Tom Boyd 2016

[Twodogs]

Who has the responsibility for it though? Was it a designed media strategy from our soon to be ex-media manager (if it was them) or poorly handled by the CEO and the media manager was forced to carry out the order? The content of the press release is the issue from my vantage, and surely someone has to 'own' stuffing it up so badly.

It's always sounded to me like the left hand never knew what the right hand was doing in this case. Right from the start when Bevo talked about Boyd at the Presser and it ended up looking like he either didn't know one of his own players was suspended or he was lying to the media.

There have been retrospective or secret bans that no one knew when they started or finished. It's been all over the place.

[Greystache]

Who has the responsibility for it though? Was it a designed media strategy from our soon to be ex-media manager (if it was them) or poorly handled by the CEO and the media manager was forced to carry out the order? The content of the press release is the issue from my vantage, and surely someone has to 'own' stuffing it up so badly.

It's impossible for one person to get something so wrong. Even if that's person is hopelessly incompetent, the only way to screw up something this badly is to bring together a group of people who don't really understand the situation, aren't going to be held directly responsible for the fall out, but insist on having their opinion inform the final approach. It's committee thinking at its absolute worst.

Even up to this minute no one has released the details of what actually happened, no one has disputed the disgraceful rumors which the media are alluding to constantly (threats of lawsuits should be issued to anyone who suggests it was a glassing), no one has addressed that Tom and Zaine were actually suspended for lying about the incident not the incident itself, and we can't even put up a coherent criteria for when he's available for senior selection.

It's hard to believe a supposed professional organisation could screw a PR exercise up this spectacularly. North Korea could do a better and more convincing job of external communications!

[bornadog]

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/images-4.jpg

[comrade]

It's impossible for one person to get something so wrong. Even if that's person is hopelessly incompetent, the only way to screw up something this badly is to bring together a group of people who don't really understand the situation, aren't going to be held directly responsible for the fall out, but insist on having their opinion inform the final approach. It's committee thinking at its absolute worst.

Even up to this minute no one has released the details of what actually happened, no one has disputed the disgraceful rumors which the media are alluding to constantly (threats of lawsuits should be issued to anyone who suggests it was a glassing), no one has addressed that Tom and Zaine were actually suspended for lying about the incident not the incident itself, and we can't even put up a coherent criteria for when he's available for senior selection.

It's hard to believe a supposed professional organisation could screw a PR exercise up this spectacularly. North Korea could do a better and more convincing job of external communications!

I'd like this twice if I could.

[boydogs]

He got it from here I think.

http://www.sportingnews.com/afl/list/the-rover-tom-boyd-gets-more-headlines-than-games-latest-news-trade/1ku9rj962kwd419wkuk6p3i4tb/slide/1

That was only posted yesterday

[bornadog]

That was only posted yesterday

Copied from BF

[jeemak]

The one thing I take out of this saga is our handling of it should be studied by business schools around the world, alongside CDO valuation methodologies from the 2000's, as an example of how to *!*!*!*! something up so badly that it snowballs into a crisis.

For what was a minor incident the club's handling of it has been so atrocious at every stage that people, even if they are idiots, are talking openly that his position at the club is untenable and we are trying to move him on.

I sometimes think the leaders of our club don't actually have empathy for how "real world" folk think about some things that they do, and try to be a little bit too clever.

The easiest thing would have been for the club to come out as soon as the incident happened and state a couple of good guys behaved like dickheads in public and the book's being thrown at them to set a standard and to teach them a lesson.

[Twodogs]

Copied from BF

So you're saying that it was already on the Internet? It's an actual quotation? :eek:

[bornadog]

So you're saying that it was already on the Internet? It's an actual quotation? :eek:

Not a quotation, the idea. Basically the Bf guy said when Bevo arrived he didn't like Boyd and wanted to get rid of him and we are looking at trades.

[bornadog]

I sometimes think the leaders of our club don't actually have empathy for how "real world" folk think about some things that they do, and try to be a little bit too clever.

The easiest thing would have been for the club to come out as soon as the incident happened and state a couple of good guys behaved like dickheads in public and the book's being thrown at them to set a standard and to teach them a lesson.

Saying Tom was suspended indefinitely was a big mistake. It made the whole incident sound worse than it was.

[jeemak]

Saying Tom was suspended indefinitely was a big mistake. It made the whole incident sound worse than it was.

I see in a post subsequent to the one I quoted 'stache talked about decision via committee, and I agree with the sentiments laid out within it

We're not the only club that bungles this type of thing, we're also not the only business that does either. You add so many layers to a business and it gets asphyxiated by stakeholder input and shit like this happens.

[Doc26]

It's impossible for one person to get something so wrong. Even if that's person is hopelessly incompetent, the only way to screw up something this badly is to bring together a group of people who don't really understand the situation, aren't going to be held directly responsible for the fall out, but insist on having their opinion inform the final approach. It's committee thinking at its absolute worst.

Even up to this minute no one has released the details of what actually happened, no one has disputed the disgraceful rumors which the media are alluding to constantly (threats of lawsuits should be issued to anyone who suggests it was a glassing), no one has addressed that Tom and Zaine were actually suspended for lying about the incident not the incident itself, and we can't even put up a coherent criteria for when he's available for senior selection.

It's hard to believe a supposed professional organisation could screw a PR exercise up this spectacularly. North Korea could do a better and more convincing job of external communications!

Perfectly said.

It's been serious amateur hour. If it's not Beveridge's own doing then he should be mightily miffed at having to sound so damn immature each hour the question of 'when is Tom permitted to leave his naughty corner' is raised by the laughing media, now having a field day with it.

I'm probably going to be out on my own a bit here, but I also thought that those 'higher up' also stuffed up with their handling of the Talia case (not so much that he shouldn't have been traded out) and this latest example is yet another reminder of how not to handle a player management issue with the necessary acumen.

[bornadog]

Perfectly said.

It's been serious amateur hour. If it's not Beveridge's own doing then he should be mightily miffed at having to sound so damn immature each hour the question of 'when is Tom permitted to leave his naughty corner' is raised by the laughing media, now having a field day with it.

I'm probably going to be out on my own a bit here, but I also thought that those 'higher up' also stuffed up with their handling of the Talia case (not so much that he shouldn't have been traded out) and this latest example is yet another reminder of how not to handle a player management issue with the necessary acumen.

I think the club has most things right these days, but PR is lagging behind.

[1eyedog]

Saying Tom was suspended indefinitely was a big mistake. It made the whole incident sound worse than it was.

Agreed. The club seemed to get caught between what actually happened and how it would be perceived externally and making some kind of faux stance against violence generally, even though it could have been mitigated by stating it was druken foolishness.

They seemed to get caught on the violence aspect but it was being intoxicated that was the issue here, and a statement about being 20 year olds being pissed and stupid would have been far more acceptable to the social contingent and provided far less ammunition to the media.

They dropped Tom in the shit a bit with this one.

[bornadog]

Agreed. The club seemed to get caught between what actually happened and how it would be perceived externally and making some kind of faux stance against violence generally, even though it could have been mitigated by stating it was druken foolishness.

They seemed to get caught on the violence aspect but it was being intoxicated that was the issue here, and a statement about being 20 year olds being pissed and stupid would have been far more acceptable to the social contingent and provided far less ammunition to the media.

They dropped Tom in the shit a bit with this one.

The truth is always the best way to go.

[jeemak]

I still have a lot of faith in Tom Boyd, and really hope he becomes the young GOD he was predicted to become.

But................in retrospect, I'm not sure we did the right thing.

If I'm correct, GWS had pick 4 on the table for Griffen (please correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe they were offering pick 7 which they got from the Blues..........anyhow........

We could have done a straight swap. Gone to the draft with picks 4 (or 7) and 6, with our recruiting team in scintillating form.

We could have come home with two A graders, possibly a skilled fast powerful midfielder, and 2 metre Peter, with a Million bucks a year still in our pockets for a nice juicy free agent, and no huge contract hanging over Boyd and the clubs head.

So we lose Griffen and in return are set up to add 3 A graders to the list.

Or, do what we DID do, we lose Griffen, pick 6 and $$$$$ for 1 Tom Boyd.

If you could roll the clock back, would you do it differently?

The HUN is running this today.

G'day Sam!

[Ghost Dog]

I can well imagine the Richmond 'type' response. Nothing in it, boys were having a bit of a wrestle, fines and punishments have been handed out internally, move along.

[bornadog]

The HUN is running this today.

G'day Sam!

I absolutely can't stand ifs and buts on trading, drafting. Peter Wright was over looked by St Kilda, Melbourne, Collingwood and GWS. So what is the point?????

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I absolutely can't stand ifs and buts on trading, drafting. Peter Wright was over looked by St Kilda, Melbourne, Collingwood and GWS. So what is the point?????

Yeah with the main point being, at the time of the trade, every single person, be they journalists, list managers, recruiters, fathers, sons, daughters, mothers, mechanics, plumbers, rocket scientists or big footy posters would have taken Tom Boyd. Heck they all would have taken Boyd over a direct trade for Wright and lets say Marchbank. The kid was rated one of the best forwards of all time to come out of the U18s - and not just because of his ability - he was a level headed kid with a grounded family (there was a fairly in depth article on Boyd by Emma Quayle in his draft year)

Hindsight is a skill for losers.

[Ghost Dog]

Yeah with the main point being, at the time of the trade, every single person, be they journalists, list managers, recruiters, fathers, sons, daughters, mothers, mechanics, plumbers, rocket scientists or big footy posters would have taken Tom Boyd. Heck they all would have taken Boyd over a direct trade for Wright and lets say Marchbank. The kid was rated one of the best forwards of all time to come out of the U18s - and not just because of his ability - he was a level headed kid with a grounded family (there was a fairly in depth article on Boyd by Emma Quayle in his draft year)

Hindsight is a skill for losers.

Carlton would have offered him more. And St Kilda.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Carlton would have offered him more. And St Kilda.

I remember at the time it was reported St Kilda made a last ditch enquiry to try lure him over.

[ledge]

I remember at the time it was reported St Kilda made a last ditch enquiry to try lure him over.

Out of the three of us it looks like he chose the right club at the moment if he wants success..,
Money is that big does it come to a stage you say well it's about where I want to be now the money is good enough ?

[Bulldog4life]

I absolutely can't stand ifs and buts on trading, drafting. Peter Wright was over looked by St Kilda, Melbourne, Collingwood and GWS. So what is the point?????

You shouldn't read Woof then.;)

[bornadog]

You shouldn't read Woof then.;)

I ignore alot of those posts.

[Guido]

Carlton would have offered him more. And St Kilda.
Are these the really the clubs we should be comparing ourselves to and aiming to match in our list management processes and decision making?

We've paid a bloke as if he's one of the top 5-10 players in the league, and committed to doing it for 6 years, when it looks like he may never be in that class.

If the frontloading rumours are accurate, this year and next, we'll be paying over $1.5mil for someone who's on field return is closer to a $300k-$400k maybe $500k per year player. There are consequences to this.

When you essentially trade two top 10 picks for a player, there is a real risk you are possibly losing two A graders in your hope of getting one. But simply because they are faceless draft picks, "ah well, picks 4 (or 7) and 6, big deal". But if it had have been Bontempelli (pick 4) and Macrae (pick 6) being offered for Boyd that trade period, the Whitten Oval would have been burnt down to the ground.

And this "well in hindsight" argument is horseshit. Plenty of knowledgeable minds in the industry questioned it as it happened and clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong do not ever make such massively over the odds offers - they don't need "benefit of hindsight" to avoid making offers millions above market value to players they're looking to bring in. Especially when unproven. Last year Gerard Whately said on Offsiders that Hawthorn didn't have a single player on their list over $800k - Brian Cook has made similar comments re: Geelong, there top band at the club is $800K, and no-one is paid above that. Tom Hawkins only got into their "band 1" for the first time in his career in 2016. THIS is how you build something special (and win 7 of the last 9 premierships), not by throwing around over the odds offers on every player possibly available.

In the 6 months before we got Boyd, we had offered Patton $4.5mil, Levi Greenwood $2.4mil, Sam Reid $2.5mil, Lonergan $1.5mil - that's over $10mil in contracts which would have precluded us from being any chance to secure "our target all along".

For us, scattergun and over the odds is our MO - every single offer is over the odds. It's as if it's the only way we know how to operate. Other than Paul Hudson (and maybe Ben), the first ever time in my living memory we've actually gotten someone GENUINELY under the odds (both in salary and obviously trade/list cost as a FA) is Suckling - quite obviously where Beveridge's input and influence has shone through.

This year, Geelong brought Dangerfield in who, on numbers, has an actual worth probably closer to $1.3mil, and they're paying him $800K. Us, we're paying between $1.6mil-$1.8mil (if the supposed frontloading figures are true) to someone inherently worth $400K. "Well he'll be underpaid in 2019-2020! We win!" is all well and good, but in a year where we are a genuine threat and these kinds of list management decisions have a direct effect on our 2016 premiership campaign, come a final between us and Geelong, just simply on the payments of these two players, they'll be batting at 105% of the cap, we'll be batting at less than 90% of the cap, and this differential could very well cost a premiership.

$7mil deals to developing players (who may never get to that elite of the elite calibre) are not consequence free.

[Mofra]

And this "well in hindsight" argument is horseshit. Plenty of knowledgeable minds in the industry questioned it as it happened and clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong do not ever make such massively over the odds offers - they don't need "benefit of hindsight" to avoid making offers millions above market value to players they're looking to bring in. Especially when unproven. Last year Gerard Whately said on Offsiders that Hawthorn didn't have a single player on their list over $800k - Brian Cook has made similar comments re: Geelong, there top band at the club is $800K, and no-one is paid above that. Tom Hawkins only got into their "band 1" for the first time in his career in 2016. THIS is how you build something special (and win 7 of the last 9 premierships), not by throwing around over the odds offers on every player possibly available.
Hawthorn & Geelong haven't operated in an environment where they were struggling to meet the minimum requirements of the cap though.

You make some decent arguments but we're not St Kilda or Carlton - nor are Hawthorn or Geelong. We have our own unique challenges and list management issues and given we've re-signed everyone we have wanted to since getting Boyd across the doomsayers have not yet been proven correct.
We've nabbed a FA in that time on top of it all.

[Bulldog4life]

Are these the really the clubs we should be comparing ourselves to and aiming to match in our list management processes and decision making?

We've paid a bloke as if he's one of the top 5-10 players in the league, and committed to doing it for 6 years, when it looks like he may never be in that class.

If the frontloading rumours are accurate, this year and next, we'll be paying over $1.5mil for someone who's on field return is closer to a $300k-$400k maybe $500k per year player. There are consequences to this.

When you essentially trade two top 10 picks for a player, there is a real risk you are possibly losing two A graders in your hope of getting one. But simply because they are faceless draft picks, "ah well, picks 4 (or 7) and 6, big deal". But if it had have been Bontempelli (pick 4) and Macrae (pick 6) being offered for Boyd that trade period, the Whitten Oval would have been burnt down to the ground.

And this "well in hindsight" argument is horseshit. Plenty of knowledgeable minds in the industry questioned it as it happened and clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong do not ever make such massively over the odds offers - they don't need "benefit of hindsight" to avoid making offers millions above market value to players they're looking to bring in. Especially when unproven. Last year Gerard Whately said on Offsiders that Hawthorn didn't have a single player on their list over $800k - Brian Cook has made similar comments re: Geelong, there top band at the club is $800K, and no-one is paid above that. Tom Hawkins only got into their "band 1" for the first time in his career in 2016. THIS is how you build something special (and win 7 of the last 9 premierships), not by throwing around over the odds offers on every player possibly available.

In the 6 months before we got Boyd, we had offered Patton $4.5mil, Levi Greenwood $2.4mil, Sam Reid $2.5mil, Lonergan $1.5mil - that's over $10mil in contracts which would have precluded us from being any chance to secure "our target all along".

For us, scattergun and over the odds is our MO - every single offer is over the odds. It's as if it's the only way we know how to operate. Other than Paul Hudson (and maybe Ben), the first ever time in my living memory we've actually gotten someone GENUINELY under the odds (both in salary and obviously trade/list cost as a FA) is Suckling - quite obviously where Beveridge's input and influence has shone through.

This year, Geelong brought Dangerfield in who, on numbers, has an actual worth probably closer to $1.3mil, and they're paying him $800K. Us, we're paying between $1.6mil-$1.8mil (if the supposed frontloading figures are true) to someone inherently worth $400K. "Well he'll be underpaid in 2019-2020! We win!" is all well and good, but in a year where we are a genuine threat and these kinds of list management decisions have a direct effect on our 2016 premiership campaign, come a final between us and Geelong, just simply on the payments of these two players, they'll be batting at 105% of the cap, we'll be batting at less than 90% of the cap, and this differential could very well cost a premiership.

$7mil deals to developing players (who may never get to that elite of the elite calibre) are not consequence free.

You are making a lot of sense Guido.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Are these the really the clubs we should be comparing ourselves to and aiming to match in our list management processes and decision making?

We've paid a bloke as if he's one of the top 5-10 players in the league, and committed to doing it for 6 years, when it looks like he may never be in that class.

If the frontloading rumours are accurate, this year and next, we'll be paying over $1.5mil for someone who's on field return is closer to a $300k-$400k maybe $500k per year player. There are consequences to this.

When you essentially trade two top 10 picks for a player, there is a real risk you are possibly losing two A graders in your hope of getting one. But simply because they are faceless draft picks, "ah well, picks 4 (or 7) and 6, big deal". But if it had have been Bontempelli (pick 4) and Macrae (pick 6) being offered for Boyd that trade period, the Whitten Oval would have been burnt down to the ground.

And this "well in hindsight" argument is horseshit. Plenty of knowledgeable minds in the industry questioned it as it happened and clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong do not ever make such massively over the odds offers - they don't need "benefit of hindsight" to avoid making offers millions above market value to players they're looking to bring in. Especially when unproven. Last year Gerard Whately said on Offsiders that Hawthorn didn't have a single player on their list over $800k - Brian Cook has made similar comments re: Geelong, there top band at the club is $800K, and no-one is paid above that. Tom Hawkins only got into their "band 1" for the first time in his career in 2016. THIS is how you build something special (and win 7 of the last 9 premierships), not by throwing around over the odds offers on every player possibly available.

In the 6 months before we got Boyd, we had offered Patton $4.5mil, Levi Greenwood $2.4mil, Sam Reid $2.5mil, Lonergan $1.5mil - that's over $10mil in contracts which would have precluded us from being any chance to secure "our target all along".

For us, scattergun and over the odds is our MO - every single offer is over the odds. It's as if it's the only way we know how to operate. Other than Paul Hudson (and maybe Ben), the first ever time in my living memory we've actually gotten someone GENUINELY under the odds (both in salary and obviously trade/list cost as a FA) is Suckling - quite obviously where Beveridge's input and influence has shone through.

This year, Geelong brought Dangerfield in who, on numbers, has an actual worth probably closer to $1.3mil, and they're paying him $800K. Us, we're paying between $1.6mil-$1.8mil (if the supposed frontloading figures are true) to someone inherently worth $400K. "Well he'll be underpaid in 2019-2020! We win!" is all well and good, but in a year where we are a genuine threat and these kinds of list management decisions have a direct effect on our 2016 premiership campaign, come a final between us and Geelong, just simply on the payments of these two players, they'll be batting at 105% of the cap, we'll be batting at less than 90% of the cap, and this differential could very well cost a premiership.

$7mil deals to developing players (who may never get to that elite of the elite calibre) are not consequence free.

Hindsight when referring to the trade that was on offer for Griffen. Not the deal. We all know the deal has consequences and a large number of fans were concerned what effect it would have on retaining future stars. But at the time we were struggling to pay the cap MINIMUM and we have successfully signed up all our young guns.

I'm as concerned as anyone with the deal in terms of $ but so far it's yet to be a problem as far as retaining stars is concerned. It may have affected our ability to lure external players in, but the rumours around Hurley indicate this isn't the case at all.

[bulldogtragic]

He's 20% in to his tenure, he's on his p plates, he was the best kid in the country. Dissecting this deal now as a win or loss, or what he's delivered is not really sensible. He's a long term prospect being over analysed with short term impatience. Come back to this thread in 2 years and we can begin to have a meaningful conversation, but the sample is so small to make any types of conclusions.

[bornadog]

He's 20% in to his tenure, he's on his p plates, he was the best kid in the country. Dissecting this deal now as a win or loss, or what he's delivered is not really sensible. He's a long term prospect being over analysed with short term impatience. Come back to this thread in 2 years and we can begin to have a meaningful conversation, but the sample is so small to make any types of conclusions.

Agree BT

People get hung over about what players are paid. I don't give a rats arse what Boyd is paid. If someone said to me 2 years ago, you will have the 2013 number 1 draft pick, the best kid over 200cm (at the time) as well as The Bont from that draft, I would have said you have rocks in your head.

Get over it people, he is paid a shit load of money, so bloody what.

[Greystache]

He's 20% in to his tenure, he's on his p plates, he was the best kid in the country. Dissecting this deal now as a win or loss, or what he's delivered is not really sensible. He's a long term prospect being over analysed with short term impatience. Come back to this thread in 2 years and we can begin to have a meaningful conversation, but the sample is so small to make any types of conclusions.

But but but, we could have snatched Paul Ahern and Jarrod Pickett instead of trading for Boyd, then spent the next 5 years and a couple of million dollars developing them into the next Tim Walsh and Christian Howard! Then in 5 years I'll complain with hindsight we should've traded those picks for an entirely different scenario again. Of course in the mean time I'll also complain we don't have a gun key forward and criticize for not being bold enough to bring one to the club by taking a risk. One thing's for sure, either way I'll be right :rolleyes:

[Ghost Dog]

But but but, we could have snatched Paul Ahern and Jarrod Pickett instead of trading for Boyd, then spent the next 5 years and a couple of million dollars developing them into the next Tim Walsh and Christian Howard! Then in 5 years I'll complain with hindsight we should've traded those picks for an entirely different scenario again. Of course in the mean time I'll also complain we don't have a gun key forward and criticize for not being bold enough to bring one to the club by taking a risk. One thing's for sure, either way I'll be right :rolleyes:

Agreed! We needed a blue chip forward and have played the risky speculative market in order to get one.
The job of the media is to find stories, or to make them up when they're too lazy. Shotgunning until they are right is their forte.

[comrade]

Here's a question for the Captain Hindsights out there:

Would we have been better off keeping pick 5 in 2007, or being bold by offering Josh Kennedy a 6 year $6M mega deal and adding pick 5 to the Judd deal.

At that stage in 2007, Kennedy - 196cm pick 4 monster forward in the 2005 draft - had kicked just 11 goals in 22 games for the Blues in 2 years.

Because we've essentially done a very similar thing for Tom Boyd.

Except Tom Boyd at the end of 2014 was rated a much better prospect than Josh Kennedy was at the time he was traded in 2007.

Sorry Jarrad Grant, but I reckon we'd have been better with Kennedy.

I also love the rewriting of history that Boyd's contract is such an opportunity cost now we're smack bang in the premiership window. Well, think back to Shocktober 2014. We'd just been beaten by GWS in front of 2 men and a dog (I was one of those men). The club was in dire straights. A premiership window was not on the horizon and if anyone said we'd make finals in 2015 and then push for a top 2/4 spot in 2016, you would at best be called unbelievably ambitious and at worst, outright delusional.

We were struggling to pay the minimum cap. A huge broadcast deal was in the works which meant a significant spike in salary cap from 2017 onwards made a long term mega deal less of a risk, especially when front ended to meet the cap requirements (which we weren't doing without either front loading existing players or picking up other established players from other clubs) - we've seen with the current NBA free agency period that a broadcast deal that increases the cap leads to huge player deals, even for those that a fringe or marginal.

This is also ignoring the impact the deal had on the club, its players and staff, our reputation within the football community, our attractiveness to potential free agents and trade targets in the future.

The other factor the deal haters are now harping on is that Peter Wright is playing well, and what could have been yada yada yada. So if Peter Wright does his knee next week and never recovers, the Boyd deal is good again? Spare me.

Let me put on the record that I loved the deal at the time, loved how proud I was that we actually took some action, but right now, I am concerned about Tom's current form. He isn't aggressive or fit enough for my liking. But I am confident that he will improve and get to a level that will help us win a flag. He doesn't need to be the greatest player ever to justify his price tag, IMO. He just needs to play his role and help us win. And by the

I feel like I've made this argument a bunch of times, both on here and in person with people who are so self righteous about the deal. The reality is he's ours now. Moaning about it and rewriting history because things haven't worked out yet is a pointless exercise.

[Stefcep]

Agree BT

People get hung over about what players are paid. I don't give a rats arse what Boyd is paid. If someone said to me 2 years ago, you will have the 2013 number 1 draft pick, the best kid over 200cm (at the time) as well as The Bont from that draft, I would have said you have rocks in your head.

Get over it people, he is paid a shit load of money, so bloody what.

That he's not worth it and probably never will be?

[Ghost Dog]

Are these the really the clubs we should be comparing ourselves to and aiming to match in our list management processes and decision making?

We've paid a bloke as if he's one of the top 5-10 players in the league, and committed to doing it for 6 years, when it looks like he may never be in that class.

If the frontloading rumours are accurate, this year and next, we'll be paying over $1.5mil for someone who's on field return is closer to a $300k-$400k maybe $500k per year player. There are consequences to this.

When you essentially trade two top 10 picks for a player, there is a real risk you are possibly losing two A graders in your hope of getting one. But simply because they are faceless draft picks, "ah well, picks 4 (or 7) and 6, big deal". But if it had have been Bontempelli (pick 4) and Macrae (pick 6) being offered for Boyd that trade period, the Whitten Oval would have been burnt down to the ground.

And this "well in hindsight" argument is horseshit. Plenty of knowledgeable minds in the industry questioned it as it happened and clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong do not ever make such massively over the odds offers - they don't need "benefit of hindsight" to avoid making offers millions above market value to players they're looking to bring in. Especially when unproven. Last year Gerard Whately said on Offsiders that Hawthorn didn't have a single player on their list over $800k - Brian Cook has made similar comments re: Geelong, there top band at the club is $800K, and no-one is paid above that. Tom Hawkins only got into their "band 1" for the first time in his career in 2016. THIS is how you build something special (and win 7 of the last 9 premierships), not by throwing around over the odds offers on every player possibly available.

In the 6 months before we got Boyd, we had offered Patton $4.5mil, Levi Greenwood $2.4mil, Sam Reid $2.5mil, Lonergan $1.5mil - that's over $10mil in contracts which would have precluded us from being any chance to secure "our target all along".

For us, scattergun and over the odds is our MO - every single offer is over the odds. It's as if it's the only way we know how to operate. Other than Paul Hudson (and maybe Ben), the first ever time in my living memory we've actually gotten someone GENUINELY under the odds (both in salary and obviously trade/list cost as a FA) is Suckling - quite obviously where Beveridge's input and influence has shone through.

This year, Geelong brought Dangerfield in who, on numbers, has an actual worth probably closer to $1.3mil, and they're paying him $800K. Us, we're paying between $1.6mil-$1.8mil (if the supposed frontloading figures are true) to someone inherently worth $400K. "Well he'll be underpaid in 2019-2020! We win!" is all well and good, but in a year where we are a genuine threat and these kinds of list management decisions have a direct effect on our 2016 premiership campaign, come a final between us and Geelong, just simply on the payments of these two players, they'll be batting at 105% of the cap, we'll be batting at less than 90% of the cap, and this differential could very well cost a premiership.

$7mil deals to developing players (who may never get to that elite of the elite calibre) are not consequence free.

One cannot compare apples with oranges.

If you are going to talk list strategy, we are far similar to St Kilda than Hawthorn or Geelong.

Of course they don't have to shell out massive overs for players. The lure of premiership success ( eg: Hawks ) means players like Suckling or Lake will hang around for a sniff at a cup while being paid much less than market value.

We have to take a risk in order to get reward because we cannot compete with these two clubs on various levels ( profile, pokies revenue, stadium revenue, chance of imminent premiership, media deals, etc).

So, we've bitten off more than we can chew and are chewing like hell.
It's a gutsy play but that's what smaller clubs have to do. There is absolutely no way Tom Hawkins, Tex Walker, Buddy Franklin, or other blue chip forwards are going to play for us. That's the type of player we needed and were crying out for. A young Barry Hall, to compliment our gun midfield.

It may turn to sh*t but I for one won't blame the club for trying.

[bornadog]

That he's not worth it and probably never will be?

All I can say is WTF

[bornadog]

But but but, we could have snatched Paul Ahern and Jarrod Pickett instead of trading for Boyd, then spent the next 5 years and a couple of million dollars developing them into the next Tim Walsh and Christian Howard! Then in 5 years I'll complain with hindsight we should've traded those picks for an entirely different scenario again. Of course in the mean time I'll also complain we don't have a gun key forward and criticize for not being bold enough to bring one to the club by taking a risk. One thing's for sure, either way I'll be right :rolleyes:

You just described our tragic history.:D

[Remi Moses]

Should have kept Liam Jones^^^. Why didn't they recruit Jayden Foster ?
They tipped out a lot of contracts in 14. We've kept a our young guns, and in the market for Hurley .

[1eyedog]

Here's a question for the Captain Hindsights out there:

Would we have been better off keeping pick 5 in 2007, or being bold by offering Josh Kennedy a 6 year $6M mega deal and adding pick 5 to the Judd deal.

At that stage in 2007, Kennedy - 196cm pick 4 monster forward in the 2005 draft - had kicked just 11 goals in 22 games for the Blues in 2 years.

Because we've essentially done a very similar thing for Tom Boyd.

Except Tom Boyd at the end of 2014 was rated a much better prospect than Josh Kennedy was at the time he was traded in 2007.

Sorry Jarrad Grant, but I reckon we'd have been better with Kennedy.

I also love the rewriting of history that Boyd's contract is such an opportunity cost now we're smack bang in the premiership window. Well, think back to Shocktober 2014. We'd just been beaten by GWS in front of 2 men and a dog (I was one of those men). The club was in dire straights. A premiership window was not on the horizon and if anyone said we'd make finals in 2015 and then push for a top 2/4 spot in 2016, you would at best be called unbelievably ambitious and at worst, outright delusional.

We were struggling to pay the minimum cap. A huge broadcast deal was in the works which meant a significant spike in salary cap from 2017 onwards made a long term mega deal less of a risk, especially when front ended to meet the cap requirements (which we weren't doing without either front loading existing players or picking up other established players from other clubs) - we've seen with the current NBA free agency period that a broadcast deal that increases the cap leads to huge player deals, even for those that a fringe or marginal.

This is also ignoring the impact the deal had on the club, its players and staff, our reputation within the football community, our attractiveness to potential free agents and trade targets in the future.

The other factor the deal hater's are now harping on is that Peter Wright is playing well, and what could have been yada yada yada. So if Peter Wright does his knee next week and never recovers, the Boyd deal is good again? Spare me.

Let me put on the record that I loved the deal at the time, loved how proud I was that we actually took some action, but right now, I am concerned about Tom's current form. He isn't aggressive or fit enough for my liking. But I am confident that he will improve and get to a level that will help us win a flag. He doesn't need to be the greatest player ever to justify his price tag, IMO. He just needs to play his role and help us win. And by the

I feel like I've made this argument a bunch of times, both on here and in person with people who are so self righteous about the deal. The reality is he's ours now. Moaning about it and rewriting history because things haven't worked out yet is a pointless exercise.

Great post comrade.

Boyd's contract also attracts attention for the simple fact that it is very large and actually known, unlike most other player contracts. Knowing what a player is actually earning will become more commonplace in the near future as the pressure to police caps becomes greater, so that clubs do not attempt to cheat it.

Provided the balance of player contracts can be managed effectively, paying a large sum of money over 7 years is no more detrimental to the club than having a limited number of top 10 draft picks over a few years and blowing them on the Mitch Thorp's / Tim Walsh's et al. of this world.

[Remi Moses]

That he's not worth it and probably never will be?

So what say he turns out to live up to his billing and we're paying him unders?
The contract by all reports is massively front loaded.

[Happy Days]

He's 20% in to his tenure, he's on his p plates, he was the best kid in the country. Dissecting this deal now as a win or loss, or what he's delivered is not really sensible. He's a long term prospect being over analysed with short term impatience. Come back to this thread in 2 years and we can begin to have a meaningful conversation, but the sample is so small to make any types of conclusions.

Pretty much.

By the logic demonstrated by Landsberger, all Boyd has to do is kick a bunch of goals in a huge win against the worst backline in the league. Ya know, like he did last year.

[comrade]

Pretty much.

By the logic demonstrated by Landsberger, all Boyd has to do is kick a bunch of goals in a huge win against the worst backline in the league. Ya know, like he did last year.

Or Wright has to glass a teammate ;)

[bulldogtragic]

Pretty much.

By the logic demonstrated by Landsberger, all Boyd has to do is kick a bunch of goals in a huge win against the worst backline in the league. Ya know, like he did last year.

I'm sure Boyd didn't get a rising star nomination last year either... Hang on, he did get a rising star nomination in his first year with us. But that doesn't mean he was considered among the best 22 young players in 2015. Hang on, it kind of does. So he was in the best 22 young players last year, his first with us, and some are unhappy? Then not even a premiership is going to make them happy. "Sure we won a premiership in 2016, but we still pissed one away in 1997, remember that? Remember that! Well this flag can be cut and used as shitter paper in Tom Boyd's marble and gold plated toilet for all I care."

[The Pie Man]

Or Wright has to glass a teammate ;)

That rumour got some airtime via Robbo on 360 last night ('something in his hand' were his words)

Great post before BTW - I thought we finished that week off as best we could, made lemonade out of the lemons and cleansed the soul. This may rankle some, but I was almost as happy that once our former captain walked, Cooney did as well. I have no idea if the destabilizing rumors surrounding Cooney were true, but he was borderline not trying in his last season with us at times.

Still happy we got Tom Boyd - sure, we paid overs, but I saw, and still do see it as a necessary evil. The argument from some journos that since we're in premiership contention early the contract becomes an issue is just manufactured garbage....I bet we take being ahead of schedule and this beat up featuring in the papers then only winning once a month...and even then, I'm sure it'd still raise it's ugly head (I'd love to ask Barrett that - 'so if the Dogs were 12th, you wouldn't have an issue with the front loaded side of the deal?')

[jeemak]

Guys like Cooney and Lake are all good when you're winning and things are going their way and the way of the team, but struggle to lead when things aren't.

[Mofra]

Guys like Cooney and Lake are all good when you're winning and things are going their way and the way of the team, but struggle to lead when things aren't.
Cooney didn't want to leave us though, not quite the same as lake.

[jeemak]

Cooney said he was open to being traded, which sent a clear enough message as a contracted player.

[1eyedog]

Cooney said he was open to being traded, which sent a clear enough message as a contracted player.

Only when asked leading up to the subsequent clean out.

[jeemak]

I don't recall that ever being raised.

[bulldogtragic]

Only when asked leading up to the subsequent clean out.

Was it a club lead clean out, or a player lead exodus at the end of 2014?

[bornadog]

Was it a club lead clean out, or a player lead exodus at the end of 2014?

Influenced by previous coach.

[bulldogtragic]

Influenced by previous coach.

Yep. But this thread is going way off course.

[hujsh]

Yeah with the main point being, at the time of the trade, every single person, be they journalists, list managers, recruiters, fathers, sons, daughters, mothers, mechanics, plumbers, rocket scientists or big footy posters would have taken Tom Boyd. Heck they all would have taken Boyd over a direct trade for Wright and lets say Marchbank. The kid was rated one of the best forwards of all time to come out of the U18s - and not just because of his ability - he was a level headed kid with a grounded family (there was a fairly in depth article on Boyd by Emma Quayle in his draft year)

Hindsight is a skill for losers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RkSrF1HFY0

[Stefcep]

So what say he turns out to live up to his billing and we're paying him unders?
The contract by all reports is massively front loaded.

Won't happen. Just don't see a million dollar/year player. That's Wayne Carey territory ( Carey the player, not the Carey the bloke.)

In his second season Carey was booting 7 goals a game and winning matches off his own boot. He was 19 years old.

[comrade]

Won't happen. Just don't see a million dollar/year player. That's Wayne Carey territory ( Carey the player, not the Carey the bloke.)

In his second season Carey was booting 7 goals a game and winning matches off his own boot. He was 19 years old.

Say he never reaches Carey heights (few, if any, do) but he becomes a valuable forward/ruck that plays an important role in a grand final that we win.

Would you still begrudge the deal then?

[jeemak]

Won't happen. Just don't see a million dollar/year player. That's Wayne Carey territory ( Carey the player, not the Carey the bloke.)

In his second season Carey was booting 7 goals a game and winning matches off his own boot. He was 19 years old.

Sorry, if you wanted to prise a contracted Carey type away from the AFL's lovechild you'd be paying more than we are paying Tom.

Sure, Tom may not end up being worth the price we paid but respect needs to be given for the context of the deal as it was made at the time. That's not to say repercussions or alternative scenarios should be disregarded however, there's a reality that needs to be considered when luring KPF's to football clubs. Let's have a think about:

Walker - Hidden by the Crows as a junior
Kennedy - Cost the best player at the club to land
Hawkins - Father son
Franklin - $10M over ten years
Cloak - Father son
Tippett - $850K plus
Danniher - Father son
Patton, McCartin, Roughead, Cameron, Hogan - Underage recruit/top draft picks

How do you get your hands on these types of players without either getting extremely lucky (Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong, Adelaide) or being extremely bad (Saints, Hawks - at the time they secured Roughead)? You fork out a shitload of cash (Swans -with Buddy and Tippett) or you fork out a shitload of cash and make the best of a bad situation (WCE and ourselves).

For years and years we've been lambasted for not doing enough to secure an elite quality forward. How could we have secured Boyd without paying massive amounts of cash for him? It pisses me off no end when clubs get commended for developing dominant key forwards, when in most instances they've not actually had to put their balls on the line to do it.

We've at least put our balls on the line to improve our situation and I'm really glad we did.

[1eyedog]

Influenced by previous coach.

Yep there's no doubt Macca had the broom in hand and for many rightfully so.

[Remi Moses]

Won't happen. Just don't see a million dollar/year player. That's Wayne Carey territory ( Carey the player, not the Carey the bloke.)

In his second season Carey was booting 7 goals a game and winning matches off his own boot. He was 19 years old.
Carey is one of the greatest players of all time. We paid overs to get him out of there, obviously .
Wouldn't think Tippett was worthy of nearly a mil, and Scully . Buddy Franklin's on a contract that he isn't going to fulfil.
You have to pay overs sometimes to get what you want .

[jeemak]

Influenced by previous coach.


Yep there's no doubt Macca had the broom in hand and for many rightfully so.

Being rid of Lake was coach and club driven. I've mentioned it previously, Eade and Gia had a moment on the Sunday CH7 footy show where they acknowledged how poor a team mate he was as recently as 2014.

There's scope to suggest BMac was caught out by the strength of the negative sentiment towards him from the likes of Higgins, Cooney and our former captain. I'd be surprised if Cooney wasn't in the gun from the moment BMac walked through the doors.

It's a shame Higgins isn't with us, Bevo could have been the coach to get the most out of him as a Bulldog and he's precisely what our list needs.

[Ghost Dog]

Won't happen. Just don't see a million dollar/year player. That's Wayne Carey territory ( Carey the player, not the Carey the bloke.)

In his second season Carey was booting 7 goals a game and winning matches off his own boot. He was 19 years old.

Different era, different tactics.

[Greystache]

Won't happen. Just don't see a million dollar/year player. That's Wayne Carey territory ( Carey the player, not the Carey the bloke.)

In his second season Carey was booting 7 goals a game and winning matches off his own boot. He was 19 years old.

Wayne Carey as a 20 year old (the same age as Boyd is now) kicked 28 goals for the season. But yeah he kicked 10 every week.

He didn't in fact pass 46 goals in a season until he was 22, and that was in an era of high scoring forwards playing one out in the forward line.

[Ghost Dog]

Won't happen. Just don't see a million dollar/year player. That's Wayne Carey territory ( Carey the player, not the Carey the bloke.)

In his second season Carey was booting 7 goals a game and winning matches off his own boot. He was 19 years old.

Different era, different tactics. Who kicks 7 goals a game these days? Not as much space in the forward line. Less 1-on-1 contests.

Individually, he may never be as good as any of the great forwards. But if he helps us win a flag, what does it matter? It's a team game, and he has to fit us.

[jeemak]

Different era, different tactics. Who kicks bags of 7 goals these days? It doesn't happen that often.

I think Stefcep may have been a little loose with his/her 7 per game comment. Afterall, I can't recall Wayne kicking over 150 goals in his second year of footy.

[bulldogtragic]

I think Stefcep may have been a little loose with his 7 per game comment. Afterall, I can't recall Wayne kicking over 150 goals in his second year of footy.

Are you counting in finals and/or Ansett Cup games?

[jeemak]

Are you counting in finals and/or Ansett Cup games?

I can't count.

[bulldogtragic]

I can't count.

Sorry to hear it. Here I was just thinking it was literacy you were having problems with. :D

[jeemak]

Sorry to hear it. Here I was just thinking it was literacy you were having problems with. :D

Wot?

[Webby]

I'm glad this subject came up, as it gives me the opportunity to point out just how special Templeton was:

He kicked 82 goals as a 19 year old in 1976.
He kicked 118 as a 21 year old in 1978.
He kicked 91 as a 22 year old in 1979.
& he won a Brownlow as a 23 year old in 1980.

Only one bloke comes close to those numbers and that's Tony Lockett.
Lockett cracked his first ton and won a Brownlow in the same year as a 21 year old.
Lockett didn't pass the mark again until 25 years of age and had his most productive years between 25 & 32.

Point is, Lockett's a freak - yet KT out-freaked him in the pre-peak years. problem is, injury meant KT never really got to see his own peak years of 25-32.

Also, Lockett, Templeton and Carey were all 6ft 3in....
Tom Hawkins is a significantly bigger 6ft 5...
Tom Boyd is significantly bigger again at 6ft 7....

For some context, Boyd's nearly 2 inches taller than Luke Darcy. Darcy didn't come into his own until 24 and played his best footy at 28-29.

So, Boyd's clearly at least 4-6 years away from his best footy. It means that we knew he was 5-7 years away from his best footy when we signed him... So people getting on his back just 1.5 years into his 7 years deal is quite mind numbing. Everyone knows that, if it's a slow news week, the media are going to hit the "how's Tom Boyd going?" button...

The Boyd deal helped us to change perceptions about our club. We instantly went from "poor old, struggling rabble with tragic past, no future, no hope" to "destination club for one of the highest rated prospects in the country... Geez, they've got a good young list, actually... Wow, who'd have thought they could pull that off?" overnight.

The deal breathed life into the club. However we knew that we wouldn't see an on field return on the investment until the 5th to 7th years - and hopefully beyond when he extends... So panic after 18 months is simply ridiculous.

[1eyedog]

Agreed Webby and thanks for the KT mind jog. My concern is that aside from when / if Boyd will make it it is a hell of a lot of money to change the external perception of the club. I hope we manage our stars with a robust acumen and that the Boyd deal does not have implications for keeping / losing players in the future.

[SonofScray]

Great post Webby. Especially the context around our experience with a guy like Darcy in comparison with a freak show like KT. Another element to the story is our patience, expectations and previous trauma waiting for a messiah up front. A KPF has become this mythical beast for us, it's a hard mark to hit.

In Braveheart there is a parlay between William Wallace and some soldiers:

Young Soldier: William Wallace is seven feet tall!
William Wallace: Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds. And if HE were here, he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.

We are desperate to hang these blokes as soon as they aren't consuming opponents with fire. Not everyone, but your average Joe Bulldog who accesses footy via the HS and yells KICK IT! every time we touch the footy has this predisposition.

The media is stuck in a circle jerk driven by confirmation bias on him, which has turned his narrative with intelligent fans like us into a defensive battle. It's hard work.

We'll be right though, he will play good footy with us and contribute meaningfully to a Flag that Wags. I am certain.

[Twodogs]

I'm glad this subject came up, as it gives me the opportunity to point out just how special Templeton was:

He kicked 82 goals as a 19 year old in 1977.
He kicked 118 as a 21 year old in 1978.
He kicked 91 as a 22 year old in 1979.
& he won a Brownlow as a 23 year old in 1980.

Only one bloke comes close to those numbers and that's Tony Lockett.
Lockett cracked his first ton and won a Brownlow in the same year as a 21 year old.
Lockett didn't pass the mark again until 25 years of age and had his most productive years between 25 & 32.

Point is, Lockett's a freak - yet KT out-freaked him in the pre-peak years. problem is, injury meant KT never really got to see his own peak years of 25-32.

Also, Lockett, Templeton and Carey were all 6ft 3in....
Tom Hawkins is a significantly bigger 6ft 5...
Tom Boyd is significantly bigger again at 6ft 7....

For some context, Boyd's nearly 2 inches taller than Luke Darcy. Darcy didn't come into his own until 24 and played his best footy at 28-29.

So, Boyd's clearly at least 4-6 years away from his best footy. It means that we knew he was 5-7 years away from his best footy when we signed him... So people getting on his back just 1.5 years into his 7 years deal is quite mind numbing. Everyone knows that, if it's a slow news week, the media are going to hit the "how's Tom Boyd going?" button...

The Boyd deal helped us to change perceptions about our club. We instantly went from "poor old, struggling rabble with tragic past, no future, no hope" to "destination club for one of the highest rated prospects in the country... Geez, they've got a good young list, actually... Wow, who'd have thought they could pull that off?" overnight.

The deal breathed life into the club. However we knew that we wouldn't see an on field return on the investment until the 5th to 7th years - and hopefully beyond when he extends... So panic after 18 months is simply ridiculous.

Thanks Webby. I was starring to think I was barking at the moon with my constant "KT was the greatest ever" mantra.

BTW KT also kicked 4 goals in a losing final as an 18 yo. And 25 goals in each of his first two seasons as a 16/17 yo, including (from memory) 6 goals in his debut as a 16 yo.

I saw Carey's whole career and Templeton was so far ahead of him at the same age it wasn't funny. There is only one player who even comes close to KT and that was Lockett. Plugger was a better full forward but KT could play more positions.


Templeton is a great of this game and if it weren't for his knee injury he would easily be the greatest ever. Bulldog supporters just have to get used to that idea and stop running him down every time we ask WHY ISNT KELVIN TEMPLETON IN THE *!*!*!*!ING HALL OF FAME??????

http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?15817-The-AFL-and-it-s-Hall-of-Fame-committee-can-get-*!*!*!*!ed&highlight=Hall+fame

Interesting article by a friend of mine on this exact topic;

http://australianfootball.com/articles/view/A%2BHall%2Bof%2BFame%2Boversight/2003

I think I watched nearly every game KT played with us with Mic and still watch footy with him. He knows what he's talking about.

[bornadog]

Templeton is a great of this game and if it weren't for his knee injury he would easily be the greatest ever. Bulldog supporters just have to get used to that idea and stop running him down every time we ask WHY ISNT KELVIN TEMPLETON IN THE *!*!*!*!ING HALL OF FAME??????

http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?15817-The-AFL-and-it-s-Hall-of-Fame-committee-can-get-*!*!*!*!ed&highlight=Hall+fame

KT was an unbelievable player at FF and when Royce Hart came to the club and asked him to go to CHF, he won a Brownlow. One of the saddest days in football, was watching the preseason comp and in the dying minutes KT doing his knee. Those days knees were not fixed easily, and really that was the end of him. When he went to Melbourne, I wasn't that worried as I knew his days were numbered due to injury.

Ever since KT we have been looking for a replacement. Beaza was a great FF, not in the KT class but since then we have gone through a number of talls trying to replicate KT - (see Talls of shame thread (http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?13607-Bulldogs-%93Talls-of-Shame%94&highlight=Talls+of+shame)). The closest is Chris Grant, who played forward and back.

When Trade Radio announced the deal to get Tom Boyd, and Barrett fell off his chair, I was doing cartwheels around my office, as I couldn't believe we had snared the first draft pick from 2013 and he was a big boy who can kick goals, take big marks and was only 19 years old. I also couldn't believe that as a club, we decided to put our balls on the line, draw a line in the sand and say to the footy world, we don't want to be everyone's second team, we are going to win a premiership (several), in the next few years.

[bulldogtragic]

Wot?

Does Marsellus Wallace look like a bitch?

[Happy Days]

KT was an unbelievable player at FF and when Royce Hart came to the club and asked him to go to CHF, he won a Brownlow. One of the saddest days in football, was watching the preseason comp and in the dying minutes KT doing his knee. Those days knees were not fixed easily, and really that was the end of him. When he went to Melbourne, I wasn't that worried as I knew his days were numbered due to injury.


Whatever, Ben "Hitman" Hart still obviously deserves to be in the HOF over him.

[comrade]

He's got a ticket to Cairns. Time to unleash the beast.

My advice? Fill a water bottle up with VB just before the first bounce, get Stringer to spray it on him and watch the big fella kick an angry bag.

[bornadog]

Well Bevo said:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuXIq7OazQ

[always right]

The Boyd deal helped us to change perceptions about our club. We instantly went from "poor old, struggling rabble with tragic past, no future, no hope" to "destination club for one of the highest rated prospects in the country... Geez, they've got a good young list, actually... Wow, who'd have thought they could pull that off?" overnight.



It was actually more important than that IMO. At the time I genuinely feared for the future of our club. We'd come off the back of several poor years, we had a coach no-one appeared to rate and it seemed like everyone wanted to jump ship. The diehards would always support the club but what about those that are dragged kicking and screaming to buy a membership each year? They could have been lost...never to return.

Snagging Tom Boyd immediately changed our mindset. A big ballsy move that regenerated hope. It could very well go down in history as the move that saved the club (again) and (hopefully) led the way to future premierships. Big statement but one I genuinely believe.

[josie]

Go Boydy!!! Rip 'Em to shreds. So looking forward to seeing Tom and Redpath and Stringer play together. X fingers it works well. Dunkley OK in forward line too so whoopeee!!!

[Eastdog]

Good luck Tom. Take this opportunity with both hands and show those critics in the media what you can do.

[F'scary]

Just back to KT. We should also remember he went to Melbourne to help the club out financially. Melbourne were offering a deal that ignored his dicky knee. I understand that KT announced the move to his teammates in the clubrooms in tears. He basically told them that his knee was *!*!*!*!ed and that he could no longer play. History shows he only lasted a couple more years and was a shadow of the all-time great who donned the Dogs' jumper.

[Twodogs]

Just back to KT. We should also remember he went to Melbourne to help the club out financially. Melbourne were offering a deal that ignored his dicky knee. I understand that KT announced the move to his teammates in the clubrooms in tears. He basically told them that his knee was *!*!*!*!ed and that he could no longer play. History shows he only lasted a couple more years and was a shadow of the all-time great who donned the Dogs' jumper.


From memory KT kicked 99 goals in 30 odd matches for Melbourne at a respectable average of a tick over 3 goals per game even though he was literally playing on one leg.

[F'scary]

From memory KT kicked 99 goals in 30 odd matches for Melbourne at a respectable average of a tick over 3 goals per game even though he was literally playing on one leg.

A pretty good shadow! But he did only play for a couple of seasons. I can recall he was not able to kick for goal outside of 40 metres.

[Eastdog]

Tom was good last night and did some good things. Kicked a nice goal early in the 3rd quarter. It is very important we keep getting senior games into him. Good to see the players embrace Tom after that goal.

[Remi Moses]

Pretty good in the second half tonight

[S Coast Simon]

Tom Boyd was great last night. One thing that has always annoyed me about his assessment by the media is they forget that when he plays he gets the oppositions best defender. Not many kids start playing and AFL and have to deal with an elite opponent 90% of the game. When most kids are starting they get the oppositions 19-22 best player marking them. Imagine all the other 20 year olds having to play against Rance and co

[comrade]

All I really wanted was for him to earn his spot for next week's game and he did that. Was lively in the ruck, clunked a few and his positioning in marking contests was noticeably better than it was before he got injured. And kicking a 50m bomb on a swirly night was good reward for effort.

He should gain plenty of confidence from that performance, and the genuine excitement his teammates showed when he kicked the goal had some meaning to it. Also spoke well after the game.

He'll be right.

[bulldogtragic]

Tom is a gun, going at pick one and the money offered we all know he's a gun in the making. Something I was thinking about overnight was how good he was in the chain on plays and his skills. His skills by hand and by foot were that of a quality midfielder always hitting a target and inside 50's, that a 203cm can do this is pretty amazing. The media might only talk about pack marks and goals, but I'm sure the coaches would love that, like I do.

[lemmon]

On TV it looked like he an Rough had a near 50/50 split for ruck time. He competed well an looked capable once the ball hit the ground.

The next step is starting to get more easy footy closer to goal. He'd be near impossible to spoil on the lead so I'd love to see him get on the end of some quick play in the way Redpath does.

Encouraging game, we look to have the set up pretty right between Roughy, Boyd and Redpath.

[bornadog]

I like the way he laid a few tackles as well, and his second efforts were very good.

[bulldogtragic]

I like the way he laid a few tackles as well, and his second efforts were very good.

I thought he laid the first tackle that was a holding the ball in the goal square given to Clay Smith too.

[F'scary]

I've only seen the highlight of his mark for the goal in the 3rd quarter. He certainly used his height to its full advantage to beat the spoil. That's why guys like him go #1 in the draft so often.

[F'scary]

I think it is important that Bulldogs supporters get behind Tom Boyd because the treatment he has copped in so many sections of the media is just so unfair. It has often been like a pack of wolves circling.

[Ozza]

Thought for a 1st game back at the level - it was a reasonable building block to start the remainder of the year.

With st.kilda's lack of tall defenders, he gets a real chance to build on last night, next week. It was good to see him take that big mark at half back.

[Eastdog]

I think it is important that Bulldogs supporters get behind Tom Boyd because the treatment he has copped in so many sections of the media is just so unfair. It has often been like a pack of wolves circling.

For sure. He needs the support and as I said in my previous post the embrace from his teammates was very good. They all looked like they were in good spirits.

The media is the media and we cannot worry about what they say as they will say all kinds of stuff - we just need to focus on what we are doing.

[1eyedog]

I think it is important that Bulldogs supporters get behind Tom Boyd because the treatment he has copped in so many sections of the media is just so unfair. It has often been like a pack of wolves circling.

He can always turn off the computer, put down the paper and light a cigar with a $1000 bill.

[FrediKanoute]

Tom was good. He had something like 9 score involvements. The important thing with a developing player is to contribute. If he was involved in just under a third of our scoring, I am thinking that is pretty good.