It's a fucking dumb idea, so you should expect sarcastic responses to such a dumb idea. We have Australia's fullback there FFS. That's the only reason needed. He won't be better than him back there, and he's going to be a damned fine 5/8.
What a difference though. Hunt is allowed to keep his spot forever, but we should move Milford. Dumb. So dumb.
I didn't even call you a fool, yay!
It doesn't matter how dumb you think the idea is, you should argue why you disagree, not lambast its author. You know it and I know it, and last time I checked, that is also how you would like BHQ to operate.
This is not a reflection on Boyd, who has been one of our consistently best, and as you said, is the current Australian Fullback.
The premise is imo, that we need a different half than those we have for all reasons explained extensively, so we can go 2 ways about it.
1- Straight swap for Hunt, which will probably will see us losing him, but means no further changes to the team.
2- Keep Hunt's talent in the team, but then pieces would have to be moved. Personally, I think he's a great 5/8, even if not as good as Milford, but the latter is a great fullback as well, and even if we have the Aus fullback, who is also a great centre/winger, where we lack quality options!
So how much do we lose by moving Milford to Fullback? We improve our backline imo, because the gain we get with Boyd in the 3/4 line more than balances his loss as a Fullback. Milford can be as good as Boyd there, probably better in attack, albeit not as good in defense.
Hunt could do his thing as 5/8 with less pressure to be the organiser/controlling half, as long as we have someone partnering him with the required qualities we lack.
Option 1 is certainly valid, especially if we improve the quality and depth in the centre/wing positions, but it's not as flexible as option 2, which allows us to cover for a loss anywhere in the backline with more ease.
You may disagree with option 2, but that doesn't make it a dumb idea.