I this a serious question ?

My expectations for Watts based on his natural talent, as well as our investment, far exceeds that of Dunn. Does this need explaining ?

I this a serious question ?

My expectations for Watts based on his natural talent, as well as our investment, far exceeds that of Dunn. Does this need explaining ?

I'm not talking about what you expect the players to become. Everyone expects Watts to be a better player than Dunn.

My point is your assessment of the two. You've called Watts out for entering his 5th year and thus needing to show something. Meanwhile you're happy to give Dunn a 9th year despite also not having gone very far. IMO Watts has shown more improvement in his career than Dunn has anyway.

At any rate, Dunn was still a first round pick, so even if you want to discuss expectations, there has to be something riding on him. We're all banging on about Cook having flopped at 12; Dunn was 15.

Apologies for this ambush, BH, but you're smart enough and mature enough to deal with it...

I read this post and immediately thought of your views on Dunn:

Now, for Watts, five years (one of which, admittedly, was a nothing year) is enough to warrant needing output and courage. 2013 will be Dunn's 9th year, and he has only gradually improved in the same areas (strength in the air, for example) as you want to see Watts improve in.

This is a view I think many on this board hold. Dunn seems to be getting positive comments and respect for showing minimal improvement in 8 years. Watts gets little respect and has the pressure of the world all over him for 2013 for showing minimal improvement in half that time.

Why the discrepancy?

lets get a few 'facts' correct here

Watts is 21 (not 22)

He has had 4 years (not 5)

His first year shouldn't count as he was under-age and finishing school (unlike his contemporaries)

So 21 and effectively 3 years

carry on gentlemen

lets get a few 'facts' correct here

Watts is 21 (not 22)

He has had 4 years (not 5)

His first year shouldn't count as he was under-age and finishing school (unlike his contemporaries)

So 21 and effectively 3 years

carry on gentlemen

yeah...but....but

I could not give a toss whether he is forward or back as long as he owns that position and gives himself every opportunity to play it to the best of his abilities. If he does the rest will look after itself.

I could not give a toss whether he is forward or back as long as he owns that position and gives himself every opportunity to play it to the best of his abilities. If he does the rest will look after itself.

now now....we'll have none of this pragmatism here.

This is the off season after all, where reality take a holiday too

Comparing Watts and Dunn is like comparing apples and oranges. One was a number 1 pick with all the size and ability to be a game changer the other is a limited player eking out a career. If Watts doesn't step up this year then we've effectively blown 2 number 1 picks. The fact we have Viney and picks 3 and 4 means we have a chance to make amends. We also need to recruit a solid mature body who has more upside than Magner. The club is squarely at the crossroads and a poor drafting period and more of the same next year will see membership levels decline and either FD cutbacks or a slip back into debt.

Choose wisely and we could see a quick and decisive turnaround.

I think it's pretty simple t_u, BH seems to be setting the bar higher for Watts than he is for Dunn. Given the relative talents of those individuals, I think that's reasonable.

I see his long term position as a winger roaming between both defense and forward. As a one on one defender he gets found out a lot, he's best when he's given the freedom to be an intercept player who then sets up off half back, gradually I think that will translate into him becoming more of a midfielder putting the last pass into the forward line.

Start of 2013, defender.

Mid 2013 move him on to the wing, with periods in the forward line.

2014 winger with freedom.

And get him on the angry pills!

I think it's pretty simple t_u, BH seems to be setting the bar higher for Watts than he is for Dunn. Given the relative talents of those individuals, I think that's reasonable.

At a base level, that's fair enough. One was Pick 1, after all.

But let's not firstly forget that Dunn was himself a first round pick. It's not like he's on the rookie list or something.

As I've said, though, what I don't like is how 4 years is meant to be enough for us to know whether Watts is going to make it or not, but 8 years isn't enough to write off a player who has gone no further in his career than Watts has. This is all relative to where they started: take Watts when he started and where he is now, then take Dunn where he started and where he is now. I'm not comparing the two.

What I'm saying is that, for a first-round pick who hasn't gone anywhere, we're happy to let him have another year based on minimal improvement from what he was like when he started, but make that first-round pick Jack Watts, and all of a sudden we have to halve the time we allow. That is essentially what BH (and many others) feel. I find it interesting.

What I'm saying is that, for a first-round pick who hasn't gone anywhere, we're happy to let him have another year based on minimal improvement from what he was like when he started, but make that first-round pick Jack Watts, and all of a sudden we have to halve the time we allow. That is essentially what BH (and many others) feel. I find it interesting.

I'm not really sure why I'm having this conversation...

I'm not enamoured with Dunn. If he was delisted I couldn't care less. That said, I believe he went pretty well when he went into the back-line this year and there are plenty of others I'd delist/trade ahead of him. I see the merit of giving him another contract. I wouldn't have a heated debate with anyone who didn't want to. On my 'care factor' scale it rates very low.

But what do you mean when you say, "but make that first-round pick Jack Watts, and all of a sudden we have to halve the time we allow" ? One player is a candidate for a trade/delisting and the other isn't. My view is that Watts was in hindsight an awful pick one and coming into his 5th year he needs to make drastic improvement to compliment his abundant natural ability. In the main what disappoints me most about Watts is his lack of physicality, his courage in the air and his appetite for the contest. Put simply I reckon he's as soft as butter. I accept that many supporters don't agree with me and that's fine. Some of them even named him as one of the positives to come out of the year, which I find extraordinary. But I've come to learn about the typical Melbourne supporter over the years.

Melbourne had a window of opportunity with golden draft picks to set the club up for a decade. They needed to draft stars with their early draft picks. The fact that we didn't and the fact that we ended up with a player like Watts makes me want to spew. I have grave doubts that Watts will ever play with the physicality required of a player of his height. I suspect this is where we differ. If he doesn't he'll never stand up in a final.

And to think some supporters will be livid if we use pick 3 on Viney. You couldn't find two players that are more polar opposite when it comes to how they approach the game.

But what do you mean when you say, "but make that first-round pick Jack Watts, and all of a sudden we have to halve the time we allow" ? One player is a candidate for a trade/delisting and the other isn't. My view is that Watts was in hindsight an awful pick one and coming into his 5th year he needs to make drastic improvement to compliment his abundant natural ability. In the main what disappoints me most about Watts is his lack of physicality, his courage in the air and his appetite for the contest. Put simply I reckon he's as soft as butter. I accept that many supporters don't agree with me and that's fine. Some of them even named him as one of the positives to come out of the year, which I find extraordinary. But I've come to learn about the typical Melbourne supporter over the years.

Melbourne had a window of opportunity with golden draft picks to set the club up for a decade. They needed to draft stars with their early draft picks. The fact that we didn't and the fact that we ended up with a player like Watts makes me want to spew. I have grave doubts that Watts will ever play with the physicality required of a player of his height. I suspect this is where we differ. If he doesn't he'll never stand up in a final.

OK, whatever. My point was essentially that if you're going to call Watts out for softness and a lack of improvement, then you can't at the same time say anything about Dunn other than that he should go. You based your view on Watts on his position in the draft and his time on the list. Dunn was also a first round, albeit much later, but has had double the time on the list. If one of these players ought to be called out for their lack of effort, intensity, or courage, it should be Dunn, not Watts, and yet you're happy to just say 'meh, if we keep him we keep him' to Dunn, but you savage Watts and call his future into question.

"Dunn was also a first round, albeit much later, "

and that is explaining away the problem.Watts is a number 1 pick,in terms of drafting anything beyond number 5 or so and they start to drop away from champions to good ordinary until you get to the second and third rounders we it takes real skill or luck not just competence ,. The future of the MFC depended on our top picks- the 1-10s and we have been sadly let down.

If one of these players ought to be called out for their lack of effort, intensity, or courage, it should be Dunn, not Watts

You don't think I've held Dunn to account over the years in this regard ?

And you don't think Watts should be held to account for his "effort, intensity, or courage" ? OK, your opinion is duly noted and stored for future reference when one is seeking quality opinions.

We'll see whether Neeld agrees with me or you when it comes to retaining Dunn. Dunn is of an age and size that isn't plentiful on the list and will be retained.

First of all he needs to earn a game and develop a second and third effort. I don't think letting him run around loose in the backline picking up easy kicks has helped in this regard and to continue with it isn't going to develop him past where he is. Towards the end of this season he was showing the "work rate" of Travis Johnston but at least Trav would kick a long running goal now and then. At the moment JW seems content moving the ball 20 - 30 mtrs and he thinks that's his job done.

I don't care where he plays as long as he learns to give multiple efforts and impacts the game more than just moving the ball to the next line.

Do we keep Jack in the backline as loose defender or do we give him the task of going back to the forward line and to partner up with M Clark and try get him to be a 30+ goal kicker for the year.

Jack will play where he's most needed. No need to think so hard about it now. Would be nice to see him blossom as a forward.

Back 100% - he's wasted forward because he'll never make it as a KPF. He'll get it so much more in the backline and can do some damage. He needs to be able to take a tall forward opponent as well as a small and prove a tougher match-up for a defensive forward.

Back 100% - he's wasted forward because he'll never make it as a KPF. He'll get it so much more in the backline and can do some damage. He needs to be able to take a tall forward opponent as well as a small and prove a tougher match-up for a defensive forward.

I agree old55 and when Rivers leaves we will need him down back even more.

Does not matter where he plays. His intensity has to grow 100% for me to think he is the player we all want him to be.

#1 and we use him as a drifting half back, not accountable but delivering 2- metre short passes. OMG.

Jack needs muscle and grunt ... after 4 years in the system, this is not unreasonable to expect.

I like him fwd and he has the ability to kick 2-5 goals and compliment Mitch Clark. But he lacks competitive marking, 2nd efforts and the desire to chase down opponents.

Seems with 50% desire, and no physical strength, a non-accountable half back role is the match(!!!)

"Dunn was also a first round, albeit much later, "

and that is explaining away the problem.Watts is a number 1 pick,in terms of drafting anything beyond number 5 or so and they start to drop away from champions to good ordinary until you get to the second and third rounders we it takes real skill or luck not just competence ,. The future of the MFC depended on our top picks- the 1-10s and we have been sadly let down.

Clearly pick 1 expects a better return than pick 15, but the fact that Dunn went in the first round need to be remembered. That was all I was saying.

I think to say the future of the MFC rested solely on our picks 1-10 is a bit simplistic. Any first round pick needs to add value to a side.

You don't think I've held Dunn to account over the years in this regard ?

And you don't think Watts should be held to account for his "effort, intensity, or courage" ? OK, your opinion is duly noted and stored for future reference when one is seeking quality opinions.

We'll see whether Neeld agrees with me or you when it comes to retaining Dunn. Dunn is of an age and size that isn't plentiful on the list and will be retained.

I'm sure you have held Dunn to account. What I was trying to say is that, right now, the things you're saying about Watts should also be said about Dunn, and since they have been for the last few years, that is all the more reason for saying that Dunn is doing as badly as Watts.

I do think Watts should be held to account in those areas, and I'm not entirely sure how you read me as saying otherwise. My opinion on Watts is that, prior to his injury, he was beginning to settle into a role across half-back, and that I saw steady improvement for the consecutive weeks he was playing. I see a smart reader of the play (not unlike Rivers) and as good a kick coming out of defence as Melbourne has. Clearly his contested marking/football in general is a glaring weakness and holds him back considerably, and he needs to lift his intensity at all contests. But I think it's fair to put some of that (not all, I'm not trying to absolve him) down to his fitness, and for a 21 year old, I think there is still plenty of time for that to be fixed.

If we're keeping people based on 'age and size' we'd still have Brad Miller. I don't think having muscle means much if you can't use it, and I don't think Dunn can. I am very interested to see what happens, and my gut feeling is he'll stay, but if that happens, I won't agree with it.

Given how much has changed this year, particularly from a fitness perspective, I fully expect Jack to be stronger and have better endurance than last year. He has already been complimented by Neeld a number of times for his work ethic at training, doing extra sessions etc. We all saw what happened mid-season. With a bit more strength and endurance I can see him taking another step next season.

I would like to see him return to the forward line as the third tall forward, playing as a lead up target so that he can then use his disposal skills to our advantage where we most need it....the last kick into the forward 50. I think we have enough backs or developing backs, and I also feel confident that Rivers will stick around. I could be completely wrong on this, but I'm just not too concerned about Riv. The only question would obviously be who we play as the 2nd tall forward. Do we give Fitzpatrick a chance to cement a spot or do we put the bigger body of Sellar in there?

With Strauss getting another preseason under his belt, I believe he can be that key transition player to deliver the ball out of the back 50. Watts will probably still be needed down there, but as I've said, i think it would be better for the balance of the team to have Watts playing as a high half-forward.

Given how much has changed this year, particularly from a fitness perspective, I fully expect Jack to be stronger and have better endurance than last year. He has already been complimented by Neeld a number of times for his work ethic at training, doing extra sessions etc. We all saw what happened mid-season. With a bit more strength and endurance I can see him taking another step next season.

I would like to see him return to the forward line as the third tall forward, playing as a lead up target so that he can then use his disposal skills to our advantage where we most need it....the last kick into the forward 50. I think we have enough backs or developing backs, and I also feel confident that Rivers will stick around. I could be completely wrong on this, but I'm just not too concerned about Riv. The only question would obviously be who we play as the 2nd tall forward. Do we give Fitzpatrick a chance to cement a spot or do we put the bigger body of Sellar in there?

With Strauss getting another preseason under his belt, I believe he can be that key transition player to deliver the ball out of the back 50. Watts will probably still be needed down there, but as I've said, i think it would be better for the balance of the team to have Watts playing as a high half-forward.

God - if our future hinges on Strauss we are doomed!

Back.

Until her starts to get bigger in the body, & in his mind.

Back.

Until her starts to get bigger in the body, & in his mind.

So he is playing back for the foreseeable future dee-luded?

At the moment Watts has been doing well in a Brendon Goddard roll...... I'm hoping that his roll evolves into a Swingman, much like matty Richardson/James Hird.....

Don't think Watts will ever be the big forward, that everybody seems to want him to be.......But I do think he'll be worthy of the number 1 tag..... Watts has a class about him, that I've only seen once before in Hird.....

Watts is a player in the mould of the Red Fox..... Not Fred Fanning.....