When Watmough stopped f**king up theattack by pretending to be a playmaker then yes, he made a better contribution. But this was essentially just as a metre-eating front rower in the middle - something Scott is not, and is an unfair comparison.
Comparing contributions of two different players in different positions - and in different seasons - by selected stats alone is a fraught use of staistical measures to support a pre-conceived agenda or hypothesis. (That is, even Scott's recent move the middle in attack should not be measured by attack stats he produces in isolation, but also in the diference in attack stats that are evident for former middle playersmoved to the edge in attack e.g. Moeroa and maybe Edwards.)
Scott has made the far greater contribution to the team compared to Watmough in his first season, no matter how you try and spin it.
Again, your post is lead by your own presumption, which you then try to support using circular logic (and selected stats for a sleight of hand).