2015 was probably his best season, as viewed by many....but unfortunately he is sliding out of the best 22...

Totally agree. Still best 22 this year as proven by his number of games, but I'm almost glad he's sliding out (along with a few others) as it means our list is finally genuinely improving.

You didn't use logic though. Saying that Watts is best 22 because he finished 18th in the BnF this year is not a logical conclusion. You haven't accounted for injured players being kept off the field who make a strong case for best 22 - Kent, Frost, Petracca, Trengove etc. It's a false argument, unless you're changing the customary definition of what best 22 means, i.e. the strongest fielded side with a healthy list.

If he's best 22, it's certainly not clear cut. He's on the very fringes and will get pushed out very quickly if he can't make sizeable improvements next season.

Injuries are part of football, as I've said, we are dealing in facts not what ifs.

Watts played 20 games. Clearly he was best 22 this year, which is the whole point.

This has all been pointed out to spewie already of course

Missed at least 6 weeks through injury: Viney, Jetta, Tyson, Vandenberg, Dawes, Salem, Pedersen, Kent, Frost, Petracca and Trengove

Finishing 18th in this group after playing 20 games is not an achievement

Ok, final time I'll say it.

I'm not saying Watts is a great player. I'm not saying Watts finally "turned the corner". I'm not saying 18th in the Bluey is something to be proud of.

What I AM saying, is CLEARLY playing 20 games and being 18th in the best and fairest means this year he was best 22.

I'm not saying that like it's an achievement, quite the contrary I'm saying that it's a wake up call for where our list is at and how much improvement still needs to come.

Ok, final time I'll say it.

I'm not saying Watts is a great player. I'm not saying Watts finally "turned the corner". I'm not saying 18th in the Bluey is something to be proud of.

What I AM saying, is CLEARLY playing 20 games and being 18th in the best and fairest means this year he was best 22.

I'm not saying that like it's an achievement, quite the contrary I'm saying that it's a wake up call for where our list is at and how much improvement still needs to come.

If anything the votes per game are more accurate, Watts finished 21st in this ranking ahead of Kent and Frost who are both easily best 22.

Injuries are part of football, as I've said, we are dealing in facts not what ifs.

Watts played 20 games. Clearly he was best 22 this year, which is the whole point.

You seem to not understand the concept of best 22. It isn't the same as best available 22. When someone asks "is he best 22?", it is under the premise of having a full list of players to choose from.

Edited September 22, 20159 yr by P-man

still think watts will prove all of his distractors wrong as posted before should play chb and run with the ball like hardeman did who started his career on the wing

It's impossible for him to prove his detractors wrong.

Outline to me how he'll do this.

When all is said and done, here's the question we need to ask about Jack. Is he better for our team than whatever we may get for him (given exposed form, B&F finishes and whatever else other clubs may see value in) this year?

For me, the answer's yes.

If he chooses to leave next year, well fair enough, that's the game now with free agency. I have no doubt that a few clubs would back themselves in.

Draft positions, at this point, are all academic. He's a Melbourne player, and contracted to play at Melbourne in 2016.

Would he receive the same scrutiny if he wasn't a number 1 pick? Well, no, but the fact is that he was. The most important job for the coaching group, I think, is to downplay that fact internally.

The most important facts are thus:

• He possesses some sublime skills
• He is currently at the crossroads. He showed what he can do against Collingwood, then stunk it up against Footscray. If he can bring some consistency to his game, supporters/media will still have a field day, but I'm sure he'll be getting some very positive reinforcement from the club.
• We'll not receive his fair worth in a trade, given all of the media scrutiny.

He's still a good player, and he's on our list. It would be in our best interests to support the bloke, and hope the coaching group can insulate him enough so that he repays the faith. I still haven't lost mine.

If anything the votes per game are more accurate, Watts finished 21st in this ranking ahead of Kent and Frost who are both easily best 22.

Kent and Frosty are also two of my fave players and would pick them ahead of Watts every day of the week.

The last game we won; was he playing?

And if he wasn't what does that say about the nature of his contributing to a winning team going forward.

Kent and Frosty are also two of my fave players and would pick them ahead of Watts every day of the week.

As would I, they may not have the skill but they give it everything they have and show a hell of a lot more aggression.

You seem to not understand the concept of best 22. It isn't the same as best available 22. When someone asks "is he best 22?", it is under the premise of having a full list of players to choose from.

No, you seem to not understand it... Best 22 IS best available at any given time. Do we only put 15-16 players out there if we have injuries (like every team does)?

I'm talking about over the course of this entire season. Watts played 20 games. That's easily best 22. You can live in your fantasy world of no injuries, and I'll deal in facts.

The last game we won; was he playing?

And if he wasn't what does that say about the nature of his contributing to a winning team going forward.

We beat Geelong in Geelong without Hogan.

Dumb argument.

As would I, they may not have the skill but they give it everything they have and show a hell of a lot more aggression.

more the point for mine is that for whatever reason they are more affectual.

We beat Geelong in Geelong without Hogan.

Dumb argument.

was he available ?

As would I, they may not have the skill but they give it everything they have and show a hell of a lot more aggression.

They have the Roos attitude don't they? Love the way both of them go about it, and their speed is vital to us going forward as well.

was he available ?

That wasn't your point... Are you confusing yourself now as well?

"The last game we won; was he playing? And if he wasn't what does that say about the nature of his contributing to a winning team going forward."

The Geelong win was arguably our best for the year, yet there was no Hogan, now to apply your own "logic"... "what does that say about the nature of his contributing to a winning team going forward."

Edited September 22, 20159 yr by stuie

No, you seem to not understand it... Best 22 IS best available at any given time. Do we only put 15-16 players out there if we have injuries (like every team does)?

I'm talking about over the course of this entire season. Watts played 20 games. That's easily best 22. You can live in your fantasy world of no injuries, and I'll deal in facts.

So first it is at any given time. Well the logical example of any given time would be the last game. Jack wasn't best 22.

Next you say over the season, thus over a period of time.

Please don't claim to deal in logic and facts...

What was my point clever clogs ?

Yours becomes the straw answer as the Geelong Vanquishing team was the best avail by all accounts. The win against the Giants wasn't.

The point Stuie is..and was readily shown is that Young Jack is neither best 22 nor in favour by the FD.

Hogan wasn't omitted by choice. Watts was.

So first it is at any given time. Well the logical example of any given time would be the last game. Jack wasn't best 22.

Next you say over the season, thus over a period of time.

Please don't claim to deal in logic and facts...

Lol whatever helps you sleep at night mate.

I'll explain (FMD I'm having to do alot of that tonight, must be school holidays)... At "any given time" there are a certain number of injuries, hence your best 22 is who you have to choose from. Over the course of a year, there are more injuries, suspensions etc and thus the period of time is extended.

I'll draw you a picture if you like...

What was my point clever clogs ?

Yours becomes the straw answer as the Geelong Vanquishing team was the best avail by all accounts. The win against the Giants wasn't.

The point Stuie is..and was readily shown is that Young Jack is neither best 22 nor in favour by the FD.

Hogan wasn't omitted by choice. Watts was.

Your point wasn't about players being omitted or not. Your point was that we won a game without Watts so that apparently meant he doesn't contribute to wins.

I pointed out how flat out stupid that was, and used the example of Hogan missing our best win for the year as proof of that.

Geez even you don't know what your point is now...

Lol whatever helps you sleep at night mate.

I'll explain (FMD I'm having to do alot of that tonight, must be school holidays)... At "any given time" there are a certain number of injuries, hence your best 22 is who you have to choose from. Over the course of a year, there are more injuries, suspensions etc and thus the period of time is extended.

I'll draw you a picture if you like...

A simple question was asked, is he best 22.

Love all the provisos coming thick and fast

The last game we won; was he playing?

And if he wasn't what does that say about the nature of his contributing to a winning team going forward.

What?

Was Kent playing? Was Frost? Petracca? Spencer (who, like it or not, will be on the list next year)?

Who's to say he didn't have some soft-tissue complaint, or that they wanted to have a look at some fringe player to see if he showed some promise?

There are far better arguments than "He didn't play in a rubbish late-season game". You, I and Blind Freddy can all see that.

A simple question was asked, is he best 22.

Love all the provisos coming thick and fast

Yes.

A simple question was asked, is he best 22.

Love all the provisos coming thick and fast

Proof. Not provisos.

Played 20 games this year. Simple as that.

That's called a fact.

Proof. Not provisos.

Played 20 games this year. Simple as that.

That's called a fact.

Dropped for last game.

That's called a fact.