Jack Watts out of contract at the end of the year

[Rosso 59]

A bit of perspective.....

After 9 AFL games Nick Riewoldt had had 63 kicks, 23 Handballs, 41 Marks and had kicked 3.4.

After 9 AFL games Jonathan Brown had had 41 Kicks, 20 Handballs, 26 Marks and had kicked 2.0

After 9 AFL games Jack Watts has had 51 Kicks, 43 Handballs, 29 Marks and has kicked 6.3

Give him a break people...

I say offer him a decent upgrade, with strong incentives around key performance indicators

[Red Sox 2]

Kernahan being established by 22 is exactly my point. He was a star at 19 in the SANFL and kicked 10 in a match winning display for SA against the Vics, before making the cross to Carlton the following year. He won Glenelg's B&F in 1983 at 19, and followed it up winning in 1984 and 1985 - 3 straight. He topped the Magarey Medal as a 19 year old in 1983, but was ineligible to win it. What a pity he didn't have McLure as a chop out while he was in SA.

Dunstall was a really good player at 21 kicking 77 goals.

At 18 Lockett kicked 77 goals and followed it up with 79 at 19.

Carey kicked 39 goals from CHF as a 19 year old, including a bag of 7 - 8 marks and 22 possessions. In that year as a 19 year old Carey represented NSW in State of Origin and came runner up in the B&F. So Carey can talk all he likes about his slow start, but he was very much a key player at 19 - his second year.

Lloyd kicked 63 goals as a 19 year old. By the time he was 22 ke kicked 100.

Franklin kicked 100 goals as a 21 year old.

Brereton kicked 50 goals from CHF as a 20 year old in 1984. He was aggressive towards the footy from the beginning.

As far as chop outs go, Kernahan would have been as good without McLure, Brereton as good with Gladys, Carey as good without Longmire, and Lloyd without Salmon and Lucas. They were stars because they were stars. There would have been other players fill the breach. Stop looking at excuses and just acknowledge the quality of those players at a young age.

The facts are that all of those players were stars, or well on the way, by the age of 20/21; some earlier. Watts will be rewriting the record books if it takes him until the age of 23 to show the signs that the others showed at a much earlier age. Watts will be 20 for the bulk of 2011 and 21 for 2012. I hope that in that time he shows enough to suggest that he's an AFL star in the making. If he doesn't he won't become one.

Next year is pivotal. Or, we can just keep making excuses.

I agree with most of your points Hannabal and would agree next year is going to be very pivotal. Not the be all and end all (Goddard and Hodge took 3 years plus and today are two players I enjoy watching more than most)I do agree that it is pivotal and that some genuine signs emerge.

I will add the excuse though that guys like Kernahan, Lockett, Carey, Brereton, Dunstall were MEN in a different era, Jono Brown is probably the last of that kind of breed. The KIDS today are different specimens to what those guys were, especially the Key Position Players. Guys like Gumbleton, Cloke, Hansen, Kennedy, Watts, Nic Nat etc etc are in a different world both from a football perspective and a world perspective. Lockett could well not even be picked up in today's game as crazy as that sounds!!

3 or 4 of those MEN could easily be included amongst the 10 best players to have ever played the game and as much as I would love to see Jack included in that category at the end of his career, do you draft on the hope that he is in the 10 best that have ever played? I think in some ways it is a tough comparison to make.

If he were to be in the 50 best players of all time at the end then I would suspect we would be pretty happy?

[dee-luded 2,959]

He'd certainly make a good point guard in Basketball. That's my observation of Watts, when an opponent close by has the ball. Jack has a tendancy to corrale the opponent, as if he is about to attempt a "steal", then realising he's playing footy and a tackle is required.

Truth is - and I'm stating the obvious really - Jack has much to work on. He may even well be a late maturer. At 196cm he is (and will be) coming to terms with the game itself as well as his developing body.

Fans want him to be something NOW, reality check, it's not going to happen overnight, nor this year or maybe the next. Neither is the consistent performance of our team for that matter.

Once he understands his body and requirements of his position to the team alot better, we'll see him contest more often in the air when he gains more confidence. We'll see a harder edge.

OBSERVATION # 6078.

As for losing his feet. Like Watts, I saw Scully go to ground along with a few others from Melbourne. I'm not certain whether the players wore screw ins or moulded, but I know Adelaide had wet weather in the four days proceeding yesterday's game. This is a big bug bear of mine. The players (and coaching staff for that matter) should know a hell of alot better with regard to the conditions of the ground. They were slipping over as if they were playing on an ice skating rink yesterday. Making wrong decisions like these are 1/costly and 2/unforgiveable !

At this point, with his gangly legs & unco nervous way around the field, I'd rather he have mouldeds on & slip occasionally, than to have someone crash through those twigs whilst he's planted to the ground.

When he starts to look & feel more natural out there maybe the time to start him in longer stops.

[warren dean 193]

Kernahan being established by 22 is exactly my point. He was a star at 19 in the SANFL and kicked 10 in a match winning display for SA against the Vics, before making the cross to Carlton the following year. He won Glenelg's B&F in 1983 at 19, and followed it up winning in 1984 and 1985 - 3 straight. He topped the Magarey Medal as a 19 year old in 1983, but was ineligible to win it. What a pity he didn't have McLure as a chop out while he was in SA.

Dunstall was a really good player at 21 kicking 77 goals.

At 18 Lockett kicked 77 goals and followed it up with 79 at 19.

Carey kicked 39 goals from CHF as a 19 year old, including a bag of 7 - 8 marks and 22 possessions. In that year as a 19 year old Carey represented NSW in State of Origin and came runner up in the B&F. So Carey can talk all he likes about his slow start, but he was very much a key player at 19 - his second year.

Lloyd kicked 63 goals as a 19 year old. By the time he was 22 ke kicked 100.

Franklin kicked 100 goals as a 21 year old.

Brereton kicked 50 goals from CHF as a 20 year old in 1984. He was aggressive towards the footy from the beginning.

As far as chop outs go, Kernahan would have been as good without McLure, Brereton as good with Gladys, Carey as good without Longmire, and Lloyd without Salmon and Lucas. They were stars because they were stars. There would have been other players fill the breach. Stop looking at excuses and just acknowledge the quality of those players at a young age.

The facts are that all of those players were stars, or well on the way, by the age of 20/21; some earlier. Watts will be rewriting the record books if it takes him until the age of 23 to show the signs that the others showed at a much earlier age. Watts will be 20 for the bulk of 2011 and 21 for 2012. I hope that in that time he shows enough to suggest that he's an AFL star in the making. If he doesn't he won't become one.

Next year is pivotal. Or, we can just keep making excuses.

I'm not about excuses here Hannabal, just perspective. I'll let you pull up the figures for the first 9 games of each of the aforementioned and bear in mind that all but Carey, Lockett and Reiwoldt were starting their careers in strong teams. I am agreeing with you that he hasn't shown as much as we all would have liked or hoped for but I'm prepared to wait until he's 21 before passing judgement - that's 2012. This might also be an age versus experience debate as well. By 21 most of these guys were well over 50 games. If Watts plays every game between now and the start of 2012 he'll be around 40 games. Hopefully within those 40 he'll have a few rippers.

Edited June 29, 2010 by warren dean

[Grandson of a gun 276]

Very astute Enforcer and I'm amazed that your post has been ignored.

I'm currently training for an ironman triathlon and a big part of my sessions are geared around building my core strength, and it's not until now that I realise how much work is needed to do it effectively. Looking at Watts when he joined Melbourne it's also not hard to realise that his core strength was seriously lacking, it also explains why he's having difficulties holding his ground against the bigger guys. Next year with a more solid frame and greater core strength he'll be much better.

Having said that I'm still slightly disappointed in his performance halfway through his second year. Not so much the number of touches he's averaging, that doesn't bother me at all, just the way he looks out on the ground. Should you take a development player with the first pick? That's a question for another time but it's still a fair question to ask, but I'm still in the half glass full camp with Watts.

This kid is also obviously down on confidence.

Good post. Reckon you are right on both fronts- core strength and confidence.

Cheers Jarka.

I guess you've just made me realize why I put so much importance on having a strong core.

I never did until I built up my own and I now know how much of a difference it makes for my running and my footy.

Yeah i got it round the wrong way and went for outer core strength..........can't see the old fella now!!!!!!

I saw Watts play numerous times in the flesh when he was still playing juniors. Perhaps I was seduced by his height, pace, agility, clean hands, beautiful kicking off both sides, decision making, etc, and just thought that it would seamlessly translate to the AFL once he found his feet. I mean, he's a beautiful looking footballer. But there are intangible ingredients that make up the composition of a 'star', and I may have pulled the trigger too early in my estimations. From what I've seen, there are no guarantees Watts will become a 'star'. At worst I think he'll become a good AFL player, but that will be a big disappointment to me. The club needed a bona fide 'star' when they drafted him. I hope he delivers.

Perhaps in addition to this is the Watson factor....

Dominating as a junior and never having to really work hard to be good. Then coming into a comp where nothing is given to you and you have to constantly push yourself and he is only now learning that...

[warren dean 193]

I agree with most of your points Hannabal and would agree next year is going to be very pivotal. Not the be all and end all (Goddard and Hodge took 3 years plus and today are two players I enjoy watching more than most)I do agree that it is pivotal and that some genuine signs emerge.

I will add the excuse though that guys like Kernahan, Lockett, Carey, Brereton, Dunstall were MEN in a different era, Jono Brown is probably the last of that kind of breed. The KIDS today are different specimens to what those guys were, especially the Key Position Players. Guys like Gumbleton, Cloke, Hansen, Kennedy, Watts, Nic Nat etc etc are in a different world both from a football perspective and a world perspective. Lockett could well not even be picked up in today's game as crazy as that sounds!!

3 or 4 of those MEN could easily be included amongst the 10 best players to have ever played the game and as much as I would love to see Jack included in that category at the end of his career, do you draft on the hope that he is in the 10 best that have ever played? I think in some ways it is a tough comparison to make.

If he were to be in the 50 best players of all time at the end then I would suspect we would be pretty happy?

Spot on DJ 16.

[Guest The Boss]

He'll get about $400,000 for 2 years imo.

That's a lot of money for a VFL player!

[Hannabal 4]

I will add the excuse though that guys like Kernahan, Lockett, Carey, Brereton, Dunstall were MEN in a different era, Jono Brown is probably the last of that kind of breed. The KIDS today are different specimens to what those guys were, especially the Key Position Players. Guys like Gumbleton, Cloke, Hansen, Kennedy, Watts, Nic Nat etc etc are in a different world both from a football perspective and a world perspective. Lockett could well not even be picked up in today's game as crazy as that sounds!!

And I'd simply argue that none of the players you mention are going to be "stars of the game", which is the crux of my point. Brereton and Carey weren't "men" when they started, they were skinny teenagers. Lloyd and Nick Riewoldt weren't "men" and nor was Buddy. Fraser Gehrig, Alistair Lynch, David Neitz, Fevola and Barry Hall were relatively late bloomers as key forwards and certainly more at odds with my theory, but they were also a rung below the best key forwards of other eras, so, below what I was hoping Watts would become.

The competition is certainly ready for its next star key forward and probably overdue, but I don't see a genuine star in "Gumbleton, Cloke, Hansen, Kennedy, Nic Nat etc etc". It will be interesting to see how Jack Riewoldt develops, but I doubt he'll become top shelf.

Lockett had great pace over the first 10 metres and it would hold him in good stead in any era. Although he wouldn't have been allowed to get so big in today's running game.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Hannabal

[Red Sox 2]

And I'd simply argue that none of the players you mention are going to be "stars of the game", which is the crux of my point. Brereton and Carey weren't "men" when they started, they were skinny teenagers. Lloyd and Nick Riewoldt weren't "men" and nor was Buddy. Fraser Gehrig, Alistair Lynch, David Neitz, Fevola and Barry Hall were relatively late bloomers as key forwards and certainly more at odds with my theory, but they were also a rung below the best key forwards of other eras, so, below what I was hoping Watts would become.

The competition is certainly ready for its next star key forward and probably overdue, but I don't see a genuine star in "Gumbleton, Cloke, Hansen, Kennedy, Nic Nat etc etc". It will be interesting to see how Jack Riewoldt develops, but I doubt he'll become top shelf.

Lockett had great pace over the first 10 metres and it would hold him in good stead in any era. Although he wouldn't have been allowed to get so big in today's running game.

I'll turn you yet Hannabal into seeing that Jack will be a star! I agree the bunch of key forwards named wont be all time stars of the game. Riewoldt and Naitanui aside none are likely to be SUPERstars of today. Many are athletes as opposed to the other all time greats named and I cant see any that will get to that sort of standard. Watts has got a good a chance as any to be the next star forward.

I reckon Jack right now, already has two better attributes than most of them which is his ball handling below the knees and his kicking, not only his kicking for goal which is as good an action I've seen since Lyon but his field kicking to team mates.

These attributes are pretty difficult area's to learn or teach...you've either got it or you don't. Sure you can argue teaching kicking or kicking for goal but how often does a players action change at all? I would add his ball handling in general, quick handballs etc is something that we will notice as a pretty special quality once his full confidence comes out.

Pretty good signs to take out of 9 games.

He is starting to head towards getting 15 touches and 5 marks a game. As mentioned above, once his core strength etc improves he will easily get another 10 touches a game on top of his 11 game avg and take the one on one marks that we've seen him in a position to take on several occasions. Call me crazy but I see him getting to better areas as a lead up forward more often each game. Notice how Matty Bate played a lot closer to goal against Adelaide?

The strength, positioning, appetite for the contest will fall into place for him, as long as he works obviously and with those three other key qualities he is going to be a bloody good player.

Anyway....$350,000 for 3 years plus incentives...we'll have a bargin by 2013!

[RalphiusMaximus 6,088]

Just a quick thought. Can a mod delete all of the posts not relating to the actual topic so that we can see some discussion of what contract people think JW should be getting next year? The last couple of pages seem to have degenerated into every other Jack Watts thread in existence.

[Hannabal 4]

I'll turn you yet Hannabal into seeing that Jack will be a star! I agree the bunch of key forwards named wont be all time stars of the game. Riewoldt and Naitanui aside none are likely to be SUPERstars of today.

I'm as aware of Watts' attributes as you, so I don't need "convincing" as to his potential upside. I'm also aware as to how far behind the greats of the game he is at a similar age. This seems to escape you and many others who want to rely solely on 'raw stats' and not their eyes.

Btw, I don't see Naitanui as a "likely superstar".

[beelzebub 23,383]

......

Perhaps in addition to this is the Watson factor....

Dominating as a junior and never having to really work hard to be good. Then coming into a comp where nothing is given to you and you have to constantly push yourself and he is only now learning that...

there are some very good points made so far.. ie.. relevent effectiveness at the various points of development etc... but I think this is the clincher. He's now learning the craft of being an AFL player. I do agree with Hannabal...2011 is crunch time... either hes got up and got going or quite simply trade him. How long exactly do we persevere.. 3,4,5 6 years without dividends ?? Theres a reality to be observed isnt there.

I like this kid..I think he has the goods...its whether he can gestate and create a formidable offensive game out of it all is stil the $64 question.

I'll wait

[e25 5]

Trade him??

Lunacy.

The act of trading him is a clear indication we think he is a dud, lowering his value.

We'd never get a fair trade for him and to give up on a kid with such potential in only his 3rd year is not acceptable.

I'm prepared to give him a lot more time than that.

This impatience is obnoxious.

[Hannabal 4]

I do agree with Hannabal...2011 is crunch time... either hes got up and got going or quite simply trade him. How long exactly do we persevere.. 3,4,5 6 years without dividends ?? Theres a reality to be observed isnt there.

Just so there's no confusion, I make no reference to "trading him", and nor do I talk about "how long to persevere".

My comments purely refer to the chances of him being a bona fide "great of the game", or as some say "star". I think at worst he'll become a good player. He's coming from a fair way back if he's going to be a great of the game, which is why he was drafted. We need him to become a star to win a flag, imo.

[e25 5]

"Great of the game" and "star" are different things IMHO.

With Watts, I think for him to simply become a "star" will suffice (re: flag prospects)

It is a shame he looks unlikely to be another Carey, but we didn't have a choice between him and Carey.

It was essentially a case of him or Naitanui, Rich or Hill.

None of them "stars" in their own right yet and still a fair way off.

[sylvinator 96]

"Great of the game" and "star" are different things IMHO.

With Watts, I think for him to simply become a "star" will suffice (re: flag prospects)

It is a shame he looks unlikely to be another Carey, but we didn't have a choice between him and Carey.

It was essentially a case of him or Naitanui, Rich or Hill.

None of them "stars" in their own right yet and still a fair way off.

This thread is just so standard for demonland these days, I'm actually embarassed to be a demons supporter. Melbourne supporters are so desperate for a superstar that they heap totally unrealistic expectations on a 19 yr old. There are actually people in this thread that will not be satisfied if watts only becomes a star and not a great of the game! Lol it actually borders on idiotic. if watts becomes a star, or even a 50 goal a year forward, that could be enough to help us win a flag n will not be a wasted pick. Watts will be a very good player if he is given patience n time. He absolutely should not be properly judged before 3-4 years n 50 afl games. This thread has already proved that kpfs need time. How many times do demonlanders want to write- off players before learning their lesson- see garland and frawley threads from their first 2 years. Oh and one last important point. No one should be concerned about losing watts to gc17. Watts is not a certainty to become a player, and that means he'll be considered a risky pick. They would get slaughtered in the media if they spent 600k on a players who has provdn nothing. They are much more likely to target pettard or garland or bate.

[Dinosaur Rover 197]

I think underlying a lot of the commentary here is our fervent wish for the next messiah. Some superman who will single handedly, and automatically lift up the team from its doldrums. My Demon history isnt that great but it is perhaps a recurrent post 64 theme - Tilbrook, Ditterich, Moore - "someone to save us some great Apollo". Hang on we want a winning team not a superstar. If the guy can hold down centre half forward in a grand final winning demon team he will be good enough - I couldnt give a stuff if he is a great or a legend of the game. As regards his contract renewal he should get enough and no more - there is clearly a market for players of his current level of performance and there will be negotiation about his potential. If we can have Miller and Dunne both high draft picks (4/2) both on the lists for a fair while (2001/2004)without them ever being world beaters then we can expect to have Watts with us for quite a while. I find the idea of the quick fix and quick results both illusory and self defeating. Its a bit like get rich quick schemes - its fools gold - trade him for what? I like most of you are impatient for success. We wont have it by taking short cuts - darting from one bright bauble to another. We should hold our course and develop the young talent we have.

Edited June 30, 2010 by poseidon burke

[Hannabal 4]

"Great of the game" and "star" are different things IMHO.

With Watts, I think for him to simply become a "star" will suffice (re: flag prospects)

It is a shame he looks unlikely to be another Carey, but we didn't have a choice between him and Carey.

It was essentially a case of him or Naitanui, Rich or Hill.

None of them "stars" in their own right yet and still a fair way off.

The term "star" is unquestionably too easily bandied about. Some supporters think that Davey is a "star", ffs.

I nearly always use the term "star" in conjunction with "great of the game", which is why I don't consider Neitz a "star". He was a great of the MFC, but not of the game.

If one waters down "star" to your levels then the lines are too easily blurred. I accept that there'll be differing opinions anyway, but not nearly as much with my definition.

[Hannabal 4]

I think underlying a lot of the commentary here is our fervent wish for the next messiah. Some superman who will single handedly, and automatically lift up the team from its doldrums. Hang on we want a winning team not a superstar.

You will usually have winning teams when it comprises star/s. Stars win flags as a general rule, not always, but usually. And I'm not talking about your garden variety star.

Make no mistake, the Dees took Watts because they hoped he'd become a genuine star. Now, he may or may not, but that was the clubs expectations when they called out his name at pick one. Clearly they're not easy to come by as we haven't had one in 30 years. Hmm, wonder if there's any correlation to us not winning a flag in that time. I wonder.

Time will tell if Watts becomes one.

PS: there's been that many debates on here as to whether you need a star to win a flag, or top 6 of your team's 22 versus bottom 6 (depth) that I won't rehash here. Needless to say, no-one advocates that a star will win a flag simply complimented by a bunch of B graders.

[e25 5]

The term "star" is unquestionably too easily bandied about. Some supporters think that Davey is a "star", ffs.

I nearly always use the term "star" in conjunction with "great of the game", which is why I don't consider Neitz a "star". He was a great of the MFC, but not of the game.

If one waters down "star" to your levels then the lines are too easily blurred. I accept that there'll be differing opinions anyway, but not nearly as much with my definition.

These terms are all completely subjective and are bandied around far too much.

It is for this reason that I consider the term "star" to have lesser meaning.

In the media, players are regularly referred to as stars and if I had to quantify it, I guess a star is a player who I'd expect to be in a team's top 5 players.

Often it is used to describe even a fringe player in an effort to sensationalize a story.

"Melbourne star Micheal Newton today was suspended for looking sideways at a VFL umpire...", etc.

A "great of the game" on the other hand is a player worthy of he AFL hall of fame.

To my interpretation.

[e25 5]

In any case, I think comparing Watts to Carey, Brereton, Dunstall, even a player as recently as John Brown is nothing but a furphy.

The game has changed drastically in the last decade and that way goals are created has changed just as much.

We never saw any of the former "greats" running down a wing to score goals the way Franklin did recently.

Dunstall applied forward line pressure, but not to the extent it is used to generate scoring opportunities today out of necessity.

They didn't have to contend with zones and the complex defenses employed today.

It was a different game in a different age and whilst football is still football, I don't think comparing these stats is relevant.

Put Watts at FF where all he needs to do is outpace the FB on a lead and maybe contend with a defender dropping back into the hole... I think we'd all be arguing over where he'll sit between the greats rather than whether he'll reach their level.

Patience will give us the answer as to how he compares in today's game.

[Hobbits's 17]

I think underlying a lot of the commentary here is our fervent wish for the next messiah. Some superman who will single handedly, and automatically lift up the team from its doldrums. My Demon history isnt that great but it is perhaps a recurrent post 64 theme - Tilbrook, Ditterich, Moore - "someone to save us some great Apollo". Hang on we want a winning team not a superstar. If the guy can hold down centre half forward in a grand final winning demon team he will be good enough - I couldnt give a stuff if he is a great or a legend of the game. As regards his contract renewal he should get enough and no more - there is clearly a market for players of his current level of performance and there will be negotiation about his potential. If we can have Miller and Dunne both high draft picks (4/2) both on the lists for a fair while (2001/2004)without them ever being world beaters then we can expect to have Watts with us for quite a while. I find the idea of the quick fix and quick results both illusory and self defeating. Its a bit like get rich quick schemes - its fools gold - trade him for what? I like most of you are impatient for success. We wont have it by taking short cuts - darting from one bright bauble to another. We should hold our course and develop the young talent we have.

yes. Watts' contract renewal should see him get enough as required for his 3rd season onwards, no more.

[Hannabal 4]

In any case, I think comparing Watts to Carey, Brereton, Dunstall, even a player as recently as John Brown is "nothing but a furphy".

The game has changed drastically in the last decade and that way goals are created has changed just as much.

Rubbish. There are always greats of an era, whether it be Hadyn Bunton, Whitten, Skilton, Matthews, Ablett, Carey, or Hird. Clearly they all played in different eras. For some of them the game was hardly even semi-professional, but they're still recognised as greats of their era.

Just like we'll look back in 25 years time and discuss the greats of the current era. Watts may, or may not be one of them. One thing is certain though, the greats of any era had earmarked their greatness at a relatively young age - which is the point I continue to make and the one that seems hardest to grasp around here.

And yes, your idea of a star and mine couldn't be further apart.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Hannabal

[e25 5]

I mean in the sense of stats mainly. They aren't comparable.

The stats of today have a totally different meaning to what they did then.

And it is still correct that those players didn't have to contend with defenses the likes of which we have today.

Watts did distinguish himself against players his own age in the juniors.

One thing im trying to say is that I think the game has evolved to a point where it is nigh on impossible to come in and compete effectively from day one. It is not possible to make an impact from the get go, as past greats had managed to.

I think it's fair to say that the game is more complex today and there is a lot more to learn to be able to compete.

Re: "stars", as I said, it's subjective and barely worth discussing.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Enforcer25

[e25 5]

If you look at the last 5 years for instance, which players have come in and been competitive from day dot?

Rich, Selwood, Rioli come to mind.

In my opinion, all players that came into the league with bodies ready-made for the role they were intended to play.

Not necessarily greats of the game, but I think it is a telling commonality.