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.

is there Dr.. really you name players that couldn't as an argument. What utter bullshlt.

Watts was omitted plain and simple.

It was the proverbial writing on the wall.

Dropped for last game.

That's called a fact.

Played 20 others. Fact.

is there Dr.. really you name players that couldn't as an argument. What utter bullshlt.

Watts was omitted plain and simple.

It was the proverbial writing on the wall.

He was also selected for 20 other games.

Amazing how you pick out that one. You could say, a bit of bias there hey?

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...

youre an idiot if you cant see reason staring you not only in the face but spelt out for you benefit by many here.

Watts was dropped. Team played fine..even ...better.

youre an idiot if you cant see reason staring you not only in the face but spelt out for you benefit by many here.

Watts was dropped. Team played fine..even ...better.

Hogan didn't play. We beat Geelong in Geelong.

And next time you want to call someone an idiot, try using some kind of legible English.

Hogan didn't play. We beat Geelong in Geelong.

And next time you want to call someone an idiot, try using some kind of legible English.

You laughingly avoid the point...the one that doesn't suit.

Watts was dropped. Do you really want to argue he wasn't ?

Legible enough ?

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.

You laughingly avoid the point...the one that doesn't suit.

Watts was dropped. Do you really want to argue he wasn't ?

Legible enough ?

Just to remind you what your point actually was.

You laughingly avoid the point...the one that doesn't suit.

Watts was dropped. Do you really want to argue he wasn't ?

Legible enough ?

No you are missing the point.

Watts played 20 games, so he must be in the top 22.

Watts finished 18th in the b&f, so he must be 22.

Watts was dropped in round 23, but that's not relevant as Stuie knows more than the coaching staff.

Simple enough?

Or should I say, simpleton enough?

Edited September 22, 20159 yr by Rod Grinter Riot Squad

No you are missing the point.

Watts played 20 games, so he must be in the top 22.

Watts finished 18th in the b&f, so he must be 22.

Watts was dropped in round 23, but that's not relevant as Stuie knows more than the coaching staff.

Simple enough?

Or should I say, simpleton enough?

The same coaching staff who picked him in the BEST 22 for 20 games the same season.

Simple enough?

Please stop quoting the idiot, as its circumventing my ignore preferences.

Thanks, faulty

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...

Man you are stubborn. If you have say 8 decent players injured then the last bloke into your side is your 30th best, not your 22nd best

Surely you can't be arguing that

The same coaching staff who picked him in the BEST 22 for 20 games the same season.

Simple enough?

that's a big assumption that we picked the best 22 each week (or even best 22 available if you like)

in fact it's not a fact but an erroneous assumption, but i don't think you would understand why, so i won't bother to educate you

Well at least he was available for selection in all 22 games, at the start of the year he would have been in many peoples best 22..

Please stop quoting the idiot, as its circumventing my ignore preferences.

Thanks, faulty

hahaha!!!

Man you are stubborn. If you have say 8 decent players injured then the last bloke into your side is your 30th best, not your 22nd best

Surely you can't be arguing that

that IS the argument!!!

I think he had a good season with a few poor games in there. 18th in the b&f reflects poorly as I imagined he'd be top 10. R23 proved that we may look beyond him at the selection table unless he really asserts himself on the game every week. GWS wasn't the best measuring stick but we looked good without him. Hopefully this season he can chip in with 25-30 goals next to Hogan

Another year gone and now I'm willing to accept Watts' ceiling isn't that high rather than hope he has star potential

Oh, wow....just wow.

JW, you poor s.o.b.

The rumours won't go away:-

2015 AFL Season

Melbourne are set to trade former No.1 pick, Jack Watts according to Jay Clark for a "decent player" or a "top 20 pick".

Paige Cardona

@paigecardona: Hearing a bit of a whisper that Jack Watts might be looked at as part of the Jake Melksham trade... One peanut for another peanut.

The rumours won't go away:-

2015 AFL Season

Paige Cardona

That's nuts !!!

Monday 5 Oct

Paul Connors on Jack Watts: “I think he desperately wants to be at Melbourne and I think he’ll be playing there”

Monday 5 Oct

Paul Connors on Jack Watts: “I think he desperately wants to be at Melbourne and I think he’ll be playing there”

Here is hoping, despite the opinion of most of the germs on here, he is best 22 and an important player.

If thats the case id rather players that 'desperately' want to play for the club then money grubbers like Howe.

Good on Watts

Edited October 4, 20159 yr by dazzledavey36

I read somewhere that the club will only trade Watts if they get an extremely good deal.

Good to see the club putting a high price on his services.

Also, you just don't easily trade a player who 'desperately' wants to play for your club.

That desperation may just be enough to be a player who plays 'desperate' football.

Go Jack. Go Dees. May it be a long and happy marriage.

I read somewhere that the club will only trade Watts if they get an extremely good deal.

Good to see the club putting a high price on his services.

Also, you just don't easily trade a player who 'desperately' wants to play for your club.

That desperation may just be enough to be a player who plays 'desperate' football.

Go Jack. Go Dees. May it be a long and happy marriage.

Hopefully he starts playing with some desperation if he stays!!

It's always a nice change when someone is desperate to play for us.

Having said that, he needs to do a lot more to prove that he is "desperate". He has taken some steps this year, but he's about to hit his prime, and the excuses have all run dry.