17 minutes ago, ProDee said:

All early picks are gifted games, because it's the only way they'll develop.  Pick 60 earns a game and pick 5 might get some before they're warranted. 

Most of us realised long ago that he'll never be the player we envisaged and hoped for, but if he plays every game as he did in round one I'll be delighted, because it's a new level and one I wasn't expecting.  He's certainly not being gifted games now. 

That said, I probably differ with some in that his current output is a minimum requirement.   Others seem to be doing cartwheels.  I suppose that comes with 8 years of disappointment. 

You think that carrying the forward line for a game, playing through a corkie and turning the game in the last quarter is a 'minimum requirement' for someone who will 'never be the player we envisaged and hoped for'?

Which is it?

I agree that he is not the player we hoped 8 years ago he would be - and that means that performances like last week are 'cartwheel worthy' because they are over and above what you and I have accustomed ourselves to expect from this high HFF role player with great skills.

He was our second best player on the ground - third in the game to Phil Davis - he may get Brownlow votes, that is well above what I envision as his 'minimum requirement.'

He has Dees fans doing cartwheels because he played a great game. Others seem to be unjustly critical and cynical. I supposed that comes with 8 years of disappointment.

4 hours ago, stuie said:

There's your answer right there champ....

 

Insightful contribution as usual Stuie. 

3 minutes ago, rpfc said:

You think that carrying the forward line for a game, playing through a corkie and turning the game in the last quarter is a 'minimum requirement' for someone who will 'never be the player we envisaged and hoped for'?

Which is it?

I agree that he is not the player we hoped 8 years ago he would be - and that means that performances like last week are 'cartwheel worthy' because they are over and above what you and I have accustomed ourselves to expect from this high HFF role player with great skills.

He was our second best player on the ground - third in the game to Phil Davis - he may get Brownlow votes, that is well above what I envision as his 'minimum requirement.'

He has Dees fans doing cartwheels because he played a great game. Others seem to be unjustly critical and cynical. I supposed that comes with 8 years of disappointment.

The only Melbourne player to get a gig in the AFL "team of the week", and there are still Demonlanders prepared to question his value to our team!

21 minutes ago, CBDees said:

The only Melbourne player to get a gig in the AFL "team of the week", and there are still Demonlanders prepared to question his value to our team!

In fairness, nobody has ever questioned his value when he plays like he did on Saturday. His value has been questioned on many occasions when he has not played like that.

53 minutes ago, rpfc said:

You think that carrying the forward line for a game, playing through a corkie and turning the game in the last quarter is a 'minimum requirement' for someone who will 'never be the player we envisaged and hoped for'?

Which is it?

I agree that he is not the player we hoped 8 years ago he would be - and that means that performances like last week are 'cartwheel worthy' because they are over and above what you and I have accustomed ourselves to expect from this high HFF role player with great skills.

He was our second best player on the ground - third in the game to Phil Davis - he may get Brownlow votes, that is well above what I envision as his 'minimum requirement.'

He has Dees fans doing cartwheels because he played a great game. Others seem to be unjustly critical and cynical. I supposed that comes with 8 years of disappointment.

He didn't "carry the forward-line".

He played a very good game.  He also played 3 good games in the NAB challenge.  That's 4 good games in a row.  It's what I expect as a minimum requirement every week.  It's what he expects, it's what his coaches expect, it's what his teammates expect, it's what I expect. 

He won't be able to impact games of footy every week like he did against GWS, but I expect that level of effort and intensity every week.  And if he brings it every week he'll often impact games like he did on Saturday. 

Why do I need to clarify the bleeding obvious ?  

13 hours ago, rpfc said:

You should have stuck to the 'not many players at the MFC have had to earn games these last ten years' argument. Not mention Martin at all.

And that argument is fundamentally true. We have not had a list capable of keeping players honest. But that is not the fault of Watts, it is the fault of the club. You have to pick 22 every week.

But to say that Watts has played what 70-80 'unearned' games is unfair to the bloke and the up and down seasons he has had. 

He didn't suddenly flick a switch for his solid two months last year, he has played about half a dozen good games every year for the past half decade. Except he doesn't back it up in the subsequent games he earns with those performances. 

Maybe we should go through the archives and collect all the selection threads and use the subjective judgment of Land to see how many he earned?

You must be very pleased that he's played 30 "good" games out of about a possible 110 during that time. Even then I think that number is very generous. Certainly not "breaking out since 2011". Given his highest Bluey finish is 9th (ironically Martin finished 8th that year) and after that he finished 16th, 11th, 10th and last year 18th, it would be fair to say that his past has been inconsistent and disappointing. And those finishes occurred when we were the AFL laughing stock.

I'm very pleased he had an excellent game against GWS, but it's only round 1 and you'll forgive me for not yet doing cartwheels with rose coloured glasses like many on this thread. I'll certainly sing his praises if after round 22 he's played the majority of the season at a similar level, and more so if he does that and re-signs. 

17 minutes ago, ProDee said:

 

That's 4 good games in a row.  It's what I expect as a minimum requirement every week.  It's what he expects, it's what his coaches expect, it's what his teammates expect, it's what I expect. 

He won't be able to impact games of footy every week like he did against GWS, but I expect that level of effort and intensity every week.  And if you bring that often enough he'll impact games like he did on Saturday. 

Why do I need to clarify the bleeding obvious ?  

Lel.

Gee I don't know, why would you need to clarify those conflicting statements about your expectations.....?

Maybe you can get Saty to pass on your expectations to him though, I'm sure he's supremely interested.

 

14 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

You must be very pleased that he's played 30 "good" games out of about a possible 110 during that time.

And those finishes occurred when we were the AFL laughing stock.

Hmmmmmm..... Are you starting to see a link there somewhere Moonie?

 

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Hmmmmmm..... Are you starting to see a link there somewhere Moonie?

 

Yes, that a highly talented footballer struggled to earn games when we were at our poorest. You're missing the point again Stuie.

this thread is a stinker. What is the actual discussion? Is Watts good? Should he better? How good should he be exactly? How good was he in the past and should be in the future? FCS

2 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Yes, that a highly talented footballer struggled to earn games when we were at our poorest. You're missing the point again Stuie.

No I think you are Moonshine.

But hey, if you think it's just a coincidence that a young player didn't perform consistently well at a stage where his team were consistently bad then that's up to you and your Watts bias I guess.

 

Just now, stuie said:

No I think you are Moonshine.

But hey, if you think it's just a coincidence that a young player didn't perform consistently well at a stage where his team were consistently bad then that's up to you and your Watts bias I guess.

 

Do you think he put his body on the line ?  Do you think he played with intensity ?  Do you think he worked hard enough ?  Do you think he had a crack ?  Do you think he competed at acceptable levels ?

Give up watching footy, Stu.

1 minute ago, ProDee said:

Do you think he put his body on the line ?  Do you think he played with intensity ?  Do you think he worked hard enough ?  Do you think he had a crack ?  Do you think he competed at acceptable levels ?

Give up watching footy, Stu.

Unfortunately there's  no point talking logic to those that have none.

you guys are just going around in circles now and just feeding the troll

26 minutes ago, ProDee said:

He didn't "carry the forward-line".

He played a very good game.  He also played 3 good games in the NAB challenge.  That's 4 good games in a row.  It's what I expect as a minimum requirement every week.  It's what he expects, it's what his coaches expect, it's what his teammates expect, it's what I expect. 

He won't be able to impact games of footy every week like he did against GWS, but I expect that level of effort and intensity every week.  And if he brings it every week he'll often impact games like he did on Saturday. 

Why do I need to clarify the bleeding obvious ?  

Well, when you hold contradictory arguments and argue them in parallel - yes, you might need to clarify them.

And you are saying he went above the minimum required which means you are abandoning one of your arguments - still don't know which one.

Is he a simple role player, incapable of the transcendent play we initially thought he was capable of - a view that should deliver him extended praise for his last game?

Or is he a singular talent that should impact most games and that last Saturday was just the minimum we should expect for such a talent?

32 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

You must be very pleased that he's played 30 "good" games out of about a possible 110 during that time. Even then I think that number is very generous. Certainly not "breaking out since 2011". Given his highest Bluey finish is 9th (ironically Martin finished 8th that year) and after that he finished 16th, 11th, 10th and last year 18th, it would be fair to say that his past has been inconsistent and disappointing. And those finishes occurred when we were the AFL laughing stock.

I'm very pleased he had an excellent game against GWS, but it's only round 1 and you'll forgive me for not yet doing cartwheels with rose coloured glasses like many on this thread. I'll certainly sing his praises if after round 22 he's played the majority of the season at a similar level, and more so if he does that and re-signs. 

Does a 'good game' not earn you another?

And if he is finishing so low in the B+F - is it low enough to not be earning games.

I reject the notion that Watts has not earned the vast majority of his games, and we can agree to disagree if you like.

The better argument is that he was not made to earn more of his games, and that doesn't just apply to Jack Watts - that applies to every player we brought in during the failed rebuilds over the last decade.

We're starting to go around in circles now.

I think that very few on here, if any, would say that Watts has lived up to initial expectations. He has been tantalising on occasion and frustrating a great many times. However in the dross that has been our team over the last eight years, he has almost always deserved his spot. No revisionist commentary about Stef Martin (who incidentall played his best footy for us as a sole ruckman when Jamar was injured, certainly not a forward), or others who have in the most part now departed the club, changes that fact.

What almost everyone here agrees with (I think) is that Jack remains extremely talented and if he can marry that consistently with effort like the past four weeks will be a very valuable cog in our team. He offers a number of attributes in a combination that nobody else on our team possess. There remains a lot of football to be played this season but he appears on an upward trajectory and it would be the best outcome for the footy club if his performances demand another contract at season's end in a vastly improving side.

As an aside, one of the reasons we love Jack Viney is because he bleeds red and blue. Jack Watts has a comparable passion for the club but many supporters give him no credit for it. Probably the same supporters that spit chips when "disloyal" players head off to Collingwood or Hawthorn via FA. Can't have it both ways.

53 minutes ago, stuie said:

Lel.

 

I have nothing useful to add to this discussion, but decided I should research this word stuie keeps using. Urban Dictionary gave me this... P.S. not having a go stuie, just found some of these humorous.

 

- Primarily the same definition as "lol", but simply for people who want to be different, and original.

 

-  Always in lower caps. Used when someone finds something derisory or pathetic. Its use depends on the mood of the user: the more bored they are, the more they'll be inclined to use it.

 

- How douchebags say "lol"; similar to "lolz" or "lawl", but with a greater amount of douchebaggery.

Person 1: *says something funny* 
Person 2: LOL 
Person 3: LEL

Person 1: wtf o.O? 
Person 2: Oh, don't mind him. He's just a douch*bag.

 

- Lel - Laughing Even Louder. Used to maintain your impeccable reputation of being a one-up guy

Person 2: *slaps Person 1* 
Person 1: Lol.. That wasn't smart... *gets ready to fight* 
Person 2 : Lel... I think it was.. *gets ready to fight* 
A fight ensues.. 
Person 2 Obviously wins because they used the superior variant of Lol.

 

I digress, back to Watts. I like him. Continue...

49 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Well, when you hold contradictory arguments and argue them in parallel - yes, you might need to clarify them.

Haha nailed it!

Maybe he was just too "nuanced" for the rest of us....

15 minutes ago, Nascent said:

I have nothing useful to add to this discussion, but decided I should research this word stuie keeps using. Urban Dictionary gave me this... P.S. not having a go stuie, just found some of these humorous.

 

- Primarily the same definition as "lol", but simply for people who want to be different, and original.

 

-  Always in lower caps. Used when someone finds something derisory or pathetic. Its use depends on the mood of the user: the more bored they are, the more they'll be inclined to use it.

 

- How douchebags say "lol"; similar to "lolz" or "lawl", but with a greater amount of douchebaggery.

Person 1: *says something funny* 
Person 2: LOL 
Person 3: LEL

Person 1: wtf o.O? 
Person 2: Oh, don't mind him. He's just a douch*bag.

 

- Lel - Laughing Even Louder. Used to maintain your impeccable reputation of being a one-up guy

Person 2: *slaps Person 1* 
Person 1: Lol.. That wasn't smart... *gets ready to fight* 
Person 2 : Lel... I think it was.. *gets ready to fight* 
A fight ensues.. 
Person 2 Obviously wins because they used the superior variant of Lol.

 

I digress, back to Watts. I like him. Continue...

ROFLEL.

 

JW will have a good year in 2016 the MFC will increase his salary and he will be paying for the MFC in 2017.

58 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Unfortunately there's  no point talking logic to those that have none.

Apparently Roos can laud his improved contested work and say he took a "significant step forward", but supporters aren't allowed such observations. 

I think his game on the weekend exceeded the minimum requirement. Making the AFL's Team of the Week isn't and shouldn't be the minimum requirement. His general form shown in pre-season set the standard.

There looks to be some significant steps forward, but let's not pretend he hasn't teased before. He was outstanding in Round 1 against the Saints two years ago. That remained his best game of the year.

He needs to back it up now against the scum and not take the foot off the pedal.

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

The better argument is that he was not made to earn more of his games, and that doesn't just apply to Jack Watts - that applies to every player we brought in during the failed rebuilds over the last decade.

Agreed rpfc