I have contributed to two profile photos today , puts me on five. Think I might start a micro business.  Free to first 500 customers. Attention you alphabet pics,  come on guys put some effort in.

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

Thanks.

These stats are quite compelling.

They show that in Jack's 2 best seasons he's still 20-40% below the output of a similar player in many of the metrics that matter for a tall link player who pushes forward, i.e. kicks, marks, disposals, inside 50's, CP, & UCP. 

They're similar in most other stats with Jack ahead in the contested marking stakes and Lynch ahead in goal assists.

Also, Lynch has been performing at a consistently high level for the last 5 years, not just the two quoted above.

Jack has most definitely progressed, but your table shows how much room there still is for improvement.  It will be a shame if he never reaches the levels one suspects is commensurate with his natural ability.  

G'day PD. Been a while. not much doubt that Goody shares your opinion on Jack. At least i can say i got his one really good season right!

Richmond gone away. Adelaide, Hawthorn and Footscray in meltdown. TWSNBN looking for B Medal.Cats too old and Pies still trying to get their staff organised. 

Who else would the Media be looking to stir up but us. Us who came along and picked up the best recruit (one) so far and they don't like us "not stuffing it up" or it not being one of their "pets"

 

Tuck played 50 as well Akum. Hard to get into the Hawks team in that period, Brett Lovett couldn't get a game and he is one of the best half back flankers i have seen

and i seem to remember gablett snr couldn't either - lol

 

Thanks.

These stats are quite compelling.

They show that in Jack's 2 best seasons he's still 20-40% below the output of a similar player in many of the metrics that matter for a tall link player who pushes forward, i.e. kicks, marks, disposals, inside 50's, CP, & UCP. 

They're similar in most other stats with Jack ahead in the contested marking stakes and Lynch ahead in goal assists.

Also, Lynch has been performing at a consistently high level for the last 5 years, not just the two quoted above.

Jack has most definitely progressed, but your table shows how much room there still is for improvement.  It will be a shame if he never reaches the levels one suspects is commensurate with his natural ability.  

Was interested in the comment above (that I have bolded) that inferred that the comparisons between Lynch (Adelaide) and Watts based on the 2 year 'performance' data that I provided earlier (and which showed that there isn't really a significant difference in their stats) would be quite different if I extended the period to 5 seasons instead of 2.

So I thought yeah, lets look at the last 5 years. I admit that I too thought that this would show a very different picture to the 2 year comparison.

But it doesn't (as far as I can see).
Averages for the last 5 seasons (2013-2017) 

Adding my comments from my previous post on this so that they can be read in context of the above 5 year data:

Interestingly, in the areas where it seems people (and the general football public) seem to have a real concern with Jack (the contest e.g. Tackles, Contested possessions, Contested marks and One percenters), Jack is certainly 'up' with Lynch.

I'm not convinced that Jack is used/sought out as the 'link player' at Melbourne in quite the same way as Lynch. Adelaide looks with much more intention/purpose for Lynch than we do for Jack (who I think quite often makes fantastic position on the ground but is overlooked).  I'm not certain, but I'm thinking this could explain the reason that Jack is below in total disposals.

I find the stats really interesting given the level of praise that generally gets heaped on Lynch as a player and as a link man by the media compared to what Jack cops. Just sayin'! It kind of adds to my confusion and inability to come to a definite pro or nay Jack position in my own mind.

 

This all goes to show why statements (of opinion) on player performance like the ones often made about MFC players (and seemingly  in particular Watts), that aren't based facts, can be quite misleading. Some would say irresponsible.

For me it shows how biases (which I'm sure are the result of the expectations created by the preaching directed at us 9 years ago that the messiah had arrived and would lead us out of the wilderness) can result in distorted 'impressions' and opinions - ones that aren't supported by the facts anyway.

Following are links to my source for the above data in case anyone wants to check up on me:

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/players/T/Tom_Lynch0.html

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/players/J/Jack_Watts.html

Disclaimer: If any of the data is incorrect (I have triple checked it because i was surprised by the results) it is quite unintentional. I am neither pro or nay Watts. Just like to take the emotions and bias out of performance assessment.

I'd be highlighting the highouts as well.  Despite being 'mentally soft' Jack has been expected to go into the ruck and compete in probably the most dangerous position on the field - and has accounted well for himself. This, no doubt, has impacted his stats in other areas as well.

As has been posted previously, and as Goodwin, Jones and now Mahoney confirmed, this isn't (really) about Watts' on-field performance.

Posted on fb that JW met with Sydney today 

9 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

Posted on fb that JW met with Sydney today 

 

Maybe Watts and 27 to Sydney

14 to Melbourne 

14 and next years first round to Adelaide for Lever.

Keep pick 10 (for Gaff maybe)?

 

If that came off (and especially if it did help us nail Gaff as well as Lever), Watts would be doing us a huge favour.

3 minutes ago, Akum said:

If that came off (and especially if it did help us nail Gaff as well as Lever), Watts would be doing us a huge favour.

Like deludio to gws?

 

Do you mean in the 2 seasons that Jack has been treated like a human? (Quoting Roosy).

Understand your reading and point of view based on the stats. Interestingly though, in the areas where it seems people (and the general football public) seem to have a real concern with Jack (the contest e.g. Tackles, Contested possessions, Contested marks and One percenters), he is certainly up with Lynch.

I'm not convinced that Jack is used/sought out as the 'link player' at Melbourne in quite the same way as Lynch. Adelaide looks with much more intention/purpose for Lynch than we do for Jack (who I think quite often makes fantastic position on the ground but is overlooked).  I'm not certain, but I'm thinking this could explain the reason that Jack is well below in disposals.

I find the stats really interesting given the level of praise that generally gets heaped on Lynch as a player and as a link man by the media compared to what Jack cops. Just sayin'! It kind of adds to my confusion and inability to come to a definite pro or nay Jack position in my own mind.

Thanks for taking the time to review the stats and form an opinion on the data.

I suspect Roos treated him like a human being in 2014 and 2015 also, but it's possible you're right and he didn't want to expose him too early. 

Alas, I fear you and I will remain on a different page re young Jack.  As Roos alluded to in the Detales podcast, there are part-time players at most clubs, including the MFC, and clearly Jack is in that category. 

Mahoney made it clear that Watts hasn't been doing the extras that some others players do in order to be the best player they can be.  Put simply, Watts is "half dedicated".  I know Dees supporters love making excuses for him, but I'm not one of those.  I'm big on "personal responsibility".

Also, while others laud his 2016, it was a minimum standard for a player of his talent in my eyes.  That's not to say I wasn't pleased he'd had a breakout year, but he's capable of much more.

Dustin Martin isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but the effort and sacrifices he's made to become the best player in the league has clearly been immense.

Does anyone think Jack has gone close to emulating such efforts ?

You may respond, but I may not, as I realise discussions on Watts are futile. Thanks for the conversation.

59 minutes ago, The Stigga said:

 

Maybe Watts and 27 to Sydney

14 to Melbourne 

14 and next years first round to Adelaide for Lever.

Keep pick 10 (for Gaff maybe)?

 

Why are so many people falling over themselves to come up with ways we can pay 2 x first round picks for Lever?

Can anyone honestly see us agreeing to that? (And you suggest Watts as well!)

 

I can't

Just now, faultydet said:

Why are so many people falling over themselves to come up with ways we can pay 2 x first round picks for Lever?

Can anyone honestly see us agreeing to that? (And you suggest Watts as well!)

 

I can't

I agree, I guess the point I was making was the most I'd give up would be say a pick 14 this year and pick 12-14 next year.

To be honest is there much difference between that an 10 & 27 this year?

 

 

1 minute ago, The Stigga said:

I agree, I guess the point I was making was the most I'd give up would be say a pick 14 this year and pick 12-14 next year.

To be honest is there much difference between that an 10 & 27 this year?

 

 

Your suggestion comes down to

 

Watts, 27, 12? for Lever.

Too Much I think

8 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Why are so many people falling over themselves to come up with ways we can pay 2 x first round picks for Lever?

Can anyone honestly see us agreeing to that? (And you suggest Watts as well!)

 

I can't

Yeah, didn't people see my monty burns gif? 

Lever is willing to go to the draft and there is ND10 and a second rounder is sitting there for them. The AFL will pressure them to take it because the almighty [censored] that will happen if Lever gets picked up by NM in the draft is not a storm the AFL is ready for.

1 hour ago, Druss said:

I'd be highlighting the highouts as well.  Despite being 'mentally soft' Jack has been expected to go into the ruck and compete in probably the most dangerous position on the field - and has accounted well for himself. This, no doubt, has impacted his stats in other areas as well.

"Mentally soft" is more about his mental application to being a full-time professional footballer. 

8 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Yeah, didn't people see my monty burns gif? 

Lever is willing to go to the draft and there is ND10 and a second rounder is sitting there for them. The AFL will pressure them to take it because the almighty [censored] that will happen if Lever gets picked up by NM in the draft is not a storm the AFL is ready for.

It's certainly not what Adelaide were hoping to get, but are they really willing to turn down pick 10 and 27, lose Lever AND get nothing at all in return?  Is that an inconceivably hollow threat??

I find it strange we keep bashing him in the media while apparently offering him up for trade. Makes no sense to de value our asset while taking it to market. 

So.

i don't think we are trading him. The footy department have decided they need to scare him into consistent hard work. Whether this is a good tactic or not i am unsure.

the extent to which they've taken the idea is impressive, with players believing he's a goner and the industry believing it whole heartedly. 

We will knock back offers claiming it's not value enough. He will remain.

 

Looks like pies are interested in Jack. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-10-04/trade-wrap-magpies-enter-the-ring-for-watts Now that Stringer has nominated Essendon, Geelong's reported interest in Jack might ramp up.  WCE, Port and Syd reported as also interested.  And I recall hearing the Bulldogs have some interest.  They all need a forward or a link man.

Mahoney sounded almost angry this morning and my take was there was little chance of Jack staying.  They will probably take whatever pick they can get and looking at the picks those clubs hold it could easily be a late second round.   

Methinks there is a fire sale coming up.  Sad

 

13 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

 

Methinks there is a fire sale coming up.

 

Watts would still be first 22 in all those teams. While he's not doing what he should/could, he still has currency, especially if some kind of bidding war starts up.

2 hours ago, ChewyOnMyBoot said:

Was interested in the comment above (that I have bolded) that inferred that the comparisons between Lynch (Adelaide) and Watts based on the 2 year 'performance' data that I provided earlier (and which showed that there isn't really a significant difference in their stats) would be quite different if I extended the period to 5 seasons instead of 2.

So I thought yeah, lets look at the last 5 years. I admit that I too thought that this would show a very different picture to the 2 year comparison.

But it doesn't (as far as I can see).
Averages for the last 5 seasons (2013-2017) 

Adding my comments from my previous post on this so that they can be read in context of the above 5 year data:

Interestingly, in the areas where it seems people (and the general football public) seem to have a real concern with Jack (the contest e.g. Tackles, Contested possessions, Contested marks and One percenters), Jack is certainly 'up' with Lynch.

I'm not convinced that Jack is used/sought out as the 'link player' at Melbourne in quite the same way as Lynch. Adelaide looks with much more intention/purpose for Lynch than we do for Jack (who I think quite often makes fantastic position on the ground but is overlooked).  I'm not certain, but I'm thinking this could explain the reason that Jack is below in total disposals.

I find the stats really interesting given the level of praise that generally gets heaped on Lynch as a player and as a link man by the media compared to what Jack cops. Just sayin'! It kind of adds to my confusion and inability to come to a definite pro or nay Jack position in my own mind.

 

This all goes to show why statements (of opinion) on player performance like the ones often made about MFC players (and seemingly  in particular Watts), that aren't based facts, can be quite misleading. Some would say irresponsible.

For me it shows how biases (which I'm sure are the result of the expectations created by the preaching directed at us 9 years ago that the messiah had arrived and would lead us out of the wilderness) can result in distorted 'impressions' and opinions - ones that aren't supported by the facts anyway.

Following are links to my source for the above data in case anyone wants to check up on me:

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/players/T/Tom_Lynch0.html

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/players/J/Jack_Watts.html

Disclaimer: If any of the data is incorrect (I have triple checked it because i was surprised by the results) it is quite unintentional. I am neither pro or nay Watts. Just like to take the emotions and bias out of performance assessment.

Apart from the fact Watts has played a significant ruck role in the last 2 seasons (impacting some aspects of the comparative stats above) here is a little gem from Glen Luff of Champion Data courtesy of "Pure Footy" segment on SEN with the Ox and Kingy last week that highlights one of the key stats and IMO another significant reason in the argument for keeping Wattsy!

For those interested the key part of the discussion on Watts is at the 4:15 mark!  A Grade material here (in this aspect at least)!

https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode/?id=141626

11 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Watts would still be first 22 in all those teams. While he's not doing what he should/could, he still has currency, especially if some kind of bidding war starts up.

Normally, I would agree bing. 

But the clubs mentioned have high 1st round picks, and only Geelong has a pick around 20.  The rest are mid to high 2nd round.  http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-10-01/indicative-draft-order-post-grand-final

So I was going on what currency they have rather than what Jack is 'worth'. 

It sounds like the club just want Jack out so my sense is we will do the best deal with the club he nominates.

Would be delighted to be wrong and we get a pick in the 20's than the 30's.

For those still believing Jack is good for the club after the Josh Mahoney interview. Comes with prescription lenses

for those of us less tech savvy, any chance of a link to the Mahoney interview?