where we play him. Once he is with us, we play him where he helps best. Just playing him forward won't justify the price.

[Mofra]

Not a fan of his price tag being a factor of where we play him. Once he is with us, we play him where he helps best. Just playing him forward won't justify the price.
What if he plays 50/50 ruck/forward or a year or two before becoming a 90% forward?

I know they can supposedly be found everywhere, but in my biased opinion ruck is a tough position to play from a preparation point of view - the combination of strength and endurance is extreme, and will get Boyd's repeat effort capacity right up which is a huge issue for him right now as a forward.

[Rance Fan]

I liked Campbells ruck work and contest around the ground vs Essendon.
Maybe he's our number 1. With Roughhead up at CHF.
Don't like to have our million dollar man competing in the ruck and maybe Will has had better days....

Not sure we can have 3 talls....maybe depends on opposition?

[always right]

Jury is still out on Tom. Didn't dominate Giles and took one strong grab that I can remember. If he starts taking more marks then he's a keeper but I'm not convinced. It seems that very little pressure needs to be applied to stop him marking the ball.

[bornadog]

Jury is still out on Tom. Didn't dominate Giles and took one strong grab that I can remember. If he starts taking more marks then he's a keeper but I'm not convinced. It seems that very little pressure needs to be applied to stop him marking the ball.

Giles had the better of Tom in the ruck and around the ground.

[Go_Dogs]

I thought Tom was OK and contested in the air when he needed to. It wasn't a standout game, but he was a solid contributor IMO.

[LostDoggy]

Operation Get Nic Nat.

[bulldogtragic]

Both of these guys still to come in. Wow.

[Rocco Jones]

Does it happen this week?

PS: Gotta hate a poster who brings back his own thread.

[Sedat]

Does it happen this week?

PS: Gotta hate a poster who brings back his own thread.
You should have quoted one of your own posts just to complete the story :D

I did that wanky move in the rooting thread :o