Author Topic: Kelvin Moore [merged]  (Read 13597 times)

Online MintOnLamb

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
  • You have to think anyway, so why not think big? DT
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #195 on: June 06, 2012, 05:06:00 PM »
When Grimes gets injured due to his size then you can tell us this. He's a good 90kgs at least.
193/87 and looks it.
i can tell you it anytime i like im on the internet. i would have thought it would be obvious that grimes does run a higher risk of contact injuries while hes playing against much bigger blokes undersized. again its not criticism just stating the obvious yet theres ferals  get their backs up.

this thread is about moore someone mentioned batchelor and someone mentioned grimes. well moore and grimes are the two players and only two players on the list vieing for the third tall role imo. batchelor because a lack of depth has been forced into that role.

in two or three weeks when grimes is fit he will play the third tall alongside rance and griffiths if one of them is not injured.

ive said on here and quite often that if grimes can add bulk he is a natural FB. UNTIL HE GETS THE BULK HE SHOULD PLAY AS THE THIRD TALL. Even if hes capable of holding down a kpd post which he is, as  moore has shown he can as well imo its not ideal.

i not only would like moore to get back to his best, bloody hell  he is just one of 9 players in the 25+ age bracket we sure can do with his experience,  but id like us over the next couple of drafts  to go out and get a genuine 195/100 kg fb if possible.  id also like us to take a tall defender in the nd and develop him without pressure of having to play asap.
yep i dont get what all you people get so antsy about.
So if Brian Lake was available???

TigerTimeII

  • Guest
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #196 on: June 06, 2012, 05:49:35 PM »
Im with coach on this . Claw uhkfi
most on here tell me that and side with their mates. sort of expected really.

coach and i are not mates , lmao, he cant stand me and bags me all the time and i well i dont even know him but love the banter and poo stirring , but your comment is way off mark

tony_montana

  • Guest
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #197 on: June 06, 2012, 06:04:47 PM »
Claw has got something there re the weight issue - I'd suggest the Bombers sack this bloke ASAP:



 ::) :lol
lol where does that bloke play most of the time oh thats right third tall. hooker and pears play on the big blokes.thanks for making my point.

played a lot of his career as a KPP no bigger than his is now

Dubstep Dookie

  • Guest
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #198 on: June 06, 2012, 09:05:23 PM »
Claw has got something there re the weight issue - I'd suggest the Bombers sack this bloke ASAP:

 ::) :lol
lol where does that bloke play most of the time oh thats right third tall. hooker and pears play on the big blokes.thanks for making my point.

Just finished watching all the Essendon games from 2012 twice. Fletcher doesn't always play third tall.

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 95465
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #199 on: June 12, 2012, 05:23:01 PM »
Kel on the RFC website talking about his first game back at any level ....

“I was just glad to have a run around after spending so long on the sidelines,” Moore said.

“For me, it was just about having half a game and seeing how I pulled up.

“I’m feeling good now, which is the most pleasing aspect.

“It was actually good to feel the hits and take a few tackles in a competitive game, which is something I’ve missed.

“I’ll look to build on that again this week and see where it takes me.”   

Full article here: http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/138379/default.aspx

Offline yellowandback

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4025
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #200 on: July 26, 2012, 08:26:02 PM »
So far it's taken him to an error riddled irrelevance at senior level.
Looks lost, decision making tentative and hurried.
It's that simple Spud
"I discussed (it) with my three daughters, my wife and my 82-year-old mum, because it has really affected me … If those comments … were made about one of my daughters, it would make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. I would not have liked it at all.”

Gigantor

  • Guest
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #201 on: July 26, 2012, 08:27:13 PM »
sheesh give the bloke a break ..he could barely walk 12 months ago

Offline Mr Magic

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 6887
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #202 on: July 26, 2012, 10:39:32 PM »
sheesh give the bloke a break ..he could barely walk 12 months ago

Tough game football.
Kel's done extremely well to get back to playing senior football but all romanticism aside, I'd be delisting him at year's end.

Offline Phil Mrakov

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8213
  • They said I could be anything so I became Phil
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #203 on: July 26, 2012, 10:40:54 PM »
He's been good.

Give him a chance. He's the Big Pappi of our club.
hhhaaarrgghhh hhhhaaarrggghhh hhhhaaaarrrggghh
HHAAARRRGGGHHHH HHHHAAARRRGGGHHHH HHHHHAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH

the claw

  • Guest
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #204 on: July 26, 2012, 11:14:58 PM »
When Grimes gets injured due to his size then you can tell us this. He's a good 90kgs at least.
193/87 and looks it.
i can tell you it anytime i like im on the internet. i would have thought it would be obvious that grimes does run a higher risk of contact injuries while hes playing against much bigger blokes undersized. again its not criticism just stating the obvious yet theres ferals  get their backs up.

this thread is about moore someone mentioned batchelor and someone mentioned grimes. well moore and grimes are the two players and only two players on the list vieing for the third tall role imo. batchelor because a lack of depth has been forced into that role.

in two or three weeks when grimes is fit he will play the third tall alongside rance and griffiths if one of them is not injured.

ive said on here and quite often that if grimes can add bulk he is a natural FB. UNTIL HE GETS THE BULK HE SHOULD PLAY AS THE THIRD TALL. Even if hes capable of holding down a kpd post which he is, as  moore has shown he can as well imo its not ideal.

i not only would like moore to get back to his best, bloody hell  he is just one of 9 players in the 25+ age bracket we sure can do with his experience,  but id like us over the next couple of drafts  to go out and get a genuine 195/100 kg fb if possible.  id also like us to take a tall defender in the nd and develop him without pressure of having to play asap.
yep i dont get what all you people get so antsy about.
So if Brian Lake was available???
brian lake had a bad run last yr and was on the outer i thought there was a good chance they would let him go cheap. was all for us getting him as long as we didnt pay too much to get him.
just like i dont have a problem with us taking a bloke like moloney psd or late nd  or have a crack at merrett free agency. cost is the key in getting them. age doesnt come into it.

bradshaw was another and i would have   thrown fev a life line. what was there to lose nearly all late nd picks are failures   as iare psd and rookie picks.

unlike most on here i dont have a problem with a short term fix just so long as we look after the long term while we are at it.

the claw

  • Guest
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #205 on: July 26, 2012, 11:21:50 PM »
Claw has got something there re the weight issue - I'd suggest the Bombers sack this bloke ASAP:



 ::) :lol
lol where does that bloke play most of the time oh thats right third tall. hooker and pears play on the big blokes.thanks for making my point.

played a lot of his career as a KPP no bigger than his is now
that he did havent said otherwise but essendon had the option of not playing him on the big heavy blokes. wellman who was a damn good chb and sheedys love child wallis played on the big blokes in the main.

i suppose you think its okay to play an 87 kg player on the monsters week in week out  it isnt ideal and you should have the option. at 198cm  fletcher at least had height and reach  that allowed him to stay out of body on body contests in the main.

a 100kg body ripping into a 87kg i know which one will break first.

the claw

  • Guest
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #206 on: July 26, 2012, 11:27:47 PM »
Claw has got something there re the weight issue - I'd suggest the Bombers sack this bloke ASAP:

 ::) :lol
lol where does that bloke play most of the time oh thats right third tall. hooker and pears play on the big blokes.thanks for making my point.

Just finished watching all the Essendon games from 2012 twice. Fletcher doesn't always play third tall.
your right hes capable of playing kp he been capable of it all his career.

just like moore  whos 190cm/90kg but played most of his career at about 86kg and grimes 193cm/ 87kg can play kp. but it isnt ideal pitting them up against 195cm/ 100 kg players. but hey if you think it is ideal fine.
i see petrie tore us new one again on the weekend.

Offline Yeahright

  • Moderator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9394
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #207 on: July 27, 2012, 11:44:20 AM »
I'd agree with you Claw if Grimes was suffering broken ribs or some sort of contact injury from a bigger bloke. But the fact is every time he has been injured he has pinged his hammy. That has nothing to do with the size of the player his playing on.

Dubstep Dookie

  • Guest
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #208 on: July 27, 2012, 06:00:21 PM »
Claw has got something there re the weight issue - I'd suggest the Bombers sack this bloke ASAP:

 ::) :lol
lol where does that bloke play most of the time oh thats right third tall. hooker and pears play on the big blokes.thanks for making my point.

Just finished watching all the Essendon games from 2012 twice. Fletcher doesn't always play third tall.
your right hes capable of playing kp he been capable of it all his career.

just like moore  whos 190cm/90kg but played most of his career at about 86kg and grimes 193cm/ 87kg can play kp. but it isnt ideal pitting them up against 195cm/ 100 kg players. but hey if you think it is ideal fine.
i see petrie tore us new one again on the weekend.

Thanks for waiting almost 2 months to back my argument up. It's been worth It.

See you in September  :clapping

the claw

  • Guest
Re: Kelvin Moore [merged]
« Reply #209 on: July 27, 2012, 08:03:10 PM »
Claw has got something there re the weight issue - I'd suggest the Bombers sack this bloke ASAP:

 ::) :lol
lol where does that bloke play most of the time oh thats right third tall. hooker and pears play on the big blokes.thanks for making my point.

Just finished watching all the Essendon games from 2012 twice. Fletcher doesn't always play third tall.
your right hes capable of playing kp he been capable of it all his career.

just like moore  whos 190cm/90kg but played most of his career at about 86kg and grimes 193cm/ 87kg can play kp. but it isnt ideal pitting them up against 195cm/ 100 kg players. but hey if you think it is ideal fine.
i see petrie tore us new one again on the weekend.

Thanks for waiting almost 2 months to back my argument up. It's been worth It.

See you in September  :clapping
pray tell what nonsense of yours have i backed up. im not sure you have even made a point on this thread so noone knows what you think.
all ive said is its far better to have a like size player play on a like sized player in the key positions. you only need look at every other list in the comp to see they think the same.
ad - rutten
br - merrett maguire,
ca - watson jamison
co brown keefe reid.
  all 100kg or close to it do i need to go thru them all. i think you get the point. oh i see where your coming from you thinlk we can buck the trend good for you.

with rance and friffiths atm or a kpd in free agency and we are looking for one still. there is no need to throw grimes up against the monsters let him play as the third tall until he has the size and strength to play on the monsters. if you agree with that well im happy to back up your argument.