Jack Watts in 2016?

[hardtack 10,127]

After picking up Weideman and Oliver where does Watts fit into the top 22 players now?

Well, until Weideman and Oliver prove themselves at the AFL level, I think Watts is still ahead of them. To rate them as part of the top 22 without having yet done a thing with the club is a bit rich.

Edited November 25, 2015 by hardtack

[Winners at last 4,727]

Absolutely!! He's a walk up start at Casey!!

[olisik 4,060]

Won't be just Oliver and Weiderman.

Will also be Petracca Trengove Melksham And Kennedy pushing their claim to.

Not to mention small number of injuries at start of season.

[Demonic Faves 39]

Yes he is! Roosy loves him. Had to drop himself because he was so embarrassed Roosy wouldn't do it.

[McQueen 17,863]

I now have genuine concern that Watts will not last past next year. The list is being moulded into one of fierce competitors who are aggressive at the pill and man.

Unless something miraculous happens during this pre season and Jack turns into the player we all want him too, I can't see him being a valuable contributor to the new team ethos.

Hit the gym, Jack. It's quite possibly your only salvation.

Edited November 25, 2015 by McQueen

[Dwight Schrute 16,751]

I felt Jack Watts played a really good patch of footy this year, and he's growing into his role, i still see him as very much part of the 22 if he plays at his best, hopefully another year with Macca and he'll be alot more consistent, has the ability, can he do it every week now

[Gator 16,892]

Watts won't play 10 games next year. They want a team of "22 competitors" and clearly he isn't.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

I'll back Watts to play more than 10 games next year.

For the Dees, not Casey.

[Mad_Melbourne 872]

He will be one of our starting wingers/high half forwards, then it is up to him to keep his form up so that he stays in the side.

He played some decent football on the wing, where he used his speed to take the game on and his disposal is almost the most damaging in our side, so he should be pivotal for us moving forward.

Im an unashamed fan, would back him in for 18+ games and a contract extension.

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,418]

I never understand the contest questions relating to Jack Watts. He is just another cog in the machine. If he is good enough he may play all games next year, if not he won't.

WHO REALLY CARES

[AllMyTeamsAreWank 563]

Everyone is banging on about 'true competitors' and rolling out the time old cliches, but the reality is that premiership winning teams always have players like Jack Watts as the icing on the cake. The Hawks have a couple of them in Gunston and Suckling. You could probably go through every successful club and pick out the players who play their role through skill and intelligence rather than aggression.

I firmly believe as the team begins to gel we will see Jack come into his own more and more.

[bandicoot 1,395]

I now have genuine concern that Watts will not last past next year. The list is being moulded into one of fierce competitors who are aggressive at the pill and man.

Unless something miraculous happens during this pre season and Jack turns into the player we all want him too, I can't see him being a valuable contributor to the new team ethos.

Hit the gym, Jack. It's quite possibly your only salvation.

Gunston, bruest, smith, birchall, stratton, suckling, shiels.....

Competitive beasts???

All skillful players that play their role.

Watts needs to stick to his task week in week out.

If he does this then his spot is guaranteed

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Gunston, bruest, smith, birchall, stratton, suckling, shiels.....

Competitive beasts???

They may not be "competitive beasts" in the mould of Joel Selwood but they always go when it's their turn never take a backward step.

[McQueen 17,863]

Gunston, bruest, smith, birchall, stratton, suckling, shiels.....

Competitive beasts???

All skillful players that play their role.

Watts needs to stick to his task week in week out.

If he does this then his spot is guaranteed

I never mentioned 'competitive beasts'.

And I can guarantee that those blokes you've mentioned above are more competitive than half the blokes on our list right now.

Crazy comparison.

[rpfc 27,453]

They may not be "competitive beasts" in the mould of Joel Selwood but they always go when it's their turn never take a backward step.

It is a bit easier with those "beasts" around though...

It's all about your role for players now - if Jack can play the third tall role with desire and scoring involvement - he will play.

Hard and fast judgements in November are fun to look back on but hold little water obviously.

[watchtheeyes 1,210]

Always been a supporter of Jacks, but I now think there is a realistic chance we don't see him round 1.

Having said that, being down at Casey for several weeks while we are winning will surely stoke some competitive fire and I for one hope it is the making of him.

If he doesn't do it this year, then he won't be delisted. He will head to another club for whatever we can get and if he got to a decent outfit, then I wouldn't be surprised to see him be quite dominant at times.

[binman 38,035]

Watts won't play 10 games next year. They want a team of "22 competitors" and clearly he isn't.

Would you like to have a bet on that?

I'll wager he will play more than 10 games and if i lose will take a 2 month sabbatical form Demonland. If he plays more than 10 you change your avatar for two months to a pic of Wattsy of my choosing.

How about it are we on?

[What 18,810]

Funny, now I think he'd fit in more than ever since hes always been a guy who can be the icing on the cake. Until now we have not had the cake.

No doubt his skills are elite and can be an asset and a deadly weapon for us. I guess time till tell if he wants it enough.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

Would you like to have a bet on that?

I'll wager he will play more than 10 games and if i lose will take a 2 month sabbatical form Demonland. If he plays more than 10 you change your avatar for two months to a pic of Wattsy of my choosing.

How about it are we on?

Yep. It's on.

No need to take a sabbatical though. I just get to choose your avatar for a 2 month period as well.

Don't let me down here Jack.

[Chris 2,892]

Yep. It's on.

No need to take a sabbatical though. I just get to choose your avatar for a 2 month period as well.

Don't let me down here Jack.

In Jack not letting you down wouldn't he actually be letting you down?

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

Don't get all technical on me Chris.

I am starting to immediately regret this decision.

[Chris 2,892]

Don't get all technical on me Chris.

I am starting to immediately regret this decision.

A bit of a quandary really, You will be happy either way as either you win or Jack plays well, but you will also be disappointed either way as you lost or Jack didn't play well and would probably be career over.

I guess the outcomes depends on whether you are a glass half full or half empty kind of person!

[Demon Disciple 10,938]

Yes Watts still has a place in our team. He will almost always have a place in our team.

He has some of the best skills on our entire list. No he won't be the KPF we hoped when he was drafted, but he could play a role as a designated deliverer when kicking into the forward line.

You still need some white-collar players to finish off all the hard work of the blue-collar mids we are obviously compiling.

[binman 38,035]

Yep. It's on.

No need to take a sabbatical though. I just get to choose your avatar for a 2 month period as well.

Don't let me down here Jack.

Well i wasn't offering you the bet but i'll take it none the less. Go Jacky boy.

By the by technically NAB games count as proper season games weren't specified, but in the spirit of the bet we'll make it the season proper.

Crickets thus far from PD by the by

[Deecisive 1,651]

Jack usually does well enough to justify his spot in the team. unfortunately everyone is measuring Jack against what they think he should be showing. I hope competition for spots in the team will give him the motivation to do more as he is a quality player when on song.