I keep repeating this. But he has been unprofessional in his preparation and lacks commitment. And is a distraction to the team and more so a minority group of players.

No need to talk about how good a kick he is etc etc.

Its the off-field issues the MFC, coach and leadership group wont tolerate... They have had enough!!!

That's why he has been told to explore his options. He doesn't fit into MFC going forward.

I have faith in the MFC and Goodwin making the tough and not so tough decisions.

This decision is NOT A TOUGH ONE people! Toughen up and don't be so emotional...

 

* Jacks bleached hair pre-season should have been a dead give away. lol

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Watching Richmond today just reminds me how important it is for every player on the ground to pressure the opposition

While Watts' tackling is suspect, he is regularly in our top players for pressure acts.  Guess he passes that test. 

1 hour ago, loges said:

Yes stupid comment,  Watts great ball user,finisher etc but needs others to get him the ball

Why is this a bad thing?  He is an outside player.  Nobody has ever said he's anything else.  As it happens he's one of our best outside players, with size, pace and exceptional footskills.  He also has a rare knack for finding space even in the middle of a pack. 

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If Watts was seen as such an integral part of our next flag tilt don't you think the coaches and FD would be doing everything in their power to reassure him of that? Supporters are to emotionally attached to some players, even those who are perennial underperformers. 

This is the crux of the matter.  Do we trust the coach and FD?  They've shown absolutely no tactical nous this year.  As a team, we are the slowest ball-movers in the league, we are among the worst for conceding scores from turnovers, scoring from forward 50 entries and scoring from stoppages and our defence has worsened under these coaches.  A case could be made that the improvement in our ladder position has come through the natural improvement in our kids rather than anything the coaches have done.  The simple truth is that we are desperate for good ball-users and they seem to be set on offloading the best one we have. 

Also, he may have been drafted as a KPF, but it's clear to anyone with half an eye that Jack is not one.  Play him on the wing where he belongs and see if you still want to offload him. 

1 hour ago, demonmerv said:

This was also a bad decision by our club. Did it improve our club , no it did not. Travis went on to play some good games at Brisbane. You are right in saying it did not split our club, but it is also true that Travis was not as popular as Jack Watts. I will also say that taking a good player out of our side at that time made little difference as we were not that good. At present we have the potential to go places and can ill afford to lose a tall player of Jacks quality.

Johnstone was useless at Brisbane and Woewodin was useless at Collingwood. Powell to St.Kilda and Jolly to Sydney hurt us.

Watts is barely in  our best 22 and your acting like he is a star.

1 hour ago, Akum said:

In other words: I really have no idea what Watts brings to this team.

Doesn't matter anyway; he's gone.

If, as Goody said, they'd given him "honest" feedback & left it up to him whether he stays or not, then he'd stay.

The only reason he'd be talking to other clubs is if the coaches don't want him. And if the coaches want him, it means they don't think he brings anything to the team either. So they're not going to ask much for him and the other clubs know Jack's situation over the years well enough that they're fully aware of that.

It could be as low as late second or early third. So brace yourselves for it.

Camdon Macintosh and Dylan Grimes are now premiership players..... makes as much sense as the statement above

Just proves opinions are like assholes... at the end of the day who gives a flying

 

Edited September 30, 20178 yr by Unleash Hell

6 hours ago, rjay said:

Or option 3: He could do a Brad Sewell, stay and prove the club wrong as a 3 time premiership player...

That is Hawthorn rjay.  The MFC, more often than not, tends to choose the wrong option when the hard decisions need to be made.  Especially when it comes to trade time and list management.  Remembering that we still preferred to keep Garland / OMac over the likes of Howe and Dunny  (not a lot better but still better) who we left to rot at Casey.  And are apparently now happy to cast Watts overboard without a lifebuoy, easily our best decision maker and ball user by foot (and most accurate set shot!!...you need to kick goals to win!!), whilst keeping the likes of Too Slow Turnover King Tyson and little Weid!

We may as well recruit the flower pot men.  They will at least blossom every year, which is something I doubt those other four will ever do.

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Levers a defender and he's what, 22? Watts is a forward and he's 26. Take off your rose coloured glasses

So we can afford to lose a forward and Watts is over the hill at 26? Barley Charley.

2 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

That is Hawthorn rjay.

Hawthorn made the wrong call. As luck would have it our boy Ryan Ferguson didn't want to go to the Hawks and they were stuck with Sewell lucky for them.

It wasn't a masterly decision just some good old fashioned luck 'Rusty'.

2 hours ago, demonmerv said:

He had a good year but like other players came back from injury underdone

Just nonsense. If it was a question of time, he was also given 2-3 weeks in the firsts to get his form back, but was still poor. He was even poorish his first week back at Casey.

etc. etc. The rest of your post is just as far-fetched.

The Jack Watts that many of you are describing here is a figment of your imagination.

2 hours ago, demonmerv said:

That my friend will split the club mark my words

Hyperbole. Some of the pro-Watts posts here are straight out of Fantasyland.

 

37 minutes ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

While Watts' tackling is suspect, he is regularly in our top players for pressure acts.  Guess he passes that test. 

Why is this a bad thing?  He is an outside player.  Nobody has ever said he's anything else.  As it happens he's one of our best outside players, with size, pace and exceptional footskills.  He also has a rare knack for finding space even in the middle of a pack. 

This is the crux of the matter.  Do we trust the coach and FD?  They've shown absolutely no tactical nous this year.  As a team, we are the slowest ball-movers in the league, we are among the worst for conceding scores from turnovers, scoring from forward 50 entries and scoring from stoppages and our defence has worsened under these coaches.  A case could be made that the improvement in our ladder position has come through the natural improvement in our kids rather than anything the coaches have done.  The simple truth is that we are desperate for good ball-users and they seem to be set on offloading the best one we have. 

Also, he may have been drafted as a KPF, but it's clear to anyone with half an eye that Jack is not one.  Play him on the wing where he belongs and see if you still want to offload him. 

Save your breath Ralph.  Since when did having different assets across different parts of the field ever win anything at the highest level!!!

39 minutes ago, WERRIDEE said:

Johnstone was useless at Brisbane and Woewodin was useless at Collingwood. Powell to St.Kilda and Jolly to Sydney hurt us.

Watts is barely in  our best 22 and your acting like he is a star.

Woewodin received 12 Brownlow votes in 2003 and was top 3 in the Copeland the year after.

The trade sucked. But, given that it's so long ago and several people here can't remember and otherwise hate facts and objective analysis, keep posting this stuff - some people might buy it.

 

Edited September 30, 20178 yr by Ron Burgundy

Honest question, why would you pick a bloke to play in round 23 if 2 weeks later you're going to tell him he's no longer required?

25 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

So we can afford to lose a forward and Watts is over the hill at 26? Barley Charley.

I'm telling you to compare apples with apples. 

44 minutes ago, Akum said:

Watts is gone. Get over it, to me there's no point arguing about a former player.

I'm more concerned that we replace the attributes he brings, because they're really important. If our coaches really do agree with the posters that he brings absolutely nothing (or less - he's negative value) to the team's collective effort, then in my view we've got big problems.

And next year is going to be very frustrating as we fight harder than anyone to win possession, our contested ball numbers are best in the comp, but we just keep turning it over again and again. 

Does that fall on deaf ears? Do you seriously think we'll be better without what Watts brings?

Of course Watts brings something, but unfortunately it's not at a consistent level to outweigh his deficiencies. Personally, I don't think that Watts is essential to our forward line structure. I'd play Hogan, T Mac and Petracca plus 3 mids/smalls.

In answer to your final statement, we'll never know. Because if we improve, it won't be because Watts has been traded. And if we stagnate or regress, it won't be because Watts has been traded.

All I want is 22 players of AFL standard who display hardness at the contest when it's their turn to go. After 9 seasons, Jack Watts can't be trusted to provide that consistently.

12 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Just nonsense. If it was a question of time, he was also given 2-3 weeks in the firsts to get his form back, but was still poor. He was even poorish his first week back at Casey.

etc. etc. The rest of your post is just as far-fetched.

The Jack Watts that many of you are describing here is a figment of your imagination.

 

7 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Hyperbole. Some of the pro-Watts posts here are straight out of Fantasyland.

 

 

41 minutes ago, WERRIDEE said:

Johnstone was useless at Brisbane and Woewodin was useless at Collingwood. Powell to St.Kilda and Jolly to Sydney hurt us.

Watts is barely in  our best 22 and your acting like he is a star.

 

4 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

Honest question, why would you pick a bloke to play in round 23 if 2 weeks later you're going to tell him he's no longer required?

Because even an ordinary coaching dept new he was easily in our best 22 and were aiming (hoping) for a finals campaign

8 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

Honest question, why would you pick a bloke to play in round 23 if 2 weeks later you're going to tell him he's no longer required?

Trade value.

4 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

That's why Sydney is apparently into him.

They like him because he's soft as butter and otherwise kind of hopeless.

He's a perfect fit for them.

 

Adequate replacement for Kirk Tippett. According to Roosy, the Swans never get things wrong.

1 minute ago, PaulRB said:

Trade value.

Yep, we didn't want to play finals. That's why we played a dude not in our best 22 in the most important game of the year.

We were clearly looking at the bigger picture - maximising the trade value of one bloke on our list, not fielding our best side.

??

 

31 minutes ago, rjay said:

Hawthorn made the wrong call. As luck would have it our boy Ryan Ferguson didn't want to go to the Hawks and they were stuck with Sewell lucky for them.

It wasn't a masterly decision just some good old fashioned luck 'Rusty'.

Rjay you are correct but you still need to make good calls on which players are keepers, more often than not.  And you also need to be capable of managing the not so easy ones to manage, and extract the best out of them and go on to win premierships with them (provided they have some talent and decent work ethic/commitment to doing so and have shown they can play).

Part of this involves having faith and backing in your initial decisions to recruit them in the first place, whilst obviously not having complete blind faith if they continue to under-perform.

10 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Trade value.

That's all I can think of but like Ron said, the game was more important than that. And besides, after 9 years do we really think we can trick other clubs into thinking he's better than what we think?

5 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

Yep, we didn't want to play finals. That's why we played a dude not in our best 22 in the most important game of the year.

We were clearly looking at the bigger picture - maximising the trade value of one bloke on our list, not fielding our best side.

??

 

Touchy... there can be more than one reason. Jack being in and out of the team ( and now likely to be traded) as he has been, means his selection is not as automatic as you seem to think...

4 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Touchy... there can be more than one reason. Jack being in and out of the team ( and now likely to be traded) as he has been, means his selection is not as automatic as you seem to think...

Is this coming from a place of knowing, or just conjecture? Can you break that down further...

6 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Touchy... there can be more than one reason. Jack being in and out of the team ( and now likely to be traded) as he has been, means his selection is not as automatic as you seem to think...

That's my point, why was he selected then? Or is all this just a rocket up him?

So much crap being spun here.

Form: Watts had a great 2016.  In first half of 2017, clearly in our best 6-7.  Took on ruck role. Starred in 3-4 games. 

Had a great QB game. Sealed victory!

His hamstring injury led to 3 weeks out and loss of form.  

One of the best in round 23.  Many many others were rubbish. 

why being traded?

I think it is salary cap related. Goodwin thinks he can jettison Watts.  

Neeld killed the club culture. Did we learn anything. Be careful here!!

Tigers showed results of backing in your loyalty

Why does the club owe "loyalty" to a very well payed player who's lack of application has had him dropped at various points by his past four coaches, and being on the verge of being traded for peanuts compared to his No#1 draft cost..?