Nathan Thompson....

[The Passenger]

I've been an advocate that we need our second ruckman to have the ability to play up forward, as I believe it gives us more flexibility, but at the same time they need to be capable of holding the ruck for probably a quarter of the match, and possibly take first ruck repsonbilities if Gardiner breaks down - which history shows he will miss probably 3-4 matches a year.

I also belive it would be frustrating and a waste of Dean Cox's talented to contiually spend half a game on the bench because he is genuine ruckman whose forward play is limited.

I mentioned Brad Ottens, but people felt we would give up to much to get him, and he was a bit overrated, and Richmond fans suggested he was one of the few players who wouldn't be shopped around.

So with talk about Hawthorn's salary cap problems, does anyone else reckon we could do with picing up Nathan Thompson.

In essence, he is a poor man's Brad Ottens, but do we need an absolute star to fill the tall forward-second ruckman role??

Thompson is a very talented footballer, and although limited to just 15 games this year - on four occasions he kicked five goals, and he takes quite a number of grabs up forward - something which we can't deny we have missed on.

The other two questions is how much we would have to give up for him, and how much we have to pay him, and would he wanna come to WA??

But I do reckon there is a lot of merit in looking to getting Thompson, because at the same time we can than utilise Cox's fuill market value without fear of not having a backup.......

 

[larrikin]

Has no reason to want to come to WA, and besides, there's no way Hawthorn will let him go.

Not to say he wouldn't be useful.......

 

[no1bankteller]

Thompson would be good. However has been known to be injury prone.

In addition to this Cox has kicked around 15-20 goals this season for us and could play in Forward pocket if asked. I still do wonder why do we not play a resting ruckman inf fwd pocket. especially when full forward line is as small as that of the Eagles in 2003.

Based on the above I prefer Cox. ie better ruckman and can play forward.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Cox has recently turned 22, so he is still very young. In terms of development of ruckmen, he is probably above average at his age. Played some really good games around the ground when Gardiner was out, and despite lacking Gardiner's (or Thompson's) physical presence, he took some decent grabs and gathered a fair few possessions (be interesting to see how he polled in the BFWCPOTY after Gardiner went down). He still has time on his hands before he really will step up.

Cox will be a very good ruckman, above average at the very least, and with Seaby, Beeck and Johnson as possible future ruckmen, I don't see the need to trade for another ruckman.

 

[eagleskickass]

can I also remind you the club is training Seaby as a ruckmen AND a forward so he CAN do a Nathan Thompson? Also Seaby isnt injury riddled (touch wood) and is younger so could do it for longer PLUS we already have him, dont have to give anything up for the same results.

Just my opinion.

 

[llosis]

Originally posted by Black Thunder
I've been an advocate that we need our second ruckman to have the ability to play up forward, as I believe it gives us more flexibility, but at the same time they need to be capable of holding the ruck for probably a quarter of the match, and possibly take first ruck repsonbilities if Gardiner breaks down - which history shows he will miss probably 3-4 matches a year.

I also belive it would be frustrating and a waste of Dean Cox's talented to contiually spend half a game on the bench because he is genuine ruckman whose forward play is limited.

I mentioned Brad Ottens, but people felt we would give up to much to get him, and he was a bit overrated, and Richmond fans suggested he was one of the few players who wouldn't be shopped around.

So with talk about Hawthorn's salary cap problems, does anyone else reckon we could do with picing up Nathan Thompson.

In essence, he is a poor man's Brad Ottens, but do we need an absolute star to fill the tall forward-second ruckman role??

Thompson is a very talented footballer, and although limited to just 15 games this year - on four occasions he kicked five goals, and he takes quite a number of grabs up forward - something which we can't deny we have missed on.

The other two questions is how much we would have to give up for him, and how much we have to pay him, and would he wanna come to WA??

But I do reckon there is a lot of merit in looking to getting Thompson, because at the same time we can than utilise Cox's fuill market value without fear of not having a backup.......

As per Ottens I don't see the need to go down this road.

Cox is young (as mentioned), developing and is pretty well skilled for a big man. He will continue to develop, for a fraction of the cost (trade wise and salary cap wise) , when Thompson is gawn.

As has already mentioned Seaby and Beeck are also pretty mobile and handy big men who could offer some versatility in KP and in the ruck.

This Ruckman / Fwd thing is a real fetish of yours isn't it BT?

 

[The Passenger]

Re: Re: Nathan Thompson....

Originally posted by llosis


This Ruckman / Fwd thing is a real fetish of yours isn't it BT?

of course it is we all have our weird and wonderful ways of getting off

fair points from all of you guys, and it would be good to see how Mark Seaby shapes up as a forward. But I do believe it essential to have your second ruckman capable of playing out the majority of the game in another position - whether it be forward or down back.

 

[jacqui9]

Nathan Thompson has indicated he is prepared to take a pay cut to play out his days at Hawthorn