14 minutes ago, binman said:

I agree he is at minimum standard, assuming you mean his minimum standard, if that makes sense. As you say the way he has played most of this season is minimum required standard, particularly his competitiveness.

As someone else pointed out one of the impressive things about this season is how consistent he has been across games (but not as you have said always within games). This is super important as we can see the impact of forwards going missing in some games, in particular Kent and Gartlett.

As i have said before 40 goals is what he should have been aiming for, though i would have been happy with 30-35 (perhaps setting the bar to low).

Hard to argue that Gunston is the better player. At the moment. He has the runs on the board - though i would argue as permanent forward who's key go is marks on the lead he has benefited from one of the best mid fields ever and had Franklin, Roughie, Rioli and Bruest to keep defenders busy.

But i can see Watts being better eventually as he is as classy and with his capacity to play up the ground he has few more strings to his bow. He will also benefit from an improving midfield and a forward line that soon will not be far off the Hawks one i just mentioned. But he would need to go up a level and also put 2-3 more really good seasons together.

To go up a level he will need to keep being consistent, but also have a handful of games where he get 20 plus possessions (dragging his disposal average up above the 15 or it is at the moment) and one or two games per season where he blitzes the opposition and bags 5 or 6 goals. I think he has both of those things in him as he builds toward 150 games, his confidence keeps rising and the team around him keeps rising.

We'll see. Perhaps my call from 3 years ago that he would make AA might come true. That might be a good bet!

By the by i'm loving the avatar PD - warms my heart every time i see it and has allowed me to migrate to two of my favourite ever dees players.

Would love to have a genuine conversation about him being as good as Gunstan, but Gunstan is a 3x premiership player which will always trump Watts' achievements over the next few years (unless we're on the verge of being the next Hawthorn)

2 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Fitness isn't an issue.

Has mentioned it in multiple interviews (2014-2015). Stated that it was one of the main reasons for his brain fades.

 

In the context of Jack Watts it's a break out year. At most other clubs it would be a good year. In a top 4 team absolutely it would be minimum standard. We fawn over him because he's finally playing well after 8 years at the club. I'd be pleased if he continued this improvement and became the genuine star that many fans currently think he is. There is still a long way to go before he reaches this level.

11 minutes ago, demon9 said:

Has mentioned it in multiple interviews (2014-2015). Stated that it was one of the main reasons for his brain fades.

 

I seem to recall that in the last couple of years he was the player who usually recorded the most kilometres per game?

7 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Amazed and rapt to see him rucking.  It takes real aerial courage to line up against the likes of Witts at the centre bounce (rubbish free kick against Jack in one contest too).   I think that is really adding to his aerial confidence.  He's been really flying for some marks but just not sticking them, one where he came from behind Howe to get front position and almost take a slips catch was terrific, but it just didn't stick.  If he starts to stick them - look out.

WTF was that free kick for? If anything I thought it was going to Watts. 

Also starting to change my early opinion of him in the ruck. He's doing a good job and could get better as an extra mid around the ball. We're not losing too much and could gain quite a bit. 

I'm very keen to see his signature. Along with Jetta, McDonald and Hogan (I guess) 

Previous career best was 22 goals in 2013

He has 24 already in 2016.

10 hours ago, ProDee said:

You're a dope, Stu.

Of course he's playing better than I thought he would.  Have a look at my avatar.

But once he had a terrific preseason, once he said that he was going to play permanent forward (this year) and once he acknowledged he needed to kick more goals it was reasonable to set scoreboard impact as one of the first measuring sticks.  I thought he could and should kick 40 goals in this new role.  You're a dope and naturally scoffed.  You have no vision or footy cred.  

Jack Gunston is a very good player.  He's a better player than Watts.  I don't expect Watts to kick 50+ goals (would be great if he did), but playing the Gunston role 40 goals was reasonable.  And he should do it to cap off a good year.  In 4 completed years at Hawthorn Gunston has averaged over 2 goals per game in every one.  The last 2 years he's kicked over 50.  He'll do it again this year.  Do you think Gunston has a goal/output target for the year, or is that too "stringy" for you.

Why you and others set the bar so low is beyond me.  He's having his first good year in 8 and dopes like you think it's wonderful and not a minimum required standard.  Now that he's worked out what AFL footy is about it should be the standard.  

And I have zero doubt that it's a standard for him, his coaches and teammates.  Or do you think they'll be happy with less ?

I wonder how many Gunston would kick playing for Melbourne.

FWIW, I thought Jack's start to Monday was very ordinary, but he worked himself into the game when we the game was over. He can play a lot better than he did against the Pies. What is pleasing though is his ability to get on the board in games that he's struggled in.

7 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

I wonder how many Gunston would kick playing for Melbourne.

FWIW, I thought Jack's start to Monday was very ordinary, but he worked himself into the game when we the game was over. He can play a lot better than he did against the Pies. What is pleasing though is his ability to get on the board in games that he's struggled in.

I agree.  In that first quarter I thought "here we go, it's going to be one of those games", but he didn't let his start define him. 

As for some others who agree with Dopey...

How any of you think that Watts is over achieving is beyond me.  How any of you think that Watts' output this year should not ne considered the new standard is staggering.  He now understands what it takes at AFL level, but some of you don't expect this level to be the standard as we move forward.

He and the club have waited 8 years for this level output but some of you don't think it should be a minimum standard.  Some of you think that would be unfair.

Extraordinary.

And another excellent post Binman. 

You drew a big fat line in the cement ages ago in relation to Jack Watts, ProDee. And you have stuck to your guns ever since.

Quite frankly, you got it wrong. He's had a terrific season and has been a critical player for us. Simple.

But I expect a combination of confirmation bias and general stubbornness won't change things.

 

21 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

You drew a big fat line in the cement ages ago in relation to Jack Watts, ProDee. And you have stuck to your guns ever since.

Quite frankly, you got it wrong.

 

What did I get wrong ?

21 hours ago, ProDee said:

but he's really only at minimum levels. 

 

55 minutes ago, ProDee said:

How any of you think that Watts is over achieving is beyond me.

And here comes the standard moving of the goal posts...

 

12 minutes ago, ProDee said:

What did I get wrong ?

Oh, can we go another dizzying trip in semantics about how he has been a 'dud of a pick' up until he wasn't?

Joy.

Just now, stuie said:

 

And here comes the standard moving of the goal posts...

 

You're thick as two bricks, Stu.

For me, Watts is now playing at a standard that he must not fall from.  In his 8th year he's reached a minimum standard for hist experience and talent levels; and it's a set standard he's set for himself, the club and any logical person (not you).  In other words, a logical person wouldn't want his output to be less next year, which, of course, makes 2016 a "standard".  

Others (like you) clearly think he must be over-achieving, because you don't want to define his 2016 output as his "minimum standard".  You think such expectations would be unfair.  So, if you're not happy for this year to be considered a minimum, if such expectations are too lofty, then the only conclusion is that you're OK if he regresses from here.  You must think there's some level of over-achieving if you don't want to draw the line under his 2016.    

Extraordinary really, but that's your level of footy acumen, Stu, and I suspect it permeates your life in general.

No need to keep responding though, I'll need crayons to make it any clearer.

If this is the minimum standard, where's the standard whereby you'll be content and possibly even excited, ProDee? (Not disagreeing or trying to make any particular point, just curious.)

How good is demonland today.

I love Jack Wats.

Edited June 15, 20169 yr by stevethemanjordan

8 minutes ago, ProDee said:

You're thick as two bricks, Stu.

For me, Watts is now playing at a standard that he must not fall from.  In his 8th year he's reached a minimum standard for hist experience and talent levels; and it's a set standard he's set for himself, the club and any logical person (not you).  In other words, a logical person wouldn't want his output to be less next year, which, of course, makes 2016 a "standard".  

Others (like you) clearly think he must be over-achieving, because you don't want to define his 2016 output as his "minimum standard".  You think such expectations would be unfair.  So, if you're not happy for this year to be considered a minimum, if such expectations are too lofty, then the only conclusion is that you're OK if he regresses from here.  You must think there's some level of over-achieving if you don't want to draw the line under his 2016.    

Extraordinary really, but that's your level of footy acumen, Stu, and I suspect it permeates your life in general.

No need to keep responding though, I'll need crayons to make it any clearer.

I'm not sure what the keyboard equivalent of loving the sound of your own voice is, but you are the embodiment of it.

 

Just now, stuie said:

I'm not sure what the keyboard equivalent of loving the sound of your own voice is, but you are the embodiment of it.

 

Good comeback, Stu.

You've been hogtied and thrown on a spit.

Better luck next time.

2 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Good comeback, Stu.

You've been hogtied and thrown on a spit.

Better luck next time.

You're a sad, angry, frustrated person "ProDee". You may try and hide it behind your lengthy argumentative novels you continually add in this thread, mainly about some insignificant semantics, but the insecurity permeates every post. You would know by now you're not convincing me, or others, with your ramblings so it's clear you're just trying to convince yourself. Watts would find your continuation of arguing indefinables absolutely hilarious if he actually gave a stuff about the opinion of a sooky grown man with such an insignificant agenda.

But hey, whatever makes you feel like more of a man.

Have a good day champ, sounds like you need it.

 

9 minutes ago, Nasher said:

If this is the minimum standard, where's the standard whereby you'll be content and possibly even excited, ProDee? (Not disagreeing or trying to make any particular point, just curious.)

I'm excited that he's reached a level I'd given up on.  It's not a level I would have been excited by 8 years ago, but I'm excited now because i thought he was finished.  And he would have been finished.  The club tried to off-load him last trade period and couldn't.  He was dropped twice in his 7th season.

I'll be happy if he continues this current output for the remainder of his career.  The excitement levels may wane, but I'll be satisfied.

How others think I'm being harsh calling this current output as a new standard and that he mustn't regress is really unfathomable to me.

Do you disagree ? 

3 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Do you disagree ? 

Nup.  I can see why others take exception to your seemingly holding Watts to a higher standard than any other player (whether or not you believe this to be the case is irrelevant, that's how you present), but at the end of the day I think you're right.  It would be bitterly disappointing if Watts dropped off after finally reaching this level and I think that's the bottom line.

1 minute ago, ProDee said:

I'll be happy if he continues this current output for the remainder of his career.

You'll be happy with "minimum levels" for the remainder of his career?

And I thought you were the type to demand more...

Tisk tisk.

1 minute ago, stuie said:

You're a sad, angry, frustrated person "ProDee". You may try and hide it behind your lengthy argumentative novels you continually add in this thread, mainly about some insignificant semantics, but the insecurity permeates every post. You would know by now you're not convincing me, or others, with your ramblings so it's clear you're just trying to convince yourself. Watts would find your continuation of arguing indefinables absolutely hilarious if he actually gave a stuff about the opinion of a sooky grown man with such an insignificant agenda.

But hey, whatever makes you feel like more of a man.

Have a good day champ, sounds like you need it.

 

That's just waffle from a well-known lightweight.  You haven't addressed one aspect of what you're disagreeing with.  As I said, you've been hogtied by your own incompetence.

As I said preseason, goals per game was a worthwhile parameter for his new role.  Naturally you scoffed, because you lacked vision. He had to impact the scoreboard and he has.  You couldn't see it coming, which is why you call it a "stringy" objective.  That's how dopes defend their earlier lack of insight.

And thanks, I'm going to have a wonderful day.

 

3 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Nup.  I can see why others take exception to your seemingly holding Watts to a higher standard than any other player (whether or not you believe this to be the case is irrelevant, that's how you present), but at the end of the day I think you're right.  It would be bitterly disappointing if Watts dropped off after finally reaching this level and I think that's the bottom line.

Naturally, you'll be expecting an angry barrage now from Stu ?  You know, being so unfair on Watts.

Nah, didn't think so.

Stu's back in his box.

As for higher standard than other players ?  I don't believe so.  I take into account talent levels.  Simon Godfrey was a scrubber, but I admired the fact he achieved the best he could.  Having said that, calls for him to be dropped would have been met with outcry by some at the time.  That's the way Demonland rolls.

Wait till our boy jack starts kicking crucial set shots in finals...