FOF2K4: Drafting and Rookie Free Agents

[Ben E Lou]

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS


We all have our own philosophies about what we look for in a player. Some value RB’s with elusiveness, others prefer Hole Recognition. However, everyone who plays FOF should, with every rookie he looks at, attempt to answer this question:


“Is it more likely that this guy will end up being better, or worse, than his ‘Future Potential’ rating?”


This writing is an endeavor to help answer this question correctly more often than not, but let me include this disclaimer: I am convinced that with this version, more than any others, there are NO hard-and-fast rules for avoiding busts. I believe that following the suggestions below will help you decrease the likelihood of drafting players who will bust, but will not eliminate them entirely. Similarly, I believe that these ideas will increase the odds of finding diamonds-in-the-rough, but you’ll still miss out on some. All of that being said, I have recently started a new career with FOF2K4, and, looking at the output from primelord’s soon-to-be-released utility, I’ve had some pretty good results with my first few rookie classes. I also believe that after reading this post, the few of you out there who still are of the opinion that drafting in FOF2K4 is a crapshoot will recognize that that by no means is the case. There are definitely things to look for.

I don’t think anything in this post can be classified as a “spoiler” look behind the scenes of the game either. What I have found to be heartening about by experience in FOF2K4 is that the things to take into account are much more in line with what a real-life GM. I no longer find myself trying to “beat the game” with drafting by looking for things like masking and redliners. Instead, I’m having to bring together a body of knowledge about a player to evaluate his ability to contribute to my team. Kudos to FOF developer Jim Gindin for making drafting truly a masterpiece in this version.

NOTE: This writing pre-supposes that the reader has the knowledge of boom/busts discussed in the Draft Booms and Busts thread. I'd strongly suggest reading that thread as well.

Alright, enough of the prelims and platitudes. On to the important stuff!!!








WHAT ARE THE FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN EVALUATING A ROOKIE?


As alluded to above, it is important to look at every piece of data you’re given about a rookie in determining his potential to contribute one day. These include, in no particular order:

• How fully developed is he?

• ”Physical” combine scores (40 time, bench press, agility)
• ”Mental” combine score (Solecismic Test)
• Volatility
• Grey/blue bar ratings in key categories

The rest of this writing will be spent going into more detail on these five areas.







PERCENT DEVELOPED


This is pretty straightforward, and I therefore don’t have specific data points to give, as I’ve never seen the need to write them down. The bottom line is this: the higher a player’s current impression, the more likely he will fulfill his potential. All of the other factors above being equal (and they never are), I’d draft a 30/50 guy before a 10/60 guy every single time. ‘Nuff said on this.








”PHYSICAL” COMBINE SCORES (40/STR/AGI)—Some Observations


I’ve noticed some interesting things about the combine scores. There are definitely players that I define as having “Abnormal Athletic Ability” for their positions groups—and sometimes these guys aren’t scouted as being studs, but end up being studs. First, let’s define what are “above average” scores for each position group.

”AVERAGE” COMBINE SCORES BY POSITION GROUPS
I saw someone post some of these, but I must say that I use slightly different data points. Rather than a true arithmetic mean, to define what is “average” for a position group, I use the midpoint between the range of “normal” ratings for that position group. I do this because there are a small handful of guys each year who are abnormal performers within their position group—and they really skew what level of performance is truly considered “average.” For example, I’m looking at one draft as I write this section. Here is the distribution of bench press reps for OLB’s in this draft class:


32:1
22: 4
21: 4
20: 3
19: 9
18: 10
17: 5
16: 9
15: 5
14: 2
13: 3
12: 4
10: 2

The average (arithmetic mean) of these ratings is approximately 17.28. I have neither the time nor inclination to count up every rating for every position group for multiple drafts to come up with a true average rating for every category. Instead, I decided to report the midpoint of the “normal” ratings range, which is in this case 16. Granted, that number is significantly lower than the true “average”, but I would submit to you that OLB Renaldo Tucker (the 32 guy) is an anomaly (“AAA Player,” as I call them…more on this later), who shouldn’t be considered for the purposes of determining, “How strong is an ‘average’ FOF2K4 OLB?” The reality is that in this case, over 98% of the OLB’s fell into the 10-22 range, and one guy was wayyyyyyyyyyy outside of it.

A few other examples of this from the same draft class:

• Out of 62 DE’s, 61 of them had between 18 and 32 bench press reps, while one guy had 42.

• Out of 62 QB’s, 60 of them did the 40 in the range of 4.55 to 5.2. One guy turned in a 4.31.
• 84 WR’s in the class. 80 with reps between 5 and 14, but four with 21, 21, 23 and 24 respectively.

This sort of thing (while not usually quite so extreme) can be observed at virtually every position group, therefore leading to my using the midpoint of the “normal” ratings to determine an “average” player at each position group.

Without further ado, here are the numbers:

POS	DASH LO	DASH HI	DASH MID	STR LO	STR HI	STR MID	AGI LO	AGI HI	AGI MID
QB	4.55	5.20	4.88	6	14	10.0	7.4	8.4	7.90
RB	4.55	4.90	4.73	9	20	14.5	7.2	7.8	7.50
FB	4.70	5.00	4.85	14	26	20.0	7.35	8	7.68
TE	4.80	5.20	5.00	15	27	21.0	7.5	8.5	8.00
WR	4.40	4.80	4.60	5	14	9.5	6.95	7.6	7.28
C	5.00	5.50	5.25	17	31	24.0	7.8	8.4	8.10
G	5.00	5.50	5.25	21	35	28.0	7.7	8.5	8.10
T	5.10	5.60	5.35	19	35	27.0	7.55	8.4	7.98
DE	4.80	5.15	4.98	18	33	25.5	7.25	8.2	7.73
DT	4.90	5.40	5.15	21	33	27.0	7.4	8.5	7.95
ILB	4.75	5.10	4.93	14	28	21.0	7.4	8.1	7.75
OLB	4.55	4.95	4.78	10	22	16.0	7.15	7.8	7.48
CB	4.40	4.70	4.55	6	14	10.0	6.95	7.6	7.28
S	4.50	4.85	4.68	9	20	14.5	7	7.8	7.40

Please remember, the “Dash Lo”, “Str Hi” and “Agi Lo” numbers are, as best as I can tell, the high range of "normal" performances.

AAA PLAYERS
In every draft, there are a small handful of players who fall outside of the normal lines. Typically speaking 0-4 players in each position group will have “abnormal” numbers—better than the “normal best” numbers listed above. For example, I’ve pulled up a draft while writing this. There are three RB’s faster than 4.55, two stronger than 20 (both are 30!), and three with agility scores less than 7.2. What is interesting is that one guy—RB Robbie Broome, is abnormal in all three categories (4.41, 30, 6.98). It is no surprise to find that he is rated 75/83, with a phenomenal adjusted rating of 9.3. (It is also no surprise to find out that he ended up being a 3-time League MVP.) Broome would be an extreme example of what I refer to as a “AAA Player.” AAA Players are defined as players that have abnormal athletic ability for their position groups—defined for my purposes as meaning that one of more of Str/Agi/40 is abnormal, and the other two are above-average-or-better when applied to the table above. In this particular draft, Broome was obviously a “can’t-miss” type prospect, a rare player who is “abnormal” in all three athletic categories.







”MENTAL” COMBINE SCORE (Intelligence)


This is the where I’ve done the least study, but I do firmly believe it to be important. For some position groups, there is a near-direct correlation between intelligence and a particular attribute (such as QB’s and ability to know formations). It also seem to have some effect on play diagnosis for all defensive players. I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on this attribute. I do believe that it has some importance at all position groups though, and I have some indications that high-intelligence players are more likely to break out, and low-intelligence players are more likely to bust.









GREY BAR/BLUE BAR RATINGS



I look for two primary things in this area:

• How does he look in categories important to my team?

• Does he categories besides punt/kick returning with NO grey?

The first question is an obvious one to consider. If I’m playing primarily zone defense, a guy’s M2M and bump-and-run ratings are irrelevant. If I have a great feature back and want to run out of a two-back set, I’m looking for FB’s with high run-blocking ratings.

The second of these questions is the only “beat the game” type thing that I think might be important. It seems that for the most part, if there is NO grey, there will be a zero in red/green ratings and he will never gain anything beyond zero in that category. Therefore, I try to go after players (particularly QB’s) who have at least a sliver of grey.







VOLATILITY: LOW IN EARLY ROUNDS, HIGH IN LATE ROUNDS? NOT SO FAST!!!


Following the above oft-espoused-at-FOFC policy would have caused you to miss out, for example, on this guy:





Grier is a classic example of why you should look at EVERY rating, not just volatility. Check out his combine ratings:



His 40 time, bench press, and agility were all significantly outside of the “normal” range of combine ratings, and his intelligence was high as well. This is the kind of guy I would go after in a heartbeat. When every indicator except one says “go for it,” go for it!

Furthermore, don’t you wish that you would have gone after QB Anthony Ashmore in late free agency???



In 10 years as a starter, Ashmore has thrown for over 30,000 yards, with a lifetime rating of 83.6. What is sad is that by the “grab all the high volatility rookie free agents you can get” philosophy, he never would have been picked up. However, look at the pre-draft evidence that he might have been worth a look:

• highest current-rated QB in his entire draft class, with 40% development (18/45)

• bench press of 19 and agility of 7.28, both outside of the “normal” range for QB’s
• Slightly above-average 40 time (4.81), making him a AAA QB.
• High Solecismic test score (34)
• at least SOME grey-bar ratings in virtually every category

Looking at the factors above, we have a list of several data points that would indicate that Ashmore would end up being better than a 45-rated player, with only one thing (volatility) suggesting that he might not be better than 45-rated.

So, am I suggesting that we should just ignore volatility??? Absolutely not! Most (but clearly not all) of the big-time breakout players you’ll find in FOF2K4 are going to be guys with high volatility. I hope I don’t sound like a broken record here, but I must say it again: it is one of several things to take into consideration. If it is my pick in the first round, and I had to choose between two guys at the same position with equal numbers across the board in all of the other areas I’ve mentioned, then I’d grab the one with lower volatility, and vice versa in the later rounds. However, what is extremely important to remember is that such a situation very rarely exists—usually there are one or more other factors that are quite different as well. Again: examine all of the data.

THIS IS ALL WELL AND GOOD, BUT GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE, BEN: HOW DO I IDENTIFY BOOMS AND BUSTS IN FOF2K4?

First off, please remember that there are no hard-and-fast rules. Secondly, I wouldn’t even word the question that way. Here’s how I’d word it: “What are some potential indicators that a player will end up being better/worse than his scouted potential rating?” Here are my suggestions to the answer:

Signs That A Given Player Might End Up Better Than His Scouted Potential

• High volatility

• % developed higher-than-normal for his position group
• AAA player in his position group (see above for explanation of AA players)
• High (or better) intelligence
• Has SOME grey in every category (excluding PR/KR)

Signs That A Given Player Might End Up Worse Than His Scouted Potential

• High volatility

• % developed lower-than-normal for his position group
• one or more combine ratings below the midpoints listed above
• Low or Very Low Intelligence

FINAL COMMENTS

Alrighty then, y’all now know virtually everything I know (or think I know) about evaluating rookies in FOF2K4. I’d love to hear your thoughts/feedback and further discussion. Further, I hope that by beginning to remove the veil that has been brought down by multiplayer, I can encourage others to share their “secrets,” and in so doing foster more picking apart of this very deep game.


--Ben

[stevew]

Damn, dude, this rocks.

[3ric]

Excellent analysis! Wow.

This is going to take some time to digest...

[VPI97]

Hmmm...I would have expected this to be kept under wraps until you had a chance to ban all the IHOF owners from this forum.

[Eaglesfan27]

This definitely rocks.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Hmmm...I would have expected this to be kept under wraps until you had a chance to ban all the IHOF owners from this forum.

I was also pretty surprised, but very pleased to see this here.

Great work SkyDog.

[Honolulu_Blue]

SD, this is the post I have been waiting for ever since I first started playing. Thanks, mate!

[JonInMiddleGA]

The amount of info here is probably going to have to digest slowly, but at least one area of questions hit me straightaway.

In the example of the QB Ashmore:
1) If you recall, what did his "45 potential" look like? I mean, was he just fair across the board or did he have peaks & valleys in his estimated ratings on draft day?

2)As he apparently boomed, and if we work from the premise that he was able to boom because of his AAA abilities, did the increases come in fairly logical areas related to those skills? In other words, were his gains in specific skill areas that can have a fairly linear connection to his physical skills? i.e. his agility & speed translated into gains in scrambling, his strength translated into more long range pass ability, etc.

As an aside, it's interesting to see the possible revision in changes to the high volatility/higher boom theory that a lot of us have been working under.
The experiences I've had in my Arizona MT dynasty had really put that notion into considerable doubt for me lately, as the bust-to-boom ratio seems to be so heavily weighted toward getting worse instead of getting better that I've begun to question just how much chance there really was of getting a significant breakout player. (granted, my guys are technically undrafted, but they're basically a very large crop of possible 7th rounders).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I was also pretty surprised, but very pleased to see this here.

I've been playing single player again recently, and even though I'm enjoying multi, there's still nothing like single player for me, and I thought posting this would encourage others to post more stuff about the SP experience.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola--

Speaking of single player, something I forgot to put in that post is this: the AI has a tendency to go after AAA guys earlier-than-expected-by-their-adjusted-ratings.

[Lucky Jim]

Great stuff, as a few tidbits to add, I've taken to using the formula in the first few rounds of staying away from a guy if his Volatility is more than twice his Percent Developed. It's been pretty successful, and not all that inhibiting. And on Intelligence. I really believe that smart guys gain experience(red bars) faster. All of the "slow" breakout players I've had, guys that over the course of their first 5 years have vastly improved their potential and current abilities, have had at least average Intelligence. So I'd put that out there to back up your intuition on its value.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The amount of info here is probably going to have to digest slowly, but at least one area of questions hit me straightaway.

In the example of the QB Ashmore:
1) If you recall, what did his "45 potential" look like? I mean, was he just fair across the board or did he have peaks & valleys in his estimated ratings on draft day?

2)As he apparently boomed, and if we work from the premise that he was able to boom because of his AAA abilities, did the increases come in fairly logical areas related to those skills? In other words, were his gains in specific skill areas that can have a fairly linear connection to his physical skills? i.e. his agility & speed translated into gains in scrambling, his strength translated into more long range pass ability, etc.

As an aside, it's interesting to see the possible revision in changes to the high volatility/higher boom theory that a lot of us have been working under.
The experiences I've had in my Arizona MT dynasty had really put that notion into considerable doubt for me lately, as the bust-to-boom ratio seems to be so heavily weighted toward getting worse instead of getting better that I've begun to question just how much chance there really was of getting a significant breakout player. (granted, my guys are technically undrafted, but they're basically a very large crop of possible 7th rounders).

Here are his predraft and end-of-rookie-year player cards. (Note, he played in all 16 games as the kick holder that year, but only threw 5 passes.) I'll comment in the next post.

[Ben E Lou]

In the example of the QB Ashmore:
1) If you recall, what did his "45 potential" look like? I mean, was he just fair across the board or did he have peaks & valleys in his estimated ratings on draft day?

2)As he apparently boomed, and if we work from the premise that he was able to boom because of his AAA abilities, did the increases come in fairly logical areas related to those skills? In other words, were his gains in specific skill areas that can have a fairly linear connection to his physical skills? i.e. his agility & speed translated into gains in scrambling, his strength translated into more long range pass ability, etc.

1. Fairly vanilla.
2. He did have very large increases in long and deep passing, but also in screen passing, so I'm not sure what to make of that.

[Barkeep49]

This is the sort of excellent analysis that I've missed seeing with recent versions of FOF. Great job and thanks.

[3ric]

In 10 years as a starter, Ashmore has thrown for over 30,000 yards, with a lifetime rating of 83.6. What is sad is that by the “grab all the high volatility rookie free agents you can get” philosophy, he never would have been picked up. However, look at the pre-draft evidence that he might have been worth a look:

* highest current-rated QB in his entire draft class, with 40% development (18/45)
* bench press of 19 and agility of 7.28, both outside of the “normal” range for QB’s
* Slightly above-average 40 time (4.81), making him a AAA QB.
* High Solecismic test score (34)
* at least SOME grey-bar ratings in virtually every category

Heh. Since Ashmore's intelligence is listed as Very Low post-draft, does this means he cheated on the Solecismic Test ?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by 3ric

Heh. Since Ashmore's intelligence is listed as Very Low post-draft, does this means he cheated on the Solecismic Test ?

That's quite interesting.

[Lucky Jim]

Heh. Since Ashmore's intelligence is listed as Very Low post-draft, does this means he cheated on the Solecismic Test ?

This is interesting because I had a player that had an insane Sole score, 56 I believe, and yet he only had 60 intelligence. He was a QB and grew well beyond his original ratings post 1st Training Camp. Maybe this is an indicator of future growth? A difference between test scores and actual intelligence... I'll see if I can look into it.

[Eaglesfan27]

I can see it now, player suspended for cheating on his Solecismic test. News at 11!

[Ben E Lou]

By the way, I'd love for someone to check those position-group ranges over a few drafts. There were some positions where I had a hard time getting a good sense for what the "normal-low" speed and agility times were.

[cuervo72]

But, he was also high in loyalty and leadership.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

But, he was also high in loyalty and leadership.

Anyone have a sense of where these ratings come from? I tend to think they are pretty random.

[cuervo72]

I was once advised that the solecismic score was an indicator of the intangibles in general, rather than just the intelligence. A study on the relation of all of those vs solecismic score might be interesting to do.

[yabanci]

great post, skydog.

[QuikSand]

I think your earlier speculation is right, SkyDog - I think that the presence of multiplayer has chilled this sort of analysis. Glad to see you break the trend.

I agree with nearly all of your analysis, including the summary that there simply are no sure things in the game any more.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I agree with nearly all of your analysis, including the summary that there simply are no sure things in the game any more.

And this (to me) has ended up greatly devaluing late round draft picks. I'm much more willing to package picks to move up for a targeted player than I was in previous versions of the game.

I feel like the value in rounds 5-7 is so similar to the UFA market that it's hardly worth paying the signing bonuses for those late round picks.

I imagine this has the potential to change fairly drastically in multiplayer. I may find that I need those late round picks to get anyone worth having.

[revrew]

This ticks me off royal (Not your analysis, SD, but the following problem). I would consider intelligence and important trait to consider. But WHAT can I possibly make of it if a dumb schmuck can score high on the Sole? There ought to be a correlation. Without it, which one is irrelevant? It would seem from the above QB, that the intelligence factor is mute. Perhaps he's an idiot, but knows football (there are numerous examples of this IRL)? Rather than dismissing it as "interesting", can anyone comment on this?

[Karim]

Ok, I may be the only one but I have a hard time seeing the GREY bars on the draft eligible players. Maybe there's a way I can change it with ResHacker but for the time being....

Where does the GREY start and end? It seems to be a little darker on the left and lighter on the right but is there any distinguishing where it really is?

I end up squinting a lot when looking at those bars and that's really my only complaint with the game.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

And this (to me) has ended up greatly devaluing late round draft picks. I'm much more willing to package picks to move up for a targeted player than I was in previous versions of the game.

That's interesting. I'm the polar opposite. I'm still early in my new career, so I'd imagine these numbers will go up as I go along, but right now I'm starting a 6th-round DT, a 6(32) LT (who had a pretty solid year last year: 41.4KRBPct, 6 sacks allowed in 16 starts), and a 5th-round DT. Also, a 7th-round QB (my backup) won the Front Office Bowl MVP for me. All of these are guys that I drafted. Start looking at those combine ratings more, and I think you'll find that while there are no sure things, there are some common threads.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Karim

Ok, I may be the only one but I have a hard time seeing the GREY bars on the draft eligible players. Maybe there's a way I can change it with ResHacker but for the time being....

Where does the GREY start and end? It seems to be a little darker on the left and lighter on the right but is there any distinguishing where it really is?

I end up squinting a lot when looking at those bars and that's really my only complaint with the game.

Hmmmm....

On Ashmore's player card above, do you not see grey on "Third Down Passing (for example) up until right at the midpoint, then blue immediately to the right of it, running a little past the 75% mark? If not, I wonder if the issue is monitor-related.

[Easy Mac]

Jus to see what SD was talking about, I ran a couple of test drafts. So far there have been maybe 2 breakout players at the end of season #3 (So I had 2 drafts, and just finished the rookie season of the 2n draft)

After 2 full seasons, I have a breakout FB from the first draft. He was slated at 50/85 when I drafted him. He was what SD would call a AAA player. After 2 full years, he is now 94/94. His volatility was only 57.

My other potential breakout is a QB, also from the first draft. Drafted in round 4, he was the most developed QB left in the draft (50%). He was 31/61 when drafted and was 58/58 at the end of season 1. At the end of season 2 he is now 68/68. He could be a very good QB and has a volatility of 2.

My first round pick of that draft busted, even though he was the best rated LB, and was almost a AAA player (He was 2nd in the 40 for ILB's). He was rated 41/69 before the draft, but fell to 21/39 before the first camp. He is now 21/37 and has a volatility of 72.

A player from the first draft who may break out is a CB. He was a 2nd round pick who was the fastest and most agile CB in the draft (though average elsewhere.) He entered the draft at 14/54 with a volatility of 59. After the first season he was 27/62. Unfortunately he tore his ACL in his second year, so he may not be the same when he returns. At the end of his 2nd year he was rated 33/70.

So far there are no booms or busts from draft #2.

So in a very small sample (14 players), Skydog's anlaysis is right... it is a crapshoot.

[cuervo72]

Everyone - don't think of them as grey bars. The grey is just the background. What you might think of it as is a blue "range", rather than a bar. The player's future potential should fall somewhere in that range.

So remember - blue ranges, not grey bars.

[albionmoonlight]

Have you done any analysis of FFF players (players whose grades are below the normal range in the three catagories)?

[Easy Mac]

I always thought we looked at the blue bars? I never even paid attention to a "grey" bar.

[cuervo72]

Also - if there is no grey to the left, that means that the ability is between 0 and the right edge of the blue bar. The bars can't get any more to the left than 0. Which is what SD is pointing out...

[Ben E Lou]

A few comments....

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Jus to see what SD was talking about, I ran a couple of test drafts. So far there have been maybe 2 breakout players at the end of season #3 (So I had 2 drafts, and just finished the rookie season of the 2n draft)

I'm pretty sure that two seasons isn't nearly enough time to check into this. The "breakout-over-time" player seems to be more prevalent than the "immediate breakout" player. That's why I asked for the utility that primelord is now working on.

My other potential breakout is a QB, also from the first draft. Drafted in round 4, he was the most developed QB left in the draft (50%). He was 31/61 when drafted and was 58/58 at the end of season 1. At the end of season 2 he is now 68/68. He could be a very good QB and has a volatility of 2.

From my experience, barring injury this guy is almost certain to break out. A guy who gained 10 points in potential in one season? Solid.

My first round pick of that draft busted, even though he was the best rated LB, and was almost a AAA player (He was 2nd in the 40 for ILB's). He was rated 41/69 before the draft, but fell to 21/39 before the first camp. He is now 21/37 and has a volatility of 72.

What were his intelligence ratings, and combine ratings?

A player from the first draft who may break out is a CB. He was a 2nd round pick who was the fastest and most agile CB in the draft (though average elsewhere.) He entered the draft at 14/54 with a volatility of 59. After the first season he was 27/62. Unfortunately he tore his ACL in his second year, so he may not be the same when he returns. At the end of his 2nd year he was rated 33/70.

Again, in most cases when a guy jumps in potential this much, he's virtually certain to be a breakout player (barring a major injury like that of course).

So in a very small sample (14 players), Skydog's anlaysis is right... it is a crapshoot.

You lost me there. That's neither what I said, or what it looks like your experience is. All but one of these guys seem to follow the patterns mentioned--good/great combine ratings in one or two areas, average-or-better in others. I certainly don't want anything to work every single time, so it is good to see some players bust who appear to follow the pattern. I'm thinking lots of hard work and attention to every little drafting detail should mean that the very best FOF2K4 drafter would draft players who equal or exceed their scouted potential maybe 75-85% of the time. A "crapshoot" (by my definition) would be when you can do all the work and analyzing in the world, and you still only have about a 50/50 chance of being right. That just isn't the case here at all. I said there is some randomness.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by Karim

Ok, I may be the only one but I have a hard time seeing the GREY bars on the draft eligible players. Maybe there's a way I can change it with ResHacker but for the time being....

Where does the GREY start and end? It seems to be a little darker on the left and lighter on the right but is there any distinguishing where it really is?

I end up squinting a lot when looking at those bars and that's really my only complaint with the game.

Karim - Hopefully this might help. When looking at players for the draft, all I focus on is the blue area. The way I look at it is this:

The blue area is a guide to the future potential for that player. If you look at Ashmore above, the GREEN bars of his rookie season correspond pretty well to the blue areas of his pre-draft card. In other words, I EXPECT a players green bars to fall somewhere within that blue area. As as been noted in other threads, the ability of your scout determines how wide or how narrow that blue band is. The better the scout, the more narrow the band, and therefore the better idea you have of where that player's potential will truly fall.

As far as the Current ratings, that's where things are a little bit of a crapshoot. Take Ashmore for example. His Kick Holding (Blue Range) is maxed out pre-draft, so we "know" his potential should be somewhere between about 70 and 100. The unknown is where his RED bar will fall. The only indication we have for RED is the Curr. Impression, which for Ashmore is 18%. However, we can't just assume that the RED bar will be 18% of the GREEN. Ashmore's Kick Holding proves this - if it were 18%, Ashmore would have a 16 Current and a 90 Potential rating. Therefore, the 18% refers to the TOTAL Current rating. Where we are left in the dark is knowing how those current ratings are distributed (pretty even for all categories at one end, or on the other end of the spectrum being good in a few categories and absolutely sucky in other categories).

{EDIT: The indicators we have for RED are the Curr. Impression and % Developed (which I THINK is just Curr. Impression divided by Future Potential)}

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Everyone - don't think of them as grey bars. The grey is just the background. What you might think of it as is a blue "range", rather than a bar. The player's future potential should fall somewhere in that range.

So remember - blue ranges, not grey bars.

Interesting. The color to the left of the blue looks a little different than the color to the right of the blue to me. That's why I call it a "grey bar." Didn't realize that others see it differently.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

You lost me there. That's neither what I said, or what it looks like your experience is. All but one of these guys seem to follow the patterns mentioned--good/great combine ratings in one or two areas, average-or-better in others. I certainly don't want anything to work every single time, so it is good to see some players bust who appear to follow the pattern. I'm thinking lots of hard work and attention to every little drafting detail should mean that the very best FOF2K4 drafter would draft players who equal or exceed their scouted potential maybe 75-85% of the time. A "crapshoot" (by my definition) would be when you can do all the work and analyzing in the world, and you still only have about a 50/50 chance of being right. That just isn't the case here at all. I said there is some randomness.

I used the outline you posted above for all 14 picks of the 2 drafts. So far there are 3 players who immediately broke out, 1 who busted, and the rest stayed the same. Sometimes its just bad luck that a guy booms or busts or does neither.

And as for the guy who busted, he scored a 53 on the Solecismic test, and his adjusted rating was over a 7.

[Easy Mac]

dola, I also have a lot more written up in notepad, but I just didn't want to post anything yet since its only 2 drafts and the abbreviations are a little confusing.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I used the outline you posted above for all 14 picks of the 2 drafts. So far there are 3 players who immediately broke out, 1 who busted, and the rest stayed the same.

Well, as mentioned, this is a very small sample size--and you haven't seen how they're going to do over time. That being said, maybe we're coming at this from different places as far as defining success. If you were to maintain this pace (highly unlikely I hope), I'd consider over 20% of your draftees becoming immediate breakouts, while only 7% become busts, is a success of monumental proportions. Imagine a real-life NFL team that had one out of five draft picks become immediate surprise impact players.

[Karim]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Hmmmm....

On Ashmore's player card above, do you not see grey on "Third Down Passing (for example) up until right at the midpoint, then blue immediately to the right of it, running a little past the 75% mark? If not, I wonder if the issue is monitor-related.

I can see it so I guess it's more of a conceptual issue. A better example of my problem is Ashmore's kick holding. I see a grey bar from 0 to almost 75. At the 25% mark, there is a solid black line but at the 50% mark, there is a faded grey line even though the grey bar continues well past that.

I find that confusing and thought it may have been my vision or the monitor...

[Karim]

dola,

Thanks, Buzzbee. That makes sense now. I was having a difficult time understanding current development as it related to ratings, not realizing it was supposed to be up in the air.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Well, as mentioned, this is a very small sample size--and you haven't seen how they're going to do over time. That being said, maybe we're coming at this from different places as far as defining success. If you were to maintain this pace (highly unlikely I hope), I'd consider over 20% of your draftees becoming immediate breakouts, while only 7% become busts, is a success of monumental proportions. Imagine a real-life NFL team that had one out of five draft picks become immediate surprise impact players.

Agreed. That's a fantastic degree of success, and I'm looking forward to trying some of these concepts out when I get around to starting a new career.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Ben, I mean this in as heterosexual a way as one man addicted to this game can to another: I love you!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

Ben, I mean this in as heterosexual a way as one man addicted to this game can to another: I love you!

[Franklinnoble]

You're not getting his Bud Light.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Ben, has there been any thought as to what impact the birthdays have? Maybe the players who have conflicts are astrologically incompatible! (I recently watched The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh... Mighty, Mighty Pisces!)

Seriously, this maybe could be "sticky" Thanks!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

Maybe the players who have conflicts are astrologically incompatible!

That is exactly the case. Check the reference thread under something to the effect of "How does team chemistry work?"

[Karim]

This is definitely reference thread material!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Karim

This is definitely reference thread material!

I'll archive it at some point. Don't worry.