Gator

If you didn't potshot from the sidelines with your gifs and inane comments you wouldn't know how to participate on the internet. It's little wonder your lightweight views get held to account.

Another non-thinker. Clearly a B&F result is a litmus test, as is goals kicked for a permanent forward (i.e. Watts role this year). There's a reason Jeremy Howe is a failed forward and plays down back. He doesn't impact the scoreboard. Some of you have been posting here for a decade, but haven't grown an inch in that time.

Aren't you busy replying to Nasher telling how mean he is ?

Naturally, you'll be expecting an angry barrage now from Stu ? You know, being so unfair on Watts. Nah, didn't think so. Stu's back in his box. As for higher standard than other players ? I don't believe so. I take into account talent levels. Simon Godfrey was a scrubber, but I admired the fact he achieved the best he could. Having said that, calls for him to be dropped would have been met with outcry by some at the time. That's the way Demonland rolls.

That's just waffle from a well-known lightweight. You haven't addressed one aspect of what you're disagreeing with. As I said, you've been hogtied by your own incompetence. As I said preseason, goals per game was a worthwhile parameter for his new role. Naturally you scoffed, because you lacked vision. He had to impact the scoreboard and he has. You couldn't see it coming, which is why you call it a "stringy" objective. That's how dopes defend their earlier lack of insight. And thanks, I'm going to have a wonderful day.

I'm excited that he's reached a level I'd given up on. It's not a level I would have been excited by 8 years ago, but I'm excited now because i thought he was finished. And he would have been finished. The club tried to off-load him last trade period and couldn't. He was dropped twice in his 7th season. I'll be happy if he continues this current output for the remainder of his career. The excitement levels may wane, but I'll be satisfied. How others think I'm being harsh calling this current output as a new standard and that he mustn't regress is really unfathomable to me. Do you disagree ?

Good comeback, Stu. You've been hogtied and thrown on a spit. Better luck next time.

You're thick as two bricks, Stu. For me, Watts is now playing at a standard that he must not fall from. In his 8th year he's reached a minimum standard for hist experience and talent levels; and it's a set standard he's set for himself, the club and any logical person (not you). In other words, a logical person wouldn't want his output to be less next year, which, of course, makes 2016 a "standard". Others (like you) clearly think he must be over-achieving, because you don't want to define his 2016 output as his "minimum standard". You think such expectations would be unfair. So, if you're not happy for this year to be considered a minimum, if such expectations are too lofty, then the only conclusion is that you're OK if he regresses from here. You must think there's some level of over-achieving if you don't want to draw the line under his 2016. Extraordinary really, but that's your level of footy acumen, Stu, and I suspect it permeates your life in general. No need to keep responding though, I'll need crayons to make it any clearer.

What did I get wrong ?

I agree. In that first quarter I thought "here we go, it's going to be one of those games", but he didn't let his start define him. As for some others who agree with Dopey... How any of you think that Watts is over achieving is beyond me. How any of you think that Watts' output this year should not ne considered the new standard is staggering. He now understands what it takes at AFL level, but some of you don't expect this level to be the standard as we move forward. 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. Extraordinary. And another excellent post Binman.

His impact and disposal is presently way off A-grade. I've been watching closely. Injury certainly hasn't helped, but excuses don't alter reality.

Perhaps if you revisit the post you responded to you'll see I simply said that I'm still underwhelmed by them as players. And that they'll probably not run out on GF day when we get there. For some reason you then felt the need to state the bleeding obvious. We all know that role players get a medal sound their neck. It's my view that these two probably won't get that opportunity. Let's hope that you, me and fanboy above find out.

And neither of those two are A-graders.

You're a dope, Stu. Of course he's playing better than I thought he would. Have a look at my avatar. But once he had a terrific preseason, once he said that he was going to play permanent forward (this year) and once he acknowledged he needed to kick more goals it was reasonable to set scoreboard impact as one of the first measuring sticks. I thought he could and should kick 40 goals in this new role. You're a dope and naturally scoffed. You have no vision or footy cred. Jack Gunston is a very good player. He's a better player than Watts. I don't expect Watts to kick 50+ goals (would be great if he did), but playing the Gunston role 40 goals was reasonable. And he should do it to cap off a good year. In 4 completed years at Hawthorn Gunston has averaged over 2 goals per game in every one. The last 2 years he's kicked over 50. He'll do it again this year. Do you think Gunston has a goal/output target for the year, or is that too "stringy" for you. Why you and others set the bar so low is beyond me. He's having his first good year in 8 and dopes like you think it's wonderful and not a minimum required standard. Now that he's worked out what AFL footy is about it should be the standard. And I have zero doubt that it's a standard for him, his coaches and teammates. Or do you think they'll be happy with less ?

I preface most comments on Watts with almost an apology for sensitive souls like you. But in reality that preface has nothing to do with what I actually said. So you're saying that he's exceeding YOUR minimum levels ? Is that it ? Do we simply disagree on what you think is reasonable and a minimum output and what I think the bar should be ? If so, what makes you the arbiter on what is and isn't a base level for Watts. 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. The only person who'd be happy with less is you.

So did Clay Sampson and Steven Armstrong. If they do they do they're still "good ordinary", which makes them less likely than likely in my view. Any other scenarios you can mention that won't mean anything to me ?

I don't think he is an A-grader. He's like Marc Murphy or Cotchin, who have had one A-grade year.

Instead of being the class dope, annunciate what you disagree with. If you can.

I don't want to sound controversial and I'm rapt with his output when one considers his previous years, but he's really only at minimum levels. But I am thankful and hopefully he's drawn a line for the rest of the season and for future years.

I still am. Good ordinary players who are great for the club's depth and both are presently best 22, but when we're in the hunt for a flag I doubt either will be running out on GF day. But I agree they've been worthwhile recruits and better than I expected.

The same bloke said Melksham didn't have pace.

Opportunity.

He had one kick that wasn't as deep as he'd hoped (Varcoe intercept chopped arms) and another poor decision when he went to Jones in the corridor, which resulted in a goal to us, but he's a super smart player, a great tackler, and very clean. Pace was not an issue whatsoever. He's feeling his way after two years and I have zero doubt he'll be best 22 and get better and better.

A step forward, but he's still a mile off competing against strong forwards and he hasn't learnt how to hit bodies in spoiling contests.

I agree and so have I. I've watched him closely lately and he's underwhelmed. I'm not sure we need him.