If the Dee's cut their losses and traded Watts...Watts he worth?

[liam_13]

If Melbourne chose to trade him now, would be an absolutely crazy decision.

Why would they trade a kid when he would not get anywhere near his true worth...his output is below his potential, that's obvious, and not even arguable.

So why, when he can improve so much, would they trade him and not get what Watts is truly worth in return.

Not even worth hypothesising this.

 

[Marns]

The worst thing about this thread is the OP's inability to abandon the apostrophe in "Dees".

Oh yeah, and the possibility that we're even close to consider trading him at this stage.

 

[Spluff]

He'd score a at least a late first round. Whether that is a wise investment, who knows, but clubs still place a certain amount of stock on their own ability to develop players their rivals can't.

 

[Quinz]

I stand by my previous assessment of this.

Very clear that the biggest reason for the continued and determinedly vindictive targeting of Watts in this regard, as against a relatively Pollyanna-like view of Naitanui so often advanced by the same voices from week to week, is, again, because certain people are resentful about Watts receiving the attention he did in 2009, and after 3 years, they still can't get over it.

Yep, just trying to get Naitanui in the spotlight, he's had very little focus on him throughout his career.

What you've written there Wonna is quite frankly ridiculous. The Watts treatment must be getting to you, you're a better poster than this.

Why would people be resentful of Watts receiving attention three years ago? He wasn't given any more attention that any other number one draft pick at the time, and far less than some like David Swallow (the next Judd, certain superstar), but he doesn't get the same level of discussion.

There's quite obvious reasons why Watts recieves the attention he does, and this is NOT validating or disagreeing with any of the following points, just mentioning that they exist:
- Number one draft pick, obviously, see Gibbs/Goddard etc. for others who got blasted early on in their careers
- Underperforming relative to a lot of others in what was a super quality draft
- The poster boy for Melbourne's poor drafting or developement in the last five years. He'd be getting a lot less if Strauss/Blease from the same draft were dominating.
- Melbourne and Melbourne fans pumped him up a lot early on as the player who would lead the charge up the ladder, and people like seeing clubs and fans get things wrong (see Lovett at St Kilda among hundreds of other examples)
- Superficially, he doesn't look like the big strong key forward he was touted as, and doesn't play in a manner that commentators fawn over (see Jack Darling as the opposite to that)
- Was mentioned early on by Leigh Matthews among others that he might not have been the best choice at 1, which brings media focus onto him and generates discussion. First impressions can take players years to get past even after they overcome them (Dale Thomas is soft, Kerr struggles with a tag, Jared Brennan is too inconsistent, Frankin won't be a power forward because of his marking and kicking)

These things WILL NOT change until Watts performs strongly for a long period of time. Naitanui is still called flashy and inconsistent by those who don't watch enough of him, but it shouldn't bother Eagles fans because we can see his value. Chris Masten got hammered by Eagles and opposition fans for years and is now starting to perform at a high quality level, but will take time to overcome negative perceptions of him.

Ultimately it shouldn't matter to Watts what other people think, and hopefully he pays no attention to the discussion around his form and ability. He was drafted high for a reason, and if he ends up fulfilling it, even at another club, we should be pleased because we want the AFL to be filled with high quality players and exciting performers, not wasted potential.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

The Watts treatment must be getting to you, you're a better poster than this.

I did qualify my statement. No way you've been involved in the pattern of behaviour I referred to. And I know you wouldn't, obviously.

Why would people be resentful of Watts receiving attention three years ago?

Mate, really, it's hard to fully explain otherwise why there's been such intense animosity towards him over an extended period, why so few people take into account anything good he's ever done, apart from Demons supporters - and why so many seem to deliberately make, and repeat, the incredibly dishonest claim that somehow he's not done anything worthy of note.

He did have a strong year in 2011. And he was easily one of our best within the first four rounds. But many people have sought to pretend otherwise, over and over again.

Sure, issues such as the fact he was #1 in that draft, the Matthews inanity, can perhaps partially explain these things, but that seems far from a complete explanation, to my mind.

Fair to say we were hugely effusive about him right at the very beginning, with the 'God' pictures etc - but in my opinion, most of that was us taking the piss.

The poster boy for Melbourne's poor drafting or development in the last five years. He'd be getting a lot less if Strauss/Blease from the same draft were dominating.

Blease having suffered a long-term injury has nothing to do with either our drafting or our development.

And it's very clear that the reason for any under-performance with players drafted over the last five years lies in development, above all - aside from some pretty disastrous runs with injury on and off over this time, although that can also be partially explained by deficiencies within our football department (before now), and until recent years, our facilities. Nothing to do with the drafting choices.

If you want to see where we did get it wrong in our drafting, look at the choices made between 2000-2005, and to a lesser degree, 2006.

 

[Quinz]

Yes it does lie as much if not more on development than recruiting. It's no coincidence when you see the same teams picking up 'gems' all the time and others selecting 'duds'. Recruiters just aren't that brilliant/incompetent, as much as we might think otherwise- they know what they're doing, the clubs need to develop them properly, and I agree that has been an issue with Melbourne, among other clubs, it's been a while since they've turned a youngster into a serious A grade player.

 

[Mego Red]

Can we do a player trade with you? Chris Knights? David Mackay? Maybe even Bernie Vince (though we'd want a sweetener there, I think)?

 

[StanMcCan]

Did you actually read the article? I'll highlight some quotes because I know you didn't...

"He's been good, Jack," Neeld said. "He hasn't missed a session. He's put his head down and is working hard."

and...

Green said Watts had a "great work ethic" and had worked out how to succeed at AFL level.

Here's another one for you...

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/134871/default.aspx

"According to the coach, Watts is well aware which areas of his game need to improve and is working hard to develop them."

So his coach doesn't believe he lacks hunger and is working hard to improve his game.



Quit while you're behind

To all the bigfooty newbies, that's ownage

I am learning... cheers

 

[Tulip]

Yes it does lie as much if not more on development than recruiting. It's no coincidence when you see the same teams picking up 'gems' all the time and others selecting 'duds'. Recruiters just aren't that brilliant/incompetent, as much as we might think otherwise- they know what they're doing, the clubs need to develop them properly, and I agree that has been an issue with Melbourne, among other clubs, it's been a while since they've turned a youngster into a serious A grade player.

Frawley?

Not been that long.

Agree otherwise that it's taken a long time. Scott Thompson the last from my estimations

 

[LBJ6]

If only Watts was selected pick 2 - gets 10000x more criticism than Gumbleton ever did, and more recently Sam Day has had no external pressure put on him despite an unimpressive first 10 games.

Will be interesting to see how Patton goes when he enters the AFL.

 

[Tulip]

Hansen too

 

[dajesmac]

If only Watts was selected pick 2 - gets 10000x more criticism than Gumbleton ever did, and more recently Sam Day has had no external pressure put on him despite an unimpressive first 10 games.

Will be interesting to see how Patton goes when he enters the AFL.

You'd like that wouldn't you.

Seriously though, agreed. The s**t hyped on him is ridiculous. Just let him do his thing.

 

[Jade]

If only Watts was selected pick 2 - gets 10000x more criticism than Gumbleton ever did, and more recently Sam Day has had no external pressure put on him despite an unimpressive first 10 games.

Will be interesting to see how Patton goes when he enters the AFL.

True, going number one is harsh and Gumbleton has dodged a bullet there.

One teeny tiny difference though - Gumbleton, when fit (a laugh in itself), has at the very least shown he can to some degree perform the role for which he was drafted.

Hence the perennial hope - we know he can play; he just can't get fit.

Watts on the other hand, has no fitness issues. He seems to have mental or 'intent' issues. He doesn't go hard enough.

 

[Enforcer25]

You'd like that wouldn't you.

Seriously though, agreed. The s**t hyped on him is ridiculous. Just let him do his thing.

A lot of us would yes, but I can see the justification for picking Watts.
While Watts still stands to be a very good player, I doubt he'll ever break games open like Naitanui will.

I think we chose him with a mind to having to build a list, so with 2 players we couldn't separate, we went for needs.
We needed a CHF much more than a ruckman, with Jamar there, but no decent KPF.
You could say that the Eagles didn't really need a ruckman either with Cox there, but they needed it more than a CHF with a young Kennedy on the list.
I still think we underestimate both how long it would take Watts to physically develop, and also how well Naitanui would develop relatively quickly - his footy IQ when drafted wasn't high.
But as a bottom-aged player, maybe we shouldn't have been too surprised with his development so far - he has just turned 21 a month ago.

True, going number one is harsh and Gumbleton has dodged a bullet there.

One teeny tiny difference though - Gumbleton, when fit (a laugh in itself), has at the very least shown he can to some degree perform the role for which he was drafted.

Hence the perennial hope - we know he can play; he just can't get fit.

Watts on the other hand, has no fitness issues. He seems to have mental or 'intent' issues. He doesn't go hard enough.

Watts has also shown he can perform his role to a degree.
He just hasn't done it consistently, and it shouldn't be a shock considering the team around him.
To say otherwise would just be ignorance, which I can't really blame too many people for because his exposed form on free-to-air tv hasn't been plentiful.
But we've seen him put his head over the ball, take strong contested marks, and win the hard ball on the ground against multiple opponents.

The flaw actually seems to be with his mindset - actually his perception of his role. He's such a good user of the footy that he hangs out the back of packs, waiting for his teammates to get him the "clean possession", since he more often than not puts it on the chest of a teammate inside 50.
The problem is that he oftens hangs back waiting for the "clean possession" that never comes... and ends up looking soft, skirting packs, in the process.

 

[IanW]

If only Watts was selected pick 2 - gets 10000x more criticism than Gumbleton ever did, and more recently Sam Day has had no external pressure put on him despite an unimpressive first 10 games.

Will be interesting to see how Patton goes when he enters the AFL.

LBJ6,

The difference is that Patton already has the body to be an AFL key forward. Watts still doesnt.

 

[Enforcer25]

True, but Patton may take a while to adjusting to playing against men, instead of always having superior strength.
Hawkins took a long time.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

If only Watts was selected pick 2 - gets 10000x more criticism than Gumbleton ever did, and more recently Sam Day has had no external pressure put on him despite an unimpressive first 10 games.

Will be interesting to see how Patton goes when he enters the AFL.

Day was a pure athlete though, thus the patience.

Safe to Lynch has been pretty good early on.

 

[Agent93]

If only Watts was selected pick 2

Might end up being known as the Sam Bowie of the AFL. Portland drafted for need back in the day, rather than taking the best player available.

That said, West Coast wouldn't have picked Watts at 2 anyway. If Melbourne had taken Naitanui first up I'd imagine the top 5 to have been:

1. N. Naitanui (Melbourne)
2. D. Rich (West Coast)
3. S. Hill (Fremantle)
4. H. Hartlett (Pt. Adelaide)
5. J. Watts (Essendon)

Back on topic, Watts would be worth one of a late first, second and fringe player, or best 22 player and third. West Coast would probably offer Koby Stevens and Brisbane's GC compo pick.

 

[Jade]

Might end up being known as the Sam Bowie of the AFL. Portland drafted for need back in the day, rather than taking the best player available.

That said, West Coast wouldn't have picked Watts at 2 anyway. If Melbourne had taken Naitanui first up I'd imagine the top 5 to have been:

1. N. Naitanui (Melbourne)
2. D. Rich (West Coast)
3. S. Hill (Fremantle)
4. H. Hartlett (Pt. Adelaide)
5. J. Watts (Essendon)

Back on topic, Watts would be worth one of a late first, second and fringe player, or best 22 player and third. West Coast would probably offer Koby Stevens and Brisbane's GC compo pick.

Not a chance.

Watts and Natanui were always going 1 and 2.

Leading up to the draft there was some doubt as to whether Melbourne would take Natanui. If they had, West Coast would certainly have taken Watts - be thankful.

As for him slipping to five and thus giving Essendon a choice between Hurley and Watts, I think you are forgetting that Hurley was recruited as a defender (with the intent of having him transition in to Fletcher's role); not that it would have mattered - 1 or 2 were the only positions he was going to be drafted.

 

[Enforcer25]

I don't know about "be thankful".

I think Watts at West Coast would have done just fine, and would be well ahead of where he is now at Melbourne.

His biggest problem has been Melbourne's heavily under-resourced football dept, specifically in the area of player development.
Attitude and mindset adjustments would have been made long ago, and I dare say his physical development would probably be more advanced.

Watts has a lot of potential, and if people don't see that, more the fool them.

 

[Agent93]

Leading up to the draft there was some doubt as to whether Melbourne would take Natanui. If they had, West Coast would certainly have taken Watts - be thankful.

From WA there was zero talk of West Coast looking at Watts, and most speculation over which midfielder we'd take if Naitanui was drafted. Fremantle was adding to the speculation that Watts would slide by out and out stating Hill would be picked 3rd, someone who WCE were also not publicly considering.

But it's all opinion on the past. We know how it went down.

Whilst we're playing hypotheticals, are you suggesting the Bombers would have taken Hurley over Watts at pick 5 if he were available?

 

[Enforcer25]

You're not silly enough to think that actually means something do you?

Talk or not, the Eagles would have seriously considered Watts.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

I do think the Eagles may well have taken Rich at pick 2.

But that's neither here or there.

He wouldn't have gone further than Port at 4; Williams was very keen on him.

 

[Scotland]

Correct.

WC were torn between Naitanui and Rich prior to the 2008 draft. Rich was a proven ball winner at WAFL level as a teenager, Naitanui a freak talent who was very, very raw. Watts wasn't on the WC radar, and Freo picking Hill over Rich was also a surprise at the time.

Listening to Peter Sumich speak at a dinner prior to the draft he said he favoured Naitanui over Rich but expected him to go at #1 and that WC would draft Rich at #2. As for the thoughts of Freo, Port, Essendon... no idea.

 

[Jade]

From WA there was zero talk of West Coast looking at Watts, and most speculation over which midfielder we'd take if Naitanui was drafted. Fremantle was adding to the speculation that Watts would slide by out and out stating Hill would be picked 3rd, someone who WCE were also not publicly considering.

But it's all opinion on the past. We know how it went down.

Whilst we're playing hypotheticals, are you suggesting the Bombers would have taken Hurley over Watts at pick 5 if he were available?

Ok. In the VERY hypothtical world of Watts slipping to five, the question to Essendon would have been, do we take the defender we had our eyes on in the first place; OR do we take the key forward prospect who surprisingly slipped through.

I honestly don't know.

It's the old best available v needs basis isn't it?

Essendon (at the time) had what appeared to be relatively strong forwards. Lloyd was still there, as was Lucas. Gumbleton had recently been drafted and Neagle was there as well as a F/S.

Why add another forward?

Maybe they would have thought that with Lloyd and Lucas present, it would be a hell of an opportunity to develop a killer key forward. It's only now with the benefit of hindsight that Watts appears soft under AFL conditions; so they may very well.

On the other hand, they might have stuck to their intended plan to draft Hurley, who was easily the most impressive of the defenders available.

The answer: I haven't a clue; but I'm very glad we didn't have to make the decision.