Sorry for getting a bit fired up fellas, but amongst almost every thread is a mention of Watts in a negative or at very least non-positive way and I for one am totally fed up with it. In my opinion throwing him back is a silly idea based on reactionism (to coin a phrase) and impatience. Watts has already played on the wing a fair bit to pretty reasonable results and I would expect to see him either placed there or roaming around there a bit this year as well, but that's as far down the ground as is good for his development in the position that (based upon his strengths) we drafted him for.

There seems to be a real air of panic and 'radical' change since the loss to Essendon, and as much as I thought we were ordinary it's time to realize something... The season hasn't even started yet!

And as for Frawley going forward... geez... just sit down you lot, why on earth would we move arguably our best player to an unfamiliar position when he is obviously needed alot more where he currently is. I wonder if some of the same posters who were bemoaning the lack of Frawley in our backline the other night are the same ones calling for him to go forward? Besides, there will be Watts, Dunn, Jurrah, Sylvia, Green, Bate, Bennell, Maric, Petterd, Aussie, Trengove, and even sometimes Jamar all competing for spots in the forward line, are we really that desperate for forwards that we would shove our most important back up there?

Come on guys, realize that the improvement is going to come from good coaching, individual development, and the natural progress from simply playing more together. We've waited so long to build this team up and have a shot at it all, let's not rush into something drastic now that we're starting to see the light...

The sooner we get our flag line-up settled the better. I think we should consider swapping Jack Watts and James Frawley roles.

Frawley has the imposing body size, attack on the ball and pace to dominate as a KPF - think David Neitz.

Watts has the closing speed, height and kicking skills to be an extremely damaging KPB - think Chris Tarrant. My observation is that Jack just doesn't naturally attack the ball, as a KPD he'll be lead to the contest and his great pace, decision making and kicking will be an huge asset down back.

Don't listen to everyone old. I think this is the forum for off-centre ideas, and this one has it's good points. The worst I've seen Watts play is inside fifty. When he's playing up the ground, and particularly when delivering inside fifty or switching up play he's created a number of goals. Probably his best feature at this stage is his field kicking... At times it's extraordinary. So as far as shifting him outside forward fifty, perhaps far enough out to be a rebounding player... I'm all for giving it a try. If nothing else it gives Bailey something else to try when all else fails. We always hear that coaches like to have options and flexibility when it comes to a player. We see regularly how well it works with Green and Davey.

But the Frawley to attack option just doesn't fly for mine. Even if he did bustle his way to a few hard earned body-on-body marks... he doesn't fly, and he isn't the kind of guy that can kick opportunistic goals. I can't see him shaping a kick from the boundary. In the end, that's one of the main things you recruit a KP forward for, kicking accuracy. And it's one of the main reasons you hide your poor kicks in defence, because the ground is wider and you have more margin for error.

I like the Watts suggestion... in fact I'd go as far as to say that he will go back at some point in his career to change things up.... Almost Goddard style... but Frawley out of defence would be a mistake. He's a simply sensational defender.

So last week Watts was going great guns and we were all happy, afte the team loses, he plays pretty poor along with the rest of the team he needs to either go to full back or to casey as some one suggested..........sigh

If I was a forward and the ball was pumped into the forward line 35 times each one ballooning through the air, I think I would have a pretty average game too, hell other than Brown and Reiwoldt I doubt many other forwards in the comp would have played better with the midless bombing/ kick long into the forward line at any cost we adapted to for this game.

The Frawley to the forward line suggestion was put forward here at about this time last year but it wasn't adopted by the club despite the team's ups and downs. With Chip out probably until Round 4 or 5 there's no opportunity to experiment in the meantime and I have no doubt that he'll resume as a backman.

As for Jack Watts, I see no issue with giving him a few runs in defence against good opposition forwards. He might learn something about the way good forwards should play and can only help him improve.

On the wider issue of making "radical" moves, I wonder how many radical positional changes have been tried at the club since Dean Bailey became coach. I can't remember too many that have been tried and less that have worked to the point where you could say that a player has successfully made a groundbreaking transition. Ricky Petterd was a defender at the start under Daniher and was close to becoming a serious forward before injured last year. Who else?

That's not necessarily a criticism but an observation of where I think footy's at these days. The emphasis seems to be more on strategies for the entire team rather than fiddling around with player placements. That and the fact that half your team these days are "midfielders" despite their nominated positions in selected sides.

OMG, the Martians are coming. Lock up your daughters.

Oh, the Martians by chance landed down at seaford/carrum downs???

Frawley's a textbook full back

Put Watts on the ball I say

Lockett Back, Frawley forward

Dermie back, Langford Forward

Lloyd back, Fletcher Forward

Breath in, Breath out...just a touch of patience perhaps.

Off-centre ideas are fine...While I disagree with the Watts thing vehemently, I can personally understand out of the box suggestions. But moving an all-australian calibre player from one of the most important positions on the ground is insane

Chippa is already a player who should be written in indelible ink at FB/CHB in the Melbourne side for at least the next 200 games. Leave him there to dominate

Lockett Back, Frawley forward

Dermie back, Langford Forward

Lloyd back, Fletcher Forward

Breath in, Breath out...just a touch of patience perhaps.

Off-centre ideas are fine...While I disagree with the Watts thing vehemently, I can personally understand out of the box suggestions. But moving an all-australian calibre player from one of the most important positions on the ground is insane

Chippa is already a player who should be written in indelible ink at FB/CHB in the Melbourne side for at least the next 200 games. Leave him there to dominate

Agree completely. He is by far our best defender. No point robbing Peter to pay Paul or whatever that saying is.

Our forward line is extremely functional as is, the issue is getting it in there.

On the wider issue of making "radical" moves, I wonder how many radical positional changes have been tried at the club since Dean Bailey became coach. I can't remember too many that have been tried and less that have worked to the point where you could say that a player has successfully made a groundbreaking transition. Ricky Petterd was a defender at the start under Daniher and was close to becoming a serious forward before injured last year. Who else?

I remeber a couple towards the end of 09. Frawley to the wing. Miller to the ruck. It didn't work though. Those pesky tigers still beat us! B)

It would be awesome to give Frawley a go up forward. But can we afford it? Certainly not at the moment.

Maybe pinch hitting in the last quarter when we are 40pts up.

The Frawley to the forward line suggestion was put forward here at about this time last year but it wasn't adopted by the club despite the team's ups and downs. With Chip out probably until Round 4 or 5 there's no opportunity to experiment in the meantime and I have no doubt that he'll resume as a backman.

As for Jack Watts, I see no issue with giving him a few runs in defence against good opposition forwards. He might learn something about the way good forwards should play and can only help him improve.

On the wider issue of making "radical" moves, I wonder how many radical positional changes have been tried at the club since Dean Bailey became coach. I can't remember too many that have been tried and less that have worked to the point where you could say that a player has successfully made a groundbreaking transition. Ricky Petterd was a defender at the start under Daniher and was close to becoming a serious forward before injured last year. Who else?

That's not necessarily a criticism but an observation of where I think footy's at these days. The emphasis seems to be more on strategies for the entire team rather than fiddling around with player placements. That and the fact that half your team these days are "midfielders" despite their nominated positions in selected sides.

I agree fully, David Neitz became one of the best CHB's then became a very good FF.IMO- he could learn to do what is required as a defender and learn the skills from a skilled forward.May not have the bulk of a Roughead type but if so then he knows he has to put further time in the gym. All a learning curve allowing Garland a role either as a defender or a midfielder. With Watts's speed and kicking prowess he could even become a sensational CHB.

A structure change as fundamental as that really stuffs the other players around as well as being mostly counter productive in the long term IMO.

I agree fully, David Neitz became one of the best CHB's then became a very good FF.IMO- he could learn to do what is required as a defender and learn the skills from a skilled forward.May not have the bulk of a Roughead type but if so then he knows he has to put further time in the gym. All a learning curve allowing Garland a role either as a defender or a midfielder. With Watts's speed and kicking prowess he could even become a sensational CHB.

People seem to forget that while the Neitz to the forward line worked well it also left us with a terrible defense that took up until last year to fix.

People seem to forget that while the Neitz to the forward line worked well it also left us with a terrible defense that took up until last year to fix.

In addition to this, the forward line move was made more out of necessity than choice. Give me no. 5 with two knees and Neita at CHB any day of the week. Neita is a club legend no doubt, but the MFC may well have been more successful if the disaster of '95 never happened. I believe Carey once said Neitz was his toughest opponent.

A structure change as fundamental as that really stuffs the other players around as well as being mostly counter productive in the long term IMO.

I don't want A structure change. I want Frawley to be one of our Key defenders. But I do want him to learn, to be good at kicking goals, if/when he finds himself forward. And I would like him to be able to 'Pinch Hit' forward, if we're desperate.

But essentially, I want him as our No1 defender.

Does Frawley even know how to kick the ball between the goal posts...?

Don't see the need of playing Frawley up forward, would rather see Garland given a go there first.

Wouldn't be against a Watts/Garland switch for a while to see how they go/further their education.

There were times in the past when we were failing to kick goals Bailey refused to even try Frawley or Garland for a few minutes forward. On the radio Uncle Frawley noted young chip had played forward as a youngster as we know garland did in Tassie. I felt last Thursday when Watts was struggling to get into the game and they were outmarking us on their forward line he could have been given a go there. Even Martin has done well down back. What was to be lost especially in a NAB cup game. I'm convinced it's just the coaches style. Swap 'em around only if we are tanking eg. Richmond. In my opinion he is a disciplined coach who coaches primarily by statistics. I am yet to see examples that suggest he has the 'X' (Sheedy-type) factor.

There were times in the past when we were failing to kick goals Bailey refused to even try Frawley or Garland for a few minutes forward. On the radio Uncle Frawley noted young chip had played forward as a youngster as we know garland did in Tassie. I felt last Thursday when Watts was struggling to get into the game and they were outmarking us on their forward line he could have been given a go there. Even Martin has done well down back. What was to be lost especially in a NAB cup game. I'm convinced it's just the coaches style. Swap 'em around only if we are tanking eg. Richmond. In my opinion he is a disciplined coach who coaches primarily by statistics. I am yet to see examples that suggest he has the 'X' (Sheedy-type) factor.

yes clearly Bailey has stuffed up the development of James Frawley who took a whopping four years to become an AA KPD

he could have been playing forward that whole time if only Bailey was more reckless!

yes clearly Bailey has stuffed up the development of James Frawley who took a whopping four years to become an AA KPD

he could have been playing forward that whole time if only Bailey was more reckless!

Yaeh, If, only he knew! HaHaHa,,, LoL.

Interesting (but probably not surprising) that many think it's more important for a forward to be a better kick than a back and that kicking goals between a 7m gap that goes all the way up to heaven is somehow harder than hitting a man in the opposition zone.

yes clearly Bailey has stuffed up the development of James Frawley who took a whopping four years to become an AA KPD

he could have been playing forward that whole time if only Bailey was more reckless!

So you think Frawley should never be tried anywhere else, ever, for any amount of time.

yes clearly Bailey has stuffed up the development of James Frawley who took a whopping four years to become an AA KPD

he could have been playing forward that whole time if only Bailey was more reckless!

So you think innovative is reckless

So you think innovative is reckless

no I think Bailey recognised and continues to maintain the bloke is an obvious Full Back so the correct move is to leave him there to develop into the finest FB he can be, and so far it is working a treat

'robbing peter to pay paul' is all it comes down to

Wouldn't be against a Watts/Garland switch for a while to see how they go/further their education.

I agree.