You're looking at it all wrong. Yes there will be turn overs and whoever is back there will be caught out. It's more glaring with Daniel not because he is small, but because he is an elite runner who works his ass off to get back and actually provide some sort of a contest.
Given that we are losing nothing (he in fact is not getting caught out), why wouldn't you play him in a position that potentially gives you a greater gain than elsewhere?
Maybe, just maybe, someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are looking at it wrong?
He is getting caught out and will continue to do so. His height makes him uncompetitive. The Roughead one was hilariously bad. Other regulalrly sized players can provide a better contest. What we also don't know is how much additional hassle and stress other backs are put under to ensure the Caleb mismatch doesn't occur.
And you are assuming a gain that isn't there. His lack of penetration in his kicking is a real weakness and the opposition is on to it.
I stand by my view that Caleb back is an unnecesary risk as his strengths could be just as valuable fwd while the inherent risks posed by his weaknesses would be mititgated.
In fact the use of Caleb back is emblematic of a coach who continues to take unnecessary risks. From playing proven awful set shots like Dunkely fwd, to not picking enough talls, to always wanting to pick the youngest team, to having nearly the best clearance player in the league fwd, to rucking with relative dwarves, etc. Bevo seems to think the basic rules of successful footy don't apply to him.Caleb deep back doing kickouts is a prime example.
Agree to disagree.