Jack Watts in 2016?

[Gator 16,891]

It seems that some supporters actually forget what they watch when they go to the footy or sit in front of the box and need reminding by watching a 9 minute "highlights" video.  This said video samples 460 quarters of football.  

The "highlights" are preciously few from those 13,800 minutes of actual playing time. 

[CBDees 3,162]

11 minutes ago, ProDee said:

It seems that some supporters actually forget what they watch when they go to the footy or sit in front of the box and need reminding by watching a 9 minute "highlights" video.  This said video samples 460 quarters of football.  

The "highlights" are preciously few from those 13,800 minutes of actual playing time. 

Do you want somebody to post a 13,800 minute warts and all video so that we can be more objective and give equal time to the glass half empty supporters (or do you secretly yearn for 9 minutes of negativity)?

Edited January 1, 2016 by CBDees

[Gator 16,891]

54 minutes ago, CBDees said:

Do you want somebody to post a 13,800 minute warts and all video so that we can be more objective and give equal time to the glass half empty supporters (or do you secretly yearn for 9 minutes of negativity)?

No.  I've already seen it.

[jumbo returns 6,486]

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

It seems that some supporters actually forget what they watch when they go to the footy or sit in front of the box and need reminding by watching a 9 minute "highlights" video.  This said video samples 460 quarters of football.  

The "highlights" are preciously few from those 13,800 minutes of actual playing time. 

You forgot to add time on.....

[KingDingAling 3,592]

I am a massive Jack Watts fan. I expect he'll have a good year, he is relatively consistent and is becoming an underrated player. Hopefully Watts can focus on his strengths from here on in, I'd like to see him build upon his agility, class, decision making and execution.

[Slartibartfast 15,752]

19 hours ago, Amoeba said:

I pretty much just lurk here but I just wanted to say that I heavily disagree with this sentiment (and JW is probably my favourite player too). Fact is, this is an internet forum where people have their own opinions and everything and it's inevitable that some of this creeps into postings - every player cops it, albeit some much more than most. Banning someone for having negative opinions of a player is bad because it reduces the amount of independent thought posted on this site. Yeah people could be definitely be nicer with their comments, but you know, everyone's entitled to free speech and you're entitled to disapprove if you disagree with their comments. But banning someone for being harsh towards a player is a bit much to me.

I also don't think his post was really abuse; I read it just as being tired of the continual expectations of Jack. But yeah, maybe I read it wrongly!

I agree with much of what you say but as someone once said "with free speech comes responsibility".  In my opinion that line of responsibility has been passed and the criticism of Jack has gone well past the "constructive criticism" some claim.

Here is a link to the "Jack Watts" threads in the past 12 months alone.  http://demonland.com/forums/search/?&q=jack%20watts&type=forums_topic&search_in=titles&start_after=year

It's nonsensical to claim this is any sort of normal discussion.  It's gone so far past "constructive criticism" (although how a supporter on an internet forum can think his critique of a player is "constructive criticism" is beyond me and to suggests posters insights can be more valuable than the myriad of line and development coaches we now have is preposterous).

The damage done by social media is well known and accepted.  An internet forum is "social media".  I contend that what is happening now for Jack is bashing, bullying, tasteless and thoughtless and perhaps even dangerous.  Some almost seem to have a vendetta against Jack born out of their disappointment which were in part fuelled by the inept management he received under Schwab, Connolly and Bailey.

I'm all for sensible footy forum internet discussion and I think players should be subject to critique but what Watts is now subject to goes well beyond that and is now just an irresponsible use of "free speech".  Who hasn't had their say?  Who hasn't had an opportunity to offer their opinion?  What purpose does it serve to have the same people present the same opinion over and over again.

As for banning people I agree you couldn't ban Deeluded for his post but in essence it added nothing, wasn't funny and served no purpose.

It just astounds me that people have so little respect for a person that they would post that dribble.  Demonland should set a standard and act on the Jack Watts bashing and bullying that goes on here.

[Gator 16,891]

1 hour ago, Baghdad Bob said:

I agree with much of what you say but as someone once said "with free speech comes responsibility".  In my opinion that line of responsibility has been passed and the criticism of Jack has gone well past the "constructive criticism" some claim.

Here is a link to the "Jack Watts" threads in the past 12 months alone.  http://demonland.com/forums/search/?&q=jack%20watts&type=forums_topic&search_in=titles&start_after=year

It's nonsensical to claim this is any sort of normal discussion.  It's gone so far past "constructive criticism" (although how a supporter on an internet forum can think his critique of a player is "constructive criticism" is beyond me and to suggests posters insights can be more valuable than the myriad of line and development coaches we now have is preposterous).

The damage done by social media is well known and accepted.  An internet forum is "social media".  I contend that what is happening now for Jack is bashing, bullying, tasteless and thoughtless and perhaps even dangerous.  Some almost seem to have a vendetta against Jack born out of their disappointment which were in part fuelled by the inept management he received under Schwab, Connolly and Bailey.

I'm all for sensible footy forum internet discussion and I think players should be subject to critique but what Watts is now subject to goes well beyond that and is now just an irresponsible use of "free speech".  Who hasn't had their say?  Who hasn't had an opportunity to offer their opinion?  What purpose does it serve to have the same people present the same opinion over and over again.

As for banning people I agree you couldn't ban Deeluded for his post but in essence it added nothing, wasn't funny and served no purpose.

It just astounds me that people have so little respect for a person that they would post that dribble.  Demonland should set a standard and act on the Jack Watts bashing and bullying that goes on here.

I've not done any sort of analysis, but I'd hazard a guess that Watts receives far more support than derision.  I'd put it at 80% positive 20% negative.

But yes, he's no doubt one of the most scrutinised players in history.  

Elsewhere, a former number 1 draft pick in Tom Boyd is regularly under the microscope.  Clearly it's not sought after, but it seems to come with the territory.

EDIT: But yes, for different reasons Boyd's under scrutiny.

Edited January 2, 2016 by ProDee

[Amoeba 6]

1 hour ago, Baghdad Bob said:

 

Well put. Thank you for your response!

Again, my primary contention is that bans aren't a good idea even for vitriolic attacks that I've seen (and which you've linked to, though there may be some truly vicious ones I have missed). It's my belief that an unfortunate aspect of celebrity is the hate/harassment they will get both in public and on the internet, and footballers, being in the public eye, will know this and be able to accept this. 

The anonymity of the internet allows people to say things they wouldn't dare say in real life and that's the nature of the internet. You could curb the negativity through bans, yes, but I think this is forcing people to think a certain way which detracts from the individuality of a forum (which is the point of having one in the first place IMO). At the moment while some are negative the overall attitude towards JW is such that I don't believe action needs to be taken.

I agree with you completely though that the posts you have linked to are not normal discussion, and I feel sad that people feel the need to belittle/make fun of a player who has served our club for a number of years now. I just don't think it's ban-worthy.

[Slartibartfast 15,752]

12 minutes ago, Amoeba said:

Well put. Thank you for your response!

Again, my primary contention is that bans aren't a good idea even for vitriolic attacks that I've seen (and which you've linked to, though there may be some truly vicious ones I have missed). It's my belief that an unfortunate aspect of celebrity is the hate/harassment they will get both in public and on the internet, and footballers, being in the public eye, will know this and be able to accept this. 

The anonymity of the internet allows people to say things they wouldn't dare say in real life and that's the nature of the internet. You could curb the negativity through bans, yes, but I think this is forcing people to think a certain way which detracts from the individuality of a forum (which is the point of having one in the first place IMO). At the moment while some are negative the overall attitude towards JW is such that I don't believe action needs to be taken.

I agree with you completely though that the posts you have linked to are not normal discussion, and I feel sad that people feel the need to belittle/make fun of a player who has served our club for a number of years now. I just don't think it's ban-worthy.

I've said in my post a ban wasn't warranted. We should try and educate, not ban.  And I think Demonland should start setting a standard.

You suggest that "an unfortunate aspect of celebrity is the hate/harassment they will get both in public and on the internet, and footballers, being in the public eye, will know this and be able to accept this" but I'd contend that this is tenuous at best and others will know better than me examples of celebrity where continuous and bullying public comment has caused damage to the individual.  But it begs the question of community attitudes and respect for others.  We clearly differ in that I don't believe that the continual abusive critique of Watts is acceptable and it goes well beyond the responsible use of free speech.  I'm not trying to make "people think in a different way", I'm just applying what I would hope would be normal community standards of respect towards an individual and the avoidance of bullying.

Perhaps we just draw the line in a different spot. 

Interestingly TimD could add much to this conversation but he was banned for having a dispute and showing a lack of respect to a poster.  It was no worse than has occurred many times on this site but the target just happened to own the site.  It's a pity rules aren't applied consistently

 

Cheers.  BB

[Slartibartfast 15,752]

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

I've not done any sort of analysis, but I'd hazard a guess that Watts receives far more support than derision.  I'd put it at 80% positive 20% negative.

But yes, he's no doubt one of the most scrutinised players in history.  

Elsewhere, a former number 1 draft pick in Tom Boyd is regularly under the microscope.  Clearly it's not sought after, but it seems to come with the territory.

EDIT: But yes, for different reasons Boyd's under scrutiny.

It's not only here Pro.  IIRC when Jack played his 100th game the AFL website in their wisdom put up a package of his bloopers.  I can't find the link - perhaps the AFL realise how tasteless it was.  Lots of No1 picks have been under the microscope but I'd contend that if you aggregated these comments Jack would have them covered 3 fold.

Anyway I've had my say.  Cheers

 

BB 

[Redleg 37,549]

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

 

Elsewhere, a former number 1 draft pick in Tom Boyd is regularly under the microscope.  Clearly it's not sought after, but it seems to come with the territory.

EDIT: But yes, for different reasons Boyd's under scrutiny.

Disagree here. I think Boyd has escaped the media and fan scrutiny that Watts has copped and Jack isn't getting more than $1m a season either, or bailed on his club after 1 year.

There is another player at GWS, in jumper number 9, who gets about $1.2m a year and has played pretty ordinary footy, who also seems to escape scrutiny after bailing on his club.

[Gator 16,891]

10 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Disagree here. I think Boyd has escaped the media and fan scrutiny that Watts has copped and Jack isn't getting more than $1m a season either, or bailed on his club after 1 year.

There is another player at GWS, in jumper number 9, who gets about $1.2m a year and has played pretty ordinary footy, who also seems to escape scrutiny after bailing on his club.

I'm not really talking about "the" media, I'm more talking about "social media".  He gets caned.

 

[stuie 7,374]

5 hours ago, ProDee said:

I've not done any sort of analysis, but I'd hazard a guess that Watts receives far more support than derision.  I'd put it at 80% positive 20% negative.

You clearly haven't, because most reasonable people's guess would be the complete opposite of those figures.

 

[Gator 16,891]

2 hours ago, stuie said:

You clearly haven't, because most reasonable people's guess would be the complete opposite of those figures.

 

You're thick as well as funny, Stu.

Edited January 2, 2016 by ProDee

[binman 37,901]

 

9 hours ago, ProDee said:

It seems that some supporters actually forget what they watch when they go to the footy or sit in front of the box and need reminding by watching a 9 minute "highlights" video.  This said video samples 460 quarters of football.  

The "highlights" are preciously few from those 13,800 minutes of actual playing time. 

 

On 12/30/2015 at 1:03 PM, binman said:

 A couple of nice grabs in there too! had to laugh though when the accurate one Leigh Matthews said how good his hands are.

The anti watts faction - woops i know people don't being labelled Watts bashers for pointing out his flaws - will point out his career highlights seem pretty short

Gold, pure gold.

I was confident that someone would bite and make a comment about the number of career highlights in the package, even after i had made the comment quoted above, but to be honest didn't expect it to be you PD. A little too obvious don't you think? I guess not.

 

[Gator 16,891]

11 minutes ago, binman said:

 

 

Gold, pure gold.

I was confident that someone would bite and make a comment about the number of career highlights in the package, even after i had made the comment quoted above, but to be honest didn't expect it to be you PD. A little too obvious don't you think? I guess not.

 

I didn't read you. 

Glad you're excited though...

[Bitter but optimistic 21,232]

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

You're thick as well as funny, Stu.

Now I know my mate Stu wont take this the wrong way but I'm guessing you mean funny strange rather than funny hilarious Pro.

[Gator 16,891]

16 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Now I know my mate Stu wont take this the wrong way but I'm guessing you mean funny strange rather than funny hilarious Pro.

No, funny haha.

Unintended consequences.

[binman 37,901]

43 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I didn't read you. 

Glad you're excited though...

Love it. I assumed you didn't 'read me' but none the less had to laugh that, of all people, it was you who pointed out how short the package of his career highlights was. Made more funny by you bothering to calculate the number of minutes he has played. Gold, pure gold.

Excited would be over egging the pudding but it did make me laugh. 

[Gator 16,891]

32 minutes ago, binman said:

Love it. I assumed you didn't 'read me' but none the less had to laugh that, of all people, it was you who pointed out how short the package of his career highlights was. Made more funny by you bothering to calculate the number of minutes he has played. Gold, pure gold.

Excited would be over egging the pudding but it did make me laugh. 

"Gold, pure gold."

"Love it."

And you call prosecutions of infantile behaviour and being excited as "over egging the pudding" ?  

Your football acumen matches your vapid commentary.

Edited January 2, 2016 by ProDee

[Bitter but optimistic 21,232]

56 minutes ago, ProDee said:

27 minutes ago, ProDee said:

28 minutes ago, ProDee said:

"

"Gold, pure gold."

"Love it."

And you call prosecutions of infantile behaviour and being excited as "over egging the pudding" ?  

Your football acumen matches your vapid commentary.

 

A Ben Hur comment if ever I've heard one.

[Gator 16,891]

2 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

A Ben Hur comment if ever I've heard one.

Thanks for the reminder.

[Deez 298]

Ive been wrong before, but Im predicting big things from Jack watts this year. His highlights reel is fantastic, with support and good disposal to him, who knows what he could achieve. Go dees. 

[binman 37,901]

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

"Gold, pure gold."

"Love it."

And you call prosecutions of infantile behaviour and being excited as "over egging the pudding" ?  

Your football acumen matches your vapid commentary.

This is too much. My football acumen matches my vapid commentary. Seriously? Gold, pure gold. And to be honest i love it. Keep up the top work PD

#rawnerve

[dee-luded 2,958]

On 01/01/2016 at 3:56 PM, Amoeba said:

I pretty much just lurk here but I just wanted to say that I heavily disagree with this sentiment (and JW is probably my favourite player too). Fact is, this is an internet forum where people have their own opinions and everything and it's inevitable that some of this creeps into postings - every player cops it, albeit some much more than most. Banning someone for having negative opinions of a player is bad because it reduces the amount of independent thought posted on this site. Yeah people could be definitely be nicer with their comments, but you know, everyone's entitled to free speech and you're entitled to disapprove if you disagree with their comments. But banning someone for being harsh towards a player is a bit much to me.

I also don't think his post was really abuse; I read it just as being tired of the continual expectations of Jack. But yeah, maybe I read it wrongly!

the post was actually sarcasm, born heavily from both relief, & the  'not another watts'  conversation...   relief is from our recruiting players we can look forward to leading us out of the dark,  & 'the frustration'  of seeing watts up high on the forum board again.

 

 the bordom snoring angle was intentional, to show my feelings of relief of not being reliant on players of his ilk,   & of being bored by more watts talk....  you see I don't have any feeling of excitement from him to this point,   but a lot of disappointment from his career thus far,, , mainly from the lack of hard effort.