2011 Collingwood Draft Prospects Thread

[Scodog10]

If Ceglar was ahead at the same stage why was he not drafted in his draft year, while Witts is talked about as one of the best ruckman in his?

Witts turns 19 this year, meaning he's in the same position as Ceglar last year. I don't want to get into the whole Witts v Ceglar thing, but the reason Witts is so highly rated on here is because he's probably only played 30-40 games of aussie rules at any level and has still shown more than enough.

He played state level Rugby and Cricket until the age of 15, so even if Ceglar has shown more (which is debatable as its completely subjective) its understandable that Witts is rated higher....

 

[ChipDouglas]

It's been posted by a misinformed soul that Witts has played the better football at the same age. Thats not right, as a 19 year old Ceglar was the No1 ruck for the division 1 champions and had an elite hit out to advantage percentage and during the TAC cup season out of the top hitout winners he averaged the most possessions around the ground.

Witts played 3 games during the championships and whilst he got his hands on the ball his hit out to avantage rate wasn't as good and as has been mentioned he hasn't played many games this year.

If the question is who has the most upside then it's clearly Witts but he hasn't played better football than Ceglar at the same age.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

You Mean Trent Stubbs - The Only Reason another Team would get Edwards is:

1. He Decides he does not want to play for Collingwood
2. He does not want to go on the Rookie List IF we ask him in his Draft Year

Yep Stubbs, now I remember. Thanks for the info.

 

[TradeDraft]

It's been posted by a misinformed soul that Witts has played the better football at the same age. Thats not right, as a 19 year old Ceglar was the No1 ruck for the division 1 champions and had an elite hit out to advantage percentage and during the TAC cup season out of the top hitout winners he averaged the most possessions around the ground.

Witts played 3 games during the championships and whilst he got his hands on the ball his hit out to avantage rate wasn't as good and as has been mentioned he hasn't played many games this year.

If the question is who has the most upside then it's clearly Witts but he hasn't played better football than Ceglar at the same age.

Well Witts also would have a Bigger Upside because of his Height and Athletisim.

Though I think Ceglar will be a Very Good Player in the L Brown Role in 2 or so Seasons

 

[Knightmare]

It's been posted by a misinformed soul that Witts has played the better football at the same age. Thats not right, as a 19 year old Ceglar was the No1 ruck for the division 1 champions and had an elite hit out to advantage percentage and during the TAC cup season out of the top hitout winners he averaged the most possessions around the ground.

Witts played 3 games during the championships and whilst he got his hands on the ball his hit out to avantage rate wasn't as good and as has been mentioned he hasn't played many games this year.

If the question is who has the most upside then it's clearly Witts but he hasn't played better football than Ceglar at the same age.

What ruckman can achieve as a 17 or 18 year old against lesser competition means very little.
The evidence is in the number who come up through the rookie lists and go on to have success - Sandilands, Cox, Jolly, Mumford, Jacobs amongst others.

The question with Ceglar is will he develop into a ruckman good enough to take over from Jolly?
At the time of drafting I thought not and I still don't believe he will develop into a particularly high level ruckman. But I do think now that he could develop into a reasonable no.2 ruck option or backup down the road.

Witts on the other hand is very new to our game. He isn't as advanced as a footballer at this early stage because he hasn't played nearly as much.
I don't see him as an immediate player at all, even if his current size is around 209cm 113kg.
But I do see the potential 4 years down the track for him to be able to take over as our no.1 ruckman and play at a high level. There are enough little signs that suggest that he could develop into a very good ruckman at AFL level.

The reason why I rate Witts over Ceglar is because his development has been allot more significant in the time that he has been playing. Ceglar has shown good committment to his footy and is showing some progress. But not nearly the strides we have seen from Witts over that type of short period.
Significant development in short spaces of time and potential due to background in wide range of sports as well as size are what I'd look for in ruckman over what they achieve at u18 level. All of the above criteria I give the nod to Witts.

So if I had to choose one of Ceglar or Witts to go forward with as a ruckman I'd select Witts.

Wouldn't you?

 

[Scodog10]

It's been posted by a misinformed soul that Witts has played the better football at the same age. Thats not right, as a 19 year old Ceglar was the No1 ruck for the division 1 champions and had an elite hit out to advantage percentage and during the TAC cup season out of the top hitout winners he averaged the most possessions around the ground.

Witts played 3 games during the championships and whilst he got his hands on the ball his hit out to avantage rate wasn't as good and as has been mentioned he hasn't played many games this year.

If the question is who has the most upside then it's clearly Witts but he hasn't played better football than Ceglar at the same age.

That's fair enough.

A good hitout to advantage rate relies on having quality on-ballers surrounding you as much as it does being able to hit the right spots (especially at the lower levels when kids are learning the art of ruckwork). With all due respect to the Rams of 2011 the quality of the two on-ball divisions is incomparable when you consider that Ceglar was hitting it to the likes of Heppell, Parker, Dalhaus, Smedts, Treloar, Pitt, Atley, Hallahan and Devon Smith!

That's not to mention that Witts still averaged 17 possessions and 6 marks per match which are more than competitive numbers (I don't know Ceglar's unfortunately) against say Longer with 11 possessions and 5 marks in this years champs from only the one extra game. Especially considering Longer is a strong chance to go top 5-10 in this years draft.

Again I don't want to get into comparisons between the two, but for mine its not as clear cut as you think and taking cheap shot's like you did by labelling someone "misinformed" wins you no brownie points....

 

[Snoop Dog]

It's been posted by a misinformed soul that Witts has played the better football at the same age. Thats not right, as a 19 year old Ceglar was the No1 ruck for the division 1 champions and had an elite hit out to advantage percentage and during the TAC cup season out of the top hitout winners he averaged the most possessions around the ground.

Witts played 3 games during the championships and whilst he got his hands on the ball his hit out to avantage rate wasn't as good and as has been mentioned he hasn't played many games this year.

If the question is who has the most upside then it's clearly Witts but he hasn't played better football than Ceglar at the same age.

yeah I am not sure who the misinformed soul is but Ceglar certainly had a good year as a 19yo - Witts has as well so am not sure a whole lot between them. Rather just be happy we got Witts for stuff all and we have a bit of pressure for spots building over the next few years. Certainly think Witts has the potential to go past Ceglar next year given Ceglar hasnt set the world on fire as a ruck this year. have seen a number of Witts games and he has performed very well agaisnt some of the leading rucks in this years draft who are pretty highly rated.

 

[Snoop Dog]

That's fair enough.

That's not to mention that Witts still averaged 17 possessions and 6 marks per match which are more than competitive numbers (I don't know Ceglar's unfortunately) against say Longer with 11 possessions and 5 marks in this years champs from only the one extra game. Especially considering Longer is a strong chance to go top 5-10 in this years draft.

Ceglar stats at 2010 champs;

Game: 5
Kicks: 17 (tad over 3 per game)
Handballs: 28 (nearly 6 per game)
Marks: 14 (less than 3 per game
H/O: 64 (15 per game) - Witts averaged 20

So at the same age Witts compares more favourably......to the extent you accept stats tell the story I guess.

It should be noted that Witts didnt play vs Longer (i know you arent suggesting he did). Cope played that day but he did play vs Grundy (17yo) who was arguably the best ruck at the champs and did very very well. The last game he should have dominated bc the NT ruck whose name escapes me was only 190'ish cm. Point is whilst stats tell a story you also have to who they were achieved against.

 

[Dundalis]

Witts turns 19 this year, meaning he's in the same position as Ceglar last year. I don't want to get into the whole Witts v Ceglar thing, but the reason Witts is so highly rated on here is because he's probably only played 30-40 games of aussie rules at any level and has still shown more than enough.

He played state level Rugby and Cricket until the age of 15, so even if Ceglar has shown more (which is debatable as its completely subjective) its understandable that Witts is rated higher....

I was under the impression that 2009 was Ceglar's draft year, not 2010. While 2011 is Witts' draft year. I don't see how that puts them at the same stage. Or is it Ceglar's draft year was 2008 and Witts 2010?

Not that it matters though, I think it's pretty clear Witts has a lot more potential. Ceglar looks like the typical Collingwood beanpole ruckman we've had the last decade.

 

[Snoop Dog]

I was under the impression that 2009 was Ceglar's draft year, not 2010. While 2011 is Witts' draft year. I don't see how that puts them at the same stage. Or is it Ceglar's draft year was 2008 and Witts 2010?

Not that it matters though, I think it's pretty clear Witts has a lot more potential. Ceglar looks like the typical Collingwood beanpole ruckman we've had the last decade.

its a bit confusing - you are right 2009 was Ceglars draft year and 2010 was Witts.... he is a '92 baby. to be fair when they were both 18 I would have Ceglar in front........but not necessarily at 19.

 

[Scodog10]

I was under the impression that 2009 was Ceglar's draft year, not 2010. While 2011 is Witts' draft year. I don't see how that puts them at the same stage. Or is it Ceglar's draft year was 2008 and Witts 2010?

Not that it matters though, I think it's pretty clear Witts has a lot more potential. Ceglar looks like the typical Collingwood beanpole ruckman we've had the last decade.

Ceglar's draft years were 2008 and 2009 as his D.O.B is 14.2.91 (he's only 4 days younger than Rounds who was drafted bottom age in 08) so he was overage in 2010.

Witts first draft year was 2010 as his D.O.B is 13.10.92. He would have been one of the younger kids in the draft last year, however he still got in by 2 months so he's now overage this year. Sorry that it is a bit of a technicality with Witts due to him being so young in his draft year

Thanks for the info re Ceglar Snoop! Just out of curiosity, had Isaac Smith nominated before the 2010 draft? Just going down the track of whether we would have got better value through him rather than Ceglar as the steak knives. I'm not writing off Ceglar or anything more that I'm a massive wrap for Smith. Btw I think I know the answer to my own question, but just wanted to be 100%.

 

[HFF]

I
Not that it matters though, I think it's pretty clear Witts has a lot more potential. Ceglar looks like the typical Collingwood beanpole ruckman we've had the last decade.

Hard to disagree with this.

Ceglar looks exactly like the prototype beanpole ruckman we have all wanted to stay away from considering our bad experiences with many before him. That's not to say he can't beef up but it still gives me sleepless nights thinking about it.

Witts is already a monster. Massive potential and upside to work with.

 

[Snoop Dog]

Ceglar's draft years were 2008 and 2009 as his D.O.B is 14.2.91 (he's only 4 days younger than Rounds who was drafted bottom age in 08) so he was overage in 2010.

Witts first draft year was 2010 as his D.O.B is 13.10.92. He would have been one of the younger kids in the draft last year, however he still got in by 2 months so he's now overage this year. Sorry that it is a bit of a technicality with Witts due to him being so young in his draft year

Thanks for the info re Ceglar Snoop! Just out of curiosity, had Isaac Smith nominated before the 2010 draft? Just going down the track of whether we would have got better value through him rather than Ceglar as the steak knives. I'm not writing off Ceglar or anything more that I'm a massive wrap for Smith. Btw I think I know the answer to my own question, but just wanted to be 100%.

my understanding is we could not have taken him as the only players that could be added were those that had already nominated for a draft......I dont think Smith had ever done so.

 

[Scodog10]

my understanding is we could not have taken him as the only players that could be added were those that had already nominated for a draft......I dont think Smith had ever done so.

Cheers! I had a feeling that was the case otherwise he'd have been hot property with those trades.

 

[HFF]

A question for snoop or those that know a bit about him, in regards to O'meara and the mini draft of whom we are supposedly interested in, there has been mention on the main board that we have players at our disposal such as Wellingham, Sidebottom, Beams etc as currency to deal with.

Now, whilst I think those guys are off limits and we won't be offering up players that are of genuine value to our side, a name that sticks out to me is Tom Young.

He is highly rated on this board and those who have followed him closely but my question is would we entertain the idea of packaging him somehow to return home to NSW in exchange for a crack at the mini draft and would GWS have any interest in him?

Thoughts?

 

[ChipDouglas]

Again I don't want to get into comparisons between the two, but for mine its not as clear cut as you think and taking cheap shot's like you did by labelling someone "misinformed" wins you no brownie points....

Well we have people posting that Ceglar was just a rookie chance to which I would say why did we ask for him as part of a package for our first round pick? At the same age Ceglar's actual ruckwork was better than Witts, that is the amount of clean ball he was able to generate for his team. That's to be expected because he's played a a lot more football than Witts. I also said Witts overall ceiling is higher than Ceglar having seen all of his championship matches. My initial response was to someone who posted the football Witts played was miles better than Ceglar at the same age, thats just not accurate. I have all of the division 1 and 2 matches on DVD so I've seen all of their games(this year and last year) at least twice so when I see cutting and pasting from mostly newspapers about draft players along with the usual football cliches thrown in start to become vebatum I'll post my thoughts, sorry for trying to keep it real.

 

[ChipDouglas]

A question for snoop or those that know a bit about him, in regards to O'meara and the mini draft of whom we are supposedly interested in, there has been mention on the main board that we have players at our disposal such as Wellingham, Sidebottom, Beams etc as currency to deal with.

Now, whilst I think those guys are off limits and we won't be offering up players that are of genuine value to our side, a name that sticks out to me is Tom Young.

He is highly rated on this board and those who have followed him closely but my question is would we entertain the idea of packaging him somehow to return home to NSW in exchange for a crack at the mini draft and would GWS have any interest in him?

Thoughts?

I'll only say Collingwood are in for O'Meara in a big way. He'll go to the highest bidder and not forgetting Sheedy is insane. I can see him ending up at Essendon for something like Gumby AND Ryder which the Bombers would be prepared to do with Joe Daniher on the horizon.

 

[PieBeast]

We won't be getting O'Meara, price will be too high and his preference is to to play in WA, can't you boys discuss some more realistic draft prospects?

 

[HFF]

We won't be getting O'Meara, price will be too high and his preference is to to play in WA, can't you boys discuss some more realistic draft prospects?

I'm certainly realistic about our chances for O'Meara as I do not think we will compromise the list by butchering it- we have refrained from doing that in the past and I don't see any reason to start now. I've long been of the belief that the price will be too high for us to consider just wanted to guage the interest and thoughts of Tom Young as potential prospect/bait for the mini draft, if indeed we decided to get involved.

I'll only say Collingwood are in for O'Meara in a big way. He'll go to the highest bidder and not forgetting Sheedy is insane. I can see him ending up at Essendon for something like Gumby AND Ryder which the Bombers would be prepared to do with Joe Daniher on the horizon.

Have you got good mail there CD, or just an opinion?

What about Tom Young, is he the type we would consider offloading if we are serious about making a play for O'Meara and would GWS even be interested? As a local prospect, he just seems to tick a lot of boxes and is one player that stands out to me as a logical choice but obviously it depends on the level of interest he would have from GWS.

 

[Breakthelines]

I think that we would be stupid if we even entertained the thought of trading Sidebottom, Beams, Wellingham for an unproven 17 year old.

 

[Scodog10]

Well we have people posting that Ceglar was just a rookie chance to which I would say why did we ask for him as part of a package for our first round pick? At the same age Ceglar's actual ruckwork was better than Witts, that is the amount of clean ball he was able to generate for his team. That's to be expected because he's played a a lot more football than Witts. I also said Witts overall ceiling is higher than Ceglar having seen all of his championship matches. My initial response was to someone who posted the football Witts played was miles better than Ceglar at the same age, thats just not accurate. I have all of the division 1 and 2 matches on DVD so I've seen all of their games(this year and last year) at least twice so when I see cutting and pasting from mostly newspapers about draft players along with the usual football cliches thrown in start to become vebatum I'll post my thoughts, sorry for trying to keep it real.

I personally appreciate the insights provided as I haven't been able to see as much of the kids as I need to in order to comment 100% accurately

Your well within your rights to keep it real, I just took umbrage at the fact that you labelled someone misinformed just because they have a different opinion to yours!

Also Collingwood have a known history of not knowing the true value of ruckmen. Wood for pick 14 and Bryan in the PSD when he should have been a rookie are prime examples. I think the only assumption we can make from his involvement in that trade was that the club felt he was worthy of a senior list spot, which doesn't necessarily mean that his form/ talents actually warranted one, again its a purely subjective assessment....

If the discussion was surrounding who's ruckwork was better at that point in time, based on both what I've heard and the little I saw, I'd go with Ceglar. However from what I can tell the discussion surrounded who had played the better football at the same age and was therefore a better prospect. Considering the only fair comparison is at the champs and that Witts comes out on top in most areas outside of hit-outs to advantage, its a close call. Certainly not worthy of labelling Witts miles better, but also not worth labelling someone misinformed because they thought Witts had performed better.

Pie Beast I'm definitely with Chip on O'Meara I think Collingwood are in with a realistic shot at him. His preference to stay in WA has no influence whatsoever on where he ends up as he's now in a draft, so the best deal gets him. My opinions also based on what WCE have to work with (Masten, the Selwood's and a few other fringe players) and the fact that Fremantle have very little currency at all to make a deal.

Considering GWS are in desperate need of a ruckman and Essendon have one to spare plus a lack of depth in the midfield, I think that'll be his destination.

 

[ChipDouglas]

Have you got good mail there CD, or just an opinion?

When you spend a lot of time around recruiters you pick up a thing or two. I have no idea what GWS would want and like I said imo Kevin Sheedy is insane and would be extremely difficult to deal with. But if the Giants said we'll deal O'Meara for Beams AND Goldsack I'd pull the trigger in a nano second and I think the club would as well.

 

[ChipDouglas]

Your well within your rights to keep it real, I just took umbrage at the fact that you labelled someone misinformed just because they have a different opinion to yours!

It's much worse than that. Prolific posters have taken over discussion and thats why we have the Matt Panos's of the world becoming first round picks followed by the shock and disgust that 16 clubs could overlook him in every round of the draft. Then there's the recent mock drafts that have Toby Greene and Dom Tyson in the 30's IF people had seen their games and had half a brain they would realize thats just not realistic. Newspapers often help correct mistakes but often the opinions go unchecked and spiral off into misinformation.

 

[HFF]

When you spend a lot of time around recruiters you pick up a thing or two. I have no idea what GWS would want and like I said imo Kevin Sheedy is insane and would be extremely difficult to deal with. But if the Giants said we'll deal O'Meara for Beams AND Goldsack I'd pull the trigger in a nano second and I think the club would as well.

Fair enough Chip.

However, I'd be bitterly disappointed if we pulled the trigger on Beams.

It just ain't worth the risk. Nobody would put up a young gun like that to secure him.

 

[Old Spice]

Pardon my ignorance, but are GWS obliged to trade O'Meara? Where would he go in the draft ordinarily (range)?