How about this for an epiphany - Jack Watts isn't the reason we lose games.

He isn't what we thought. And his physicality is disappointing to say the least. But he gets attention and blame outside of what he deserves. Bernie Vince said this a few months ago.

If we got rid of Watts, all we would be doing is getting rid of a scapegoat and moving onto the next one.

It often frustrates me when people imply that any critique on Watts is blaming the entire clubs fortunes on him.

I like the guy, and I can see his strengths - but given where we are at, and the way he plays his footy (combined with the fact that he actually has some currency at the trade table), I think he'd be a very astute choice to trade out - should a reasonable deal come up.

There was a good article in the HUN (!) the other day, talking about which players you would want in the trenches with you when the time came. Needless to say, I didn't see Wattsy near the top.

That's where we are as a club at the moment (and have been for 6 years) - in the trenches. If we are going to move up the ladder, then we need fighters in every single position.

It's only been a recent decision for me, but I've now decided that I think we could move ourselves forward if we do a good trade for Watts.

It often frustrates me when people imply that any critique on Watts is blaming the entire clubs fortunes on him.

Watts has not been the most disappointing player this season. He started well against St Kilda in a new role but couldn't sustain it, he has had his moments in defence and behind the ball - like against PA - and has done some good things as a high leading HFF, he has had an up and down season but the number of terrible games he has played has come down from previous years - he has found ways to contribute when not finding a lot of the ball.

And yet - who gets it every time we lose? Who is the one that just has to be traded?

We talk about a lack of loyalty in Frawley and don't acknowledge Watts' illustration last year.

We gush about Roos' ability to develop players but we won't give him Exhibit A in the case against this clubs ability to develop players for more than a season.

Frankly, I knew Roos was going to need more time than 1 season and I look forward to seeing what he, and Stone and co., can do with a few misguided talents. Including the most maligned player I can recall at the club.

More maligned than Cale Morton ??? I would have Watts over Morton all day every day !!!

More maligned than Cale Morton ??? I would have Watts over Morton all day every day !!!

SO would I, but that doesnt preclude me from wanting someone other than Watts now either.

touché

It often frustrates me when people imply that any critique on Watts is blaming the entire clubs fortunes on him.

I like the guy, and I can see his strengths - but given where we are at, and the way he plays his footy (combined with the fact that he actually has some currency at the trade table), I think he'd be a very astute choice to trade out - should a reasonable deal come up.

There was a good article in the HUN (!) the other day, talking about which players you would want in the trenches with you when the time came. Needless to say, I didn't see Wattsy near the top.

That's where we are as a club at the moment (and have been for 6 years) - in the trenches. If we are going to move up the ladder, then we need fighters in every single position.

It's only been a recent decision for me, but I've now decided that I think we could move ourselves forward if we do a good trade for Watts.

Did you bother to read the post rpfc was replying to though?

Its main contention was that Watts being traded is somehow the answer to our woes.

Of course trading Watts is not the answer to our woes. I just said I would be happy if that's the only thing we do because it would signal that we no longer tolerate underperformance.

To NOT trade Watts IMO says we are happy to keep accepting the status quo, with both Watts' performance and the club culture. And I'm not happy to accept that.

Taking action on Watts alone doesn't get us out of the shite, but its a start to swallowing a cup of concrete and hardening the F up.

Of course trading Watts is not the answer to our woes. I just said I would be happy if that's the only thing we do because it would signal that we no longer tolerate underperformance.

To NOT trade Watts IMO says we are happy to keep accepting the status quo, with both Watts' performance and the club culture. And I'm not happy to accept that.

Taking action on Watts alone doesn't get us out of the shite, but its a start to swallowing a cup of concrete and hardening the F up.

not THE answer.....maybe PART of it possibly ?

As they say if youre not part of the solution youre part of the problem.

Watts isnt playing ( for mine ) as a solution provider....therefore.......

not THE answer.....maybe PART of it possibly ?

As they say if youre not part of the solution youre part of the problem.

Watts isnt playing ( for mine ) as a solution provider....therefore.......

Yes - I should have emphasised THE as you have here.

I think also it's important to look at who won't be at the club by the end of 2016:

Frawley

McKenzie

Clisby

Blease

Strauss

Riley

Nicholson

Evans

Tapscott

Barry

Gawn

Spencer

Bail

M. Jones

Terlich

Fitzpatrick

Included in that list is our entire ruck stock, which is quite damning.

Roos has his worked cut out for him. 16 out of 40 players gone by 2016, not factoring in retirement of Cross next year, and probably Jamar in '16.

The club absolutely has to nail drafting and trading this year and next otherwise it'll be in the exact same position it is in now for another 5-6 years.

EDIT: And Watts should be traded. We keep having this discussion and I think he still has trade value that can bring the club someone that is more suited to the type of style Roos wants to play.

Barry

Gawn

Spencer

Bail

M. Jones

Terlich

Fitzpatrick

Riley - will be shocked if any of these wont be on our list next year

Of course trading Watts is not the answer to our woes. I just said I would be happy if that's the only thing we do because it would signal that we no longer tolerate underperformance.

To NOT trade Watts IMO says we are happy to keep accepting the status quo, with both Watts' performance and the club culture. And I'm not happy to accept that.

Taking action on Watts alone doesn't get us out of the shite, but its a start to swallowing a cup of concrete and hardening the F up.

So if we keep Watts, Roos is accepting the status quo of the club culture?

I think Watts will stick around and 2015 will be a lot better for his Demons, I think his output will remain the same, but because the fortunes of the team will increase, the criticism of Watts will wane.

Roos backed Pedersen and Jetta and Bail and all have been better. Watts has been better than last year too.

Again, it looks like you want to make Watts pay for his 'underperformance' and who else?

Why is he sacrificed when others are not?

We have plenty of players to blame for the underperformance of the team - least obvious being the players we don't have because of recruiting failures.

You have to think that Bleasey got his marching orders today in being left out this week, but as I have stated before he will be picked up by another side either by way of a late pick trade or the rookie draft.

The other non-contracted players to depart are set to be:Nicho, Strauss and Clisby.

Frawley wil go and Byrnes and Clark are already off the list.

I think Tappy may yet survive - he's Roosy's kind of player and will get another year.

The rest of the players are contracted and it is hard to cut them, especially given our financial situation.

Having said that I still think Roosy will send Evans on his way because he can't kick.

As to our current rookies I think Harmes has probably played his way into another year in recent weeks, but I'm tipping Georgiou to go home and King to be chopped as I think Fitzy will be told he will be redrafted as a rookie by us - given that you need a bit of tall security.

All up we would then have seven picks plus two rookie picks subject to trades. One pick will go on ROK and another may go on Nick Malceski, but the rest I suspect will be draftees.

I for one and not singling out Watts,,... he has many 'contemporaries' that could be shuffled off also.

So RPFC...you think Jackie's output is ok ..certainly to repeat it in 2015 ?

christ we're doomed if so

You have to think that Bleasey got his marching orders today in being left out this week, but as I have stated before he will be picked up by another side either by way of a late pick trade or the rookie draft.

The other non-contracted players to depart are set to be:Nicho, Strauss and Clisby.

Frawley wil go and Byrnes and Clark are already off the list.

I think Tappy may yet survive - he's Roosy's kind of player and will get another year.

The rest of the players are contracted and it is hard to cut them, especially given our financial situation.

Having said that I still think Roosy will send Evans on his way because he can't kick.

As to our current rookies I think Harmes has probably played his way into another year in recent weeks, but I'm tipping Georgiou to go home and King to be chopped as I think Fitzy will be told he will be redrafted as a rookie by us - given that you need a bit of tall security.

All up we would then have seven picks plus two rookie picks subject to trades. One pick will go on ROK and another may go on Nick Malceski, but the rest I suspect will be draftees.

Evans has a contract for 2015, are you going to pay him out just to make a spot?

Contracts be buggered!! Mc Kenzie and Evans = List Cloggers

Ruthlessness is what is needed right now!

Contracts be buggered!! Mc Kenzie and Evans = List Cloggers

Ruthlessness is what is needed right now!

That will really help with future recruiting PF

Contracts be buggered!! Mc Kenzie and Evans = List Cloggers

Ruthlessness is what is needed right now!

Can you even do this. My understanding was contracts are locked in and it's just not possible to delist a guy or even move them to the rookie list.

I'd love to free up the spots but I don't think it's allowed.

So if we keep Watts, Roos is accepting the status quo of the club culture?

I think Watts will stick around and 2015 will be a lot better for his Demons, I think his output will remain the same, but because the fortunes of the team will increase, the criticism of Watts will wane.

Roos backed Pedersen and Jetta and Bail and all have been better. Watts has been better than last year too.

Again, it looks like you want to make Watts pay for his 'underperformance' and who else?

Why is he sacrificed when others are not?

We have plenty of players to blame for the underperformance of the team - least obvious being the players we don't have because of recruiting failures.

Disappointed in Sam. I really thought he was going to be a gun player. Hopefully this doesn't happen at another club as often happens to us. e.g. Martin.

Disappointed in Sam. I really thought he was going to be a gun player. Hopefully this doesn't happen at another club as often happens to us. e.g. Martin.

Martin is the exception BM

90% of the others have sunk without trace

Martin is the exception BM

90% of the others have sunk without trace

Martin is an exception because he actually had form when he left.

If players like Blease and Tapscott haven't shown anything by now - then it is unlikely they will IMO.

They've had more than enough chances, as has half our list.

Why are people saying Gawn won't be around after 2016

He will be our number 1 ruckman, and I think he will be a key part to our rise

He is still young, coming back from injury riddled years, and as we know the big blokes take longer

If we could offload our worst 2 or 3 players right now and replace them with 2 or 3 unlisted free agents like Cross, you wouldn't hesitate. Our club in the last 7 years has had far too many players on our list who are seemingly always ... "developing"

There's at least 16 players on our list who have questionable future's (if Frawley & Clark are included) That effectively means that a number of those 16 will still be on our list next year. It's more likely as high as 18-20 players who have questionable future's - all up.

However, any more than 10 changes is awfully difficult to arrange but with some creative thinking, 12 could go. Roos won't want to carry too many into next season who he'd rather offload, so any player who can at least play a role or offer reasonable depth, may well survive.

I'd expect Roos to bring in at least 2 more players of the Cross or Vince vintage. With the Byrnes retirement, we only have 3 players who you would class as veterans. Without the influence, experience and all round ability of Cross and Vince, we may not have got all the 4 wins that we've achieved so far this season.

We're light on for experienced winners ... that vital area is extremely important at a club in terms of how a club develops. Our young blokes need to be surrounded by proven winners and proven leaders. How you get to that point is a tough task but it's entirely possible with good trading, good drafting and with the acquisition of some excellent veteran talent and/or free agents.

I think Gawn has shown real development this year especially marking, kicking some goals and accumulating possessions. To think ihe is of Sandilands size, only 21 and coming off a knee recon. he will be given lots of time.

One of more exciting long term prospects IMO.

So if we keep Watts, Roos is accepting the status quo of the club culture?

Again, it looks like you want to make Watts pay for his 'underperformance' and who else?

Why is he sacrificed when others are not?

.

RP, not going to waste pages on arguing. You are trying to put words in my mouth that I never said. Watts is not our only issue by far, but he is a sentinel one in my opinion. We obviously disagree, and on this subject I can live with that.