View Full Version : Carlton's Thornton: Would the Hawks still have an interest in him?
Hey Hawthorn supporters,
I recall you were interested in thornton a couple of years back and a pre-draft deal was almost struck. I can't remember the exact details
Do you think you would still have interest in him?
Didn't he sign a new contract last season?
Hodgepodge
3 Jun 2008, 21:04
Probably not . . . was he ever any good?
thornton's a crab.
gilham is better.
#6 Mark Williams
3 Jun 2008, 21:13
Thornton is now a third tall runner, something were not interested in.
Mitchell Madness
3 Jun 2008, 21:19
We have a better player in Stephen Gilham. We do not need Thornton
delirious1
3 Jun 2008, 21:55
gilham who came off the rookie list>>300,000 per year Thornton which carlton believes to be worth 2 first rounders:eek::eek:
Kobe_Buddy
3 Jun 2008, 21:56
I believe we went after him 2 years in a row if i can recall correctly, we missed him first time and went a second time and we were also interested in Danny Meyers? from Richmond, i think thats his name?
I perosnally Believe Thornton would be a very good fit had he have come to Hawthorn, at Carlton he isn't himself and i still don't know if he really wants to be there but i can see why people didnt want him.
#6 Mark Williams
3 Jun 2008, 22:05
*Shrugs shoulders happily*. He's all yours Carlton Supporters.
Gilbert_Hodge
3 Jun 2008, 22:20
Here we go again!
Gilham will do nicely thanks.
Hey Hawthorn supporters,
I recall you were interested in thornton a couple of years back and a pre-draft deal was almost struck. I can't remember the exact details
Do you think you would still have interest in him?
Yes, I say we trade for Thornton. Hey, wdgann, are you still selling that large bridge over Sydney Harbour?
I say we buy that, too.
.
Murphinator
4 Jun 2008, 00:27
I believe we went after him 2 years in a row if i can recall correctly, we missed him first time and went a second time and we were also interested in Danny Meyers? from Richmond, i think thats his name?
Yeah you went after him a couple times in a row, and both times you narrowly missed out on him i believe, for various reasons.
Bulldog Joe
4 Jun 2008, 00:54
We have a better player in Stephen Gilham. We do not need Thornton
Thornton may not be a player you need, but on the evidence from Aurora Stadium Gilham is also a liability. He was clearly beaten by Scott Welsh and exposes a Hawthorn weakness. I think you need Mitch Thorp to get fit and take over Gilham's spot.
gouldy_34
4 Jun 2008, 01:04
Yes, I say we trade for Thornton. Hey, wdgann, are you still selling that large bridge over Sydney Harbour?
I say we buy that, too.
.
ease up turbo... it was a genuine question with no hidden agenda and u bring out the sarcasm?
Thornton may not be a player you need, but on the evidence from Aurora Stadium Gilham is also a liability. He was clearly beaten by Scott Welsh and exposes a Hawthorn weakness. I think you need Mitch Thorp to get fit and take over Gilham's spot.
I disagree, Gilham is good IF he gets the right match up. He was exploited by Welsh when he played for the dogs, and he was exploited when he played for the crows! Its the lack of depth that we have at that forced this match up, not Clarkos choice.
Sitting 4th in spoils I think Gilham is doing something right, dont you?
On to Thornton, we dont need him. He is playing his best football as a quarter back out of defence and I believe he will never be a good 1st or 2nd option defender.
That's deliberate
4 Jun 2008, 01:51
Hey Hawthorn supporters,
I recall you were interested in thornton a couple of years back and a pre-draft deal was almost struck. I can't remember the exact details
Do you think you would still have interest in him?
I'd rather have the clap...
ease up turbo... it was a genuine question with no hidden agenda and u bring out the sarcasm?
Of course their is an agenda....this arse goes out of his way to have a crack at Thornton, Betts, Stevens and others at any given opportunity...and now he's spreading to other boards. Thornton's not up for grabs, but you guys can keep this pretend Carlton supporter if you like.
Mitchell Madness
4 Jun 2008, 10:09
Thornton may not be a player you need, but on the evidence from Aurora Stadium Gilham is also a liability. He was clearly beaten by Scott Welsh and exposes a Hawthorn weakness. I think you need Mitch Thorp to get fit and take over Gilham's spot.
oh pahlease!!! everyone has an off game. Hell, the whole bloody team was comprehensively beaten (excluding franklin) to single out Gilly just shows how you know nothing about the game. Gilham has been a stand out in defence playing as a primary defender. When THorp comes along Gilly will improve more as it will allow him to take the 3rd forward, rather then one of the first two.
Gilham will not be dropped unless he gets injured.
gouldy_34
4 Jun 2008, 11:12
Of course their is an agenda....this arse goes out of his way to have a crack at Thornton, Betts, Stevens and others at any given opportunity...and now he's spreading to other boards. Thornton's not up for grabs, but you guys can keep this pretend Carlton supporter if you like.
wasnt aware of that.... haha. he got his linking thread closed pretty quickly!
Mitchell Madness
4 Jun 2008, 11:27
I disagree, Gilham is good IF he gets the right match up. He was exploited by Welsh when he played for the dogs, and he was exploited when he played for the crows! Its the lack of depth that we have at that forced this match up, not Clarkos choice.
Sitting 4th in spoils I think Gilham is doing something right, dont you?
On to Thornton, we dont need him. He is playing his best football as a quarter back out of defence and I believe he will never be a good 1st or 2nd option defender.
Also should be noted last year Gilham conceded the least goals to his direct opponent in the league according to the Herald Sun pre-first week of finals.
Chrissie90
4 Jun 2008, 11:53
Gilham tries hard but I dont think he is much good. Even that Holland guy kicked goals on him the week before. Gilham cant even take the second best tall player and leaves it to Browny a lot of the time - and Browny is much shorter. But Clarko loves him so maybe I am wrong about him and he is a good player...
Bulldog Joe
4 Jun 2008, 12:47
oh pahlease!!! everyone has an off game. Hell, the whole bloody team was comprehensively beaten (excluding franklin) to single out Gilly just shows how you know nothing about the game. Gilham has been a stand out in defence playing as a primary defender. When THorp comes along Gilly will improve more as it will allow him to take the 3rd forward, rather then one of the first two.
Gilham will not be dropped unless he gets injured.
You may be right that Gilham would go well as third tall. I don't believe Hawthorn can win a flag if Gilham needs to take one of the 2 main forwards. Of course anything is possible because every team will have issues with particular match ups and availability on certain days. He has got through when Hawthorn have controlled the tempo or stopped opposition short of the 50. Certainly did not do well enough in the one on one last week and I will concede that I hadn't seen enough of previous games.
Gilham tries hard but I dont think he is much good. Even that Holland guy kicked goals on him the week before. Gilham cant even take the second best tall player and leaves it to Browny a lot of the time - and Browny is much shorter. But Clarko loves him so maybe I am wrong about him and he is a good player...
I have the same issues with Thornton. If a defender can't take the second best tall player and can't run fast/burst through the lines (e.g Woginski), then he is not much use. Unfortunately my fellow Carlton supporters rate Thornton and I can't understand why - I think his slow squaring up play and lack of kicking, strength and speed costs us 5 goals per game
Kobe_Buddy
4 Jun 2008, 14:04
I don't see why you can't fit Thornton and Gilham in our backline??
Gilham has been a prize pickup for us, i think his a fantastic player, but our backline is the weakest part of our team, especially when the ball gets down there as much as it did against the Bulldogs, i don't see why you couldn't have Croad, Gilham and Thornton in the side, one of them could push up forward every so often, most likely Croad., i still think he would have been a nice pickup and would be a completely different player at Hawthorn, Just my oppinion, i don't expect everyone to agree with me.
Leather Poisoning
4 Jun 2008, 15:38
Thornton's eyes are too close together and beady.
Boyler_Room
5 Jun 2008, 18:13
I'd love to have another depth player at the Hawks.;)
#6 Mark Williams
5 Jun 2008, 18:24
Thornton may not be a player you need, but on the evidence from Aurora Stadium Gilham is also a liability. He was clearly beaten by Scott Welsh and exposes a Hawthorn weakness. I think you need Mitch Thorp to get fit and take over Gilham's spot.I didn't know you knew more about the Hawthorn Hawks then us! :rolleyes: