I think Hunt is going pretty well for a guy that hasn't played in ages.
He runs great lines (I'm dead serious, watch him run - he knows exactly where to be and when) and has already been instrumental in pretty decent tries.
He is also coming to grips defensively pretty quickly.
I think he'll be worth the coin next year (and after), but agree he hasn't returned value yet. Fact is, he' would never have come to us without the high dollars so I guess that is the price we had to pay to hopefully get someone who will be worth it in a year's time. I would have hoped sooner, but it didn't happen.
An off season to get back to playing weight and he will do fine.
gel, I guess that's perhaps where we diverge on this subject.
Let's first recall that the 2014 fanfare that the QRU mounted re KH's signing - partly to pacify fans very disappointed with the RG 2014 season - did not in any way include the rider that 'KH will need a full 2015 season on rugby L plates and then things will be fine later'. Rather, he was promoted to Reds VC (over QC (Quade Cooper) FFS) before he played a single Super game!
All of my sentiment re him and what I have seen so far relates to the raw value-for-money principle. A player on $600-700k pa (including we heard ARU top ups meaning that some other player would not get a top up given the ARU quota) is at the very elite level, only a handful of rugby players earn that type of income in Australia and thus, bar injury, it is entirely appropriate to expect a very high level of consistent rugby performance from them all. The general playing standards bar should set at Folau, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), To'omua, Hooper type levels. OK, maybe not in the new player's first few games, but soon thereafter this would be the reasonable standard of expectation, otherwise why on earth pay that sort of huge money for a player, proven or unproven?
More importantly, I think we sometimes confuse two notions, namely: what is the 'baseline' expectation for an 'average' Super backs player (whose salary might be say $150k pa) and what is the baseline expectation for a player on c.4 x that level of income (with, btw, the attendant impact upon the team salary cap as a whole, which is another important issue).
I'd argue that, using your assessment above, 'running good lines' and 'helping set up the occasional try' and 'providing adequate defence' is simply a 'baseline' requirement of a competent, average Super backs player. That type of contribution on its own is by no means fulfilment of the reasonable expectation of a player on at least 4X the average Aus Super wage. Don't many sound but not elite Australian Super backs do as you outline more or less week in, week out?
Don't players like Turner, Inman, Mogg do all this quite regularly (adjusting a bit as relative to their positions)?
Yet somehow it is argued that, in KH's case, 'seeing the base requirements' in action encourages us to believe that KH will soon evolve as an exceptional backs player of a type that in 2016 will surely justify his very high income.
That's where I disagree - I see in the KH so far merely adequate baseline rugby skills (and btw I could add, to balance the assessment, real KH bloopers like flawed chip kicks through etc). I see nothing thus far in KH's play that credibly underpins the view that we have a truly elite Super rugby back in the making.
Nonetheless, for the sake of the Reds, I hope you are right, and that, in 2016, I am found as way too cautious in my reading of KH.