FOF 2007 GroupThink (season five)

[Narcizo]

Badalaty is dragged down by the fact that he's as thick as twentytwo planks. He's definitely much better than he scouts though (the strength/ scouted courage chasm makes that much pretty clear). I think his lack of intelligence matches with his route running though so he could end up a fantastic receiver who never gets the ball passed to him (rather like Otto Stowe in my HFL Ravens). I wouldn't be happy taking him with 2.1 - given his scout report I think he probably will drop to 3.1, although it's tough to tell. I think, with Norbert Lofton also in the draft, that there's certainly no reason to reach very far for him. Any hypothesis as to what BJump equates to for receivers? I'm guessing "Adjust to the ball".

I think Eugene Mathis would be a far sounder pick with 2.1, for all that the scouts hate him. My guess is Positional Drill is "Avoid Drops" for receivers, so he's going to have butter fingers, but apart from that he looks a total stud. Of course, he doesn't have an affinity like Baddataly but I can see him drafting at something like 18-30 or so but having a true potential in excess of 60. The guy is in the top 5 ranks for all combines apart from Positional and tops the all-important speed and agility. I guarantee that he is one of the stars of the draft. Assuming route running = IQ test is a good correlation his route running is clearly wrong. Big play is more than a bit wrong. I think Mathis has all the hallmarks of a stud being "hidden" by the game.

[JeffW]

I think QB is the thing holding us back now. Looking through the roster I was surprised about how solid we now look. Our roster is currently rated at 85 (admittedly a result of the AI's cut and sign policy) but still. We have to get behind Buckner and hope that he can develop quickly with starting time.

Alternately, we can go after Kelvin Shawver. Basically he is a 6.7 adj. grade QB with 85 position score, 44 Solecismic, 68 volatility, 8% developed. He is maxed out potential in many areas and very good in the rest.

I have no idea how to evaluate him, though and I think he'll go very high.



Kelly
We've got 3 very solid WRs, I don't think there's much need to improve there - although if there's a steal in the draft then obviously, we should take him.

Yeah, the guy I like is 4.7 adjust grade. 4.46/23/7.07 combine numbers, 52% developed. I think those look like star combine numbers and he should be a value when we take him even if WR isn't a need.

We have a starting O Line that's better than any I've had in 2007, D-Line looks pretty good as well. We could probably do with improvement at inside linebacker and we're really being let down by the secondary. I think this draft really has to try and address the secondary as much as possible.

[quote]To be honest I say sign Ernest Powell as FS. As a safety he could still have 5 years of top level play in him. He plays at least as well as he scouts and there's no way we can turn the secondary around with this one draft and we certainly don't have any drafted players who will be displaced by getting him. I think not taking him smells of tanking for the sake of it.

Yeah, I agree. We should probably sign multiple FAs in the secondary if our goal is winning.

FS Ernest Powell
SS Brian Fortman
RCB Anthony Terry

I don't really know how to evaluate secondary players. I feel like we should just get guys who are good at every coverage in this version.

MLB JB Saldana is a cheap stud 66/66 if we want to stick with 3-4.

Ditto Lamont Henry at SLB 39/57 3rd year player. Ultra cheap.

I like C Dwayne Garrett, LG Kim Ramsey, LG Neal McIntyre as reserve linemen.

QB Phillip Crane 29/57 5th year as a 3year minsal backup.

Pretty much all these guys are ripe for multi year contracts at way under market value.

[Narcizo]

I like the idea of taking Mickey Wiggins with our first round pick. I think there's a lot to be said for trading down to 1.3 and (hopefully) taking him there. If he's gone then chances are we'll get the DE or a great looking RB anyway. I don't think Wiggins is quite as good as scouted but I think he'll be a lockdown cornerback for our team for 10 years. I don't know what to make of his interception skill but hopefully it'll be one of these cases of a scout given a player a random 0 and then it actually turning out to be in line with everything esle.

[JeffW]

I don't know what to make of his interception skill but hopefully it'll be one of these cases of a scout given a player a random 0 and then it actually turning out to be in line with everything esle.

I'd like to avoid Wiggins because of that Interception skill and because he'll go top 4-5 easy. With DBs, the skill ratios are pretty reliable I think and Interceptions is critical.

I'd rather trade down and get a guy like Jamie Joyner.

[Narcizo]

I'm leary at the thought of getting an ILB FA signing, as we have a young ILB (I think an undrafted rookie) who has performed pretty solidly. Knoll's 18.7 TPct means he should be given the benefit of the doubt unless we draft someone else.

[Narcizo]

I'd like to avoid Wiggins because of that Interception skill. With DBs, the skill ratios are pretty reliable I think and Interceptions is critical.

I don't rate intercepting all that highly. Assuming the guy doesn't have 80-100 in it is there really much difference between 1 and 40 in interceptions (assuming this isn't a scout mistake)? I'd rather have a player that stops passes rather than one who allows bucketloads but makes a few interceptions. I haven't really noticed a huge correlation between the make interception skill and the number of interceptions made in a year. And Joyner just looks inferior to Wiggins in every measurable way. (apart from Positional skills - which makes me suspect that that is what determines interceptions skill).

[JeffW]

We could also take a S and convert him to CB.

SS Butch Gordon should be available late in the first and his experience at LCB/RCB is equal to FS/SS. Gordon is a 5.8 grade, 4.50/16/6.87/8'6" with 37 sole, 37% development, 48 position.

[JeffW]

I don't rate intercepting all that highly. Assuming the guy doesn't have 80-100 in it is there really much difference between 1 and 40 in interceptions (assuming this isn't a scout mistake)? I'd rather have a player that stops passes rather than one who allows bucketloads but makes a few interceptions. I haven't really noticed a huge correlation between the make interception skill and the number of interceptions made in a year. And Joyner just looks inferior to Wiggins in every measurable way. (apart from Positional skills - which makes me suspect that that is what determines interceptions skill).

Alright, I'll take your word for it. If Ints aren't too important, we can trade down to 3rd and then again to 4 and probably land Wiggins.

[Narcizo]

Alternately, we can go after Kelvin Shawver. Basically he is a 6.7 adj. grade QB with 85 position score, 44 Solecismic, 68 volatility, 8% developed. He is maxed out potential in many areas and very good in the rest.

I have no idea how to evaluate him, though and I think he'll go very high.


Given the AI's fondness for QBs in the early years of a league I think Detroit will probably take him. I think we would have to take him had we not just gone out and got Buckner. But there's no way you can justify taking him given the fact that we would be drafting blind. With no combines it looks like too much of a risk. His solecismic does suggest that he has a 80+ avoid ints though. Then again Buckner's got 98 intelligence so that's not a problem (hopefully).

[JeffW]

My only concern with Buckner is whether he'll develop to his full potential at this point, but I've had good success with develop veteran QBs with latent potential in 2k4 and I don't want to gamble on Shawver either.

We did have spectacular success with one no-combine guy (undrafted FL Jumbo Shepherd), and I think we should watch Shawver's career wherever he's drafted(probably top 5 I agree).

A no combine guy who might be worth drafting depending on where he falls is C Bert Boggs.

[Narcizo]

Of course, he'll probably turn out to be Dan Marino but what can you do?

I agree that we probably can take Wiggins at 1.4 - although I'm a bit unsure about who Washington would take. The AI seems to favour CB's a bit more than adjusted and DEs a bit less. Of course you could argue that taking O'Donnell at 1.4 would hardly be a huge blow to us.

[Narcizo]

I'lll just get my annual "Love a RB" post out of the way and say that Harmon looks like a total stud. I think we might want to, at least, consider taking him. The only drawback is that it would prevent us from trading down - as we would only really be able to trade with the Lions and such a trade starts to show up on my game exploit radar.

[JeffW]

I agree that we probably can take Wiggins at 1.4 - although I'm a bit unsure about who Washington would take.

I'd be shocked if Washington doesn't take a CB given their roster--71 and 53 potential DEs and no CBs above 41.

[JeffW]

I'lll just get my annual "Love a RB" post out of the way and say that Harmon looks like a total stud. I think we might want to, at least, consider taking him. The only drawback is that it would prevent us from trading down - as we would only really be able to trade with the Lions and such a trade starts to show up on my game exploit radar.

He's awesome, but I just can't justify taking an RB given our other holes and the wide availability of solid Breakaway/HoleRec/Elusiveness RBs in single player.

[Narcizo]

Umm. That's true. So we should trade to 1.2 then 1.3 and then 1.4 and take O'Donnell? Gambling on a sequence of events
Detroit - QB bloke
Carolina - Harmon
Washington - Wiggins
?

Wonder who Washington would take if we conducted a straight trade with them. Logic says Wiggins anyway, but I think the AI is so QB happy that they might take Shawver. Wish you could start a bidding war in SP :D

I think we should interview Shawver just to see if he's considered over or under-rated. If he's underrated I bet the Lions will take him with whatever pick they possibly can (despite having a 1.3 QB pick finally getting some games). Overrated and they won't touch him. Looking at his blue bars I'm guessing he's underrated.

[JeffW]

First, wow, how is CAR drafting so high with an 82/82 overall starter QB??

Okay here's how I'm projecting it:

1(1), 2(2011), 3(2011) to DET for 1(2), 1(2011), 5(2011).

1(1) DET - DE Aaron O'Donnell

1(2), 4(1), 4(24) to CAR for 1(3), 2(2).

1(2) CAR - RB Joe Harmon

Now we can either take Wiggins here or trade to 1(4): 1(3), 3(1)->1(4), 2(7), 4(5), 5(4).

This feels really dirty lol. I dunno, we can gamble on losing Wiggins and pick up a ton of extra value. I don't know where the QB goes, maybe 1(1) I guess?

Anyway, someone good is going to fall to us and I don't like any of the players more than the other enough to justify giving up the extra value we get from trading down.

[heardie]

Rather then start a new thread, I'll just post-jack again here (sorry!)

Are you saving each part of the season under 'save-as'? If there are truly 30mg for each save, you end up sucking a big of space very quickly - not that that is an issue with modern HDs just seems a strange way to do things

[heardie]

Rather then start a new thread, I'll just post-jack again here (sorry!)

Are you saving each part of the season under 'save-as'? If there are truly 30mg for each save, you end up sucking a big of space very quickly - not that that is an issue with modern HDs just seems a strange way to do things

[JeffW]

Rather then start a new thread, I'll just post-jack again here (sorry!)

Are you saving each part of the season under 'save-as'? If there are truly 30mg for each save, you end up sucking a big of space very quickly - not that that is an issue with modern HDs just seems a strange way to do things

No clue. QS is in charge of the distribution.

[Narcizo]

I'm interested about how he's keeping the files so small actually, as I want to do it in my SP games but don't know what I should be saving. Clearly the Save AS thingy takes up shed loads of space.

Jeff, I think the sort of trades you're suggesting do seem a bit exploity. Particularly the 1.1 -> 1.2 leap. I guess we should probably trade down directly to the position we want. I'm all for directly trading with Carolina or Washington. We should be able to get good value and still get a great player on the team.

[JeffW]

Jeff, I think the sort of trades you're suggesting do seem a bit exploity. Particularly the 1.1 -> 1.2 leap. I guess we should probably trade down directly to the position we want. I'm all for directly trading with Carolina or Washington. We should be able to get good value and still get a great player on the team.

1(1), 4(24), 7(1)->WAS 1(4), 3(6), 1(2011)?

Seems like that QB has to go somewhere and worst case is we get the 7.1 DE instead of Wiggins. Likely we'll have our pick of the two.

[JeffW]

We should get a consensus for free agency stuff so QS can do that tomorrow and get us to the draft.

[Narcizo]

It's tough to make it in the world of football. A lot of the players I started tracking in 2007 are players we were seriously considering, suggesting that Bobo was not an unusual case but more likely the norm.

Of the 41 players I've been tracking 19 have retired (it would have been 20 had we not saved Artie from anonymnity - something he should bear in mind when we renegotiate a contract with him). Of the rest, 4 (count 'em) have increased in potential since drafting (the two combine showcases who didn't retire teamless after the first year, Peter Copeland and Artie Markiewicz, Rodney Rockwell ILB extraordinaire and QS's suggested DT Billy Joe Hicks), the rest have all dropped. The drops in potential range from 4 to 35. 18 players have dropped a total of 254 averaging, what? About 15 a player. Bear in mind that this are the players who haven't retired (presumably some of the worst busts occured there).

I think it's time to reconsider exactly what is considered a bust in 2007, and wonder at the level of scouting error in the game. Is there any point listening to scouts at all?

Now if the game AI was better at recognising True Potential rather than Scouted Potential (or scouted potential was nearer true potential) then maybe some of the other combine showcase players would have lasted and added their weight to the 4 boomers tracked.

By the way the worst bust still going is safety Kirk Blackwell. Taken at 2.26 by the Eagles and rated 26-64 he was sent to the summer league and is currently rated 21-29.

[heardie]

Rather then start a new thread, I'll just post-jack again here (sorry!)

Are you saving each part of the season under 'save-as'? If there are truly 30mg for each save, you end up sucking a big of space very quickly - not that that is an issue with modern HDs just seems a strange way to do things

[Narcizo]

About free agents personally I don't like the idea of taking back-ups from free agency or anyone with more than 6 or so year's of experience. I don't like the look of Fortmann after a serious leg injury. Anthony Terry has a red flag. Don't actually know what effects that will have but I don't see much gain in taking him.

Why did we let Jeff Henry go by the way? I don't remember reading about him. But if we let him go then I can't see much point in taking any of the CBs.

[JeffW]

Why did we let Jeff Henry go by the way? I don't remember reading about him. But if we let him go then I can't see much point in taking any of the CBs.

I don't know.

So just FS Earnest Powell and try to build the rest of the team through the draft? Sounds fine, I'm easy.

Let me know if you think 1(1)->1(4) trade above is kosher, too, if so I think we'll be set for QS to sim ahead tomorrow.

[QuikSand]

Rather then start a new thread, I'll just post-jack again here (sorry!)

Are you saving each part of the season under 'save-as'? If there are truly 30mg for each save, you end up sucking a big of space very quickly - not that that is an issue with modern HDs just seems a strange way to do things

No, just a standard save - on my CPU, all I have is the most current career. After each save, I have just been zipping and sending the files that have been altered since the last send. If I needed to go back to an earlier point, I could just go back and reacquire one of those zipped files.

[QuikSand]

We should get a consensus for free agency stuff so QS can do that tomorrow and get us to the draft.

If you guys are agreed that we ought to just discard the "grow from youth" policy and instead play to win at all costs, then I agree we probably need to sign a few more cheap veterans while the iron is hot. As far as I'm concerned, that's basically up to you guys... no need for you guys to be bound by decisions made early on by people who have mostly abandoned the project.

Honestly, we ended up with this theoretical WCO/34blitzing scheme based on input from people who have since walked away from the team. Not that this is unexpected, but it's perhaps not like we ought to continue it because it's come sort of rule - it was just the thinking of the people making decisions as we got started.

Basically the same goes for the chemistry stuff. That was mostly my idea, and I'm clearly the only one who gives a damn about it, and that's fine. I'm really not interested in imposing my will on the group - that's not the point of the exercise. Several people have said that they like the approach we used... but those people, too, have basically dropped out of this, so we need to measure their voices appropriately.


I'm going to have a pretty busy day, and might not get to this any time soon. Anyone who wants to run things forward from here, please be my guest.

[JeffW]

I feel like I'm in a nebulous area. I came into dynasty late, so I don't want to totally redo everything that went before me.

If it were up to me, I would have really strict house rules that lay out exactly what I'm allowed to do. I don't like to police myself I'm playing a video game(I know that sounds wierd but whenyou have house rules you don't have to think about what you are and aren't allowed to do)--i.e. very exploitative trade downs, contracts, stocking the roster with free agents at cutrate prices at the end of free agency, etc etc. If I wanted to focus on drafting ,etc, I'd have a rule like I did in my Chargers Empty Cupboard where I could only sign 1 veteran free agent per year.

As far as the game plans, 34 blitz schemes can work fine, but short passing offense=death in all FOF versions I've played. I don't think it's a matter of preference, it's simply not going to work at all.

[Narcizo]

I like the idea of keeping the affinity basis as it is at the moment (making sure we have leaders in the same group and having the same starsign) makes it easier to spot the affinities and conflicts in the draft.

I would like to keep the input into the team primarily draft-based and give rookies a good playing chance, basically to check out the way rookies develop and what to look out for in a draft. You don't get that following players drafted by the AI because they don't get the playing time. I don't mind bringing in the odd high impact free agent but I think they should have unarguable upsides and shouldn't displace a drafted starter on the team.

[Narcizo]

With regards gameplanning I think the game AI will come up with a better gameplan than we've been using. With the personnel we have we should probably stick to 34 but I'm with Jeff with regards the short passing stuff. I had hoped that the new gameplan set-up would allow it but it seems to be a non-starter for us.

It a couple of years time we might want to think more seriously about gameplanning but at the moment I just can't bring myself to get interested in it. It was the same in 2004. I'll probably only really look at it when I have to start doing gameplans in an MP league.

[Bobble]

I make no claim to be anything other than a n00b but having lurked through the entire thread, I thought I'd share my opinion on what the house rules should be. If nothing else, this could at least be a starting point for the discussion:

1. Maintain the affinity concept. I think that means no conflicts and a strong desire for affinity players. This is what the thread/team was founded on and I think is part of the thread/team's identity. It's something new for most people and adds a degree of difficulty appropriate for this team effort.

2a. Free Agents: One "splash" free agent each year. No restrictions on that one player except his affinity. My feeling on this is that you're not being realistic if you're not trying to significantly improve your team in free agency. I grant you that the intention of this exercise is to build through the draft, hence the limit of ONE "splash" free agent. Added bonus of a hopefully charged discussion on who that one splash FA should be.

2b. Free Agents: Apart from the one "splash" free agent, the team will not pursue any free agent player who's current rating is equal to or greater than the current starter at that position ("Drip" free agent?). This should adequately limit the free agent signing so that the heart of the team still emerges from the players that the team drafts.

3. Two trades per round. I can't recall a team trading down (or up) more than twice in a given round in the NFL. Anything more than that seems like fleecing the AI. To be specific, no 'Dillo pick can move more than twice in ANY round. That should put a limit to any "excessive" maneuvering in the draft.

There, shoot holes in that.

[Narcizo]

I can't. Most of that sounds good to me.

[Bobble]

I can't. Most of that sounds good to me.

Most? ;)

[JeffW]

1. Maintain the affinity concept. I think that means no conflicts and a strong desire for affinity players. This is what the thread/team was founded on and I think is part of the thread/team's identity. It's something new for most people and adds a degree of difficulty appropriate for this team effort.

I don't like this rule. I don't think affinities for affinities sake are worth pursuing--it just means we have to sit around sorting through birthdays and skipping over players who we think would be better for our team to maintain the affinity concept.

2a. Free Agents: One "splash" free agent each year.

I like this and would go even farther and limit us to 1 veteran free agent/year period.

3. Two trades per round.

Well, not sure if anyone's trading down more than twice in one round before--maybe Bill Walsh. I do think that NFL teams trade less than is game theoretically optimal.

As far as trading goes, I'd make the rule--1 trade per year involving draft picks in the current year only. There probably need to be further restrictions on trade downs within the top 4 picks or so.

If we implement rules, we should start at the beginning of next offseason. Our past efforts notwithstanding, once can win at FOF SP by good drafting and contract negotiations(I usually nix renegotiations/franchise tag as well to make the game more difficult).

[QuikSand]

1(1), 4(24), 7(1)->WAS 1(4), 3(6), 1(2011)?

Seems like that QB has to go somewhere and worst case is we get the 7.1 DE instead of Wiggins. Likely we'll have our pick of the two.

I like that deal. I say go ahead, get us into the draft, and let's see who goes ahead of us... but I like dealing down a bit and still getting a top tier player.

[JeffW]

I like that deal. I say go ahead, get us into the draft, and let's see who goes ahead of us... but I like dealing down a bit and still getting a top tier player.

Okay, should I go ahead and try an export? Hopefully I don't screw it up.

[Bobble]

Well, not sure if anyone's trading down more than twice in one round before--maybe Bill Walsh. I do think that NFL teams trade less than is game theoretically optimal.

As far as trading goes, I'd make the rule--1 trade per year involving draft picks in the current year only. There probably need to be further restrictions on trade downs within the top 4 picks or so.

From what I can find, he most draft trades were done in the 2004 draft, 28. Both Cincy and San Fran traded their 1st rounders twice.

In last year's draft, both Green Bay and Philly had 5 trades. I looked through Green Bay's:

- Got a 2(52) and 3(75) for 2(36)
- Got a 2(37) for Javon Walker
- Got a 2(47), 3(93), and 5(148) for a 2(37) and 5(139)
- Got a 4(109) and 6(183) for a 3(93)
- Got a 4(115) and 6(185) for a 4(109)

I think multiple trades are realistic, even a couple of trades in one round. FWIW.

[QuikSand]

Okay, should I go ahead and try an export? Hopefully I don't screw it up.

Sure, when you save, then go to the universe directpry and sort by save time... and zip up and send everything with that most recent time (or anything since your last download, really). Nothing to it.

Thanks... I'm game for staying in this, I just am not able to get to it myself any time soon.

[JeffW]

Wow, I'm good. We used exactly 60 interviews by going off my lists. :)

I made the trade to 1(4). Here is our complement of draft picks:

1(4)
2(1)
3(1)
3(6)
4(1)
5(1)
6(1)

I signed FS Earnest Powell to a 4 year deal worth $8.04 million with a voidable 4th year(8 interceptions).

Damn, wish we would have traded with CAR instead of WAS:

1. Washington - Shawver, Kelvin, QB, Duquesne
2. Detroit - Harmon, Joe, RB, Wisconsin
3. Carolina - O'Donnell, Aaron, DE, Louisville

We're on the clock. Both DE Barton and CB Wiggins are available. I vote Wiggins--Narcizo convinced me that Interceptions are overrated hehe. Uploading newest file now.

[JeffW]

QB Kelvin Shawver looks good on WAS's roster--16/77.

[QuikSand]

Funny, I basically took your side with Wiggins, and wasn't so hot about taking a CB with nearly zero in interceptions this high. I hear Narcizo's argument about it not being a major issue between 0 and 50 or so... but at 1.4 in any draft, i'd really be looking for a more nearly complete player. It is obviously a major need area, though.

[QuikSand]

Do we expect there to be a meaningful difference between DE Singleton and DT Givens (switched to play DE)? I wouuldnt mind spending a top pick on one of them, but I don't see much point in taking the first one... unless we're worried about GIvens being too underdeveloped at 13%.

[JeffW]

Do we expect there to be a meaningful difference between DE Singleton and DT Givens (switched to play DE)? I wouuldnt mind spending a top pick on one of them, but I don't see much point in taking the first one... unless we're worried about GIvens being too underdeveloped at 13%.

You like them better than Barton? Singleton is a big gamble(witht he info we have available) because of his no show combine. Barton looks better than Wilson--38% developed and slightly better combine except a much better broad jump(whatever that correlates with).

We could trade down for CB Joyner, too. Narc likes Wiggins a lot better but that's because of the whole interceptions vs coverage skills importance divide.

[QuikSand]

This is my first look, I will defer. I suspect those two blue DEs with no combines are going to pan out, though. But it's a high pick to gamble with.

[JeffW]

This is my first look, I will defer. I suspect those two blue DEs with no combines are going to pan out, though. But it's a high pick to gamble with.

Actually, I tend to agree and it might be worth trading down and gambling just to learn something about these no combine guys.

From now on I think we should track all the good looking no combine guys to see how they do in the future.

If we trade down to 1.7, we are assured of getting Barton, Wiggins, Singleton or Givens(we can play him at DT in a 4-3 as well). I like Givens least because of his low experience/development.

CIN will take 1(4), 3(6), 5(2011) for 1(7), 2(6), 4(2011).

[QuikSand]

Works for me. Might even still get Wiggins there.

[JeffW]

CIN will take 1(4), 3(6), 5(2011) for 1(7), 2(6), 4(2011).

4. Cincinnati - Wiggins, Mickey, CB, Louisiana-Lafayette
5. New Orleans - Singleton, Chris, DE, Notre Dame
6. San Diego - Joyner, Jamie, CB, North Carolina State

Barton and Givens are still available. I lean towards Barton, but I'm a bit worried we'll look silly for passing up the 3 no combine studs in this draft. Chris Singleton is 50/94!

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/3388/rdemartinbartonwn0.jpg

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/797/rdtpaulgivensuh8.jpg

Neither are conflicts. Julio Forbes is a Leo and neither of them are Capricorns.

[heardie]

Givens looks beastly! Damn this no working out at the combine! It just adds a whole other level

[JeffW]

Bump, any thoughts?

I think that Very Underrated tag for Givens could be a bad sign because it could indicate poor hidden combines.

[Narcizo]

Bah! 64-84. Even if he's a bust he's better than any CB we're ever going to get on the team. The only way we'd have lost out is if he was a random total bust.

Givens looks wildly overrated by the scouts. I'm curious as to why we perceive a need at DE when we have two solid young ones already. I'm worried about Barton's dash time which is a bit slow for a top end DE. I'm honestly worried that he won't pan out much better than the two DEs we currently have. Personally I'd take Dave Reese with an eye to potentially moving him to WILB. And I hate taking linebackers in the first round.

I wouldn't be too worried about how drafted players rate at the moment - after all the scouts are just repeating what they said before the draft. It's after training camp mutual recriminations can truly start. :)

[JeffW]

I like Dave Reese. IF we wanted him, probably would've been better to trade down farther.

Sorry about Wiggins. We at least got some good value back. Being in charge of the file is a thankless job. :P

[QuikSand]

I think that Very Underrated tag for Givens could be a bad sign because it could indicate poor hidden combines.

I have heard Narcozo's discussion on this, and I generally find him to be articulate and persuasive. I simply remain unable to believe that "underrated" = a bad thing, and "overrated" = a good thing. Perhaps it's just my own frailties at work, I'm sorry.

[JeffW]

I have heard Narcozo's discussion on this, and I generally find him to be articulate and persuasive. I simply remain unable to believe that "underrated" = a bad thing, and "overrated" = a good thing. Perhaps it's just my own frailties at work, I'm sorry.

I think the basic argument in this case is: We have no combine scores for Givens. Players who have good skills and bad combines are often "underrated" and often busts. Givens is underrated, so it's probable that he has bad combines.

Let me know who you think we should take, I'd down for playing for awhile.

I probably should have had a better plan than "trade down and acquire better picks" though trade #1 was fine I'm sure. I guess we ended up okay. We parlayed 1(1), 4(24), 7(1), 5th(2011) into 1(7), 2(6), 1st(WAS-2011), 4th(CIN-2011). 1(4)->1(7) was probably hasty tho.

[QuikSand]

Givens looks wildly overrated by the scouts. I'm curious as to why we perceive a need at DE when we have two solid young ones already. I'm worried about Barton's dash time which is a bit slow for a top end DE. I'm honestly worried that he won't pan out much better than the two DEs we currently have. Personally I'd take Dave Reese with an eye to potentially moving him to WILB. And I hate taking linebackers in the first round.

Okay, I'm trying to make sense of all this.

You don't think we have a need at DE, even though our team (including the aforementioned young DEs) was the worst at rushing the passer in the league, by leaps and bounds. Zimmerman put up a PR% of 2.3 last year -- TWO POINT THREE! Lopes put up a 2.5... TWO POINT FIVE! Both these guys are getting close to developed, and gaining in their experience -- where exactly do we think they are taking us? Will we someday look forward to getting wonderful seasons of maybe 7 sacks from our top defensive end?

But, you're looking to go against your instinct and take a linebacker, so we can put him at the WILB slot. That's the same slot to which we just re-upped a new contract for Brett Dux, who made the tackle on over 19% of his plays last season for us in a 3-4 front and rates pretty highly in all three of the primary ratings that most find valuable for an inside linebacker (72 Run D, 91 PR Tech, and 72 Play D). So this is where we find a roster weakness so profound that we're willing to look past the usual anti-LB bias and make a pick here? Because we are so strong at DE and so weak at WILB?

I certainly agree that LB Reese looks solid, and that his combine supports the pretty lofty apparent ratings. But I, too, am generally reluctant to select a LB early in a draft.


I'm basically fine with any decision we make about what players have great upside. I'm sorry that I contributed to skipping over the cover man Wiggins - taking him probably would have been our safest move there. But I simply don't buy the argument that our relative strength at DE and WILB necessitate an out-of-character selection here.

[QuikSand]

Incidentally, I too am worried about Barton's 40 time - I think you have to have an effective pass rusher at DE in any defensive system, and if that's his hidden weakness, that worries me.

[JeffW]

Great, looks like i'm the tie breaker. I honestly don't like anyone here after having had time to think about it. A trade down would be best if we don't feel it's exploitation.

[JeffW]

I like Brett Dux but I don't think Leland Knoll is that great. Still we don't need a big upgrade there.

At DE, did we platoon Ethan O'Bryan? Somehow he had a PR% of 1.6 in 328 plays. If he lives up to his potential, a Lopez/O'Bryan platoon could work well.

[QuikSand]

I don't feel it's exploiting to deal down again. If we are a bit uncertain about the cast of characters here, then let's slide won and see what we get a bit later. Getting a guy like LB Reese a bit later might make a ton of sense, and I proimise not to complain any more about the burial of our creeper players -- I've clearly had my say about that stuff enough times.

[Narcizo]

Ouch! That's me told. :D In my defence my reckoning is that the defensive ends have shown creeping improvement (I think - although now I think about it I have absolutely no idea if that's true) so they may not be reaching the peak of their development (wishful thinking maybe). However maybe their lousy pass rush figures is a function of our fantastically bad secondary, so the quarterback can easily hit a target, any target, before they have a chance to do anything about it.

I wouldn't say take Reese as a direct replacement for Dux (although, now that I reread it that's exactly what I did :o - I meant WLB, sorry about that), but I think there's plenty of room among the linebacker troupe for him to fill in somewhere (probably on the outside somewhere).

To be honest I'm stretching for ideas of who to take with the pick, which is ridiculous given our roster. I think everyone available has a downside but that the safest bet is Barton. Maybe the dash is just the result of a bad week or something.

[JeffW]

Alright, I'm going to look into trade. I don't think it's exploitation either--at this point we won't get even NFL draft chart value back--and we just have no idea who to tak ehere.

[Narcizo]

The thing is if we don't draft in positions because of potential "creepers" where on earth are we going to draft? Our roster is pretty much made up of potential creepers. Its actually the same problem I'm running into in my own empty cupboard game.

Maybe we should just trade for future picks.

[bulletsponge]

can i throw in my 2c? ive been reading the last several pages and it seems any pick you make will be a big upgrade to your talent. so maybe you should just take the best available player (the one you think will become the best i mean), whether its a DE, DT or G.
when i cant make up my mind i always remeber what real coaches say " the closer you are to the ball when it snaps, the more important you are". i personally would have a hard time passing on the DT, he looks like a monster

[JeffW]

We can swap 1(7), 3(1), 6(1) for 1(10), 2(11), 6(2011) from Philadelphia.

This is a gamble. There are 5 players ranked higher than Dave Reese though, so I think there is a good chance he'll fall. If he doesn't we'll probably be in an even worse spot than we are now and might have to take someone like LDT Mathes-5.01/36/7.59/9'7, 47 Sole, 26% Development, 6.4 Grade.

[JeffW]

i personally would have a hard time passing on the DT, he looks like a monster

Our fear is that the DT is a paper monster. Otherwise we'd snatch him up with no second thoughts.

[Narcizo]

Hi Bullet. I think the problem we have with Givens is that we don't trust the scout report. The thinking is that if he really was as good as the scout thinks, he should have been at the top of the draft, therefore it's likely that he's a bust. Now how much of a bust he is decides whether we think he's value or not. But in retrospect that seems a bit of a warped way of looking at the draft. It's possible his development is the thing that brings down his grade, in which case he may well be worth drafting.

I can't decide. Basically.

[Narcizo]

We can swap 1(7), 3(1), 6(1) for 1(10), 2(11), 6(2011) from Philadelphia.

Sure, what the hell. I like the fact that we're reducing our number of draft picks this year as well.

[JeffW]

Sure, what the hell. I like the fact that we're reducing our number of draft picks this year as well.

7. Philadelphia - Barton, Martin, DE, Washington
8. Tampa Bay - Reese, Dave, OLB, Baylor
9. Oakland - Junkin, Clarence, G, Tennessee

FCKFKCKFKFKCKC.

[JeffW]

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7764/corwenmathesjc4.jpg

Givens is still available lol.

Actually, I dunno, Mathes kinda sucks because his skills are in all the wrong places.

I just keep digging us a deeper hole. At least we have the 2nd round locked up lol.

[Narcizo]

:D

Take the DT bloke then. Bollocks to it. Put it down to improving our learning curve. There's no real way we can pass on him now. Set his nickname to "DT Bloke" as well. That should confuse our opponents in a "Little John" way when we switch him to DE.

Actually, I've just seen Givens' intelligence. The guy has BUST written all over him. I'm at a loss and can't access the game just now.

Mathes 5.01 is horrible if we're considering moving him to DE.

What about the WR guy. I know everyone has their sights set on Badabing or whatever he's called in the 2nd but we're running out of sensible options, other than trading down again. And again. And again.

[QuikSand]

7. Philadelphia - Barton, Martin, DE, Washington
8. Tampa Bay - Reese, Dave, OLB, Baylor

Dammit.

[QuikSand]

Brits are so funny when they get in a snit.

[JeffW]

Mathes 5.01 is horrible if we're considering moving him to DE.

If we take him, I like him at DT in a 4-3. We have a 9 year veteran at SLB right now who is due for ratings death, though we'd have to shuffle around our LBs:

Dux WILB->WLB(He's pink there)
Crumley WLB->SLB(He's yellow there)
Knoll stays at SILB.


What about the WR guy. I know everyone has their sights set on Badabing or whatever he's called in the 2nd but we're running out of sensible options, other than trading down again. And again. And again.

I don't like taking WRs this high, they're one of the easier positions to get good value at, but I'm out of ideas.

[QuikSand]

For learning purposes, what do you guys make of CB Riddick Arnold? I don't want to draft him, but I'm intereested in your thinking on whether he will work out well for whomever does.

Interview tagged him as overrated, and he has a really mixed bag of combine results and apparent skills. What do you think the "overrated" there means -- that he's going to be pretty good? As advertised? Better?

I'd like to feel I am gaining some understanding of the rookie scouting... and you fellas seem to have more confidence than I do, so I'll try to learn from you. This guys seems like a decent case.

[JeffW]

For learning purposes, what do you guys make of CB Riddick Arnold? I don't want to draft him, but I'm intereested in your thinking on whether he will work out well for whomever does.

Interview tagged him as overrated, and he has a really mixed bag of combine results and apparent skills. What do you think the "overrated" there means -- that he's going to be pretty good? As advertised? Better?


I think he'll be good. I don't put much stock into the overrated--those combines are off the charts for a CB. The problem is that he is 0 in play diagnosis and man2man. I definitely don't think he'll be a bust or anything, but whatever his rating is I think he might play below that because of skills distribution.

I wish we knew how coverages work in this game.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/4025/riddickarnoldtg0.jpg

[QuikSand]

I will once again cast my vote for the DT Givens. On my own team,. he would immediately be switched to the outside to play DE, but I will defer to the group's thinking. At pick 10, we have extracted all the value we can from trading down, and he has crazy-high upside possible. I don't see how we can not take him here.

But, I also don't want to just be falling for the blue bars guys. I guess I am still not buying the whole theory of underrated/overrated as it applies to him. I still follow a pretty simple theory there (with not very much observation heind it) -- but I see that this guy's ratings ranges have now (after the interview) become centered on a *higher* number than before, and to me, that's the simplest explanation of the "underrated" tag.

[JeffW]

The one thing I like about Givens is his high blocking strength--this implies that he probably has at least high BP.

His Sole is 21, how can he have average solecismic and 4 intelligence?

If we screw up and he's a bust, it's not the end of the world. If he is a stud, then he will be much much better than anyone else out there right now. There is a lot of value in having a really great player above and beyond his ratings difference compared to a merely good player, just because it's easy to find good players, so he could be worth gambling on.

[Narcizo]

For learning purposes, what do you guys make of CB Riddick Arnold? I don't want to draft him, but I'm intereested in your thinking on whether he will work out well for whomever does.

Interview tagged him as overrated, and he has a really mixed bag of combine results and apparent skills. What do you think the "overrated" there means -- that he's going to be pretty good? As advertised? Better?


I think his scouted skills really match up with his combine scores (crap speed and intelligence = crap M2M and play diagnostics) and what you see will be what you get. I think he'll be a slowish bust, so I have to agree with the scouts on this one.

I think we've dug ourselves into a hole on this one and suggest that we don't try to get out by digging deeper.

[Narcizo]

By which I mean we might as well take Givens.

Or invent a timemachine and go back and take Wiggins. ;)

[JeffW]

I gotta warn you guys, I'm pretty unlucky today. I'm down a ton at poker tonight(I won't say how much because it'd blow your mind :p), so our gamble is probably cursed. :)

If I don't hear differently in the next couple minutes, we're gamb00ling.

[QuikSand]

His Sole is 21, how can he have average solecismic and 4 intelligence?

Correlations have exceptions. Otherwise they are formulas.

If we think that every single players will just end up with ratings that go in lock step with their combine ratings, we are vastly overrating the predictability of this process, I think.

[QuikSand]

My mind has been blown by poker losses before, including my own.

[JeffW]

My mind has been blown by poker losses before, including my own.

I dropped 13k, lol.

[Narcizo]

Take a screen shot of him before we sign a contract with him. It's bound to look extremely impressive.

[JeffW]

10. Texarkana - Givens, Paul, DT, Southern California
11. Baltimore - Musto, Lawrence, DE, Brown
12. Chicago - Maniecki, Moe, DE, Central Florida
13. San Francisco - Bates, Bryan, C, Kentucky
14. Pittsburgh - Arnold, Riddick, CB, Wisconsin
15. Seattle - Thomason, Ernie, RB, UNLV
16. Minnesota - Redsteer, Marc, G, Auburn
17. New England - Gordon, Butch, S, Arkansas State
18. Indianapolis - Howard, Dominic, WR, Texas
19. Kansas City - Wilson, Fred, DT, North Texas
20. Dallas - Bussey, Brady, RB, Notre Dame

Anyone we interested in trading up for? Mathes is tied for #1 prospect.

Jackie Jacobs is a guy we didn't interview, but we might want to trade up for him if he drops a bit.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/8519/rcbjackiejacobsud5.jpg

[JeffW]

Take a screen shot of him before we sign a contract with him. It's bound to look extremely impressive.

He's 43/99 on our roster. :)

[Narcizo]

43-99. *cough* Where the hell does the 16% work into that little arrangement?

What I like is that the scout thinks "there's reason to believe he will improve" by switching to DE. Urm? How can he improve, Mr Scout? Become a diety?

[JeffW]

Oops, wr howard might have been worth trade up. if so, my bad.

[JeffW]

43-99. *cough* Where the hell does the 16% work into that little arrangement?

his %dev dropped to 13 :)

[Narcizo]

I like the look of Jacobs pretty soon actually. But isn't his interceptions a bit too low?

[JeffW]

I like the look of Jacobs pretty soon actually. But isn't his interceptions a bit too low?

Bah, this deep I don't mind his weakness.

I think we can wait a couple more picks for him. There are 9 players ahead.

ARI will take 2(6), 2(11) for 1(21), 3(19).

[Narcizo]

Hmmpff! I thought I was being very clever.

[Narcizo]

Who are we looking at with those 2nd round picks?

[JeffW]

Who are we looking at with those 2nd round picks?

One of the receivers-- Badalaty or Mathis both discussed earlier or Vilimek(4.42-13-7.09-8'11, 49% devel, 21 sole, 47 position. Great blue bars but we didn't interview).

WLB Ryan Gass--I like him at 2.1 though if he falls. 4.63/21/7.4/9'6", 28% devel, 41 sole. Very Good bars in all the right areas. "Very underrated"

[QuikSand]

I dropped 13k, lol.

Sorry to hear. I've never been a seriously high stakes player, but I have had big enough swings to put a dent in my thinking for a while. Took me a good deal longer to lose 13K, though, but I've been there.

[JeffW]

OL is probably the deepest position . Too bad we don't need any more starters there.

[JeffW]

Sorry to hear. I've never been a seriously high stakes player, but I have had big enough swings to put a dent in my thinking for a while. Took me a good deal longer to lose 13K, though, but I've been there.

Yeah, it sucks but it's not really that much money to lose at $25-$50 NL. In fact 2.6 buyins is fairly minor.

How's your poker going? I remember you were posting about the old $15-$30 LHE on Party awhile back.

[QuikSand]

43-99. *cough* Where the hell does the 16% work into that little arrangement?

In case this was a serious question... there was some discussion of this subject back toward the bottom pf page 17 of this thread. Here's one snippet:

I think the way to understand the % developed number relies on the recognitaion that in FOF, certain ratings are essentially filled-in to begin with, with basically every player.

Like with OL, the rating for "blocking strength" is one that is essentially all filled in with virtually every player. So, to the extent that your OL has an overall rating that is, in part, a reflection of his blocking strength, then *every* player has already reached some of his potential, just by virtue of having all (or very nearly all) of that rating alyread current.

I'm thinking that an OL who rates 50 in overall future potential, but iy hypothetically 0% developed wouldn't be a 0/50 player... but because he's got full or partial development of some ratings just because the ratings are designed that way, he'd be something like 15/50. My guess is, if this is basically how it works, that this OL's % developed is more a reflection of how much of those remaining 35 points... on top of the "given" stuff... has he really gained by his degree of experience and pre-development.

I'm thinking some attention to this, maybe some regressions, might reveal these to be fairly straightfowrard functions of weighting the ratings and noting the correlation between % developed overall and the red/green percentage for all players -- but in short, that's the way I'm guessing it works in FOF 2007.

So, with a guy like Kramer: 11/28, 16% developed

You could theoretically take the 28 future as a given, and back out that a guy with his actual skills would be something like 8/28 if he had absolutely zero development... but Kramer's modest 16% development bumps him up 16% of the way... meaning he gets roughly 3 points of the remaining potential.

Just another way to theoretically make sense of these % developed figures, as they are clearly telling us something different than in FOF 2004.

Maybe that's what's going on -- *every* player comes in with skills developed to various degrees, including some that show up completely developed. It's what he has on top of that foundation that ends up being his "% developed." Or so the theory goes.

In this case, *any* DE with those potentials will show up with certain development -- maybe something like 30/99. The fact that he has 16% development toward his projected maximum is what bumps him from 30 to 42. Or something like that.

[JeffW]

I made an executive decision and decided to run off a few more picks until I felt it's no longer safe to wait on Jacobs.

21. Arizona - Stamer, Edgar, RB, Florida State
22. Buffalo - Collett, William, OLB, Southern California
23. New York - Lincoln, Ross, T, Idaho State
24. Jacksonville - Cheyne, Winfred, QB, South Carolina
25. Miami - de Young, Marco, ILB, Pittsburgh
26. St. Louis - Mathes, Corwin, DT, Wake Forest

Exploring trade for 1(27) now.

[QuikSand]

How's your poker going? I remember you were posting about the old $15-$30 LHE on Party awhile back.

I live in Maryland, and it's a tough place to be to play online right now. I am cashed out of Party (which was by far the easiest place to play in this state) and still have a couple of semi-active accounts, but I am really enjoying the time I have free now that I'm not playing late into the night 3-5 evenings a week. Baby daughter at home and all, I'm having trouble finding time for poker very often. I have been playing sporadically in live games, but haven't played online in about three weeks.

[JeffW]

Exploring trade for 1(27) now.

Jesus, NYJ is being so god damn unreasonable.

2(6), 2(11), 4(CIN-2011), 6(PHI-2011) for 1(27), 3(27), 3(2011), 5(2011).

This seems like a really bad trade TBH, I don't know how much longer we can wait if we want Jacobs tho, and our 3rd round return selection might just get worse.

[JeffW]

Another possibility if we wait on Jacobs is something like 2(11), 4(1) and 4(2012) or 4(CIN-2011) for 1(30). I'll look at the higher teams to see where the highest I can get a similar deal is.

Denver will take 2(11), 4(1), one of those 4ths, 6(PHI-2011) for 1(29). 1(28) is similar to 1(27) as far as acquirement difficulty.

[QuikSand]

Another possibility if we wait on Jacobs is something like 2(11), 4(1) and 4(2012) or 4(CIN-2011) for 1(30). I'll look at the higher teams to see where the highest I can get a similar deal is.

Denver will take 2(11), 4(1), one of those 4ths, 6(PHI-2011) for 1(29). 1(28) is similar to 1(27) as far as acquirement difficulty.

I'm in favor of winnowing down these middle round picks to move up where we see fit. If we want Jacobs, I don't care how many 4th rounder we lose in getting him.

[Narcizo]

I think we'll probably want to move pretty quickly for him. I'm good for trading up to get him anytime really. I'd let the draft develop a bit and just as we're about to move for him he will doubtlessly go.

[JeffW]

I gave 2(11), 4(1), 4(CIN-2011), 6(PHI-2011), 6(2011) for 1(28).

It looks like a lot of picks but it's not a bad deal.

27. New Jersey - Blanchard, Roosevelt, DE, Georgia
28. Texarkana - Jacobs, Jackie, CB, Houston
29. Denver - Ferguson, Chuck, ILB, Iowa State
30. Tennessee - Overby, Ryan, DT, Iowa
31. Cleveland - Hulten, Brandon, DT, Baylor
32. Green Bay - Herbst, Jumbo, CB, Alabama

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5430/gassdj2.jpg

We're on the clock. I like Gass. A lot. He is way way way down the Adjusted grade list though--top guy is 6.3 and Gass i 4.9, so doubtless we can wait him out if we want to. Just a question of how long.

[Narcizo]

Um... Did you wait to see if he dropped to that point?

Sneaky editing there.

[JeffW]

Um... Did you wait to see if he dropped to that point?

You mean did I wait till after NYJ picked? Yeah, they have 5 "good" CBs on their roster and I was going to run out of negotiations with them anyway unless I took that highly unfavorable deal, so I held my breath and let them pick.

Sorry if I'm taking liberties. :p

[JeffW]

There is a bitchin' tackle sittin' around at 2.1

RT Nate Blum-5.19/34/7.57/8'8", 25% develop, 23 Sole. Maxed out pass blocking, 40-50ish run blocking We're so deep at OL though. After signing 5th year Fedolphi for RT, we have 5 starters all of them with 51+ potential.

[JeffW]

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/9839/villimekmc0.jpg

Sexy blue bars but the other WRs we talked about have better combines. Mathis for example is 4.38/14/6.87/9'9", 25% development, 30 position but he pales in comparison skillswise.

[Narcizo]

I'll admit I'm still having a hard time coming to grips with the scout vs combine problem. It seems you either get your disappointment over quickly by taking a combine warrior and hoping for some improvement or you save your disappointment for the long haul as you watch the potential disintegrate.

I'm starting to turn against combine studs like Mathis. It just seems to take so long for them to develop into anything vaguely useful.

Gass looks pretty tasty. His combines seem to suggest that he'll only drop a bit. (which is as good as a being a boomer it seems)

[JeffW]

Our only remaining picks are at 2(1), 2(6) and 5(1).

[JeffW]

I'm starting to turn against combine studs like Mathis. It just seems to take so long for them to develop into anything vaguely useful.

Agreed, in this version it seems like combine warriors are long term developmental picks and we prefer good blue bars backed by at least solid combines.

Do you still have access to the file? I feel like just taking Gass at 2.1 or 2.6 and not messing with losing him.

I'm still poking around to see who else we want. I like Vilimek.

[JeffW]

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/4097/busspw8.jpg

5.3 adj. grade.

[Narcizo]

Got to go, I'm afraid. I think we've pfaffed around enough with trading down and waiting for people to drop. If you really like someone just take them - don't worry too much about their spot on the draft board.

[JeffW]

Got to go, I'm afraid. I think we've pfaffed around enough with trading down and waiting for people to drop. If you really like someone just take them - don't worry too much about their spot on the draft board.

Okay, looks like QS is active, so I'll wait a bit. Right now I'm going to take Buss 2.1 and Gass 2.06 unless someone objects or Gass gets taken.

[JeffW]

I guess I'll go ahead and finish up our last three picks.

Did we get great value? No, so sue me. I like both players, though. :p

33. Texarkana - Buss, Ralph, S, Stanford
34. Carolina - McDonald, Deion, G, Appalachian State
35. Detroit - Vilimek, Randall, WR, Stanford
36. New Orleans - Horton, Marty, T, Wake Forest
37. San Diego - Blum, Nate, T, Oregon State
38. Texarkana - Gass, Ryan, OLB, Colorado

AI is pretty sharp, Blum and Vilimek were the best pure values left.

[JeffW]

I took Badalaty at 5.01. I know Narcizo didn't like him much, but at 5.01 he's good value IMO and a good WR#4 prospect even with poor route running. Those combine numbers can't be ignored at this point. He's 20/24--another damn "creeper" I guess.

[JeffW]

DT Paul Givens - 43/99
WLB Ryan Gass - 25/72
RCB Jackie Jacobs - 34/63
SS Ralph Buss 34/63
SE Lamont Badalaty - 20/24

I'll put up a save file now so you guys can do ratings tracker later on.

[albionmoonlight]

Did we get great value? No, so sue me. I like both players, though. :p

AI is pretty sharp, Blum and Vilimek were the best pure values left.

Actually, seeing as how sharp the AI is, you may have gotten good value.

It is kind of cool to realize how much Jim has improved the drafting AI over the years. This is such a far cry from FOF2 where maxed out quarterbacks (with no chance of busting) would fall into the second round.

It really is so so so much better of a game--both under the hood and in terms of presentation.

[JeffW]

Pre-Camp uploaded. I'm taking liberties again but I picked the UDFA market dry I think. I'm pretty good at finding bargains there so I don't think you guys will be unhappy.

[JeffW]

Rejoice folks. Givens held his ratings. He's 42/99. Player Pics to follow.

Unfortunately, Jacobs and Gass took major ratings hits. Someone gouge my brain out please, I can't take the bust rate in this game.

[QuikSand]

Well, I'll be damned.

[Warhammer]

I can see Gass busting a bit, not sure how severe it was in game. Jacobs might be a random bust, I don't see why else he would bust. Jacbos just seemed a bit high in bars compared to comine, not much, but still some flags.

[JeffW]

Well, I'll be damned.

I think it's official, no combine + big blue bar guys are 100% locks to be stars. Shepherd last year. Shawver is a complete stud--16/77. C Bert Boggs who I mentioned is 48/70.

Chris Singleton is 49/94.

That info is almost too good to post, but I think it would get out eventually anyway.

Wiggins looks like a ridiculous star... I'm glad that Givens panned out so me and Quik don't look so bad. Jamie Joyner looks like an uberstar as well.

[JeffW]

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7048/badalatybc1.jpg

http://img472.imageshack.us/img472/2246/bussvq9.jpg

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/230/gasscj3.jpg

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/7388/givensuo4.jpg

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/3802/jacobsfb4.jpg

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/9554/tylerlm0.jpg

All in all, pretty awesome draft if they hold up. Check out that UDFA RB I snagged!

[QuikSand]

Maybe I'm confused... have you run training camp yet, and just not sent out the files?

edit - guess so

[JeffW]

Maybe I'm confused... have you run training camp yet, and just not sent out the files?

edit - guess so

Uploading now.

[QuikSand]

Are we now committing to a 4-3 front, and to using Givens as a DT?

[JeffW]

Let me know if I'm going to fast, I didn't know you were online QS.

[QuikSand]

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr class="catbck" align="center"> <td colspan="2" class="qbname">Texarkana Armadillos Player Report</td> </tr> <tr class="catbck" align="center"> <td colspan="2" class="qbname">(GT2010c-precamp - GT2010d-postcamp)</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr class="catbck" align="center"> <td class="headr">Name</td><td class="headr">Pos</td><td class="headr">GT2010c-precamp Current</td><td class="headr">GT2010c-precamp Future</td><td class="headr">GT2010d-postcamp Current</td><td class="headr">GT2010d-postcamp Future</td><td class="headr">Overall Current Change</td><td class="headr">Overall Future Change</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Buckner, Eddie</td><td>QB</td><td>27</td><td>71</td><td>27 (0)</td><td>72 (1)</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Irwin, Earl</td><td>QB</td><td>19</td><td>50</td><td>20 (1)</td><td>51 (1)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Nelson, Harry</td><td>QB</td><td>20</td><td>34</td><td>16 (-4)</td><td>30 (-4)</td><td>-4</td><td>-4</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Tellez, Stan</td><td>QB</td><td>21</td><td>40</td><td>21 (0)</td><td>40 (0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Aranda, Marc</td><td>RB</td><td>26</td><td>26</td><td>22 (-4)</td><td>22 (-4)</td><td>-4</td><td>-4</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Crangle, Brenden</td><td>RB</td><td>38</td><td>50</td><td>38 (0)</td><td>50 (0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Erickson, Andre</td><td>RB</td><td>48</td><td>48</td><td>49 (1)</td><td>49 (1)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Terry, Graham</td><td>RB</td><td>33</td><td>43</td><td>32 (-1)</td><td>42 (-1)</td><td>-1</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Tyler, Rob</td><td>RB</td><td>29</td><td>45</td><td>29 (0)</td><td>42 (-3)</td><td>0</td><td>-3</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Foreman, Zack</td><td>FB</td><td>27</td><td>42</td><td>22 (-5)</td><td>33 (-9)</td><td>-5</td><td>-9</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Parrish, Kennedy</td><td>FB</td><td>28</td><td>46</td><td>29 (1)</td><td>46 (0)</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Preston, Russell</td><td>FB</td><td>70</td><td>70</td><td>70 (0)</td><td>70 (0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Diaz, Eric</td><td>TE</td><td>59</td><td>59</td><td>60 (1)</td><td>60 (1)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Lang, Johnnie</td><td>TE</td><td>43</td><td>52</td><td>44 (1)</td><td>52 (0)</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Shepherd, Levon</td><td>TE</td><td>19</td><td>57</td><td>20 (1)</td><td>49 (-8)</td><td>1</td><td>-8</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Cushing, Roosevelt</td><td>FL</td><td>32</td><td>37</td><td>27 (-5)</td><td>32 (-5)</td><td>-5</td><td>-5</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Markiewicz, Artie</td><td>FL</td><td>45</td><td>45</td><td>46 (1)</td><td>46 (1)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Shepherd, Jumbo</td><td>FL</td><td>39</td><td>52</td><td>41 (2)</td><td>52 (0)</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Badalaty, Lamont</td><td>SE</td><td>20</td><td>24</td><td>21 (1)</td><td>26 (2)</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Ballard, Burt</td><td>SE</td><td>55</td><td>55</td><td>54 (-1)</td><td>54 (-1)</td><td>-1</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Hall, Daniel</td><td>SE</td><td>30</td><td>30</td><td>30 (0)</td><td>30 (0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Woodson, Grady</td><td>SE</td><td>21</td><td>21</td><td>16 (-5)</td><td>16 (-5)</td><td>-5</td><td>-5</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Nixon, Colin</td><td>C</td><td>41</td><td>51</td><td>44 (3)</td><td>51 (0)</td><td>3</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Yantis, Bobby</td><td>C</td><td>24</td><td>49</td><td>27 (3)</td><td>50 (1)</td><td>3</td><td>1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Pascal, Marco</td><td>LG</td><td>66</td><td>66</td><td>65 (-1)</td><td>65 (-1)</td><td>-1</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Wallace, Bert</td><td>LG</td><td>20</td><td>44</td><td>
</pre></td><td>
</pre></td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Bridges, Ken</td><td>RG</td><td>46</td><td>55</td><td>49 (3)</td><td>55 (0)</td><td>3</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Bickler, Jonathan</td><td>LT</td><td>84</td><td>88</td><td>83 (-1)</td><td>88 (0)</td><td>-1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Winters, Andy</td><td>LT</td><td>38</td><td>47</td><td>36 (-2)</td><td>45 (-2)</td><td>-2</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Cote, Bruce</td><td>RT</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>7 (-5)</td><td>7 (-5)</td><td>-5</td><td>-5</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>DeLamielleure, Kent</td><td>RT</td><td>34</td><td>34</td><td>34 (0)</td><td>34 (0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Diefendorf, Vinny</td><td>RT</td><td>13</td><td>57</td><td>14 (1)</td><td>49 (-8)</td><td>1</td><td>-8</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Fedolfi, Terry</td><td>RT</td><td>40</td><td>60</td><td>43 (3)</td><td>59 (-1)</td><td>3</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Whiting, Neil</td><td>K</td><td>55</td><td>55</td><td>54 (-1)</td><td>54 (-1)</td><td>-1</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Bennett, Earnest</td><td>P</td><td>42</td><td>57</td><td>41 (-1)</td><td>54 (-3)</td><td>-1</td><td>-3</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Ludwig, Billy</td><td>P</td><td>29</td><td>29</td><td>
</pre></td><td>
</pre></td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Zimmerman, Amos</td><td>LDE</td><td>40</td><td>57</td><td>41 (1)</td><td>58 (1)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Givens, Paul</td><td>RDT</td><td>43</td><td>99</td><td>42 (-1)</td><td>99 (0)</td><td>-1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Forbes, Julio</td><td>NT</td><td>30</td><td>30</td><td>29 (-1)</td><td>29 (-1)</td><td>-1</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Harmon, Junior</td><td>NT</td><td>88</td><td>92</td><td>94 (6)</td><td>94 (2)</td><td>6</td><td>2</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Rhodes, Lonnie</td><td>NT</td><td>22</td><td>42</td><td>25 (3)</td><td>41 (-1)</td><td>3</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Lopes, Brant</td><td>RDE</td><td>36</td><td>52</td><td>38 (2)</td><td>52 (0)</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Slezak, Emmitt</td><td>RDE</td><td>18</td><td>28</td><td>13 (-5)</td><td>20 (-8)</td><td>-5</td><td>-8</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Abrams, Shaun</td><td>SLB</td><td>36</td><td>36</td><td>36 (0)</td><td>36 (0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Dennis, Derek</td><td>SLB</td><td>27</td><td>37</td><td>28 (1)</td><td>38 (1)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Knoll, Leland</td><td>SILB</td><td>38</td><td>38</td><td>39 (1)</td><td>39 (1)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Dux, Brett</td><td>WILB</td><td>53</td><td>53</td><td>53 (0)</td><td>53 (0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Crumley, Rickey</td><td>WLB</td><td>40</td><td>49</td><td>44 (4)</td><td>49 (0)</td><td>4</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Gass, Ryan</td><td>WLB</td><td>25</td><td>72</td><td>26 (1)</td><td>64 (-8)</td><td>1</td><td>-8</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Pinero, Rufus</td><td>WLB</td><td>46</td><td>46</td><td>46 (0)</td><td>46 (0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Dotson, Joseph</td><td>LCB</td><td>36</td><td>47</td><td>36 (0)</td><td>47 (0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Gerak, Howie</td><td>LCB</td><td>33</td><td>33</td><td>27 (-6)</td><td>27 (-6)</td><td>-6</td><td>-6</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Hickman, Carlos</td><td>LCB</td><td>26</td><td>32</td><td>
</pre></td><td>
</pre></td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Dole, Tito</td><td>RCB</td><td>21</td><td>26</td><td>
</pre></td><td>
</pre></td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Jacobs, Jackie</td><td>RCB</td><td>35</td><td>63</td><td>34 (-1)</td><td>59 (-4)</td><td>-1</td><td>-4</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Knight, Hugh</td><td>RCB</td><td>30</td><td>49</td><td>32 (2)</td><td>49 (0)</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Spearman, Nicky</td><td>RCB</td><td>24</td><td>24</td><td>23 (-1)</td><td>23 (-1)</td><td>-1</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Buss, Ralph</td><td>SS</td><td>34</td><td>63</td><td>34 (0)</td><td>62 (-1)</td><td>0</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Kramer, Korey</td><td>SS</td><td>17</td><td>39</td><td>18 (1)</td><td>38 (-1)</td><td>1</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Mersky, Karl</td><td>SS</td><td>18</td><td>41</td><td>18 (0)</td><td>41 (0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Steidl, Deion</td><td>SS</td><td>25</td><td>38</td><td>25 (0)</td><td>38 (0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Penick, Percy</td><td>FS</td><td>15</td><td>37</td><td>17 (2)</td><td>39 (2)</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr class="stats" align="center"> <td>Powell, Earnest</td><td>FS</td><td>71</td><td>71</td><td>70 (-1)</td><td>70 (-1)</td><td>-1</td><td>-1</td></tr></tbody></table>

[JeffW]

Are we now committing to a 4-3 front, and to using Givens as a DT?

We can go either way. He will increase his ratings level(lol, how?) and stay the same experience if we switch him. He might have more impact as a DE.

Should I have switched before camp? We can go back and I don't feel it would be an exploit. I think I might have missed the opportunity for weight training as well.

[JeffW]

I don't understand why almost every damn player takes moderate to huge ratings hits.

[QuikSand]

Pace is fine by me. Just was caught in transition there.

[QuikSand]

I don't understand why almost every damn player takes moderate to huge ratings hits.

This is, for better or for worse, how the engine works. Guys come in with a certain degree of optimism, and generally you learn quickly (now, it's aftyer their first training camp - before, it was even sooner) where thw "arrow" is pointing. By and large, guys with a 70 potential rating who drop to 65 -- those guys are just going to keep sliding,a dn will probably never amount to anywhere near that original 70. Other guys point up, and generally keep creeping upward until they find their true resting spot, somewhere iun excess of the original projection.

Right or wrong, it's pretty clear that this is central to the way FOF works. *shurg*

[QuikSand]

Heh. LB Leland Knoll is holding out. Not good timing for the fella, I fear. I would have backed up the brinks truck to keep him, but I suspect under the new regime, he'll be in some trouble.

[JeffW]

Right or wrong, it's pretty clear that this is central to the way FOF works. *shurg*

Yeah, you're right. It does kill one's soul, though. I don't see why Jacobs and Gass should be on a downtrend, though. They had the blue bars and the combine scores to back them up. Now who knows they'll probably end up as roster fodder.

I guess we're learning. From now on we're taking these no combine guys every chance we get--they're like the only sure thing there is.

[QuikSand]

Well, I guess there is some logic to that -- after all, who skips the combine in real life? Mostly guys who have more to lose than to gain - top-rated players. *shurg*

[QuikSand]

I don't understand why almost every damn player takes moderate to huge ratings hits.

One thing this does reinforce, though, is the value of highly developed players. If your reds are a given, but your greens are a crapshoot... investing in players who are at least fairly well developed is an awfully good line of thinking, especially once you are past the guys with the sky-high ceilings.

I still look back at CB Dotson from last year - he had a small slide in his ratings, and he may never fill in those greens we still see... but he came to us well developed -- and he's a;ready highly rated enough to be a solid starter. He won't ever be a maxed-out stud, but he's good enough to play now and for years, if we need him to. There's value in that.

[JeffW]

Irwin and Dotson did not continue their plummets. Wierd. Wierd Wierd Wierd. Earl Irwin looks like a damn fine QB backup if he keeps these ratings(he gained +1 potential!), probably should have played him last year but we all felt he was tainted. Yet Kramer loses 1 potential?

I don't know how to grade my draft. There's just no telling what's going to happen with these guys.

[QuikSand]

Irwin and Dotson did not continue their plummets. Wierd. Wierd Wierd Wierd. Earl Irwin looks like a damn fine QB backup if he keeps these ratings(he gained +1 potential!), probably should have played him last year but we all felt he was tainted.

You are looking in the wrong places. Veterans generally don't slide in training camp. They slide as you start free agency each year.

Irwin was a -6, Dotson a -4 at that stage this year... they are both still sliding. Their main value is in what they already have on the board, in reds.

[JeffW]

I'm going to make another executive decision and keep Givens at DT in a 4-3 and move Gass to SLB. I don't know if this is the right call, but I think this lets us get our 7 best potential players in the game. At worst, Givens won't be quite the impact player at DT that he would be at DE.

[QuikSand]

Without a doubt, Givens won't be quite the impact player at DT that he would be at DE.

I'll live.

[Narcizo]

I don't think -4 for Jacobs is anything to get upset about. I really don't get how Givens could drop to, what was it? 1.10 given the fact that he still looks an out and out stud.

I still say we should switch him to DE so he hits 110 potential.

[JeffW]

I am switching the roster around because we need some more mentors. I hope I don't step on anyone's toes.

[QuikSand]

...I think this lets us get our 7 best potential players in the game.

Which guys are those, incidentally? I don't want to change course, just curious who we are protecting with this move to the 4-3. The two young defensive ends?

[JeffW]

I really want to cut Knoll. He's pissing me off with this holdout garbage, but I know Quik won't like that.

The problem is I think he counts toward a roster spot now otherwise I wouldn't care. His demands are incredibly unreasonable for 39/39 player.

[JeffW]

Which guys are those, incidentally? I don't want to change course, just curious who we are protecting with this move to the 4-3. The two young defensive ends?

Here's what I'm looking at:

LDE Amos Zimmerman 41/58
RDT Paul Givens 42/99
LDT Junior Harmon 94/94
RDE Brant Lopez 38/52
RDE(Pass) Ethan O'Bryan 27/39

SLB Ryan Gass 25/64
MLB Brett Dux 53/53
WLB Rickey Crumley 44/49

I guess I can move Givens outside if you guys want. I don't love our DEs. The 7th member of the front 7 is debatable.

[Narcizo]

Just pay him what he wants. It's not like we're dying from lack of cap room. I really think we should stick to a 34 front - QS has convinced me about these DEs and if Givens really is as advertised then he'll be a star at DE.

Incidentally I wonder if Jim has set up a nasty surprise with these combine hold-outs. Is it possible that it takes scouts longer to properly read them? I think we should check their performances to see if it matches their scouted ratings. I don't like his current rating dropping in camp. That seems a bit fishy to me.

[QuikSand]

I say do what you want. I have grumbled on and on about my creepers, but the fact is I'll have plenty of opportunities to play guys like that with my own games. For this experiment, we ought to do what we htink makes the most sense to us as a group, not just follow one guy's preconceived notions. That's the point.

An all-potential group sounds fine by me. Hopefully, some of these guys will turn out to be worth a damn.

[JeffW]

Just pay him what he wants. It's not like we're dying from lack of cap room. I really think we should stick to a 34 front - QS has convinced me about these DEs and if Givens really is as advertised then he'll be a star at DE.

Okay, Knoll is resigned toa 2 year big bonus deal and we'll go with a 3-4. I'm despairing a bit. I think all this potential is an illusion and we're going to have a very mediocre team for quite a while.

[JeffW]

Givens drops to 40/95 on move to RDE.

[JeffW]

Incidentally I wonder if Jim has set up a nasty surprise with these combine hold-outs. Is it possible that it takes scouts longer to properly read them? I think we should check their performances to see if it matches their scouted ratings. I don't like his current rating dropping in camp. That seems a bit fishy to me.

That would really be a bitch.

[JeffW]

I'm going to just let AI handle game plan and I'll handle depth charts.

[JeffW]

Front Office Football 2007
2010 Summary for Texarkana Armadillos

Year 2010
Record 3-5
Winning Pct. .375
All-Time 8-64
Winning Pct. .111
Playoffs 0-0
Playoff Visits 0
Bowl Wins 0
Head Coach George Hutton
Record 3-5
Winning Pct. .375
Off. Coord. A. Gibbons
Def. Coord. A. Glover

Texarkana Armadillos Team Rank
Rushes per Game 25.9 23
Rushing Yards 117.5 16
Yards Per Carry 4.54 6
Pass Attempts 32.9 13
Completions 19.8 12
Completion Pct. 60.1 16
Passing Yards 221.6 8
Yards Per Attempt 6.74 8
Yards Per Catch 11.22 10
Total Yardage Gained 332.8 11
3rd Down Conversions 36.1 18
Points Per Game 20.1 14
Pass Rush Pct. 7.9 18 (T)
Pass Defense Pct. 63.2 25
Turnovers 17 28 (T)
Turnover Margin -7 27 (T)

Opponents Team Rank
Rushes per Game 29.8 22
Rushing Yards 115.8 14 (T)
Yards Per Carry 3.89 7
Pass Attempts 33.5 22
Completions 20.9 26
Completion Pct. 62.3 24
Passing Yards 212.9 23
Yards Per Attempt 6.35 16
Yards Per Catch 10.20 10
Total Yardage Gained 310.9 19
3rd Down Conversions 37.7 18
Points Per Game 19.6 18
Pass Rush Pct. 7.3 17
Pass Defense Pct. 67.9 14
Turnovers 10 22 (T)

Week Team Versus Oppnt
1 17 IND 38
2 20 WAS 21
3 19 at CIN 20
4 16 at SDO 21
5 31 OAK 10
6 17 at KCY 13
7 7 DEN 31
8 34 TEN 3
10 at IND
11 JAX
12 at NYK
13 NED
14 PHI
15 at JAX
16 at DAL
17 at TEN

Passing Pos Att Comp Yards Y/Att TD Int Rate
5 E. Buckner QB 263 158 1773 6.74 12 11 78.0
**Team --- 263 158 1773 6.74 12 11 78.0
$$Opp --- 268 167 1703 6.35 14 8 85.4

Rushing Pos Att Yards Y/Att TD Fum
41 A. Erickson RB 104 523 5.03 4 2
42 R. Tyler RB 98 389 3.97 1 1
Front Office Football 2007
**Team --- 207 940 4.54 5 9
$$Opp --- 238 926 3.89 5 11

Receiving Pos Targ Catch Yards Y/Ctc Y/Tar Drop TD
81 J. Shepherd WR 79 46 564 12.26 7.14 1 3
86 B. Ballard WR 56 32 410 12.81 7.32 6 3
22 R. Preston FB 31 25 140 5.60 4.52 1 1
87 E. Diaz TE 23 19 181 9.53 7.87 0 1
88 A. Markiewicz WR 36 16 313 19.56 8.69 0 2

Defense Pos Tack Asst Sack Hurr Ints Defn PDPct
93 B. Dux ILB 53 15 0.0 0 0 0 69.7
44 E. Powell S 46 13 0.0 0 1 2 71.7
20 R. Buss S 43 18 0.0 0 1 5 78.9
55 R. Crumley OLB 36 9 3.0 7 1 3 80.2
53 L. Knoll ILB 31 17 0.0 0 0 2 76.2
96 J. Harmon DT 28 8 1.5 13 0 0 82.5
59 R. Gass OLB 27 6 3.5 1 0 1 73.3
35 J. Jacobs CB 25 4 0.5 0 3 2 79.4
57 R. Pinero OLB 21 4 5.5 3 0 0 78.6
31 J. Dotson CB 21 9 0.0 0 1 2 77.4
99 P. Givens DE 15 10 5.5 5 0 0 81.1
95 B. Lopes DE 12 2 1.5 5 0 0 81.8
38 H. Knight CB 12 5 0.0 0 0 5 85.8
92 S. Abrams OLB 10 4 0.0 0 1 0 82.2
58 A. Zimmerman DE 8 6 1.0 1 0 0 80.9

We are 4 points away from being 5-3. :|

[JeffW]

Front Office Football 2007
2010 Summary for Texarkana Armadillos

Year 2010
Record 7-9
Winning Pct. .437
All-Time 12-68
Winning Pct. .150
Playoffs 0-0
Playoff Visits 0
Bowl Wins 0
Head Coach George Hutton
Record 7-9
Winning Pct. .437
Off. Coord. A. Gibbons
Def. Coord. A. Glover

Texarkana Armadillos Team Rank
Rushes per Game 29.1 15
Rushing Yards 122.8 13
Yards Per Carry 4.23 9
Pass Attempts 32.6 13
Completions 19.7 13
Completion Pct. 60.5 16
Passing Yards 225.6 4
Yards Per Attempt 6.93 9
Yards Per Catch 11.46 8
Total Yardage Gained 339.8 3
3rd Down Conversions 36.2 16
Points Per Game 20.1 12
Pass Rush Pct. 9.1 4
Pass Defense Pct. 65.1 22
Turnovers 25 19 (T)
Turnover Margin -2 18 (T)

Opponents Team Rank
Rushes per Game 26.6 11
Rushing Yards 104.4 7
Yards Per Carry 3.92 11
Pass Attempts 34.9 28
Completions 21.0 29
Completion Pct. 60.2 18
Passing Yards 222.9 30
Yards Per Attempt 6.39 17
Yards Per Catch 10.61 21 (T)
Total Yardage Gained 309.0 22
3rd Down Conversions 34.8 12
Points Per Game 18.4 13
Pass Rush Pct. 7.4 16
Pass Defense Pct. 66.7 16
Turnovers 23 16 (T)

Week Team Versus Oppnt
1 17 IND 38
2 20 WAS 21
3 19 at CIN 20
4 16 at SDO 21
5 31 OAK 10
6 17 at KCY 13
7 7 DEN 31
8 34 TEN 3
10 23 at IND 31
11 10 JAX 23
12 23 at NYK 13
13 35 NED 14
14 12 PHI 16
15 10 at JAX 16
16 27 at DAL 7
17 21 at TEN 17

Passing Pos Att Comp Yards Y/Att TD Int Rate
5 E. Buckner QB 521 315 3609 6.93 23 15 84.0
**Team --- 521 315 3609 6.93 23 15 84.0
$$Opp --- 558 336 3566 6.39 23 15 81.4

Rushing Pos Att Yards Y/Att TD Fum
41 A. Erickson RB 231 1140 4.94 7 3
42 R. Tyler RB 213 732 3.44 2 7 
Front Office Football 2007
**Team --- 465 1965 4.23 11 23
$$Opp --- 426 1671 3.92 10 26

Receiving Pos Targ Catch Yards Y/Ctc Y/Tar Drop TD
81 J. Shepherd WR 151 91 1208 13.27 8.00 5 9
86 B. Ballard WR 118 64 847 13.23 7.18 13 5
22 R. Preston FB 60 47 277 5.89 4.62 1 1
87 E. Diaz TE 46 37 379 10.24 8.24 1 2
88 A. Markiewicz WR 72 33 588 17.82 8.17 0 4
83 L. Badalaty WR 33 17 156 9.18 4.73 5 0

Defense Pos Tack Asst Sack Hurr Ints Defn PDPct
20 R. Buss S 87 29 0.0 0 1 13 80.4
93 B. Dux ILB 86 25 2.0 1 0 3 74.5
44 E. Powell S 84 26 0.0 1 5 11 79.7
55 R. Crumley OLB 65 13 6.5 12 1 5 78.5
53 L. Knoll ILB 63 29 0.0 0 0 4 74.8
59 R. Gass OLB 55 17 5.5 2 1 2 74.1
96 J. Harmon DT 50 16 4.5 25 0 0 81.8
35 J. Jacobs CB 48 11 0.5 0 3 5 77.5
57 R. Pinero OLB 41 8 9.5 10 0 2 80.4
31 J. Dotson CB 41 13 0.0 0 3 4 79.3
38 H. Knight CB 26 7 0.0 4 0 5 79.5
99 P. Givens DE 25 19 7.0 14 0 0 81.6
95 B. Lopes DE 21 5 4.0 11 0 0 81.4
92 S. Abrams OLB 19 6 0.0 0 1 0 77.8

I guess that year is a success given that we put up more wins that in all of our previous years combined. ;)

Let me know if anyone wants to see more stats, etc...

[JeffW]

9th in Yards/Carry on Offense
11th in Yards/Carry on Defense

9th in Yards/Pass on Offense
17th in Yards/Pass on Defense.

V. V. Solid.

[albionmoonlight]

Givins looks to have had a solid rookie year.

[JeffW]

LT Jonathan Bickler is named 1st team all pro. He made 42 KRB in 134 Attempts and Allowed only 4 Sacks in 511 Pass Plays.

No other Armadillos receive Season Awards.

2011 Post Season upload to follow.

[JeffW]

Givins looks to have had a solid rookie year.

Yessir and he's up to 68/95 overall.

Ralph Buss was incredibly sold and he's up to 55/62.

Jacobs wasn't bad either and is now 49/59.

Gass is the slowest rookie to develop at 35/64 and he was mediocre this season.

[albionmoonlight]

Can we tell what the AI did with the game plan? I realize that it is going to change with each game, but was there any hint of the West Coast Offense there?

Also, it looks like our Tight End, though not prolific, led the team in yards per target. Throwing to the Fullback continues to just suck, however.

[JeffW]

Can we tell what the AI did with the game plan? I realize that it is going to change with each game, but was there any hint of the West Coast Offense there?

TBH, I didn't look, but I think the offense involved running the ball a lot on first down and a balance btwn short and medium-deep passing.

[JeffW]

I hired a new HC and OC who were clear upgrade.

Scout/DC stay the same. Our coaching staff is damn solid right now for the restraints we put on hiring.

[JeffW]

Feel free to post the guys you like in FA and anyone you want interviewed in the amateur draft. I'm going to give everyone a chance to catch up before I go any farther. The file is updated on the email account.

I hope this guy falls to us at 1(14):

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8435/schwartzhu6.jpg

6.4 adjusted grade.

The RNG is toying with us, two super elite can't miss QB uberprospects who figure to go 1-2 and we're picking 1(14) and 1(18).

Here is our pick summary:

1(14)
1(18)
2(16)
3(15)
4(14)
7(14)

[albionmoonlight]

I can't see the file, but if there really are two "can't miss" QBs at the top of the draft, I would really want to consider trading up to 1.2 if at all possible. It would be great to have a marquee player on offense around whom to build.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

Assuming, of course, that you want to listen to the guy who hasn't seen the game files and wants to make a major "rebuilding" type change right after the 'Dillos first season that looks anything like success.

[JeffW]

I can't see the file, but if there really are two "can't miss" QBs at the top of the draft, I would really want to consider trading up to 1.2 if at all possible. It would be great to have a marquee player on offense around whom to build.

You can't see the file or you don't have access to FOF?

It will take a shitton of picks to trade up to 1.2: 1(14), 1(18), 2(16), 3(15) for 1(2) and change.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm at work w/o FOF access.

[albionmoonlight]

How old is Buckner?

[JeffW]

Also, our QB is 32/72(somewhat worrying that he only developed 11 points) and he had a good season last year.

He's a 6 year vet(we signed him from SD where he barely played at all).

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

How essential is Preston to our running game? If it looks like he is not helping out a lot with run blocking, I wonder if it might be best to run most of our sets w/o a fullback. I can't help but wonder what the rest of the team would have done with his targets.

[JeffW]

Fck, did I miss summer league opportunity?

Sorry for being a clueless FOF 2k7 newb. :(

[JeffW]

dola--

How essential is Preston to our running game? If it looks like he is not helping out a lot with run blocking, I wonder if it might be best to run most of our sets w/o a fullback. I can't help but wonder what the rest of the team would have done with his targets.

If I run the gameplanning manually you won't have to worry about him screwing up the passing game next season.

[QuikSand]

Fck, did I miss summer league opportunity?

Sorry for being a clueless FOF 2k7 newb. :(

Don't sweat it, it happens. Thanks for doing the thankless job.

[JeffW]

Not to toot my own horn, but that Rondell Clemons fellow I mentioned a couple seasons agao has developed into a stud. 93 Run D/86 PRT. He's posted PR% of 7.3 and 7.7, TkPct of 9.5 and 8.1 in the last two years. :p

[QuikSand]

Not to toot my own horn, but that Rondell Clemons fellow I mentioned a couple seasons agao has developed into a couple stud. 93 Run D/86 PRT. He's posted PR% of 7.3 and 7.7, TkPct of 9.5 and 8.1 in the last two years. :p

Indeed, complete stud. Guys with maxed-out primary bars do tend to play pretty well, I think we can book it.

Weird transition there - he got tagged by BUF, then then cut him and he took the ever-daunting 1yr minsal deal with the Vikes... who I expect might consider taggiong him this year. Lather rinse repeat.

[QuikSand]

I'm probably out until late this evening... best of luck if we/you march onward.

[JeffW]

I'm probably out until late this evening... best of luck if we/you march onward.

I probably won't resume until tomorrow. Hopefully we can get some more input besides me, you, Narcizo. Maybe albion can give some good input once he gets home and has FOF access.

[albionmoonlight]

Home is pretty much "family time" until after the holiday. I might get time to check in once or twice, but I'm not even going to attempt to fire up a game.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Good read guys. I've been doing it since you started. I was hoping you would take Givens to see what happened.

You guys are singlehandedly contributing alot to FOF2k7 understanding right now. Having your open discussions has been very helpful.

[JeffW]

Okay, looks like I might be shouldering the load for awhile. There is no one too intriguing in free agency and I'm going to try to keep our free agent additions low. The draft should be much easier this year as there are quite a few CBs and a couple LBs worth looking at.

We should be able to get 1 or even 2 strong players at CB this year. There are 4 players at CB who I'd be happy to draft and if the AI takes a few QBs high, we may even have our pick of the litter Bill Schwartz.

We should at least consider moving up to 1(2) for a QB. The top two QB prospects are just so strong this year. This is the best trade we can get assuming the QBs go 1-2:

1(14), 1(18), 2(16), 3(15) -> CIN for 1(2), 7(2).
1100+900+420+195 = 2615 -> 2600+13.8 = 2613.8.

So, we're dead even in terms of absolute pick value. Here are the QBs for those without FOF access:

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4788/betancourtkk2.jpg

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8229/joynerpv6.jpg

OTOH, we mightbe able to trade up to a later pick(s) in the first round and select a couple of these guys:

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1983/stargellbq1.jpg

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/571/linquistgf2.jpg

Those two "no-combine warriors" are graded as the 11th and 15th prospects, but who knows where they'll go.

This year is very deep first round draft class, so it does hurt us to make a big trade up to 1(2). There are four CBs with good-excellent combines and very good-excellent blue bars. Still, if we're not totally sold with Buckner as the QB of the future(and his current projects to improve to his potential over a 4 year span at his current pace!), we need to consider movin' on up.

[JeffW]

Our CBs are a mess. Knight is down to 33/33 and Dotson is 38/38. I know Quik likes Dotson but I think he's pretty much trash. When you really break it down, we're looking at a guy who is 33 Man 2 Man, 0 Zone, 83 Bump, 28 Play Diagnosis and 39 Interceptions. There is simply nothing to get excited about there.

46/57 Jackie Jacobs is the only other CB left on the roster(I cut 23/23 Spearman last year).

[JeffW]

New File Up--I went through a straightforward Free Agency and did the interviews(who likes doing those anyway--I doubt I missed anyone to be too excited about).

Hopefully, I can get some help at some point. I guess I will wait to start the draft. :p

[Narcizo]

Hmmpff!

What happened to our traditional number one overall pick? All this 7-9 nonsense is just not good enough.

Erm you cut Spearman? He's, like, the team mascot. You can't cut Spearman.

Both of those quarterbacks look ridiculously good. Barring busts I'd say that both will be 80+ quarterbacks. Typical that they should come along the first year we don't have a top two pick. I blame switching to an AI gameplan. If we'd stuck with the WCO we would have been able to grab one for sure. As it is I've absolutely nothing against trading up to get one. If you want any sort of play-off success in FOF you need a good quarterback.

The problem with developing a quarterback with 5 years experience is that you can't mentor him and by the time he's fully developed he doesn't have that much time at the peak of his ability in 2007. I'm going to fire up the game and have a look around now.

[JeffW]

The problem with developing a quarterback with 5 years experience is that you can't mentor him and by the time he's fully developed he doesn't have that much time at the peak of his ability in 2007. I'm going to fire up the game and have a look around now.

Sweet. I agree, I am leaning towards trading up to 1(2). It will take significantly more to trade up to 1(1). There is 0% chance either of these guys last to 1(3).

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Buckner is going to be pissed. You just brought him in last year and he turned the franchise around.

[Narcizo]

I want to start trying to track players again for this draft, so if you see anyone you think will be a good test case just say his name and I'll include him.

Have we been playing 34 or 43? Givens is a DE but we have 5 DTs. Isn't that a bit of overkill?

[JeffW]

I want to start trying to track players again for this draft, so if you see anyone you think will be a good test case just say his name and I'll include him.

Have we been playing 34 or 43? Givens is a DE but we have 5 DTs. Isn't that a bit of overkill?

We played 3-4 last year but we're switching to 4-3 unless you have objections.

Edit: I will cut the mentor unless we somehow draft a good young DT.

[JeffW]

I want to start trying to track players again for this draft, so if you see anyone you think will be a good test case just say his name and I'll include him.

Track some of the no combine guys who I interviewed. I don't think it matters much who.

[Narcizo]

Buckner is going to be pissed. You just brought him in last year and he turned the franchise around.

He can provide a valuable contribution to the team as a mentor. :D

Part of me thinks that it is a bit rough on him. But he's rated 32-72 coming into his 6th year. Even if he improves, say, 16 every year he's going to be in his 9th year before he peaks (presuming he does continue upwards). That would be fine in 2004 but from what I've seen of 2007 he will be coming straight back down again after that. And an 84 quarterback rating isn't really elite, considering the protection and targets he currently has.

I think we should get more input on this though, because there's a lot of good targets here and we'll basically be making Bob Joyner our only interest in the draft.

[JeffW]

Based on Blue bars, I think I like Joyner substantially more than Joyner, so I'll investigate a trade for 1(1).

[JeffW]

The difference between trading for 1(1) and 1(2) is an additional 1st round pick. :/

[JeffW]

Summary:

Trade for 1.1, 4(NOS-2012):

1.14, 1.18, 2.16, 1(2012)

Trade for 1.2, 7.2:

1.14, 1.18, 2.16, 3.15

[Narcizo]

I hate trading future 1sts (in proper drafts, it's alright in HFL where it's not really worth much anyway). Particularly when you're bringing in a rookie quarterback which is likely to mean that you don't do very well the next year.

I'm wondering what to make of their development. I really don't have a handle on what the development shown in the draft means. In a lot of cases it just seems to be completely out of whack with how the player looks after the draft (see Givens).

[Narcizo]

One thing I think we will have to bear in mind with either of the quarterbacks is that they will take quite a while to develop. I drafted a similar quarterback in my own empty cupboard game (a bit better combines, bit worse scout) and I doubt he'll hit full potential until his 6th year. It's not like 2004 where the top drafted quarterbacks are pushing their potential upwards by the middle of the 3rd year. These guys scouted ratings aren't that bad so I guess they'll probably come along quicker but it's a bit risk to take when we finally have a quarterback who is, at least, competent.

[JeffW]

Well, in our favor, our OC is VG QB, VG YT and we have a mentor obviously.

Let me know what you think. Trade up to 1(2)? Stick with Buckner?

[Narcizo]

Don't know.

I've never had to make a decision like that in FOF whether it be MP or SP.

Then again I have given up 1st round picks for a veteran QB because I believe he would give me the best shot at a Superbowl win. We won't talk about how that sems to be turning out. So, in theory, I suppose we should try and get Joyner.

Still think we could do with a bit more input. It's a pretty big move. *HINT*

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Draft Joyner, but keep Buckner as starter. Let Joyner get some training camp, preseason, summer league, and mentoring time; as well as regular playing time in case of injury to Buckner. Can't lose. Except of course, you won't be shoring up the CB spot instead.

[JeffW]

Draft Joyner, but keep Buckner as starter. Let Joyner get some training camp, preseason, summer league, and mentoring time; as well as regular playing time in case of injury to Buckner. Can't lose. Except of course, you won't be shoring up the CB spot instead.

I dunno, I think it'sbest to just play Joyner from day 1 to maximize his development rate.

[Narcizo]

I think Vinny might have a point. Trade up for him and then we can argue about playing time and whatnot afterwards.

[JeffW]

I think Vinny might have a point. Trade up for him and then we can argue about playing time and whatnot afterwards.

Here we go.

[JeffW]

1. New Orleans - Betancourt, Juan, QB, Oregon
2. Texarkana - Joyner, Bob, QB, Akron

[JeffW]

Simmed to our pick at 4.14. Uploading presently.

[JeffW]

I like this dood:

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/5523/schefflerns2.jpg

[Narcizo]

12-69 looks pretty promising for a "very overrated" player with good combines.

[JeffW]

12-69 looks pretty promising for a "very overrated" player with good combines.

Yep, hopefully he'll hit 80+.

[Narcizo]

Re: Scheffer. Any theories about positional drill in linebackers? A general feel of how competent they are or something like a correlation with zone (which seems to fit).

Don't see anyone better really, unless we want to get a perpetual back-up at guard. I think we can take Scheffer here. Looks like he might convert to a smoking DE with a bit of beefing up.

[JeffW]

Re: Scheffer. Any theories about positional drill in linebackers? A general feel of how competent they are or something like a correlation with zone (which seems to fit).

I think it's just zone defense and (hidden) interceptions maybe. The highest player is only 32. I don't know for sure, though.

[JeffW]

110. Texarkana - Scheffer, Wendell, OLB, West Virginia

[JeffW]

Simmed to our selection at 194. Uploading presently.

[JeffW]

I like C Alvin Krauchick and he may convert to another line position, but his run blocking might be an illusion(That 40 time is hideous).

I like DE Burt Durand too.

A lot of guys are going to fall anyway, so not a critical pick.

[Narcizo]

Dont bother uploading. I can follow manually.

[Narcizo]

Odd! The AI is, apparently, variable, as Oakland took Scheffer at 107 in my run through.

Krauchick is a big fat bust.

[JeffW]

We could take WR Mercury West -- 4.45/14/7.09/9'7", 51 PSpec, 14% Dev, 18 Sole. I'm not enthused with our #4/5 guys, though Badalaty will be one of those dreaded creepers.

[JeffW]

Odd! The AI is, apparently, variable, as Oakland took Scheffer at 107 in my run through.

That is wierd. Did you run it again to see if it's a fluke?


Krauchick is a big fat bust.

Yeah.

[JeffW]

MLB Herman Lu maybe, 4.78/23/7.54/8'8, 20 sole, 22% dev, 23 PSpec. Fat orange bars.

[Narcizo]

SS Kenny Benson - slow as molasses but goodish combines elsewhere and decent looking blue bars. Might punt return for us (dunno if we have a punt returner at the mo).

Initially I thought SS Jerry Vaughan as a possibility.

Can't see West being any better than Badatly.

What about RB Dostoyevsky. I think we should draft him just for the name. He's pretty clearly a bust but who cares with a name like that.

[Narcizo]

Basically we're now at the stage where 7th round picks don't really give us anything.

[JeffW]

Basically we're now at the stage where 7th round picks don't really give us anything.

Yeah.

194. Texarkana - Durand, Bart, DE, SW Texas St.
206. Texarkana - Hall, Craig, RB, Missouri

Can't say they're needs--we'll see what they look like on the roster.

[JeffW]

NM, Scheffer cannot bulk up or switch to DE. =/

[JeffW]

God damn, weights are a pain in the ass--going through every player manually to see if they can benefit from bulking or cutting.

[JeffW]

Pre Camp will be up shortly.

[JeffW]

Joyner, Scheffer and Hall keep their ratings, but no gains.

Duran looks like crap now that my goggles are off.

Fckn Betancourt boomed +5, too. I hope we don't regret passing him up to save draft picks.

Earl Irwin, our 3rd QB has a conflict. Is this something to worry about?

[Axxon]

You are looking in the wrong places. Veterans generally don't slide in training camp. They slide as you start free agency each year.

Irwin was a -6, Dotson a -4 at that stage this year... they are both still sliding. Their main value is in what they already have on the board, in reds.

Just thinking aloud here but isn't that really the huge incentive to play your talent?

I like the fact that guys who play increase their reds more and thus have a better chance of reaching their greens before the greens drop off the table.

It does mean that picking up UDFA's that have great greens a waste if you're going to just inactivate them. I know that in both my careers I've had UDFA centers that eventually became starters in the 60's range but then again, I have always given these guys playing time right away. I haven't noticed this with other positions yet.

I did have a fifth rounder DT who went from the mid 40's who just jumped into the upper 80's one season after I started him. He wasn't expected to do that and he was a 3rd year player. He just boomed big time after injury forced him to start that year.

Unfortunately, he held out the next preseason, got a red flag reputation and priced himself out of my price range. Still, it makes me wonder if the veteran booms can really occur until the greens are maxed and the only thing left to boom is the reds.

He had no greens left and I've never seen a guy with greens boom but this is very anectdotal, based on very limited data and is thrown out merely for thought.

[JeffW]

Okay, moving onto regular season.

Im just going to let AI run gameplan again because I think we're going to get demolished.

[Narcizo]

Joyner, Scheffer and Hall keep their ratings, but no gains.

Duran looks like crap now that my goggles are off.

Fckn Betancourt boomed +5, too. I hope we don't regret passing him up to save draft picks.

Earl Irwin, our 3rd QB has a conflict. Is this something to worry about?

I noticed Irwin was in conflict. As he's not going to be more than 3rd QB at the moment I see no reason to keep hold of him. Resign Tellez and let Irwin take a hitch.

[Narcizo]

I did have a fifth rounder DT who went from the mid 40's who just jumped into the upper 80's one season after I started him. He wasn't expected to do that and he was a 3rd year player. He just boomed big time after injury forced him to start that year.


Hmmm. That's possible, I've never really thought about it, and never really got that big a vet boom. There were lots of cases in 2004 of the current ability reaching potential and then pushing it upwards from game to game, but I don't know about the random booms.

It does make it difficult to manage your roster effectively if, as it seems to be, playing time is even more of a prime influencer to current ability development in 2007.

I need some time to record the players I'm wanting to track Jeff.

[JeffW]

Front Office Football 2007
2011 Summary for Texarkana Armadillos

Year 2011
Record 3-5
Winning Pct. .375
All-Time 15-73
Winning Pct. .170
Playoffs 0-0
Playoff Visits 0
Bowl Wins 0
Head Coach Billy Joe Stai
Record 3-5
Winning Pct. .375
Off. Coord. B. Clarkson
Def. Coord. A. Glover

Texarkana Armadillos Team Rank
Rushes per Game 25.1 25
Rushing Yards 109.9 19
Yards Per Carry 4.37 5
Pass Attempts 31.6 19
Completions 18.0 20 (T)
Completion Pct. 56.9 22
Passing Yards 191.3 24
Yards Per Attempt 6.05 22
Yards Per Catch 10.63 21 (T)
Total Yardage Gained 290.6 25
3rd Down Conversions 34.0 19
Points Per Game 16.9 23
Pass Rush Pct. 7.5 16 (T)
Pass Defense Pct. 58.6 32
Turnovers 16 27 (T)
Turnover Margin -7 30

Opponents Team Rank
Rushes per Game 31.0 27
Rushing Yards 121.3 26
Yards Per Carry 3.91 14
Pass Attempts 32.9 18 (T)
Completions 22.0 29
Completion Pct. 66.9 29
Passing Yards 248.5 31
Yards Per Attempt 7.56 30
Yards Per Catch 11.30 23
Total Yardage Gained 349.6 31
3rd Down Conversions 37.5 21 (T)
Points Per Game 22.1 27
Pass Rush Pct. 7.1 14 (T)
Pass Defense Pct. 78.6 31
Turnovers 9 27 (T)

Week Team Versus Oppnt
1 13 at JAX 33
2 16 at ATL 20
3 17 at BUF 14
4 27 PIT 17
6 24 CLE 14
7 14 TEN 34
8 14 at CIN 19
9 10 at BAL 26
10 at IND
11 JAX
12 TBY
13 DEN
14 NOS
15 at TEN
16 at CAR
17 IND

Passing Pos Att Comp Yards Y/Att TD Int Rate
2 B. Joyner QB 253 144 1530 6.05 11 9 74.3
**Team --- 253 144 1530 6.05 11 9 74.3
$$Opp --- 263 176 1988 7.56 10 4 95.6

Rushing Pos Att Yards Y/Att TD Fum
41 A. Erickson RB 129 592 4.59 2 0
42 R. Tyler RB 45 188 4.18 2 2
2 B. Joyner QB 18 50 2.78 0 6
**Team --- 201 879 4.37 4 12
$$Opp --- 248 970 3.91 8 10

Receiving Pos Targ Catch Yards Y/Ctc Y/Tar Drop TD
81 J. Shepherd WR 71 39 476 12.21 6.70 3 2
86 B. Ballard WR 55 28 422 15.07 7.67 2 4
22 R. Preston FB 27 22 94 4.27 3.48 0 3
88 A. Markiewicz WR 47 21 228 10.86 4.85 1 1
87 E. Diaz TE 15 11 121 11.00 8.07 0 0
85 D. Hall WR 18 9 120 13.33 6.67 0 1

Defense Pos Tack Asst Sack Hurr Ints Defn PDPct
20 R. Buss S 53 18 0.0 0 0 5 73.4
44 E. Powell S 45 15 0.0 0 1 7 83.6
93 B. Dux ILB 37 9 2.0 3 1 2 79.7
59 R. Gass OLB 31 9 1.0 1 0 3 74.0
99 P. Givens DE 30 9 7.0 7 0 0 82.1
40 A. Norris CB 27 3 1.0 0 0 3 71.9
57 R. Pinero OLB 25 5 1.0 0 0 0 72.6
96 J. Harmon DT 24 12 5.0 12 0 0 82.0
35 J. Jacobs CB 24 11 0.0 0 1 2 75.5
55 R. Crumley OLB 18 5 0.0 1 0 1 69.5
58 A. Zimmerman DE 17 8 5.5 5 0 0 81.3
94 H. Lu ILB 14 2 0.0 0 0 0 72.4
90 C. Goguen DT 13 12 1.5 0 0 0 82.5
31 J. Dotson CB 12 1 0.0 0 0 2 75.7
50 W. Scheffer OLB 10 7 0.0 0 1 0 80.4
95 B. Lopes DE 9 1 0.0 0 0 0 76.3
73 L. Rhodes DT 9 4 1.0 1 0 0 81.6
38 H. Knight CB 9 2 0.0 0 0 0 68.9

We're struggling mightily on Defense, I don't know what the problem is there as we should be much better than last year. Maybe 3-4 to 4-3 is killing us. =[

[JeffW]

Jonathan Bickler is out 101 weeks with Repetitive Concussion Syndrome. F(^()*&SA*&(897

[JeffW]

Despite starting a rookie QB for 16 weeks and playing substantially worse in every facet of the game, we improve to 8-8.


Front Office Football 2007
2011 Summary for Texarkana Armadillos

Year 2011
Record 8-8
Winning Pct. .500
All-Time 20-76
Winning Pct. .208
Playoffs 0-0
Playoff Visits 0
Bowl Wins 0
Head Coach Billy Joe Stai
Record 8-8
Winning Pct. .500
Off. Coord. B. Clarkson
Def. Coord. A. Glover

Texarkana Armadillos Team Rank
Rushes per Game 28.8 12 (T)
Rushing Yards 113.1 13
Yards Per Carry 3.92 18
Pass Attempts 30.8 20
Completions 18.2 19
Completion Pct. 59.1 16
Passing Yards 199.9 22
Yards Per Attempt 6.50 13
Yards Per Catch 10.99 16
Total Yardage Gained 301.9 20
3rd Down Conversions 35.5 19 (T)
Points Per Game 18.8 17 (T)
Pass Rush Pct. 8.6 6
Pass Defense Pct. 60.3 32
Turnovers 28 24
Turnover Margin -13 29 (T)

Opponents Team Rank
Rushes per Game 29.6 26
Rushing Yards 115.6 24
Yards Per Carry 3.90 13
Pass Attempts 33.4 20
Completions 20.9 26 (T)
Completion Pct. 62.5 23 (T)
Passing Yards 239.5 28
Yards Per Attempt 7.18 26 (T)
Yards Per Catch 11.47 24
Total Yardage Gained 337.6 27
3rd Down Conversions 34.5 14
Points Per Game 20.6 19
Pass Rush Pct. 6.1 3 (T)
Pass Defense Pct. 75.4 29
Turnovers 15 30 (T)

Week Team Versus Oppnt
1 13 at JAX 33
2 16 at ATL 20
3 17 at BUF 14
4 27 PIT 17
6 24 CLE 14
7 14 TEN 34
8 14 at CIN 19
9 10 at BAL 26
10 34 at IND 10
11 17 JAX 38
12 21 TBY 6
13 10 DEN 16
14 27 NOS 10
15 6 at TEN 31
16 27 at CAR 21
17 24 IND 21

Passing Pos Att Comp Yards Y/Att TD Int Rate
2 B. Joyner QB 492 291 3198 6.50 24 18 79.5
**Team --- 492 291 3198 6.50 24 18 79.5
$$Opp --- 534 334 3832 7.18 22 4 94.7

Rushing Pos Att Yards Y/Att TD Fum
41 A. Erickson RB 291 1247 4.29 8 4
42 R. Tyler RB 118 422 3.58 4 5
2 B. Joyner QB 38 85 2.24 0 9
**Team --- 461 1809 3.92 12 24
$$Opp --- 474 1849 3.90 13 26

Receiving Pos Targ Catch Yards Y/Ctc Y/Tar Drop TD
81 J. Shepherd WR 115 67 791 11.81 6.88 4 5
88 A. Markiewicz WR 124 62 855 13.79 6.90 5 6
86 B. Ballard WR 99 53 746 14.08 7.54 7 7
22 R. Preston FB 47 38 190 5.00 4.04 0 3
87 E. Diaz TE 29 21 207 9.86 7.14 0 1
85 D. Hall WR 32 18 219 12.17 6.84 1 2

Defense Pos Tack Asst Sack Hurr Ints Defn PDPct
20 R. Buss S 103 35 0.0 0 0 7 73.9
93 B. Dux ILB 78 27 2.0 3 1 3 77.4
44 E. Powell S 75 34 0.0 1 1 13 81.8
59 R. Gass OLB 58 14 3.0 4 0 8 76.5
96 J. Harmon DT 57 22 8.0 31 0 1 82.0
99 P. Givens DE 53 19 12.0 13 0 0 81.8
40 A. Norris CB 51 11 1.0 1 0 11 75.4
55 R. Crumley OLB 38 12 3.5 3 0 1 74.8
58 A. Zimmerman DE 38 15 7.5 10 0 0 80.4
35 J. Jacobs CB 38 17 0.0 0 1 8 79.4
57 R. Pinero OLB 34 14 1.0 0 0 0 70.1
53 L. Knoll ILB 32 15 1.5 0 0 1 75.8
31 J. Dotson CB 23 2 0.0 1 0 2 76.6
94 H. Lu ILB 23 2 0.0 0 0 0 73.9
38 H. Knight CB 20 3 0.0 0 0 0 68.4
50 W. Scheffer OLB 19 12 2.0 0 1 1 78.4

The improvement is darkened by the career ending injury to one of our best players. Thankfully, I did not resign him before the season.

[Narcizo]

Did you save a post-camp file?

[JeffW]

Paul Givens wins 2nd team Defensive End with 12 sacks, 13 hurries, 12 QBKd(Knock Down?).

DT Junior Harmon won 2nd team as well, he was brillian with 8 sacks, 31 hurries, 37 QBKd.

[JeffW]

Did you save a post-camp file?

Damn, I don't think I did. Sorry. =/

[Narcizo]

And can we wait once we reach the FA of the next year and take stock.

[JeffW]

And can we wait once we reach the FA of the next year and take stock.

Okay.

[Narcizo]

Damn, I don't think I did. Sorry. =/

No problem. Shouldn't really make much difference if I run training camp. The only problem is if I catch a random boom or bust and that will invalidate that player anyway.

[JeffW]

From now on which stages should I make sure to export? I am sorry for screwing up our ratings tracking.

[JeffW]

Start of 2012 is uploaded.

Start of 2012 FA uploaded. We're going to have to obtain a new Left Tackle. Frank Stephenson is the obvious choice.

[JeffW]

I'm getting a bit worried about Joyner. He developed only 8 points the previous season despite Mentor+VG QB/YT OC and 100% playing time. He just dropped a current point in the offseason.

[Narcizo]

Looks like the theory that combine hold-outs always follow the scout report or whatever it was doesn't really hold up although the top end seems like a fairly safe bet, it gets very random further down.

Of all players underrated only one improved in potential after camp, and that was one you picked out pretty carefully by the looks of thing. With overrated players it looks like a 50/50 split whether they improve or not. Then again the a lot of the underrated guys do still look better after camp.

[Narcizo]

I'm getting a bit worried about Joyner. He developed only 8 points the previous season despite Mentor+VG QB/YT OC and 100% playing time. He just dropped a current point in the offseason.

Yeah! Looks like you might have been right about going all out for Betancourt. Sorry about that. I have noticed that QBs tend to develop pretty slowly compared to 2004 but that does look a bit cack.

[Narcizo]

I'll grab the FA and add the ratings in there.

I think we need - FA start, Pre-Camp, Post Camp and Season End to get good tracking. Seasons End probably isn't all that important either.

[JeffW]

I think I am done simming for tonight, but if you want to take over for awhile, I am happy to give advice, point out prospects, free agents I like etc.

[Narcizo]

I'm not really in a hurry at the moment. I don't mind giving anyone who's interested a good long look at the draft.

I bet you forgot summer camp again.

[Narcizo]

Right then. It seems that if you draft high up the boards you can be pretty certain about what you're getting, no matter if the player is considered underrated or overrated, and no matter whether they skip the combines or not. So it's always worth taking a risk on a non-combine show if he drops to you high up in the draft (as we discovered). Perhaps as you'd expect scouts are pretty accurate with the big names in the draft.

Further down and underrated is an almost certain guarantee of a slow decline, while over-rated can go either way, but generally upwards (although from a crap beginning, making it often worthless anyway). So as we've discovered, gone are the days you could grab a stud in the 6th round (apart from Shepherd, of course). With combine no shows you're really taking pot-luck further down the draft and you can, generally, expect to get burned on it. If you go for an underrated player further down the draft, make sure that they are well developed or you'll have a waste of roster spot on your hands.

Everything I've seen of under and over-rated suggests that it solely applies to the players scouted ability compared to their position in the draft.

Draft Grade - Scout report - post draft rating - post camp rating - Yr2 FA rating


No Combines
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
QB Patrick Linquist 5.5 AS 26-59 25-52 31-47
RB Lester Lowe 5.0 OR 25-47 24-37 23-32
RB Craig Hall 4.1 OR 23-37 23-36 ------
WR Allen Goins 4.8 AS 29-57 29-53 40-50
WR Christian Baumert 4.5 AS 32-57 32-56 42-54 <o:p></o:p>
WR Marlon Hanson 3.0 AS 14-30 16-37 ------
P Gino Azumah 6.4 -- 79-86 79-86 83-85
DE Jerry Stargell 5.9 <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1:place>UR</st1:place></st1:City> 49-84 48-82 58-79
DE Desmond Scogin 4.9 <st1:City><st1:place>UR</st1:place></st1:City> 32-70 31-69 41-70
ILB Donnie Wooden 5.7 AS 37-75 35-72 44-71
OLB Darryl Robbins 6.8 <st1:City><st1:place>UR</st1:place></st1:City> 57-79 57-78 65-78
OLB Wendell Scheffer 4.7 OR 21-50 24-51 29-51
SS Trevor Elliott 5.5 AS 37-63 32-52 22-33
<o:p></o:p>
Overrated<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
QB Juan Betancourt 7.4 VO 15-73 15-75 17-80
QB Bob Joyner 7.2 VO 12-69 11-69 19-69
QB TJ Mussorgsky 4.1 VO 11-29 11-28 ------
WR Graham Allen 4.8 VO 23-36 25-42 32-46
WR Dwight Gaylor 4.3 VO 15-34 16-34 ------
G Junior Raymond 5.4 VO 19-46 22-53 27-50
G Graham Argueta 5.1 VO 23-48 21-42 35-47
LT Ernest Clements 4.5 VO 18-36 18-33 ------
RT Richie Morton 4.3 OR 19-35 22-33 21-32
OLB Lester Barnes 6.0 OR 28-64 29-65 33-65
OLB Victor Joseph 5.9 VO 28-48 30-53 38-53
CB Steve Enriquez 5.2 OR 29-49 32-47 33-46
CB Pete Grijalva 5.0 VO 20-38 23-43 ------
CB Marty Howe 4.6 OR 23-43 22-42 29-41
SS Don McCue 5.0 OR 24-45 27-45 24-44 <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Underrated<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
QB Terrence Catlett 5.5 VU 31-66 31-62 36-58
QB Edwin Perry 5.1 VU 11-68 11-59 11-53
RB Heath Fletcher 6.7 UR 61-72 59-69 68-68
TE Luke Hartman 4.9 UR 28-59 29-54 28-52
WR Bernard Digler 6.7 UR 65-83 63-83* 78-83
C Alvin Krauchick 4.5 VU 24-58 26-51 29-45
DT Al Pefley 5.1 VU 25-70 27-65 29-60
DT Jerry Alexander 4.9 UR 28-61 30-57 31-56
ILB Herman Lu 4.2 UR 11-58 14-51 15-47
OLB Tyrone Gerhardt 5.5 UR 35-57 44-57 40-47
OLB Reuben Henderson 3.9 UR 11-49 12-43 ------
CB Bill Schwartz 6.2 <st1:City><st1:place>UR</st1:place></st1:City> 37-80 36-80* 52-81
CB Wes France 6.0 <st1:City><st1:place>UR</st1:place></st1:City> 31-75 36-76 50-75
SS Vernon Gima 6.1 UR 43-70 41-67 25-49
FS Danny Preston 5.6 UR 37-62 29-57 38-55

[QuikSand]

If we are interested in exploring the overrated/underrated meaning a bit more, it's possible that its actual in-game meaning doesn't lie in its predictive value for what is eventually going to happen to the player -- but rather just in explaining how the ratings refinement has adjusted the scout's view of the player.

During the interview, players obviously go from having a pretty wiude blue band of possible ratings, to a narrower orange band. If we looked at something like "apparent median" of the bands, I suspect we woudl see that amidst this refinemen, we are also seeing some upward or downard adjustment to the players' projected eventual value. (Not where they will actually end up after real development, but just what those forecasted future ratings look like pre- and post-interview)

My current guess is that for the majority of players, their blur ratings in a given skill look like (for instance) 50-80, median 65... but after the interview the oragen band looks something like 52-64, median 58. The delta from the 65 to 58 ends up becoming the label as, in this case, probably "overrated" -- meaning that on closer inspection, your scout thinks that this player has been overrated by the consensus scouting.

I still think that the scouts are basically oblivious to the tells we get from combines and such... but it's possible that there remains some residual correlation (that sleepers or combine monsters might be more likely to have their refined orange bars move in a certain way) that we can pick up on the surface here.


Anyway - this is not yet backed up by anything other than a handful of observations, but once I get some time (unlikely to be today) I will try to do a few more case studies to see if this holds water. At the very least, this would be a pretty intuitive way to interpret the underrated/overrated tags:

Overrated = your scout's projected skills for him are lower than the other scouts'

Underrated = your scout's projected skills for him are higher than the other scouts'


For your consideration.

[JeffW]

I'm not really in a hurry at the moment. I don't mind giving anyone who's interested a good long look at the draft.

I bet you forgot summer camp again.

That would be a smart bet.

[JeffW]

Right then. It seems that if you draft high up the boards you can be pretty certain about what you're getting, no matter if the player is considered underrated or overrated, and no matter whether they skip the combines or not. So it's always worth taking a risk on a non-combine show if he drops to you high up in the draft (as we discovered). Perhaps as you'd expect scouts are pretty accurate with the big names in the draft.

With combine no shows you're really taking pot-luck further down the draft and you can, generally, expect to get burned on it.

Wierd, maybe I'm good at picking out combine no shows. The other combine no show I liked aside from Scheffer was Bert Boggs and he turned out to be huge value in the 3rd.

One speculation I have is that if the players have high bars in stuff like blocking strength, sense rush, scrambling freq., bump and run to a lesser extent etc, they're less likely to bust/more likely to develop well. Just a hunch at this point, though.

[JeffW]

Overrated = your scout's projected skills for him are lower than the other scouts'

Underrated = your scout's projected skills for him are higher than the other scouts'

I suspect this is true.

The evidence seems to suggest that the scouting consensus is more accurate than our scout and so we see the players shifting back towards the mean--in other words underrated players are actually just players overrated by our scout.

[Narcizo]

I like your theory QuikSand. Mainly because it basically seems to be saying what I'm saying in a different way. Your conclusion is that overrated players have scouted skills that are lower than other scouts (and, consequently, the draft board) while underrated players have scouted skills higher than the draft board. Isn't that what I'm saying?

I'm not sure that the blue bars are other scouts evaluations, aren't they just yours? In that case your theory is a little different from mine, in that you see the under/over tag as a precision of the scouts previous evaluation. That seems logical and intuitive but doesn't explain why every player outside of the first round who is undervalued takes ratings hits after being drafted.

I think a proper test would have to be done in MP with a team with a great scout and one with a crap one, and then cross-indexing the results. A test I can't say I'm ripped about conducting at the moment.

[JeffW]

Maybe we should revert to pre-FA file so we can do summer league. From the other thread it seems fairly important and I haven't looked at the draft yet so I don't think it's exploitative.