MVP Tommy Boyd - The Grand Final Enigma

[lachy]

Do you honestly think Bev would come out and say he did/does have a problem with Tom? Especially when he's not an established player.

He certainly would not come out with all of the positive statements if he had an issue outside of the ordinary. Not that I really get your point.

You saying Bev would have a set on one particular player outside of normal team disciplines?

 

[Super Hans]

He certainly would not come out with all of the positive statements if he had an issue outside of the ordinary. Not that I really get your point.

You saying Bev would have a set on one particular player outside of normal team disciplines?

I'm saying that even if Bev (or any coach ever) hated a players guts they'd never say it externally. I really don't care who doesn't like who at the club, cos when 60 people get together not everyone is gonna be mates, but just because a coach speaks well of someone publicly doesn't really reflect what they feel.

 

[BRWB]

I'm saying that even if Bev (or any coach ever) hated a players guts they'd never say it externally. I really don't care who doesn't like who at the club, cos when 60 people get together not everyone is gonna be mates, but just because a coach speaks well of someone publicly doesn't really reflect what they feel.

Spot on - I recall being lectured how great Jong was because a club release said so...

If anyone can find a club release bagging a current players ability (behavioural stuff excepted) I may alter my view but until then club releases assessing players performance aren't worth a pinch of shit.

The only official club measure in the public domain that tells us what a club actually thinks of it's players is the B and F. IMO.

 

[Floridog]

The new Dread Pirate Roberts?
View media item 128View media item 125
Oh farm Boyd, kick a grand final goal from the center square
View media item 127

As you wish
View media item 126

I thought about going with the "it's possible, pig-shooter" angle but I decided to be nice.

 

[immortalmike]

I'm saying that even if Bev (or any coach ever) hated a players guts they'd never say it externally. I really don't care who doesn't like who at the club, cos when 60 people get together not everyone is gonna be mates, but just because a coach speaks well of someone publicly doesn't really reflect what they feel.

I think there has arisen two distinct possibilities.
1) Luke Beveridge did not rate Boyd as a talent or a person and was actively looking to trade him at the end of 2015, but showed no sign of it in his dealings with the media about Tom, often singling him out for praise and chiding himself for mishandling him at the end of last year. This private opinion seemed to have changed following Tom's finals series, resulting in Beveridge's emotional state while talking about him.

2)The information was mistaken/exaggerated/something was lost in transmission, and Bev's public opinion wasn't far off culminating in the love-fest at the end of this year (and the "is like a son" comments not that long ago).

I'm not going to comment on which I think is more likely (I'm sure you can probably guess), but it doesn't really matter now anyway, both coach and player seem to be pulling in the same direction.

 

[Super Hans]

I think there has arisen two distinct possibilities.
1) Luke Beveridge did not rate Boyd as a talent or a person and was actively looking to trade him at the end of 2015, but showed no sign of it in his dealings with the media about Tom, often singling him out for praise and chiding himself for mishandling him at the end of last year. This private opinion seemed to have changed following Tom's finals series, resulting in Beveridge's emotional state while talking about him.

2)The information was mistaken/exaggerated/something was lost in transmission, and Bev's public opinion wasn't far off culminating in the love-fest at the end of this year (and the "is like a son" comments not that long ago).

I'm not going to comment on which I think is more likely (I'm sure you can probably guess), but it doesn't really matter now anyway, both coach and player seem to be pulling in the same direction.

tbh I don't even have a dog in this fight, all I'm saying is even if a player and coach hate each other they're not going to come out and say it to the media.

 

[House_of_Dahl]

Spot on - I recall being lectured how great Jong was because a club release said so...

If anyone can find a club release bagging a current players ability (behavioural stuff excepted) I may alter my view but until then club releases assessing players performance aren't worth a pinch of shit.

The only official club measure in the public domain that tells us what a club actually thinks of it's players is the B and F. IMO.

Surely an exaggeration - you don't read all the player xxxx has to work on xxxx in the twos stories?

B and F can only give you a measure relative to rest of the list too, and ignores development stage. A player might be very highly rate at a club with a strong list (like us!) and still be behind many others (but might rate top 10 at Brisbane). Or be developing as hoped but currently behind others. Far from a definitive measure.

 

[BRWB]

Surely an exaggeration - you don't read all the player xxxx has to work on xxxx in the twos stories?

B and F can only give you a measure relative to rest of the list too, and ignores development stage. A player might be very highly rate at a club with a strong list (like us!) and still be behind many others (but might rate top 10 at Brisbane). Or be developing as hoped but currently behind others. Far from a definitive measure.

Yep the B and F is a relative measure. Agree. A player's list spot and pay is also often determined by how they are rated relative to their team mates. In fact, bonuses can be paid based on the B and F.

Yes there may be press releases saying x needs to work on something but the overall message will be positive. And that's fair and fine. I just don't place any stock in publicly released assessments of players by the club.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

I think there has arisen two distinct possibilities.
1) Luke Beveridge did not rate Boyd as a talent or a person and was actively looking to trade him at the end of 2015, but showed no sign of it in his dealings with the media about Tom, often singling him out for praise and chiding himself for mishandling him at the end of last year. This private opinion seemed to have changed following Tom's finals series, resulting in Beveridge's emotional state while talking about him.

2)The information was mistaken/exaggerated/something was lost in transmission, and Bev's public opinion wasn't far off culminating in the love-fest at the end of this year (and the "is like a son" comments not that long ago).

I'm not going to comment on which I think is more likely (I'm sure you can probably guess), but it doesn't really matter now anyway, both coach and player seem to be pulling in the same direction.

These are the two clear possibilities, or even somewhere inbetween.

The issue with this continued discussion is that some people have taken it all a little personally. Here is what has happened: Fronk heard this from a source from within the club or close to it. Their motivations are unknown. Fronk's clearly got form for repeating accurate things, and has repeated what he heard. People have blamed Fronk for this.

Can people (not you IM) stop getting defensive and angry about people restating what they hear from others? Seriously... Its really a fight for nothing and is such a classic case of shooting the messenger. I like it when people restate information they hear, good and bad. I certainly dont take it as gospel or as bearing a guarantee though - it needs to be officially verified for it to have that seal. I take it as information that somebody has heard (perhaps even in confidence) from someone they know to whom that information may also have been passed, and at each stage of this process it may be subject to the either misinterpretation or deliberate misinformation. Sometimes, however, it has proven to be accurate and has been information I would not have heard elsewhere.

I cannot credit how happy Pan's posts and reassurance we'd get Boyd during the 2014 trade period made me. Even when the media were laughing at it and said there was absolutely no chance. It was a ray of sunshine in a mire of shit that proved to be true. If we attack people for telling us what they hear then bits of info like that will never be passed on, which sucks.

If you want a filter and to have access to good and fully verified information (sans injury lists) then get all your news off the Bulldogs website.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Or sometimes the person passing the info may have some axe to grind, or have heard wrong, or misinterpreted, or taken a joke as serious, or got it from someone else with any of the above. Chinese whispers. But happy to hear from Fronk as quite a bit turns out accurate.

 

[immortalmike]

tbh I don't even have a dog in this fight, all I'm saying is even if a player and coach hate each other they're not going to come out and say it to the media.

Of course not. But I have a feeling you'd be able to tell in interviews as the coach would probably play a straight bat rather than talk specifics about said player.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

Well, not if that player is Aker... Its media hatefest time for everyone.

 

[immortalmike]

These are the two clear possibilities, or even somewhere inbetween.

The issue with this continued discussion is that some people have taken it all a little personally. Here is what has happened: Fronk heard this from a source from within the club or close to it. Their motivations are unknown. Fronk's clearly got form for repeating accurate things, and has repeated what he heard. People have blamed Fronk for this.

Can people (not you IM) stop getting defensive and angry about people restating what they hear from others? Seriously... Its really a fight for nothing and is such a classic case of shooting the messenger. I like it when people restate information they hear, good and bad. I certainly dont take it as gospel or as bearing a guarantee though - it needs to be officially verified for it to have that seal. I take it as information that somebody has heard (perhaps even in confidence) from someone they know to whom that information may also have been passed, and at each stage of this process it may be subject to the either misinterpretation or deliberate misinformation. Sometimes, however, it has proven to be accurate and has been information I would not have heard elsewhere.

I cannot credit how happy Pan's posts and reassurance we'd get Boyd during the 2014 trade period made me. Even when the media were laughing at it and said there was absolutely no chance. It was a ray of sunshine in a mire of shit that proved to be true. If we attack people for telling us what they hear then bits of info like that will never be passed on, which sucks.

If you want a filter and to have access to good and fully verified information (sans injury lists) then get all your news off the Bulldogs website.

I agree with pretty much this whole post. Where I do have an issue is that often on this board you get caned for remaining sceptical about information, even if you have gone to great lengths to point out that you aren't questioning the messenger's integrity. It gets tiresome wading through the sycophantic discourse and hissy fits and it actively stifles discussion.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

I certainly agree - for example, I think this JJ rumour is probably coming out of his manager, for example, when you consider the time of the claims. As a professional athlete you'd be loathe to make a decision you know would have such a profound influence on your focus for a year.

People should be able to differentiate between skepticism about the information, and skepticism that the bearer of it is accurately repeating what they have heard (taking the latter at face value is necessary for a respectful conversation). When it arrives on here it is by necessity only knowable in isolation from the surrounding context which it actually inhabits, and we are forced to fill in the pieces. People shouldnt be angry while doing so though - that is what makes this whole process interesting!

 

[Mutt]

These are the two clear possibilities, or even somewhere inbetween.

The issue with this continued discussion is that some people have taken it all a little personally. Here is what has happened: Fronk heard this from a source from within the club or close to it. Their motivations are unknown. Fronk's clearly got form for repeating accurate things, and has repeated what he heard. People have blamed Fronk for this.

Can people (not you IM) stop getting defensive and angry about people restating what they hear from others? Seriously... Its really a fight for nothing and is such a classic case of shooting the messenger. I like it when people restate information they hear, good and bad. I certainly dont take it as gospel or as bearing a guarantee though - it needs to be officially verified for it to have that seal. I take it as information that somebody has heard (perhaps even in confidence) from someone they know to whom that information may also have been passed, and at each stage of this process it may be subject to the either misinterpretation or deliberate misinformation. Sometimes, however, it has proven to be accurate and has been information I would not have heard elsewhere.

I cannot credit how happy Pan's posts and reassurance we'd get Boyd during the 2014 trade period made me. Even when the media were laughing at it and said there was absolutely no chance. It was a ray of sunshine in a mire of shit that proved to be true. If we attack people for telling us what they hear then bits of info like that will never be passed on, which sucks.

If you want a filter and to have access to good and fully verified information (sans injury lists) then get all your news off the Bulldogs website.

Great post! God I wish everyone had this attitude.

 

[CaptainMurphy]

These are the two clear possibilities, or even somewhere inbetween.

The issue with this continued discussion is that some people have taken it all a little personally. Here is what has happened: Fronk heard this from a source from within the club or close to it. Their motivations are unknown. Fronk's clearly got form for repeating accurate things, and has repeated what he heard. People have blamed Fronk for this.

Can people (not you IM) stop getting defensive and angry about people restating what they hear from others? Seriously... Its really a fight for nothing and is such a classic case of shooting the messenger. I like it when people restate information they hear, good and bad. I certainly dont take it as gospel or as bearing a guarantee though - it needs to be officially verified for it to have that seal. I take it as information that somebody has heard (perhaps even in confidence) from someone they know to whom that information may also have been passed, and at each stage of this process it may be subject to the either misinterpretation or deliberate misinformation. Sometimes, however, it has proven to be accurate and has been information I would not have heard elsewhere.

I cannot credit how happy Pan's posts and reassurance we'd get Boyd during the 2014 trade period made me. Even when the media were laughing at it and said there was absolutely no chance. It was a ray of sunshine in a mire of shit that proved to be true. If we attack people for telling us what they hear then bits of info like that will never be passed on, which sucks.

If you want a filter and to have access to good and fully verified information (sans injury lists) then get all your news off the Bulldogs website.

****en bingo, nailed it

 

[giblj]

How satisfied with life is the big fella at the moment?

 

[jdz101]

How satisfied with life is the big fella at the moment?

Im shocked that they managed to fold the Bront's legs to fit into a canoe

 

[immortalmike]

I certainly agree - for example, I think this JJ rumour is probably coming out of his manager, for example, when you consider the time of the claims. As a professional athlete you'd be loathe to make a decision you know would have such a profound influence on your focus for a year.

People should be able to differentiate between skepticism about the information, and skepticism that the bearer of it is accurately repeating what they have heard (taking the latter at face value is necessary for a respectful conversation). When it arrives on here it is by necessity only knowable in isolation from the surrounding context which it actually inhabits, and we are forced to fill in the pieces. People shouldnt be angry while doing so though - that is what makes this whole process interesting!

All good points.
And it is the reason I'm not touching that JJ discussion with a 500 ft pole. That and the fact that there's too many overblown egos involved that the board might just implode if I add my own.

So...about that Tommy Boyd.
Ruckman/Key foward? What's the best ratio?

 

[BRWB]

These are the two clear possibilities, or even somewhere inbetween.

The issue with this continued discussion is that some people have taken it all a little personally. Here is what has happened: Fronk heard this from a source from within the club or close to it. Their motivations are unknown. Fronk's clearly got form for repeating accurate things, and has repeated what he heard. People have blamed Fronk for this.

Can people (not you IM) stop getting defensive and angry about people restating what they hear from others? Seriously... Its really a fight for nothing and is such a classic case of shooting the messenger. I like it when people restate information they hear, good and bad. I certainly dont take it as gospel or as bearing a guarantee though - it needs to be officially verified for it to have that seal. I take it as information that somebody has heard (perhaps even in confidence) from someone they know to whom that information may also have been passed, and at each stage of this process it may be subject to the either misinterpretation or deliberate misinformation. Sometimes, however, it has proven to be accurate and has been information I would not have heard elsewhere.

I cannot credit how happy Pan's posts and reassurance we'd get Boyd during the 2014 trade period made me. Even when the media were laughing at it and said there was absolutely no chance. It was a ray of sunshine in a mire of shit that proved to be true. If we attack people for telling us what they hear then bits of info like that will never be passed on, which sucks.

If you want a filter and to have access to good and fully verified information (sans injury lists) then get all your news off the Bulldogs website.

Logic, common sense, balance and reasonableness all in the one post.

Congratulations but WTF are you doing here??

 

[Turtleman3]

****en bingo, nailed it

This. I do hear things from time to time, but are reluctant to share here due to the responses i read to what others share. We should be able to filter what seems probable and not so, or take information in the context it was shared.

 

[House_of_Dahl]

How satisfied with life is the big fella at the moment?

I'm 21, I'm a premiership champ, I'm a millionaire, I'm paddling a canoe with a bunch of funny buggers

 

[King Harold]

All good points.
And it is the reason I'm not touching that JJ discussion with a 500 ft pole. That and the fact that there's too many overblown egos involved that the board might just implode if I add my own.

So...about that Tommy Boyd.
Ruckman/Key foward? What's the best ratio?

I'm saying 40/60 right now Immortal.
But it's not out of the question he he becomes more of a ruckman the way the game is going.
I remember saying way back he is more than a competent ruckman and a very ordinary forward.

 

[hujsh]

All good points.
And it is the reason I'm not touching that JJ discussion with a 500 ft pole. That and the fact that there's too many overblown egos involved that the board might just implode if I add my own.

So...about that Tommy Boyd.
Ruckman/Key foward? What's the best ratio?

60-70% forward. Good to get him involved in the ruck in a Jarred Roughead way but he's paid the big bucks to be a big forward and long term that should be his main role.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

I guess there is ideally what we want him to play as (70% forward) and what will happen next year.

Form or injuries to the other ruckmen, or him not being in the best form as a forward could lead to a lot of him in the ruck. Plus if he improves any further as a ruck it could be to our detriment not to include him there.

Our drafting English and resigning of BTC clearly suggests us wanting him forward more though, you'd think?