When he gets a lot Bigger,,, Swingman...

He goes forward when we're down by 15 halfway through the last quarter to kick 3 goals in 10 minutes and win the match.

We could do an u/12s-like swapping of the backs and forwards each quarter...

We really could do that - we are nearly there...

I would leave him there and then get him to swap with Col Garland for a breather here and there.

It's much harder to be an effective forward than back but, boy, do you run more as a backman...

Knights?

Could do worse. Great player Peter Knights ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Knights

We don't have any other DECENT "tall" Defenders in consistent form. Tom Mcdonald perhaps yes but i don't know why commentators and the like class Rivers as a tall

After 3.5 years of being unable to consolidate his place in the team and being subject to hyperintense scrutiny, he has finally found a role that suits him and he is excelling. Let him stay there and focus on establishing himself as one of our best and most consistent players. I wouldn't consider moving him forward until he was so full of confidence he saw the game as his to dominate. Only then, I suspect, would he play a key forward role with the aggression required.

He'll return forward when Neeld tells him to.

No sooner, no later.

When considering whether Watts should go forward we should keep in mind that one of the problems he had when he was there was that the ball didn't come down to the forwards that often and when it did it was in a rather haphazard manner. If Watts could play forward and have someone like him delivering the ball to him, that might work. But I believe our forwards are playing better not just because Garland, Rivers and Moloney (and on Sunday, Sylvia) are there but because Watts is providing the drive that gets the ball down there in the first place. So if he goes there now, I think we lose the drive that gets the ball into the forward line...so he won't have the opportunities that Garland, Rivers and others have had...so he'll be portrayed once again as a failure.

So leave him where he is.

He's a dud. Drafted as a KPF 4 years ago and is now playing in the backline.

We missed Natainui, missed Hurley.

He doesn't impact contests, shirks the contested ball..

yadda, yadda... Get Cameron. yadda, yadda...

I can't believe this is turning into a positive Watts thread.

He's a dud. Drafted as a KPF 4 years ago and is now playing in the backline.

We missed Natainui, missed Hurley.

He doesn't impact contests, shirks the contested ball..

yadda, yadda... Get Cameron. yadda, yadda...

I can't believe this is turning into a positive Watts thread.

Yeah, totally out of character isn't it?

You forgot the most important thing ... he doesn't crash packs!! Packs must be crashed!

Gee, I hope not. He looks brilliant across the backline and a move forward would just confuse the lad. Let him in a settle in a position and make it his own.

He's winning ball and using it cleverly from behind the contest.

Work to his strengths.

They don't belong inside attacking 50.

When we have a player in the backline who can hit a target. Maybe Strauss can become our Luke Hodge. It is incredibly important to launch attacks from defence. We have been poor at it over the past few years largely because we turn it over so much.

Watts is doing the role superbly. We don't actually need him in the fwd line ATM. Martin will come in for CLark as a back up ruckman. With Col and Jared we have more than enough marking power.

Quite happy to have him back there for the foreseeable future. As everyone has said his sublime skills and ability to read the play, intercept and hit targets is what we have been crying out for.

Stay back Jack and do it again...............

When considering whether Watts should go forward we should keep in mind that one of the problems he had when he was there was that the ball didn't come down to the forwards that often and when it did it was in a rather haphazard manner. If Watts could play forward and have someone like him delivering the ball to him, that might work. But I believe our forwards are playing better not just because Garland, Rivers and Moloney (and on Sunday, Sylvia) are there but because Watts is providing the drive that gets the ball down there in the first place. So if he goes there now, I think we lose the drive that gets the ball into the forward line...so he won't have the opportunities that Garland, Rivers and others have had...so he'll be portrayed once again as a failure.

So leave him where he is.

Its a return to the old Robbie Flower conundrum

"The problem with Robbie Flower is he cant kick it to Robbie Flower"

I dont think he is ever going to be the dynamic crash or crash through power forward ala buddy/brown/clark

but

i do think he is great setting up scoring opportunities and could score himself in a forward role.

He may develop into something more and I just hope he does continue the trajectory he is on without becoming so defensive that his goal scoring kicking ability is blunted,

Green may like Watts honouring his leads as a once prominent forward capable of a little bit of crash until the return of Clark

Leave Charlie where he is....someone else will step up forward.

He's a dud. Drafted as a KPF 4 years ago and is now playing in the backline.

We missed Natainui, missed Hurley.

He doesn't impact contests, shirks the contested ball..

yadda, yadda... Get Cameron. yadda, yadda...

I can't believe this is turning into a positive Watts thread.

This is a joke right?

He doesn't and hopefully shouldn't.

I see him more as a Goddard type player, he's not your typical bash and crash player and he has exceptional play reading abilities and skills.

In defence this year he has been a revelation

But in future it may be worth sending him up there for a quarter to freak out our opponents defences

When does he move into the midfield.

AS good as the win vs GWS was, it just highlighted one glaring problem: the only guys who have a clue what to do with the pill kicking into the forward line are Grimes and Watts...bombing it in is fine on the break, but most i50s take place with a congested fwd line, it's really impressive to see these two lower their eyes and go for smart-safe kicks, as opposed to merely safe kicks. So I'm scared about not having no.4 behind the ball.

That said, If JW learns to kick 3ish a game than that would be huge. A JW 3 goal game is probably of greater impact than most forwards 6 goal games, such is his level of footy IQ. Finds the ball well, uses the ball well...

Quick, game-smart and skilled type players like watts are wasted in a one dimensional 'pack crashing' forward role. Lynden Dunn type blokes who can kick straight can play that.

When does he move into the midfield.

Id throw him there before I sent him forward, any day of the week.

Jack Watts a point guard, he is a play maker - its why he excels down back.

Could he play midfield and excel? Absolutely! But we dont need him to.

We get the most out of Watts when he is down back - we'd get a lot out of him on the wing aswell.

Jack Watts as a foward doesnt play to his best attributes, its the worst place we could play him,

in saying that, Im sure he would still offer something, just not half as much as he does down back.

Watts is in career best form and our premier full forward has been ruled out for the season.

If you heard that at the start of the season, you'd think it'd be a chance for Watts to step up and make FF his own. But 12 weeks is a long time in footy...

It seems inevitable that Watts will at some point return to the forward line, ala Neitz, Grant, etc. But is this week too soon?

PROS

- He's in career best form. He's confident, he's marking well and he's reading the play better than he ever has before.

- Mitch Clark's absence opens up an opportunity for him to be our no.1 target

- While his role in defence has been impressive, swapping him for Rivers or Garland wouldn't change our structures much

- Our other future key forwards Cook and Fitzpatrick aren't ready yet

- If we play him in defence too long, will he forgot how to play FF?

- Brisbane's monster full-back (Merrett) is a forward now, so Watts won't necessarily be overpowered if one-out with his direct opponent.

CONS

- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"; if he's in career best form leave him there

- If he plays up forward and does poorly, the media will be back on him and the bloody Natanui debate will re-open

- Rivers, Garland, Dunn and Davey provided a great forward setup in the 2nd half of last week. Let's keep testing that out.

- Watts is not Mitch Clark. He still needs a few more years to develop the body and ability.

If I were coach, I'd start him in defence this week with the option of shifting him forward if we struggle for goals early on. But whether or not it's this week, I'd like Clark 's absence to be an opportunity for Watts to at least try and be that key forward in at least a few games this season.

Why?

This obsession that Watts HAS to be a forward some day, is odd.

Just because he played forward as a junior means nothing. So did Garland, who up until 2 weeks ago has kicked 4 goals in about 100 games. Tom McDonald was a forward growing up and spent all pre season training as a forward. So what?

If Watts is better suited down back, and right now he is, then let him be.

His disposal makes me weep with joy. I like that and I don't get to see it up forward.

Move him out of the back line on the 12th!