Gleeson isn't strong, no, but he was great, especially in the first half. His lack of strength is concerning but I do not think it is a major liability.
I would dispute the prejudices bit, but who knows, maybe I'm biased and don't realise.
On Gleeson, I think a few here saw what they wanted to see. @Windsockboy, you say he provided good spread in the first half. I don't know how many he had in the first half, but he finished with 11 disposals for the game, including 7 kicks. I find your statement doesn't appear likely, and certainly I saw little of it at the ground. @Tezza_the_King, you said he is the designated intercept mark. He took 4 marks this week - none of which were contested.
I'll admit I had it in for Gleeson from relatively early in the game. There was a play where the port players pretty much waltzed around him (it was easier to see at the ground on the member's wing than on TV), and he just strolled after him. He'd just been beaten, and the door was now open, and he wasn't angry enough to put it all on the line. I'll admit I was less than impressed.
But that is the problem. Gleeson got strolled around then. Later another player strolled around him, brushing off Gleeson's attempted tackle. Twice he got fended off - sure one was possibly high, but he was nowhere near beating it. He didn't get it much, yet had 2 clangers *. I just don't think he added much last night, and a stronger player who could have stopped one or two of those runs would have helped us a great deal, even if they got no more possessions.
'* On a side note, how do they measure disposal efficiency? Gleeson is recorded as 100%, yet also had two clangers. There was that rubbish kick on the wing at least, which he then went and chased down himself. So how did he get 100%?