Benny & The Jett

haha.. Not sure about that, but i understand where you're coming from..He's very exciting and he doesn't need a lot of opportunities to convert goals..I just think that its going to be a tougher challenge for him when the 'real' stuff starts, he's going to have to work harder to get involved in the game further up the field, because the opposition will wear him like a glove after last year's exploits.. Didn't play poorly by any means, it's just that I wouldn't read too much into the fact he slotted 4 today..

RE: Yze_Magic It's not a personal attack..and if you're so sure of your stance why did you delete your own post? Seriously, is there any other Melbourne supporter who thinks that after a 'grand total of 3 AFL games' that Jack Watts is a lost cause?? That he'll never reach the standards of Naitanui, a bloke who couldn't hit a target by foot 30 metres away if his life depended on it??

I'm not saying he had a poor game, just thought the above poster was being pedantic. The original point that was made was essentially correct. He kicked a couple goals early, then a couple late..but didn't really have a significant impact..boom. You don't get to play against fringe and VFL listed players when the real stuff starts either..

He didn't do an awful lot. Kicked 4 goals, but they were all front-running type goals. Seriously didn't do that much around the ground mate, bit pedantic tbh..

It's funny how short people's memories are.. Jamar, a 'mid-level' AFL ruckman absolutely destroyed Naitanui. It would have been truly embarrassing for Nic if he hadn't have been a 1st year player. Funny how no one made a big deal of that..but apparently Watts is a hack after 3 AFL senior appearances, so go figure...

How good was he?? It's hard to say what 'such-and-such' a player will achieve at such an early stage, but even the most novice of football observer's could tell Trengove's the real deal.. Shouldn't discount Scully though. I think Jack's a tad more advanced 'physically' at this stage, which is helping him compete against the senior players.. but..Tom Scully will be just as good as Trengove in due course.. Bloody exciting times ahead!

Yeah, but was on and off the ground i think. Fairly inocuous game, gave away a few frees, made some nice passes. Still looks a bit green for mine at senior level.. I think he needs a good, injury free run at VFL level before progressing to seniors..He's such a good kick & decision maker its ridiculous.. Just needs some continuity in getting games together at VFL level for mine before progressing.. The thought of having Strauss and Bennell operating out of defence is an exciting prospect imo...

I agree. Thought he might have improved in his 4th preseason. Still can't hit the side of a barn door. Was excited about the skillful display by Jamie Bennell tbh.. Looks a steal at pick 35..Jordie McKenzie should get a run ahead of Lynden Dunn imo, MacDonald impressed enough in the 1st half to suggest he ought to be a fixture in the back half..Cheney was 'tidy' with his disposal and should probably get the nod as well. Trengove is a walkup start for r1 and will be an absolute 'superstar' of the game.. Peter Siddle was at the ground with a few mates. Should be back in training in about a month...

As well as Naitanui played last night, he is still an average kick at this stage. He looks to handball at every opportunity because he has little confidence in his kicking..No doubt he's a terrific prospect, but Jack will be a star in his own right, and possibly better given 'TIME'... Watts 'will' reach Riewoldt's level in time & clowns like you will be made to eat their words. He will be a premier KPF in 5 years time, but I guess that's too long for the goldfish brain crowd to wait..

We're going to beat some good sides this year, and Crawford's opinions are driven mainly by what he thinks will sell papers, and not by any kind of 'truth' or good judgement. I bet you, if you asked him to name 18 current Melbourne players, he couldn't do it..

Well the article says that we were judged #1 by this study. We had 2 very good years (where we nailed our 1st round choices) and 2 quite mediocre ones imo (2006 was also a strong draft, so we should've picked well...) I'd say off the top of my head, we've performed a bit better than average for the competition in the period. Probably around 5th-8th for the picks we've had. Certainly not #1.. Bate, Morton, Grimes, Frawley, Garland are all terrific talents. I'd say we're probably top 4 or 5 of all teams in the players we've brought in over the period, but not #1 in terms of success in using our picks overall, which I assume is the point of the study..

I meant to say that if he reckons we've drafted the best of any club between 2004-2007 'relative' to draft selection's then he's got it wrong. Adelaide have outperformed us relative to draft 'selections', and i am sure there are others. 06 & 07 were strong drafts for us, but we did have 4 picks inside the top 21 (or 3 of top 15) for those 2 years..I also doubt whether we've even brought in the 'best' talent overall in that period regardless of the picks..Despite having strong drafts in 06 & 07.

The senior players are an issue, but as I said previously, just look at some of the players Adelaide have brought in during the same period, and to see how important they've been in their recent success. The crows did not have a selection higher than pick #8, they even mucked up two of their 1st round picks with speculative talls that didn't work out, so it could've been even better. I honestly don't think the likes of Dunn, Newton, Buckley, Bartram, Neville, Weetra, etc. would've been any better off at stronger clubs. I'd say only Frawley, Garland, Morton and Grimes (sorry Bate as well!) are absolute 'sure things' as quality AFL players to be picked from this period (of the main Draft selections), and 4 of them were 1st rounders...I mean how Jack Grimes slipped to 14 is anyone's guess. He was rated by more than a few good judges as a top 5 selection. We got lucky there, I would've picked him if I was in Craig Cameron's chair... Our recruiting between 06'-09' will look very good in 5 years time, but we've also had a heap of early selections to work with so it ought to look good..

I agreed 100% with what you said in the previous comment...

That's a good point. The 2000-2003 drafting has probably exacerbated the problem. But I still cannot accept that our drafting over 04-07 has been the best in the comp as the study suggests. 06 & 07 have been very good recruiting years for us. 04-05 were just average. Therefore, we're probably middle of the road for the period...