Akum

1 hour ago, Ned said:

Is there a chance this whole episode is a surreptitious rocket for Jack? He's unlikely to secure a trade just because of the way the chips have fallen so will wind up staying at Melbourne. Perhaps will shake off some of his apathy and if not then really on the block next year? He frustrates me but he's also been part of a club that went to hell and back during his time. I've always hoped Melbourne's success would come with Jack Watts part of it so both sides were validated. Just a dream I guess.

I want this to be true. But my head tells me otherwise.

Probably boils down to if we're getting a quality tall in Lever, then a tall had to go. In retrospect it was probably between Jack & Frost.

Wonder if anything happened at around the time they re-hyphen-signed Frost?

2 hours ago, Sargent Shultz said:

Sorry...........on the wrong Watts thread ...................But while I'm here can we keep this thread going next year so the Pro Watts camp can shout about his achievements each week?

If we're flying, it won't matter. 

.

10 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Petracca and Hannan can play Watts' role. Both are strong in the air or create a contest, which is one of Watts' failings.

And T Mac was a better backup ruck than Watts, although Watts was quite good as a follower.

Trouble was that when Watts was in the ruck (and Hogan not playing) it just kept coming back from the forward line.

We could cover a defender but not a forward. 

3 hours ago, GawnWithTheWind said:

I follow a few of the fitness staff on instagram, more so for training tips and to get an insight into how AFL athletes prepare than to peer into what the dees players are doing.

However, this morning one of them had Spencer, Trengove and watts in the Instagram story.

Good to see Watts in there working in his off-season, bad to see him just doing bicep curls. Curls will only help him look better in his shorts rather than becoming a better AFL athlete. Maybe I missed all of the functional stuff he did prior... but he looked pretty keen on making the guns bigger.

Good bait. The assumption of course being that the only thing he did was whatever was on the Instagram.

15 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Back Taylor to pick a quality player at 29 or keep a culture killer ?

I'll back Goody.

They have reasons for wanting to move Watts on.  No guarantees with the pick, but I'll back the reasons behind it.

Just out of interest, did you back Neeld, or dump him early?

1 hour ago, Ron Burgundy said:

They've got a few players that I'm sure we'd happily introduce to the squad.

 

But they don't seem keen to move anywhere.

Darcy Lang, anyone?

3 minutes ago, Dee tention said:

What is that supposed to mean?

90% of people have him gone...

He's 100% gone, has been ever since he started answering calls from other clubs.

2 minutes ago, A F said:

Sorry, but are ypu suggesting Dangerfield has a say in the recruitmemt at Geelong? If so, he absolutely doesn't.

No, I think the club wants to recruit him, and they're using Dangerfield & Selwood to try to win him over. Good bait.

9 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Stephen Wells just said on Trade Radio that the Cats are unlikely to be able to do a deal for Jack Watts to come to Geelong.

So why in the world did they bother with a tour and showing some interest in him?  Or are the Cats being tight with what they have?  Either way, sounds more and more like Jack will head to Port Adelaide.

Think their lack of picks is really starting to bite. They were hoping to persuade players to head to GCS so they didn't have to use their highest pick on GAJ, and that didn't happen. They were hoping to get a big compo pick for Motlop, and that's unlikely to happen. So the cupboard is bare.

You could be right about PA.

3 hours ago, mo64 said:

BS. He was talked into the job by PJ, and offered a fortune to take it. The reason why PJ was keen to get him was because Roos would not get the same media or public scrutiny as a first time coach if the club had poor results. Through the poor results, we were gifted high draft picks to acquire young talent, which is Jason Taylor's role. We already had Hogan and Viney from Neeld's time.

And during his time, Roos was never able to lure a big name to the club. Hibberd, Melksham and Vince came to the club through Goodwin's connection, and Lewis through Viney. You could say Garlett, but he was on the scrapheap at Carlton. So the core of the list is primarily the remnants of Neeld, the acquisitions by Goodwin/Viney, and the recruiting by Taylor.

The easiest coaching job in the world is one where you nominate your ending date, and leave before the job is finished. Then he has the nerve to be critical of the club, and especially Goodwin, who he annointed. By your reasoning, if Goodwin is a failure, then so is Roos.

Comedy gold.

Goody's speech?

Anybody sober?

17 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

WTF!

Viney 2nd?

Either Hibberd or Clarry not even top 5?!

Surprised he didn't win it.

14 minutes ago, frankie_d said:

Jones: wishes "Wattsy" all the best, no matter what happens

A class act. They're the survivors (with JT) since the Bailey years, been through a lot together.

2 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Lewis tied for 3rd place with someone.

29 minutes ago, CHF said:

I might bring the Pacos over next year and offer to do the music.... we do a great Latin Guitar version of A grand Old Flag. has to be be better than the yodeling banjo player that is there now.

I'd like to hear the raga version.

9 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

If Viney polled that well putting in limited mediocre performances, he’ll win again tonight. He really got going through the middle of the year until injury hit him. 

Totally predictable.

On 5 October 2017 at 4:54 PM, Lucifer's Hero said:

...  

Who do you think will take out the Bluey?

Viney.

2 hours ago, bing181 said:

Once again, and for the nth time, this isn't primarily about Watts' on-field performance.

I was responding to a poster who accused Watts of not putting in the effort to increase his performance. My main point was in the last sentence - I'm concerned if the club doesn't consider his elite performance in inside 50s and forward pressure acts (i.e. what he DOES do well) significant, and I'm also concerned about how we're going to replace that elite performance in these areas when Watts is gone.

I'm about the future, not the past. Watts is gone and the Dees will carry on without him. But if our coaches are blind to the holes that his going leaves, then we'll have problems.

11 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

If it is that premeditated SWY then it must go all the way to his manager who has been reported as saying he will never allow Jack to return to the MFC given the way he's been treated?

To be fair, it was some journo on SEN (I think) spouting that he didn't think Paul Connors would ever allow Jack to get back to Melbourne. Not a "report", just a journo's opinion.

12 hours ago, Socrates said:

Gee some of the comments from the pro Trade Watts group are pure TRUMP like. I reckon some of you drink clubs bath water.

Suddenly we seem to have a lot of neo-Saty's everywhere, who follow / swallow the club's line no matter what.

Saty is at least to be admired for being consistent and for not making stuff up. 

12 hours ago, Dr.D said:

just because you're an outside player doesn't mean you dont have to go in hard when its your turn to go.  and thats why you cant build a culture with a repeat offender.

... except that, as far as I know, the club hasn't yet used "not going in hard enough" as a reason for pushing him out. 

But it's "what everybody knows"? Well, clearly it hasn't stopped a number of good hard clubs from chasing him ... hard.

And you could equally say: "kicking is a basic skill in footy; just because you're a hard inside player doesn't mean you shouldn't execute a basic skill to an adequate standard".

But we don't say that, do we? Are we better for not insisting on high standards of ball use?

12 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I think you are reading to much into it myself. I don’t think the club has done anything wrong, other than be honest. 

Would you prefer the denial route for weeks on end?

Mahoney laid it all out there last week, if Jack wants to come back and work harder, he is most welcome. 

IF Jack Watts really loves the Club as stated, that is what he will do. 

If he walks to another club thinking it will be easier, Good luck with that

The club has been dishonest in my view in trying to give the impression that Watts is welcome to stay. If the option to stay truly was open to him - even if Goody said to him that he's not going to pick him in the firsts for the next two years, no matter how well he does for Casey - he would not be talking to other clubs. It's clear that hardly anybody buys the club's fable that he's on the market by his own choice.

All that Watts has said in the media is that it's not his choice to leave, he's being pushed out. As I've explained above, and so many other times: he's gone, he was probably gone since just before he started talking to other clubs, and those who think he's staying need to get with the rest of the footy industry and accept it. But he hasn't bad-mouthed the club, he hasn't criticised his coaches, and he hasn't whinged about being hard done by. He's just accepted his coaches' decision and got on with what he needed to do. On the other hand, when any senior MFC person gives an interview, they seem unable to resist the urge to take another whack at Jack, which just makes our club look terrible.

It wouldn't have hurt the club to act with the same level of character and integrity that he's shown. That's my biggest disappointment in all this. My club has been shown up badly in this regard, but that's their fault, not his.

12 hours ago, PaulRB said:

This is BS. Jack Watts is yet to believe or commit Jack Watts to undertaking the required essential to be part of a successful team, and indeed for that to to indeed be successful.

If Jack Watts had Jack Viney's professionalism, intensity and commitment to making himself a better player and winning, he'd be a dead set champion. But he doesn't, and he's weirdly surprised that the MFC think he should... 

Sorry mate, I'm really not trying to stalk you. But you just keep making these assertions that cast Watts in the most negative light, and in so doing, miss some important aspects of the team.

Jack Viney, like all players, has strengths and weaknesses. His great weakness is his ball use. Oppositions prefer to tag Oliver and Petracca, because those two can hurt them a lot more with their disposals, and they tend to bring others around them into the game. Viney has been at the club for a few years now, and there is no discernible improvement in his ball use. He still tends to follow his instinct to just bang it forward, but when he does take more care and lower his eyes and look for someone, he's actually pretty good, and much more damaging.

Yet there seems to be no pressure from the club on Viney (and Jones and T-Mac and Tyson, among others) to take more care with his disposal. Yes, Viney smashes it in the gym, but does he work on the things that would make him a more dangerous player? His mate Ollie Wines, by contrast, seems to have put a lot of work into his ball use since he was drafted.

And if Watts does extra work in practising his goal shooting, or hitting a target, or controlling the ball at full speed, does he get as much credit for it as Viney coming in on his days off to smash the weights in the gym?

You're right that Jacks Viney and Watts are probably opposite ends of the footballer spectrum, and the attributes they bring to the team are vastly different. But my point is: they're both equally important to team performance, and need to be both regarded as such. You need several who can do what Viney does in a successful team, but also a few who can do what Watts does. And which are harder to find?

My concern is that we overvalue what Viney is good at (crashing in and winning contested ball, and tackling) and undervalue what Watts is good at (putting it to damaging use once he's got the ball, and pressure acts). This is largely why Watts is so criticised for not being good at the things Viney is good at. But as a team, we're mostly good for contested ball, good (although erratic) for tackling and pressure, but not good at all for things like turnovers, uncontested ball and entries into forward 50. In other words, the things we have to improve on as a team are the things that Watts is good at, not necessarily the things that Viney is good at (though of course we need to maintain those). And we're not good at those areas of the game that we undervalue, and we won't get better unless we sanction our players, especially our team leaders, who fail to improve in these areas.

12 hours ago, PaulRB said:

My view is the MFC would prefer Jack pull his finger out, and stay. But after years of encouraging him to do so are frustrated, and if he wont (pull said finger out), we'd be better off without him.

There's actually a fair bit of tough love and care in giving a player like Jack such a public correction. I've no doubt if Jack thrives elsewhere (or at the MFC) it will be due in no small part to the harsh reality check he's currently receiving.

 

Sorry, but again, just plain wrong.

When Roos gave his opinion that he wouldn't trade Watts, he also said that you don't motivate people by focussing on their mistakes; that was the big problem before I came here. You motivate Jack Watts by using positive reinforcement, not focussing on his mistakes. (now that's not news; in most other walks of live, it's well known that positive reinforcement is a far more effective way of motivating anybody. Jack had enough "focus on his mistakes" by Neeld, as did all his teammates at the time, and in Roos opinion, "that was the big problem before I came here".

The implication was, "Goody, you know how to motivate Jack Watts. I showed you that last year. Why are you choosing to handle him completely the wrong way?" Quite an admonishment, for me.

If he goes to a club that motivates their players by positive reinforcement (pick a club, any club), if you believe Roos (and of course you're free not to), he's likely to do better. Watts has, by all accounts, had big pitches made to him by Swans, Cats, Port & Pies, who all think they can do better with him than we did. This includes 2 of the 3 consistently best 3 clubs over the past 10-15 years, who match high standards with positive reinforcement. 

Again, Watts is gone, but cutting him out isn't going to fix any of our problems. I'm not on a campaign for him to stay, I'm much more concerned about my club going into the future. And just as it's wrong to totally blame Goody and say Watts did nothing wrong (which nobody is saying), it's wrong to totally blame Watts and say Goody did nothing wrong (which a lot of people are saying). It's self-defeating to think that the club couldn't have handled this better, because, just as you say about Watts in other posts, it's important for US to learn from OUR mistakes and move on. Whether or not Watts does is now another club's problem.