40 minutes ago, Roost It said:

How do you rate his alround performance in his 9 years

better than a lot of other MFC players.

1 hour ago, Roost It said:

Why will you cry when an under performer with s track record of not preparing or working hard enough to get the best out of himself is finally let go Do you want success or pretty party boys to follow

If he stays who says we have to play him?

If he doesn't perform dump him at Casey until he does what is asked. I'd rather do that an hope the penny drops after all this time than have some pizzy little third rounder.

1 hour ago, Roost It said:

Why will you cry when an under performer with s track record of not preparing or working hard enough to get the best out of himself is finally let go Do you want success or pretty party boys to follow

Track record poor? ONE pre season out of 9. Jack ALLEGEDLY underdone in his preparation. If this was true he served his punishment and played bloody good football until injured. Too good to give away. Can't you see class in a player mate? Jack provides the polish and finish we require for greater success.

Not sure why those happy to see him traded are fixating on the nine years.

Surely what's relevant is the player he is now (based on the past 2-3 years), and the estimated number of years he has left in his career.

Everyone knows his first 5-6 years were underwhelming at best, but in the scheme of things that is irrelevant to the discussion. It's what he's producing now and into the future that is of importance.

There are  at this point no takers

WAKE UP JACK!

24 minutes ago, sue said:

better than a lot of other MFC players.

That’s an excellent point but also in response to Jack needing to set training standards for the younger players as far as I can see it’s our younger players setting the standard.

Our B&F is a second year player with all remarking on his training standard despite copping some flak over pre-season. Our co-captain is one of our younger players and sets an incredibly high standard. When we started slowly and needed to be dragged back into the game more often than not it was our YOUNG players (Oliver, Viney, Hunt, Hannan, Petracca) that stood up.

Jack was not on his own in being a senior player that went missing, the following all either went missing or played absolute shockers in important games this year: Gawn, Vince, Lewis, TMac, Jones, Melksham. The only truly consistent senior players were Jetta and Hibberd.

Before I get jumped on, I’m not saying all those players were worse than Watts, or aren’t good trainers or that any of them should be traded or anything like that. But putting the failures this year solely on Jacks shoulders is highly hypocritical of a leadership group that was far from consistent. And as far as being a bad influence on our young players I find it more likely that our young players would be a good influence on Jack as they are clearly leading the way atm.

7 minutes ago, P-man said:

Not sure why those happy to see him traded are fixating on the nine years.

Surely what's relevant is the player he is now (based on the past 2-3 years), and the estimated number of years he has left in his career.

Everyone knows his first 5-6 years were underwhelming at best, but in the scheme of things that is irrelevant to the discussion. It's what he's producing now and into the future that is of importance.

Agree with this. Nothing pre-Roos is relevant, For Watts or anyone else. Joint was a schemozzle

For those of us who see value in Watts, especially given the pre-injury performance where he filled in in the ruck etc, despite his poor attitude and slack training or whatever, the main arguement that I can see for getting rid of him is the putative  bad infuence on other players, especially the younger ones.

But dejammin's post has prompted a question.    Given the leadership of our young hard trainers, is one 'rotten apple' really going to have any effect on the others.  Can't we ascribe some maturity to even the youngest players (one C Oliver comes to mind)  that they will work their guts off however slack Watts is. 

Time to don my crash helmet for this heresy....

23 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Track record poor? ONE pre season out of 9. Jack ALLEGEDLY underdone in his preparation. If this was true he served his punishment and played bloody good football until injured. Too good to give away. Can't you see class in a player mate? Jack provides the polish and finish we require for greater success.

Jacks a culture sore and you can't see it

35 minutes ago, sue said:

better than a lot of other MFC players.

Most of which are now gone

5 minutes ago, Roost It said:

Most of which are now gone

Of those who remain there are several in the squad who would attract less interest than Watts from other clubs if they were offered up for trade.  So we are just quibbling over how most most is.

6 minutes ago, Roost It said:

Jacks a culture sore and you can't see it

He won't be if he plays at Casey, he'll be a shining example....

20 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Delightfully patronising as usual Saty.

I was striving for condescending, but never mind next time

 

32 minutes ago, P-man said:

Not sure why those happy to see him traded are fixating on the nine years.

Surely what's relevant is the player he is now (based on the past 2-3 years), and the estimated number of years he has left in his career.

Everyone knows his first 5-6 years were underwhelming at best, but in the scheme of things that is irrelevant to the discussion. It's what he's producing now and into the future that is of importance.

Exactly - it's the stuff of extreme confirmation bias and it's not really how any AFL club, including ourselves, would assess any player in the competition (which would be on recent past, current, and likely future performance).

That the club has stated these things is a little self-serving in my view, particularly given that they offered him a 3 year contract only last year, which in itself effectively cauterises the past.

Also, many of the really good players from 5-6 years ago are probably now retired. It's just irrelevant, other than if you're being a bit selective in your analysis.

I see Impey has just signed with the Hawks. There goes that potential deal if it was ever even in the mix.

 

48 minutes ago, sue said:

better than a lot of other MFC players.

Damning with faint praise.

1 hour ago, Roost It said:

How do you rate his alround performance in his 9 years

I don't count the pre Roos era as sort of development for JW - his last 3 years have been okay

Best 22

43 minutes ago, sue said:

better than a lot of other MFC players.

As others have noted, there are only about 7 players left on the list from Neeld times, let alone Bailey times, and that includes  a couple of players who only had their first season under Neeld. It isn't reall setting much of a benchmark if the line is 'better than players who got outright delisted'.

20 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

That’s an excellent point but also in response to Jack needing to set training standards for the younger players as far as I can see it’s our younger players setting the standard.

I'll add my agreement. On the one hand, Watts is a generally capable AFL-level player. On the other hand, he's been under the reasonable expectations curve his whole career. at 26 years and 150 games he should be a stalwart, one of the players whose consistency gives stability to a team and whose professionalism helps set the tone for new players. He shouldn't be a question mark on the team's mindset.

9 minutes ago, Roost It said:

Jacks a culture sore and you can't see it

Brutally put, but that seems to be the situation. There's a distinct element of tragedy to it though - it takes years to mentally recover from long-term hopeless situations which you know aren't ok but can't do anything about - ask anyone who has worked in an 'expertise' role in a large company or government department! The resulting 'defensive', 'small target', 'avoidance' and 'selective compliance' behaviours save lives and sanity but aren't any good for the organisation. Unfortunately for Watts, football doesn't have time for that. Fortunately for Watts - truckloads of cash to ease the pain.

Strangely, I would be pleased if Watts stayed on the understanding that the 'rut' was going to be broken, but I am also ready to accept Watts leaving as being best for club and player.

Too much corporate claptrap.

He needs to lay more tackle, chase harder and help creat turnovers instead of being a receiver.

Simples

20 minutes ago, jackaub said:

There are  at this point no takers

WAKE UP JACK!

There has occurred no trade yet ( formalised )

That is miles away from no takers.

At least 4 clubs are interested but one far more than the rest.

As with many things in trade week one trade may wait on others.

All those wishing to see the back of Jack, your wait is not much more.

As much as Jack has had to quickly acclimatise to a new beginning so do others elsewhere. As such some trades are either stalling or in flux. Possibly tomorrow or monday a number of required moves will happen( or start ) and the the pain of the expectant anguished will be extinguished.

Quite possibly locker #4 is already empty.

The jackals will have their day.

 

I would expect that part of the reasoning for assessing his value is that it will be very hard to play a forward line built around Hogan, T Mac and Watts - they don’t chase, tackle, harass and provide enough defensive intensity

Hence why Watts’ name has been floated, and so far the only definitive value that has been placed on him is pick 51 from the Cats alongside a wage cut for the man himself

I think that says volumes about where other clubs see his value

We don’t even know whether or not the Power are prepared to pony up pick 30

We do know, however, that we rate him internally as valued at ‘an early second round pick’, which so far no one has gone near offering for him

4 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Too much corporate claptrap.

He needs to lay more tackle, chase harder and help creat turnovers instead of being a receiver.

Simples

Strangely thats not particularly his role. 

That said any number of players could do the same. Some might learn NOT to continually kick it to the other side.

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Strangely thats not particularly his role. 

And u know that how???

Do you reckon that might be a reason he's been put up.for.trade?

Or do we continue to just make [censored] up?

To me it looks like Jack would prefer the Cats, but they are playing a game saying they can't get the deal done. We have obviously asked for their 20 and they have refused.

Port has made him an offer and we would accept their 29.

If Jack says Port the deal will be done instantly.

I think the Cats have told him to hold on, to see if they can bluff us, or find out the Motlop compo.

If we hold firm I think we either get 20 from the Cats or 29 from Port.

5 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Too much corporate claptrap.

He needs to lay more tackle, chase harder and help creat turnovers instead of being a receiver.

Simples

exactly. 

i'm so sick of all of the excuses for him being soft; 'oh not every player is a jack viney', 'lets look at his positives' etc.

jack is a fringe player who was given so many opportunities to perform. he was supposed to be our fastest player on the list when aaron davey was still in the team but he doesnt use it. We picked him up because at the time we were in need of a key fwd and he performed well at the draft camp with the sprints and jumping tests and he also presents very well. what they cant measure is ones hardness and competitiveness to succeed. 

2 hours ago, The Stigga said:

If I was Jack I would be peeved as he can no doubt see where the club is going and wants to be a part of it.

 

And stigga this is the problem with watts, & with too many around the club.

He wants to be around, for where others carry the club too.

He doesn't want to miss out on all the festivities, If or when.  He is not a lifter, he is a leaner.

His mindset should read, "I am going to shape this club towards winning and success.

He just wants to be at the party with the boys.