Watts wants to stay but will explore free agency.

[stuie 7,374]

2 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Amazing how after a win and a few preseason games people jump on Jack and conveniently forget the years of poor footy he played. I couldnt GAS about this 'face of the club' or 'his heart beats red n blue' rubbish. Just play consistent, good footy for the club. I truly hope he has a cracker of a year, re-signs and plays good footy for years to come at the Dees, rather than cruise on good coin. But let's not get ahead of ourselves, his career to date has been disappointing. Matthew Lloyd is largely right, Jack has been gifted 100 games of AFL footy. 

I don't think anyone is forgetting his career to date, especially given how many times you're trying to remind everybody, I think most people are seeing it as he's starting to fulfill his potential and it would be good to keep him on with us to do that.

[Gator 16,891]

Pre-season he would have been worried about being offered a contract.

He's had a great summer and start to the year.  He can't afford to drop off.

[Radar Detector 1,339]

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

Amazing how after a win and a few preseason games people jump on Jack and conveniently forget the years of poor footy he played. I couldnt GAS about this 'face of the club' or 'his heart beats red n blue' rubbish. Just play consistent, good footy for the club. I truly hope he has a cracker of a year, re-signs and plays good footy for years to come at the Dees, rather than cruise on good coin. But let's not get ahead of ourselves, his career to date has been disappointing. Matthew Lloyd is largely right, Jack has been gifted 100 games of AFL footy. 

What a load of rubbish.

Firstly, being gifted games of footy implies that there were those more deserving of a game than he. Go back and look at some of the teams we have fielded over the last five years and suggest which consistently better footballers he was robbing of a game. We have been a rabble and, in OUR side, Jack has more often than not been worthy of a spot.

Also, IMO we as a club are culpable in the trajectory of his career to date. We threw him to the wolves on QB all those years ago while he was still playing school footy FFS. We have set him up for the most immense media scrutiny of any player of his calibre I can remember in my lifetime. And we even had a coach who publicly torched him before he'd even coached a game for the club. So it's hard to ignore the fact that despite the fact we have largely thrown him under a bus, he loves the club and wants to be here. It's no coincidence that now that we have a half decent development program, Jack has grown in confidence and put in his best ever patch of footy for the club.

Jack has been inconsistent, frustrating and has underperformed, no doubt. But some of the negative airtime he gets is unhelpful and plain wrong.

[CBDees 3,162]

1 hour ago, Radar Detector said:

What a load of rubbish.

Firstly, being gifted games of footy implies that there were those more deserving of a game than he. Go back and look at some of the teams we have fielded over the last five years and suggest which consistently better footballers he was robbing of a game. We have been a rabble and, in OUR side, Jack has more often than not been worthy of a spot.

Also, IMO we as a club are culpable in the trajectory of his career to date. We threw him to the wolves on QB all those years ago while he was still playing school footy FFS. We have set him up for the most immense media scrutiny of any player of his calibre I can remember in my lifetime. And we even had a coach who publicly torched him before he'd even coached a game for the club. So it's hard to ignore the fact that despite the fact we have largely thrown him under a bus, he loves the club and wants to be here. It's no coincidence that now that we have a half decent development program, Jack has grown in confidence and put in his best ever patch of footy for the club.

Jack has been inconsistent, frustrating and has underperformed, no doubt. But some of the negative airtime he gets is unhelpful and plain wrong.

RD I fully concur with your summary response. Thanks for saving me the post.

[Pates 9,536]

1 hour ago, Radar Detector said:

What a load of rubbish.

Firstly, being gifted games of footy implies that there were those more deserving of a game than he. Go back and look at some of the teams we have fielded over the last five years and suggest which consistently better footballers he was robbing of a game. We have been a rabble and, in OUR side, Jack has more often than not been worthy of a spot.

Also, IMO we as a club are culpable in the trajectory of his career to date. We threw him to the wolves on QB all those years ago while he was still playing school footy FFS. We have set him up for the most immense media scrutiny of any player of his calibre I can remember in my lifetime. And we even had a coach who publicly torched him before he'd even coached a game for the club. So it's hard to ignore the fact that despite the fact we have largely thrown him under a bus, he loves the club and wants to be here. It's no coincidence that now that we have a half decent development program, Jack has grown in confidence and put in his best ever patch of footy for the club.

Jack has been inconsistent, frustrating and has underperformed, no doubt. But some of the negative airtime he gets is unhelpful and plain wrong.

While I agree, I think there is only so long that excuse can fly. He's had more than ample time to recover from his first QB and while Neeld wasn't exactly a confidence booster he is now into his 3rd year with Roos and it's fair to say it's been up and down.

One of the other issues with him is that coaches have been desperately trying to figure out what he is as a player. So he's been thrown into every role bar ruckman to work it out. He was recruited as the standout key forward, but maybe he was actually always a 2nd or 3rd key forward. With Watts in the forward line with Hogan by his side and even with Pedo/Frost as another big body it actually makes a lot of sense why he can now be successful.

I'm optimistic about him this year. It has all the ingredients for it to click consistently for him and for the team, but let's see how this thread is traveling after round 4/5. 

[Moonshadow 16,109]

5 hours ago, stuie said:

I don't think anyone is forgetting his career to date, especially given how many times you're trying to remind everybody, I think most people are seeing it as he's starting to fulfill his potential and it would be good to keep him on with us to do that.

You must've missed the part where I said i hope he continues to have a good year,  re-signs and consistently plays well for us. 

Not surprised. 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Moonshadow

[Moonshadow 16,109]

3 hours ago, Radar Detector said:

What a load of rubbish.

Firstly, being gifted games of footy implies that there were those more deserving of a game than he. Go back and look at some of the teams we have fielded over the last five years and suggest which consistently better footballers he was robbing of a game. We have been a rabble and, in OUR side, Jack has more often than not been worthy of a spot.

Also, IMO we as a club are culpable in the trajectory of his career to date. We threw him to the wolves on QB all those years ago while he was still playing school footy FFS. We have set him up for the most immense media scrutiny of any player of his calibre I can remember in my lifetime. And we even had a coach who publicly torched him before he'd even coached a game for the club. So it's hard to ignore the fact that despite the fact we have largely thrown him under a bus, he loves the club and wants to be here. It's no coincidence that now that we have a half decent development program, Jack has grown in confidence and put in his best ever patch of footy for the club.

Jack has been inconsistent, frustrating and has underperformed, no doubt. But some of the negative airtime he gets is unhelpful and plain wrong.

He has been gifted 100 games at senior AFL level. Melbourne have had many players gifted games that shouldn't have played at AFL level. None that I can recall were gifted as many as Jack. His first 100 are comparable in form to Josh Fraser's first 100, a fellow high draft pick. Let's hope his next century isn't similar and he has finally turned the corner. I like how he's played so far this season and hope he re-signs, but I'm aware of his past form. 

I agree he's been inconsistent, frustrating and underperformed. The rest are simply excuses. 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Moonshadow

[rpfc 27,391]

6 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

He has been gifted 100 games at senior AFL level. Melbourne have had many players gifted games that shouldn't have played at AFL level. None that I can recall were gifted as many as Jack. His first 100 are comparable in form to Josh Fraser's first 100, a fellow high draft pick. Let's hope his next century isn't similar and he has finally turned the corner. I like how he's played so far this season and hope he re-signs, but I'm aware of his past form. 

I agree he's been inconsistent, frustrating and underperformed. The rest are simply excuses. 

No he hasn't.

He was gifted games early.

But he has been 'breaking out' and 'turning the corner' since 2011...

We have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to this bloke. And we listen to our mates who support other teams who circle jerk with each other and wax lyrical about the 'sh!t blonde kid at Melbourne', the 'sissy', the 'woman in number 4.'

Every year he shows us what he can do and then spasmodically reverts back to inconsistency and underperformance. It is entirely unfair to say his 115 games are largely unearned.

[Moonshadow 16,109]

49 minutes ago, rpfc said:

No he hasn't.

He was gifted games early.

But he has been 'breaking out' and 'turning the corner' since 2011...

We have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to this bloke. And we listen to our mates who support other teams who circle jerk with each other and wax lyrical about the 'sh!t blonde kid at Melbourne', the 'sissy', the 'woman in number 4.'

Every year he shows us what he can do and then spasmodically reverts back to inconsistency and underperformance. It is entirely unfair to say his 115 games are largely unearned.

Speak for yourself rpfc.

I'll agree to disagree. I think he played some reasonable games last year and a handful before that. IMO the majority of his games have been sub-AFL level and yes, gifted.

Having said that, he appears to be playing some good football. Big guys often take time, and I look forward to seeing him play consistent good footy in 2016 and beyond. But it's only round 1, so forgive me for not joining in in the "circle jerk" praise on this thread just yet.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Moonshadow

[jumbo returns 6,484]

'Gifted' games under several coaching regimes that couldn't beat an egg.

 

[Nasher 33,047]

53 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

I'll agree to disagree. I think he played some reasonable games last year and a handful before that. IMO the majority of his games have been sub-AFL level and yes, gifted.

Who would you have played instead for the games he was gifted?

[Moonshadow 16,109]

48 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Who would you have played instead for the games he was gifted?

I normally wouldn't buy into the 'name who would have taken his place' palava, as we gifted many games to many players that were sub AFL level at the time. Jack played many weeks where his form was undeserving of a game. That's what I call gifted.

However, in order to please your moderating demand for a name, I'd say Stefan Martin should've got more games for us. He was running around in the twos and then shunted off for peanuts at a time when Watts was playing at his poorest. Has become an athletic and versatile big man at Brisbane, albeit different size and skill set to Watts. Martin showed form with us in the backline, the ruck and could take marks in the forward line. Don't jump to the conclusion that I consider Martin better than Watts or that I do not think Watts is playing well now. This is not a comparison or ranking, simply a player that should've got games for Melbourne at a time when others should not have. As you asked.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Moonshadow

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

5 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

I normally wouldn't buy into the 'name who would have taken his place' palava, as we gifted many games to many players that were sub AFL level at the time. Jack played many weeks where his form was undeserving of a game. That's what I call gifted.

However, in order to please your moderating demand for a name, I'd say Stefan Martin should've got more games for us. He was running around in the twos for us and then shunted off for peanuts at a time when Watts was playing at his poorest. Has become an athletic and versatile big man at Brisbane, albeit different size and skill set to Watts. Martin showed form with us in the backline, the ruck and could take marks in the forward line. Don't jump to the conclusion that I consider Martin better than Watts or that I do not think Watts is playing well now. This is not a comparison or ranking, simply a player that should've got games for Melbourne at a time when others should not have. As you asked.

he was useless at the time and nobody was calling for his selection, nor would he have traded spots with Watts anyway

given that's the only name you could produce you have proven his point

[Nasher 33,047]

1 minute ago, Moonshadow said:

I normally wouldn't buy into the 'name who would have taken his place' palava, as we gifted many games to many players that were sub AFL level at the time. Jack played many weeks where his form was undeserving of a game. That's what I call gifted.

It's a pretty loose definition of "gifted".  For him to have not deserved it, in my mind, there has to be someone to have equally deserved a run and not got it for the equation to balance.  He may have been the best of a bad lot; the best of a bad lot is nonetheless still the best.

If your argument is that Stefan Martin should have played as a forward instead of Watts, then I'm pretty comfortable that your argument is shot.  Firstly in the majority of games Martin played for Melbourne, Watts also played, so you could hardly say they were competing.  Secondly, Martin was bloody hopeless as a forward and that's why he was moved on. He needed to be a first ruck.

[rpfc 27,391]

7 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

I normally wouldn't buy into the 'name who would have taken his place' palava, as we gifted many games to many players that were sub AFL level at the time. Jack played many weeks where his form was undeserving of a game. That's what I call gifted.

However, in order to please your moderating demand for a name, I'd say Stefan Martin should've got more games for us. He was running around in the twos for us and then shunted off for peanuts at a time when Watts was playing at his poorest. Has become an athletic and versatile big man at Brisbane, albeit different size and skill set to Watts. Martin showed form with us in the backline, the ruck and could take marks in the forward line. Don't jump to the conclusion that I consider Martin better than Watts or that I do not think Watts is playing well now. This is not a comparison or ranking, simply a player that should've got games for Melbourne at a time when others should not have. As you asked.

Should not have bothered going down that rabbit hole.

He was gifted games in 09 and 10 and has been inconsistent and survived playing VFL off and on for a few years after that. But he has earned every game for a few years now, and was shown he had to in Round 23 last year.

[Moonshadow 16,109]

58 minutes ago, Nasher said:

It's a pretty loose definition of "gifted".  For him to have not deserved it, in my mind, there has to be someone to have equally deserved a run and not got it for the equation to balance.  He may have been the best of a bad lot; the best of a bad lot is nonetheless still the best.

If your argument is that Stefan Martin should have played as a forward instead of Watts, then I'm pretty comfortable that your argument is shot.  Firstly in the majority of games Martin played for Melbourne, Watts also played, so you could hardly say they were competing.  Secondly, Martin was bloody hopeless as a forward and that's why he was moved on. He needed to be a first ruck.

Nice selective editing in my quote. I was specifically not comparing or ranking them. You asked who should've got games rather than being gifted games like Watts. Martin played a lot of games in the two's whilst Watts rarely played there. They were at Melbourne at the same time, so obviously he played alongside Watts for the Dees.

Second, You'll note that I was referring to gifted meaning his form was undererving of an AFL games, not as in an equation that needs an alternative. That's your definition Nasher. When a guy consistently played as poorly as Jack did for countless weeks and still got a game, that's being gifted. Pretty clear definition I'd say.

Third, you are mistaken, my arguement was not that Martin should have got games in the forward line instead of Watts. That's your words, not mine. At the time, Watts played a considerable number of games in the backline, in the centre and wing, as a sub, even as a second ruck and yes, in the forward line. Martin played well for us as a backman, as a solo ruck but not much in the forward line before being traded. It is naive to think he was moved on because he was a hopeless forward, there was more to it than that (hi Mitch Clark). Martin was not useless, as Curry has blurted, and has proven so at Brisbane, where he regularly rests forward and even kicks goals. FCS he won a B&F and wasn't far from AA contention at one point.

Finally, and I'll end on this note, because this is going around in circles and I'm sure you and others will reply, I repeat that I like Jack's form this year, believe he may have turned the corner and hope he re-signs. I have enjoyed watching him so far in 2016 and look forward to a truly breakout year, as would everyone else. On that we can agree I hope.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Moonshadow

[rpfc 27,391]

You should have stuck to the 'not many players at the MFC have had to earn games these last ten years' argument. Not mention Martin at all.

And that argument is fundamentally true. We have not had a list capable of keeping players honest. But that is not the fault of Watts, it is the fault of the club. You have to pick 22 every week.

But to say that Watts has played what 70-80 'unearned' games is unfair to the bloke and the up and down seasons he has had. 

He didn't suddenly flick a switch for his solid two months last year, he has played about half a dozen good games every year for the past half decade. Except he doesn't back it up in the subsequent games he earns with those performances. 

Maybe we should go through the archives and collect all the selection threads and use the subjective judgment of Land to see how many he earned?

[TGR 1,367]

Sitting in the MFC crowd over the past few years, I thought his name was "Get off", rather than "Jack".

 

The last people to complain about this guy hanging on and waiting for his pound of flesh should be the majority of supporters that had a real go at him.

 

 

Watts has got to be the most mentally toughest footballer to withstand the scrutiny externally (other supporters and media) and internally.  I raised Tom Hawkins as an example of a big guy who did nothing for his first 5 years.  Hawkins had less expectation and scrutiny, but had much better support and delivery.

 

 

Get what you can big Jack.  You will deserve every cent after copping your whack from quarter-wits who barrack for Melbourne and half-wits that dont.

 

 

 

Having said that, balance will be restored in the force, when Watts stands up on GF day with a medal around his neck in the rednblue no.4...in front of the MCC.  The curse will finally be laid to rest.

[thevil1 421]

We had soo many players undeserving of afl games the last 10 years prior to this year it's not funny. Arguing semantics about being 'gifted' games is ridiculous. We now have an afl list. 30 players turned over since Roos arrived and only now in year 3 do we have some depth. Those are the facts.

[Undeeterred 2,816]

6 hours ago, TGR said:

Sitting in the MFC crowd over the past few years, I thought his name was "Get off", rather than "Jack".

 

The last people to complain about this guy hanging on and waiting for his pound of flesh should be the majority of supporters that had a real go at him.

 

 

Watts has got to be the most mentally toughest footballer to withstand the scrutiny externally (other supporters and media) and internally.  I raised Tom Hawkins as an example of a big guy who did nothing for his first 5 years.  Hawkins had less expectation and scrutiny, but had much better support and delivery.

 

 

Get what you can big Jack.  You will deserve every cent after copping your whack from quarter-wits who barrack for Melbourne and half-wits that dont.

 

 

 

Having said that, balance will be restored in the force, when Watts stands up on GF day with a medal around his neck in the rednblue no.4...in front of the MCC.  The curse will finally be laid to rest.

I've been saying this for a couple of weeks now. It's infuriating how many people are stick kicking him while covering their post with 'oh, but I'm really enjoying watching him this year'. Then following it up with another whack.

[Undeeterred 2,816]

8 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Nice selective editing in my quote. I was specifically not comparing or ranking them. You asked who should've got games rather than being gifted games like Watts. Martin played a lot of games in the two's whilst Watts rarely played there. They were at Melbourne at the same time, so obviously he played alongside Watts for the Dees.

Second, You'll note that I was referring to gifted meaning his form was undererving of an AFL games, not as in an equation that needs an alternative. That's your definition Nasher. When a guy consistently played as poorly as Jack did for countless weeks and still got a game, that's being gifted. Pretty clear definition I'd say.

Third, you are mistaken, my arguement was not that Martin should have got games in the forward line instead of Watts. That's your words, not mine. At the time, Watts played a considerable number of games in the backline, in the centre and wing, as a sub, even as a second ruck and yes, in the forward line. Martin played well for us as a backman, as a solo ruck but not much in the forward line before being traded. It is naive to think he was moved on because he was a hopeless forward, there was more to it than that (hi Mitch Clark). Martin was not useless, as Curry has blurted, and has proven so at Brisbane, where he regularly rests forward and even kicks goals. FCS he won a B&F and wasn't far from AA contention at one point.

Finally, and I'll end on this note, because this is going around in circles and I'm sure you and others will reply, I repeat that I like Jack's form this year, believe he may have turned the corner and hope he re-signs. I have enjoyed watching him so far in 2016 and look forward to a truly breakout year, as would everyone else. On that we can agree I hope.

This is the fundamental problem with your argument in my book. Nasher has already pointed out why, but your definition of 'gifted' is off. You're not being gifted games if you're best 22 every week.

[stuie 7,374]

9 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

at Brisbane, where he regularly rests forward and even kicks goals. FCS he won a B&F and wasn't far from AA contention at one point.

There's your answer right there champ....

 

[CBDees 3,162]

The only Melbourne player to get a gig in the AFL "team of the week", and there are still Demonlanders prepared to question his value to our team!

Edited March 31, 2016 by CBDees

[nutbean 8,837]

22 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

He has been gifted 100 games at senior AFL level. Melbourne have had many players gifted games that shouldn't have played at AFL level. None that I can recall were gifted as many as Jack. His first 100 are comparable in form to Josh Fraser's first 100, a fellow high draft pick. Let's hope his next century isn't similar and he has finally turned the corner. I like how he's played so far this season and hope he re-signs, but I'm aware of his past form. 

I agree he's been inconsistent, frustrating and underperformed. The rest are simply excuses. 

This is where the argument falls over for me.

I believe you are setting a different standard for Watts ( and Fraser) because they were high draft picks. I suspect the counter argument is that they were gifted games because they were high draft picks.

I tend to agree that Watts had his moments over his career that have been mouth watering and then large doses of inconsistency. 

The most relevant argument for me is who would you have replaced him with. We have been bereft of footballers kicking off the dew at Casey that have been busting the door down to get a game. We have not had enough pressure from Casey footballers to lift the 22 playing for the MFC to higher standards. There is no one i can think off that was hard done by ( in recent years) by gifting games to others. (I don't buy Stef Martin - his main flaw with us is he could not string long blocks of games together without injuring himself.) 

[Gator 16,891]

All early picks are gifted games, because it's the only way they'll develop.  Pick 60 earns a game and pick 5 might get some before they're warranted. 

Most of us realised long ago that he'll never be the player we envisaged and hoped for, but if he plays every game as he did in round one I'll be delighted, because it's a new level and one I wasn't expecting.  He's certainly not being gifted games now. 

That said, I probably differ with some in that his current output is a minimum requirement.   Others seem to be doing cartwheels.  I suppose that comes with 8 years of disappointment.