Tom Boyd

[Damon_3388]

Your response details how little you understand the subject you're discussing. A key forward is one around who the forward line structures. Cloke is a Key Forward, Lynch is a Key Forward, Kennedy is a Key Forward. Stringer is not, and will never be, a Key Forward. Stringer has unbelievable traits, but 120 minutes of competitiveness is not one.

He's 192cm and 91kg at 22 years old. Let's stop pretending he doesn't have key position size, or couldn't still add another 4-5kg of muscle over the next couple of years. Yes, there are midfielders these days who are similar height, but they don't have the same natural strength and body size to be key position players like Stringer obviously does. Has seemed to do fine as the main target over the past couple of years, too. Doesn't seem to struggle too much from a physical standpoint, and has unique points of difference as a forward that you should continue to exploit, rather than move to another area of the field. He's still learning the game at AFL level too, like most players his age, so he can develop and improve on what he lacks.

When he's as effective as he is up forward, and you have the midfield depth that the Bulldogs have, why would you ever really need him to play in the middle? Just seems like as soon as you solve the big bodied goalkicker problem, people want to get cute and move the guy away from where he's proven to be effective. Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

Can we stop pretending already that he is anything other than an athletic, agile key forward? He is not some revolutionary hybrid, and he won't ever be primarily a midfielder, as some people keep insisting upon despite his performances up forward. Given his ability to kick goals and how long the Bulldogs have waited to draft a quality key forward, along with the numerous midfield options they already have, it would be a waste to use Stringer anywhere else but inside the forward 50 for prolonged periods.

Bulldog fans, you've drafted and developed the player you've been crying out for forever. I don't know why you continue to insist on denying it, or want to take him away from what he's best suited for - playing up forward.

Nice editing.

Stringer is a poor mark, let alone contested mark.
He is an average set shot, but has improved.
He is a burst player, he is not someone you can count on to be competitive for 120 minutes.

Don't get me wrong, the kid is a freak, with freakish ability. And he has the ability to kick goals from anywhere. But he's not someone you can structure a forward line around. He's just not that sort of player.

For the same reason you wouldn't structure a forward line around a Fasolo or a Jamie Elliot. And yes I know they're different (albeit better marks of the footy) but I'm trying to equate it to a Collingwood player.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

He's 192cm and 91kg at 22 years old. Let's stop pretending he doesn't have key position size, or couldn't still add another 4-5kg of muscle over the next couple of years. Yes, there are midfielders these days who are similar height, but they don't have the same natural strength and body size to be key position players like Stringer obviously does. Has seemed to do fine as the main target over the past couple of years, too. Doesn't seem to struggle too much from a physical standpoint, and has unique points of difference as a forward that you should continue to exploit, rather than move to another area of the field. He's still learning the game at AFL level too, like most players his age, so he can develop and improve on what he lacks.

When he's as effective as he is up forward, and you have the midfield depth that the Bulldogs have, why would you ever really need him to play in the middle? Just seems like as soon as you solve the big bodied goalkicker problem, people want to get cute and move the guy away from where he's proven to be effective. Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

I'm not sure why you think I want him in the midfield? I think he's a half forward who needs to roam and do his thing, but he's not a full forward, or a contested marking player who can structure your forward line around. Don't presume other Dogs supporters views represent my own. I can speak for myself.

 

[Ozil]

Redpath > Boyd, just read this thread.

I think Boyd could be a star. Still looks a bit fat and lazy and doesn't have the work rate of a top key forward, but at least isn't out of his depth with the physicality of AFL level by virtue of being a man child. But he's got game. Would benefit from working with someone like Nick Riewoldt or Richo who covered a lot of ground as big forwards (and still do in Roo's case).

Boyd is a minor contributor to the Dogs at this point and they'd still be in finals contention without him, but to have a promising key forward in the same age bracket as Stringer, Bont, Libba etc. is huge.

Redpath sucks. The difference between the two is negligible and one is five years older with a developed body and twice as long in the system. Agree with the rest.

I don't think people hate him.

Just judging him by his wage as opposed to his actual performance. Scully had to deal with this as well but has now stepped up to the plate. Sure he isn't worth $1mil pa but that was the price it took to get him

Yep. No key forward on the list, no access (through the draft) to a dominant key forward who will take the #1 defender whether in form or not, and in competition with clubs like Carlton and St Kilda who had made similar offers.

I'm glad the club had the guts to do what needed to be done instead of coasting by with another talented group that lacked a spearhead. Boyd will be great, we just have to weather the short-sighted idiocy from the microwave media/opposition fans in the meantime.

 

[Damon_3388]

Nice editing.

Stringer is a poor mark, let alone contested mark.
He is an average set shot, but has improved.
He is a burst player, he us not someone you can count on to be competitive for 120 minutes.

Don't get be wrong, the kid is a freak, with freakish ability. And he has the ability to kick goals from anywhere. But he's not someone you can structure a forward line around. He's just not that sort of player.

Didn't seem to be a problem last year, when he kicked 55 goals.

Nobody says he has to play in the "traditional" way, either. No team just has one key forward, or has all of the same style. Just the idea that Stringer shouldn't be one of your main avenues to goal and should be spending more time in the midfield than up forward seems to go against sense and what has already proven to work.

Honestly, if I was an opposition coach, I'd be more than happy for the Dogs to push Stringer as far away from goals as possible, because it makes him less dangerous.

For the same reason you wouldn't structure a forward line around a Fasolo or a Jamie Elliot. And yes I know they're different (albeit better marks of the footy) but I'm trying to equate it to a Collingwood player.

So you see him as similar to guys who are 5-6 inches shorter, and 10-15kg lighter, all because he has a bit of pace and isn't a consistently good mark? Bit strange.

I'm not sure why you think I want him in the midfield? I think he's a half forward who needs to roam and do his thing, but he's not a full forward, or a contested marking player who can structure your forward line around. Don't presume other Dogs supporters views represent my own. I can speak for myself.

Well I'm not just referring to you, but the general feeling from most Dogs supporters from what I've observed. Apologies if you feel differently.

 

[stabler]

A poor man's Aaron Cornelius

 

[Pannalstaroz]

Didn't seem to be a problem last year, when he kicked 55 goals.

Nobody says he has to play in the "traditional" way, either. No team just has one key forward, or has all of the same style. Just the idea that Stringer shouldn't be one of your main avenues to goal and should be spending more time in the midfield than up forward seems to go against sense and what has already proven to work.

Honestly, if I was an opposition coach, I'd be more than happy for the Dogs to push Stringer as far away from goals as possible, because it makes him less dangerous.



So you see him as similar to guys who are 5-6 inches shorter, and 10-15kg lighter, all because he has a bit of pace and isn't a consistently good mark? Bit strange.



Well I'm not just referring to you, but the general feeling from most Dogs supporters from what I've observed. Apologies if you feel differently.

He's a fantastic footballer, no one doubts that. But under pressure we have no one to sit under the high ball. Boyd is the only player on our list who can do it. Come finals pressure he'll be much more important over coming years.

 

[cecil]

Didn't seem to be a problem last year, when he kicked 55 goals.

You'd be surprised how many of those were groundballs. Legit can kick 5 goals without taking one on the lead or with a contested mark.

 

[Dogsman16]

The thing that holds stringer back from being a key forward is that he doesn't think like a key forward, despite being a decent size and height to do so.

 

[Flags_In_The_Bag]

Redpath > Boyd, just read this thread.

I think Boyd could be a star. Still looks a bit fat and lazy and doesn't have the work rate of a top key forward, but at least isn't out of his depth with the physicality of AFL level by virtue of being a man child. But he's got game. Would benefit from working with someone like Nick Riewoldt or Richo who covered a lot of ground as big forwards (and still do in Roo's case).

Boyd is a minor contributor to the Dogs at this point and they'd still be in finals contention without him, but to have a promising key forward in the same age bracket as Stringer, Bont, Libba etc. is huge.

Well said.

 

[compact72]

This was posted on the dogs thread:

First 3 AFL Years
Tom Boyd ( so far) 28 games 30 goals.
Josh Kennedy (Eagles ) 29 games 18 goals
Tom Lynch (GC) 38 Games 35 goals
Tom Hawkins (Geel) 43 Games 59 goals
Jack Riewoldt (RIC) 46 games 57 goals

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Say what ! Did you just say Boyd couldve gotten 1 mill per year straight out of tac cup??
Unproven hasn't played a game in the big time? No offense but that's hilarious .
Pretty obvious Carlton were offering about 800k at the end of Boyds first year so the dogs had to up the ante

If you're disputing the fact, that in a theoretical sense if there was no such thing in the draft and players out of the TAC Cup were free agents, that Boyd would have received $1 million per year in his first contract, there's no point rationalising the rest of the "economics" argument to you. Remember Fox Footy ran a television special mid-year entirely dedicated to the purposes of discussing which players would have traded from each club to land pick 1 and therefore Boyd, things like trading a pick still in the top-10 and a gun midfielder for pick 1 were considered the norm for most clubs. Every club with cap room would have offered him at least $1 million per year out of his draft year if U/18 player recruitment was done in such a fashion. He was considered that good in his final junior year.

Say what you like about his development since he was drafted, but there's no disputing the fact that among players drafted in this generation, Boyd was considered the best key forward, and the most likely to be the best key forward long-term, relative to all other key forwards at the same age entering the league fir the first time. Of course all players are unproven as 17 year olds, but the fact of the matter is that Boyd was considered a better 17 year old prospect than every other key forward of the time at the same age.

Consider this article:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-05/best-of-the-best

With this image published, which was the average grades taken from 3 recruiters, Sheehan the national talent manager, and Twomey the AFL Website's draft guy:

Further interesting to note that his aerobic capacity was considered the worst out of the four (with it being further aggravated by GWS bulking him up even more). There's an argument to be had that his relative lack of aerobic capacity has inhibited him to showcase his other, stronger talents, as he can't go at 100% for the entire game, whilst other players with a stronger aerobic capacity, such as Hogan, could go for 100% from day dot and there was nothing inhibiting him from demonstrating the full extent of his speed, strength, leap etc.

 

[Mr Mister]

If you're disputing the fact, that in a theoretical sense if there was no such thing in the draft and players out of the TAC Cup were free agents, that Boyd would have received $1 million per year in his first contract, there's no point rationalising the rest of the "economics" argument to you. Remember Fox Footy ran a television special mid-year entirely dedicated to the purposes of discussing which players would have traded from each club to land pick 1 and therefore Boyd, things like trading a pick still in the top-10 and a gun midfielder for pick 1 were considered the norm for most clubs. Every club with cap room would have offered him at least $1 million per year out of his draft year if U/18 player recruitment was done in such a fashion. He was considered that good in his final junior year.

Say what you like about his development since he was drafted, but there's no disputing the fact that among players drafted in this generation, Boyd was considered the best key forward, and the most likely to be the best key forward long-term, relative to all other key forwards at the same age entering the league fir the first time. Of course all players are unproven as 17 year olds, but the fact of the matter is that Boyd was considered a better 17 year old prospect than every other key forward of the time at the same age.

Consider this article:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-05/best-of-the-best

With this image published, which was the average grades taken from 3 recruiters, Sheehan the national talent manager, and Twomey the AFL Website's draft guy:

Further interesting to note that his aerobic capacity was considered the worst out of the four (with it being further aggravated by GWS bulking him up even more). There's an argument to be had that his relative lack of aerobic capacity has inhibited him to showcase his other, stronger talents, as he can't go at 100% for the entire game, whilst other players with a stronger aerobic capacity, such as Hogan, could go for 100% from day dot and there was nothing inhibiting him from demonstrating the full extent of his speed, strength, leap etc.

Joe Daniher isn't even close to a 6.6 kick (considering Hogan is a 6.4).

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Joe Daniher isn't even close to a 6.6 kick (considering Hogan is a 6.4).

The image is from 2013.

 

[Present Not Past]

This was posted on the dogs thread:

First 3 AFL Years
Tom Boyd ( so far) 28 games 30 goals.
Josh Kennedy (Eagles ) 29 games 18 goals
Tom Lynch (GC) 38 Games 35 goals
Tom Hawkins (Geel) 43 Games 59 goals
Jack Riewoldt (RIC) 46 games 57 goals

Lance Franklin (HAW) 56 games 125 goals
Nick Riewoldt (St Kilda) 50 games 53 goals
Tony Lockett (St Kilda) 53 games 175 goals

 

[coniglio_number1]

Jeremy Cameron (GWS) 41 games 120 goals (all Australian in second year)

 

[TW Sherrin]

Pretty disappointing response

I'll bow to your expertise in disappointment.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

I'll bow to your expertise in disappointment.

Another tool comment. Mum must be proud

 

[TW Sherrin]

Another tool comment. Mum must be proud

I thought it was good actually. lighten up.

 

[Cadillac]

This thread is a ******* cancer.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Lance Franklin (HAW) 56 games 125 goals
Nick Riewoldt (St Kilda) 50 games 53 goals
Tony Lockett (St Kilda) 53 games 175 goals

Jeremy Cameron (GWS) 41 games 120 goals (all Australian in second year)

I think the point being made is more that Boyd isn't excluded from the possibility of being one of the best key forwards in the league into the future because of a relatively lean start to his career, because it's happened to multiple other players in the past. No Bulldog fan saying that Boyd's output hasn't been relatively lean, nor are they saying that better output earlier in career would generally lead to, and correlates with greater later-career output.

But of course, it's a Tom Boyd thread on the main board. Why debate with reason and logic when fans of other clubs are just going to use strawman arguments like the above.

 

[IllBeTheJudge]

This thread is a ******* cancer.

At least there's one type I'm unlikely to be struck down with!

 

[IllBeTheJudge]

I think the point being made is more that Boyd isn't excluded from the possibility of being one of the best key forwards in the league into the future because of a relatively lean start to his career, because it's happened to multiple other players in the past. No Bulldog fan saying that Boyd's output hasn't been relatively lean, nor are they saying that better output earlier in career would generally lead to, and correlates with greater later-career output.

But of course, it's a Tom Boyd thread on the main board. Why debate with reason and logic when fans of other clubs are just going to use strawman arguments like the above.

I think it's all mostly relative. If he was on $350k a year (with scope for a sizeable upgrade in future), nobody would bat an eye
But considering the size of his contract, compared to his output, that's where the criticism comes into play

For mine, Patton has been just as, if not more, disappointing but he isn't criticised in the same manner because:
a. he's in Sydney so somewhat invisible
b. he's not on as large a contract (that anyone knows of)

 

[Damon_3388]

For mine, Patton has been just as, if not more, disappointing but he isn't criticised in the same manner because:
a. he's in Sydney so somewhat invisible
b. he's not on as large a contract (that anyone knows of)

Patton hasn't been great, but he has also missed 2 1/2 years of footy with knee injuries, so he's effectively at the same stage in his development as Boyd, despite being two years older.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

Patton hasn't been great, but he has also missed 2 1/2 years of footy with knee injuries, so he's effectively at the same stage in his development as Boyd, despite being two years older.

But he's 2-3 years ahead in strength and both of their games are, or will be, built around strength. Whilst Tom's body shape has changed dramatically over the last 18 months, IMO he's still a long way off being strong enough to do what he would want to do.