POLL: Watts v Naitanui ... Did we get it right or wrong?

[Biffen 12,564]

That was Tom McNamara though, played about 2 games.

Oh-my bad.

[Range Rover 1,935]

We need to have a poll on whether or not this thread has any interest left.

No need.

- 11 pages

- 3760+ views in just a few days

- 250 replies

- 'Hot' listed

... would suggest it is.

[Range Rover 1,935]

We need to have a poll on whether or not this thread has any interest left.

No need.

- 11 pages

- 3760+ views in just a few days

- 250 replies

- 'Hot' listed

... would suggest it is.

[Guest KingDingAling]

We got it wrong, no doubt.

But was hard to go against Watts at the time, I would've picked him 1.

Not too bothered, because Nick Nat would've been back in the West by now anyway.

I'd love a Michael Hurley though, kids a star, he is exactly what we need right now at CHF.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Not too bothered, because Nick Nat would've been back in the West by now anyway.

I'd be interested to hear if or why you don't think this "reasoning" doesn't apply to South Australian Jack Trengove.

Does NicNat love his mummy more than Jack?

[rpfc 27,692]

So what are you saying. There's a statute of limitations on analysing the past?

This isn't analysis, it's paralysis.

[Guest KingDingAling]

I'd be interested to hear if or why you don't think this "reasoning" doesn't apply to South Australian Jack Trengove.

Does NicNat love his mummy more than Jack?

I think he would've went home, there was talk before the draft that he didn't want to leave WA.

The Judd go-home factor was in the minds of all recruiters at the time aswell and there was a school of thought

that more players would be leaving more willingly after Judd had set the bar.

[Bitter but optimistic 21,580]

I'd be interested to hear if or why you don't think this "reasoning" doesn't apply to South Australian Jack Trengove.

Does NicNat love his mummy more than Jack?

Jesus RR. Even I think this "Mummy love" stuff is getting a bit bizarre and now Trengove comes into it. Are you undergoing counselling?

[Biffen 12,564]

Nic Nat definately did not want to go to a Vic club .

I remember being in Port Melbourne and seeing the Dees training on the beach .

I asked an assistant why we took Jack over NN and he said that West Australian kids are hard to keep in Vic and that Jack watts will be a very good long termer.

So the club made the ONLY logical choice.

[Little Richard 5,943]

Nic Nat definately did not want to go to a Vic club .

I remember being in Port Melbourne and seeing the Dees training on the beach .

I asked an assistant why we took Jack over NN and he said that West Australian kids are hard to keep in Vic and that Jack watts will be a very good long termer.

So the club made the ONLY logical choice.

I think another logical choice could have been Hurley, but I am glad with who we ended up with.

As much as I support Watts I've accepted he won't become a superstar CHF/FF although I am happy to be proven wrong in the future. What I think we do have is a prototype 196cm half back or outside midfielder. With excellent disposal, strong marking and pace Watts can become very valuable for us as a winger or HBF who is very very difficult to match up on. Everyone claims that NikNat is a phenomenal athlete (he is), but so is Watts. There aren't many 196cm players with the agility, speed or composure through traffic that he has.

RR you say he is scared of physical contact but what I see is someone who through traffic is extremely able in dodging tackles and avoiding opposition players when he has the ball. Also, people claiming that he plays as a spare back man are just unwilling to accept the fact that Jack is exceptional at reading the play and zoning off his man, or their eyes are clouded by images of a naked Nic Natanui, as I imagine RR's are.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Jesus RR. Even I think this "Mummy love" stuff is getting a bit bizarre and now Trengove comes into it. Are you undergoing counselling?

Not yet BBO ... but I might havw to book myself in for a few sessions if we don't pick up some guns in November!

[Bitter but optimistic 21,580]

Not yet BBO ... but I might havw to book myself in for a few sessions if we don't pick up some guns in November!

Let me know if you find a good therapist. Certain mental instability comes with being a Melbourne supporter.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,268]

No need.

- 11 pages

- 3760+ views in just a few days

- 250 replies

- 'Hot' listed

... would suggest it is.

Maybe the fact that you have contributed so many replies would account for the large number received. Guess I could build up a few pages if I started a topic and kept on replying to myself. You have made a large % of those posts RR.(45 RR posts = 18%).

Edited August 29, 2012 by Bobby McKenzie

[Gippsland Dee 367]

I think for what we recruited Watts for we definitely got it wrong! what he has developed is completely different as to what we wanted but without him and what he does we wouldn't have very clean disposal out of the def 50.

Still i think we would've been better to get natainui instead as he is simply a freak!

[Moonshadow 16,616]

I think for what we recruited Watts for we definitely got it wrong! what he has developed is completely different as to what we wanted but without him and what he does we wouldn't have very clean disposal out of the def 50.

Still i think we would've been better to get natainui instead as he is simply a freak!

I have a 3 legged cat, he's a freak. Should we have recruited him?

So what if Jack plays a different role to what we initially thought he would. Not a problem to me.

[binman 39,583]

I'm not going to say who I think we should take at picks 3 and 4 but I am aware that the recruiting fraternity have labelled this upcoming draft a "superdraft" with some seriously elite talent available in the first few picks.

Best available. No exceptions.

RR i promise this will be my last bite at this spectacular troll thread. Why won't you say who you believe we should pick at 3 or 4? I mean you say we should pick the best available. No exceptions. Seriously are you for real? If so name who the best available is at 3 and 4 (using my hypothetical scenario of Viney going second round and Whitfield number 1).

Can't do it? I'm not surprised as it is difficult to say with any confidence who would be the best selection at number 1, little lone 3 or 4. If i recall correctly the 'recruiting fraternity' were split on who should have been number 1 that year, so by your logic those that had Watts at number 1 were wrong.

Perhaps the same experts had Scully as the universal pick at number 1 (and trenners at number 2 for that matter). Judd went number 3, Franklin number 5 etc etc. History would suggest the experts may (and i stress may) have got it wrong in those years - history may tell another tale.

Indeed i would contend that of the 25 drafts held stretching back to 1986 the only number 1 pick that could be considered to have become the best player of his draft is Riewoldt - and even that is arguable. By that logic it is unlikely that Whitfield will be the best player of this draft, despite being the overwhelming favourite to be taken number 1.

My point is the draft is a lottery and despite the enormous resources poured into recruiting, high draft picks give no guarantee that a promising teenager will turn out to be a good player.

So whilst errors are easy to spot (though not until the end of careers) making a call between two gifted juniors is obviously near impossible so a hindsight argument about Natanui and Watts that is supposed to help inform who we take this year is just so stupid it borders on lunacy.

Don't agree? Then i ask again RR who should we take with picks 3 and 4? Go on, put your money where your considerable virtual mouth is

Edited August 29, 2012 by binman

[dbj1983 138]

In almost every year since the 2000 draft it could be argued that each number 1 pick wouldn't go number one if chosen again. Example Hodge at 1, judd at 3, Bartel at 7? now would most likely be Judd, Bartel then Hodge.

Although in nearly every case, the number 1 pick in that year would still be a top 5-10 pick. My point is that if Watts doesn't live up to a number 1 pick at the end of his career but lives up to a top 5 pick then I am happy. Nic Nat is a gun but lets judge them at the end of their careers and after BOTH players have played in GOOD sides.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Which players? After doing a quick read of the draft, the players I would consider or choose over Watts would be Hill, Sidebottom, Shuey, Zaharakis, Beams, Robinson (mature pick up so would never have been top 10 anyway), Hartlett and Yarran. On the fence with Hurley.

Look, you probably won't agree with me, but it's fair to say that I consider Watts a disastrous pick one and would have a number of players ahead of him. Aint hindsight great ? They include: Naitanui, Hill, Hartlett, Hurley, Yarran, Rich, Ziebell, Davis, Sidebottom, Shuey, Trengove, Zaharakis, Ballantyne, Redden, Beams, Hannebery, Shiels, Motlop, Robinson, Sloan and you can add Tom Rockliff who was overlooked in the ND and taken in the PSD.

There's a lazy 20 odd. I'm surprised you didn't include Hannebery, Rockliff, Rich, Sloan, Shiels, Motlop and Redden.

[satyricon 267]

No need.

- 11 pages

- 3760+ views in just a few days

- 250 replies

- 'Hot' listed

... would suggest it is.

there u go RR...all about you....... the views certainly outweigh the replies, but there are only a few of us on this board willing to take you on and try and outlast you, a hard task indeed

It proves nothing, apart from maybe in 10 years time when Jack Watts has had a long and successful career at MFC you can begrudgingly admit that he was a good no 1 pick (which is only a number and recruiters are looking at 17-18yr old who can develop or not in a thousand ways, dependent on injury, the playing list at the club they are at, the coaches, outside influences etc

I reckon Cox has probably go another year in him, so when NikNat takes over as the No1 at the Weagles that is when I will start to look at whether he is the Messiah, a great player, a good ruckman etc etc......until now it is left to Bruce McAvenny to ejaculate all over the commentary desk everytime NikNat goes near the ball

As I said before with the media the way it is now, if you could get that it is trendy to wear dogshit on a chain to trend on twitter or faceblook or other and then the media pick it up, there will be thousands wearing it within a week......the same with NikNat so it must be true....except for the ones, and I include myself, who can see past the hype.....and look at this kicking efficiencey, goal assists, etc etc....and see he is not the Messiah at the moment

[The Chazz 4,077]

Look, you probably won't agree with me, but it's fair to say that I consider Watts a disastrous pick one and would have a number of players ahead of him. Aint hindsight great ? They include: Naitanui, Hill, Hartlett, Hurley, Yarran, Rich, Ziebell, Davis, Sidebottom, Shuey, Trengove, Zaharakis, Ballantyne, Redden, Beams, Hannebery, Shiels, Motlop, Robinson, Sloan and you can add Tom Rockliff who was overlooked in the ND and taken in the PSD.

There's a lazy 20 odd. I'm surprised you didn't include Hannebery, Rockliff, Rich, Sloan, Shiels, Motlop and Redden.

Gee, you really don't rate Watts do you BH? I think your list of names above is expanded due to your disliking of the fact that Watts isn't the type of player (ie Key Forward) that you obviously had him earmarked to be.

Put half those players in the number 4 red and blue jumper and you would have a totally different opinion.

I'm amazed that considering you beleive you have such an eye to see talent, that you have been caught up in the Motlop hype. I thought you were better than that.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Gee, you really don't rate Watts do you BH? I think your list of names above is expanded due to your disliking of the fact that Watts isn't the type of player (ie Key Forward) that you obviously had him earmarked to be.

Put half those players in the number 4 red and blue jumper and you would have a totally different opinion.

I'm amazed that considering you beleive you have such an eye to see talent, that you have been caught up in the Motlop hype. I thought you were better than that.

Love Motlop. He's exactly the type of player we'll be endeavouring to draft/recruit at year's end.

"Gee, you really don't rate Watts do you BH?"

Whatever gave you that idea ? Right now I reckon he's about as useful as a cold pie. He has all the talent in the world, but won't put his body on the line. He plays on his own terms. Unless that changes I'll continue to vent my spleen. Right now I don't see him as a key position prospect - forward, or back. And, unlike others, I don't see him as a mid, which doesn't leave much.

Sloane, Redden, Rockliff, Beams, Sidebottom, Hannebery, Shuey, Hartlett, Rich, Ziebell...

And we're stuck with good old Jack tiptoeing around a half-back flank. Brilliant.

[rpfc 27,692]

And we're stuck with good old Jack tiptoeing around a half-back flank. Brilliant.

Are we stuck with him?

I assumed from this thread that there was a way of getting around the fact that Watts is an MFC player and not the Fijian or anyone of the many good players from that draft.

Can we move on?

Either tell me that we need to trade him, give him riods (giving him roid rage - two birds, one stone there people!), or continue to develop him.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Are we stuck with him?

I assumed from this thread that there was a way of getting around the fact that Watts is an MFC player and not the Fijian or anyone of the many good players from that draft.

Can we move on?

Either tell me that we need to trade him, give him riods (giving him roid rage - two birds, one stone there people!), or continue to develop him.

Well, as I posted earlier, I couldn't give a continental about Naitanui, which is why I said there were a heap better than Watts from that draft, so let's not just focus only on the dreadlocked one. Then I just answered a question posed to me.

"Are we stuck with him ?" At the moment, yes.

"Can we move on ?" Where ?

"Either tell me that we need to trade him, give him roids, or continue to develop him." I wouldn't trade him, because in my opinion we wouldn't get back what we've already invested. He wouldn't command the prerequisite value. So no, I'm not advocating cutting our losses - yet. The current coaching group need the opportunity to continue to develop him, mentor him, strengthen him, and help him play with the type of freedom and physical commitment that does justice to his natural gifts.

Will I post about Jack when I see ridiculous assertions that he's been one of the positives to come out of the year ? Of course. Especially when the opposite is true.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Love Motlop. He's exactly the type of player we'll be endeavouring to draft/recruit at year's end.

"Gee, you really don't rate Watts do you BH?"

Whatever gave you that idea ? Right now I reckon he's about as useful as a cold pie. He has all the talent in the world, but won't put his body on the line. He plays on his own terms. Unless that changes I'll continue to vent my spleen. Right now I don't see him as a key position prospect - forward, or back. And, unlike others, I don't see him as a mid, which doesn't leave much.

Sloane, Redden, Rockliff, Beams, Sidebottom, Hannebery, Shuey, Hartlett, Rich, Ziebell...

And we're stuck with good old Jack tiptoeing around a half-back flank. Brilliant.

What sort of player do you believe Motlop is BH?

It's only early is the kids career, well actually, he's been on the list the same time Watts has, but I can't see Motlop being a long term player for the Cats.

[rpfc 27,692]

Will I post about Jack when I see ridiculous assertions that he's been one of the positives to come out of the year ? Of course. Especially when the opposite is true.

To be fair to Jack, the 'positives' from this year have been few and far between.

The kid showing he can play at the easiest position on the ground (HFF) may just get into the top 10 positives...