Flogstradamus Tom Boyd Deal Haters

[hawkman]

agree completely. the other issue for me is that they cant seem to ice games very well. take todays game, having a 2 on 1 in you D50 with less than a minute to go is completely unforgivable. thats U18s mistakes or melbourne esque hahaha

Melbourne are never normally up late in thr game to make those mistakes.

Richmond esque would be a better description

 

[Defacto]

Melbourne are never normally up late in thr game to make those mistakes.

Richmond esque would be a better description

you dont remember melbourne doing that last year?

 

[hawkman]

you dont remember melbourne doing that last year?

Only now you reminded me. A Saints Demons game is not something i usually take a lot of interest in

 

[MAXIMUM GRUNDAGE]

you dont remember melbourne doing that last year?

I tried to put it out of my head.

 

[MAXIMUM GRUNDAGE]

Paying Hogan 'Tom Boyd rates' on his output would be the entirety of Melbourne's cap.

Mate, we put Dawes and Lumumba on 500k just to meet minimum spend. Cap room is no problem. But might have trouble keeping both Hogan and Gawn and remain under.

 

[TiAn_]

McCartin played a better game and he only played 1 half.

And we dont need to pay him a million a year while being our great white hope for a flag.

Mate...

McCartin: 5 touches, 3 marks, 0 hitouts, 0 tackles and a goal from 41% game time.

Boyd: 14 touches, 4 marks, 5 hitouts and a goal from 71% game time.

They're a stupid comparison because McCartin will never ruck. But even Boyd kicked 7 goals in his first 8 games while rucking large chunks for a rubbish GWS team. McCartin's on 4.

You went to McCartin about 5 of your first 7 I50 entries on Saturday. What was the return on that? One behind?

If you want to rip into Boyd then comparing him to McCartin isn't your go - he still kicks more goals than McCartin despite McCartin playing exclusively forward and Boyd rucking for half of our games.

As for the contract, we didn't have the benefit of being an absolutely rubbish team in a non-GWS compromised draft. Well done Saints, your ability to rack up wooden spoons has its perks.

 

[TiAn_]

McCartin played a better game and he only played 1 half.

And we dont need to pay him a million a year while being our great white hope for a flag.

And you don't have any hope for a flag. Great white or otherwise.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

So the dogs are that incompetent they did not have a ruckman at all?

So trading a club legend and pick 4 along with playing said legend half a million at his new club as well as paying prized forward recruit 1 million a season to not play him forward is just silly.

That is just poor management from the dogs.

 

[Defacto]

Mate...

McCartin: 5 touches, 3 marks, 0 hitouts, 0 tackles and a goal from 41% game time.

Boyd: 14 touches, 4 marks, 5 hitouts and a goal from 71% game time.

They're a stupid comparison because McCartin will never ruck. But even Boyd kicked 7 goals in his first 8 games while rucking large chunks for a rubbish GWS team. McCartin's on 4.

If you want to rip into Boyd then comparing him to McCartin isn't your go - he still kicks more goals than McCartin despite McCartin playing exclusively forward and Boyd rucking for half of our games.

As for the contract, we didn't have the benefit of being an absolutely rubbish team in a non-GWS compromised draft. Well done Saints, your ability to rack up wooden spoons has its perks.

bloody hell. how much did they bench boyd... thats a tad worrying given its already his 3rd season and he's on a million quid

 

[MAXIMUM GRUNDAGE]

So the dogs are that incompetent they did not have a ruckman at all?

So trading a club legend and pick 4 along with playing said legend half a million at his new club as well as paying prized forward recruit 1 million a season to not play him forward is just silly.

That is just poor management from the dogs.

Should never have delisted Wayde Skipper. If they were desperate for some tall timber up forward who can't ruck and just fills in space, they could have had Chris Dawes for half that.

 

[Defacto]

Mate...

McCartin: 5 touches, 3 marks, 0 hitouts, 0 tackles and a goal from 41% game time.

Boyd: 14 touches, 4 marks, 5 hitouts and a goal from 71% game time.

They're a stupid comparison because McCartin will never ruck. But even Boyd kicked 7 goals in his first 8 games while rucking large chunks for a rubbish GWS team. McCartin's on 4.

You went to McCartin about 5 of your first 7 I50 entries on Saturday. What was the return on that? One behind?

If you want to rip into Boyd then comparing him to McCartin isn't your go - he still kicks more goals than McCartin despite McCartin playing exclusively forward and Boyd rucking for half of our games.

As for the contract, we didn't have the benefit of being an absolutely rubbish team in a non-GWS compromised draft. Well done Saints, your ability to rack up wooden spoons has its perks.

another point here, did you watch mccartins game?

he gave off an easy goal, scored a point from an angle and then got another point after kicking on goal concussed after a massive grab

mccartin has a habit of dishing off easy goals to team mates in an even better position. he's a very unselfish footballer

you also dont find it worrying that mccartin had 1 less mark even after playing a half less of football

 

[TiAn_]

bloody hell. how much did they bench boyd... thats a tad worrying given its already his 3rd season and he's on a million quid

lol

another point here, did you watch mccartins game?

he gave off an easy goal, scored a point from an angle and then got another point after kicking on goal concussed after a massive grab

mccartin has a habit of dishing off easy goals to team mates in an even better position. he's a very unselfish footballer

you also dont find it worrying that mccartin had 1 less mark even after playing a half less of football

Yeah I did watch your game and you went to McCartin repeatedly for a return of one free kick for a behind and a Joe the Goose goal. He took a good mark in the second and missed the shot. He also had 1 goal assist, the second of his career.

Nothing McCartin has done has caused me to worry about Boyd. Best of luck to McCartin but no Dogs supporter is going to lose sleep over comparisons between the two.

 

[TiAn_]

So the dogs are that incompetent they did not have a ruckman at all?

So trading a club legend and pick 4 along with playing said legend half a million at his new club as well as paying prized forward recruit 1 million a season to not play him forward is just silly.

That is just poor management from the dogs.

What rambling nonsense is this? He's a forward/ruckman. He plays forward and in the ruck. We also have Roughead, Minson and Campbell. We can play players in the positions we want because we're not scrambling to find 22 competent players every week.

Your club traded picks 13, 25 and 41 for Tom Hickey AND Billy Longer, neither of whom can play forward. Add to that giving up pick 12 for Tom Lee and there's a reason your club's stagnated in the middle of a rebuild.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

What rambling nonsense is this? He's a forward/ruckman. He plays forward and in the ruck. We also have Roughead, Minson and Campbell. We can play players in the positions we want because we're not scrambling to find 22 competent players every week.

Your club traded picks 13, 25 and 41 for Tom Hickey AND Billy Longer, neither of whom can play forward. Add to that giving up pick 12 for Tom Lee and there's a reason your club's stagnated in the middle of a rebuild.

We traded 13 for Lee and for picks 24 and 45 and Hickey was traded for 12 36 and 55 draft picks and we got 25 and 46 back.

So you already failed there and Longer was traded with picks 25 and 41 which enabled us to get pick 48 which netted us Josh Bruce.

And we dont need our ruckmen to play forward because they ruck for most of the game like any normal ruckman does and Bruce pinch hits like every other side with good rucks and good forwards and we do have 22 competent players each week.

Its good to know that you are not able to do basic ****ing reseach about other teams.

Keep on drinking the bathwater about Boyd.

 

[Defacto]

What rambling nonsense is this? He's a forward/ruckman. He plays forward and in the ruck. We also have Roughead, Minson and Campbell. We can play players in the positions we want because we're not scrambling to find 22 competent players every week.

Your club traded picks 13, 25 and 41 for Tom Hickey AND Billy Longer, neither of whom can play forward. Add to that giving up pick 12 for Tom Lee and there's a reason your club's stagnated in the middle of a rebuild.

what did we give up for josh bruce?

 

[TiAn_]

We traded 13 for Lee and for picks 24 and 45 and Hickey was traded for 12 36 and 55 draft picks and we got 25 and 46 back.

So you already failed there and Longer was traded with picks 25 and 41 which enabled us to get pick 48 which netted us Josh Bruce.

And we dont need our ruckmen to play forward because they ruck for most of the game like any normal ruckman does and Bruce pinch hits like every other side with good rucks and good forwards and we do have 22 competent players each week.

Its good to know that you are not able to do basic ******* reseach about other teams.

Keep on drinking the bathwater about Boyd.

LOL no you fool you traded 12 for Lee, 13 for Tom Hickey and 25 for Longer. So much for your research you deadweight.

In any event, one's a limited tap ruckman, one's a total spud and the other can't get a game because you traded in two ruckmen who are useless up forward. But congrats on picking up some late picks, that'll offset losing two first rounders for blokes who can't get a game in your battling team.

Love how you throw in that one of the late picks was traded for pick 48 which was traded for Josh Bruce. 1) how much of a stretch is that to justify your crap initial trades and 2) like the Saints had any clue Josh Bruce would be a good forward. If they did, he wouldn't have spent his first year playing in your backline.

And lol at saying we don't have good rucks or forwards but you do. We pumped you by 50+ points in your captain's 300th and won the hitouts with Jordan Roughead, who was only playing because Campbell was injured.

 

[JoseMourinho]

Griffen is a traitor. That is all we need to know Mofra

 

[TiAn_]

what did we give up for josh bruce?

As above. If you're dragging Josh Bruce's shock transformation into a good forward into the argument to justify trading picks 12, 13 and 25 for effectively Tom Hickey, you're admitting it was horrible trading.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

LOL no you fool you traded 12 for Lee, 13 for Tom Hickey and 25 for Longer. So much for your research you deadweight.

12 Tom Hickey
Draft picks No. 25 and 46 for Draft picks No. 13, 36 and 55

Strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 1

So getting picks back does not count?

Tom Lee
Draft picks No. 24 and 45 Draft pick No. 12

Strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 2

Again getting picks back does not count again?

Billy Longer Pick 48 Pick 25 Pick 41

For the 3rd time does not getting picks back count again?

Strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 3

And hickey is our number 1 ruckman and we got a bargain for longer (hawks were going to trade pick 18 for him)

So strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 4

In any event, one's a limited tap ruckman, one's a total spud and the other can't get a game because you traded in two ruckmen who are useless up forward. But congrats on picking up some late picks, that'll offset losing two first rounders for blokes who can't get a game in your battling team.

And hickey has been pretty good forward when he has been played there but as the number 1 ruck his job is to well Ruck so why should our number 1 ruckman play forward that is ******ed logic. And rucks take a long time to develop so this trade was well worth it. Lee has had numerous injuries which has hapened his comeback if you read and did reseach then you will know a lot of clubs were chasing him at the time.

And we develop longer and sell him to another club for a pick in the teens so again it will be worth it for us.
and strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 5

Love how you throw in that one of the late picks was traded for pick 48 which was traded for Josh Bruce. 1) how much of a stretch is that to justify your crap initial trades and 2) like the Saints had any clue Josh Bruce would be a good forward. If they did, he wouldn't have spent his first year playing in your backline.

Bruce spent a year down back for his development the plan was for him to always be aforward and Richo had one look at him and said you will be our number 1 forward

So strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 6

And lol at saying we don't have good rucks or forwards but you do. We pumped you by 50+ points in your captain's 300th and won the hitouts with Jordan Roughead, who was only playing because Campbell was injured.

you have one good forward in stringer and hickey played a bad game it happens.

Like stringer on sunday who got made into strattons bitch after being Dempsters bitch the week before.

 

[Cadillac]

12 Tom Hickey
Draft picks No. 25 and 46 for Draft picks No. 13, 36 and 55

Strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 1

So getting picks back does not count?

Tom Lee
Draft picks No. 24 and 45 Draft pick No. 12

Strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 2

Again getting picks back does not count again?

Billy Longer Pick 48 Pick 25 Pick 41

For the 3rd time does not getting picks back count again?

Strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 3

And hickey is our number 1 ruckman and we got a bargain for longer (hawks were going to trade pick 18 for him)

So strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 4


And hickey has been pretty good forward when he has been played there but as the number 1 ruck his job is to well Ruck so why should our number 1 ruckman play forward that is ******ed logic. And rucks take a long time to develop so this trade was well worth it. Lee has had numerous injuries which has hapened his comeback if you read and did reseach then you will know a lot of clubs were chasing him at the time.

And we develop longer and sell him to another club for a pick in the teens so again it will be worth it for us.
and strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 5


Bruce spent a year down back for his development the plan was for him to always be aforward and Richo had one look at him and said you will be our number 1 forward

So strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 6


you have one good forward in stringer and hickey played a bad game it happens.

Like stringer on sunday who got made into strattons bitch after being Dempsters bitch the week before.

I like most of your content Cooksen but a bit harsh on stringer. He got towelled up yesterday but against Dempster he played a majority up the ground. But he did get 18 touches, kicked 2.2 and took 8 marks.

And you're saying we have one good forward? are you forgetting Dickson kicked 50 goals last year with the AFL's best conversion rate including 5 straight in a final? He should be back in a couple of weeks.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

And you're saying we have one good forward? are you forgetting Dickson kicked 50 goals last year with the AFL's best conversion rate including 5 straight in a final? He should be back in a couple of weeks.

I thought he was a mid.

As most of the dogs goals are mids who rotate like crazy around the ground to create mismatches.

Kinda like port but with less diving and with more love.

 

[BRWB]

Funny thing Boyd has generated multiple threads with this one around 100 pages.

A lot of talk from a bunch of jealous flogs proclaiming over and over that a young Boyd is no good. Or the deal is no good.

Thing is Huffing and puffing ain't blowing Boyd down. He just gets better and better, while blokes of a similar size and age had barely played a game (Dixon, Tippett, etc)

We can smell the fear on you.

100 pages of sooking it up won't change anything.

 

[Cadillac]

I thought he was a mid.

As most of the dogs goals are mids who rotate like crazy around the ground to create mismatches.

Kinda like port but with less diving and with more love.

Nah he's a natural forward.
If he kicked 50 as a mid it would be pretty ****ing amazing lol.
We've looked pretty one dimensional without him and Crameri so far this season.

 

[Cadillac]

Funny thing Boyd has generated multiple threads with this one around 100 pages.

A lot of talk from a bunch of jealous flogs proclaiming over and over that a young Boyd is no good. Or the deal is no good.

Thing is Huffing and puffing ain't blowing Boyd down. He just gets better and better, while blokes of a similar size and age had barely played a game (Dixon, Tippett, etc)

We can smell the fear on you.

100 pages of sooking it up won't change anything.

It's the Bay mate! All in a bit of fun!
If this is the only thing they can hang shit on us about then we must be going okay

 

[TiAn_]

12 Tom Hickey
Draft picks No. 25 and 46 for Draft picks No. 13, 36 and 55

Strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 1

So getting picks back does not count?

Tom Lee
Draft picks No. 24 and 45 Draft pick No. 12

Strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 2

Again getting picks back does not count again?

Billy Longer Pick 48 Pick 25 Pick 41

For the 3rd time does not getting picks back count again?

Strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 3

And hickey is our number 1 ruckman and we got a bargain for longer (hawks were going to trade pick 18 for him)

So strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 4


And hickey has been pretty good forward when he has been played there but as the number 1 ruck his job is to well Ruck so why should our number 1 ruckman play forward that is ******ed logic. And rucks take a long time to develop so this trade was well worth it. Lee has had numerous injuries which has hapened his comeback if you read and did reseach then you will know a lot of clubs were chasing him at the time.

And we develop longer and sell him to another club for a pick in the teens so again it will be worth it for us.
and strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 5


Bruce spent a year down back for his development the plan was for him to always be aforward and Richo had one look at him and said you will be our number 1 forward

So strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 6


you have one good forward in stringer and hickey played a bad game it happens.

Like stringer on sunday who got made into strattons bitch after being Dempsters bitch the week before.

"And rucks take a long time so this trade was worth it" - HUGE LOL. Hickey's 25 and Longer's nearly 23 and you're posting this in a thread where you've been paying out on a 20 year old who's the same size.

Anyway your whole post is blah blah blah - you're hanging your hat on getting back late picks to justify trading out two first rounders and netting one average ruckman in return. And talking about some theoretical future trade where someone gives you a "pick in the teens" for Longer. Mate get your hand off it. That's just embarrassing.

One good forward... Even if that's true, doesn't that make us pulling your pants down in old St Nick's 300th even more embarrassing?