What future for Watts????
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30089
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
What future for Watts????
On the plus side he is big and strong and powerful mark........on the debit side he is slow and a bit awkward.
That in itself is not a problem as you can have such a type in your forward line...as long as they are good marks and can convert to kick the goals.
However for Watts the problem is that IF the Saints can find a ruck...that Kosi will most likely play most of the game as that type of forward.
Given the way players run, flood and rebound these days it is difficult to imagine playing two such big slow forwards permanently.
You could easly if you had them play say 3 Reiwoldts in your forward line...but not 3 Watts or 3 Kosis.
So would a forward line with Kosi, Watts and Roo be too cumbersome?? some weeks no...but in others yes.
I think if you are going to play 3 talls in your forward line permanently (ie I am not talking aboita the ruckmen drifting foreward) then at least 2 of them need to be mobile.
ie say Roo and Gilbert....as well as one of Watts or Kosi.
so IF say Gardiner does shape up.....or the Club trades for a ruck.......then watts may have to wait some time for regular senior games.
Then again Roos may decide to have Gardi and Kosi share the ruck....and use Kosi as a an impact forward......and in which case Watts has a chance to shine.
But if say a Jolly is gained.....then does Watts become one of the few (if not the only) capable players on our list who would have trade value but whom we do not havea place for in our best 22?? The Dogs for example may trade well for a big guy that can take good grabs.
If the saints are unlikely to play him....does it make sense to keep him asa "spare"....when for example we could better utlise another Mid, FB or Ruckman??
That in itself is not a problem as you can have such a type in your forward line...as long as they are good marks and can convert to kick the goals.
However for Watts the problem is that IF the Saints can find a ruck...that Kosi will most likely play most of the game as that type of forward.
Given the way players run, flood and rebound these days it is difficult to imagine playing two such big slow forwards permanently.
You could easly if you had them play say 3 Reiwoldts in your forward line...but not 3 Watts or 3 Kosis.
So would a forward line with Kosi, Watts and Roo be too cumbersome?? some weeks no...but in others yes.
I think if you are going to play 3 talls in your forward line permanently (ie I am not talking aboita the ruckmen drifting foreward) then at least 2 of them need to be mobile.
ie say Roo and Gilbert....as well as one of Watts or Kosi.
so IF say Gardiner does shape up.....or the Club trades for a ruck.......then watts may have to wait some time for regular senior games.
Then again Roos may decide to have Gardi and Kosi share the ruck....and use Kosi as a an impact forward......and in which case Watts has a chance to shine.
But if say a Jolly is gained.....then does Watts become one of the few (if not the only) capable players on our list who would have trade value but whom we do not havea place for in our best 22?? The Dogs for example may trade well for a big guy that can take good grabs.
If the saints are unlikely to play him....does it make sense to keep him asa "spare"....when for example we could better utlise another Mid, FB or Ruckman??
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
- Riewoldting
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2883
- Joined: Thu 05 May 2005 1:34am
- Location: Perth WA
Re: What future for Watts????
He's still coaching Sydney mate.saintsRrising wrote:Then again Roos may decide to have Gardi and Kosi share the ruck....and use Kosi as a an impact forward......and in which case Watts has a chance to shine.
But I think this is the most likely scenario ... Gardiner (and later Van Rheenan) as the number 1 ruck ... Kosi rotating through ruck and forward line ... and Watts as the dedicated forward.
Similar to Blake/Ottens/Mooney at Geelong.
The difference is, we have the luxury of a big CHF running defenders off their feet and taking big grabs anywhere from full forward to centre half back. Wouldn't catch N Ablett doing that.
![Image](http://www.westofmoorabbin.com/im06/roger.jpg)
"To be or not to be" - William Shakespeare
"To be is to do" - Immanuel Kant
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30089
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
Re: What future for Watts????
Though the Cats do not play two lumberers at once down there...Riewoldting wrote:
Similar to Blake/Ottens/Mooney at Geelong.
.
Mooney is quite mobile....as is Ablett.
The Cats for example do not play Ottens and Blake (or King) both in their forward line at the same time for substaniial chumnks of the game...
Watts cannot go for a run in the ruck either....
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Mon 04 Sep 2006 10:21am
- Location: McKinnon
- Been thanked: 8 times
Saw many Scorpions games this year and would, without doubt, rate Brooks a better FF option. Far more mobile, better leap, great kick for goal and and can pinch hit in the ruck.
With this in mind, and in the knowledge that we need more pacy midfielders, offer Watts to, say, Doggies, who need big guys and see what they would give.
With this in mind, and in the knowledge that we need more pacy midfielders, offer Watts to, say, Doggies, who need big guys and see what they would give.
Give me one flag & I'll go to my grave a happy man.
- SaintWodonga
- Club Player
- Posts: 1868
- Joined: Wed 04 Jul 2007 12:01am
- Location: Wodonga
- Contact:
We gave up our 1st round selection for Watts, so I think that he must be given a go. We put a lot of faith in him, (were we influnced by the fact his father, Jim, was invovled at the club at the time?) so give him a go.
Brooks should be given a go too. He kicked 3 goals in the last round of 2006, and he did a beautiful palm down to Milne for a great goal.
It's time one of them be given a go. If they are not given a go, they must be let go. Can't have either in limbo any more.
Brooks should be given a go too. He kicked 3 goals in the last round of 2006, and he did a beautiful palm down to Milne for a great goal.
It's time one of them be given a go. If they are not given a go, they must be let go. Can't have either in limbo any more.
Please explain this 5 consecutive games. We lose 2 in a row and he doesnt get a kick so we drop someone else who has played better. Why should anyone be given games if they should be dropped.Otiman wrote:Give him the biggest pre-season ever, tell him his career is on the line, and get him some extensive 1 on 1 training with someone decent.
Throw him to the wolves, and give him at least 5 consecutive games.
- mad saint guy
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7064
- Joined: Tue 26 Jul 2005 9:44pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 52 times
- Been thanked: 355 times
Did you notice any improvement in Goddard after he was given senior experience? Do you think that it was wrong to stick with Sam Fisher early in 2005? Should Maguire have had to wait until 2004 before he was given an opportunity?plugger66 wrote:Please explain this 5 consecutive games. We lose 2 in a row and he doesnt get a kick so we drop someone else who has played better. Why should anyone be given games if they should be dropped.
Kids brought into the senior team do not usually perform straight away. They need experience at the top level before they can really show what they can do. Even kids in top teams have been carried in the side this year. Boak, Leuenberger, Ellis, Gibbs, Goldsack etc were not ahead of other more experienced players when selected for their first few games. But they were given experience and the chance to gradually improve over time.
This year we have seen Gilbert and Raph Clarke improve hugely after given some considerable game time.
One of Watts or Brooks will play in round one. As long as they don't embarrass themselves they should get at least a month to show eveyone what they can do. If Watts plays the first 3 games for a couple of goals and takes a few good grabs then he should stay in the side. Obviously if he just doesn't look up to it and becomes a true liability then he should be dropped.
You have said it all. If he is a liability you drop him. That is why no one should be given consecutive games unless they are deserved. Brooks a kid. Give me a break.mad saint guy wrote:Did you notice any improvement in Goddard after he was given senior experience? Do you think that it was wrong to stick with Sam Fisher early in 2005? Should Maguire have had to wait until 2004 before he was given an opportunity?plugger66 wrote:Please explain this 5 consecutive games. We lose 2 in a row and he doesnt get a kick so we drop someone else who has played better. Why should anyone be given games if they should be dropped.
Kids brought into the senior team do not usually perform straight away. They need experience at the top level before they can really show what they can do. Even kids in top teams have been carried in the side this year. Boak, Leuenberger, Ellis, Gibbs, Goldsack etc were not ahead of other more experienced players when selected for their first few games. But they were given experience and the chance to gradually improve over time.
This year we have seen Gilbert and Raph Clarke improve hugely after given some considerable game time.
One of Watts or Brooks will play in round one. As long as they don't embarrass themselves they should get at least a month to show eveyone what they can do. If Watts plays the first 3 games for a couple of goals and takes a few good grabs then he should stay in the side. Obviously if he just doesn't look up to it and becomes a true liability then he should be dropped.
- Oh When the Saints
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Wed 29 Mar 2006 4:25pm
- Location: QLD
- Contact:
plugger makes a fair point though.
All very well to give a kid a few games, but he has to show something.
No use promising Watts/Brooks 4-5 matches if they don't touch the footy in their first two games.
All very well to give a kid a few games, but he has to show something.
No use promising Watts/Brooks 4-5 matches if they don't touch the footy in their first two games.
They should only play AFL games now when it's raining. Slow games of footy are so much better to watch.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3804
- Joined: Tue 30 May 2006 7:34pm
- Location: the new home of the saints :)
he should have to earn his stripes with a dedicated and hard working pre-season. If he wants the position bad enough, he will work for it.
i disagree that he should be given 5 games to prove himself, if he doesn't get near the footy, you can't justify selecting him each week.
his destiny is in his own hands, he must take the opportun ity with both hands and cement the FF spot.
also MSG, i know your a big brooks mark, but i dont think he will survive this years delistings
i disagree that he should be given 5 games to prove himself, if he doesn't get near the footy, you can't justify selecting him each week.
his destiny is in his own hands, he must take the opportun ity with both hands and cement the FF spot.
also MSG, i know your a big brooks mark, but i dont think he will survive this years delistings
Robert Harvey- Simply the best
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30089
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
I don't really understand your comment as Raph came in after no pre-season and few games before his first senior game which was woeful.mad saint guy wrote:
and Raph Clarke improve hugely after given some considerable game time.
.
He improved not because he was playing senior football...but more because he was playing football and getting fitter...
ie...the same for Max...
However I do agree with the fact that guys when tried in the seniois may show their stuff and respond to the challenge.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
- mad saint guy
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7064
- Joined: Tue 26 Jul 2005 9:44pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 52 times
- Been thanked: 355 times
If someone is a true liability (the player contributing nothing and his opponent is hurting us) then they should defiitely go.plugger66 wrote:If he is a liability you drop him. That is why no one should be given consecutive games unless they are deserved.
But just consider this type of situation:
Hayes is out for round one with a minor injury and will be available for round two. Birss and Armitage are selected for round one. Birss gets 14 possessions in a fairly disappointing performance while Armo picks up 12 possessions from little game time. Neither play particularly well, but we need one of them in the team as a backup onballer and one to be dropped for Hayes. Birss played a slightly better game than Armitage, but logically you would leave Armo in the side as he will improve with the experience. If you are selecting players exclusively on their performance then Birss would stay in.
You are right, Raph wasn't a great example, however he definitely needed a few weeks just top adjust to the pace and quality of AFL footy as well as getting his fitness back.He improved not because he was playing senior football...but more because he was playing football and getting fitter...
That is true, but if they do show a few good signs then they should stay. Less than 6 possessions from 80 minutes of game time in 2 consecutive weeks should see them out of the side, but they shouldn't be expected to kick 3 goals every week either.No use promising Watts/Brooks 4-5 matches if they don't touch the footy in their first two games
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4241
- Joined: Fri 15 Sep 2006 10:35am
- Location: earth
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1390 times
Mooksy, Watts has played one senior game, then been sidelined for 14 months with a broken ankle (with complications).
Remember, Gilbert played one or two games in 2006, but after being given a chance this year has blossomed.
At least see him play in the seniors a few times when he's 100% fit before condemning him to the scrapheap.
Remember, Gilbert played one or two games in 2006, but after being given a chance this year has blossomed.
At least see him play in the seniors a few times when he's 100% fit before condemning him to the scrapheap.
- Unforgiven
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: Wed 23 Feb 2005 9:48pm
- Location: Full Forward
I dont know why some folks have a beat down on Watts. I reckon he will go quite well, sure we traded pick no.17, but I mean Mini was a pick 17 and has done nothin thus far. Watts has a good future ahead of him, and I look forward to being a important part of a forward set up in 08 and beyond.
Carpe Diem
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3580 times
- Been thanked: 2844 times
Ppl seem to forget that Watts broke his leg like twice last year and virtually missed the entire season and then some...
surely you have to expect that this would slolw down his development +++... he threw together a reasonable come back season in the reserves and is only now ready to take take his game up to a new level
surely you have to expect that this would slolw down his development +++... he threw together a reasonable come back season in the reserves and is only now ready to take take his game up to a new level
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: Sun 27 Mar 2005 8:29pm
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Spot on...skeptic wrote:Ppl seem to forget that Watts broke his leg like twice last year and virtually missed the entire season and then some...
surely you have to expect that this would slolw down his development +++... he threw together a reasonable come back season in the reserves and is only now ready to take take his game up to a new level
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Fri 22 Jun 2007 2:34pm
yeppers.
if saints were in charge of selection and drafting mcintosh would have been delisted from north, montagna traded for a round 3 draft pick, sam fisher delisted, kosi traded for a round 2 draft pick, heck I remember the nongs saying what has reiwoldt done for us lately, and can we get something for him after his first season injured and a nondescript couple of early games for us etc etc.
watts may or may not make it, but some of the 'eat the player' attitudes here are completely nongish.
sure some dont make it, (glen coughlan was one a lot of us had marked as a future CHB) but to shoot them before they are 21/22 is a bit silly IMO, especially the big fellas.
btw how old was cox when he started making an impact? (i forget geniune question, not rhetorical)
if saints were in charge of selection and drafting mcintosh would have been delisted from north, montagna traded for a round 3 draft pick, sam fisher delisted, kosi traded for a round 2 draft pick, heck I remember the nongs saying what has reiwoldt done for us lately, and can we get something for him after his first season injured and a nondescript couple of early games for us etc etc.
watts may or may not make it, but some of the 'eat the player' attitudes here are completely nongish.
sure some dont make it, (glen coughlan was one a lot of us had marked as a future CHB) but to shoot them before they are 21/22 is a bit silly IMO, especially the big fellas.
btw how old was cox when he started making an impact? (i forget geniune question, not rhetorical)
Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime
SHUT UP KRIME!
SHUT UP KRIME!