Remove this Banner Ad

Nathan Thompson

  • Thread starter Thread starter F-U
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

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.
 
Mead said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

theorangeapple said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lisha said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
jess-jess said:
gee Mead you type fast :p
Click to expand...

:) 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 ******"

"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 :)
 
jess-jess said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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.
 
jess-jess said:
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.
Click to expand...
gardiner is injury prone aswell.
 
Lisha said:
gardiner is injury prone aswell.
Click to expand...

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?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Total Package said:
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.
Click to expand...
what did he say?
 
Lisha said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lisha said:
what did he say?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Total Package said:
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.
Click to expand...
your right..... i wouldnt want anyone at my club if they said that!!!!
 
Lisha said:
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?
Click to expand...


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
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom