Welcome Welcome to Hawthorn : Nick 'the Wizard' Watson! Rising star Nom!

[KermitJagger]

Kermit is one of the boards better posters. He's usually all quality.

But nuance is only going to buy you so much camouflage when you're rocking an argument with a really obvious subtext turned up to 11, and it includes phrases such as "but I've gotta baulk at the constant s**t ".

Everyone probably gets that he doesn't mean to say anything overly negative about Watson. It was just really poorly executed, and actually lacked nuance.

It doesn't lack nuance at all. My point is that if we're going to shut down conversation about height, then it should be both ways.

I'm happy to stop talking about it, but only if it also means I can stop reading that X player from a different sport or Y player from 30 - 50 years ago was 170cm, or that his lack of height is an advantage actually. That's what I mean by shit. Talking like Bob Skilton's career in the 60s is at all relevant to Watson when we would currently have 3 starting midfielders taller than the ruckman Skilton was roving from, or bringing up soccer players, or AFLW players.

I'm happy to talk Watson's strengths. He's an elite talent. I've shut up about his height since he was drafted, I only cared in the context of his draft position - it's other people that have constantly been drawing the stupidest positive comparisons about his height since we drafted him.

 

[Mr Lizard]

 

[Slainte]

All this talk about Watson and his height makes me wonder how much better Nash would be if he was the normal height for a mid.

 

[toomanysquibs]

It doesn't lack nuance at all. My point is that if we're going to shut down conversation about height, then it should be both ways.

I'm happy to stop talking about it, but only if it also means I can stop reading that X player from a different sport or Y player from 30 - 50 years ago was 170cm, or that his lack of height is an advantage actually. That's what I mean by s**t. Talking like Bob Skilton's career in the 60s is at all relevant to Watson when we would currently have 3 starting midfielders taller than the ruckman Skilton was roving from, or bringing up soccer players, or AFLW players.

I'm happy to talk Watson's strengths. He's an elite talent. I've shut up about his height since he was drafted, I only cared in the context of his draft position - it's other people that have constantly been drawing the stupidest positive comparisons about his height since we drafted him.

I'm sorry mate, but it does lack nuance:

"It must mean something if there are less than a handful of players his height in the AFL. If someone 10cm taller has the same speed, skill, endeavour and a will to win then he's behind."

Nuance is understanding that there isn't a bunch of clones running around at AFL level in bigger bodies, or he wouldn't have been drafted. That comparison you make is just too simple an argument. Or are we supposed to pretend nobody else has thought of that?

It's also understanding that the player you mentioned who finished 25 years ago, succeeded through multiple eras despite the evolution of the game, and player speed and size. Just because you can't see why that is relevant, doesn't make it a 'shit' comparison.

Unless you are good enough in AFL, your physical attributes mean squat. Watson's only question mark is that he's good enough, because he definitely need to be. The club thinks yes, and SYL alluded to why that may be.

I agree with you that there's absolutely no advantage to his size. But he wasn't drafted for that, he was drafted for his elite talent with the belief it transcends the downside, which you recognize.

But only to a point. Because you always go running straight back to height.

 

[toomanysquibs]

All this talk about Watson and his height makes me wonder how much better Nash would be if he was the normal height for a mid.

You're confusing height with talent I think?

 

[The Golden Glenferrie]

All this talk. IYKYK

 

[Judd2Sewell]

One recruiter mentioned that if Watson was 10cm taller then he could have been the number one pick. The implication (my Always Sunny reference for the day) there now goes without saying.

 

[toomanysquibs]

One recruiter mentioned that if Watson was 10cm taller then he could have been the number one pick. The implication (my Always Sunny reference for the day) there now goes without saying.

I wonder how many other players ten cm or more taller than him also weren't the number one pick, or weren't even taken before him?

I'm not sure you entirely understand the implication of that statement. Neither does the first guy who liked the comment, which is surprising given he just had it explained to him.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

I wonder how many other players ten cm or more taller than him also weren't the number one pick, or weren't even taken before him?

I'm not sure you entirely understand the implication of that statement.

The implication is obvious and it's easy to understand - despite his talent and ability his height is deemed as a negative by recruiters. His height was factored into his overall ratings. His height has been a consideration for recruiters, meaning it's not a non-issue. Had he been even slightly short for an AFL footballer (180cm) he could have been the number one pick.

What am I missing, pray tell.

 

[KermitJagger]

I wonder how many other players ten cm or more taller than him also weren't the number one pick, or weren't even taken before him?

I'm not sure you entirely understand the implication of that statement. Neither does the first guy who liked the comment, which is surprising given he just had it explained to him.

It seems like you don't understand it more than anything.

Everyone gets it. The recruiter is saying that Watson is very talented, so talented that he was an early pick even at his height and if he were 10cm taller he'd be in the conversation for Pick 1.

 

[KermitJagger]

I'm sorry mate, but it does lack nuance:

"It must mean something if there are less than a handful of players his height in the AFL. If someone 10cm taller has the same speed, skill, endeavour and a will to win then he's behind."

Nuance is understanding that there isn't a bunch of clones running around at AFL level in bigger bodies, or he wouldn't have been drafted. That comparison you make is just too simple an argument. Or are we supposed to pretend nobody else has thought of that?

It's also understanding that the player you mentioned who finished 25 years ago, succeeded through multiple eras despite the evolution of the game, and player speed and size. Just because you can't see why that is relevant, doesn't make it a 's**t' comparison.

Unless you are good enough in AFL, your physical attributes mean squat. Watson's only question mark is that he's good enough, because he definitely need to be. The club thinks yes, and SYL alluded to why that may be.

I agree with you that there's absolutely no advantage to his size. But he wasn't drafted for that, he was drafted for his elite talent with the belief it transcends the downside, which you recognize.

But only to a point. Because you always go running straight back to height.

The player I mentioned who finished 25 years ago? Bob Skilton? Might be wrong but I don't think he was playing AFL in 1998 at 60.

In the post you've quoted I said two things, his height doesn't matter - which is true, particularly if we're looking for a talented career small forward - but that it does mean something, because the average height of an adult male in Australia is 175cm and the AFL only has 10 players shorter than that out of close to 700 total current players. Those 10 players are all small forwards or half backs, to a man.

It means something because, as J2S said above, recruiters would have had him in the Pick 1 conversation if he was 10cm taller. The same way that Conor Nash would be a doctor in Ireland, and Mason Cox would be doing who knows what in America if they were 10cm shorter.

Once again, I don't keep running back to height. There were pages upon pages of references to his height with zero involvement from me. I'm just tired of seeing him compared to short players from decades ago, or worse, from other sports, like it adds anything to the conversation.

 

[HawthornHawk]

One recruiter mentioned that if Watson was 10cm taller then he could have been the number one pick. The implication (my Always Sunny reference for the day) there now goes without saying.

I remember the same thing being said about Caleb Daniel

 

[tl92]

One recruiter mentioned that if Watson was 10cm taller then he could have been the number one pick. The implication (my Always Sunny reference for the day) there now goes without saying.

You add 10cm to any top 10 pick and they’re probably going pick 1.

 

[toomanysquibs]

It seems like you don't understand it more than anything.

Nah, I understand it fine.

Here's his elaboration for you: "despite his talent and ability his height is deemed as a negative by recruiters"

 

[toomanysquibs]

You add 10cm to any top 10 pick and they’re probably going pick 1.

Yep, for some reason they don't quite see it.

 

[toomanysquibs]

The player I mentioned who finished 25 years ago?

Pretty sure that he's the same guy you referred to as finishing 30 years ago.

"r Y player from 30 - 50 years ago was 170cm"

 

[KermitJagger]

Pretty sure that he's the same guy you referred to as finishing 30 years ago.

30 - 50, missing a 20 year period there.

 

[toomanysquibs]

30 - 50, missing a 20 year period there.

Is that what we're arguing about now? Time to hang it up mate.

The good news is, you've still got a stellar post differential that is not affected by this exchange. Not sure I do, but I'm a slow learner.

Let's just enjoy Watson's career, and hope his talent is as big as our recruiters think.

 

[MasterSamurai]

It's not just about what Watson does though, the opposition can't play just some lumbering defender or even a mid size defender on him, he'd turn them inside out, be too nimble and quick for them, so, they need a lock down defender on him which allows Ginnivan and bruest to do their thing been creative and a goal scoring threat not having doing a lock down job on them. Having genuine three smaller frwds with goal sense will definitely trouble the opposition set ups. It's the most settled and dangerous looking frwd line we've had for about 7 years!

 

[Dewnior]

Like Junior Boy, Watson is going to present match up headaches given his attributes and skills.

Forget about height, it's irrelevant. I remember Brown Dog playing KPD at 177cm.

 

[phreeze77]

All this negativity about his Height, do these people realise that if we skipped him he was gonna be taken next pick. Hell the club 2 picks away was trying very hard to persuade us to downgrade so they could take him first. Elite at his craft and he will have us enjoying any way we like to consume the game.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

All this negativity about his Height, do these people realise that if we skipped him he was gonna be taken next pick. Hell the club 2 picks away was trying very hard to persuade us to downgrade so they could take him first. Elite at his craft and he will have us enjoying any way we like to consume the game.

You've missed the whole entire discussion if that's what you're coming here to say.

 

[The Golden Glenferrie]

Must. Not. Talk. About. Height

 

[Ned Ryerson]

You add 10cm to any top 10 pick and they’re probably going pick 1.

Not really, no.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

All this negativity about his Height, do these people realise that if we skipped him he was gonna be taken next pick. Hell the club 2 picks away was trying very hard to persuade us to downgrade so they could take him first. Elite at his craft and he will have us enjoying any way we like to consume the game.

People aren’t being negative about his height they’re being realistic about it based on where he got drafted. It’s not that hard to grasp. Nobody here is posting ‘why did he draft this midget, MM has rocks in his head’.