Most points gained by a creeper?

[Ben E Lou]

I'm talking pure unmasking here, not veteran breakouts. What's the most points you've seen a guy "creep." My best one is RDE Lee Scoggin. I saw some things I liked about this guy, and drafted him 7(26) in 2013. He had a future potential of 32 coming out of the draft, but the future potential increased as follows:

Firstcamp: 39
2014: 42
2015: 49
2016: 54
2017: 56
2018: 59
2019: 61
2020: 62

I'm thinking that he's done at 62/62 in year 8.

So, he increased 30 points in scout assessment over time, with no "breakout" kind of year. Has anyone seen more than 30 points? I've seen a few in the upper 20s, but Scoggin is the only one I've had hit 30.

[Hammer]

So you figure he was always that good, but the ratings were just masked?

I have a QB in the NAFL who was a combine stud I drafted as a 15/32. He is now 29/50 towards the end of his second year. He has crept consistently at every appropriate time. He has played consistently well, 95.1 rating after 8 games as the starter.

I really get the feeling he is better than the 29 suggests, I think he stands a great chance of beating 30 points as a creeper.

In the GEFL we drafted Randall Cunningham who initially showed 8/36. Just beginning the offseason of his second season he is 17/50. He had 2 starts last year, both wins. Season rating 98.8.

[Synovia]

I have SkyDog. I drafted a CB in the end of the first round, 28 I think. Great combines, great bars. He was 26/39 post draft, with awful bars, and 32/45 post camp.

At the end of his 5 year contract (4 year maybe?, can't remember), I couldnt afford to pay him, because of salary cap issues, but he was 77/77. I think he ended up 82/82, and was a perennial probowler. Bars were low at the start, but he performed well out of the gate.

[Hammer]

Bars were low at the start, but he performed well out of the gate.

Interesting. A pattern here?

[Celeval]

That was definately the pattern in 2k4 - a masked creeper always had the ratings and performed to them; just wasn't scouted as such.

[Hammer]

Thats pretty cool, its realistic. The question is are some player never unmasked or do they all get their true ratings eventually. The former would be cool, but I'd guess the later.

[Northwood_DK]

My IHOF first round pick this year Trevor Henson was 43/66 on draft day. He then dropped -4/-5 points in camp (39/61) but have after 6 weeks of the season regained 10 points in current rating (49/61).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Hammer

The question is are some player never unmasked or do they all get their true ratings eventually. The former would be cool, but I'd guess the later.

I disagree wholeheartedly. From a football sim perspective, the former is decidedly NOT cool, and completely unrealistic. Guys like Terrell Davis and Tom Brady didn't remain scouted as 6th-round draft choices or mediocre starters for their entire careers. After a few years in the league, everyone knows what these guys can and can't do. Having it partially masked for the duration of a career works for a "computer game" model, but imho is a horrible idea for a "football sim."

[Synovia]

SkyDog, not sure I agree. Certain things should stay masked. RBs are a great example. Because RB performance and OL performance are so tightly interdependant, its almost impossible to tell how good a RB actually is. Look at Edgrerrin James/Joseph Addai. Its almost impossible to tell how good each one is, simply because James was so good in Indy and so bad in Arizona. Do we know if James was ever good? Or was he just a product of running against nickle? Maybe theyre both great, and Arizona is just bad. Maybe theyre both really bad and Indy is an easy place to run. Theres no way to tell.


Yeah, guys like Terrell Davis and Brady get unmasked, but plenty dont. 99% of football fans couldnt tell you who Arizona's safties are, and theyre some of the best in the game.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Yeah, guys like Terrell Davis and Brady get unmasked, but plenty dont. 99% of football fans couldnt tell you who Arizona's safties are, and theyre some of the best in the game.

The simulation puts us in the GM chair, not the fan chair. Big difference.

[gstelmack]

Beating my own personal dead horse, the problem with the masking of scout abilities is that we are missing key aspects of their performance. We aren't watching them actually play, so instead we have to "guess" from a limited amount of statistical information how good a player REALLY is. I love masking of future, but I *hate* masking of current.

And if you want a truly good picture, you have to watch Solevision, as it includes critical pieces of data missing from the stats. Formation usage is a good example. Or knowing how often a QB was hurried. Or what the QBs completion percentage is at various ranges. Or is the RB making his yards against a pass defense. Etc etc etc.

I'm still trying to figure out how a 13/37 guy pre-draft (his rating right before TC) and 14/40 guy post-TC (so +1/+3 over TC) was considered a 1st-round grade by all the scouts in FOF. I can see if he was 13/60 then dropped to 14/40, but if everyone thinks he'll be a 60 eventually, why isn't his future a 60 now? And if they don't think he'll be a 60 because it's "masked", why did he have the 29th-best grade in the draft?

These are the questions that just have me shaking my head trying to build a team in 2k7. And I have no clue who to cut loose anymore, and who to keep around.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

The simulation puts us in the GM chair, not the fan chair. Big difference.

Is there though? Remember, Arizona just gave Edgrerrin James a multiyear $8m a year deal. The Giants gave Lavar ARrington a huge deal, and he couldnt even crack the starting line up. Dont even get me started on the Redskins.

Talent Evaluation is clearly not black and white.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I disagree wholeheartedly. From a football sim perspective, the former is decidedly NOT cool, and completely unrealistic. Guys like Terrell Davis and Tom Brady didn't remain scouted as 6th-round draft choices or mediocre starters for their entire careers. After a few years in the league, everyone knows what these guys can and can't do. Having it partially masked for the duration of a career works for a "computer game" model, but imho is a horrible idea for a "football sim."

I look at it from a different point of view. In real football you have players who are underrated and overrated. Perhaps because of stats, the system they play in, whatever.

People have a false impression of their ability (the ratings we see in FOF). Even those with an inside view might not be sure what makes a team tick. Was it Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin or Tory Aikman? Or all of them. You could argue about it all day, nobody really knows for sure. I like that idea in a game.

I like the idea of being given a slightly false rating, and having to work out for myself just how good that player really is.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola...

After a while, this guy should be rated higher than 47/47.




And it's not just guys on the human team. My league has all of the following veteran players on AI teams:

• a QB with six consecutive QB ratings of 88.7 or better, rated 40/40
• a 45/45 RB who averages 1250 yards per season and 4.24 yards per carry in his career. Oh yeah, he also averages 40 catches per year.
• a 43/43 WR averaging over 80 catches per year in seasons that the AI starts him
• a 42/42 WR averaging 9 yards per target, 70+ catches per year, and nearly 1,000 yards per season over a 6-year career with three different teams

Again, I'm not talking about rookies. A fair number of them *should* be heavily masked. I'm talking about players with 6 years or more of experience, who are consistently performing at a level that makes it obvious that their ratings are masked, and in several cases (because the ratings aren't high enough to merit long-term deals, I'm sure) they bounce from team to team putting up solid year after solid year. After multiple seasons performing at or near All-Pro level, real-life scouts would *all* rate the player as a top-tier guy.

[Synovia]

"a 45/45 RB who averages 1250 yards per season and 4.24 yards per carry in his career. Oh yeah, he also averages 40 catches per year."

I had a 40/40 RB who ran for almost 20K yards in his career. All stats less than 10, with 100 in elusiveness.

I agree that he'd be rated higher, but who knows, maybe he gets viewed as a "system player"

[MalcPow]

There are still some players that remain consistently under or overrated their entire careers by real GMs simply because of reputation or various biases. So it's not entirely unrealistic that certain players are never fully unmasked. I would probably bet there are plenty of players that are consistently more productive than a scout would "rate" them in the pro's, and it takes a GM capable of recognizing that through the statistics to go after or retain that player.

I ultimately agree it seems contrived and "gamey," but I can talk myself into the logic if I have to.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Is there though? Remember, Arizona just gave Edgrerrin James a multiyear $8m a year deal. The Giants gave Lavar ARrington a huge deal, and he couldnt even crack the starting line up. Dont even get me started on the Redskins.

Talent Evaluation is clearly not black and white.

No, it's not black and white, but EVERY SCOUT IN THE LEAGUE thought that guys like James and Arrington were stars. Peerless Price commanded superstar money. When a guy performs at a high level, he is *elevated* in the eyes of the league's scouts and GMs. In FOF, we have an "unmasking" model that rewards playing the computer game, not simulating being a GM.

"Ah, he's a +x/+y in his first training camp. Cool! I'll hang onto him! +y guys *ALWAYS* continue to creep for a few more seasons, and they usually perform above their ratings, too!" <------- That kind of evaluation has nothing to do with simming football, but it works better than anything else, from what I can tell.

[Hammer]

a QB with six consecutive QB ratings of 88.7 or better, rated 40/40

Does he have a quality Offense behind him. If he is doing that with a poor team, then yes, I see your point.

Its not something I've seen very often though, certainly not consistently. These stats tend to usually come up from the system - he has talented team mates. At least from what I have seen. I guess if you play enough you will find some statistical anolomies also.

I am tending to see younger players like Huntley and Cunningham mentioned earlier throwing up these stats, not older ones so much.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

No, it's not black and white, but EVERY SCOUT IN THE LEAGUE thought that guys like James and Arrington were stars. Peerless Price commanded superstar money. When a guy performs at a high level, he is *elevated* in the eyes of the league's scouts and GMs. In FOF, we have an "unmasking" model that rewards playing the computer game, not simulating being a GM.

"Ah, he's a +x/+y in his first training camp. Cool! I'll hang onto him! +y guys *ALWAYS* continue to creep for a few more seasons, and they usually perform above their ratings, too!" <------- That kind of evaluation has nothing to do with simming football, but it works better than anything else, from what I can tell.

I see what you're saying, and it makes sense. I think we can probably agree that the recognition of a creeper is the equivalent of a coach or two commenting that "maybe we've got something here" during that first camp, and flagging a guy as somebody that might be able to stick. So the numbers serve the equivalent purpose of making that clear without the kind of repetitive annoyance of 58 emails from your staff with four or five varied "assessments" on the players' performances at camp. An approach other games seem to take that just isn't interesting or fun.

[Warhammer]

So are we saying that players ratings should change based upon their performance?

If I take a guy and put him in a system that maximizes his ability, and he puts up 2-3 years of 95+ ratings, should his ratings go up?

This question applies over all versions of FOF and is not specific to this version. In FOF2k4 where I played much more SP than I do now, I had a trio of QBs that threw for 3200+ yards, had at least a 2.5:1 TD:INT ratio, all were named MVP of the league at one point, but their ratings varied from 82 to 56. Should the 56 be rated the same as the 82 guy? If my memory serves, my best QB was a 65/65 guy who was a 2 time player of the year who threw less than 7 INTs each year and had between 30 and 40 TDs each year. Guy played 7 seasons before a knee injury killed his career.

Should a player's rating, which is based on his bars change, when a GM/coach makes the best use of his talent? Why should his screen passing go up when he is only throwing downfield?

[Ben E Lou]

By the way, Oliveras is not a "system" QB, either. I saved, cut him, and ran a QuikSim. He put up big-time numbers on AI teams, too. There's *no* way that this guy would remain rated 47/47 irl. No way.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

There are still some players that remain consistently under or overrated their entire careers by real GMs simply because of reputation or various biases. So it's not entirely unrealistic that certain players are never fully unmasked. I would probably bet there are plenty of players that are consistently more productive than a scout would "rate" them in the pro's, and it takes a GM capable of recognizing that through the statistics to go after or retain that player.

Totally agree. If I look at Seattle over recent years I would say guys like Grant Wistrom and Shaun Alexander were overrated. Darrell Jackson I would say was underrated, people couldn't get past his drops and seemed to forget he often dominated games despite facing other teams best corners and often double coverage. JMO of course.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

So are we saying that players ratings should change based upon their performance?

If I take a guy and put him in a system that maximizes his ability, and he puts up 2-3 years of 95+ ratings, should his ratings go up?

This question applies over all versions of FOF and is not specific to this version. In FOF2k4 where I played much more SP than I do now, I had a trio of QBs that threw for 3200+ yards, had at least a 2.5:1 TD:INT ratio, all were named MVP of the league at one point, but their ratings varied from 82 to 56. Should the 56 be rated the same as the 82 guy? If my memory serves, my best QB was a 65/65 guy who was a 2 time player of the year who threw less than 7 INTs each year and had between 30 and 40 TDs each year. Guy played 7 seasons before a knee injury killed his career.

Should a player's rating, which is based on his bars change, when a GM/coach makes the best use of his talent? Why should his screen passing go up when he is only throwing downfield?

They shouldn't be rated the same, no. However, the ratings are supposedly our scout's view of the player. A scout would get fired if he tried to claim thta C.J. Oliveras is no better than a slightly above average starting QB. Similarly, he would get fired if he tried to claim that the QB I'm looking at now, who has been a starter for 10 consecutive seasons and his *best* QB rating is 79.8, is one of the best 10 QBs in the league, or that the guy who has started for Jax for the last 7 years and has a career 83.3 rating is by far the best QB in the league, or that the 13-year vet starting for Miami who has never had a QB rating above 90.7 is the 3rd-best QB in the league.

Again, I'm not talking about the guy that has a couple good or bad seasons and you're not sure what to make of him. I'm talking about proven stars and proven duds who are evaluated very differently from who they are.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

By the way, Oliveras is not a "system" QB, either. I saved, cut him, and ran a QuikSim. He put up big-time numbers on AI teams, too. There's *no* way that this guy would remain rated 47/47 irl. No way.

SkyDog, people say Trent Green is a system QB. The guy has been a stud his whole career and nobody thinks hes any good. He is, hes just underrated.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

By the way, Oliveras is not a "system" QB, either. I saved, cut him, and ran a QuikSim. He put up big-time numbers on AI teams, too. There's *no* way that this guy would remain rated 47/47 irl. No way.

The problem is that we have an overall aggregate rating that we go back to. QB is a tough position to make this argument with because he can be gameplanned to his strengths easier than other positions.

The aggregate rating system takes his visible bars and creates a number based upon those bars. However, if we do not use certain bars, his performance will reflect this, but his overall rating will not. In this version of FOF, the AI does a better job matching a player to his strengths. So cutting him and letting the AI do its thing isn't like it was in years past. We might be getting positive feedback here.

On the flip side, you're right, in this particular case there probably is a mask. But there are going to be some situations where it isn't a mask. Again, many players don't throw screen passes in the game. Yet, a player's screen pass rating is taken into account in the aggregate rating. So if a 47/47 player who can't throw a screen pass, should that rating increase and justify a 55/55 after a good year because he never threw any screens?

Quite honestly, I'd like to see a much more reasonable player generation system. I get sick of seeing QBs that can throw every pass but the 19-26 yard variety, but cut the route off at 18 yards or run it out to 26+ and he is money.

What I would love to see with QBs is something much more varied. For example a touch passing and arm strength rating. Add that into the equation, and change the passing engine a bit. Suddenly, you have a guy that has a rocket for an arm, but he doesn't have any touch. So he can throw the ball 80 yards, but he might not put it over the right shoulder, or he throws it on a rope rather than a rainbow, etc. Or you have a guy that can put the ball in the right place on a 12 yard out, but he lacks the arm strength to get it there before the CB recovers from the break, etc.

What we have now is a QB that can always make intermediate throws, or long throws, etc.

I think if we can get away from the aggregate rating we can see how players are truly valued rather than relying on the overall rating crutch. So far, with it removed from the draft screens, drafts have been much more enjoyable.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Synovia

SkyDog, people say Trent Green is a system QB. The guy has been a stud his whole career and nobody thinks hes any good. He is, hes just underrated.

1. You're pulling out a guy who has had two seasons with a rating under 75. That's extremely different from a guy whose worst semi-full year had an 88.8 (played hurt when he did play that year, too), and has put up Manning numbers for six full seasons otherwise.

2. "People" say he is a system QB. "Nobody" thinks he's any good. Again, you're talking from the perspective of a fan, or perhaps from the media. Trent Green will be one of the higher paid QBs in the league, coming off of an injury, at age 37. Obviously at least one scout/GM thinks he's not just underrated.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

1. You're pulling out a guy who has had two seasons with a rating under 75. That's extremely different from a guy whose worst semi-full year had an 88.8 (played hurt when he did play that year, too), and has put up Manning numbers for six full seasons otherwise.

2. "People" say he is a system QB. "Nobody" thinks he's any good. Again, you're talking from the perspective of a fan, or perhaps from the media. Trent Green will be one of the higher paid QBs in the league, coming off of an injury, at age 37. Obviously at least one scout/GM thinks he's not just underrated.

He just got traded for a 6th round pick, so obviously no one things hes worth the $$ hes being paid. As to the two bad seasons, it happens. My point is, even GM oppinions rarely mesh with whats reality.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

They shouldn't be rated the same, no. However, the ratings are supposedly our scout's view of the player. A scout would get fired if he tried to claim thta C.J. Oliveras is no better than a slightly above average starting QB. Similarly, he would get fired if he tried to claim that the QB I'm looking at now, who has been a starter for 10 consecutive seasons and his *best* QB rating is 79.8, is one of the best 10 QBs in the league, or that the guy who has started for Jax for the last 7 years and has a career 83.3 rating is by far the best QB in the league, or that the 13-year vet starting for Miami who has never had a QB rating above 90.7 is the 3rd-best QB in the league.

Again, I'm not talking about the guy that has a couple good or bad seasons and you're not sure what to make of him. I'm talking about proven stars and proven duds who are evaluated very differently from who they are.

But how would Montana be rated today? He didn't have a great arm, he could run quite a bit, but wasn't a Bobby Douglass or Mike Vick, and he was fairly fragile. All he could do was put a team on his back and carry them. Arguably the best QB of all time, he was always being picked apart by the scouts.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm saying that I don't understand how it can be reflected with the overall rating system the way it is. It is much easier to understand with the overall rating system taken out of the equation.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The problem is that we have an overall aggregate rating that we go back to. QB is a tough position to make this argument with because he can be gameplanned to his strengths easier than other positions.

The aggregate rating system takes his visible bars and creates a number based upon those bars. However, if we do not use certain bars, his performance will reflect this, but his overall rating will not. In this version of FOF, the AI does a better job matching a player to his strengths. So cutting him and letting the AI do its thing isn't like it was in years past. We might be getting positive feedback here.

On the flip side, you're right, in this particular case there probably is a mask. But there are going to be some situations where it isn't a mask. Again, many players don't throw screen passes in the game. Yet, a player's screen pass rating is taken into account in the aggregate rating. So if a 47/47 player who can't throw a screen pass, should that rating increase and justify a 55/55 after a good year because he never threw any screens?

Quite honestly, I'd like to see a much more reasonable player generation system. I get sick of seeing QBs that can throw every pass but the 19-26 yard variety, but cut the route off at 18 yards or run it out to 26+ and he is money.

What I would love to see with QBs is something much more varied. For example a touch passing and arm strength rating. Add that into the equation, and change the passing engine a bit. Suddenly, you have a guy that has a rocket for an arm, but he doesn't have any touch. So he can throw the ball 80 yards, but he might not put it over the right shoulder, or he throws it on a rope rather than a rainbow, etc. Or you have a guy that can put the ball in the right place on a 12 yard out, but he lacks the arm strength to get it there before the CB recovers from the break, etc.

What we have now is a QB that can always make intermediate throws, or long throws, etc.

I think if we can get away from the aggregate rating we can see how players are truly valued rather than relying on the overall rating crutch. So far, with it removed from the draft screens, drafts have been much more enjoyable.

In general, you have a point, but it doesn't account for what I'm talking about. The guys I'm looking at all have bars that are in the same ballpark. I'm not talking about those freak FOF players who have mysterious zeroes (which is an entirely different discussion)...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

But how would Montana be rated today? He didn't have a great arm, he could run quite a bit, but wasn't a Bobby Douglass or Mike Vick, and he was fairly fragile. All he could do was put a team on his back and carry them. Arguably the best QB of all time, he was always being picked apart by the scouts.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm saying that I don't understand how it can be reflected with the overall rating system the way it is. It is much easier to understand with the overall rating system taken out of the equation.

Montana would have very high ratings from Screen through Medium in FOF, and be very high in Accuracy, Timing, Read Defense, and Two-Minute. His overall rating would never be in the 100 range...

...but it wouldn't be in the mid-40s, either. Let me set up a Montana player using the CSV real quick...

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Montana would have very high ratings from Screen through Medium in FOF, and be very high in Accuracy, Timing, Read Defense, and Two-Minute. His overall rating would never be in the 100 range...

...but it wouldn't be in the mid-40s, either. Let me set up a Montana player using the CSV real quick...

Montana threw a great deep ball when he had to, just never threw it deep that much. He also did that more in his younger years than he did when he had Taylor and Rice who could break any 5-10 yard throw into a 90 yard TD. Lord knows I watched him do that enough times to my Rams.

Also, I agree with what you are saying, but I am talking in hypotheticals because we see quite a bit of them in FOF and would like to see something workable.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Montana would have very high ratings from Screen through Medium in FOF, and be very high in Accuracy, Timing, Read Defense, and Two-Minute. His overall rating would never be in the 100 range...

...but it wouldn't be in the mid-40s, either. Let me set up a Montana player using the CSV real quick...

He ended up being a little too good in Long and Deep, but the point holds. He got a 61 in Long, and a 34 in Deep, and was in the 90s in everything else. That rated him out as an 87/87. So, maybe if Long and Deep had been lower, he'd be an 80/80 or so. Still an obvious star QB. I don't have a problem with the game not rating Joe Montana in the 90s. I just have a problem with it rating superstars in the 40s and 50s.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

He ended up being a little too good in Long and Deep, but the point holds. He got a 61 in Long, and a 34 in Deep, and was in the 90s in everything else. That rated him out as an 87/87. So, maybe if Long and Deep had been lower, he'd be an 80/80 or so.

Just redid it, and he came up the 89-95 range in screen, short, medium, third, accuracy, timing, sense rush, read defense, two-minute, plus 32 in long and 22 in deep. Overall rating was 81/81. So, yeah, he's a star QB. Not the best-rated QB the game will generate, but still an obvious star. Not at all like Oliveras topping out at 47/47.

Oh, and speaking of that 47/47 guy, he does have a zero--one that I don't believe--in short passing. Why don't I believe it, you ask?

Because year-in and year-out with him at the helm, my team has been in the top five in yards per attempt on short passes, including four straight seasons at #1. Again, it's just absolutely senseless to have a guy who is consistently the *best* in the league at short passing, yet he has a (probably) bogus zero for a rating there.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

But how would Montana be rated today? He didn't have a great arm, he could run quite a bit, but wasn't a Bobby Douglass or Mike Vick, and he was fairly fragile. All he could do was put a team on his back and carry them. Arguably the best QB of all time, he was always being picked apart by the scouts.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm saying that I don't understand how it can be reflected with the overall rating system the way it is. It is much easier to understand with the overall rating system taken out of the equation.

Montana had a great line, great recievers, a great runningback, and didnt put up any better stats than the guy who replaced him, or the guy he replaced. Part of me thinks that the scouts were right, and that Bill Walsh is the one who deserves the credit.

[nilodor]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Oh, and speaking of that 47/47 guy, he does have a zero--one that I don't believe--in short passing. Why don't I believe it, you ask?

Because year-in and year-out with him at the helm, my team has been in the top five in yards per attempt on short passes, including four straight seasons at #1. Again, it's just absolutely senseless to have a guy who is consistently the *best* in the league at short passing, yet he has a (probably) bogus zero for a rating there.

Best in what terms, completion percentage? yards/att? yards/cmp? or just across the board.

[MIJB#19]

A bit unrelated, but the thought came up when I read the first couple of posts. I think it would be 'cool' if a football sim (any sports sim) would have the scouting report reflect on a players performance. By that I mean that the true ratings will always remain hidden, but after a good season or even a good game the player's perceived (scouted) ratings should go up, while after a bad season (or even a game) they should go down.

In the end, I think the 'best' measurement of players is still performance on the field and I think it would be cool if FOF would reflect on that. And by performance, I don't mean the pure stats (1 sack = +1/+1), I mean the underlying performance that can't be caught in stats. If you have a monster DE who always keeps 2 OL players busy, making room for the other DE or DTs to rack up the sacks, that monster DE shouldn't be punished by being downgraded. 'Fans' might do that, but real NFL scouts should know better, right?

I'm still a bit puzzled on how to factor in play during training sessions, but I suppose those should/could have the same effect, meaning a good training session 'roll' would result in a +1/+1 each time and a bad session in a -1/-1. There could be some built-in mechanism that alters the report much more for unproven players and much less for veterans.

This all is assuming FOF doesn't already use this kind of system...

[JetsIn06]

This is a post I made in "The Curious Case of..." thread, but it definitely applies here. The second pic, as you will read, are the stats of a 18/25 player. Enjoy.

I've had a similar case...but dis-similar in a very strange way.

It started with this man...




as you can see, his rookie season was dreadful, throwing 3 TD's and 16 picks. He only played half the season for Tennessee and then was let loose. Seeing that he had some high potential, and that I had NO quarterback worth starting, I gave him a chance. He did okay his first season with me, and his ratings slowly went up.

He went on to my my franchise QB for ten years, leading me to 5 straight championship wins. In 2016, I drafted a QB in the first round, Darnell Howe. During camp, Howe went down 12 points in current and also dropped the same in potential. It looked as if I made an awful mistake. He was even underrated!

But, in 2017, Chandler stunk it up, and was still asking for a boat-load of money the next season, and wanted a 4 year deal. I passed, and knew that since he wasn't gonna be back, I let Howe start to see if his stats refelcted his ratings. At this point, he was a 25/30. Here are his stats...




He did pretty good. Definitely better than what I would think a 25/30 player would do.

Then, this training camp, he went down EVEN MORE. This season he's an 18/25, and look at those stats! We have a great FL, 71/71, but my SE is only 43/43.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Montana had a great line, great recievers, a great runningback, and didnt put up any better stats than the guy who replaced him, or the guy he replaced. Part of me thinks that the scouts were right, and that Bill Walsh is the one who deserves the credit.

You're telling me that Steve DeBerg put up stats just as good as Montana when he was with the Niners?

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/MontJo01.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/DebeSt00.htm

Looking at that, Joe threw fewer INTs and threw for nearly a whole yard more per attempt. He also had a higher completion % by 3-5%.

He won two Super Bowls with Dwight Clark (who didn't start in college) and Freddie Solomon. His RBs were Cooper and Wendell Tyler in those two Super Bowls (Roger Craig was the FB, not the starting HB on the 84 squad). The line was good, but not great.

Don't mix up the 88 and 89 49ers with the early 80s 49ers. They were completely different teams. The early 80s teams relied on defense much more than the late 80s and early 90s 49ers teams.

Now he was replaced by Steve Young who was a highly regarded QB coming out of college and was only downgraded because of playing on the mid-80s Bucs. When Joe went to the Chiefs with a team that was completely devoid of talent at WR and with a shredded elbow, he still played pretty dang good.

No doubt that Walsh deserves a lot of the credit, but having Montana back there certainly enhanced things quite a bit. The America's Game show on the 81 Niners talked about it quite a bit.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Just redid it, and he came up the 89-95 range in screen, short, medium, third, accuracy, timing, sense rush, read defense, two-minute, plus 32 in long and 22 in deep. Overall rating was 81/81. So, yeah, he's a star QB. Not the best-rated QB the game will generate, but still an obvious star. Not at all like Oliveras topping out at 47/47.

Oh, and speaking of that 47/47 guy, he does have a zero--one that I don't believe--in short passing. Why don't I believe it, you ask?

Because year-in and year-out with him at the helm, my team has been in the top five in yards per attempt on short passes, including four straight seasons at #1. Again, it's just absolutely senseless to have a guy who is consistently the *best* in the league at short passing, yet he has a (probably) bogus zero for a rating there.

I agree with you 100%. But, by the same token, running each player through the CSV file every year might yield some funky fluctuations in player rating.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

So far, with [the overall rating] removed from the draft screens, drafts have been much more enjoyable.

This was a stroke of genius by Jim. It has incredibly enhanced the draft process.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Montana had a great line, great recievers, a great runningback, and didnt put up any better stats than the guy who replaced him, or the guy he replaced. Part of me thinks that the scouts were right, and that Bill Walsh is the one who deserves the credit.

I will give you a little tidbit from Bill Belichick. Every now and then he puts on a little defensive blackboard/film show for a few select media guys, and discusses teams from the past. He says that no matter what the Giants did, even with an absolute perfect defense called in every respect, Montana would more times than not still get it done and get the ball to his receivers. He said that Steve Young presented no such difficulty for a defense.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

What I would love to see with QBs is something much more varied. For example a touch passing and arm strength rating. Add that into the equation, and change the passing engine a bit. Suddenly, you have a guy that has a rocket for an arm, but he doesn't have any touch. So he can throw the ball 80 yards, but he might not put it over the right shoulder, or he throws it on a rope rather than a rainbow, etc. Or you have a guy that can put the ball in the right place on a 12 yard out, but he lacks the arm strength to get it there before the CB recovers from the break, etc.

What we have now is a QB that can always make intermediate throws, or long throws, etc.

Perhaps we already have that. I would argue that a guy with a good deep ball has both a rocket arm, good timing instincts, ability to move around in the pocket, etc. While a guy with a good short pass rating has a quick release, accuracy, anticipation, etc. It could be argued that these passer ratings are already an amalgamation of various physical and mental characteristics and Jim has chosen to make it easy by giving us the sum of those characteristics as they relate to each passer rating rather than just the raw characteristic numbers. In other words, those passer ratings may already reflect someone who has good or bad touch or good or bad arm strength.

You're talking more of an FM rating system (where you get raw characteristic numbers for the most part). That would be a completely different spin on the game. I'm still deciding whether I would like that or not. It certainly would be tougher. The biggest problem I would have with that is (1) if we weren't told at least what variables or characteristics went into each rating formula, it would make it very difficult; and (2) I believe there is still an absence of a sufficient number of comparable stats for many positions which makes evaluation of a position almost impossible.

We all talk about QBs and RBs and the like. Without proper unmasking of ratings of the type SkyDog is advocating, I find it very difficult to properly evaluate O-line talent (especially now that we know pretty much that KRO and KRBs are very much a group statistic rather than individual statistic for O-line guys). For example, the fact that there aren't more individual ratings and that Jim has basically refused to add "hurries allowed" as a stat is baffling in light of the unmasking that does not occur. What are we to do?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

This was a stroke of genius by Jim. It has incredibly enhanced the draft process.

I'm following neither you nor WH on this one. I don't see how it has changed the draft process at all.

[Sgran]

SkyDog, what's your real complaint with having inaccurate bars? Is it just a failure to reflect reality or do you think it messes with the AI?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Sgran

SkyDog, what's your real complaint with having inaccurate bars? Is it just a failure to reflect reality or do you think it messes with the AI?

I don't think it messes with the AI. I know it messes with the AI. The AI will use a Top 5 overall pick on an obvious stud with wholly inaccurate bars. That's very good. However, once the rookie year is over, it appears to have no clue later on that he's an obvious stud. That's very bad, so bad that it is worse than if the AI didn't pick him in the first place. Why's that? Well, because since it knows the guy is an obvious stud, you get situations like the first guy in this thread, who was drafted with the 4th overall pick, and then cut, big cap hit and all, the very next season. It would be better if the AI teams left these guys alone and let the savvy player find them, rather than making a series of moves that has the net effect of wasting a high pick AND a big cap hit.

All that being said, that's not my biggest beef with it. I guess I have dual issues with the current implementation:

1. I believe that, long-term, the new system will create an even bigger gap in MP between the haves and have-nots. It'll take 4-8 seasons for it to play out as these, but in observing drafts in several leagues, I'm seeing a small handful of people grabbing 4-8 starters per draft class, while the vast majority of people grabbing a bunch of scrubs who'll never get above 30 or so.

2. The way the scout impression thing works appears to be about 95% "computer game" , and 5% "football simulation."

To steal from Dutch in the other thread...

Coach - "I'm a little confused about your assessment of Martin Buckner that DT from Oregon State."
Scout - "What's the problem?"
coach- "Well, I need a strong defensive lineman and your scouting report says that on a 1 to 10 scale, he's somewhere between a 1 and a 3 in terms of strength.
Scout - "Uh, yeah, Coach. He's a weakling."
Coach - "This is the part that confuses me. My spy network tells me that Jason Johnson in Cleveland rates him the exact same way you do. Is that right?"
Scout - "Yeah. Jason and I were talking at the combines about him. We agree."
Coach- "OK. Then can you explain why you say that, but that he's 'Very Underrated?'"
Scout - "Sure thing. He did 36 bench press reps! He must be stronger than I think he is."
Coach - "Stronger than you think he is?"
Scout - "Yup. I'm sure of it. Very Underrated."
Coach - "He's stronger than you think he is, so you give me a report that says he's between a 1 and a 3, and then tell me to ignore that report, that he's 'Very Underrated'?"
Scout - "Yup."
Coach - "You're fired."

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

2. The way the scout impression thing works appears to be about 95% "computer game" , and 5% "football simulation."

Yup.

[Kodos]

Bubba Raymond through 2 & 1/4 seasons: 12/41 ---> 38/63

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Sgran

SkyDog, what's your real complaint with having inaccurate bars? Is it just a failure to reflect reality or do you think it messes with the AI?

My other big gripe is that on field performance by far outweighs visible bars, but you can't sort free agents by their current/past season stats

[Sgran]

Those are all real good points. My biggest fear is more related to finances, since overperforming stars would likely sell themselves short on contract demands. I've noticed this particularly with DEs who specialized in pass-rushing. I had one guy who led the league in sacks, hurries, etc. but he was all pass-rush and no run-stopping, so his overall wasn't very high. In RL this guy would have demanded a king's ransom in free agency, but I could resign him year after year for a pittance.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'm following neither you nor WH on this one. I don't see how it has changed the draft process at all.

Well, I know you are a big combine guy, so I could see that. I am combine/rating guy. Some guys with great combines are just so low bars, that I think it's better to go with a guy who has better bars and still good but maybe not great combines. For me a guy who starts at 60 with pretty good combines stands a better chance of success than a guy at 25 with great combines. While you have a good idea of the rating as it stands now during the draft, it adds a little bit of mystery to the draft in a nice way if you don't know what the rating is.