Again, Watts' overall game is sitting at C+ and sometimes B- ... he'll need to get better and that's up to Jack.

If we get a glut of injuries then the level he plays at right now may well be enough to get game time most weeks. However, if he doesn't improve then he ends up in a similar category with a number of others.

To be fair, there are quite a few players on our list in the same boat or worse - Grimes, Frost, M Jones, Terlich, Dawes, Spencer, Lumumba, Newton and a number of others including Begg, Kennedy & Melksham.

We have a lot on our list with it all before them ... previously, we had an abundance of players who had very little upside and were no better than C- or worse.

.

  On 29/11/2015 at 02:48, Macca said:

Again, Watts' overall game is sitting at C+ and sometimes B- ... he'll need to get better and that's up to Jack.

If we get a glut of injuries then the level he plays at right now may well be enough to get game time most weeks. However, if he doesn't improve then he end ups in a similar category with a number of others.

To be fair, there are quite a few players on our list in the same boat or worse - Grimes, Frost, M Jones, Terlich, Dawes, Spencer, Lumumba, Newton and a number of others including Begg, Kennedy & Melksham.

We have a lot on our list with it all before them ... previously, we had an abundance of players who had very little upside and were no better than C- or worse.

If their "grades" are so bad, isn't it the teacher's fault? Just going with your analogy...

Jack Watts has had more than enough opportunities to prove his worth to Melbourne FC. Unfortunately due to our dismal situation this past decade he has been given games where, if he was in a stronger team those opportunities would not have been there. He is a soft footballer and I have NEVER seen that mongrel instinct that other players have and surely 2016 is his make or break year. I actually wish he was offloaded last year but he wasn't so I will support him, but I have zero confidence in him finding that desperation required to become the footballer many thought he would be.

  On 29/11/2015 at 02:51, stuie said:

If their "grades" are so bad, isn't it the teacher's fault? Just going with your analogy...

Footballers play to different levels - coaching accounts for about 10-15% improvement or it can go the other way.

A coach can't turn a C+ grader into an A grader but he might be able to turn him into a B grader. I'm talking about a player who is not a draftee - more so 21-23+ year old players.

  On 29/11/2015 at 02:42, stuie said:

Ummmm with words?....

I just think there's more grey areas to football than gets discussed on the net where everyone wants to make definitive statements and label every player or team.

So, you could, in theory, convert those words into a letter (B+, C+ etc) It amounts to the same thing.

Anyway, you're going to have to put up with those definitive statements - it's what we do.

We may as well be standing around in a pub all talking rot - except it's the internet with hundreds of people all viewing what we're writing. Because of those circumstances, anything anyone ever writes can become an argument.

If you're offended by my C+ rating of Watts you shouldn't be - I'm not using the letter C as a put-down like others might. He's there because I can't put him into the B class or better (Jones, Viney, Vince etc)

I genuinely hope that Watts can become a really good player for us - whether that happens or not is up to Jack.

  On 29/11/2015 at 02:25, stuie said:

Stop being such a drama queen

No i will leave that to you

Jack Watts has done sod all in 7 years compared to other players in the AFL. One reason why the MFC has languished in the mud for so many consecutive seans

Attitude.

  On 29/11/2015 at 03:11, Macca said:

So, you could, in theory, convert those words into a letter (B+, C+ etc) It amounts to the same thing.

Anyway, you're going to have to put up with those definitive statements - it's what we do.

We may as well be standing around in a pub all talking rot - except it's the internet with hundreds of people all viewing what we're writing. Because of those circumstances, anything anyone ever writes can become an argument.

If you're offended by my C+ rating of Watts you shouldn't be - I'm not using the letter C as a put-down like others might. He's there because I can't put him into the B class or better (Jones, Viney, Vince etc)

I genuinely hope that Watts can become a really good player for us - whether that happens or not is up to Jack.

I'm not offended by whatever you choose to grade players, that's totally your prerogative, I just think footy is more complicated than labeling players with grades like that. When I say I use words to describe players, I don't mean that in a way where I rank them, as different players have different roles, different strengths, different things they can contribute, to me it's not as simple as putting a arbitrary letter next to their name.

  On 29/11/2015 at 03:29, stuie said:

I'm not offended by whatever you choose to grade players, that's totally your prerogative, I just think footy is more complicated than labeling players with grades like that. When I say I use words to describe players, I don't mean that in a way where I rank them, as different players have different roles, different strengths, different things they can contribute, to me it's not as simple as putting a arbitrary letter next to their name.

It is as simple as finding the ball, holding marks and kicking goals

In 2 of those areas Watts has always lacked application

It hasn't changed in 7 years....

  On 29/11/2015 at 03:34, Sir Why You Little said:

It is as simple as finding the ball, holding marks and kicking goals

In 2 of those areas Watts has always lacked application

It hasn't changed in 7 years....

Maybe in the 70s it was that simple. You should try watching some footy from the last 10 years sometime...

  On 29/11/2015 at 02:35, stuie said:

I've used "A grader" as a term before, and probably will in the future. But I use that term as saying that player is one of the best in the comp, not as a comparative grade which I then go through and weight against other players, ie - I don't use B grader, C grader, High Distinction player, RPL player....

When did you get to set the rules stu?

If I see players as:

Awesome

Great

Average

Below Average.

Shirt

Isnt that exactly the same as a A to E rating?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. You dont think our recruiting team rates players before a draft?

  On 29/11/2015 at 02:23, Ron Burgundy said:

I should perhaps also note that, when we win this bet, I'll be disappointed if you take a 2 month sabbatical.

You're a quality poster and I enjoy reading (most of) what you post.

Net loss if you take a holiday because you've got it wrong on Watts.

You haven't read the terms of the bet correctly, Ron.

  On 29/11/2015 at 03:29, stuie said:

I'm not offended by whatever you choose to grade players, that's totally your prerogative, I just think footy is more complicated than labeling players with grades like that. When I say I use words to describe players, I don't mean that in a way where I rank them, as different players have different roles, different strengths, different things they can contribute, to me it's not as simple as putting a arbitrary letter next to their name.

And I generally do give a description of a player ... it's often just easier to grade players with a ranking in terms of list management.

As a basic example - A "D" grader is often highly likely to be delisted at any time - especially at a top club. Terlich and M Jones are possibly in that area of grading so therefore, they are close to being delisted. But that's just my opinion. I certainly don't hate either player and I'm certain that both players are doing their best.

Anyway, I'll stick to my grading system and if you don't like grading systems then fair enough. We can agree to disagree.

Watts = C+ player (sometimes B-)

• Doesn't go hard enough at the ball or his opponents.
• Is an excellent kick and can create time for himself
• Doesn't get enough of the ball considering how well he can read the play
• When he does read the play well he can be damaging
• Doesn't block or shepherd enough or with enough intent.
• Tackles without real intent when he can be bothered tackling
• He's a good team player but at times he could/should be more selfish and take on his opponents.
• Doesn't stand up in big games
• Kicks well to position and often makes good decisions.
• Presents himself more than many others but doesn't lead to spots where he might get crunched
• Has no real animal instinct for the sport
• Can create good options for his teammates with his vision and disposal

So, can you see why I've arrived at the C+ rating?

He can improve on his strengths but his weaknesses are quite profound and needs a lot of work. He can improve but it's up to Jack.

.

  On 29/11/2015 at 03:35, stuie said:

Maybe in the 70s it was that simple. You should try watching some footy from the last 10 years sometime...

The basic philosophies of the game have not changed. Those who are hungry for success find it.

Now it is Sunday so time to put that head in a Bible Stuie and stop arguing rubbish for the sake of it.

  On 29/11/2015 at 03:48, Sir Why You Little said:

The basic philosophies of the game have not changed. Those who are hungry for success find it.

Now it is Sunday so time to put that head in a Bible Stuie and stop arguing rubbish for the sake of it.

They've totally changed actually. But I guess you wouldn't have had time to notice what with bagging out the club, raging about the past, having personal cracks at people on the internet...

  On 29/11/2015 at 02:32, stuie said:

Spot on. Otherwise we'd see Viney as a ruckman, Vince as a KPB, Garlett as a rebounding defender....

That was Mark Neeld's philosophy. Worked for him.

  On 29/11/2015 at 02:23, Ron Burgundy said:

I should perhaps also note that, when we win this bet, I'll be disappointed if you take a 2 month sabbatical.

You're a quality poster and I enjoy reading (most of) what you post.

Net loss if you take a holiday because you've got it wrong on Watts.

Keep it simple and just buy each other a slab.. no need to self ban each other if you lose a silly little bet.

There is only one thing missing from Watts game and not even Roos can get him to do it after 2 years.

  On 29/11/2015 at 01:32, stuie said:

He played 20 games this year, despite the fact every year of his last 4 has been labelled "make or break" by the same Demonland posters every time.

Everyone just wants to make definitive statements like "next year is make or break" or "next year will be his breakout year".... Maybe he's just a decent player and that's it. He's not a "spud" he's not a star, he's just a decent player. Everybody wants to be the tough guy on an internet forum going a hard as they can to one extreme or the other, and you're definitely the epitome of that.

Pot. Black. But amusing. Thanks

He's been training the house down apparently

Hi everyone, first time blogger, long time reader.

Watts is a good player and no-one that we'll draft will replace his ability which is why they can't trade him.

Top 10 draft player never meant champion, look at the draft results from the last 15 years, what it does mean is he'll be a good 10 year player. That is all, a good servicable player for 10 years, he's a loyal clubman and deserves the respect that the kind of work and blood and sweat and beers that we puts in.

He's lightning quick and will be better with a better midfield around him.I've seen him tackle, swerve, avoid and hit every target in a game only for the next player to turn it over.

We should get off his bat and encourage them to do better. Son of Todd has that exact attitude and it is fantastic. we just need a few more to turn it on!

  On 29/11/2015 at 10:15, Captain Todd said:

Hi everyone, first time blogger, long time reader.

Watts is a good player and no-one that we'll draft will replace his ability which is why they can't trade him.

Top 10 draft player never meant champion, look at the draft results from the last 15 years, what it does mean is he'll be a good 10 year player. That is all, a good servicable player for 10 years, he's a loyal clubman and deserves the respect that the kind of work and blood and sweat and beers that we puts in.

He's lightning quick and will be better with a better midfield around him.I've seen him tackle, swerve, avoid and hit every target in a game only for the next player to turn it over.

We should get off his bat and encourage them to do better. Son of Todd has that exact attitude and it is fantastic. we just need a few more to turn it on!

No he's not.

Is that the best you can do?

I'm not a total novice, he is one our best if Neeld didn't screw him over with his mistaken Human Resource mgmt skills, he'd have the confidence of someone who'd never fail.

He's now got the size and the belief of his team mates.

Watch him, he is better than eledio

  On 29/11/2015 at 10:15, Captain Todd said:

Hi everyone, first time blogger, long time reader.

Watts is a good player and no-one that we'll draft will replace his ability which is why they can't trade him.

Top 10 draft player never meant champion, look at the draft results from the last 15 years, what it does mean is he'll be a good 10 year player. That is all, a good servicable player for 10 years, he's a loyal clubman and deserves the respect that the kind of work and blood and sweat and beers that we puts in.

He's lightning quick and will be better with a better midfield around him.I've seen him tackle, swerve, avoid and hit every target in a game only for the next player to turn it over.

We should get off his bat and encourage them to do better. Son of Todd has that exact attitude and it is fantastic. we just need a few more to turn it on!

I've questioned our trading and drafting, but by your summation, it's an absolute bust.

The fact that no other club had any interest in Watts may have been a factor as to why we didn't trade him.

  On 29/11/2015 at 10:44, mo64 said:

I've questioned our trading and drafting, but by your summation, it's an absolute bust.

The fact that no other club had any interest in Watts may have been a factor as to why we didn't trade him.

Sick of reading this. Please provide your factual information for this. Factual.

I don't know how you couldn't have Watts in our best 22, he is with out a doubt our best ball user.

Some of the decisions he makes under pressure are amazing, he just needs to find the consistency to take his game to the next level and I hope 2016 is the year he does this.