View Full Version : Nathan Thompson
It was reported on Channel 10 that Nathan Thompson has asked to be traded and that Eagles are interested in getting him and he is interested in coming to us.
Does anyone else think he would be a very handy player to gain?? I believe he would play CHF very well at Subiaco Oval with his strong leading abilities. I would say that he is worth about a 2nd rounder and Callum Chambers. I believe that he is the missing link that we need in CHF and personally i would prefer him to any other player up for grabs. He has somewhat underachived mostly due to the crapiness of the Hawthorn side but if we take him he could really turn into a star CHF for us.
Does anyone else think there is a strong possibility that we will pick him up during trade week???
Crow-mosone
30 Sep 2004, 21:50
I would say that he is worth about a 2nd rounder and Callum Chambers.
is everyone only worth a 2nd round + Chambers ??? :p
pretty much Crow-Mosone, especially when there either 28 or there our 9th best midfielder :)
I think thompson would be a great addition to the eagles side, with players like judd and fletcher with great ball delievery he could easily kick 3-6 goals a game, especially at Subi like another poster had mentioned.
Thompson would undoubtedly be a boost to our team. There is a big question mark though over who it would cost us to acquire him. If I were Hawthorn Chambers and a 2nd rounder would not get it done, but I am not Hawthorn.
As far as likely trade targets go Thompson shapes as a likely target.
Cro_Pavo
1 Oct 2004, 00:49
Nathan Thompson being traded to the Eagles
What a joke! :mad:
Nathan Thompson being traded to the Eagles
What a joke! :mad:
Why?
Cro_Pavo
1 Oct 2004, 01:00
He might be good for a short-term option for a season or two but that's all i believe.
He's had a knee reconstruction and has other medical concerns, not worth the risk!
That's my view.
bunsen burner
1 Oct 2004, 01:10
I would say that he is worth about a 2nd rounder and Callum Chambers. He's worth a fair bit more than that.
From the Hawk's POV I can see a deal being done for Thompson. There are a number of young Eagles players that would be attractive to the Hawks. We are in the re-building process , so are looking to develop the young guys, KPP's in particular. I'm not sure what W.C would consider a fair trade , first rounder and a fringe player?? ..... I'm sure something could get done!
Hodge_is_God
1 Oct 2004, 01:58
He's had a knee reconstruction and has other medical concerns, not worth the risk!
Knee reconstruction? Never. He's actually a pretty durable player.
(Regardless, i don't see any WC supporters putting that in their assessment of Chad Morrison's trade value...)
By "other medical concerns" i assume you're referring to his 'mental' well being, which he is sorting through.
We certainly wouldn't accept a 2nd rounder + Chambers. 1st and Chambers possibly, but remember he's still under contract and will more than likely gain interest from other clubs.
If the price is too much, we part ways and never speak of it again... :)
coasting
1 Oct 2004, 02:46
Would be a nice acquisition but I think he is overrated and not worth the price. I just think there are better trade targets. Even in games where it looks like he is dominating he often applies little scoreboard pressure. He is inconsistent, getting on in years and the stigma of his publicly-made-known mental illness is probably a distraction we could do without. Especially with how the media reports on our team in this state, I just don't see how the potential attention this issue would draw could be anything other than a distraction.
Total Package
1 Oct 2004, 02:59
We certainly wouldn't accept a 2nd rounder + Chambers. 1st and Chambers possibly, but remember he's still under contract and will more than likely gain interest from other clubs.
If the price is too much, we part ways and never speak of it again... :)
Pick #14 and Chambers??? :eek: How about Morrison and 2nd round pick
is everyone only worth a 2nd round + Chambers ??? :p
We could wait another 4 years then offer 2 first round picks for him ;)
Carn the Coasters
1 Oct 2004, 20:56
In my opinion Thompson would be a better target than Stenglein, basically because of what we need in our structure.
It has been said that he has asked to be traded and is keen to come to Perth and the Eagles are his number one priority... so why wouldn't we...?
Black Thunder
2 Oct 2004, 03:18
he is supremely talented but so inconsistent and so mentally fragile.
He is also quite old now....
I'd much rather go after him than go after Steinglein though (but apparentlly a deal has been done already).
This will be an interesting trade period for us.
larrikin
2 Oct 2004, 03:28
I'm always weary of players Hawthorn are actually willing to trade (especially the way they like to pay them).
I'd hate to see us end up in a Croad situation.
Crow-mosone
2 Oct 2004, 05:54
We could wait another 4 years then offer 2 first round picks for him ;)
ah your legendary wit jabber, we often speak about what a wit you are ... ;)
theorangeapple
2 Oct 2004, 13:26
would think the hawks would want the first round pick straight up. possibly add a fringe type ala selwood (even tho i dont want to), johnson, chambers. wouldnt trade hansen along with first rounder.
Total Package
2 Oct 2004, 15:11
would think the hawks would want the first round pick straight up. possibly add a fringe type ala selwood (even tho i dont want to), johnson, chambers. wouldnt trade hansen along with first rounder.
No way Selwood would be traded in my opinion.... seen too much of him already to know that he is going to be a class player very much in the Butler mould... Johnson could go and Chambers as well... not Hansen yet... Hansen could go next year if he fails to get opportunities with a forward line of Thompson, McDougall, Gardiner, Staker, Seaby, Gaspar. How the hell will we fit these big guys in :eek:
TRIGGAMAN
2 Oct 2004, 15:23
Exactly, lets say that hypothetically West Coast do get Nathan Thompson, where is he going to play?
...............................GARDINER..................... .......
MATERA...................McDOUGALL ..................SEABY
Thats our forward stucture yeah?.....If we stick him at CHF where does Gardiner go? Ruck?..If Gardiner plays ruck what happens to Cox? Does he sit on the bench?..He nearly went to Stkilda to get game time so i would let him anywear near the bench if i was coaching, (plus he is a great ruckman who can play a near full game).....
We can't kick Matera out or we would have no crumbers(plus he is our leading goal kicker) and i would hesitate to drop Seaby back to the WAFL for too long, but im beging to think that that would be our best option. Seaby to WAFL for the next year, (until he is head and shoulders better than Thompson) and Thompson in the foward pocket.
This would stunt Seaby's development and we don't need that. Our foward structure look dangerous enough without Thompson. Thats why i don't think we should trade too much for him, if anything at all....Why don't the Eagles start talking about getting some key defenders?....I think a CHB is in order.
theorangeapple
2 Oct 2004, 17:25
its pretty ironic to think in 2 years we could have far too many key forward options than we need.
mcdougall
hansen
johnson
gasper
seaby (with cox and gardy (not centre square) rucking)
staker
gardiner
throw in the possibility of thompson, and the likes of mcconnell (190cm) and guys like embley and judd (both 190cm) that makes for one very tall forward line considering most function with 2-3 and we have made the finals for the past 2 years without any.
Carn the Coasters
2 Oct 2004, 17:53
Exactly, lets say that hypothetically West Coast do get Nathan Thompson, where is he going to play?
...............................GARDINER..................... .......
MATERA...................McDOUGALL ..................SEABY
Thats our forward stucture yeah?.....If we stick him at CHF where does Gardiner go? Ruck?..If Gardiner plays ruck what happens to Cox? Does he sit on the bench?..He nearly went to Stkilda to get game time so i would let him anywear near the bench if i was coaching, (plus he is a great ruckman who can play a near full game).....
We can't kick Matera out or we would have no crumbers(plus he is our leading goal kicker) and i would hesitate to drop Seaby back to the WAFL for too long, but im beging to think that that would be our best option. Seaby to WAFL for the next year, (until he is head and shoulders better than Thompson) and Thompson in the foward pocket.
This would stunt Seaby's development and we don't need that. Our foward structure look dangerous enough without Thompson. Thats why i don't think we should trade too much for him, if anything at all....Why don't the Eagles start talking about getting some key defenders?....I think a CHB is in order.
I agree to some extent, but not entirely. M. Gardiner will be the only addition to our forward line from last season and i am not sure he will really make the HUGE differance that we need. Our forward line has cost us games in the past due to its inability to function and although some of the guys have potential, we need to get someone who can straighten us up and can kick more than 30 goals a year (closer to 50).
We need a CHB or back-up tall defender, but our forward structure isn't up to scratch (at this stage of development) and i would hate to think back in 10 years and go "wow, that midfield we had was something special, shame we never had the guts to go for an established key forward that could help us get past the first round.
Total Package
2 Oct 2004, 18:13
Exactly, lets say that hypothetically West Coast do get Nathan Thompson, where is he going to play?
Ok this might seem a bit out of left field.. but I think Thompson Full Forward... McDougall CHB... McDougall in my opinion would make a excellent CHB.. he has all the trademarks.... I personally think it would suit him more than Full Forward where he always has someone on his back... I've said this before but if you look at the 101 point loss to St Kilda game... McDougall was at FF freezing his ass off not getting a kick... in the last quarter Woosha moved McDougall onto CHB on Reiwoldt.. Reiwoldt had 27 kicks that day... and 15 marks...but he barely got another kick when McDougall went onto him and McDougall outmarked him at least on 2 occassions body to body. McDougall's other excellent game was against Essendon in Round 3 when Gardiner went down injured and McDougall had to pinch hit in the ruck.
McDougall himself said he finds FF hard to play because he is not used to having someone on his back all the time trying to hold him from getting the ball and punching it away..... I personally think he is perfectly suited to a CHB running around role where he can use his ability to read the ball without having someone breath down his neck. Its a bit like Graham Polak who is an excellent CHB but you stick him in the forward line he looks lost.
... McDougall in my opinion would make a excellent CHB..
I whole heartedly agree with your opinion there total package i was at the game when McDougal was placed on Riewoldt and he did a grand job.I would imagine that woosha would have noticed this and maybe used him there a bit more but maybe he is more into promoting a KPP at FF ?
Bomber1313
2 Oct 2004, 20:12
I remember doogs playing a few games down back in the 2003 season.
I thought he looked much better down there than up forward, but then he kicked 3 or 4 against melbourne and since then has been a forward.
(95% of the time)
I just watched the last quarter of the St Kilda game (what a wonderful way to spend an afternoon :( ) and... I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it at all.
McDougall took a couple of marks, and had several taken on him. Reiwoldt did not look at all restricted, and frankly, when your team is upwards of 14 goals up, I don't think any player particularly goes out of their way to continue to dominate a match.
McDougall has played a few good quarters in defence at times (most notably 2003 against Carlton and Hawthorn, but I'm really not sold at this stage- he's a very good forward prospect but not the smartest of footballers, and I'm inclined to believe that CHB is the one position on the ground that requires a great deal of footy smarts.
Also -and here is the single biggest objection I have- we've spent a year getting McDougall accustomed to FF, and the latter part of the season saw him begin to play consistently good football up forward. An enormous part of developing a forward structure is not just getting the right cattle, its getting them adapted to the role and the team comfortable with kicking to them and knowing when and where they like to lead.
We've spent a year getting McDougall accustomed to the key forward role, and getting the team accustomed to him playing there. I think it would be an enormous waste to throw that all away and start again with yet another forward, especially one who only has a couple of top notch seasons left in him.
Realistically, if we get Thompson we're saying that we're going to make a run for a flag now, or very soon. I suppose if he can be gotten cheaply we'll take him, but I'd be uneasy about us going down the Adelaide path of recruiting Carey- growing your own is always a better option.
Bomber1313
2 Oct 2004, 22:22
I just watched the last quarter of the St Kilda game (what a wonderful way to spend an afternoon :( ) and... I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it at all.
McDougall took a couple of marks, and had several taken on him. Reiwoldt did not look at all restricted, and frankly, when your team is upwards of 14 goals up, I don't think any player particularly goes out of their way to continue to dominate a match.
McDougall has played a few good quarters in defence at times (most notably 2003 against Carlton and Hawthorn, but I'm really not sold at this stage- he's a very good forward prospect but not the smartest of footballers, and I'm inclined to believe that CHB is the one position on the ground that requires a great deal of footy smarts.
Also -and here is the single biggest objection I have- we've spent a year getting McDougall accustomed to FF, and the latter part of the season saw him begin to play consistently good football up forward. An enormous part of developing a forward structure is not just getting the right cattle, its getting them adapted to the role and the team comfortable with kicking to them and knowing when and where they like to lead.
We've spent a year getting McDougall accustomed to the key forward role, and getting the team accustomed to him playing there. I think it would be an enormous waste to throw that all away and start again with yet another forward, especially one who only has a couple of top notch seasons left in him.
Realistically, if we get Thompson we're saying that we're going to make a run for a flag now, or very soon. I suppose if he can be gotten cheaply we'll take him, but I'd be uneasy about us going down the Adelaide path of recruiting Carey- growing your own is always a better option.
I agree, with that, but that would mean us not recruiting thompson, and then we have to think about who is gonna be our chb.
hunter and lynch , while they were good for us this year, im sure teams will look at their HUGE disadvantages, and exploit them as much as possible.
plus i'd hope and think doogs is a smarter player than lynch and maybe even hunter. he'd give away alot less frees than lynch as well.
I'd hope doogs has more flexibilty and ability to play more than one possie, so if he does have a good 2005, i'd hope he could play a variety of roles in 2006 onwards, ala leppitch, lucas, etc.(not saying he'll be as good or better but able to fill in holes in other ares.)
although, i did not get a chance to see all of the st kilda game,(last half :o so this post may be a wasted post.
theorangeapple
2 Oct 2004, 22:29
lets not get the poor kid confused again. he has the potential to be a great full forward, it takes time to get used to, once he has done this he will be a star.
gasper for CHB.
jess-jess
2 Oct 2004, 23:00
lets not get the poor kid confused again. he has the potential to be a great full forward, it takes time to get used to, once he has done this he will be a star.
gasper for CHB.
Gaspar, our great white hope. Seriously, if he can get himself fit and injury free i'm all for him playing CHB. He would be a big part to solving a lot of our problems down back.
i agree, don't move dougs. i don't think the poor boy would be able to cope with learning a new position. He hasn't got the greatest footy brain. Leave him at FF. He's had a season there and has confidence playing there.
hey west coasters, i think nathan thompson would be a good asset to you especially with a clean start. Now can i ask you a question.
Being a saints fan.... i know we need a ruckman. You guys have gardiner, cox, seaby, beeck.
gardiner is 25, injury prone but that wont affect him.
cox is 23, good player and is becoming very well established.
seaby is 21 he won your best young player award.
beeck is 19 going to be a very good player.
looks like you will keep seaby and beeck. So gardiner and cox will have to go (i believe) because they both will want the number 1 ruck spot will be hard to get it off each other. I think gardiner being your vice-captain i think he is wouldnt go... so what about cox?
What would you guys want for him?
Thanks.
hey west coasters, i think nathan thompson would be a good asset to you especially with a clean start. Now can i ask you a question.
Being a saints fan.... i know we need a ruckman. You guys have gardiner, cox, seaby, beeck.
gardiner is 25, injury prone but that wont affect him.
cox is 23, good player and is becoming very well established.
seaby is 21 he won your best young player award.
beeck is 19 going to be a very good player.
looks like you will keep seaby and beeck. So gardiner and cox will have to go (i believe) because they both will want the number 1 ruck spot will be hard to get it off each other. I think gardiner being your vice-captain i think he is wouldnt go... so what about cox?
What would you guys want for him?
Thanks.
No, not at all.
At this stage ,the equation is quite simple. Next year, Cox will be #1 ruck, Seaby will be the backup. Beeck is physically a long way off being a ruckman (and is a bit on the short side anyway) and seems to be being developed into a key defender role.
The club has made it pretty clear that Gardiner will play in a forward role next year, and will NOT be a fulltime ruckman- simply because he can't afford the risk of another knee injury from centre bounces. His mobility, athleticism, fitness, footy smarts and phenomenal overhead capabilities make him a very good prospect for CHF. But as with Adam Goodes, his rucking days are over for the time being.
If we traded Cox we'd be left with a guy whose body is incapable of standing up to the pressure of being a full time ruckman (Gardiner), and a very promising young prospect (Seaby) who is still at least a season away from maturing. Given where we are as a team that would be a very very bad situation for us to be in- these days, most really good sides tend to have at least 2 fully mature, high quality ruckmen.
Given how often ruckmen get injured, I don't think we'd be prepared to trade any of Seaby, Cox or Gardiner for anything less than a ridiculously good offer (ie, so good you wouldn't contemplate it as a saint fan).
Zach Beeck and Paul Johnson are both ruck prospects who we'd probably be prepared to part with for a 2nd rounder.
jess-jess
2 Oct 2004, 23:17
I couldn't see the club getting rid of either Gardiner or Cox to tell you the truth. As you say, Gardiner is a vic-captain at the club and Cox just finished 3rd in our B&F count. Gardiner won't play in the ruck next year because of his knee. He'll most probably become our CHF and do a little rucking in our forward 50. That'll mean Cox will be our number one ruckman with Seaby helping out either coming off the bench or resting up forward. Not sure how the club would view Beeck though. He would be tradable if the right deal came up but he also could be groomed in the WAFL to play down back.
i don't even think the eagles would entertain the thought of trading Cox as he's our number 1 ruckman but to your question, if they were to it would most probably be for a 22-24 year old established KKP, ideally a key backman. But that's only my opinion.
gee Mead you type fast :p
gee Mead you type fast :p
:) In future think i would free up a great deal of spare time if I just saved a series of notepad files with the my most frequent high-horse topics, since it seems like 9/10 its the same spiel over and over..
"Don't trade any of Gardiner, Cox or Seaby"
"Benefits of leaving full forwards where they should go"
"Andrew Demetriou, an evil evil man"
"Judd- not just an outside midfielder you retard"
"Stenglein for Waters? Pffft" (soon to be replaced by "Stenglien- champion"
"Connolly, assistant coach of the year"
and um, something about Ms Twigley's dress :)
hyperthetically.....
what would you guys want for gardiner or cox??
jess-jess
2 Oct 2004, 23:38
i don't even think the eagles would entertain the thought of trading Cox as he's our number 1 ruckman but to your question, if they were to it would most probably be for a 22-24 year old established KKP, ideally a key backman.
that's what i think they would ask for in return. Both would be most probably in the top 6-8 ruckman in the league. The eagles would look to gain a quality early 20's KPP in return. And as i said, ideally a backman with about the same experience (75-100 games)
fishbowl
2 Oct 2004, 23:42
Johnson and Lynch
jess-jess
2 Oct 2004, 23:43
not for Cox or Gardiner. Hay's injury prone and hasn't been anywhere near his best for a couple of seasons. Gardiner and Cox would be in our top 6 players at the club and are pretty much untradeable unless we were able to snare a real quality player in return.
otis_david
2 Oct 2004, 23:45
More like J.Rivers.
not for Cox or Gardiner. Hay's injury prone and hasn't been anywhere near his best for a couple of seasons. Gardiner and Cox would be in our top 6 players at the club and are pretty much untradeable unless we were able to snare a real quality player in return.
gardiner is injury prone aswell.
jess-jess
2 Oct 2004, 23:49
gardiner is injury prone aswell.
he has been out for most of the season with his knee, but he would still be the most influential player on our list. The club wouldn't entertain the thought of trading him for Hay. He's too valuable to our team.
what about if you were to get this......
cox to st.kilda
nathan thompson and hay to west coast
and to hawthorn ( what do you think they would want).. montagna and schwarze and 2nd pick?
Total Package
3 Oct 2004, 00:31
Actually I retract my statement about McDougall at CHB... I just read Nathan Thompsons speech at the Hawthorn B&F.... I don't think we want him here at all.
Actually I retract my statement about McDougall at CHB... I just read Nathan Thompsons speech at the Hawthorn B&F.... I don't think we want him here at all.
what did he say?
what about if you were to get this......
cox to st.kilda
nathan thompson and hay to west coast
and to hawthorn ( what do you think they would want).. montagna and schwarze and 2nd pick?
I would consider that, (not sure I'd do it, but I'd consider...)
However, I think hawthorn people would wet themselves laughing at your suggestion- we trade one of the top 5 ruckmen in the league to you, they trade two quality kpp players to us, and you trade... schwarze and montagna- it doesn't work like that.
Total Package
3 Oct 2004, 00:41
what did he say?
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=173813
Hawthorn forward Nathan Thompson has told a club function he has lost interest in football, but believes it's likely he will remain at Glenferrie Oval in 2005 despite his request to be traded.
"Obviously I've had a lot of troubles this year. My family and I have really struggled and I don't really enjoy football anymore, which is a shame to say," Thompson told the audience while receiving an award for being the club's leading goal kicker in 2004.
This guy really has no idea whats going on..... I dont think we need someone like that and certainly not using a decent pick on.
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=173813
Hawthorn forward Nathan Thompson has told a club function he has lost interest in football, but believes it's likely he will remain at Glenferrie Oval in 2005 despite his request to be traded.
"Obviously I've had a lot of troubles this year. My family and I have really struggled and I don't really enjoy football anymore, which is a shame to say," Thompson told the audience while receiving an award for being the club's leading goal kicker in 2004.
This guy really has no idea whats going on..... I dont think we need someone like that and certainly not using a decent pick on.
your right..... i wouldnt want anyone at my club if they said that!!!!
dipper86
3 Oct 2004, 14:58
what about if you were to get this......
cox to st.kilda
nathan thompson and hay to west coast
and to hawthorn ( what do you think they would want).. montagna and schwarze and 2nd pick?
Hay and thompson to west coast , and montaga schwarze and 2nd pick to Hawthorn, yeh really fair deal! All i wanna know is what drugs are you on because you sound like your in a different world, get with the program, that trade deal you sugested was an absolute joke!
Im sure The Eagles would be very happy for that trade to go through.
Irrespective of Thompson's merits as a player, he's damaged goods and therefore very high risk.
Sorry Nat - maybe it's time to pursue another career.
Agree with Mead, Beeck and Johnson are expendable, but let's target someone other than Thompson
Irrespective of Thompson's merits as a player, he's damaged goods and therefore very high risk.
Sorry Nat - maybe it's time to pursue another career.
Agree with Mead, Beeck and Johnson are expendable, but let's target someone other than Thompson
Like he said!
dipper86
3 Oct 2004, 16:01
Irrespective of Thompson's merits as a player, he's damaged goods and therefore very high risk.
Sorry Nat - maybe it's time to pursue another career.
Agree with Mead, Beeck and Johnson are expendable, but let's target someone other than Thompson
There is nothing wrong with his body which sometimes you cant fix, but you can sort out his head, a bit of success would fix this bloke up, even if you did get rid of cox, thompson would be your back up ruckman, to Gardiner, Gardiner could then go to the forward line, when hawthorn was travelling ok he used to pinch hit in the ruck thus turning games he would do well at Westcoast especially with there pin point kicking and those dry grounds at perth, One thing he never had at Hawthorn was anouther forward support which you have many this will free him up.
Carn the Coasters
3 Oct 2004, 16:04
I was all for getting Thompson... after going to afl.com.au i have changed my mind.
Oh well, at least he is honest.
There is nothing wrong with his body which sometimes you cant fix, but you can sort out his head, a bit of success would fix this bloke up, even if you did get rid of cox, thompson would be your back up ruckman, to Gardiner, Gardiner could then go to the forward line, when hawthorn was travelling ok he used to pinch hit in the ruck thus turning games he would do well at Westcoast especially with there pin point kicking and those dry grounds at perth, One thing he never had at Hawthorn was anouther forward support which you have many this will free him up.
That assumes his head can be sorted out - something which every recruiting manager and coach should be very suspicious about given his reported comments.
I'm not maligning Thompson - in fact I really admire his balls in coming out and talking about his difficulties. Very good player when on song, but you have to consider the team as a whole. Do we take a big risk and pick him up in the hope that he'll be renewed as a player or do we thank him for coming and move onto the next trade target?
The latter for me.
And I'm very confident that the Eagles will not be letting either Cox or Gardy go (or Seaby for that matter)
RzrBlade
5 Oct 2004, 12:18
I'd prefer to take last seasons rumored punt on Richo over the one here with Thompson. It worries me even after all those comments he made at the Hawks B&F that it comes across in the papers that Woosha isn't the slighest bit concerned (they could be talking up BS...hopefully). Off the AFL website it says from the Hearld Sun:
West Coast coach John Worsfold yesterday announced the club was prepared to do "whatever it takes" to stitch up a deal for disgruntled Hawk Nathan Thompson.
It seems unlikely though if we are going to use pick 12 in the Tyson Stenglein deal with Hawthorn asking for two first-rounders...pfft, dreamers!
94_Eagles
5 Oct 2004, 21:35
Bye bye Thompson, we hardly kneweth ye...
RzrBlade
6 Oct 2004, 01:22
thank god for that, thanks laidley.