they're all keepers

ScallyWag1

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Posts
1,492
Likes
3,030
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
Thread starter #1
MCGUANE
THURSFIELD
MOORE

i keep hearing (BF) speculation that at least one of these guys will be up for trade at the end of the year. my question is why?

Mcguane is tough as nails, competitive and looks better every week.

Thursfield did a good job on fev after mcgaune left the field, and still IMHO has some potential to be a very good versatile backman, can play on a small forward as well as a KPF

Moore is having his best year to date, would probably be on the podium if the B&F was now.

i still think this is the making of a good backline. am i missing something?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

_RT_

Hall Of Famer
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Posts
34,865
Likes
42,918
Location
Southern Stand Punt Road End
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Furies Premiers 2010
#2
MCGUANE
THURSFIELD
MOORE

i keep hearing (BF) speculation that at least one of these guys will be up for trade at the end of the year. my question is why?

Mcguane is tough as nails, competitive and looks better every week.

Thursfield did a good job on fev after mcgaune left the field, and still IMHO has some potential to be a very good versatile backman, can play on a small forward as well as a KPF

Moore is having his best year to date, would probably be on the podium if the B&F was now.

i still think this is the making of a good backline. am i missing something?
IMO it has to do with people wanting to get extra picks at the top end of the draft any way they can. Moore McGuane & Thursfield have some currency, but none should be traded as far as I'm concerned.
 

MightyTiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Posts
8,185
Likes
7,186
AFL Club
Richmond
#3
I think people forget that these blokes beat there direct opponent on a regular basis.

One thing they forget is that we were getting heavily belted not because of any major fault in the backline, but because our midfield didnt fill the wholes and cover properly for one another.

They will all be there come 2011 and beyond.
 

Spluff

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
9,455
Likes
6,266
Location
Geelong
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Steelers
#4
All three are flawed and we can't keep all of them in the same team, not to mention we desperately need top-20 draft picks.
 

ScallyWag1

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Posts
1,492
Likes
3,030
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
Thread starter #7
All three are flawed and we can't keep all of them in the same team, not to mention we desperately need top-20 draft picks.
i feel like hardwick/leppitsch have begun ironing out the flaws in them (not to mention numerous other players), they seem to be learning where to be when a contest is coming up.

and with players like connors, newman, deledio, potentially a webberly or the like in the neighbourhood to worry about the sharp disposal out of the defensive 50, i think all 3 have a place and any deficiencies (less by the week) that still exist are not too much of an issue.

astbury, rance, post, (maybe) gourdis and grimes all still have plenty of time, while they might eventually be the options i think right now thursfield, mcguane and moore are the way to go. plus astbury and or post might end up forward, rance might end up on a wing, and so on.

plus moore's in the leadership group isn't he? they don't normally trade someone out of there unless the player asks for it.
 

coke_zero

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Posts
7,639
Likes
54
Location
chadstone
AFL Club
Richmond
#8
The thing is how far will these 3 take us? If we can upgrade one of them for someone already on the list, then we should use them and get what we can out of the them with a trade.
 

santa claws

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Posts
5,688
Likes
670
Location
perth
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
west tigers. glenelg.
#9
for me it s clear the club thinks we are lacking in this area and i would agree. rance gourdis grimes post astbury all kids all recent draftees sort of says one of the three the thread is about is not in the long term thinking.
without a shadow of doubt we lack a big strong quick fb who will take on in one on ones the halls fevs browns tippets etc.
moore is a capable defensive tall but should be used in the mackie role keep on telling people he has the tools to play afl and be well rounded unlike the other two.

personally i would be looking to upgrade on both mcguane and thursfield in the medium to long term. looking long term i think we need to find that fb and chb.
anyway this has been done to death time will tell what path we go down.
i just hope the club itself for once stops overrating our players and does whats best for us in 3 or 4 yrs time not now.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Posts
7,060
Likes
1,771
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
LA Lakers, Arsenal
#10
The thing is how far will these 3 take us? If we can upgrade one of them for someone already on the list, then we should use them and get what we can out of the them with a trade.
Agreed, all three's best is servicable but will never be any more then honest defenders. That's the reason we should be looking to offload one if another club offers something decent.
 

Bazzar

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 8, 2007
Posts
35,544
Likes
42,207
AFL Club
Richmond
#11
I would say Gourdis is earmarked for FB, and unfortunately none of them have ever appeared capable up forward, so one will have to make way, and that looks like Thursty at this stage.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Madtiger2006

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Posts
20,246
Likes
11,066
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
#12
I think our defence would fall apart if we lost Mcguane. We'd only have Thursty and Moore. Imagine Moore playing on 195-200cm number 1 forwards every week. He'd have 5 goals kicked on him every game. Thursty and Mcguane are must keeps. They were skinny 75kg kids when we got them and now they are 90kg and still getting bigger. Get them to 95kg and they are the same size as Scarlett at 192cm. They'll be better than Post and Gourdis for a while yet. Both Mcguane and Thursty will improve as players. I'd be shocked if we even considered trading any of these 2. I'd understand if we traded Moore because he's pretty replaceable :cool:
 

Barnzy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Posts
14,542
Likes
5,346
Location
MCG
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Tottenham
#18
They're all keepers if we want to continue to finish last.

Moore is the best of the lot for the role he plays (3rd tall). He's not perfect but he picks off long balls, helps out the other KPD and he sets up attacks. Thursfield is too small physically and is just a stopper. McGuane is still too small physically (lacks a few kg's and I don't if he will ever put that extra weight on, just look at his body shape, ie legs). Also his disposal/decision making is the worst of the lot. So for mine Thursfield and McGuane are the most vulnerable of the 3.

We need a big bodied FB and CHB for the long-term. Hopefully Astbury takes CHB and makes it his own, he's already showing signs and he has much more positive attributes than McGuane. FB is wide open and maybe Grimes or Gourdis can fill that. I've lost all hope in Rance, he doesn't even play as a KPP, he is 193cm but plays as a small. Decision making/disposal average and his overhead marking is poor. I think he might get one more shot in the seniors to prove he can play but I think we have to look elsewhere. Would try to trade him for whatever we can get.
 

Spluff

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
9,455
Likes
6,266
Location
Geelong
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Steelers
#19
A question for those saying trade one of them, seeing as most are saying that we need to upgrade them what exactly are you expecting at the trade table if they were put up?
We don't necessarily need to upgrade them (though an upgrade is always nice), I'm just saying that keeping all three of them isn't essential. None of them are bad footballers - there would be very few teams where they wouldn't be a regular - just that they are more valuable to other teams than they would be to us. Just put them all up for offer and if we can get a Top 20 draft pick from GC (who will desperately need a solid defender) or anybody else we should take it immediately, if we can't get that, they should stay at Tigerland.

Moore would be a required player if he wasn't so old. As a third tall he is a very good player, doing good stopping jobs and providing good run and disposal. As it is, especially with his record of injury, he'll probably be finished up by the time we're serious competitors.
 

santa claws

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Posts
5,688
Likes
670
Location
perth
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
west tigers. glenelg.
#21
We don't necessarily need to upgrade them (though an upgrade is always nice), I'm just saying that keeping all three of them isn't essential. None of them are bad footballers - there would be very few teams where they wouldn't be a regular
this i disagree with and is one of the real reasons why we do need to upgrade.
the real game is about not only catching existing sides up but going past them.

i suppose it all comes down to how you rate them against their peers and rate their strengths and weaknesses.

we play mcguane and thursfield as kpps its only my opinion but they would not get a game in front of most other kpds at other clubs.at best they would be depth players.
 

TOOs_Finest

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Posts
7,933
Likes
2,101
Location
East of Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Dallas Desire
#22
we play mcguane and thursfield as kpps its only my opinion but they would not get a game in front of most other kpds at other clubs.at best they would be depth players.
Actually, I think if you look closely, they would be at least on a par with a lot of KPDs, there aren't a lot of great ones around.

Off the top of my head: Carlton, Hawks, Saints, Kangas, Crows could all use an extra KPD. It would be touch and go for either of those guys to get a game in these teams.

But I do agree that we need to find a gun FB from somewhere. I know they don't just grow on trees, but a strong defender with the ability to attack would be a huge bonus. Similar to Scarlett, Lake, Fletcher, etc. Thing is, you often need to let them develop for 3-4 years before you really know.
 

win1soon

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Posts
1,094
Likes
52
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Man u
#23
They're all keepers if we want to continue to finish last.

Moore is the best of the lot for the role he plays (3rd tall). He's not perfect but he picks off long balls, helps out the other KPD and he sets up attacks. Thursfield is too small physically and is just a stopper. McGuane is still too small physically (lacks a few kg's and I don't if he will ever put that extra weight on, just look at his body shape, ie legs). Also his disposal/decision making is the worst of the lot. So for mine Thursfield and McGuane are the most vulnerable of the 3.

We need a big bodied FB and CHB for the long-term. Hopefully Astbury takes CHB and makes it his own, he's already showing signs and he has much more positive attributes than McGuane. FB is wide open and maybe Grimes or Gourdis can fill that. I've lost all hope in Rance, he doesn't even play as a KPP, he is 193cm but plays as a small. Decision making/disposal average and his overhead marking is poor. I think he might get one more shot in the seniors to prove he can play but I think we have to look elsewhere. Would try to trade him for whatever we can get.

Agreed
 

RichosGuns

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Posts
5,273
Likes
5
Location
your house
AFL Club
Richmond
#25
Disagree with the OP.

Luke McGuane is a keeper, the other two should be up for trade.

Currently our KPD stocks consist of :
- Luke McGuane
- Will Thurstfield
- Kel Moore
- Alex Rance
- Jayden Post
- David Astbury
- David Gourdis
- Dylan Grimes

That's pretty healthy imo. No doubt Thurstfield and Moore are better present options then all of the above (other then McGuane), however we're not going to be challenging to at least 2012 imo, which gives blokes like Gourdis, Astbury and Post to step into the roles.

Also, I don't like the idea of Post AND Astbury being trained as defenders. While our defense seem to have alot of options, Riewoldt, Griffiths and Westhoff make up only a small pool of tall fowards (not including Polak)
 
Top Bottom