FOF2K7: Snapshots of the roster-building AI.

[Ben E Lou]

I've run a league through to where it has been pretty much purified--removed of the original allocation draft players. It's in 2020 now. I've stopped after the first week of Free Agency (renegotations). A few things to look at:




Well, this is certainly encouraging--17 of the best 25 players were franchised, and the best skill position player available is RB Matthew Gantt, who is a 63/63 9th-year player who rushed for 964 yards last season in 16 starts. Philly released him from a gigantic contract. Makes sense.

Speaking of Philly, they're a team that is worth looking at, because they have fewer players under contract than any other. Specifically, here's how the 32 teams break down in terms of number of guys under contract at this stage (RFA's still unsigned):

0-5: 0
6-10: 1 (Philly has only 9.)
11-15: 1
16-20: 3
21-25: 13
26-30: 4
31-35: 7
36-40: 3
41+: 0

Overall, this "sniff test" shows improvement, too. It was extremely rare, in my experience, to have *any* AI teams with 30+ players under contract at this point. Nearly 1/3 of my league has that many. What's more important than that is *who* they kept. Obviously, from the first screenie, star players aren't getting into free agency. To give an idea, here's the breakdown of the top three FA's at some key positions at this point:

QB: 39/39, 38/38, 36/36, 35/35, 35/35
RB: 63/63, 46/46, 46/46
WR: 60/60, 58/58, 56/56
OT: 54/54, 50/50, 50/50 (and all three of these were RT's. Best LT available is a 46/46 13-year veteran.)
DE: 63/63, 58/58, 57/57
DT: 63/63, 62/62, 58/58
ILB: 78/78, 51/51, 46/46
OLB: 55/55, 52/52, 47/47
CB: 57/57, 56/56, 48/48

So, simply put, there are a handful of strong players, and only one guy who looks like a true stud. That's a pass for this second sniff test, in my book.

Posting this now for your perusal. In my next post, I'm going to try to examine Philly, to see if there's a logical explanation for why they're only bringing 9 players back.

[TroyF]

SD,

How about looking at the Super Bowl winner (assuming it wasn't you) and looking at how their roster was built. Draft, FA, cap situation, etc.

Not to give you any more work, but it'd be kind of cool to see that as well.

[jeff061]

Nice posts Skydog. Brings to light what was changed in sacrifice of a flashier gui or league expansion .

[Ben E Lou]

WHO THEY KEPT

1. Five guys rated 60 or better: LG, QB, FL, LCB, LG
2. Four second-year players who all look like they have decent futures.

RECENT HISTORY
They went 14-2 and won the Front Office Bowl in 2018, dropped to 7-9 in 2019


WHO THEY RELEASED
Obviously, they released a bunch of guys. most of them were mediocre or worse, but there were a few good players. I want to concentrate on them:

FS Jerald Norwood: 19/51 3rd year man. I don't get this one. He was still in his rookie contract. He hadn't played muc hyet, but he could have played this year, with all the cuts.
RG Marlon Prescott: 55/55 11th year guy. With two good young guards, I can see cutting this guy, who was about to enter the final year of a big contract, to make some room to rebuild.
LT Juan Prado: 29/54 2nd year man. This one doesn't make much sense on the surface to me. Seems like this kid could have had a decent future, and was a 6th-round pick, so was cheap.
SLB Sean Erickson: 52/52 7th year veteran. He was in the penultimate year of a fat contract, but had 104 tackles last year. Tough decision there.
FS Emmitt Newhart: 62/62 6th year guy. Another tough one. A safety who sucks at zone defense could be a liability. Still, I'd have had to consider keeping him
RB Matthew Gantt: 63/63 9th year guy mentioned above. He had a HUGE contract (was re-signed for 2 years, 32.9M last year, with 200M cap, so he was probably going to cost close to 10% of the cap this year), and didn't perform that well last year.

[grassy knoll]Looking at this, I can't help but wonder if some sort of "rebuilding mode" is getting triggered here, that's maybe a little too aggressive. Looking at the league as a whole, it is clear that the AI is making pretty solid decisions overall. From the numbers of guys kept by other teams, this team is obviously an anomaly. Why?[/grassy knoll]

Thoughts???

[Izulde]

Excellent to see.

SkyDog, I do have one question about the draft, though. You or someone else posted about the top QBs and RBs getting snatched up. But are they also the top players or is it like in FOF 2K4 when DEs and OTs got grabbed left and right because of the perceived position value no matter how bad they actually were?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by TroyF

SD,

How about looking at the Super Bowl winner (assuming it wasn't you) and looking at how their roster was built. Draft, FA, cap situation, etc.

Not to give you any more work, but it'd be kind of cool to see that as well.

Definitely not me. I've been basically quick-simming, just signing a few FA's and franchising guys to keep the team I'm "running" from being dead last every year.

Denver won last year's Front Office Bowl, and they have 33 players under contract. They won the title mainly on the legs of RB Wendell Farmer, a 6th-year vet (at the time), who they drafted 1(4) in 2014, and is now rated 88/88 (!). Farmer rushed for 1780 yards and 14 TD's, caught 59 passes for 484 yards and 5 TD's, and returned 42 punts for a 8.7 yard average, too. He's costing them $20M in cap room (10%) this year. Their starting QB tore his patellar tendon in the division playoff round, and they signed a journeyman guy who is rated 34/34 to start the last two playoff games. (Their other two QB's are very undeveloped, so this makes sense. Denver only released 8 guys, and they were all pretty crappy. 19 of the 33 guys they have under contract were acquired by the draft, the other 14 via free agency. They have two guys who have been with the team since 2011. Denver has $18.3M (not quite 10% of the cap) to spend on new FA's this year.

[MizzouRah]

Nice to hear these things. Of course I can live with some questionable moves by the AI - keeps it "human" like.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

[grassy knoll]Looking at this, I can't help but wonder if some sort of "rebuilding mode" is getting triggered here, that's maybe a little too aggressive. Looking at the league as a whole, it is clear that the AI is making pretty solid decisions overall. From the numbers of guys kept by other teams, this team is obviously an anomaly. Why?[/grassy knoll]

After further review, I'm more inclined to believe that there is something going on with Philly that triggered an over-aggressive response of cutting players. The SIX best 4th-year-and-under players in the FA pool who were released ALL came from Philly.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Nice to hear these things. Of course I can live with some questionable moves by the AI - keeps it "human" like.

Gotta have a Detroit Lions feel.

[Galaxy]

Ben,

Notice any mid-to-late-round steals and a good amount of stars, busts, and "solid" perfomancers in the first two rounds?

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

...Well, this is certainly encouraging--17 of the best 25 players were franchised, and the best skill position player available is RB Matthew Gantt, who is a 63/63 9th-year player who rushed for 964 yards last season in 16 starts. Philly released him from a gigantic contract. Makes sense...

The question is, what do the AI teams do with these guys next year, specifically whether they (1) sign a long term contract (never happened in 2k4, would be great to see this), (2) franchise them again (if so, is the franchise salary correct, usally 120% previous year's), or (3) let them go into free agency the following year.

It's well and good to see the franchise tag get used, but what happens next is equally if not more important.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Ben,

Notice any mid-to-late-round steals and a good amount of stars, busts, and "solid" perfomancers in the first two rounds?

I am seeing what appears to be more instances of top-tier players coming from the first round of the draft than in FOF2K4, which I think is a good thing. It was too easy for the human to grab players who would become Top 10 at their positions in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. There are still breakouts later in the draft, to be sure, but the best six RB's in the league, for example, were all top 15 picks. This makes sense, given the overall drop of top-tier players in this version; the best players probably stand out more, and the AI appears to be doing a pretty good job of identifying and snatching them up. It also appears that the AI is more aggressive about trading up in the draft to get the guy at the position they need.

The one late-round stud among the top-tier QB's currently in this league is a 7(14) pick from 2009 named (no joke) Ben Manning. It appears that he was a later breakout. He spent 2009-2015 on the bench in Detroit, and became the starter in 2016, putting up an 83.6 QB rating. In 2017-2019, he put up ratings of 99.7, 96.9, and 86.5, and is the third-best QB, ratings-wise, in the league.

Looking at Manning's career brings me to something else I haven't looked at: do top-tier players bounce around from team to team too much? That sounds like a job for my next post. Checking 'er out now...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by yabanci

The question is, what do the AI teams do with these guys next year, specifically whether they (1) sign a long term contract (never happened in 2k4, would be great to see this), (2) franchise them again (if so, is the franchise salary correct, usally 120% previous year's), or (3) let them go into free agency the following year.

It's well and good to see the franchise tag get used, but what happens next is equally if not more important.

This may get answered in the look I'm taking at the top players at each position and how long they stay with their teams...

[Ben E Lou]

TOP FIVE QB's

1. 12 years with NE
2. 10 years with Philly, franchised in Yr6, held out in preseason that year (nice!), given a 3-year deal in ExWk3
3. 11 years with DET
4. 15 years with Carolina
5. 13 years with Washington

That's right, sports fans, all five of the top QB's have been with their teams since being drafted. In fact, you have to go down to the #9 QB in the league do find one who has been with more than one team. He was a journeyman backup for 6 years, and then it appears he broke out; he's been with Dallas as the starter for the last 9 years. He has been franchised several times, but has remained with Dallas.

TOP FIVE RB's

1. 7 years with Denver
2. 6 years with Baltimore
3. 9 years with Washington
4. 3 years with Atlanta
5. 3 years with Arizona

At this point, I stopped recording and just started looking down the list. There are very, very few top-tier players that have switched teams more than once, and most never have. Competition for Legend Of The Game is gonna be stiff in this one, boys.

[yabanci]

sounds very promising. Thanks for the info, because with the outstanding PBP, I'm going sloooooooooowly through the seasons (actually I should say season at this point).

[Ben E Lou]

Some AI teams are going on some nice runs, too. My league's top 5 teams in wins:

St. Louis: 13 playoff appearances in 14 seasons, never had a losing season
NY Giants: One losing season in 14 season, 3 trips to the conference championship in a 4-year span (2008-2011)
Carolina: Three straight FO Bowl appearances (2015-2017), with two titles...currently on a run of seven straight wininng seasons
KC: 4 straight conf. championship appearances (2012-2015)
TEN: 4 conf. championship appearances in 5 years (2009-2013)

[Ben E Lou]

One thing that I am *not* seeing, and I'm not certain whether this is good or bad, is a player getting franchised, then signing him to a long-term deal that same season without prompting. In other words, guys who hold out are getting the long-term deal, but guys who don't are remaining franchised. Obviously this isn't hurting teams keeping their BEST players around, but I wonder (and can't tell yet) what is happening when the best 4 or 5 guys are already under contract, and it might be nice to use the franchise tag on a 60/60 rated guy, and then sign him to a 3-year deal. That's something I do quite often, or at least did in FOF2K4.

[14ers]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

TOP FIVE QB's

1. 12 years with NE
2. 10 years with Philly, franchised in Yr6, held out in preseason that year (nice!), given a 3-year deal in ExWk3
3. 11 years with DET
4. 15 years with Carolina
5. 13 years with Washington

What do you mean by TOP FIVE QB's?

Are you still in the year 2020? I ask because it looks like these are all old players that probably came with the initial player file, and were not game generated via the draft.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by 14ers

[/list]What do you mean by TOP FIVE QB's?

Are you still in the year 2020? I ask because it looks like these are all old players that probably came with the initial player file, and were not game generated via the draft.

Top five by current rating.

Uh....do the math. It's 2020--the 15th year. The Carolina guy is the only one who didn't come in via the draft.

[Ben E Lou]

For my next snapshot, I'm going to look at five different teams with different situations, and see how they draft in the first three rounds.

TEAM	ROSTER	PICKS	NEEDS
NE	100	1(7), 2(6), 3(5)	RB, DT
NJ	78	1(12), 2(11), 3(16)	RB, C, DT
MIN	63	1(16), 2(15), 3(14)	ILB, RB
PIT	38	1(29), 2(28), 3(30)	CB, C, DE
KC	0	1(2), 2(1)	DT, T, ILB

I have to disagree with NE's percevied need for a DT. They have a 58/58, and a 44/62. The 58/58 only had 21 tackles last year for Cleveland, but still. The 58/58 guy is pretty cheap under the cap for a new FA signee, though. They do need a RB, I'd say their next-greatest need is an OLB. Their best is a 43/43 WLB.

NJ's needs are definite needs. I'd throw CB in there, too.

MIN has a 50/50 RB who only rushed for 3.64ypc last season. I can see that being a need. They absolutely need an MLB, as mentioned. They don't have one under contract currently.

All three of PIT's listed needs are real, and pretty dire. I'd add S to the mix for them, too.

All three of KC's needs are dire. They're also have needs at WR, DE, and OLB. There's a reason that they have a zero roster rating.

THE TOP OF THE DRAFT CLASS

[SlyBelle1]

Skydog,

First of all great work. Had a quick question for you. Is there any document or place that identifies how the ratings translate for each position. For example, something that identifies:

QB:
1-10 = bad QB
10-20 = not so bad qb
20-30 = average qb
30-40 = star QB
40+ = future HOF QB
etc.

Same thing for all the other positions. I personally have a difficult time figuring out what players are good based on the ratings since they are different for each position.

Thanks for your help.

[Ben E Lou]

DRAFT CLASS THOUGHTS...

• RB Perry looks to be a clear #1. The best back that Detroit, who owns the 1(1), has averaged 3.66 ypc last year in a backup role. Barring a huge trade offer, Perry should go to the Lions without question.
• Strong at DT, and three of our teams need DT's.
• Several QB's could go in the first round. There are two more just off the bottom of the screen that y'all can't see.

INITIAL ORDER

1. DET
2. KC
3. CHI
4. GBY
5. BAL
6. SEA
7. NED
8. ARI
9. CIN
10. ATL
    

TOP TEN PICKS
1. Detroit - Perry, Preston, RB,--Easy choice.
2. Kansas City - Shannon, Blake, DT, lacename w:st="on">San Diegolacename> lacetype w:st="on">State--Top need. Best player at the position. 3rd-best overall. Check.lacetype>
3. Chicago - Winters, Hunter, QB, Louisville--Da Bears needed a QB very badly, and grabbed the best one.
4. Green Bay - Simmons, Ike, CB, Eastern Kentucky--Definite position of need for GB, and Winters is on the team at 38/70. Looks like a good pick
5. Baltimore - Dreiser, Corwin, QB, Temple--They had a 22/53 7th-year man who'd never done much. They could use a WR, too, and there was one top-tier one out there in Kennedy Turner. Without a decent QB, I can't really fault them for passing on the WR. Don't know if it is possible, but this is where I'd like to have sene the AI trade down a few spots, if they weren't gonna grab Turner.
6. Seattle - England, Victor, ILB, lacename w:st="on">Wakelacename> lacetype w:st="on">Forest--It was a position of need for them, and the next-nearest ILB was only 4.9 adjusted, compared to England's 6.3. England shows up rated 46/70. Good pick.lacetype>
7. New England - England, Gene, OLB, Colorado--Well, I disagreed with the DT need, and I thought OLB was a stronger need than DT. Lo and behold, they skipped the two DT's still on the board with higher adjusted ratings, and grabbed England. {Reaches for Kleenex}
8. Arizona - Turner, Kennedy, WR, LIU/C.W. Post--I let the scout pick for "my" team, which only had one WR under contract. This was pretty much an automatic, especially considering Turner's status as a top 5 overall player. I would like to have seen an AI team in need of a WR trade up, probably with Baltimore, to grab him.
9. Cincinnati - Emerson, Marvin, S, East Carolina--Cincy grabs the guy who was well-developed, but didn't show up for the combines,and strikes gold with this 53/77 guy. They needed a QB, too, but with the top two gone, I'd agree that the others didn't look like Top 10 talent.
10. Atlanta - Rogers, Rick, T, Michigan State--Only a RT, so maybe it makes sense that he fell. Definite position of need for the Birds. I will say this, though: looking at the 9 teams in from of Atlanta, the only one that I could have made a strong case for drafting Rogers would be Cincy, and Cincy needed a safety more than they did a right tackle.



In my next post, I'll look at how the five teams I've mentioned picked in the first three rounds.
>>

[14ers]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Top five by current rating.

Uh....do the math. It's 2020--the 15th year. The Carolina guy is the only one who didn't come in via the draft.

That is what I thought.

I wonder why those QBs are all so Damn old then? Looks like they would all be around 35 years old. I can never remember the top 5 QBs in the NFL all being that old. No young guns in this league.


What injury settings were you using for your test?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by 14ers

[/list]I ask because it looks like these are all old players that probably came with the initial player file, and were not game generated via the draft.

Originally Posted by 14ers

That is what I thought.

Does...not....compute.

[Peregrine]

Very good info here Skydog. I am a bit skeptical about the way teams are franchising players overall. It seems that while a good many teams are franchising correctly, getting their huge stars locked down, several other teams are franchising much weaker players, I've seen second WRs getting franchised, CBs who aren't even the best CB on their roster, and in one case a really bad QB got franchised for 5 years even though he was basically the worst QB in the league stat-wise and could have easily been replaced by a rookie or young free agent.

In other words, it seems there's something in the franchise tag AI that's driving teams to make strange decisions. Initially I thought it was because these players were putting up big numbers on the field, and they were putting up decent but not great numbers. But shouldn't the AI realize that there's no reason to franchise players if A) They would be easily replaceable at a much lower salary and B) They don't seem very indispensible in the first place?

[Ben E Lou]

This was starting to get annoying, so I just looked at the first and second round picks...

NEW ENGLAND
1(7): WLB Gene England--definite need filled, one that wasn't listed in the top needs, either
2(6): RB Dusty Lurie--definite position of need


NEW JERSEY
2(11)--RDT Edwin Miller--They needed one. I'm not sure I like them trading out of 1(12), where they could have gotten Jared blades or Mickey Plummer, though
2(28)--LDT Donnie Nuston--I only like this pick if the AI is smart enough to use him as a pass-rush specialist at DT. He appears to have strong pass rushing ability, but very weak run defense. the starting LDT is good at run defense, but is very weak at pass rushing.

MINNESOTA
1(16)--RDE Kerry Kripper--I do not like this pick one bit. They have a 92/92 LDE, and a 57/57 RDE who had 8.5 sacks and 47 tackles last year. They also have a 50/50 RDE as a solid backup. RB Aaron Winger went with the 22nd pick to Tampa Bay, but comes in at only 29/42. Scout ratings for both teams are similar, but I wonder if Minnesota saw something. Still, it would have made far more sense to trade out of that pick than get another DE.
2(15)--RT WAlly Upshaw--Upshaw could start for them this year or next. Not a bad pick.

PITTSBURGH
1(12)--RCB Winston Foulger--Now THAT'S what I'm talking 'bout!!! The Steelers needed a CB, and dadgummed if they didn't trade up get one. NICE!!!
1(29)--LDE Emmanuel Fournier--Position of need. He'll probably start this year.
2(8)--C Marlon Branch--No others under contract. He'll probably start this year.

KANSAS CITY
1(2)--RDT Blake Shannon--easy pick at a position of need
2(1)--QB Floyd Siegler--Their QB is in his 15th season. I have little problem with them taking an 8/66 project here.

Overall thoughts: of these eleven picks, there's really only one hugely questionable one. NJ taking another DT at 2(28) isn't a huge deal in the big scheme of things, and if they are able to use him properly, it's a great sign for this game.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Very good info here Skydog. I am a bit skeptical about the way teams are franchising players overall. It seems that while a good many teams are franchising correctly, getting their huge stars locked down, several other teams are franchising much weaker players, I've seen second WRs getting franchised, CBs who aren't even the best CB on their roster, and in one case a really bad QB got franchised for 5 years even though he was basically the worst QB in the league stat-wise and could have easily been replaced by a rookie or young free agent.

In other words, it seems there's something in the franchise tag AI that's driving teams to make strange decisions. Initially I thought it was because these players were putting up big numbers on the field, and they were putting up decent but not great numbers. But shouldn't the AI realize that there's no reason to franchise players if A) They would be easily replaceable at a much lower salary and B) They don't seem very indispensible in the first place?

If they'd franchise, then renegotiate, I'd hvae little problem with this. It's a tactic I used in FOF2K4 all the time when I had my top-tier players locked down. If they don't renegotiate, then it is a bit of a problem.

[cthomer5000]

I was a little surprised (in a bad way) to see my 83/83 QB go unsigned in both FA stages right now. He's the 3rd best QB in the league.

[14ers]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Does...not....compute.

I wanted to ask just to double check, I am still trying to figure out where all these Mature QBs are comming from; Crazy. I still do not understand why there are so many great old QBs in your league.

Are you playing in some sort of senior league?

Can you tell me what injury setting you are using for this test?

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

If they'd franchise, then renegotiate, I'd hvae little problem with this. It's a tactic I used in FOF2K4 all the time when I had my top-tier players locked down. If they don't renegotiate, then it is a bit of a problem.

Well all those cases of bad franchising were getting franchise salaries, for sure. Now part of this may just be the overall talent level decline, it could be that teams are willing to lock in a player via franchising, even if he's bad, just to make sure they don't end up with someone worse. But in that quarterback's case, he was around the 30th worst QB in the league, at that level I'm figuring to upgrade in the draft, and they did, but kept franchising him for two more years after, then upgraded in the draft AGAIN. Something's fishy, at least with this team.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by 14ers

I wanted to ask just to double check, I am still trying to figure out where all these Mature QBs are comming from; Crazy. I still do not understand why there are so many great old QBs in your league.

Are you playing in some sort of senior league?

Can you tell me what injury setting you are using for this test?

It's at 100, the default, and could have something to do with it. It looks like injuries are still far too low at 100. I'm seeing DT's not missing a game for a decade. I'll probably continue to go with 200 for my real careers.

[SlyBelle1]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

It's at 100, the default, and could have something to do with it. It looks like injuries are still far too low at 100. I'm seeing DT's not missing a game for a decade. I'll probably continue to go with 200 for my real careers.

I have been using 200 and I see more. But even with 200, still doesn't seem to have enough injuries, especially the minor ones. If you look on most NFL injury reports, there usually is quite a bit of players at least listed, even though a good portion of them actually end up playing.

I would love to see more injuries, but more along of the minor type.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SlyBelle1

I would love to see more injuries, but more along of the minor type.

I've been logging a bunch of suggestions to send to Jim. That's one of them--more minor injuries, and maybe dial down the major ones.

[SlyBelle1]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I've been logging a bunch of suggestions to send to Jim. That's one of them--more minor injuries, and maybe dial down the major ones.

Thanks. That is a great suggestion. Would even be nice if maybe the slider could be adjusted to handle this just in case others like the lower injury totals.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by yabanci

sounds very promising. Thanks for the info, because with the outstanding PBP, I'm going sloooooooooowly through the seasons (actually I should say season at this point).

Ditto. I can see spending 12-16 hours/season at my current rate. I've never spent even half that time on a season before. The leaps in the PbP is truly outstanding.

[Izulde]

good news with regards to the draft.

Question: When it comes to trading up and down by AI, is it still for a player like in 2K4, or are we starting to see more varied trades i.e. picks for picks?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I've been logging a bunch of suggestions to send to Jim. That's one of them--more minor injuries, and maybe dial down the major ones.

That would be a good one. My FOF2k4 league is currently at a 50 injury setting due to the number of career-ending multi-year injuries. We just finished a season where I had 3 guys (2 studs + 1 draft bust) tank completely (30+ points) due to injuries they suffered, even at the 50 setting. Minor, several week injuries players can deal with, along with a fair mix of injured-reserve candidates, but having the careers of favorite players chopped off due to injury is not fun (even if it happens at a realistic rate). We dropped from 100 to 50 because people felt they had too many guys getting careers cut short due to severe injury.

Anecdote on this: I had one season where I dropped my injury setting in training camp and paid for it. Since then I'd bumped that back up, made sure my coach was good at avoiding injuries, and I've been on a lucky streak at avoiding serious stuff. Often had several players out. My field is due for replacement, though, and it all caught up to me this season with those 3 critical ones. I had one other guy out for the year that fortunately did not tank, but those 3 were a dagger.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

This was starting to get annoying, so I just looked at the first and second round picks...

NEW ENGLAND
1(7): WLB Gene England--definite need filled, one that wasn't listed in the top needs, either
2(6): RB Dusty Lurie--definite position of need


NEW JERSEY
2(11)--RDT Edwin Miller--They needed one. I'm not sure I like them trading out of 1(12), where they could have gotten Jared blades or Mickey Plummer, though
2(28)--LDT Donnie Nuston--I only like this pick if the AI is smart enough to use him as a pass-rush specialist at DT. He appears to have strong pass rushing ability, but very weak run defense. the starting LDT is good at run defense, but is very weak at pass rushing.

MINNESOTA
1(16)--RDE Kerry Kripper--I do not like this pick one bit. They have a 92/92 LDE, and a 57/57 RDE who had 8.5 sacks and 47 tackles last year. They also have a 50/50 RDE as a solid backup. RB Aaron Winger went with the 22nd pick to Tampa Bay, but comes in at only 29/42. Scout ratings for both teams are similar, but I wonder if Minnesota saw something. Still, it would have made far more sense to trade out of that pick than get another DE.
2(15)--RT WAlly Upshaw--Upshaw could start for them this year or next. Not a bad pick.

PITTSBURGH
1(12)--RCB Winston Foulger--Now THAT'S what I'm talking 'bout!!! The Steelers needed a CB, and dadgummed if they didn't trade up get one. NICE!!!
1(29)--LDE Emmanuel Fournier--Position of need. He'll probably start this year.
2(8)--C Marlon Branch--No others under contract. He'll probably start this year.

KANSAS CITY
1(2)--RDT Blake Shannon--easy pick at a position of need
2(1)--QB Floyd Siegler--Their QB is in his 15th season. I have little problem with them taking an 8/66 project here.

Overall thoughts: of these eleven picks, there's really only one hugely questionable one. NJ taking another DT at 2(28) isn't a huge deal in the big scheme of things, and if they are able to use him properly, it's a great sign for this game.

Great stuff. What did New England receive in that trade down? A few questions. Can the AI have different GM styles? Such as one going with the best player over need approach, or vice versa. An "aggressive" rating in how they will work the draft board? Do they have a "long-term" approach with the draft? By this, do they take players (like Minnesota did) they seem like odd picks, but they might have a free agent or "aging" hit in the next year or two?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Izulde

good news with regards to the draft.

Question: When it comes to trading up and down by AI, is it still for a player like in 2K4, or are we starting to see more varied trades i.e. picks for picks?

The AI is trading picks for picks now, during the draft, for both current and future seasons.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

The AI is trading picks for picks now, during the draft, for both current and future seasons.

The AI can make offers to you, and vice versa, during the draft, correct?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The AI can make offers to you, and vice versa, during the draft, correct?

I haven't seen it yet, because I was mainly quick-simming. I'm just really getting into my first real career this afternoon. I've seen people post to that effect, though.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Great stuff. What did New England receive in that trade down? A few questions. Can the AI have different GM styles? Such as one going with the best player over need approach, or vice versa. An "aggressive" rating in how they will work the draft board? Do they have a "long-term" approach with the draft? By this, do they take players (like Minnesota did) they seem like odd picks, but they might have a free agent or "aging" hit in the next year or two?

i am also interested if this is in this version. It would seem like a natural progression of the series. SkyDog thanks for answering the questions. I think I enjoy reading your analysis for various text sims as much as actually playing the games themselves:o

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I haven't seen it yet, because I was mainly quick-simming. I'm just really getting into my first real career this afternoon. I've seen people post to that effect, though.

Jim has explicity stated in the past that he felt strongly about the AI not interrupting the draft to offer the human trades. I'd be surprised if that was changed for this versoin.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

Jim has explicity stated in the past that he felt strongly about the AI not interrupting the draft to offer the human trades. I'd be surprised if that was changed for this versoin.

I hope he did. Just adds a new element and realism to the game.

[bhlloy]

Looking at Skydog's draft snapshot I'm pretty disappointed that the distribution of players from big universities still hasn't been fixed from all the previous version. Only one player in the top 25 from a ranked team this year, and over half the top 25 are from teams that have no chance of even playing in a bowl game. This might not be a huge thing, but it is a bit of a realism killer when every year 2 or 3 of the top 10 picks come out of schools that I haven't even heard of.

[Galaxy]

Interesting sim of the draft I ran tonight:

The Packers had the 5th overall pick, filled a top need with a RB.

Then, at the 6th pick, they put together a deal that sends a 2nd round pick (6th pick), 6th round pick, and a 2009 first round pick to Denver for the 6th overall pick.

At the 7th pick, Kansas City sends a 2009 1st round pick to Cleveland for that pick. TERRIBLE trade.

At the 21st pick, Denver decides to move up, sending the pick they acquired from Green Bay in 2009, along with its own 1st round pick in that year, and a 2009 3rd round selection to the Rams.

Just when you thought the Packers were done, they decide to move into the first round again, dealing a 2008 first round pick (leaving them without a first round selection in the next two years), and a third and fourth round pick in 2009 for the 29th overall selection.

The last deal saw Dallas package a 2007 3rd rounder, 2008 2nd rounder, and 2009 5th rounder to Indy for the 30th pick in the first round.

In the second round, the PACKERS make another play, dealing with Denver again to get the sixth selection in the round. The Packers give the Broncos a 3rd round selection in the draft, along with a 2nd round and 6th round pick in 2009.

Do the Packers know something? Do each team value trades/picks different? Do teams have an "aggressive" factor?

[highfiveoh]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

At the 7th pick, Kansas City sends a 2009 1st round pick to Cleveland for that pick. TERRIBLE trade.

Why is trading a 1st round pick that is two drafts away for the #7 overall pick a terrible trade?
Edit: Err, unless of course you think it's a terrible trade for Cleveland, which it is.

[Galaxy]

Packers give up:
2nd Round Pick ('07)
6th Round Pick ('07)
2008 1st Round Pick
2009 1st Round Pick
2009 2nd Round Pick
2009 3rd Round Pick
2009 4th Round Pick
2009 6th Round Pick

Receive:
1st Round Pick (6)
1st Round Pick (29)
2nd Round Pick (6)

Did they hire the Chargers old GM? Or do GM's have different styles?

[Narcizo]

Given the increased error range of scouting reports I'm just wondering if some of the questionable releases and draft picks might not be explicable by the fact that your scout is over-rating the player in question. Just a thought.

My perception of the draft so far is that it is far better than in 2004 (obviously). I just wonder if teams aren't too willing to reach for first round QBs when they already have a young, high quality quarterback. (I've seen one instance of a team with a 30/64 2nd-year quarterback drafting another quarterback in the first round the year after. But, again, maybe my scout is over-valuing the current quarterback.

I'd rather that than see stud quarterbacks drop down to the bottom of the 1st round anyway as happened all too often in 2004.

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by Narcizo

Given the increased error range of scouting reports I'm just wondering if some of the questionable releases and draft picks might not be explicable by the fact that your scout is over-rating the player in question. Just a thought.

My perception of the draft so far is that it is far better than in 2004 (obviously). I just wonder if teams aren't too willing to reach for first round QBs when they already have a young, high quality quarterback. (I've seen one instance of a team with a 30/64 2nd-year quarterback drafting another quarterback in the first round the year after. But, again, maybe my scout is over-valuing the current quarterback.

I'd rather that than see stud quarterbacks drop down to the bottom of the 1st round anyway as happened all too often in 2004.

I have seen teams getting a second QB when they already have one many times, in some cases they will actually get a new QB just a year after they drafted their last one, I'm talking about top 10 picks here, if they look good I don't know why they pick another one, unless they're going with some kind of "best player on the board" strategy, which doesn't seem to apply well to QBs.