MVP Tommy Boyd - The Grand Final Enigma

[black pup]

Are you serious.

I was actually discouraged by T Boyd today. Maybe Im expecting too much but during the handball game he seemed to lack mobility/fitness or what seemed more likely a lack of effort. I felt as though his attitude was 'in close handball work isn't my go so I don't need to try that hard'. hopefully I'm wrong

 

[Dogs 13]

Agreed. If he backs it up on the field he is future captain material.

I flagged this back in December after the Social Club function at Etihad, very impressive.

 

[No Way Romero]

Are you serious.

didn't realise what I said was that ludicrous. yes i was serious

 

[Dogs Rule]

If he doesn't do well against 21yos in the NAB Cup, I'll temper expectations for him too.

My expectations of Boyd are already tempered. If we're serious, he should have to fight hard to keep his place in the team all season.

 

[Roscoe_au]

My expectations of Boyd are already tempered. If we're serious, he should have to fight hard to keep his place in the team all season.

He and a number of others. Love hearing about how the young boys are progressing.

If they star playing well in the VFL, kids like Daniel and Hamilton will get their chance soon

 

[fronkalicious]

He and a number of others. Love hearing about how the young boys are progressing.

If they star playing well in the VFL, kids like Daniel and Hamilton will get their chance soon

Hamilton looks a fair way from being ready imo. Nice talent, but lots of work to do.

 

[TempletonTheRat]

Bevo has already said that 2015 will be a development year for Toyd. Hawkins took 3 years before considered a KPF...up until then, he had every Geelong supporter up his a$$ saying he wasn't going to be any good. I'd pick Tawkins in my side any day of the week these days! As for his uncle Dawkins...he's an out and out legend...lol

Tawkins comes from good stock - his old man Jumping Jawkins was a pretty fair player for the Cats

 

[Butane]

Tawkins comes from good stock - his old man Jumping Jawkins was a pretty fair player for the Cats

Hawkins was a Lockett clone who won the state school high jump championship and could kick 60 meters at 17 years old. His Dad was also an AFL player and Hawkins only knew he was doing one thing from the age of 8.

Anyone that doubted him was an idiot. Bomber said in 2008 after they lost the Granny that if anyone doubted Geelong bouncing back then they should take a look at Tom Hawkins and they would know Geelong were going to be competitive for another decade.

 

[TheLastEmperor]

Question for Doggies fans:

Griffen was always going to be let go there's no way he could have remained at your club. But seeing as he was contracted your club could've demanded pick 4 or at worst pick 7 from GWS in return and kept pick 6 which you also had. Heading to the draft with pick 4 and 7 would mean you had access to Peter Wright and a number of other talented kids as well as an extra mill in the kitty. In hindsight do you agree with your clubs strategy to invest heavily (both financially and in the way of two top 10 ranked juniors in the country) in Tom Boyd or would you have preferred an alternative?

I realise you don't have the benefit of hindsight and Boyd could be the next Nick Riewoldt or Scott Gumbleton and Jarred Picket the next Cyril Rioli or Andrew Lovett, so it's an early judgement call I'm asking.

Not trolling it's a genuine question. I've been extremely critical of decisions my own club made, namely trading the Goddard compo pick for Tom Lee and a few picks and pick 12 for Tom Hickey and a few picks. I've also been critical of my own club and then had egg on my face (essentially getting Hugh Goddard for Stanley).

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Question for Doggies fans:

Griffen was always going to be let go there's no way he could have remained at your club. But seeing as he was contracted your club could've demanded pick 4 or at worst pick 7 from GWS in return and kept pick 6 which you also had. Heading to the draft with pick 4 and 7 would mean you had access to Peter Wright and a number of other talented kids as well as an extra mill in the kitty. In hindsight do you agree with your clubs strategy to invest heavily (both financially and in the way of two top 10 ranked juniors in the country) in Tom Boyd or would you have preferred an alternative?

I realise you don't have the benefit of hindsight and Boyd could be the next Nick Riewoldt or Scott Gumbleton and Jarred Picket the next Cyril Rioli or Andrew Lovett, so it's an early judgement call I'm asking.

Not trolling it's a genuine question. I've been extremely critical of decisions my own club made, namely trading the Goddard compo pick for Tom Lee and a few picks and pick 12 for Tom Hickey and a few picks. I've also been critical of my own club and then had egg on my face (essentially getting Hugh Goddard for Stanley).

The biggest issue is that the club was backed into a corner by a lot of its members. We were a complete and utter rabble at the end of last year - and I'm not just talking on-field. A lot of supporters jumped off and let their displeasure be felt by the club, rightly or wrongly. An extra draft pick outside of the top five (GWS were never offering pick #4 btw - it was always 7 + sweeteners (AKA a nickel and a half-consumed packet of Twisties)) in a draft that was widely marketed as dropping off after the top four-ish players wasn't exactly going to do much to restore faith in the club. One of the best key forwards we've seen at junior level though? There's a chance that turns the ship around.

That isn't all it is though. It's important to realise that our recruiting team rated him miles and miles above anything available in this draft (and we absolutely loved both McCartin and Wright). We've been pretty good with our early pick player analysis in recent times. Stringer, if you believe the rumours, could have fallen outside the top ten if we didn't take the risk. In the same year Macrae was considered somewhat of a risk since he bolted significantly in the last couple months of the season. Bontempelli was a wild card and played some terrific footy for us last year. I'm happy to back their judgement at this point in time.

I've been critical of the trade in the past and, personally, would have liked those picks (Wright and Lever would have been my two), but I'm at peace with it now. The money doesn't factor into my opinion though. The deal is heavily incentivised (ie. he won't get anywhere near the reported $7M if he doesn't meet performance requirements) and if he becomes anywhere near as good as he should be, he'll be underpaid by 2019 - right around when we have to re-sign other young talent. As far as I'm concerned the contract is fine (but risky, absolutely), but the trade was a little one-sided.

 

[TheLastEmperor]

The biggest issue is that the club was backed into a corner by a lot of its members. We were a complete and utter rabble at the end of last year - and I'm not just talking on-field. A lot of supporters jumped off and let their displeasure be felt by the club, rightly or wrongly. An extra draft pick outside of the top five (GWS were never offering pick #4 btw - it was always 7 + sweeteners (AKA a nickel and a half-consumed packet of Twisties)) in a draft that was widely marketed as dropping off after the top four-ish players wasn't exactly going to do much to restore faith in the club. One of the best key forwards we've seen at junior level though? There's a chance that turns the ship around.

That isn't all it is though. It's important to realise that our recruiting team rated him miles and miles above anything available in this draft (and we absolutely loved both McCartin and Wright). We've been pretty good with our early pick player analysis in recent times. Stringer, if you believe the rumours, could have fallen outside the top ten if we didn't take the risk. In the same year Macrae was considered somewhat of a risk since he bolted significantly in the last couple months of the season. Bontempelli was a wild card and played some terrific footy for us last year. I'm happy to back their judgement at this point in time.

I've been critical of the trade in the past and, personally, would have liked those picks (Wright and Lever would have been my two), but I'm at peace with it now. The money doesn't factor into my opinion though. The deal is heavily incentivised (ie. he won't get anywhere near the reported $7M if he doesn't meet performance requirements) and if he becomes anywhere near as good as he should be, he'll be underpaid by 2019 - right around when we have to re-sign other young talent. As far as I'm concerned the contract is fine (but risky, absolutely), but the trade was a little one-sided.

Good point regarding last years draft. It was nowhere near as good as the previous year. I suspect the 2013 draft will be one of the best we've seen (Aish, Bont, Boyd, Billings, Kelly etc). I wasn't aware that GWS only offered pick 7 (I still think you could have squeezed them for 4 - gut feel, nothing more). But as I already mentioned even Boyd vs 4 and 6 I would take Boyd every day of the week. My concern was the contract given to Boyd. If it's performance based then that certainly changes my opinion! Cheers.

 

[Mofra]

Good point regarding last years draft. It was nowhere near as good as the previous year. I suspect the 2013 draft will be one of the best we've seen (Aish, Bont, Boyd, Billings, Kelly etc). I wasn't aware that GWS only offered pick 7 (I still think you could have squeezed them for 4 - gut feel, nothing more). But as I already mentioned even Boyd vs 4 and 6 I would take Boyd every day of the week. My concern was the contract given to Boyd. If it's performance based then that certainly changes my opinion! Cheers.

I guess if you look at what was offered, it would have been pick 7 and not much else.

That would have left us with picks 6 & 7. Noting that St Kilda knocked back more than that for the first round pick in 2014 and we got the 2013 first round pick (a consensus no 1 from months out) so an extra 12 months development I am comfortable with the trade over keeping picks option. We're already the second youngest team in the competition so two more 18 year olds certainly doesn't help us anymore than a gun 19 year old does.

 

[TheLastEmperor]

I guess if you look at what was offered, it would have been pick 7 and not much else.

That would have left us with picks 6 & 7. Noting that St Kilda knocked back more than that for the first round pick in 2014 and we got the 2013 first round pick (a consensus no 1 from months out) so an extra 12 months development I am comfortable with the trade over keeping picks option. We're already the second youngest team in the competition so two more 18 year olds certainly doesn't help us anymore than a gun 19 year old does.

Yup Mofra, I had that in the back of my mind. My club wouldn't accept 4 and 7 (a good source of info from our board said it was actually 1 and 21 for 4 and 7) for pick 1 and Paddy was nowhere near as highly rated at Boyd was in their compatible draft years. I like the trade of 6 and Griff for Boyd - Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Mutt]

Question for Doggies fans:

Griffen was always going to be let go there's no way he could have remained at your club. But seeing as he was contracted your club could've demanded pick 4 or at worst pick 7 from GWS in return and kept pick 6 which you also had. Heading to the draft with pick 4 and 7 would mean you had access to Peter Wright and a number of other talented kids as well as an extra mill in the kitty. In hindsight do you agree with your clubs strategy to invest heavily (both financially and in the way of two top 10 ranked juniors in the country) in Tom Boyd or would you have preferred an alternative?

I realise you don't have the benefit of hindsight and Boyd could be the next Nick Riewoldt or Scott Gumbleton and Jarred Picket the next Cyril Rioli or Andrew Lovett, so it's an early judgement call I'm asking.

Not trolling it's a genuine question. I've been extremely critical of decisions my own club made, namely trading the Goddard compo pick for Tom Lee and a few picks and pick 12 for Tom Hickey and a few picks. I've also been critical of my own club and then had egg on my face (essentially getting Hugh Goddard for Stanley).

It's impossible to know at this stage whether the Boyd trade will end up being inspired or disastrous.

That said, I'm happy we've taken a chance on a youngster who may be a truly great, once in a generation key forward for our club. Peter Wright is much less likely to be that player than is Tom Boyd in my opinion.

 

[Doggy Dan]

I am more than comfortable with the deal that was done. Maybe another second rounder back from GWS could have been negotiated, they were wasting them on promising cricketers by that stage.

I do have the niggling feeling that considering how hot Dal and the recruiting team have been lately what 4 and 6 would have looked like. Keep the $$$ and offer the monster contract $7m over 6 or 7 years for Tom Hawkins as F/A this year to fill the power forward gap.

Again, I think the result ended up being as much a disaster management plan rather than anything else, but if 4 and 6 could have looked like a Macrae, Stringer or Bont and we grabbed Tom Hawkins this year, wow!

First person to reply with the mandatory "And if my aunty had nuts she's be my uncle" line wins a prize!

 

[Bemoreboyddog]

This^. Really felt we should have pushed GWS for a pick in the 20's as well. Then again, we may not have been able to use our last pick to get little Caleb who I think will be the best of our draftees we just picked up.

Aside from that, elated with the trade.

 

[farstrider]

Question for Doggies fans:

Griffen was always going to be let go there's no way he could have remained at your club. But seeing as he was contracted your club could've demanded pick 4 or at worst pick 7 from GWS in return and kept pick 6 which you also had. Heading to the draft with pick 4 and 7 would mean you had access to Peter Wright and a number of other talented kids as well as an extra mill in the kitty. In hindsight do you agree with your clubs strategy to invest heavily (both financially and in the way of two top 10 ranked juniors in the country) in Tom Boyd or would you have preferred an alternative?

I realise you don't have the benefit of hindsight and Boyd could be the next Nick Riewoldt or Scott Gumbleton and Jarred Picket the next Cyril Rioli or Andrew Lovett, so it's an early judgement call I'm asking.

Not trolling it's a genuine question. I've been extremely critical of decisions my own club made, namely trading the Goddard compo pick for Tom Lee and a few picks and pick 12 for Tom Hickey and a few picks. I've also been critical of my own club and then had egg on my face (essentially getting Hugh Goddard for Stanley).

If all we were getting was pick 4, I'm super happy we did the deal. There were rumours going around that 4 and 7 were on the table - had we turned that down I would be upset. If it was only 4, then essentially we traded 4 and 6 for Boyd. Wasn't St. Kilda offered similar for pick 1 this year and turned it down? Shows the currency pick 1 has, and Boyd would have been pick 1 certainly in this draft, or any for a while if the reports are to be believed.

EDIT: I now realise this has been said about 10 times already so apologies for the repetition.

 

[_Mike_]

Question for Doggies fans:

Griffen was always going to be let go there's no way he could have remained at your club. But seeing as he was contracted your club could've demanded pick 4 or at worst pick 7 from GWS in return and kept pick 6 which you also had. Heading to the draft with pick 4 and 7 would mean you had access to Peter Wright and a number of other talented kids as well as an extra mill in the kitty. In hindsight do you agree with your clubs strategy to invest heavily (both financially and in the way of two top 10 ranked juniors in the country) in Tom Boyd or would you have preferred an alternative?

I realise you don't have the benefit of hindsight and Boyd could be the next Nick Riewoldt or Scott Gumbleton and Jarred Picket the next Cyril Rioli or Andrew Lovett, so it's an early judgement call I'm asking.

Not trolling it's a genuine question. I've been extremely critical of decisions my own club made, namely trading the Goddard compo pick for Tom Lee and a few picks and pick 12 for Tom Hickey and a few picks. I've also been critical of my own club and then had egg on my face (essentially getting Hugh Goddard for Stanley).

In reality with Melbourne getting (another) priority pick it put us in a position of missing out on a KPF however Wright didnt go until pick 8 so we still could have nabbed him, but you never know until it folds. The benefit of Tom Boyd coming to us is not only the fact that he wanted to, but also a pretty handy note that he played TAC footy with a few of our young boys and is mates with them, so there is an existing bond with Tom and the club.

The benefit of Boyd now is that he's got a few games under his belt, has trimmed down a few kilos and has the ability to fit in with a team at the same age group and development experience. Getting someone like Tom Hawkins is a mismatch as its likely that Hawkins will probably be 30 by the time we're seriously contenting again.. I'd prefer a KPF who has developed in sync with the team who would be (theoretically) hitting their straps when we next challenge, not someone going in to their 30's.

 

[Leezorr]

I think the world has been super revisionist on Boyd, before he came to us every vic club wanted him and were going to chase him hard after his contract ended, and no one would have questioned his 1st year form, everyone knew he was a super talent. I have no doubt he would have got offered massive money from all clubs after his second year, Bigs of his talent are the rarest commodity.

Once we got him, hasn't shown anything, looks slow bla bla bla, not worth the money.

He is still that player, i think he will show it sooner rather than later, and no one will be questioning anything.

We made the absolute best of a bad situation, i think the contract was the sweetener to get Boyd to say yes, but i think in an open market we wouldn't have been his first choice, in saying that if we can get some wins on the board and do a port esk rise up the ladder, players will be lining up to join us such is the talent on our list.

 

[timtamWB]

He is still that player, i think he will show it sooner rather than later, and no one will be questioning anything.

Not sure on this part, as in he will show it sooner rather than later, but the rest is spot on.

If he went to Carlton and didn't come to us, the media and the majority of the footballing community would be talking about how he's the best young KPF to come into the system in the past 10 years, and he'll surpass the efforts of Tony Lockett.

As he's come to the Dogs, he's another Tim Walsh.

Honestly, it reeks of something that I thought I would never write in terms of how other clubs view the Dogs: Jealousy. Pure and simple. They're jealous we have such a talent.

We're not supposed to be the club that gets that talent. We upset the status quo, and the footballing world is uncomfortable with it.

 

[Leezorr]

Not sure on this part, as in he will show it sooner rather than later, but the rest is spot on.

If he went to Carlton and didn't come to us, the media and the majority of the footballing community would be talking about how he's the best young KPF to come into the system in the past 10 years, and he'll surpass the efforts of Tony Lockett.

As he's come to the Dogs, he's another Tim Walsh.

Honestly, it reeks of something that I thought I would never write in terms of how other clubs view the Dogs: Jealousy. Pure and simple. They're jealous we have such a talent.

We're not supposed to be the club that gets that talent. We upset the status quo, and the footballing world is uncomfortable with it.

He will show it in patches is more what i meant, i think he will have a 5 goal game at some stage and everyone will sit up and take note, and no one will question anything any more.

 

[TheLastEmperor]

I think the world has been super revisionist on Boyd, before he came to us every vic club wanted him and were going to chase him hard after his contract ended, and no one would have questioned his 1st year form, everyone knew he was a super talent. I have no doubt he would have got offered massive money from all clubs after his second year, Bigs of his talent are the rarest commodity.

Once we got him, hasn't shown anything, looks slow bla bla bla, not worth the money.

He is still that player, i think he will show it sooner rather than later, and no one will be questioning anything.

We made the absolute best of a bad situation, i think the contract was the sweetener to get Boyd to say yes, but i think in an open market we wouldn't have been his first choice, in saying that if we can get some wins on the board and do a port esk rise up the ladder, players will be lining up to join us such is the talent on our list.

My prediction is Boyd is a slow burn and will take a bit of time however he is an obvious talent that will be worth it in the long run. I see him as a more talented Brad Ottens and if he maintains a healthy body (something Ottens really struggled with) will be one of the best players for the next decade.

I think why many question the Dogs strategy is because of the reported 7M for a 19 year old that even know he's proven to be one of the best ever junior talents has not proven himself at AFL level, which is understandable considering he's only entered the system, but a substantial risk nonetheless. I've been told that figure is not accurate and there are performance indicators in place. If the general footy public were more aware of the contract then perhaps it would be positively accepted.

 

[RedWhite&Blue]

The money doesn't factor into my opinion though. The deal is heavily incentivised (ie. he won't get anywhere near the reported $7M if he doesn't meet performance requirements) and if he becomes anywhere near as good as he should be, he'll be underpaid by 2019 - right around when we have to re-sign other young talent.........

I haven't heard anywhere but here on BigFooty that Boyd's contract is heavily incentivised. Can you say without a doubt that this is the case. Have you got sources that were privy to the deal?

If true that's great - they have covered their arse somewhat

 

[Super Hans]

The only thing that pissed me off about the whole Griffen/Boyd deal is GWS were so against offering us picks 4 and 7, then they go offer picks 4 and 7 for Stevie J, pick 4 for Breust and pick 4 for Howe. Like they were just trying to make it difficult for us.

 

[Leezorr]

The only thing that pissed me off about the whole Griffen/Boyd deal is GWS were so against offering us picks 4 and 7, then they go offer picks 4 and 7 for Stevie J, pick 4 for Breust and pick 4 for Howe. Like they were just trying to make it difficult for us.

They had us over a barrel until Boyd declared his hand, Griffen wanted out, went pig shooting and was un- contactable and there was a deadline, If Griffen has just said he wanted a trade to GWS and hoped to get the Dogs fair value and then returned phone calls we might have gotten a better offer, instead he chose to be a coward and run away without telling anyone, i for one will never forgive or forget it and am now ashamed he was ever the captain of my club, his efforts post season were pathetic.