Tough, fast and perfectly fits our age requirements.

Obviously has said his preferred destination is Geelong at this stage, but if they can't squeeze him in should we have a crack?

 

8 minutes ago, stuie said:

Tough, fast and perfectly fits our age requirements.

Obviously has said his preferred destination is Geelong at this stage, but if they can't squeeze him in should we have a crack?

 

Hibberd is an extremely similar player. Not sure we have any need for him.

might have enough rebounding half-backs. 

But then can you ever have enough?

Just now, Members' Wing said:

Hibberd is an extremely similar player. Not sure we have any need for him.

Don't think Hibberd is anywhere near as quick, and I wouldn't class Tuohy as being as set in stone as a HB as Hibberd is. We're all about versatility, and I love the thought of having Hunt and Tuohy on the wings accepting the ball from Hibberd/Melksham/Salem etc.

 

No thanks.

1 minute ago, billy2803 said:

No thanks.

Care to offer an opinion as to why? Pretty pointless comment otherwise...

 

If we can get the Hibberd deal done for our future second rounder i'd be more than happy to put pick 28 on the table for him, i reckon he's a very good player, and while we have a few half backs it releases Hunts and Salem up the ground.

Just now, Abe said:

If we can get the Hibberd deal done for our future second rounder i'd be more than happy to put pick 28 on the table for him, i reckon he's a very good player, and while we have a few half backs it releases Hunts and Salem up the ground.

I see Tuohy as being more that versatile prototype we value these days than Hibberd is. I like Hibbo, but don't see him venturing up the ground too often, whereas Tuohy, Hunt and Salem would be sensational options to be free to roam up the ground a bit. I could even see Tuohy having a few midfield runs, bit like we've been doing with Lumumba.

 

9 hours ago, Abe said:

If we can get the Hibberd deal done for our future second rounder i'd be more than happy to put pick 28 on the table for him, i reckon he's a very good player, and while we have a few half backs it releases Hunts and Salem up the ground.

Whilst I can see the obvious benefit of Salem utilising his footskills in the forward half, I don't see the advantage of releasing Hunt up the ground. I would prefer him launching attacks with his acceleration off half back, with space in front of him. We will have a surplus of half back options next season with Hibberd coming in so it's a no to Tuohy from me. 

Edited October 11, 20169 yr by Mondê

5 minutes ago, Abe said:

If we can get the Hibberd deal done for our future second rounder i'd be more than happy to put pick 28 on the table for him, i reckon he's a very good player, and while we have a few half backs it releases Hunts and Salem up the ground.

I suspect that if they wanted to trade pick 28 then they they would just give it for Hibberd. I would think they are offering a future pick because they have a couple of draftees around the 25-35 mark they have their eye on and want to bring in. And besides Tuohy is a good player but given our HB stocks he isnt really worth chasing too hard.

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

Care to offer an opinion as to why? Pretty pointless comment otherwise...

 

As opposed to starting a thread on a player that just hours prior clearly stated he wanted to go to a different club?

But to humour you, we have Hunt, Salem, Wagner and Melksham, all of which can play the HBF.  By adding in Hibberd, who is a certain starting 18 player, this allows Wagner to continue to develop, as well as allowing the likes of Salem and Hunt to move further up the field, possibly playing on the wing with Stretch (who has shown great improvement with every game).  This gives us Melksham and Hibberd to play HBF, giving us extra so-called "experience" we require back there.  We also have Vince who has floated around the half back line most of this year.

I'm also not convinced that Goodwin will be rushing Hunt up to a wing either.  The GF saw the importance of a HBF being able break lines, which is exactly what Hunt can do.

In short, what it would cost us to get Tuohy would be far better invested elsewhere.

HB: Hunt, Hibberd, Tuohy

B: Jetta, TMac, OMac

Salem and Frost on the bench. Frost could even do some backup ruck work in this scenario, and Tuohy, Salem and Hunt could rotate up through the wings, Tuohy even a bit of midfield like we've done previously with Lumumba.

 

we are effectively adding 2 half back flankers this year (hibberd, melksham). adding a 3rd half back flanker when we have other pressing needs would be lunacy.

Edited October 11, 20169 yr by daisycutter

3 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

As opposed to starting a thread on a player that just hours prior clearly stated he wanted to go to a different club?

But to humour you, we have Hunt, Salem, Wagner and Melksham, all of which can play the HBF.  By adding in Hibberd, who is a certain starting 18 player, this allows Wagner to continue to develop, as well as allowing the likes of Salem and Hunt to move further up the field, possibly playing on the wing with Stretch (who has shown great improvement with every game).  This gives us Melksham and Hibberd to play HBF, giving us extra so-called "experience" we require back there.  We also have Vince who has floated around the half back line most of this year.

I'm also not convinced that Goodwin will be rushing Hunt up to a wing either.  The GF saw the importance of a HBF being able break lines, which is exactly what Hunt can do.

In short, what it would cost us to get Tuohy would be far better invested elsewhere.

As I stated in the OP: "Obviously has said his preferred destination is Geelong at this stage, but if they can't squeeze him in should we have a crack?"

I just rate Tuohy as pretty close to the prototype of versatile players we hear the coaches talk about so often, more so than Hibberd. I also think that the other thing we have heard often is the implication that we don't play traditional positions really any more, so to say "player X will play here, and player Y will play here" doesn't fit with how we structure up during games. Players now play in different parts of the ground during a game, I used Lumumba as an example of a role Tuohy could play for us ie - Won't be just plonked at HB.

As you touched on, we do have players to "develop", that's why a 26 year old who is quick and competitive would be a great addition around them IMO. I don't see Wagner in the 22 next year barring injury, but that's just me. As for Vince, it seemed to me that experiment failed as the year went on, he nees to stay more around the midfield, this was also reflected in his Bluey placing.

And for the record, I didn't say Hunt should be rushed up to play wing, I talked about the whole concept of versatility and the rotation of players through different positions and how hunt could play on the wing for parts of a game. Currently we have 1 fast rebounding/attacking HB, Hunt, now imagine we have 2!

 

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

we are effectively adding 2 half back flankers this year (hibberd, melksham). adding a 3rd half back flanker when we have other pressing needs would be lunacy.

Other pressing needs? Like speed maybe?

Have you listened to anything Roos, Goodwin or the players have said about versatility? I guarantee you we won't be plonking guys at HB and telling them to stay there all game.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

Other pressing needs? Like speed maybe?

Have you listened to anything Roos, Goodwin or the players have said about versatility? I guarantee you we won't be plonking guys at HB and telling them to stay there all game.

 

And I guarantee that they won't be playing HIbberd at Centre Half Back.

I like Tuohy as a footballer and think he would add to our side. But I think we have missed the boat. He will either end up at Geelong or stay at Carlton.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

we are effectively adding 2 half back flankers this year (hibberd, melksham). adding a 3rd half back flanker when we have other pressing needs would be lunacy.

And hopefully we are not lunatics ( anymore ).

1 hour ago, stuie said:

Tough, fast and perfectly fits our age requirements.

Obviously has said his preferred destination is Geelong at this stage, but if they can't squeeze him in should we have a crack?

 

 

1 hour ago, stuie said:

I see Tuohy as being more that versatile prototype we value these days than Hibberd is. I like Hibbo, but don't see him venturing up the ground too often, whereas Tuohy, Hunt and Salem would be sensational options to be free to roam up the ground a bit. I could even see Tuohy having a few midfield runs, bit like we've been doing with Lumumba.

 

It was interesting listening to Malthouse talk about Tuohy at the end of the H&A season.

He really liked him as a player but said his one major weakness was hand balling, said he just couldn't get it.

Now, given our game style I would say that is one reason he would be a no for us and not as versatile as you think.

He wants to go to Geelong, otherwise he will stay at Carlscum

19 minutes ago, rjay said:

It was interesting listening to Malthouse talk about Tuohy at the end of the H&A season.

He really liked him as a player but said his one major weakness was hand balling, said he just couldn't get it.

Now, given our game style I would say that is one reason he would be a no for us and not as versatile as you think.

Interesting point. That would be a big weakness for us going forward. I more meant versatile in terms of positions etc, but yeah the handball thing could be a big factor.

 

7 hours ago, The Stigga said:

might have enough rebounding half-backs. 

But then can you ever have enough?

Richmond have a team full of them...

So yeah, you can have enough.

Not a pressing need anymore across the backline and the draft cost wouldn't be worth it. Would probably take a future pick away from next year's bumper draft. If we were doing that, I'd rather a high end mid or an experienced key forward who can support Gawn in the ruck. Actually, just the high end mid.

MHBFC