Swans 2013 Draft Strategy

[ugg]

Great in the sense they are all still AFL players but not great in that they will be regular for other AFL teams. Most of them in their mid to late 20s so in their sporting prime. A for the recruiting team, D for the retention team.

[stevoswan]

Useless?
At the very least, it provided you with an opportunity to make your negative and strangley quixotic contribution. If the revival is a useless exercise then so to is responding to it.
Actually, if you realy wanted to take a jaundiced view - then contributing to an online forum which has zero effect on the club could be construed as useless, yet you've managed that 62 times already.

Bit harsh R'n'R.....it could be said you've managed it 2964 times.....so why are we here? For an exchange of ideas, which is exactly what WF did.....and he made a fair point. Every post offered may garner a response....so be prepared for opposing opinions.

[Maltopia]

Viewing everything with hindsight about who we could have or should have drafted with the evidence of 8 years subsequent data is a rather useless exercise.

All I’ll say is the recruitment that year was very good in that all 4 will play well over 100 senior games.

Well I for one found the topic interesting.

No one made you click on the clearly labelled 2013 Draft Strategy thread.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Bit harsh R'n'R.....it could be said you've managed it 2964 times.....so why are we here? For an exchange of ideas, which is exactly what WF did.....and he made a fair point. Every post offered may garner a response....so be prepared for opposing opinions.

Nice drive-by stevoswan, a bit wasted though - I wasn’t actually having a go at WomblingFree's 62 posts, I never made any suggestion whatsoever that any or all of them were useless. I think you may have misread/misunderstood my post.

What I did point out was that Womblingfree had added his/her post to a thread whose revival (with updated information) he/she said was a useless exercise. If you can't see the irony in that, you simply aren't paying attention.

[stevoswan]

Nice drive-by stevoswan, a bit wasted though - I wasn’t actually having a go at WomblingFree's 62 posts, I never made any suggestion whatsoever that any or all of them were useless. I think you may have misread/misunderstood my post.

What I did point out was that Womblingfree had added his/her post to a thread whose revival (with updated information) he/she said was a useless exercise. If you can't see the irony in that, you simply aren't paying attention.

So I'm the 'drive byer'? Sorry, I saw no irony in a post that described the recipient as 'negative', 'strangely quixotic' and 'jaundiced'.....which I felt were a bit harsh.

[Maltopia]

So I'm the 'drive byer'? Sorry, I saw no irony in a post that described the recipient as 'negative', 'strangely quixotic' and 'jaundiced'.....which I felt were a bit harsh.

The response, and not the poster was described as negative and quixotic.

The jaundiced was a hypothetical comment about the meaningfulness of all posts, and the poster could have said “if one” instead of “if you”.

If you take the time to read the response properly, you may find that your criticism was partly off the mark (at least re the use of “jaundiced”).

[stevoswan]

We move on.....

[barry]

I'd give those picks an A.....but subsequent player retention a C.....but of course, the A(V)FL didn't help with that.

Picks an A, sure. But player retention is a serious F. None of them are on the list still. That can only be a fail. There is no upside. Its not as if we got significantly better deals that we paid for them, when we lost them.