News A long weight - Ceglar Article

[Cory]

Why do we need to bump this thread? Just like Ceglar there's many what ifs in the AFL.

What if we kept Ceglar we wouldn't of gone and got your favourite Grundy

What if Ceglar got the number one ruck role and spudded it up like Fraser

Just like the threads about Dawes, he's gone, get over it. Time to move on ffs.

 

[1892]

So your point is ...? We kept players with less potential then other clubs also passed over him. Funnily enough Hawthorn's judgement proved wisest. He is performing best where we are weakest, as a second ruck/forward. He would make a very handy back up to Cloke.

My point, which others have already mentioned is there must be more to his delisting and subsequent rookie listing by Hawthorn and that other clubs were also aware of the reasons, we weren't alone. Whatever these reasons were they must have been too great for Collingwood and multiple other clubs to address. Whether that be discipline, effort, getting on the sauce, a young bloke being a young bloke or simply not being the right fit for the group/club, it's safe to assume it wasn't because of talent. There were also whispers of Grundy sliding and maybe in part we gambled on that happening too. While you can't hang your hat on keeping a player just because they were drafted or in Ceglar's case traded for a highish draft pick (25?) it gives an indication of talent/perceived value at the time by the club.

We made 2 similar trades in 2 years, Clarke + Elliott and Krakouer + Ceglar. One worked, one didn't, but I'd say that to gain 1 bloke (Elliott) who looks the goods from 2 picks in the 20s is a win. While I don't know the reasons for his delisting it's clear that Buckley is trying to implement a no dickheads policy. Ceglar will probably have a handy career, but I can't see it costing us like Mal Michael, who's admitted his trade was forced due to socialising with Tarrant and not working hard enough.

It's also worth remembering that Ceglar (23 years) is 18 months older than Witts who in my opinion looks better as a ruck or forward and 3 years older than Grundy who shows promise to being a better ruck. Admittedly one current form Ceglar would be getting a game ahead of Grundy, but from a list perspective 3 rucks in a 3 year age profile won't fit long term and the development of one will likely suffer. We're seeing with Hawthorn that Ceglar isn't considered a pure forward and they can't fit McEvoy, Hale and Ceglar in the one team. Hale is a better forward than either Witts or Grundy, so how could we have done it long term?

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

Rumours of Ceglar playing really well are exaggerated. He has played ok, but he isn't ripping the game to shreds. If he was on our list I would still be playing Witts or Grundy ahead of him purely because they can offer similar and have more potential.

 

[Mateyman]

Rumours of Ceglar playing really well are exaggerated. He has played ok, but he isn't ripping the game to shreds. If he was on our list I would still be playing Witts or Grundy ahead of him purely because they can offer similar and have more potential.

When I read the match reports on Hawthorn vs Collingwood, I was trying to work out how exactly Ceglar "beat" Witts.
Given Witts nearly doubled his hit outs, and Collingwood got more hit outs overall, and Witts got more goals.

 

[jmac70]

The irony of revisiting this thread is that had we kept Ceglar we may not have drafted Grundy.

 

[Manic Magpie]

The irony of revisiting this thread is that had we kept Ceglar we may not have drafted Grundy.

Do you reckon? Ceglar would have been seen as back-up material only. Hudson is the player who would have been dropped from the list.

 

[jmac70]

Do you reckon? Ceglar would have been seen as back-up material only. Hudson is the player who would have been dropped from the list.

Just speculating. If Ceglar had displayed that kind of form for us we may not have needed Grundy.

 

[Apex36]

Ceglar is being massively overrated now he's not on our list anymore. He's not ahead of Witts, and barely ahead of Grundy, with more time in the system than both.

Give it two years and both our boys will be light years ahead of him.

 

[MooreTreloar]

Why do we need to bump this thread? Just like Ceglar there's many what ifs in the AFL.

What if we kept Ceglar we wouldn't of gone and got your favourite Grundy

What if Ceglar got the number one ruck role and spudded it up like Fraser

Just like the threads about Dawes, he's gone, get over it. Time to move on ffs.

Well put!

 

[jmac70]

Ceglar is being massively overrated now he's not on our list anymore. He's not ahead of Witts, and barely ahead of Grundy, with more time in the system than both.

Give it two years and both our boys will be light years ahead of him.

Lucky we got rid of Ceglar then.

 

[WillowSF]

He's only played a total of 12 games so there is a long way for Ceglar to go. That said, he has been a revelation this year and is quickly establishing himself as our number one ruckman. Great potential but still early days...

 

[jmac70]

He's only played a total of 12 games so there is a long way for Ceglar to go. That said, he has been a revelation this year and is quickly establishing himself as our number one ruckman. Great potential but still early days...

Yeah but he's no Grundy.

 

[THATSGOLD]

A lot of fans were shocked when Ceglar was delisted. We didn't see it coming.

 

[Black_White]

Heavy thread.

 

[Shaneprice97]

With all these threads about Dawes and Ceglar makes our board look like an overly attached girlfriend

 

[rustyg70]

Heavy thread.

Well worth the weight.

 

[Magpie Mason]

Ceglar wasn't delisted for lack of ability. He was delisted because of his lack of effort and application. Sometimes it's the kick up the ass that gets you moving.

big guys need that... Better we do it than someone else, that's what coaches are for. Talk of trading Grundy for the same reason concerns me.

 

[TradeDraft]

Ceglar is being massively overrated now he's not on our list anymore. He's not ahead of Witts, and barely ahead of Grundy, with more time in the system than both.

Give it two years and both our boys will be light years ahead of him.

Well I agree in the Long Term Witts and Grundy will be way better then Ceglar but I was talking about this season and next while both Grundy and Witts Develop some more. Would be a Very Handy Back-Up

 

[Apex36]

big guys need that... Better we do it than someone else, that's what coaches are for. Talk of trading Grundy for the same reason concerns me.

The only people talking about trading Grundy are the ones trying to upset Dave

 

[No SPIN]

As many posters here have proven.
List management is a perfect science - when viewed with 20/20 hindsight.

 

[THATSGOLD]

Ceglar has a better chance of winning a flag than any of our current best 22 which is pretty depressing.

 

[THATSGOLD]

Mal Michael
R. Shaw
N.Davis
P.Williams
Josh Mahoney


John Ceglar might join that list.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Mal Michael
R. Shaw
N.Davis
P.Williams
Josh Mahoney


John Ceglar might join that list.

There's no guarantee whatsoever that a player leaving us to go on and have a good career, would have done the same if they'd stayed.

There's the 'kick in the pants' factor, different teammates, different coaches, different club environment, often different city and different living environment.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Hine sure knows how to pick them. It's a shame we had to let him go, but at the time we had Jolly, Woods, Gault and by all reports Witts the younger ruck man had gone past him.