{Smacking Head} Volatility (Booms/Busts)

[Ben E Lou]

(From Jim) Volatility simply indicates how likely the player is to boom or bust. That's all there is to it.(From Quik) Volatility means the likelihood of departing appreciably from projections in ability. Higher number means more likely. That departure can be to the good or the bad.(From Quik) If you draft a player with high volatility, there's a higher chance that he will turn out to be a great deal different than what he is currently forecasted to be. Possibly better, possibly worse.Up to now, to me this explanation was at best, a peculiarity, and, at worst, an area of concern. I was disappointed that we had a "one-time-use" rating (volatility) that would stay with a player his entire career. However, I've realized that I have been thinking more in terms of FOF2K1/2 than in terms of FOF4 and 2K4. In 2K1/2, we saw immediately after the first training camp if a player had greatly improved or severely declined in his potential. A major change in busts/breakouts in 4 was that we didn't know if a player was going to bust immediately. He'd simply not live up to his green ratings. (I didn't play FOF4 enough to see enough breakout players to tell you exactly how that worked.) The more I've played 2K4, and now upon re-reading these statements, I have a hypothesis about the implementation of volatility. I am starting to think it is much more of long-term development-related rating, rather than a likelihood of an immediate bust or breakout--sort of a "random multiplier" in whether or not a player reaches, or even greatly exceeds his green ratings. In FOF4, I saw guys who might get 4-8 points more than their green ratings, which could be attributable to scout error, but in this game, I've already seen a few guys have a rating or two that exceeded their after-first-training-camp green rating by 15+ points. I'm starting to read a high volatility rating as your scout saying this: "Well, by best judgment is that this guy is now a 20 in pass blocking, with potential to be a 50. However, this guy is hard to read. Over time, he has the chance to get a whole lot better."

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. QB Leon Blake was drated 6(11) by Minnesota in 2007, with a volatility rating of 88. At the end of '07, he was rated 25/55 overall and he got no regular-season playing time that year. Here are some of his specific ratings that year:

Accuracy: 22/59
Read Defense: 26/66
Long Passes: 26/65
Avoid Int: 12/30.

He got no PT in '08 either. His end-of-year ratings:
Overall: 31/57 (+2 potential)
Accuracy: 29/62 (+3 potential)
Read Defense: 32/67 (+1 potential)
Long Passes: 31/65 (nc in potential)
Avoid Int: 12/30 (+2 potential)

Modest increases, perhaps due to preseason playing time, or just general development.

AFTER YEAR 3 (play in one regular-season game, threw 17 passes):
Overall: 37/60 (+3 potential)
Accuracy: 38/66 (+4 potential)
Read Defense: 41/70 (+3 potential)
Long Passes: 40/69 (+4 potential)
Avoid Int: 20/34 (+4 potential)
Nice increases in potential.

AFTER YEAR 4 (played in 13 regular season games, started 10)
Overall: 54/61 (+1 potential)
Accuracy: 61/68 (+2 potential)
Read Defense: 67/74 (+4 potential)
Long Passes: 64/70 (+1 potential)
Avoid Int: 34/37 (+3 potential)
Despite significantly more playing time, the increase in potential was less than last year. (Current ratings went way up though.)

AFTER YEAR 5 (16-game starter)
Overall: 54/61 (nc potential)
Accuracy: 61/68 (+2 potential)
Read Defense: 67/73 (-1 potential)
Long Passes: 64/69 (-1 potential)
Avoid Int: 34/37 (nc potential)

Very slight variance in potential this year, attributable to scout variance?

AFTER YEAR 6 TRAINING CAMP
Overall: 72/72 (+11 potential)
Accuracy: 80 (+12 potential)
Read Defense: 95 (+22 potential)
Long Passes: 82 (+13 potential)
Avoid Int: 56 (+19 potential)

HUGE jumps as he enters his prime!

I'm guessing that we saw his "volatility effect" hit between the end of year 5 and the beginning of year 6. Thoughts?

--Ben

[Bee]

Good post SkyDog! We should link this to the sticky thread!

:D

Seriously, I think your example is exactly what volatility is all about (to the positive side).

[cthomer5000]

So volatility essentially matters for the entire "growth period" of a player?

[Maple Leafs]

So, not to oversimplify, but would it stand to reason that you want highly-rated players to have low volatility, and lower-rated players to have high-volatility?

[Sidhe]

Question: does the guy have to play to have this effect? I know you don't know based on this guy, but I'm suggesting people keep an eye out..

[Wasabiak]

My question is......Do Volatility and Mentors work hand in hand? Is a player w/ a high volatility rating going to have a better chance to have a higher multiplier if he has a mentor?

[Chubby]

Maple - Yeah, that's how I look at it. I want my 1st round picks to have low volatility abd my late rounds picks to have high volatility (since if they bust who cares, but if they boom...)

[Darkiller]

interesting study.
So the "boom" and "bust" phenomenon would now appear somewhere between year 5 and year 6...and not anymore right after the player's first NFL training camp.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Darkiller
interesting study.
So the "boom" and "bust" phenomenon would now appear somewhere between year 5 and year 6...and not anymore right after the player's first NFL training camp.

well, i would say the "boom" here was small, small, small, BIG. The growth was always there, but he really "turned the corner" in terms of skills between seasons 5 and 6 (most realistic for a QB I would say).

And I think Maple hit the nail on the head. You're going to want stud picks to have a low volatility (less chance of disappointing you), while late round types to have a high volitility (better odds of becoming an impact player somewhere down the road).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Darkiller
interesting study.
So the "boom" and "bust" phenomenon would now appear somewhere between year 5 and year 6...and not anymore right after the player's first NFL training camp. I wouldn't go so far as to make such a definitive statement yet, because I haven't looked at enough samples of breakouts yet. Consider the following:

1. It is possible that the year of the breakout could vary, either by position group or player-to-player.
2. The smaller increases in potential after each of his first four seasons may or not be indicators that something special was going to happen with him.
3. This guy wasn't on my team, so I don't have preseason box scores to look at. I don't know how much he played in the preseasons of his first three seasons.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I wouldn't go so far as to make such a definitive statement yet, because I haven't looked at enough samples of breakouts yet. Consider the following:

1. It is possible that the year of the breakout could vary, either by position group or player-to-player.
2. The smaller increases in potential after each of his first four seasons may or not be indicators that something special was going to happen with him.
3. This guy wasn't on my team, so I don't have preseason box scores to look at. I don't know how much he played in the preseasons of his first three seasons.

SkyDog, I assume you didn't change any staff between years 5 and 6 of this player?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
well, i would say the "boom" here was small, small, small, BIG. The growth was always there, but he really "turned the corner" in terms of skills between seasons 5 and 6 (most realistic for a QB I would say).

And I think Maple hit the nail on the head. You're going to want stud picks to have a low volatility (less chance of disappointing you), while late round types to have a high volitility (better odds of becoming an impact player somewhere down the road). ...and then the real fun comes in the 2nd-4th rounds. Do you "play it safe" with that 2(27) pick and get a decent-looking OLB with low volatility who you feel confident won't hurt you, or do you go for broke with the high volatility guy who may do nothing but ride the pine and eat up cap room for five seasons. :eek:

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
SkyDog, I assume you didn't change any staff between years 5 and 6 of this player? You're correct. However, I DID change scouts beween year 4 and year 5. That might account for the slight decrease in some ratings that year.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by SkyDog
You're correct. However, I DID change scouts beween year 4 and year 5. That might account for the slight decrease in some ratings that year.

ok, that explains that oddity. But at least we know the ratings explosion between years 5 and 6 was "real."

[Bee]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I wouldn't go so far as to make such a definitive statement yet, because I haven't looked at enough samples of breakouts yet. Consider the following:

1. It is possible that the year of the breakout could vary, either by position group or player-to-player.
2. The smaller increases in potential after each of his first four seasons may or not be indicators that something special was going to happen with him.
3. This guy wasn't on my team, so I don't have preseason box scores to look at. I don't know how much he played in the preseasons of his first three seasons.

I think the biggest factor in revealing the "boom/bust" factor is playing time. You waited to give this player significant playing time, so you didn't find out about his true nature until later. If you had started him from the very beginning, I think his true ratings would have been revealed much sooner.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bee
I think the biggest factor in revealing the "boom/bust" factor is playing time. You waited to give this player significant playing time, so you didn't find out about his true nature until later. If you had started him from the very beginning, I think his true ratings would have been revealed much sooner. Well, he wasn't on my team, but the example stands. We don't know that for sure. I just found another breakout who got some pretty good PT from early on. I'm working up the study on him right now.

[TroyF]

I've noticed this as well. I was fearful of posting it without conclusive evidence.

The great thing is breakout/busts still happen after the draft and in the first two years. Last night I got the pleasure of dealing with both. I drafted a DE in the second round. He was a 48 future potential guy with an average V score. After the draft, as I went to sign guys, I saw his future potential was a 9. I thought about not signing him, but didn't feel that was right. He's now on the inactive list making bank until his cap number reaches a point where he can be released. After training camp, he went down to a 7. Nice.

Same draft, sixth round. I take a DT with a low V score. (22) I grab him because he's the strongest player in the draft left, and has ratings indicating he's a decent runs stuffer/play diagnosis. Before the draft, his future looks to be 33. After the draft and training camp, the number is 67 and he's on the green sheet. After a solid rookie season, he's at 75 and still moving up.

The draft and player development is as good as we've ever seen with this game. I'm really enjoying it. IMO, this is Jim's best game ever, with or without multiplayer.

TroyF

[cthomer5000]

I save end of year files every single season. I have had 2 1st round WR's who were "steady decliners." I should check them out and pass some info on tonight, they might be good examples of slow busts.

[Ben E Lou]

OK....Got another example to look at. This guy was a 2nd-rounder, but had some 20+ ratings increases. Gerald Dees was picked 2(2) by the Seahawks in '06, with a volatility rating of 64. He is a CLASSIC example of what I was talking about in my post back to Darkiller. This guy could have been a wasted pick, but also could have been a star. Let's check him out.

END OF '06
Playing Time: 16 games, 315 snaps
Overall: 29/64
Avoid Drops: 6/41
Getting Downfield: 60/74
Route Running: 10/93 (talk about a crap-shoot!)
3rd-Down Catching: 59/74

END OF '07
Playing Time: 16 games, 4 starts, 443 snaps
Overall: 36/66 (+2)
Avoid Drops: 14/44 (+3)
Getting Downfield: 66/78 (+4)
Route Running: 23/94 (+1)
3rd-Down Catching: 65/79 (+5)

END OF '08
Playing Time: 16 starts, 719 snaps
Overall: 49/67 (+1)
Avoid Drops: 30/48 (+4)
Getting Downfield: 78/82 (+4)
Route Running: 47/94 (nc)
3rd-Down Catching: 76/81 (+2)

END OF '09
Playing Time: 16 starts, 729 snaps
Overall: 58/68 (+1)
Avoid Drops: 41/50 (+2)
Getting Downfield: 85 (+3)
Route Running: 63/93 (-1)
3rd-Down Catching: 83/84 (+3)

END OF '10
Playing Time: 15 games, 14 starts, 689 snaps
Overall: 73/73 (+5)
Avoid Drops: 60 (+10)
Getting Downfield: 100 (+15)
Route Running: 90/92 (-1)
3rd-Down Catching: 96 (+12)

END OF '11
Playing Time: 16 games, 14 starts, 699 offensive snaps
Overall: 73/73 (nc)
Avoid Drops: 60 (nc)
Getting Downfield: 99 (-1)
Route Running: 91/92 (nc)
3rd-Down Catching: 97 (+1)

So, his big jump in stats happened at some point DURING year 5. (I don't know if it was after training camp, or during the season. End-of-year data is all that I have.)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
I save end of year files every single season. I have had 2 1st round WR's who were "steady decliners." I should check them out and pass some info on tonight, they might be good examples of slow busts. That would be GREAT! (Obviously, I save a year-end file as well, which is what allows me to this "after-the-fact" study.) All I'm doing is looking at each position group under "current rosters" and seeing which, if any, of the Top 20 guys at each position are non first-rounders.

--Ben

[QuikSand]

Back with FOF 4, someone did some research into the phenomenon of player development, and found a number of things:

-Player development (notably the growth of the red ratings) is very highly connected to playing time

-The classic "bust" of FOF 2001 (where a player was revealed to be worthless right after his first training camp) was largely absent from the game, and replaced with a widespread number of players who simply never reached any measure of their apparent potential -- this actually may include, to some degree, the majority of players in a given rookie draft.

-The decline in potential ratings (greens) seems irreversible. If your young player drops from 75 to 70 after his first season -- he's on his way down a slippery slope, and his real potential might be far, far lower than it appears. He's a bust, you just don't realize quite how bad yet.

-"Boom" players take different forms, but many become evident right away, sometimes even before training camp. Often, these players will develop both current and potential ratings with playing time, and will evolve into players far better than they were originally forecasted to be.

...and most on point for this immediate discussion...

-There is a new phenomenon where a veteran player whose ratings seem to have stabilized will make a one-time "jump" during training camp -- and the bump may be pretty significant. I've seen this happen for the better (boom) several times, and for the worse (bust) only once, but it certainly can happen. My first few experiences seeing this were all with (exactly) 5th year players, but a few people reported this with 6th and 7th year players as well -- but it seems to happen right about that period.


As nearly as I can tell, the player development functions of FOF 2004 are essentially the same as those in the underappreciated FOF 4. (You remember, the game that didn't have anything new to offer?)

[Bee]

I think both of your examples are "classic" examples of what Quiksand mentions. They both have steady improvement with the exception of a big bump in reds after their 1st season of starting and then later in the career they have another nice little bump in both red and green.

Edit: I think the volatility rating comes in to play in determining the amount of change we are talking about. Both of these players had pretty large changes to their original ratings which is suggested as a possibility by the high volatility ratings.

[TroyF]

QS,

Good dig on those who bashed FOF4, I agree. I think this game is better, for a variety of reasons though.

The big bust after the first training camp is back. It may be very rare for it to happen, but it did last night in my game. I'll see if I can dig up a screen shot for proof.

TroyF

[QuikSand]

I reised my statement from above to say "largely absent" instead of absent. There may well be a wholesale bust from time to time... but certanly not on the magnitude that we saw them in FOF 2001 (where a player either busted right away, or he would develop right according to plan for the rest of his career - nothing in between).

[Ben E Lou]

Another one. Back in 2005, KC drafted T Matthew Flynn with the 7(17) pick. He had high volatility (76). Check out this development:

END 2005
Playing Time: 7 games, 2 starts, 144 offensive snaps
Overall: 25/44
Run Blk: 19/42
Pass Blk: 17/42
Blk Str: 64
End: 19/21

END 2006
Playing Time: 6 games, 24 offensive snaps
Overall: 36/48 (+4)
Run Blk: 33/48 (+6)
Pass Blk: 30/47 (+5)
Blk Str: 65 (+1)
End: 22/23 (+2)

END 2007
Playing Time: 4 games, 17 snaps
Overall: 46/51 (+3)
Run Blk: 48/52 (+4)
Pass Blk: 42/50 (+3)
Blk Str: 66 (+1)
End: 26 (+3)

END 2008
Playing Time: 7 games, 2 starts, 187 snaps
Overall: 50/53 (+2)
Run Blk: 54/56 (+4)
Pass Blk: 46/52 (+2)
Blk Str: 65 (-1)
End: 28 (+2)

END 2009
Playing Time: 5 games, 1 start, 88 snaps
Overall: 52/55 (+2)
Run Blk: 56/57 (+1)
Pass Blk: 49/55 (+3)
Blk Str: 66 (+1)
End: 28 (nc)

END 2010
Playing Time: 16 games, 16 starts, 929 snaps
Overall: 51/53 (-2)
Run Blk: 54/55 (-2)
Pass Blk: 49/55 (+3)
Blk Str: 65 (-1)
End: 26 (-2)

END 2011
Playing Time: 16 games, 16 starts, 976 snaps
Overall: 52/54 (+1)
Run Blk: 57/58 (+3)
Pass Blk: 50/54 (-1)
Blk Str: 64 (-1)
End: 26 (nc)

At this point, after two seasons of playing full time with very little growth and almost complete red lines, and being finished with his 6th year in the league, I would have thought this guy was done developing. WRONG!!! Look what happened at the beginning of year 7. :eek:

2012 AFTER TRAINING CAMP
Overall: 71/73 (+19)
Run Blk: 77/78 (+20)
Pass Blk: 63/68 (+15)
Blk Str: 85 (+21)
End: 60 (+34) :eek:

This is a classic example of what Quik mentioned in his penultimate paragraph--a year 7 boom, and one of VERY significant magnitude.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by SkyDog
This is a classic example of what Quik mentioned in his penultimate paragraph--a year 7 boom, and one of VERY significant magnitude.

Wow, that one would have me waiting for the year 8 drug suspension.

[Ben E Lou]

What is interesting to me about Flynn is that for his first five seasons, he got virtually very little regular season playing time, yet had still developed beyond his projected level by that point. Perhaps that is a hint.

[Ben E Lou]

Here's a confirmation that Year 1 booms still occur. The 'Skins took RDE Buddy Bennnit with the 5(14) pick in 2006. By the end of that year (in which he started all 16 games, and was in on 590 snaps), he was rated 36/64 overall, and developed to 62/62 by year 7.

[primelord]

So have we seen anyone take a turn for the worse yet down the road? All the examples so far have all been huge jumps up in ratings. But have we seen anyone with ratings that looked solid that just fell off the table 5 years down the road?

[mckerney]

Originally posted by SkyDog
This is a classic example of what Quik mentioned in his penultimate paragraph--a year 7 boom, and one of VERY significant magnitude.

Moe Williams style?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by primelord
So have we seen anyone take a turn for the worse yet down the road? All the examples so far have all been huge jumps up in ratings. But have we seen anyone with ratings that looked solid that just fell off the table 5 years down the road? Those are gonna be harder to find. It is easy to do a search for the Top 20 players at a position group, cycle through until you get to a late-round draft choice, then track his career. I haven't seen that happen on my team yet, and probably the only way I'd be able to find that happening would be if it happened to a guy on my team.

[JonInMiddleGA]

primelord -- documented cases? Not a one, since I'm playing instead of studying it at the moment.

anecdotal stuff? Yeah, I believe I've had numerous players that had (potential) small drop/small drop/small drop/cliff diving.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
primelord -- documented cases? Not a one, since I'm playing instead of studying it at the moment.Yeah, this is definitely an "after-the-fact" study. I'd *REALLY* like to see what these guys looked like on draft day. I'm wondering if there might be any other subtle predictive factors for booms.

[primelord]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Those are gonna be harder to find. It is easy to do a search for the Top 20 players at a position group, cycle through until you get to a late-round draft choice, then track his career. I haven't seen that happen on my team yet, and probably the only way I'd be able to find that happening would be if it happened to a guy on my team.

I didn't ask to hear you whine about how hard it would be find that information. I asked you to find it! :D

Seriously though that makes sense. Just the way the discussion was going it started to sound like volatility was only having a major impact towards the positive. I don't think that is what we would want.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Those are gonna be harder to find. It is easy to do a search for the Top 20 players at a position group, cycle through until you get to a late-round draft choice, then track his career. I haven't seen that happen on my team yet, and probably the only way I'd be able to find that happening would be if it happened to a guy on my team.

how to find potential "late-wilters":

Go to the roster view, select "free agents"
Sort by years in the leauge
find a few high picks in thr 7-5 year range who look like crap
check to see if any of them received significant playing time in the past
once you have a few candidates, check older saved games


EDIT: further throwing a wrench into the ability to find these guys is the potential that injury caused their ratings drops.

[Ben E Lou]

...and just in case anyone is wondering, when looking at late-round draftees who are now among the Top 20 players at their position group, I see a much higher instance of high-volatility players, but there ARE a few low volatility guys in there as well. That's good to see.

To go back to the original premise of the thread, I am officially doing a 180 on my view of the "volatility" rating. I think it is a GREAT thing, and it adds another layer of strategy, particularly for picks from late in the first round to the early parts of the 4th round, when you can choose to play it safe with a decent starter/solid backup pick with low volatility, or go for broke with a high volatility guy who might end up eating cap room for several years. Well done.

[QuikSand]

A couple of times in FOF 4, I signed free agent players in the 5-7 year window, and saw their ratings take a significant dive right after their first training camp with my team. With no injuries to help explain it, I have tallied them up as the "late bust" type, complementing the "late boom" types that we're mostly talking about here.

Again, my working assumption is that FOF 2004 works the same way - and I still have no reason to doubt that. It seems rarer, but I suspect it does indeed happen.

[wishbone]

Could booms be related to contract status, changes in a coaches skill or other factors? Or is what you guys are seeing pure player development?

[Eilim]

Originally posted by wishbone
Could booms be related to contract status, changes in a coaches skill or other factors? Or is what you guys are seeing pure player development?


I was thinking somewhat along the same lines with the late "boom' players. Not sure how to check, but could it be possible that the late surge is brought on by gaining a mentor for the players position on his team?

[Eilim]

Dola...

Hmmm, perhaps if you have a mentor at a certain position it would lessen the chance of a high volitality player at the same position going bust and strengthen his chances to go beyond his original potential.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Eilim
I was thinking somewhat along the same lines with the late "boom' players. Not sure how to check, but could it be possible that the late surge is brought on by gaining a mentor for the players position on his team?

Unlikely since it was present in FOF4 prior to the addition of the mentors.

Edit: That's not to say that mentors do not factor into player development, only that the late boom phenomenon is unlikely to be related directly to bringing in a mentor.

[wbonnell]

wouldn't it be nice if....

...there was a/an(your preference) historical graph for each skill?

As a programmer myself, I would love to embellish this game with a myriad of bells and whistles. Next on my list? Multiple document interface (ie M-V-C).

[OldGiants]

Here's an amazing case from my Dallas career. I'm not sure it's a great thing that this happened.

SE Jack Horn was taken 2/12 by Denver in the 2004 draft. He's now the 7th best WR in football according to scouts as a 68/68. He started out as a 36/53 with vol of 11. He's now the best WR, by far, of the first year's draft.

He's only started on year, last season, 2008. He missed 6 games in 2005, missed all of 2007 with a torn rotator cuff, and missed the last 3 games of 2008 with another torn rotator cuff. He will miss the first 8 weeks of 2009 with this injury.

So in what should have been a 5 year, 80 game career, he's appeared in 53, started 13, and caught 140 for a very nice 17.2 average.

And become the best WR of his class.

Obviously, injuries and PT did not impact him at all.

[Ufer]

Does your scout's ability at the draftee's position and 'young talent' interact with the volatility rating? In other words, if your scout is excellent at offensive line, are you more likely to find the late round guard who booms?

[cthomer5000]

The Depressing tale of Mitch Paddock, Slow-wilting 1st round bust

http://s90012292.onlinehome.us/fofc/poormitch.jpg

[cthomer5000]

dola. What's interesting is the fact that his "getting downfield" rating hangs steady while the bottom drops out on everything else.

EDIT: by that 7th year, he was playing elsewhere. by year 8 he was in the FA pool. I'm not sure if he's still around (i'm in what would be his 10th year at this point)

[PSUColonel1]

"So, not to oversimplify, but would it stand to reason that you want highly-rated players to have low volatility, and lower-rated players to have high-volatility?"


THis is why I am not in love with this new rating. I'd rather it remain more of a mystery, or perhaps allow combine scores to play more of a role in whether or not a player may or may not break out or bust. I think you could keep a players potential to boom or bust a little more shrouded this way.

[Ben E Lou]

So, what should I make of my third-year cornerback, T.J. Wayne??? I picked him up in the 5(19) slot in 2010.

END OF 2010
Playing Time: 16 games, 9 starts, 609 defensive snaps
Overall: 28/46
M2M: 30/53
Zone: 15/25
Bump/Run: 25/51
Diagnosis: 26/60

END OF 2011:
Playing Time: 16 games, 7 starts, 431 defensive snaps
Overall: 35/48 (+2 pot.)
M2M: 38/55 (+2 pot.)
Zone: 20/26 (+1 pot.)
Bump/Run: 30/49 (-2 pot.)
Diagnosis: 37/64 (+4 pot.)

POST TRAINING CAMP 2012:
Overall: 39/50(+2 pot.)
M2M: 49/62 (+7 pot.)
Zone: 22/27 (+1 pot.)
Bump/Run: 32/47 (-2 pot.)
Diagnosis: 42/63 (-1 pot.)

He is (so far) steadily increasing in a few categories, but is consistently DECREASING in bump and run. What do y'all think is going to happen with him?

[rexallllsc]

How do you guys track their Current/Future year-to-year? Write it down?

[Easy Mac]

I think they have a million save files.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by rexallllsc
How do you guys track their Current/Future year-to-year? Write it down?

I have a different save file at the end of every year. When I go to load game I see:

end of 2003
end of 2004
end of 2005
end of 2006
end of 2007
2008

(for example).

I have the hard drive space, so might as well hold onto them for a while. I have an FOF2001 career in 2133 with a save game for every season.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by SkyDog
He is (so far) steadily increasing in a few categories, but is consistently DECREASING in bump and run. What do y'all think is going to happen with him?

Just guessing obviously, but it looks like make a M2M jump and BNR drop are coming soon. It'd be interesting if we see boom/bust with individual skills..... would make things even more interesting.

[azjoe_02]

Bump....

[Ben E Lou]

Rexall:

I do exactly as cthomer. I do a savegame at the end of each season, both in TCY and in FOF's. At the beginning of each regular season, I do a "Save As" with the year of the season, and I do a regular save periodically during the season, saving over the game. I developed the saving-often-during-the-season habit because of how often FOF2K1/2 used to crash.

Example:

At the end of 2011, the LAST thing I do before advancing to next season is hit the regular save button, giving me a savegame with the title: "Falcons 2011" for the end of that year. Right after advancing to 2012, before looking at retirements or anything, I hit "Save As" and go with "Falcons 2012". Then, during the season, anytime I do anything important, I do a regular save, updating the "Falcons 2012" save. Finally, right before advancing to the next season, I hit the save button, giving me a final save of "Falcons 2012".....rinse...repeat....

[Ben E Lou]

NOTE: Originally, this was the beginning of a new thread. The two have now been merged.

I just drafted an OLB with the 4(22) pick. I just went to sign him, and looked at his bars. I KNOW they weren't that high in the draft. Anyone else seen this sort of thing???

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/guthrie.jpg

[Huckleberry]

He must have had some great minicamps.

[Ben E Lou]

Post-camp:http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/guthrie.bmp

A definite immediate break-out guy.

[cuervo72]

At least in FOF4, there was sometimes a discrepancy between ratings prior to drafting and after drafting, I believe this could be seen immediately by visiting the roster screen in-draft. This may also be the case in FOF2004.

Sometimes you could sense a pick wasn't going to work out and then redraft at the same position in the next round :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Boom? I haven't seen.
Bust? Several that were pre-camp, all of which I had drafted.

[RPI-Fan]

You going to move him to DE SD?:)

[CubsFan915]

Originally posted by SkyDog

He is (so far) steadily increasing in a few categories, but is consistently DECREASING in bump and run. What do y'all think is going to happen with him?

Are you playing BNR coverage often? If not, his rating may be decreasing due to the fact that he's less familiar with it as time goes on.

Drool.....

[HornedFrog Purple]

I can't help picturing a Mormon going to a Methodist university for some reason. :)

[FrogMan]

Amazing fourth round pick! You all think the 97 volatility rating was the reason for him booming like that? Also, SkyDog, from the relative thinness of the blue bars in the first screenshot, I'd assume your scout is pretty good at evaluating linebackers, how good is he?

FM

[cthomer5000]

he has DE written all over him. Does he weigh enough?

[mckerney]

I've had a guy's blue bars drop right after the draft, so it does seem to happen.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Damn! That's one hell of a 4th round pick. Even before the Boom.

I have only run through two drafts so far, but I haven't anywhere near talent like this. To be honest, almost all of my draft picks have been absolutely awful. I had the #2 pick overall and he was pretty much a sure hit, but the rest have been rather underwhelming for the most part.

[Ben E Lou]

Responses to various comments/questions:

1. He is too small to play DE.

2. My scout is VG at both young talent and LB's.

3. HB, my point is that he didn't look like that when I first picked him. His "blue-bar ratings" went up after he was drafted, but before training camp.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Responses to various comments/questions:


3. HB, my point is that he didn't look like that when I first picked him. His "blue-bar ratings" went up after he was drafted, but before training camp.

Damn! Wow. Well, that's a horse of a different color. Pretty sure I haven't encountered that before.

He has a 6.8 Bureau Rating. That seems pretty high for a 4th rounder. Again, that could be my lack of FOF2004 drafting experience talking...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by CubsFan915
Are you playing BNR coverage often? If not, his rating may be decreasing due to the fact that he's less familiar with it as time goes on.

Drool..... Good thought, but I am right now playing a good bit of bump and run.

Here's the update:

POST TRAINING CAMP 2013
Overall: 50/50(nc pot.)
M2M: 67 (+5 pot.)
Zone: 30 (+3 pot.)
Bump/Run: 35/45 (-2 pot.)
Diagnosis: 59/64 (+1 pot.)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue
He has a 6.8 Bureau Rating.Right. The bureau rating changed too, I'm almost certain. Again, there's NO WAY, even if the computer had let him fall that far, that I would have let him fall that far, if he had these kinds of bars and ratings during the draft.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by QuikSand, in the other boom/bust thread
Back with FOF 4, someone did some research into the phenomenon of player development, and found a number of things:

/snip/

-"Boom" players take different forms, but many become evident right away, sometimes even before training camp. Often, these players will develop both current and potential ratings with playing time, and will evolve into players far better than they were originally forecasted to be.


I'm quite certain that this feature (some players seeing an adjustment either good or bad immediately upon being drafted) was in FOF 4, and has been carried over to FOF 2004.

[TroyF]

Skydog,

Didn't you read my post yesterday in your boom/bust thread? Wait, don't answer that. :) :)

Yes, I've seen this. My biggest "ethical" moment in the new game came when I drafted a DE in th esecond round who had pretty good potential. Right after the draft, his blue bars were nearly gone and his future potential was a 9. I really didn't want to give this guy a contract after I saw that. In the interest of realism I did. . . he sat inactive for two years until his cap figure was low enough to axe and he was gone.

TroyF

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I'm quite certain that this feature (some players seeing an adjustment either good or bad immediately upon being drafted) was in FOF 4, and has been carried over to FOF 2004.

But it's funny that without the new blue bars, many of us hadn't been looking at the draft that closely before, whereas now we are.

[Daimyo]

Why would you move that guy to DE? He's a perfect WLB (or any LB slot in a 4-3)! As long you gameplan such that he doesn't have to ever cover anyone, he's essentially maxed out.

[Daimyo]

DOLA, I've started making my picks from the 5th round on by sorting by current ratings and then picking the first guy with 95+ volatility and I've had a fair bit of breakouts... RB seem to be especially suited for this as they have the highest currents of any position in the draft and also the highest volatility (at least that's been my observation so far).

[RPI-Fan]

RB seem to be especially suited for this as they have the highest currents of any position in the draft and also the highest volatility (at least that's been my observation so far).

And this would match real life too...

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by cuervo72
But it's funny that without the new blue bars, many of us hadn't been looking at the draft that closely before, whereas now we are.

Probably some truth to that. Also, I'm sure that some of the people who dismissed FOF 4 as not having any new features are now discovering many of that game's features for the first time, as they have been carried over into FOF 2004.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Daimyo
Why would you move that guy to DE? He's a perfect WLB (or any LB slot in a 4-3)! As long you gameplan such that he doesn't have to ever cover anyone, he's essentially maxed out.

Alas - I don't think we have this level of detail in FOF 2004 -- you have no choice but to see this guy playing lots of time in zone coverage, where he's awful. I'm sure that's what is motivating the push for a position switch (however fruitless).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Probably some truth to that. Also, I'm sure that some of the people who dismissed FOF 4 as not having any new features are now discovering many of that game's features for the first time, as they have been carried over into FOF 2004. What is ironic is that I'm not one of those people who dismissed FOF4, although I freely admit that I didn't play it as much as the other Solecismic offerings. Apparently I just never noticed some things.

[cuervo72]

That's also why I'm surprised at what people haven't noticed, some things that I'd taken note of. But then my point of view was somewhat different, not having played any of the versions before FOF4.

[Ben E Lou]

Some of this may looking confusing now, as I'm merging this thread with the other thread regarding volatility, booms and busts, for ease of boom/bust reference in the future.

[Easy Mac]

Damn dog, its a saturday sleep

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Damn dog, its a saturday sleep Y'all should know by now that I am a *very* early riser. I almost never use an alarm clock either, even for 7 or 7:30am meetings (which I have about 10-12 times per month).

...and what is a college kid doing up at 7am on a Saturday? (or is it "Why haven't you gone to sleep YET?" ;))

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Y'all should know by now that I am a *very* early riser. I almost never use an alarm clock either, even for 7 or 7:30am meetings (which I have about 10-12 times per month).

...and what is a college kid doing up at 7am on a Saturday? (or is it "Why haven't you gone to sleep YET?" ;))

Nah, I was up all the night before writing papers, fell asleep at 5 pm b/c I was so tired, and slept all throught the evening. I feel sleeping 14 straight hours is ok. :)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Nah, I was up all the night before writing papers, fell asleep at 5 pm b/c I was so tired, and slept all throught the evening. I feel sleeping 14 straight hours is ok. :) Yikes!

[Anthony]

but the thing is - who really hangs on to players for like 5-6 years? you really gonna wait that long for a player to develop? the average career in the NFL is like 4-5 years tops.

i like that Jim implemented this into the game. realistically guys don't turn into future HOF or Ryan Leaf's after one training camp. what i also like about this is you can never write anyone off in the game anymore. if a guy can stick around for x amount of years, there's a chance the next team that gets him might strike gold.

rather you get guys like Rich Gannon or Ed McCaffery who turn the corner later on in their careers. very good job by Jim making it this way.

[Sharpie]

Tyrone Douglas went undrafted, and ended up becoming a 66/66 QB after 9 years. He started one year, and all the years before that he never started, but logged time as the kick holder.

Volatility-86

[GoSeahawks]

Speaking of volatility........

I drafted LDE Roman Behrendt in the 7th round of the 2004 draft. I picked him because he was rated 12/23 with a very high volatility.

After training camp he surprised the hell out of me as his rating shot up to 35/49. He started all season with just 20 tackles and 3.5 sacks, but I felt like I was on to something.

The next season in 2005 he was rated 38/50. Through six games had 8 tackles and 1 sack before going down with MCL damage. I knew it was a setback, but I hoped he could overcome the next season and come back strong.

In 2006 he dropped to 32/39 because of the injury. He still earned the stating spot because I refused to go out and get a better LDE during free agency. I really wanted him to be a late round surprise, but it was not meant to be. In the last game of preseason he went down with an MCL injury that required surgery. He missed the entire season.

After that, I decided not to resign him. It's now 2007 and he is sitting in the free agent pool at 15/18. It's sad, because I was really pulling for him. I wanted this story to be like the the others in this thread, but injuries held him back.

[Sidhe]

I've had a few breakouts now. Two of them occurred immediately after I pressed the "draft player" button. A center rated at 50 jumped to a 79 -- vol 54. A LDT rated in the 40s jumped to 75 -- vol 97. Another immediate jump I had went the other way -- a RCB rated 60 plummeted to 9 (I didn't mark down the vol rating). I did not sign him. You can actually press the "release" button on unsigned draftees, I found..

I once had a guy who was a marginal starter at LDT jump to a 79. I've had great success picking QBs in the later rounds. These guys are never great, but they are pretty good and I have made an industry of trading them for picks after a year or two. One of them has made a mighty jump to a 73. He was a 65 when I had him (made a modest jump right after I drafted him too). His volatility is 11.

Most of my big jumps have come at positions where my scout is rated either excellent or very good. It's not strong evidence, but I've got a hunch this is a factor.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by SkyDog
POST TRAINING CAMP 2012:
Overall: 39/50(+2 pot.)
M2M: 49/62 (+7 pot.)
Zone: 22/27 (+1 pot.)
Bump/Run: 32/47 (-2 pot.)
Diagnosis: 42/63 (-1 pot.)Update on T.J. Wayne. Right now it is the beginning of 2018, he is my secondary leader now, in his 9th season. Here's how he looks. The first number in parenthesis is his change in potential rating since 2012 (last checked in). The second is the change since the end of his rookie year:

Overall: 54/54(+4, +8)
M2M: 74 (+12, +21)
Zone: 31 (+4, +6)
Bump/Run: 38/44 (-3,-7)
Diagnosis: 62/65 (+2,+5)

It would certainly appear then, that significant single-category improvement/decline is also a feature.

[Darkiller]

I think the main point is that EVERY picks are now valuable.
I will think twice before sending out a 6th or 7th round pick to the other team in a trade package because now I know I may eventually strike gold late in the draft.

I was amazed last night at how long it took me to run my first full serious draft. It's the first time in any FOF versions that I pay that much attention to so many details about my prospects...

[korme]

Wow, Lamont Borcherding was an undrafted player with high votality. Over the first few years, he slowly got a little better. Then in his 7th season he busted out to become a decent starter (49 overall).

In now his 12th season he has bloomed to become a premiere middle linebacker. I am almost stunned. He has 90's in many categories now and is 78 overall.

WOOT.

[Mark]

Does it appear that a player booming or busting later in their career is tied to playing time?

[azjoe_02]

Originally posted by Shorty3281
Wow, Lamont Borcherding was an undrafted player with high votality. Over the first few years, he slowly got a little better. Then in his 7th season he busted out to become a decent starter (49 overall).

In now his 12th season he has bloomed to become a premiere middle linebacker. I am almost stunned. He has 90's in many categories now and is 78 overall.

WOOT.

This, IMHO, was a much needed and awesome addition to the game. I have a 7th rd. draft pick, (RB) that was a breakout and are not only is my starter, but led the league in rushing (in only his 2nd year!). As DK stated, it makes every draft pick count. Besides that I can't make a good pick in the 2nd or 3rd round for nothin'. It seems all of them are getting cut after a couple years.

Mark - although I can't say for sure, I bet it has alot to do with playing time. If a guy can't get enough playing time, than how would he ever fulfil his potential?

[Tasan]

I keep finding myself picking low rating/high volatility guys all the time in the 6th and 7th now. I hate having to throw those picks into deals now. No breakouts yet, but I haven't gotten very far into any of my careers.

[Junior 19]

I know this is coming kind of late in the discussion, but with all the booms that have been written about how many of these players had mentors at their positions?

[Ben E Lou]

I know this is coming kind of late in the discussion, but with all the booms that have been written about how many of these players had mentors at their positions?I've found that some do and some don't. I don't think mentors are directly related to this phenomenom (although I wouldn't be shocked to find out that the accelerate the process).

[wig]

Here's a new log to add to your fire.

I have a 3rd year CB that had a Current/Potential of 76/76 at week 1 of the regular season.

By week 10 he was a 90/90

?????

[Franklinnoble]

Here's a new log to add to your fire.

I have a 3rd year CB that had a Current/Potential of 76/76 at week 1 of the regular season.

By week 10 he was a 90/90

?????
Did he play at all prior to that season?

[Franklinnoble]

dola... I think it's kind of cool, if these sort of late booms are deliberate.... after all, Stephen Davis wasn't remembered for anything but getting his ass kicked by Michael Westbrook for the first three years of his career....

[cthomer5000]

dola... I think it's kind of cool, if these sort of late booms are deliberate.... after all, Stephen Davis wasn't remembered for anything but getting his ass kicked by Michael Westbrook for the first three years of his career....
Or Rich Gannon. He's been a man posessed for the last few years after an incredibly forgettable first 8 or 9.

[Franklinnoble]

Or Rich Gannon. He's been a man posessed for the last few years after an incredibly forgettable first 8 or 9.
Agreed... although he's aged pretty rapidly now... and might be just about done.

[wig]

Did he play at all prior to that season?

He's been the starter since his rookie year.

[SFL Cat]

Another one. Back in 2005, KC drafted T Matthew Flynn with the 7(17) pick. He had high volatility (76). Check out this development:

END 2005
Playing Time: 7 games, 2 starts, 144 offensive snaps
Overall: 25/44
Run Blk: 19/42
Pass Blk: 17/42
Blk Str: 64
End: 19/21

END 2006
Playing Time: 6 games, 24 offensive snaps
Overall: 36/48 (+4)
Run Blk: 33/48 (+6)
Pass Blk: 30/47 (+5)
Blk Str: 65 (+1)
End: 22/23 (+2)

END 2007
Playing Time: 4 games, 17 snaps
Overall: 46/51 (+3)
Run Blk: 48/52 (+4)
Pass Blk: 42/50 (+3)
Blk Str: 66 (+1)
End: 26 (+3)

END 2008
Playing Time: 7 games, 2 starts, 187 snaps
Overall: 50/53 (+2)
Run Blk: 54/56 (+4)
Pass Blk: 46/52 (+2)
Blk Str: 65 (-1)
End: 28 (+2)

END 2009
Playing Time: 5 games, 1 start, 88 snaps
Overall: 52/55 (+2)
Run Blk: 56/57 (+1)
Pass Blk: 49/55 (+3)
Blk Str: 66 (+1)
End: 28 (nc)

END 2010
Playing Time: 16 games, 16 starts, 929 snaps
Overall: 51/53 (-2)
Run Blk: 54/55 (-2)
Pass Blk: 49/55 (+3)
Blk Str: 65 (-1)
End: 26 (-2)

END 2011
Playing Time: 16 games, 16 starts, 976 snaps
Overall: 52/54 (+1)
Run Blk: 57/58 (+3)
Pass Blk: 50/54 (-1)
Blk Str: 64 (-1)
End: 26 (nc)

At this point, after two seasons of playing full time with very little growth and almost complete red lines, and being finished with his 6th year in the league, I would have thought this guy was done developing. WRONG!!! Look what happened at the beginning of year 7. :eek:

2012 AFTER TRAINING CAMP
Overall: 71/73 (+19)
Run Blk: 77/78 (+20)
Pass Blk: 63/68 (+15)
Blk Str: 85 (+21)
End: 60 (+34) :eek:

This is a classic example of what Quik mentioned in his penultimate paragraph--a year 7 boom, and one of VERY significant magnitude.

That guy obviously upgraded his brand of steroids.

Very interesting, btw...but I wonder how many real life players make such a drastic positive jump in their statistics after six or seven relatively steady seasons.

[Troll]

idk if its just me, but i've had several late booms and i've noticed a patern in their performance after.

I had a LT make a jump from an estimate of 76 to 98 entering his 8th year. Up to that point he was a very good LT. In his 7 years he was a 3 time 2nd team all pro. He had 3 years left on his contract with me, he played 6 games in the 3 years after his "boom." He went on to play for another team(with a huge salary!) and never played more than 7 games a season the rest of his career.

I had a RB make a big jump from an estimate of 28 to 67 entering his 5th year. He suffered an injury in training camp that sent his stats back down(ACL surgery.)

The 3rd player was a LB. He jumped from an estimate of 55 to 88 entering his 7th year. He was a backup before then, had just started 1 season, the season prior. He had the big jump and was on the IR before the end of the season. He contract expired and I did not resign him. With the exception of 1 season the rest of his career he never played in more than half the games a season.

These are the only 3 on MY teams that have had big late career booms. I haven't noticed other teams tho.

[Bonegavel]

People still play this game?

[bulletsponge]

yes