Time is up for some players

[watchtheeyes 1,210]

Name the last coach to publicy NOT support a current player on his list.?

Mick Matlhouse

[nutbean 8,837]

interesting comparison , Goddard that is. were you able to guarantee a similar outcome , i.e same change in demeanor and output ( ne effect ) then wonderful. I Dont recall Goddard ever being about to be bounced around as such just that he was lazy and half hearted at times. Happy to be corrected

oohhh. talk to the Stkilda supporters about his early years - very Wattesque

[jazza 1,323]

Mick Matlhouse

keep going.im not talking about slagging off.

Even when asked about player 36 on the list,all coaches say they are required/loved/coming along/should be ok.

[Satyriconhome 9,993]

Name the last coach to publicy NOT support a current player on his list.?

Brad Scott and Lindsay Thomas, Chris Scott and Steve Johnson, Mick Malthouse and Mitch Robinson and the list goes on

[nutbean 8,837]

McKenzie

Clisby

Kent

Blease

Strauss

Garland

Pedersen

Nicholson

Evans

Grimes

Tapscott

Spencer

Bail

M Jones

Terlich

Fitzpatrick

Michie

Trengove

Toumpas

Riley

Every single one of these players have been in the system for at least a year and have offered less than Watts, can we please move on from this conversation... he's going nowhere.

And don't give me the currency comment. We're going to have plenty of high draft picks to work with this year.

I don't think he will be traded but the criticisms of him are no less valid - without necessarily naming ( you can work it out) but if you put Watts talent into all but probably three of the above players you would have an outstanding footballer.

I don't think anyone here will deny that he has an abundance of talent - most are just so frustrated in that he will not go nearly hard enough at a contest/chase/tackle. I am necessarily talking about him crashing packs - but even his one on one battles is not up to scratch and there is a guarantee that the slightest physical pressure he will go to ground.

[Satyriconhome 9,993]

oohhh. talk to the Stkilda supporters about his early years - very Wattesque

Thanks chap, reckon Goddard aged my acquaintance each week

[jazza 1,323]

Brad Scott and Lindsay Thomas, Chris Scott and Steve Johnson, Mick Malthouse and Mitch Robinson and the list goes on

But not on sacking/delisting?

Or are we changing the boundary lines.?

Edited August 12, 2014 by jazza

[watchtheeyes 1,210]

keep going.im not talking about slagging off.

Even when asked about player 36 on the list,all coaches say they are required/loved/coming along/should be ok.

They'll normally acknowledge there's an issue however and say something along the lines of, "but we're sure that he'll come good" or "he's going through a bad patch and he'll work his way through it" or "he knows what he needs to keep working on and I'm sure he'll get there" etc.

They don't come out and say "he's been consistent all year", "he's been playing the roles we ask of him" etc.

I'll make the point same point I did a few posts ago about the multitude of blokes who have performed worse than Watts this year, the only reason we rag on him is because he was # 1. If he was # 20 he wouldn't even be in the conversation on the reliability of his disposal, his ability to kick goals and propensity to change a game (on occasion).

[jnrmac 19,207]

Here are some names to ponder,

Jack Leslie

Timothy Broomhead

Hayden Crozier

Jayden Pitt

Nathan Fyfe

Tom Swift

The last six pick 20 in the draft. Other than Fyfe would you swap Watts for them?

Fyffe is obvious. and I don't know enough about the others

If I had a 1 in 6 chance of getting a Fyffe yep. I'd do it

[Satyriconhome 9,993]

I don't think he will be traded but the criticisms of him are no less valid - without necessarily naming ( you can work it out) but if you put Watts talent into all but probably three of the above players you would have an outstanding footballer.

I don't think anyone here will deny that he has an abundance of talent - most are just so frustrated in that he will not go nearly hard enough at a contest/chase/tackle. I am necessarily talking about him crashing packs - but even his one on one battles is not up to scratch and there is a guarantee that the slightest physical pressure he will go to ground.

Don't you think Roos played him in the back 6 at times last week, just to see how he went in one on one contests, now knows for sure it is an area that needs work, if he didn't know already.......there is method in Roos madness

[nutbean 8,837]

Brad Scott and Lindsay Thomas, Chris Scott and Steve Johnson, Mick Malthouse and Mitch Robinson and the list goes on

The only one I will give you is Scott and Thomas as there are similar parallels. To be criticised by your coach because you dumb things physically is not a new thing - so Johnson and Robinson would be chastised and think meh.

But Scott giving it to Thomas for acting would have been embarrassing for Thomas. It a part of Thomas's game that he wouldn't have wanted his coach to criticise. The other one was when Richo was dropped for poor body language and hissy fits many moons ago. If Roos was to criticise Watts it would be embarrassing because Watts can only be criticised for his application.

[Satyriconhome 9,993]

But not on sacking/delisting?

Or are we changing the boundary lines.?

The phrase was 'not publicly support'.....we have had those instances in the last couple of weeks

[nutbean 8,837]

Don't you think Roos played him in the back 6 at times last week, just to see how he went in one on one contests, now knows for sure it is an area that needs work, if he didn't know already.......there is method in Roos madness

I live in eternal hope and can be blamed for not folding early enough - it took me until the final year of Col Sylvia to finally wake up ( if only he had a full preseason).

I love the Ro Bails and the Rileys of the world - not huge amounts of talent but a willingness to go hard every week. I do despair a little over Watts as has some sublime skills. I just want him to develop some urgency.I haven't jumped ship yet though.

[jazza 1,323]

The phrase was 'not publicly support'.....we have had those instances in the last couple of weeks

ok,lets not quibble.

I was referring to "support" as in "hes not going anywhere"

It seems you and others are seeing non support as "he shouldnt have done that"

"He shouldnt have got knocked out"

He shouldnt have been drink driving.

Well thats all media drivel,Every coach will trade/delist/sack when they want.But media wise"support" the player.

[beelzebub 22,269]

I live in eternal hope and can be blamed for not folding early enough - it took me until the final year of Col Sylvia to finally wake up ( if only he had a full preseason).

I love the Ro Bails and the Rileys of the world - not huge amounts of talent but a willingness to go hard every week. I do despair a little over Watts as has some sublime skills. I just want him to develop some urgency.I haven't jumped ship yet though.

I like the sentiment there Nut however ive started down the gangway

[Farmer 693]

why is he playing Chippa?

why is he playing any one of a dozen on our senior list?

Because Frawley is amongst the best players we have, that's why.

Have been a Watts supporter but, my God, he was awful on Saturday.

Trengove and Grimes must be retained. Absurd not to give JT a chance after his foot surgery

[ManDee 7,091]

put pick 20 together with a player or another pick..and the dynamic changes....muchly

Yes BB but the value of pick 20 is a constant. The steak knives change the value of the deal but you must include the cost of the steak knives.

20=20

20+ x = 20+ x

Watts is worth more than pick 20 and the problem with picks is the intangibility.

Watts for Fyffe Yes

Watts for Tom Swift NO

Edit - Spelling

Edited August 12, 2014 by ManDee

[beelzebub 22,269]

Yes BB but the value of pick 20 is a constant. The steak knives change the value of the deal but you must include the cost of the steak knives.

20=20

20+ x = 20+ x

Watts is worth more than pick 20 and the problem with picks is the intangibility.

Watts for Fyffe Yes

Watts for Tom Swift NO

Edit - Spelling

with all due respect whilst 20 remains as you put it, constant its real value is governed by context

and that context will be revealed come eos

Edited August 12, 2014 by beelzebub

[Steve13 457]

When we have so many sub standard players on our list why would we trade a bloke who clearly has the attributes to be a solid 250 game player. Until we have 30+ AFL standard player on our list Watts stays.

[ManDee 7,091]

Is anyone sick of my signature?

I am happy to remove it.

[beelzebub 22,269]

When we have so many sub standard players on our list why would we trade a bloke who clearly has the attributes to be a solid 250 game player. Until we have 30+ AFL standard player on our list Watts stays.

because he hasnt shown any capacity to be SOLID !!!

[nutbean 8,837]

I like the sentiment there Nut however ive started down the gangway

That's Captain Nutbean to you...I'm going down with this ship...

[Steve13 457]

because he hasnt shown any capacity to be SOLID !!!

I think his year has been solid. With the continuing improvement that this 23 year old, I repeat 23 Year old has shown under Roos, I have little doubt he will be a very solid player for many years to come.

[ManDee 7,091]

Fyffe is obvious. and I don't know enough about the others

If I had a 1 in 6 chance of getting a Fyffe yep. I'd do it

The last 13 pick 20's Back to 2000

Leslie

Broomhead

Crozier

Pitt

Fyfe

Swift

Notte

Hislop

Bower

Polo

Butler

Minson

Elstone

The odds are not one in six, they are much worse.

Edited August 12, 2014 by ManDee

[ManDee 7,091]

That's Captain Nutbean to you...I'm going down with this ship...

Permission to come aboard skipper.