God this thread has degenerated.

Can't we all just get along and accept that JW has improved a lot, and that we're all just secretly waiting to tear him to shreds the next time delivers a so-so performance?

4 minutes ago, Django said:

God this thread has degenerated.

Can't we all just get along and accept that JW has improved a lot, and that we're all just secretly waiting to tear him to shreds the next time delivers a so-so performance?

Anything Stu decides to enter degenerates.  Why he's tolerated is beyond me.

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

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.

 

Your concept of "minimum standard" is an interesting one.  Often have we heard the statement "he's not playing up to his standard".

Of course your expectation of his standard was elevated from day one when you announced him as a great recruit for the MFC.  You defended him vigorously in your famous Leigh Matthews interview post and we all applauded you.  You saw the talent, you saw a young kid making his way, you saw him be subject to the worst development of young talent in the games history operating under a dysfunctional football department.  He disappointed you and all of us and you turned on him with an almost obsessional venom.  

You threw him under the bus, made snide cracks about nothing hard ever coming out of Brighton Grammar and you wanted nothing to do with him at our club.  You reacted to the here and now and didn't have the foresight  to recognize that because of the underdeveloped talent and the path he was forced to lead he was worth the punt of persevering with.  You were not alone but there was another group that thought differently.  Hence the continual debate.

Personally I find your definition of "minimum standards" to be self serving.  It's not what your level of minimum standard is and not what mine is.  The question is "does he deserve his spot in the team, are we better with him or without him"?.  Unquestionably the answer is we are better with him and that we would also be better with him if he wasn't playing as well as he is. His current standard is significantly above the standard required to play meaningful AFL football.  Frankly your "minimum standard" is just bluster.

Unlike many, and I suspect like you, I'm not sold on Jack Watts.  12 games doesn't make a player, he needs to keep doing it and after 7 less than inspiring years, it will take more than the first half of this season to convince me that Jack has arrived.  But unlike you I'll not try and tarnish his terrific year to date with silly measurements of "40 goals", "minimum standard" and "Gunston is better" narratives along with continual harping about his first 7 years.

I'll be thrilled for a kid who has been through more than most others when it comes to public ridicule (remember when the AFL website ran a "Jack Watts greatest bloopers" highlight reel for his 100th game) and I'm glad he is finally getting some joy and reward from the game.  Your mean spirited attitude doesn't serve you well.

3 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Your concept of "minimum standard" is an interesting one.  Often have we heard the statement "he's not playing up to his standard".

Of course your expectation of his standard was elevated from day one when you announced him as a great recruit for the MFC.  You defended him vigorously in your famous Leigh Matthews interview post and we all applauded you.  You saw the talent, you saw a young kid making his way, you saw him be subject to the worst development of young talent in the games history operating under a dysfunctional football department.  He disappointed you and all of us and you turned on him with an almost obsessional venom.  

You threw him under the bus, made snide cracks about nothing hard ever coming out of Brighton Grammar and you wanted nothing to do with him at our club.  You reacted to the here and now and didn't have the foresight  to recognize that because of the underdeveloped talent and the path he was forced to lead he was worth the punt of persevering with.  You were not alone but there was another group that thought differently.  Hence the continual debate.

Personally I find your definition of "minimum standards" to be self serving.  It's not what your level of minimum standard is and not what mine is.  The question is "does he deserve his spot in the team, are we better with him or without him"?.  Unquestionably the answer is we are better with him and that we would also be better with him if he wasn't playing as well as he is. His current standard is significantly above the standard required to play meaningful AFL football.  Frankly your "minimum standard" is just bluster.

Unlike many, and I suspect like you, I'm not sold on Jack Watts.  12 games doesn't make a player, he needs to keep doing it and after 7 less than inspiring years, it will take more than the first half of this season to convince me that Jack has arrived.  But unlike you I'll not try and tarnish his terrific year to date with silly measurements of "40 goals", "minimum standard" and "Gunston is better" narratives along with continual harping about his first 7 years.

I'll be thrilled for a kid who has been through more than most others when it comes to public ridicule (remember when the AFL website ran a "Jack Watts greatest bloopers" highlight reel for his 100th game) and I'm glad he is finally getting some joy and reward from the game.  Your mean spirited attitude doesn't serve you well.

You forgot one thing Vogon....

 

Just now, stuie said:

You forgot one thing Vogon....

 

Leave me out of your petty banter Stu, it hurts the site and makes you look silly.

2 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Leave me out of your petty banter Stu, it hurts the site and makes you look silly.

Ouch. Love it.

Hi Vogon. Am i correct in assuming you have had a previous alias on DL? If so, for context would you mind sharing your alias history (as that function seems to have been lost with the transition to the otherwise excellent new site)

17 minutes ago, Django said:

God this thread has degenerated.

Can't we all just get along and accept that JW has improved a lot, and that we're all just secretly waiting to tear him to shreds the next time delivers a so-so performance?

Are you kidding?? This is dead set the best thread we've had in ages.

22 hours ago, ProDee said:

In his 8th year and with his natural talent I can't imagine anyone who'd be happy with less.  I even set my parameters preseason when I said he should kick 40 goals.  Naturally, you scoffed because you have no vision. 

 

Admittedly I scoffed at your target of 40 goals, this was purely due to the reason that I could not see the massive spike in scoring that we have been able to go through this year, and to be fair I dont think it was a realistic expectation at the start of the year. (considering we are 300 points of what we scored in 22 games last year, averaging over 100 pts per game and sitting 5th in the league for points for, compared to 16th last year.) Whilst I saw improvement, happening I couldnt fathom this amount of improvement in our forward line so could not justify 40 goals as a realistic expectation, especially when Jesse Hogan was our leading goal kicker 44 last year. But this is not because I have no vision, and whislt your comment was not directed at me I thought some sort of explanation for my reasoning makes sense. With the current scoring pattern, a 40 goal season for Watts makes sense.

I am going to agree with you in terms of expectations now, Watts has set a standard that he needs to maintain for the next several seasons and this is more in terms of impact during games, he has been able to influence more contests and been a very productive player if not in our top 5-7 this year in terms of importance. This being said, it is still painfully obvious that people who watch the game and posters on here have a clear bias towards errors that Jack Watts makes and highlight his alleged indiscresions or mistakes or what have you rather than his consistent efforts to benefit the team. This will happen his whole career so it makes it impossible to get a baseline judgement on the player.

47 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Stuie he is an augmentative strop, a little like you, and me and many others here.

 ..........  .............. .......... 

6 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Leave me out of your petty banter Stu, it hurts the site and makes you look silly.

Petty banter is only ever returned, not initiated.

 

Was listening to SEN on way home from work last night, first time for a while. Scott Lucas happened to be giving his "not-so-obvious" halfway-thru-season AA line-up. It had only one player from MFC. Guess who?

Yes, it's just an opinion, but a highly informed one. Is this Jack's "minimum standard?" 

Oh yeah, the club has an internal stat that it rates highly - "involvement in scoring chains". Last time I saw it (admittedly a few rounds ago) Jack was way out in front - about 50% higher than whoever was second (about 130 to 80 IIRC). 

And I thought his game against Pies was so-so, nothing more. And I suspect he would too.

1 hour ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Your concept of "minimum standard" is an interesting one.  Often have we heard the statement "he's not playing up to his standard".

Of course your expectation of his standard was elevated from day one when you announced him as a great recruit for the MFC.  You defended him vigorously in your famous Leigh Matthews interview post and we all applauded you.  You saw the talent, you saw a young kid making his way, you saw him be subject to the worst development of young talent in the games history operating under a dysfunctional football department.  He disappointed you and all of us and you turned on him with an almost obsessional venom.  

You threw him under the bus, made snide cracks about nothing hard ever coming out of Brighton Grammar and you wanted nothing to do with him at our club.  You reacted to the here and now and didn't have the foresight  to recognize that because of the underdeveloped talent and the path he was forced to lead he was worth the punt of persevering with.  You were not alone but there was another group that thought differently.  Hence the continual debate.

Personally I find your definition of "minimum standards" to be self serving.  It's not what your level of minimum standard is and not what mine is.  The question is "does he deserve his spot in the team, are we better with him or without him"?.  Unquestionably the answer is we are better with him and that we would also be better with him if he wasn't playing as well as he is. His current standard is significantly above the standard required to play meaningful AFL football.  Frankly your "minimum standard" is just bluster.

Unlike many, and I suspect like you, I'm not sold on Jack Watts.  12 games doesn't make a player, he needs to keep doing it and after 7 less than inspiring years, it will take more than the first half of this season to convince me that Jack has arrived.  But unlike you I'll not try and tarnish his terrific year to date with silly measurements of "40 goals", "minimum standard" and "Gunston is better" narratives along with continual harping about his first 7 years.

I'll be thrilled for a kid who has been through more than most others when it comes to public ridicule (remember when the AFL website ran a "Jack Watts greatest bloopers" highlight reel for his 100th game) and I'm glad he is finally getting some joy and reward from the game.  Your mean spirited attitude doesn't serve you well.

Thanks, Fan/Baghdad.

Forget the past, Jack has become an integral part of the team in 2016 and we need his footy smarts, disposal and goal kicking ability. He has won me over after years of frustration. like children, sometimes the slow developers turn out the best.

One thing I noticed on the weekend was that as Gawn tends to rest at about the 15-minute mark of the quarter, Watts tends to rest at about the 10-minute mark. Given that Watts seems to be a player who needs an early success or two to gain confidence, I wonder whether the rucking aspect is holding him back a little. It does get him around the ball more often, but not in a way that seems to play to his strengths. If Dawes or Pederson were to be the back-up ruck, I suspect that would improve Watt's form.

4 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Leave me out of your petty banter Stu, it hurts the site and makes you look silly.

Ok now you can drop the mic.

22 minutes ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

One thing I noticed on the weekend was that as Gawn tends to rest at about the 15-minute mark of the quarter, Watts tends to rest at about the 10-minute mark. Given that Watts seems to be a player who needs an early success or two to gain confidence, I wonder whether the rucking aspect is holding him back a little. It does get him around the ball more often, but not in a way that seems to play to his strengths. If Dawes or Pederson were to be the back-up ruck, I suspect that would improve Watt's form.

I agree that Watts would be at his best spending no time in the ruck. But at the moment he is definitely preferable to Dawes. When Pedersen is back (which I hope is sooner rather than later), he can resume the PT ruck duties and Watts can spend more time up forward, or coming off the wing.

7 hours ago, ProDee said:

What did I get wrong ?

You'd given up on him reaching his current standard ever - you've acknowledged that in this thread.  You're not Robinson Crusoe there.

Part of this judgement business is forecasting the future and your forecast was wrong in this instance.  Seems like the FD's was similar though.

Let's hope he can maintain his new levels - there's every reason to believe he will.

4 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

You'd given up on him reaching his current standard ever - you've acknowledged that in this thread.  

If I've already acknowledged it I've already acknowledged it.  What am i missing here...

Btw, the club had too.  They dropped him twice and tried to off-load him last trade period.  

Look mate, I just call it as I see it.  I don't profess to be a clairvoyant.  If he plays crap I say he played crap.  If he's been a monumental dud for 7 years I say he's been a monumental dud for 7 years.  If he has a really good pre-season and kicks goals I say he's had a really good preseason and that he's doing what's required (hence my 40 goal speculation).  If he's taken his game to a completely new level in 2016 then I say he's taken his game to a new level in 2016.

It's called saying it as it is.  I haven't made any revelations.  I haven't said anything that anyone with half a clue wouldn't have said.  

It's the peanuts of this world that make every excuse under the sun for him and have given him pass marks when he's been deplorable (you know - "he's an excellent finisher" - said in a whiny voice) that ought to apologise for speaking crap for 7 years.  But when he's finally doing what I've said he hasn't been doing it's supposedly me that has got it wrong.  Work that one out.

Actually, don't bother.

 

20 minutes ago, Django said:

I agree that Watts would be at his best spending no time in the ruck. But at the moment he is definitely preferable to Dawes. When Pedersen is back (which I hope is sooner rather than later), he can resume the PT ruck duties and Watts can spend more time up forward, or coming off the wing.

Django, according to Prodee, Watts is a permanent forward and spends no time in the ruck so you must be wrong. And everyone else for that matter. I like Watts in the ruck it gives us flexibility and he has a nice leap. Dare I say it he has more courage in the ruck that Dawes.

1 hour ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

One thing I noticed on the weekend was that as Gawn tends to rest at about the 15-minute mark of the quarter, Watts tends to rest at about the 10-minute mark. Given that Watts seems to be a player who needs an early success or two to gain confidence, I wonder whether the rucking aspect is holding him back a little. It does get him around the ball more often, but not in a way that seems to play to his strengths. If Dawes or Pederson were to be the back-up ruck, I suspect that would improve Watt's form.

I actually thought the rucking had improved his confidence, he seems to enjoy body language wise. But i'm curious to see your POV can you think of any particular game/moment/period because i'd go back and watch. I think our centre and clearance setup has been brilliant this year because we generally get to play the game on our terms, even when we lose it is because of development/skills, not because we're being reactive. So anyway keen to understand better what works

39 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Django, according to Prodee, Watts is a permanent forward and spends no time in the ruck so you must be wrong. And everyone else for that matter. I like Watts in the ruck it gives us flexibility and he has a nice leap. Dare I say it he has more courage in the ruck that Dawes.

That's selective quoting, at best.

Just now, Undeeterred said:

That's selective quoting, at best.

Noooooo but that never happens on Demonland, and for poor old ProDee to be a victim of such a thing when he always quotes exactly what was said is a travesty...

 

37 minutes ago, ProDee said:

If I've already acknowledged it I've already acknowledged it.  What am i missing here...

Btw, the club had too.  They dropped him twice and tried to off-load him last trade period.  

Look mate, I just call it as I see it.  I don't profess to be a clairvoyant.  If he plays crap I say he played crap.  If he's been a monumental dud for 7 years I say he's been a monumental dud for 7 years.  If he has a really good pre-season and kicks goals I say he's had a really good preseason and that he's doing what's required (hence my 40 goal speculation).  If he's taken his game to a completely new level in 2016 then I say he's taken his game to a new level in 2016.

It's called saying it as it is.  I haven't made any revelations.  I haven't said anything that anyone with half a clue wouldn't have said.  

It's the peanuts of this world that make every excuse under the sun for him and have given him pass marks when he's been deplorable (you know - "he's an excellent finisher" - said in a whiny voice) that ought to apologise for speaking crap for 7 years.  But when he's finally doing what I've said he hasn't been doing it's supposedly me that has got it wrong.  Work that one out.

Actually, don't bother.

 

Yes I agreed you acknowledged this and I pointed out that apparently the FD agreed too so it's not a hanging offence and some seem to be trying to make it that.

Yeah it should be shooting fish in a barrel to call current performance accurately, although many here can't seem to get that right, you're not one of them.  But you and I both know the art is in forecasting and that's a lot less easy.  Will Brock McLean be an A grader? Will Christian Salem be an A grader?  Does Chris Dawes offer anything?  I think you get my drift.

There was plenty of evidence to suggest that Watts wouldn't eventually get it, but it looks like he has.

2 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Yes I agreed you acknowledged this and I pointed out that apparently the FD agreed too so it's not a hanging offence and some seem to be trying to make it that.

Yeah it should be shooting fish in a barrel to call current performance accurately, although many here can't seem to get that right, you're not one of them.  But you and I both know the art is in forecasting and that's a lot less easy.  Will Brock McLean be an A grader? Will Christian Salem be an A grader?  Does Chris Dawes offer anything?  I think you get my drift.

There was plenty of evidence to suggest that Watts wouldn't eventually get it, but it looks like he has.

Not too many players surprise you over the journey.