Jump to content


  •  

Trade Jack Watts or not?  

471 members have voted

  1. 1. Do we trade Jack Watts?

    • Yes.
      140
    • No.
      309


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

You said he was going to Port a few hours ago.

yes, that was my opinion at the time. I was only informed about the rest tonight. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sargent Shultz said:

For those out in Demonland who think trading Watts for a high 20's pick- here's some name for you. In the last 10 years the players that went at 28 and the games they played:

  • 2007 Marlan Motlop - 0
  • 2008 Shaun McKernon - 52
  • 2009 Mitch Duncan - 159
  • 2010 Ryan Lester - 102
  • 2011 Fraser McInnes - 11
  • 2012 Tim Obrien - 34
  • 2013 Lewis Taylor - 85
  • 2014 Dillon Viojo - Rainbow - 0
  • 2015 Luke Partington - 6

Hardly a whos who of AFL

Another interesting fact for those that think Watts was not a good get (i admit he went too high at no1). Of the top 20 draft picks in Jack's year he has played the 6th highest number of games.

I am yet again in "the confusion room" 

Why trade a 150 game player with elite skills for a roll of the dice in the draft? What if we get a Marlan Motlop????

 

Watts value and rated ability is evident by what the other teams are willing to pay for him an offer of 29 tells me is that they rate him as a speculative pick up which your stats above show.

Us on demonland tend to over rate our own, to everyone out side the demonland bubble Watts is a joke of a player and will be no great loss to us if and when he goes

Edited by Garbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sargent Shultz said:

Actually, Jason Taylor joined in 2013 and improved our recruiting- but I guess you knew that 

Yeah exactly - I noticed you conveniently left out some another pick taken in that draft that turned out pretty well for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nosoupforme said:

Maybe , he would have finished higher with a better preseason however he might have come back a bit quicker from his hammy.  JW was on the sidelines for a good 4 to 5 weeks.

Some critics of Watts, who play down his 6th after round 14 in the bluey, also conveniently overlook the fact that he played much of the time in the ruck.  And he ain't no ruckman.  For him to be 6th after round 14 is the equivalent to anyone outside a dedicated ruckman being in the top 2 or 3 to that point, were he played in his more suited non-rucking roles prior to the injury.

There's some serious gilding of the lilly going on when it comes to his performance up to the injury both on here and within the FD it would seem.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Some critics of Watts, who play down his 6th after round 14 in the bluey, also conveniently overlook the fact that he played much of the time in the ruck.  And he ain't no ruckman.  For him to be 6th after round 14 is the equivalent to anyone outside a dedicated ruckman being in the top 2 or 3 to that point, were he played in his more suited non-rucking roles prior to the injury.

There's some serious gilding of the lilly going on when it comes to his performance up to the injury both on here and within the FD it would seem.

I think he was 6th because he had rucked. Not so much the 2 games where Gawn and Spencer got injured and he had to hold down the number 1 job but in other games where he was pinch hitting.

Shaun Grigg, premiership 2nd ruckman.

Time spent in the ruck allowed Watts to get some very nice possessions playing on a slow taller opponent. He could run around freely and use the ball well. 

He's not a key forward - he gets monstered by good defenders
He's not an outside mid, doesn't have the tank
He's not an inside mid, doesn't win contested ground balls
He's certainly not a defender - Neeld tried that long enough

Playing as a 2nd string ruckman allowed him easy possessions from which he could be super damaging - see the goal against Geelong which was superb. 

The ruck role helped craft a position for him when his free roaming forward play wasn't contributing.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Some critics of Watts, who play down his 6th after round 14 in the bluey, also conveniently overlook the fact that he played much of the time in the ruck.  And he ain't no ruckman.  For him to be 6th after round 14 is the equivalent to anyone outside a dedicated ruckman being in the top 2 or 3 to that point, were he played in his more suited non-rucking roles prior to the injury.

There's some serious gilding of the lilly going on when it comes to his performance up to the injury both on here and within the FD it would seem.

And of course l thought of his ruck work as well. However to explain it as well as you have , l commend you. 

I hope this piece you have written is looked at by the JW critics.  Again WELL SAID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Some critics of Watts, who play down his 6th after round 14 in the bluey, also conveniently overlook the fact that he played much of the time in the ruck.  And he ain't no ruckman.  For him to be 6th after round 14 is the equivalent to anyone outside a dedicated ruckman being in the top 2 or 3 to that point, were he played in his more suited non-rucking roles prior to the injury.

There's some serious gilding of the lilly going on when it comes to his performance up to the injury both on here and within the FD it would seem.

Sorry, this has been repeated over and over again. During the Bluey thread someone suggested they thought they saw him siting sixth. At the time, I thought I saw the leaderboard showing him on the third line making him 11th (maybe). Does anyone have any concrete evidence of this 6th after round 14 claim or is this another example of a mistake or untruth being repeated so many time that posters start to accept it as given?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Die Hard Demon said:

Watts was initially told some hard truths in his exit meeting, which he did not agree with. The club (which we know) asked him to explore his options if he was not willing to change his habits. Watts was filthy initially but has not nominated a club of choice because he’s not sure he wants to go.

The club is now believing he is a 60/40 chance to stay. If he does go, it won’t be for nothing. 

Sums up in one place what we already more or less knew.

Next few days could be interesting. With Geelong out, it really only leaves him with interstate options which apparently he's not all that keen on (understandably).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beetle said:

We gave Essendon pick 29 for Hibberd, so 29 for Watts in comparison is like winning Super 66.

Every chance it could end up as the steak knives in the lever trade which again, does not seem adequate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dee tention said:

AFL website saying Melbourne would accept Power's Pick 29...

Surely that is a load of boloney!

 

If we can package 2 or 3 second rounders together for a first rounder, I'd suggest this might be our strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Doesn't matter, JW at his best can't be categorised. He's like a lesser Adam Goodes. Just put him anywhere on the ground and let him do good things.

I've read this before on this thread and it's still just as comical. You're comparing an underachieving talented third tall with a legend of the game. It doesn't get any more absurd than that... then again, we've had some beauties in this thread.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me Watts for 29 should be the breaking point. If we can’t get that done then I say we keep him, though I can also envisage a complex swap of lower picks to get it over the line. 

But for me this is basically fair, we rate him higher than other clubs but to be fair he’s played one and a half really good seasons (2016 and first half ‘17). The rest have been very up and down (and I’m a fan). 

He could well become a better player at another club, or he could go a similar way as Col Sylvia (though not as bad). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 5:27 AM, At the break of Gawn said:

Anyone listen to Roos on MMM around midday? He said that Watts was given no indication in the exit interview that he was going to be traded. Apparently the exit interview went ok (not great) but he certainly didn't think it was leading to a trade. If true, then that's poor transparency from Goodwin on that front. 

Sounds to me like a either a lack of preparation on Goody's behalf or that he perhaps shied away from the contest? Tsk-tsk.

Edited by Skuit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sargent Shultz said:

Mind you MFC has a great track record at the draft- pick number and games played

here is a stellar line up:

  • 2007 Cale Morton pick 4-  76 games
  • 2008 Sam Blease 17 - 34 games
  • 2008 James Stauss 19 - 24 games
  • 2009 Jordan Gysberts 11- 19 games
  • 2010 Lucas Cook 12 - 0 games
  • 2011 Rory Taggert 36 - 0 games
  • 2012 Jimmy Toumpas 4 -37 games 
  • 2013 Christan Salem 9 -46 games 
  • 2014 on we seem to be getting better

Jesus what? Cale Morton was a 76 game veteran with the MFC and we traded him out for a packet of stale chips!? A first-rounder with a smooth boot and so much latent talent - no wonder our club nearly tore itself apart shortly after. I'm sure that with just another five years or so on the list Cale would have been on the verge of cracking a top-20 finish in the Bluey.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Sounds to me like a either a lack of preparation on Goody's behalf or that he perhaps shied away from the contest?

Or that a) it's BS or b) at that stage they were still working through list decisions.

Post a little earlier was pretty clear on exactly what happened at the exit interview, and what Watts was told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Or that a) it's BS or b) at that stage they were still working through list decisions.

Post a little earlier was pretty clear on exactly what happened at the exit interview, and what Watts was told.

I'm going with all of a) and a fair dose of b) for a a full B.A. conclusion. Image result for b a baracus

 

 

Edited by Skuit
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I think he was 6th because he had rucked. Not so much the 2 games where Gawn and Spencer got injured and he had to hold down the number 1 job but in other games where he was pinch hitting.

Shaun Grigg, premiership 2nd ruckman.

Time spent in the ruck allowed Watts to get some very nice possessions playing on a slow taller opponent. He could run around freely and use the ball well. 

He's not a key forward - he gets monstered by good defenders
He's not an outside mid, doesn't have the tank
He's not an inside mid, doesn't win contested ground balls
He's certainly not a defender - Neeld tried that long enough

Playing as a 2nd string ruckman allowed him easy possessions from which he could be super damaging - see the goal against Geelong which was superb. 

The ruck role helped craft a position for him when his free roaming forward play wasn't contributing.

I can't recall Grigg impacting in any way in any ruck duties during the finals series DS.  Not sure how that has any relevance here.  Certainly didn't impact any hit outs .... 0 Hit Outs.

There are no easy possessions playing in the middle anymore in AFL unless you were on the end of a few Sandy taps I would think.  Run around freely and receive the ball from his own taps or??  So there were no other opponents around him putting pressure on DS?  You know, duds like Danger and Selwood?

Watts was always going to be a 2nd or 3rd string forward.  He usually played ok when he wasn't played out of that and others like Hulk or bulkier Pedo were on the park and playing there and drawing the 1st / or sometimes 2nd string defender.   your first argument is a furphy.

Your second, I've seen him play nicely as a sweeper or winger if you like.  His tank was questionable early but he didn't need a super one anyway as his sublime evasive skills, and delivery of the pill and quick thinking allowed him to more often than not hit up the next target quickly.  The fact that he is No.2 in the AFL for hitting targets coming inside 50 means he must have been doing something right on the outside.  Please direct your gaze to others who should be doing more of this finishing even though they get quite a bit of the pill on the outside but either can't get away as too slow off the mark, or are too slow in making decisions and executing and get caught much of the time anyway or worse, can't even hit targets (or the goals) on a consistent AFL level basis and may have more of it but often do less or just turn it straight back over to the opp.  Wattsy's career DE is running at about 76%, approx 3% above the AFL team average and about 10% to 12% higher than some of our try hard hacks like ANB and Too Slow.

He was never drafted as an inside mid from what I can recall.

He certainly isn't capable of holding down a Key defensive role if that's what you are suggesting, and was probably only decent playing the loose sweeper.  On that I will happily agree with you and highlight that early on he certainly didn't have the tank or physicality (or intent!?) to carry out such a role, and probably also didn't have this in any forward capacity either and was rightly derided for it after he had enough time to be doing so, from about year 4 onwards.  He did improve in this area somewhat in the last 2 or 3 seasons though IMO.  To say he had no tank, please review some of his earlier matches, including the Geelong match this year.  If he had no tank he would not have impacted any of these, nor kicked the winning goal on QB late in the last quarter, where he spread well in order to get the pill initially and still had enough toe to keep space on his opponent, summed up the situation beautifully,  and then steadied and kicked accurately.  Exactly the finish required in any big game, and our biggest of the year.

P.S. The only designated forward (role) player, who happened to play much of the match in the ruck against the cats, who was able to kick accurately (ie, more goals than points) against the cats in that match in one of the worst "yip" (kicking for goal) matches I have ever seen any team have at AFL / VFL level that day was ... one  Mr J Watts with 2 goals 1 behind.

Edited by Rusty Nails
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bing181 said:

Or that a) it's BS or b) at that stage they were still working through list decisions.

Post a little earlier was pretty clear on exactly what happened at the exit interview, and what Watts was told.

Also, I doubt that story came to Roos through our footy department. So it came from the Watts' camp. Which probably means Jack just wasn't listening closely enough. Which is probably the very same reason we all find ourselves here today.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless we get a young future champ like a zac jones type forget it( if Jack succumbed to being pushed out ) shuffle  of picks may be required but there is the value in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, A F said:

I've read this before on this thread and it's still just as comical. You're comparing an underachieving talented third tall with a legend of the game. It doesn't get any more absurd than that... then again, we've had some beauties in this thread.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm doing. Good to see your reading comprehension is up to snuff. Now, see if you can work on your interpreting context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Watts had his head firmly up where the sun doesn't shine on some of these issues, the home truths in his exit interview shouldn't have been such a surprise to him.

It still wreaks of being poorly handled.

That said, I suspect the club may have sought to curtail his lifestyle going forward (pre-season and beyond), something that he is not wishing to do in circumstances where he possibly think his on-field performance has been good enough.

No evidence though. Just a gut feel.

Since that time, Watts has had to decide whether he wants to be great. At the MFC. Or elsewhere.

 

Edited by Ron Burgundy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Spook the magpie said:

Will end up at Port 

 

Out Watts and a late pick

in pick 30 and Lobbe 

Is that what someone has told you or what you think will happen?  News today that we're one of the clubs circling Zac Clarke so it would make sense we're after a back up ruck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A F said:

If we can package 2 or 3 second rounders together for a first rounder, I'd suggest this might be our strategy.

Brisbane and Gold Coast have academy picks which will both go around the pick 10-13 mark.

Pick 27 = 703 points

Pick 29 = 653 points

Total = 1356 points.

Based purely on those two picks combined, we would equal between pick 10 and 11.

Pick 11= 1329 points

Just have to make it worth the other teams time. Probably throw in a later pick for free.

Edit: also need to consider the discount clubs receive for academy picks.

Also.... Brisbane currently have pick 12

Edited by BAMF
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of opinions on here, to paraphrase an old saying I doubt Jack is as good or bad as many on here are making him out to be.

It tends  to remind me of the current US President - people aren't interested in the truth as much as they are in confirmation bias.  It's why Fake News keeps getting a run.  It's the most simplistic form of counter-narrative*.   You don't need to worry about tiresome tasks like researching or thinking to refute arguments based on evidence and logic. You simply label something as being incompatible with what you choose to believe.  It will usually strike a chord with a certain number of people who I'd like to think are the vocal minority, because fear is a greater driver than hope. 

 

 

* other than the age old 'I know you are, but what am I?' rebuttal.

Edited by grazman
  • Like 7
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×