I have watched with great interest this debate, and in my view (note this is my opinion) your take on events is through the prism of your tainted and well publicized view about the circumstances in which Bennett came back and the decision to bring Boyd back. Given that the existing fullback options were Barba (who is setting the world on fire at Cronulla) and Hoffman, who could not nail the position down here, and is failing to do so at the Titans, I very much believe that there was a need for Boyd. But we will just have to agree to disagree about that. You are entitled to your well established opinion about that, and I am old enough to realize that you will not shift in your view (and nor should you have to).
If we adopt your line of argument and we accept that Boyd was not required, I presume that you would have played Milford at fullback and who would you have played at five-eighth? The options are fairly slim. Taylor may think he is ready for NRL, he is not (once again in my opinion) He is about a year to two years away yet. You talk about the glaring deficiencies in our halves, and I take it again that in the world of Porthoz the panacea for all of that is an under 20's half who has yet to play a full season of under 20's, has an injury history and has deficiencies in his own game? Do not get me wrong, I think he is going to be a good player, and potentially a very good player, but does potential supplant what Hunt has shown and is showing? It may be the case that Hunt does not further develop, only time will tell.
And by the way, I did not at any time state that either Hunt or Milford were finished products incapable of improvement, once again a common tactic of yours in putting words in other people's mouths. I would have thought that even you should have picked up that the comment `and continues to work on the weaknesses in his game' was an open acknowledgement that there are weaknesses in his game, but perhaps I should have made it more obvious. Ultimately, you will never be swayed from your viewpoint, which either arises from the prism of your views about Bennett or Boyd, or from rose coloured glasses about Taylor. I personally would like to see him stay, but I will watch with interest to see if he develops into this superstar that you and others have tagged him as.
First of all, I've always had a lot of respect for your opinion, regardless of whether I agreed with it or not. I don't wish to mix you with some other BHQ figures with whom I don't expect to have a valuable discussion.
You're starting from a false premise, mixing Bennett and Boyd's recruitments and my opinions on those.
I have a very consolidated opinion about the method which allowed WB's return to the club. Through the information I have (some of it quite public, some of it not), which was largely discussed at the time, I completely disapprove of how things unfolded. There's no point or sense to bring it up again here, as no matter what your and other's opinions may be, this is totally separate from the Boyd issue!
It seems that what we fundamentally disagree on, is whether or not players from the U20's were able to make it in FG.
It's your assertion that we only had Barba and Hoffman to fill the fullback position. I say we also had at least Kahu and Jayden Nikorima, as well as the main candidate, which was Milford. I made it very clear at the time, that this would cost us a youngster, specifically one of Taylor or Jikorima, so this is not hindsight backlash.
Fact is, we managed quite well without Boyd, Barba or Hoffman, with Kahu and even Maranta doing worthy jobs in the custodian role.
If Milford was indeed put at fullback, we would have still had both Nikorima brothers, Taylor and of course Hunt to fill the halves roles. Of course, you'll argue that none of the youngsters was ready for the NRL, and there is no way to argue the contrary, as there is no evidence proving it.
However, WB himself is now on the record saying that Taylor is ready for the NRL, only a few weeks after Boyd returned from his injury, and is encouraging Ashley to find another club, because there is no spot for him here in the near future at the Broncos. Why is that? Because he will not move Boyd from FB and Milford from 5/8... hence the circle is complete, and we are back at the point where there was no need to get Boyd.
Finally, on my rose tinted Taylor glasses. You are absolutely right about that, but that is my point entirely.
I have a lot of faith in young Ash, because I have seen the kid play since he was 14-15, and he has always been years ahead of anyone else, not only in his footy, but especially in his maturity.
He is a natural halfback, and albeit young and inexperienced, already well ahead of Hunt in many aspects that define a HB role, especially those "weaknesses" which Hunt is still working on. The things Taylor would need to work and improve on, are much easier to train and learn than Hunt's, whom imo, would be much better off playing his natural game next to a Taylor type half. Indeed, it is also my opinion that Hunt is more suited to play 5/8 than Halfback.
Add all of the above to the fact that I believe that there is nothing Milford couldn't do from FB that he is doing now from 5/8, and Wayne's inability (IMO) to be impartial with Boyd, and you have the core of my reasoning against Boyd's recruitment.
Notwithstanding Boyd's quality, if I had to choose between him and Ashley, it would be a no brainer. The worst part is that it isn't even necessary. I wouldn't get rid of Boyd at all... but he would definitely be moved to the 3/4 line if I had a say.
