Jack Watts

[Striker475 696]

So far people have said a lot of correct things about JW on this thread. Those who went last night were able to get the full picture of what we are talking about (those who didn't I hope our comments have been clear enough to give you a good picture). Jack did not play as a key forward "crashing packs" "taking big marks" "physically imposing himself on the game". He waited outside of packs for the ball to be handed to him then 2 players would try to tackle him - he kinda didn't care - summed up his options and more often then not made the best one. The first half of the game he played what I would call a Goddard game, swept across half back to half forward marshalling everyone and utilising his skills and the fact he was taller and bigger than all of the midfielders.

The second half he played a very high centre half forward role. Think Trav Cloke sending it inside 50; not Trav Cloke inside 50 taking marks. Which would have been great if we had a strong FF in the square (Tommy Mac you will get there). To be honest that is probably a perfect role for him. He has great kicking skills, can lower the eyes, hit someone on a lead and if that someone is Mitch Clark/Brad Green/Aaron Davey/Jeremy Howe it doesn't matter we will get goals from it.

We have all watched a lot of footy and know the Melbourne players strengths and weaknesses pretty well (even if at times we don't admit it). However, I think we are all kidding ourselves if we claim to have any idea of what Neeld's best 22 is, or how each player will be used before we see them run out on the park for real. I think Watts is in the best 22 and I think his best role is as a Utility until our 3rd year brigade have their break out season(s). The media will hammer him but if he is having 20+ possessions per week and kicks 30 for the season I'll be happy - especially because he is still young enough to win the rising star (the 40 games counts him out but sheesh he is still young).

By the sounds of this it's another argument for playing Watts as a high CHF, which is where I think he should be long-term anyway.

[Hannibal 5,814]

The question I asked you, which you tried to avoid, was the fact that we had the number 1 draft pick in 2008 - should we have taken Watts?

What ? Knock knock ? Anybody home ?

In answer to your question I said, "I was a strong advocate of drafting Watts in 2008", a few posts up, so clearly I agreed with the decision.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Ben-Hur

[The Chazz 4,077]

What ? Knock knock ? Anybody home ?

In answer to your question I said, "I was a strong advocate of drafting Watts in 2008", a few posts up, so clearly I agreed with the decision.

Are you in politics? Maybe just a simple answer like a "yes" or a "no". You know, just becasue I'm a simple kind of guy.

And while you're there, why not answering the other questions in that paragraph, chum...

[Axis of Bob 11,836]

Do you know another KPF that doesn't crash packs? Buddy Franklin.

He roams around the ground using his pace and gets his situations one on one, rather than from packs. He's actually more likely to be roving the pack than competing for a mark in it.

The pack crashers in that forward line are Roughead and Hale.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

[Arsene Wenger 72]

I have said since before he was drafted that Watts will be like a taller Pendlebury, and will probably one day lead the league in goal assists.

I get it - we need a hulking CHF target, but I don't think he'll ever be that.

Seriously though, isn't that why we went and got Mitch Clark?

In years to come, Watts will increase his ability to bring the ball to ground, but he's not exactly a gorilla yet, is he?

Compare the current body shape to that of Hurley, and it's a major determinant for the difference in their playing styles.

[dpositive 1,668]

How good is Demonland. Years ago I used to hang out to read the footy section to get what proved to be a few, shallow, ill informed comments about Melbourne. This thread is why I love this site. The discussion is heated and passionate but so far has not deteriorated into mindless abuse and insults. I can see both sides of the Jack Watts debate and frankly there is nothing more I would rather to talk and read about on a Sunday morning less than a week away from the start of a new season.

Good on ya Demonlanders!

This is a great post and heartily endorsed

Keep up the great works from any angle

We do see the game differently and for those of us who only see the radio commentators version or the TV camera version or the newspaper version it is great to have inside passionate appraisal

GO Dees and Demonlanders

[Arsene Wenger 72]

Do you know another KPF that doesn't crash packs? Buddy Franklin.

He roams around the ground using his pace and gets his situations one on one, rather than from packs. He's actually more likely to be roving the pack than competing for a mark in it.

The pack crashers in that forward line are Roughead and Hale.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

In fact, the Hawks had Buddy bulk up and tried to make him more of a "Travis Cloke type" before realising it hurt his game and changing tact, getting him more slender again, and surprise surprise back to his athletic best.

Watts at his best will be a similar player, in that he'll use his skill and athleticism rather than brute strength.

[Hannibal 5,814]

You know, just becasue I'm a simple kind of guy.

why not answering the other questions in that paragraph, chum...

No argument.

I assume you mean, "what type of Key Position Forward you all wanted Jack Watts to become?"...

I've posted my concerns on Watts and his lack of physicality and competitiveness for a tall in the Locker Room.

I direct you to the appropriate forum.

[Hannibal 5,814]

In fact, the Hawks had Buddy bulk up and tried to make him more of a "Travis Cloke type" before realising it hurt his game and changing tact, getting him more slender again, and surprise surprise back to his athletic best.

Watts at his best will be a similar player, in that he'll use his skill and athleticism rather than brute strength.

I don't see the Buddy comparison, other than both are poor contested marks (unless one-on-one).

Buddy is very aggressive, throws his weight around and has an appetite for the contest. These are areas of concern for Watts. Watts' challenge is to start showing some of these traits at AFL level, rather than, as Jumbo Returns puts it, "tiptoeing around the footy field".

[Bay Riffin 1,475]

I don't see the Buddy comparison, other than both are poor contested marks (unless one-on-one).

Buddy is very aggressive, throws his weight around and has an appetite for the contest. These are areas of concern for Watts. Watts' challenge is to start showing some of these traits at AFL level, rather than, as Jumbo Returns puts it, "tiptoeing around the footy field".

I agree with Malthouse, play Watts at CHB, get him in amongst it. he has done some very good work down back. no harm in doing that. Garry Lyon, Pavlich, Glendinning etc gained confidence early on in their careers and excelled down back. Watts is capable.

Grimes Watts Garland at half back releasing Frawley as an attacking full back would be a salivating thought for this year.

[Axis of Bob 11,836]

If the number 1 key forward in the game at the moment doesn't crash packs, then I don't see it as a major issue if Jack Watts doesn't crash packs.

Buddy and Watts are different players, but that's the point. Watts is different to Buddy, and Cloke, and Brown, and Kennedy etc etc. Watts doesn't need to crash packs to be influential, nor does he need to smash bodies, nor does he need to get into a punch on. Much in the same way that Buddy doesn't need high level decision making, a calm head or silky skills. Nor does Josh Kennedy need ground level skills, agility or awareness in traffic.

It's not their style. It doesn't stop them being influential. Scott Pendlebury has 'tiptoed' his way around to a Norm Smith.

The difference is that we are all judging him against different criteria. You are judging him against the mythical key forward you imagine in your head. Others are judging him against other images.

Some are just comparing him with Jack Watts.

[diesel 420]

Buddy is very aggressive, throws his weight around and has an appetite for the contest. These are areas of concern for Watts. Watts' challenge is to start showing some of these traits at AFL level, rather than, as Jumbo Returns puts it, "tiptoeing around the footy field".

This for me is the essence of what I'd like to see from Jack in the future.

There was one kick which came in his direction at one stage last night and fell into space with about 4 players converging. Jack toe poked it out on the half volley which for me looked odd and I'm not sure if he wanted to go at it head first, but had he I reckon he may have won a free?

[greenmachine 21]

some players just take time

[Robbie57 2,021]

Watts is not going to be the next Brown, Roughead, Franklin, Cloke, Dawes, Pavlich, Riewoldt, other Riewoldt, or anyone else, for that matter.

He's going to be the next Jack Watts. And he's going to play in a position which suits him. If that's FF, so be it. If it's CHF, so be it. If it's the wing, or HF, or HB even, so be it. The talent is there, the fitness too. Once the hunger, the aggression, and the consistency settle in, we'll see he has got what it takes.

Agree. Let's use him as best we can. Personally I think he is more like a goodes type around the ground run all day tall.

Has neeld been foxing on this? maybe he is going to play him as an old fashioned ruck rover.

[sue 9,107]

Do you know another KPF that doesn't crash packs? Buddy Franklin.

He roams around the ground using his pace and gets his situations one on one, rather than from packs. He's actually more likely to be roving the pack than competing for a mark in it.

The pack crashers in that forward line are Roughead and Hale.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Correct. Anyway, in terms of entertainment I'd much prefer a Buddy Franklin style player than some hulk who crashes packs. Hopefully MC will do enough of that for us. When Watts is a bit heavier he'll be doing as much crashing as necessary for his style of play.

He is just 21 and a few hours. Put the razors away for a year or two - especially the retrospective drafting razors.

[The Chazz 4,077]

No argument.

I assume you mean, "what type of Key Position Forward you all wanted Jack Watts to become?"...

I've posted my concerns on Watts and his lack of physicality and competitiveness for a tall in the Locker Room.

I direct you to the appropriate forum.

Perhaps I'm not the simple one Benny Boy. I'm clearly asking you if you believe Watts was the best player in the draft in 2008, and if a club has the number 1 draft pick, what do you do - take the best available, or draft for needs? As this is a generic question, I direct you to this post/thread and if you would be so kind to inform me of your responses.

If the number 1 key forward in the game at the moment doesn't crash packs, then I don't see it as a major issue if Jack Watts doesn't crash packs.

Buddy and Watts are different players, but that's the point. Watts is different to Buddy, and Cloke, and Brown, and Kennedy etc etc. Watts doesn't need to crash packs to be influential, nor does he need to smash bodies, nor does he need to get into a punch on. Much in the same way that Buddy doesn't need high level decision making, a calm head or silky skills. Nor does Josh Kennedy need ground level skills, agility or awareness in traffic.

It's not their style. It doesn't stop them being influential. Scott Pendlebury has 'tiptoed' his way around to a Norm Smith.

The difference is that we are all judging him against different criteria. You are judging him against the mythical key forward you imagine in your head. Others are judging him against other images.

Some are just comparing him with Jack Watts.

100% correct. Little Benny Boy has his criteria (which he leads us to believe is the same as the great Club itself), while others are seeing it how it is. It's an interesting situation for Neeld - if he can play Watts to his strengths, I have no doubt Jack will be a star. If Neeld has a similar criteria as my chum Benny Boy, he could hinder the development of our number 1 pick.

[Striker475 696]

To those who were there, was he trying to thread the needle as often? My number 1 criticism of him is he tries to be a little *too* fancy with his targets. The kicks are on target, but it's to a situation that turns from a 1-on-1 to a 2-on-1 or gets barely intercepted.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Perhaps I'm not the simple one Benny Boy. I'm clearly asking you if you believe Watts was the best player in the draft in 2008, and if a club has the number 1 draft pick, what do you do - take the best available, or draft for needs? As this is a generic question, I direct you to this post/thread and if you would be so kind to inform me of your responses.

I seem to be debating a child, but I'll press on.

"I'm clearly asking you if you believe Watts was the best player in the draft in 2008"

You never know who the best player in a draft is for a number of years, unless you own a crystal ball. Watts was in part picked on potential. He was somewhat of a speculative pick, but it was done so due to the immense natural ability he'd shown. Having seen 3 games I didn't think that he'd absolutely dominated the national championships and was somewhat surprised by his Larke Medal, but clearly his talent wasn't in question. In fact he showed himself to be an excellent prospect. I was leaning to picking him before the draft camp because I was intoxicated by his skill and athleticism and, in part, because we needed a key forward to replace Neitz. And I'm of the belief that a key forward is a prerequisite in a premiership assault. Once he blew everyone away at DC, i.e. second over 20 metres, 2nd to Steven Hill in the agility test, and winning the pyscho motor testing, which determines a player's ability to make decisions under pressure, it was a no brainer. Does that mean he was the best player in 2008 ? No. Does it mean that he wasn't the best player in 2008 ? No. It's a complex question and one that couldn't be answered then and can't be fully answered now.

Watts shows all of the potential that he showed over 3 years ago and much of it was evident last night. There are areas of his game that don't stand up to the pressure of AFL footy. And if it doesn't stand up to the pressure of 'home and away' it sure as hell won't stand up in a final. Axis of Bob seems to think that tiptoeing around an AFL ground is acceptable. I disagree and I also disagree with him about Pendlebury and the way he plays. That's fine, it makes the world go round.

Now if you can respond without being petulant I'll be amazed.

[dazzledavey36 55,000]

Guys, I wouldn't be too worried about Watts being the crash and bash pack marking forward.

Just you wait for a bloke called Leigh Williams, this bloke will surprise a lot of people soon.

[jnrmac 20,104]

No, he's not what the MFC hoped they were drafting.

I know that 26 disposals and a couple of goals from a wing/half forward will excite nearly every Melbourne supporter. I also know that if I criticize my own, especially Watts, I'll have others think ill of me. He was drafted as a key forward and right now he's nowhere near it. He's a mile off. He just doesn't play that way. And if you took the effort to go to Cranbourne you'd see that. Or perhaps not. You'd probably see a tall, classy player that did some nice things and walk away really happy.

As I said, I watch footy differently to most of you.

How do you know what he was drafted to do? He was simply our number 1 pick because he is tall and has skills. Stop assuming you know best. Can't stand that sort of crud. It's an annoying habit that you will have to get used to changing.

[The Chazz 4,077]

I seem to be debating a child, but I'll press on.

"I'm clearly asking you if you believe Watts was the best player in the draft in 2008"

You never know who the best player in a draft is for a number of years, unless you own a crystal ball. Watts was in part picked on potential. He was somewhat of a speculative pick, but it was done so due to the immense natural ability he'd shown. Having seen 3 games I didn't think that he'd absolutely dominated the national championships and was somewhat surprised by his Larke Medal, but clearly his talent wasn't in question. In fact he showed himself to be an excellent prospect. I was leaning to picking him before the draft camp because I was intoxicated by his skill and athleticism and, in part, because we needed a key forward to replace Neitz. And I'm of the belief that a key forward is a prerequisite in a premiership assault. Once he blew everyone away at DC, i.e. second over 20 metres, 2nd to Steven Hill in the agility test, and winning the pyscho motor testing, which determines a player's ability to make decisions under pressure, it was a no brainer. Does that mean he was the best player in 2008 ? No. Does it mean that he wasn't the best player in 2008 ? No. It's a complex question and one that couldn't be answered then and can't be fully answered now.

Watts shows all of the potential that he showed over 3 years ago and much of it was evident last night. There are areas of his game that don't stand up to the pressure of AFL footy. And if it doesn't stand up to the pressure of 'home and away' it sure as hell won't stand up in a final. Axis of Bob seems to think that tiptoeing around an AFL ground is acceptable. I disagree and I also disagree with him about Pendlebury and the way he plays. That's fine, it makes the world go round.

Now if you can respond without being petulant I'll be amazed.

Interesting view Benny, you have rambled on and on, and at the end of it, are basically sitting on the fence. Luckily for the Melbourne Football Club, you are not a recruiter. They don't have the luxury of sitting on the fence. They don't have the ability to wait 3 years and then go back in time to make their selections. They have to make their selections looking 5+ years in to the future. We are all experts when we don't have to make a decision on the spot, but sit back and criticise for decisions made 3 or 4 years in the past.

I, like everyone else in 2008, would've selected Watts as my number 1 pick. Any club in our situation would've done the same. Number 1 draft picks are to be used on best available, not specualtion and needs. Watts was the best available, regardless of how much going around in circles you did in your last post. Fast forward to this year, and it is obviously and argument if that's a correct opinion. But, it's a decision we have made, and we should support it. Are we supporting Watts by being disappointed that he's not the crash & bash key forward that we wanted? Absolutely not.

[Hannibal 5,814]

How do you know what he was drafted to do? He was simply our number 1 pick because he is tall and has skills.

How many Billy's are out there ? Do people really think Watts wasn't drafted as a key forward ? Extraordinary.

Comments from Mark Neeld:

"MELBOURNE coach Mark Neeld has told the club's remaining No. 1 draft pick, Jack Watts, that he will be played as a forward this year alongside recruit Mitch Clark.

''My plan is to play Jack Watts forward,'' Neeld said. ''When he was drafted he was certainly drafted as a key position prospect."

I'll have to let Neeld know he's off his tree.

When we drafted Watts he was playing as a key forward for Vic Metro and Brighton Grammar. Being 196cms does anyone think there was a chance Melbourne drafted him as a key forward ? Some comments on here beggar belief.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I, like everyone else in 2008, would've selected Watts as my number 1 pick. Any club in our situation would've done the same. Number 1 draft picks are to be used on best available, not specualtion and needs. Watts was the best available, regardless of how much going around in circles you did in your last post. Fast forward to this year, and it is obviously and argument if that's a correct opinion. But, it's a decision we have made, and we should support it. Are we supporting Watts by being disappointed that he's not the crash & bash key forward that we wanted? Absolutely not.

I've already said he was my choice, but that's irrelevant. Plenty of clubs had Naitanui at one, but that's also irrelevant. What is relevant is Watts today. I'm not blaming the club for selecting him and I never have. They went with who they thought was best.

Why do you care whether i think he was best at the time anyway ? What difference does it make ?

Edited March 25, 2012 by Ben-Hur

[Jaded No More 68,966]

How many Billy's are out there ?  Do people really think Watts wasn't drafted as a key forward ?  Extraordinary.  

Comments from Mark Neeld:

"MELBOURNE coach Mark Neeld has told the club's remaining No. 1 draft pick, Jack Watts, that he will be played as a forward this year alongside recruit Mitch Clark.

''My plan is to play Jack Watts forward,'' Neeld said. ''When he was drafted he was certainly drafted as a key position prospect." 

Forward can mean MANY things.

If the club thought Watts was a crash and bash physical FF, they wouldn't have recruited Mitch Clark.

There is no doubt that at 20, Watts has loads of work to do, but no matter how much we stamp our feet, he will never be the gorilla FF some people are delusionally hoping he will.

I doubt the club ever thought that's how he'll turn out, in fact, I'm sure he was earmarked as a roaming CHF. And few, if any his size, have the skills, agility or smarts to do a better job in a modern day set up. 

Nobody is more valuable to a team than a tall link player who can hit a FF on the chest. That is what Watts will do for us.

He will also kick goals, take good contested marks and roam the packs. He won't ever smash his opponent physically, crash packs or break skulls.

He is the Garland of our forward line, as opposed to the Frawley. That is why Mitch Clark is here, and why McDonald is being developed as a forward.

[phoenix 32]

Couldn't agree more BH, he was certainly recruited as a key forward. Will he end up there? I don't know and as we are several years down the track and have a different list I wonder how important that is.

I saw last nights game and just marveled at Watt's skill. In the end every time he went near it the crowd rose. At one point the ball looked like it was going through for a point but he kept it in, got it to a team mate who goaled. He makes the very hard look very easy because for him it is. He couldn't have done that at VFL level 2 years ago and I doubt he could do it at AFL level now but I think he will in future and he will be very effective, but perhaps not as a key forward.

I share your disappointment that he is not the pack breaking key forward that we "bought" but I relish the future watching him do things. Unlike many I don't want him to break packs apart, I want him to apply his skills and be a very effective player - perhaps elite. Let less skilled bigger builds break their bodies on that task as Jack would be wasted on it anyway. Other players couldn't lay a hand on him last night and it was a pretty good standard game.

IMO Watts could be the elite midfielder we crave but that's just speculation.

BH, how do you interpret Jack playing on the wing for much of the time last night when Neeld said he'd play deep forward? That is the really interesting part to me.