PDA

View Full Version : FOF2K7: Ratings Changes


Ben E Lou
10-31-2006, 07:30 PM
This looks like it puts some hard numbers to Jim's comments about scout error being greater in this version. Here are my points:

a. beginning of year
b. FA1
c. immediate postdraft
d. precamp
e. postcamp
f. after Solecismic Bowl

Note the large training camp changes in particular.

<table border="1"> <tbody> <tr> <td>Name</td> <td>Pos</td> <td>2006e Current</td> <td>2006e Future</td> <td>2006f Current</td> <td>2006f Future</td> <td>2007a Current</td> <td>2007a Future</td> <td>2007b Current</td> <td>2007b Future</td> <td>2007c Current</td> <td>2007c Future</td> <td>2007d Current</td> <td>2007d Future</td> <td>2007e Current</td> <td>2007e Future</td> <td>Overall Current Change</td> <td>Overall Future Change</td></tr> <tr> <td>Alston, Dustin</td> <td>QB</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>32</td> <td>32</td> <td>32 (0)</td> <td>32 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Hanson, Deon</td> <td>QB</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>16</td> <td>50</td> <td>15 (-1)</td> <td>38 (-12)</td> <td>-1</td> <td>-12</td></tr> <tr> <td>Porter, Tracy</td> <td>QB</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>22</td> <td>42</td> <td>21 (-1)</td> <td>35 (-7)</td> <td>-1</td> <td>-7</td></tr> <tr> <td>Rubini, Luther</td> <td>QB</td> <td>32</td> <td>66</td> <td>42 (10)</td> <td>66 (0)</td> <td>42 (0)</td> <td>66 (0)</td> <td>39 (-3)</td> <td>67 (1)</td> <td>39 (0)</td> <td>67 (0)</td> <td>39 (0)</td> <td>67 (0)</td> <td>39 (0)</td> <td>67 (0)</td> <td>7</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Dennis, Derek</td> <td>RB</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>30</td> <td>44</td> <td>29 (-1)</td> <td>40 (-4)</td> <td>-1</td> <td>-4</td></tr> <tr> <td>Gutierrez, Ian</td> <td>RB</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>18</td> <td>32</td> <td>18 (0)</td> <td>33 (1)</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Kaplan, Dan</td> <td>RB</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>43</td> <td>43</td> <td>43 (0)</td> <td>43 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Ogden, Barry</td> <td>RB</td> <td>56</td> <td>69</td> <td>63 (7)</td> <td>69 (0)</td> <td>62 (-1)</td> <td>69 (0)</td> <td>58 (-4)</td> <td>67 (-2)</td> <td>58 (0)</td> <td>67 (0)</td> <td>58 (0)</td> <td>67 (0)</td> <td>57 (-1)</td> <td>67 (0)</td> <td>1</td> <td>-2</td></tr> <tr> <td>Newhart, Kendall</td> <td>FB</td> <td>41</td> <td>72</td> <td>50 (9)</td> <td>72 (0)</td> <td>51 (1)</td> <td>71 (-1)</td> <td>52 (1)</td> <td>71 (0)</td> <td>52 (0)</td> <td>71 (0)</td> <td>52 (0)</td> <td>71 (0)</td> <td>54 (2)</td> <td>72 (1)</td> <td>13</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Ripley, Brandon</td> <td>FB</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>24</td> <td>26</td> <td>18 (-6)</td> <td>19 (-7)</td> <td>-6</td> <td>-7</td></tr> <tr> <td>Bartell, Percy</td> <td>TE</td> <td>31</td> <td>58</td> <td>32 (1)</td> <td>58 (0)</td> <td>32 (0)</td> <td>58 (0)</td> <td>33 (1)</td> <td>60 (2)</td> <td>33 (0)</td> <td>60 (0)</td> <td>33 (0)</td> <td>60 (0)</td> <td>35 (2)</td> <td>60 (0)</td> <td>4</td> <td>2</td></tr> <tr> <td>Brandt, Michael</td> <td>TE</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>52</td> <td>52</td> <td>53 (1)</td> <td>53 (1)</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Whitted, Peter</td> <td>TE</td> <td>28</td> <td>41</td> <td>29 (1)</td> <td>41 (0)</td> <td>29 (0)</td> <td>41 (0)</td> <td>28 (-1)</td> <td>41 (0)</td> <td>28 (0)</td> <td>41 (0)</td> <td>28 (0)</td> <td>41 (0)</td> <td>30 (2)</td> <td>41 (0)</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Coffey, Roy</td> <td>FL</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>45</td> <td>51</td> <td>46 (1)</td> <td>51 (0)</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Fields, Sean</td> <td>FL</td> <td>81</td> <td>81</td> <td>81 (0)</td> <td>81 (0)</td> <td>81 (0)</td> <td>81 (0)</td> <td>82 (1)</td> <td>82 (1)</td> <td>82 (0)</td> <td>82 (0)</td> <td>82 (0)</td> <td>82 (0)</td> <td>82 (0)</td> <td>82 (0)</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Grove, Wayne</td> <td>FL</td> <td>21</td> <td>44</td> <td>26 (5)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>26 (0)</td> <td>45 (1)</td> <td>24 (-2)</td> <td>42 (-3)</td> <td>24 (0)</td> <td>42 (0)</td> <td>24 (0)</td> <td>42 (0)</td> <td>25 (1)</td> <td>42 (0)</td> <td>4</td> <td>-2</td></tr> <tr> <td>Irwin, Howie</td> <td>FL</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>16</td> <td>38</td> <td>16 (0)</td> <td>33 (-5)</td> <td>0</td> <td>-5</td></tr> <tr> <td>McLemore, Irv</td> <td>FL</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>22</td> <td>47</td> <td>22 (0)</td> <td>47 (0)</td> <td>23 (1)</td> <td>46 (-1)</td> <td>1</td> <td>-1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Strickland, Melvin</td> <td>FL</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>15</td> <td>25</td> <td>15 (0)</td> <td>25 (0)</td> <td>17 (2)</td> <td>29 (4)</td> <td>2</td> <td>4</td></tr> <tr> <td>Bird, Byron</td> <td>SE</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>41</td> <td>41</td> <td>41 (0)</td> <td>41 (0)</td> <td>38 (-3)</td> <td>38 (-3)</td> <td>-3</td> <td>-3</td></tr> <tr> <td>Riley, Ben</td> <td>SE</td> <td>52</td> <td>57</td> <td>56 (4)</td> <td>57 (0)</td> <td>56 (0)</td> <td>57 (0)</td> <td>55 (-1)</td> <td>57 (0)</td> <td>55 (0)</td> <td>57 (0)</td> <td>55 (0)</td> <td>57 (0)</td> <td>58 (3)</td> <td>58 (1)</td> <td>6</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Finn, Frankie</td> <td>C</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>62</td> <td>62</td> <td>62 (0)</td> <td>62 (0)</td> <td>55 (-7)</td> <td>55 (-7)</td> <td>-7</td> <td>-7</td></tr> <tr> <td>Frederick, Riddick</td> <td>C</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>23</td> <td>43</td> <td>23 (0)</td> <td>39 (-4)</td> <td>0</td> <td>-4</td></tr> <tr> <td>Wang, Ron</td> <td>C</td> <td>30</td> <td>48</td> <td>35 (5)</td> <td>48 (0)</td> <td>34 (-1)</td> <td>48 (0)</td> <td>34 (0)</td> <td>48 (0)</td> <td>34 (0)</td> <td>48 (0)</td> <td>34 (0)</td> <td>48 (0)</td> <td>37 (3)</td> <td>47 (-1)</td> <td>7</td> <td>-1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Dotson, Marco</td> <td>LG</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>18</td> <td>37</td> <td>19 (1)</td> <td>36 (-1)</td> <td>1</td> <td>-1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Malinsky, Lewis</td> <td>LG</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>40</td> <td>40</td> <td>40 (0)</td> <td>40 (0)</td> <td>38 (-2)</td> <td>38 (-2)</td> <td>-2</td> <td>-2</td></tr> <tr> <td>Swilling, Leroy</td> <td>LG</td> <td>13</td> <td>37</td> <td>12 (-1)</td> <td>37 (0)</td> <td>12 (0)</td> <td>37 (0)</td> <td>14 (2)</td> <td>36 (-1)</td> <td>14 (0)</td> <td>36 (0)</td> <td>14 (0)</td> <td>36 (0)</td> <td>15 (1)</td> <td>37 (1)</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Lefebvre, Sammy</td> <td>RG</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>27</td> <td>50</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Castillo, Kim</td> <td>LT</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>27</td> <td>46</td> <td>27 (0)</td> <td>46 (0)</td> <td>25 (-2)</td> <td>45 (-1)</td> <td>-2</td> <td>-1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Conley, Clyde</td> <td>LT</td> <td>39</td> <td>52</td> <td>49 (10)</td> <td>52 (0)</td> <td>49 (0)</td> <td>51 (-1)</td> <td>48 (-1)</td> <td>52 (1)</td> <td>48 (0)</td> <td>52 (0)</td> <td>48 (0)</td> <td>52 (0)</td> <td>47 (-1)</td> <td>51 (-1)</td> <td>8</td> <td>-1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Crouse, Trent</td> <td>LT</td> <td>26</td> <td>46</td> <td>28 (2)</td> <td>46 (0)</td> <td>28 (0)</td> <td>44 (-2)</td> <td>29 (1)</td> <td>45 (1)</td> <td>29 (0)</td> <td>45 (0)</td> <td>29 (0)</td> <td>45 (0)</td> <td>30 (1)</td> <td>46 (1)</td> <td>4</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Clancy, Johnnie</td> <td>RT</td> <td>22</td> <td>42</td> <td>22 (0)</td> <td>42 (0)</td> <td>22 (0)</td> <td>42 (0)</td> <td>22 (0)</td> <td>41 (-1)</td> <td>22 (0)</td> <td>41 (0)</td> <td>22 (0)</td> <td>41 (0)</td> <td>25 (3)</td> <td>40 (-1)</td> <td>3</td> <td>-2</td></tr> <tr> <td>Strong, Reuben</td> <td>RT</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>51</td> <td>51</td> <td>51 (0)</td> <td>51 (0)</td> <td>50 (-1)</td> <td>50 (-1)</td> <td>-1</td> <td>-1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Burk, Phillip</td> <td>K</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>50</td> <td>50</td> <td>50 (0)</td> <td>50 (0)</td> <td>46 (-4)</td> <td>46 (-4)</td> <td>-4</td> <td>-4</td></tr> <tr> <td>Woodard, Joey</td> <td>P</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>76</td> <td>76</td> <td>76 (0)</td> <td>76 (0)</td> <td>76 (0)</td> <td>76 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Glover, Jermaine</td> <td>LDE</td> <td>84</td> <td>84</td> <td>84 (0)</td> <td>84 (0)</td> <td>85 (1)</td> <td>85 (1)</td> <td>85 (0)</td> <td>85 (0)</td> <td>85 (0)</td> <td>85 (0)</td> <td>85 (0)</td> <td>85 (0)</td> <td>79 (-6)</td> <td>79 (-6)</td> <td>-5</td> <td>-5</td></tr> <tr> <td>Newton, Earl</td> <td>LDE</td> <td>20</td> <td>34</td> <td>21 (1)</td> <td>34 (0)</td> <td>21 (0)</td> <td>35 (1)</td> <td>21 (0)</td> <td>35 (0)</td> <td>21 (0)</td> <td>35 (0)</td> <td>21 (0)</td> <td>35 (0)</td> <td>21 (0)</td> <td>35 (0)</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Stargell, Tyrus</td> <td>LDE</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>27</td> <td>36</td> <td>29 (2)</td> <td>44 (8)</td> <td>2</td> <td>8</td></tr> <tr> <td>Bloom, Rex</td> <td>LDT</td> <td>16</td> <td>42</td> <td>17 (1)</td> <td>42 (0)</td> <td>17 (0)</td> <td>42 (0)</td> <td>15 (-2)</td> <td>36 (-6)</td> <td>15 (0)</td> <td>36 (0)</td> <td>15 (0)</td> <td>36 (0)</td> <td>17 (2)</td> <td>36 (0)</td> <td>1</td> <td>-6</td></tr> <tr> <td>Patterson, Lonnie</td> <td>LDT</td> <td>39</td> <td>55</td> <td>44 (5)</td> <td>55 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>55 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>55 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>55 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>55 (0)</td> <td>46 (2)</td> <td>55 (0)</td> <td>7</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Sheldon, Stephen</td> <td>LDT</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>21</td> <td>60</td> <td>21 (0)</td> <td>60 (0)</td> <td>23 (2)</td> <td>56 (-4)</td> <td>2</td> <td>-4</td></tr> <tr> <td>McIntosh, J.J.</td> <td>RDT</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>58</td> <td>58</td> <td>58 (0)</td> <td>58 (0)</td> <td>49 (-9)</td> <td>49 (-9)</td> <td>-9</td> <td>-9</td></tr> <tr> <td>Pehrson, Gus</td> <td>RDT</td> <td>23</td> <td>47</td> <td>26 (3)</td> <td>47 (0)</td> <td>27 (1)</td> <td>48 (1)</td> <td>26 (-1)</td> <td>43 (-5)</td> <td>26 (0)</td> <td>43 (0)</td> <td>26 (0)</td> <td>43 (0)</td> <td>27 (1)</td> <td>43 (0)</td> <td>4</td> <td>-4</td></tr> <tr> <td>Huntley, Tommy</td> <td>RDE</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>60</td> <td>60</td> <td>60 (0)</td> <td>60 (0)</td> <td>60 (0)</td> <td>60 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Welch, Mitchell</td> <td>RDE</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>22</td> <td>51</td> <td>22 (0)</td> <td>51 (0)</td> <td>25 (3)</td> <td>51 (0)</td> <td>3</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Connolly, Robbie</td> <td>SLB</td> <td>70</td> <td>75</td> <td>73 (3)</td> <td>73 (-2)</td> <td>73 (0)</td> <td>73 (0)</td> <td>73 (0)</td> <td>73 (0)</td> <td>73 (0)</td> <td>73 (0)</td> <td>73 (0)</td> <td>73 (0)</td> <td>66 (-7)</td> <td>66 (-7)</td> <td>-4</td> <td>-9</td></tr> <tr> <td>Grier, Rico</td> <td>SLB</td> <td>13</td> <td>39</td> <td>13 (0)</td> <td>39 (0)</td> <td>13 (0)</td> <td>39 (0)</td> <td>13 (0)</td> <td>38 (-1)</td> <td>13 (0)</td> <td>38 (0)</td> <td>13 (0)</td> <td>38 (0)</td> <td>13 (0)</td> <td>38 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>-1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Hopper, Kendall</td> <td>SLB</td> <td>38</td> <td>62</td> <td>47 (9)</td> <td>62 (0)</td> <td>47 (0)</td> <td>62 (0)</td> <td>45 (-2)</td> <td>60 (-2)</td> <td>45 (0)</td> <td>60 (0)</td> <td>45 (0)</td> <td>60 (0)</td> <td>47 (2)</td> <td>60 (0)</td> <td>9</td> <td>-2</td></tr> <tr> <td>Black, Mario</td> <td>MLB</td> <td>36</td> <td>69</td> <td>48 (12)</td> <td>69 (0)</td> <td>49 (1)</td> <td>69 (0)</td> <td>49 (0)</td> <td>69 (0)</td> <td>49 (0)</td> <td>69 (0)</td> <td>49 (0)</td> <td>69 (0)</td> <td>53 (4)</td> <td>70 (1)</td> <td>17</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Gillespie, David</td> <td>MLB</td> <td>16</td> <td>48</td> <td>19 (3)</td> <td>48 (0)</td> <td>19 (0)</td> <td>48 (0)</td> <td>18 (-1)</td> <td>47 (-1)</td> <td>18 (0)</td> <td>47 (0)</td> <td>18 (0)</td> <td>47 (0)</td> <td>22 (4)</td> <td>48 (1)</td> <td>6</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Huffman, Brandon</td> <td>WLB</td> <td>41</td> <td>44</td> <td>44 (3)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>39 (-5)</td> <td>39 (-5)</td> <td>-2</td> <td>-5</td></tr> <tr> <td>Meeker, Junior</td> <td>WLB</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>37</td> <td>72</td> <td>37 (0)</td> <td>72 (0)</td> <td>40 (3)</td> <td>70 (-2)</td> <td>3</td> <td>-2</td></tr> <tr> <td>Peelle, Monty</td> <td>WLB</td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>
</pre></td> <td>65</td> <td>65</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Caccavale, Monty</td> <td>LCB</td> <td>37</td> <td>48</td> <td>42 (5)</td> <td>48 (0)</td> <td>45 (3)</td> <td>50 (2)</td> <td>44 (-1)</td> <td>49 (-1)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>49 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>49 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>49 (0)</td> <td>7</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Shelton, Erik</td> <td>LCB</td> <td>19</td> <td>47</td> <td>25 (6)</td> <td>47 (0)</td> <td>25 (0)</td> <td>48 (1)</td> <td>24 (-1)</td> <td>46 (-2)</td> <td>24 (0)</td> <td>46 (0)</td> <td>24 (0)</td> <td>46 (0)</td> <td>24 (0)</td> <td>46 (0)</td> <td>5</td> <td>-1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Stillwell, J.C.</td> <td>LCB</td> <td>22</td> <td>41</td> <td>25 (3)</td> <td>41 (0)</td> <td>24 (-1)</td> <td>39 (-2)</td> <td>26 (2)</td> <td>42 (3)</td> <td>26 (0)</td> <td>42 (0)</td> <td>26 (0)</td> <td>42 (0)</td> <td>27 (1)</td> <td>43 (1)</td> <td>5</td> <td>2</td></tr> <tr> <td>Beuerlein, Darrin</td> <td>RCB</td> <td>54</td> <td>62</td> <td>58 (4)</td> <td>58 (-4)</td> <td>61 (3)</td> <td>61 (3)</td> <td>61 (0)</td> <td>61 (0)</td> <td>61 (0)</td> <td>61 (0)</td> <td>61 (0)</td> <td>61 (0)</td> <td>53 (-8)</td> <td>53 (-8)</td> <td>-1</td> <td>-9</td></tr> <tr> <td>Hayes, Herb</td> <td>RCB</td> <td>10</td> <td>34</td> <td>10 (0)</td> <td>34 (0)</td> <td>10 (0)</td> <td>37 (3)</td> <td>10 (0)</td> <td>33 (-4)</td> <td>10 (0)</td> <td>33 (0)</td> <td>10 (0)</td> <td>33 (0)</td> <td>11 (1)</td> <td>33 (0)</td> <td>1</td> <td>-1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Porcher, Pat</td> <td>SS</td> <td>13</td> <td>37</td> <td>13 (0)</td> <td>37 (0)</td> <td>13 (0)</td> <td>35 (-2)</td> <td>13 (0)</td> <td>34 (-1)</td> <td>13 (0)</td> <td>34 (0)</td> <td>13 (0)</td> <td>34 (0)</td> <td>15 (2)</td> <td>34 (0)</td> <td>2</td> <td>-3</td></tr> <tr> <td>Swift, Buddy</td> <td>SS</td> <td>40</td> <td>53</td> <td>52 (12)</td> <td>53 (0)</td> <td>54 (2)</td> <td>58 (5)</td> <td>52 (-2)</td> <td>58 (0)</td> <td>52 (0)</td> <td>58 (0)</td> <td>52 (0)</td> <td>58 (0)</td> <td>54 (2)</td> <td>57 (-1)</td> <td>14</td> <td>4</td></tr> <tr> <td>Heck, Harris</td> <td>FS</td> <td>19</td> <td>53</td> <td>23 (4)</td> <td>53 (0)</td> <td>24 (1)</td> <td>55 (2)</td> <td>23 (-1)</td> <td>52 (-3)</td> <td>23 (0)</td> <td>52 (0)</td> <td>27 (4)</td> <td>52 (0)</td> <td>29 (2)</td> <td>51 (-1)</td> <td>10</td> <td>-2</td></tr> <tr> <td>Zahursky, Eric</td> <td>FS</td> <td>54</td> <td>54</td> <td>54 (0)</td> <td>54 (0)</td> <td>57 (3)</td> <td>57 (3)</td> <td>56 (-1)</td> <td>56 (-1)</td> <td>56 (0)</td> <td>56 (0)</td> <td>56 (0)</td> <td>56 (0)</td> <td>57 (1)</td> <td>57 (1)</td> <td>3</td> <td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>

Ben E Lou
10-31-2006, 07:40 PM
Initial observations...


No in-season future potential increases, but a couple of drops.
Loss of in-season current rating seems to be largely eliminated
NO changes between the draft and training camp. (NICE!)
Most significant changes taking place in training camp.
Gonna have to watch undrafted rookie LDE Tyrus Stargell. :pThoughts?

Wolfy
10-31-2006, 07:45 PM
I've had two first round picks bust bad after camp. They were in years 2 and 4 of their careers and both were starters playing well. That hurt.

Ben E Lou
10-31-2006, 07:45 PM
Oh...and note to self: that veteran FA FB you sign in FA2 just to run block? He might suck. {Stares menancingly at Brandon Ripley}

kcchief19
10-31-2006, 08:47 PM
I've had two first round picks bust bad after camp. They were in years 2 and 4 of their careers and both were starters playing well. That hurt.
Did you change scouts? Your ratings will change -- sometimes significantly -- when changing scouts.

But the other fact -- and this is critical -- is that I'm definitely seeing players perform above and below their ratings as advertised.

Example 1: I signed a MLB in Stage 8 who had been in the league four years and had been a backup for St. Louis. My starting MLB wanted a mint to resign and wasn't worth the money, so I let him go and signed this guy who looked solid but not spectacular. I didn't record his initial ratings when I signed him, but right now he's 56/56 with 88 for run defense and punishing hitter and no other rating above 51, the others ranging from 17 to 48. All he did in his first year with me was record 107 tackles, 46 assists and 5 sacks. Those numbers were all better than the all-league line backer. The biggest difference between the two was that my guy had a PDPct of 71% vs. 79% for the all-league MLB.

Example 2: I'm in desperate need of a receiver and I sign the best WR available in FA by ratings, who the previous season had put up 750 yards as a No. 2 receiver. Based on what I've seen so far, I didn't have a good feeling about the guy. He got banged up a bit, but still caught just 59 balls as my No. 1 WR -- the same number as the year before. His yards went up to 980, but also drops passes like they are going out of style.

Lesson: More so than before, ratings don't tell the whole story. If guys are getting the job done, the ratings may not be telling you what you think they are.

albionmoonlight
10-31-2006, 09:33 PM
Did you change scouts? Your ratings will change -- sometimes significantly -- when changing scouts.

But the other fact -- and this is critical -- is that I'm definitely seeing players perform above and below their ratings as advertised.

Example 1: I signed a MLB in Stage 8 who had been in the league four years and had been a backup for St. Louis. My starting MLB wanted a mint to resign and wasn't worth the money, so I let him go and signed this guy who looked solid but not spectacular. I didn't record his initial ratings when I signed him, but right now he's 56/56 with 88 for run defense and punishing hitter and no other rating above 51, the others ranging from 17 to 48. All he did in his first year with me was record 107 tackles, 46 assists and 5 sacks. Those numbers were all better than the all-league line backer. The biggest difference between the two was that my guy had a PDPct of 71% vs. 79% for the all-league MLB.

Example 2: I'm in desperate need of a receiver and I sign the best WR available in FA by ratings, who the previous season had put up 750 yards as a No. 2 receiver. Based on what I've seen so far, I didn't have a good feeling about the guy. He got banged up a bit, but still caught just 59 balls as my No. 1 WR -- the same number as the year before. His yards went up to 980, but also drops passes like they are going out of style.

Lesson: More so than before, ratings don't tell the whole story. If guys are getting the job done, the ratings may not be telling you what you think they are.

Question for the group then. Lets say that what is happening here is that we all see player X as a 40/40 guy when in reality he is a 60/60 guy (NOTE: This may not be what is happening). At some point, shouldn't our perception of his ratings increase?

Even though Wayne Cherbet came into the league as a UFA with everyone seeing him as a 20/20, there had to be a point, after years of production, that we saw him as a 50/50--a point where his production got incorporated into his ratings.

I'd hate to not be able to trust my scout to evaluate a ten year vet who has been on my team for five years.

Galaxy
10-31-2006, 10:51 PM
Sounds promising.

Ben,

Any more studies on the roster-building of the AI?

Wolfy
10-31-2006, 11:17 PM
Did you change scouts? Your ratings will change -- sometimes significantly -- when changing scouts.

But the other fact -- and this is critical -- is that I'm definitely seeing players perform above and below their ratings as advertised.

Example 1: I signed a MLB in Stage 8 who had been in the league four years and had been a backup for St. Louis. My starting MLB wanted a mint to resign and wasn't worth the money, so I let him go and signed this guy who looked solid but not spectacular. I didn't record his initial ratings when I signed him, but right now he's 56/56 with 88 for run defense and punishing hitter and no other rating above 51, the others ranging from 17 to 48. All he did in his first year with me was record 107 tackles, 46 assists and 5 sacks. Those numbers were all better than the all-league line backer. The biggest difference between the two was that my guy had a PDPct of 71% vs. 79% for the all-league MLB.

Example 2: I'm in desperate need of a receiver and I sign the best WR available in FA by ratings, who the previous season had put up 750 yards as a No. 2 receiver. Based on what I've seen so far, I didn't have a good feeling about the guy. He got banged up a bit, but still caught just 59 balls as my No. 1 WR -- the same number as the year before. His yards went up to 980, but also drops passes like they are going out of style.

Lesson: More so than before, ratings don't tell the whole story. If guys are getting the job done, the ratings may not be telling you what you think they are.

1. QB, 3rd overall pick rated about 20/68. He started 3 years and his QB rating was 72, 76 and then a 64, not great esp the 3rd year. His ratings going into TC year 4 where 36/52. He came out of camp 16/22.

2. DT, 2nd round pick rated about 21/52. Started his rookie year but did share time with a vet. 4.5 sacks out of 207 pass plays for him. When into camp year 2 about 32/48 and came out 14/21.

DIfferent years and I have only changed a scout once during this game.

WVUFAN
10-31-2006, 11:54 PM
This may be covered elsewhere, so if it is, just point me in the right direction and accept my apology for the spam ...

Is ratings handled any differently for multiplayer in this version? Is the ratings listed on html output still based on the scout for whatever team the Commish is on when he requests the output, or is there some other determination for rating listings on MP html output?

Honolulu Blue
11-01-2006, 02:52 AM
Lesson: More so than before, ratings don't tell the whole story. If guys are getting the job done, the ratings may not be telling you what you think they are.

Question for the group then. Lets say that what is happening here is that we all see player X as a 40/40 guy when in reality he is a 60/60 guy (NOTE: This may not be what is happening). At some point, shouldn't our perception of his ratings increase?

Maybe, or maybe not. Ours as head coach/GM would certainly increase, but the scout's might not, for whatever reason ("I just don't think he's as good as he looks, boss").

I like the fact that I have to read both the stats and the views of my scouts, if that's what Jim intended (I think it is).

Ben E Lou
11-12-2006, 06:08 AM
I just had my largest non-injury ratings change, I think larger than anything I ever saw in FOF2K4. An 11th-year WR went into training camp as my best guy, at 56/56. He came out 29/29. #$(%*#^(% aging! :mad:





I LOVE this game! :D

CraigSca
11-12-2006, 06:29 AM
Maybe, or maybe not. Ours as head coach/GM would certainly increase, but the scout's might not, for whatever reason ("I just don't think he's as good as he looks, boss").

I like the fact that I have to read both the stats and the views of my scouts, if that's what Jim intended (I think it is).

And this certainly makes pre-season much more interesting. Ok, my scout says one thing, but I need to get this guy reps in a real game to see how he performs.

Finally, pre-season isn't about praying for no injuries, you now have to evaluate the talent on the team (as well as keep your veterans from getting rusty).

Ben E Lou
11-12-2006, 06:38 AM
And this certainly makes pre-season much more interesting. Ok, my scout says one thing, but I need to get this guy reps in a real game to see how he performs.

Finally, pre-season isn't about praying for no injuries, you now have to evaluate the talent on the team (as well as keep your veterans from getting rusty).Yeah, my ancient wide receiver just looked like crap in training camp, so now I've got to figure out who is gonna start. :D

Dutch
11-12-2006, 06:47 AM
Some ratings changes are good, some are bad, but this one sucks for Miami in the year 2010, just a few seasons removed from acquiring their "saviour" at 1.1. Somewhat surprised to see the 1.1 go to summer camp. Still not sure how summer camp works yet. In any event, the guy never played a down of football. He may have been a bust, I never saw his ratings when they went to green/red.

http://www.explodinghouse.net/fof/harper01.png

http://www.explodinghouse.net/fof/harper02.png

JeffW
11-12-2006, 07:21 AM
Wow, I like your interface, Dutch. How can I fix mine to look like that?

Thanks.

CraigSca
11-12-2006, 07:40 AM
That's the German Edition of FOF.

Subby
11-12-2006, 08:23 AM
Wow, I like your interface, Dutch. How can I fix mine to look like that?

Thanks.
Hey Jeff - check cuervo's miscellaneous stuff (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=53766) thread...

Subby
11-12-2006, 08:25 AM
Is ratings handled any differently for multiplayer in this version? Is the ratings listed on html output still based on the scout for whatever team the Commish is on when he requests the output, or is there some other determination for rating listings on MP html output?
No. There is no player page html...

Dutch
11-12-2006, 11:10 AM
That's the German Edition of FOF.

Haha,

Credits go to Cuervo for porting some older graphics over and a minor update I made to the experience tag to show off rookies. And the reshacker.

Here's my background (http://www.explodinghouse.net/fof/mods/03-quarterback.bmp), I'm sure it's obvious who the QB is if you ever watched football in the mid 90's.

Joe
11-12-2006, 11:16 AM
Haha,

Credits go to Cuervo for porting some older graphics over and a minor update I made to the experience tag to show off rookies. And the reshacker.

Here's my background (http://www.explodinghouse.net/fof/mods/03-quarterback.bmp), I'm sure it's obvious who the QB is if you ever watched football in the mid 90's.

wade wilson?

Dutch
11-12-2006, 11:20 AM
wade wilson?

No, but I'm sure he has his share of exasperated looks as well.

Ben E Lou
06-03-2007, 06:13 AM
Question for the group then. Lets say that what is happening here is that we all see player X as a 40/40 guy when in reality he is a 60/60 guy (NOTE: This may not be what is happening). At some point, shouldn't our perception of his ratings increase?

Even though Wayne Cherbet came into the league as a UFA with everyone seeing him as a 20/20, there had to be a point, after years of production, that we saw him as a 50/50--a point where his production got incorporated into his ratings.

I'd hate to not be able to trust my scout to evaluate a ten year vet who has been on my team for five years.

I want to revisit this statement. Is anyone else seeing this, and is this a shared concern?

nilodor
06-03-2007, 10:46 AM
I want to revisit this statement. Is anyone else seeing this, and is this a shared concern?

I posted this in the drafting thread but it seems relavant here.

There seems to be players where there ratings are fully developed after 5 years or so, they may be creeping upward or static, who consistently out perform their ratings. They may be a 40/40 guy, playing better than a 70/70 guy. I don't know if their real ratings are more like 55/55 and 50/50 or something, or the one guy doesn't work well in my scheme but there are definately instances that bring this in to question for me.

So to answer your question, yes I think it is a concern. I think not all ratings are created equal.

Warhammer
06-03-2007, 10:56 AM
I posted this in the drafting thread but it seems relavant here.

There seems to be players where there ratings are fully developed after 5 years or so, they may be creeping upward or static, who consistently out perform their ratings. They may be a 40/40 guy, playing better than a 70/70 guy. I don't know if their real ratings are more like 55/55 and 50/50 or something, or the one guy doesn't work well in my scheme but there are definately instances that bring this in to question for me.

So to answer your question, yes I think it is a concern. I think not all ratings are created equal.

I don't know though. Did Grant Wistrom excel at any one area of his game? Yet, he was considered a second tier DE for a good portion of his career. He always struck me as that 45/50 guy who played like a 65/65 guy.

I think there should be some guys who don't scout well, but always outperform their ratings. But, if there are 100 of them in the league I think there are problems, but if there are 10-15 of them, I don't have a problem.

nilodor
06-03-2007, 11:59 AM
I don't know though. Did Grant Wistrom excel at any one area of his game? Yet, he was considered a second tier DE for a good portion of his career. He always struck me as that 45/50 guy who played like a 65/65 guy.

I think there should be some guys who don't scout well, but always outperform their ratings. But, if there are 100 of them in the league I think there are problems, but if there are 10-15 of them, I don't have a problem.

Do you think that these types of players, once fully developed should get a bump in their ratings to reflect their production? This would reflect that the league has 'caught on' to this player.

The main doubt i have in my mind around these types of players is are they really playing better than their ratings (or conversely playing worse than their ratings) or is one guy a much better fit for the scheme that is going on, or is one guy benifiting from hidden interactions, through intellegence, personality, cohesion or other possibly hidden ratings?

gstelmack
06-03-2007, 12:06 PM
The main doubt i have in my mind around these types of players is are they really playing better than their ratings (or conversely playing worse than their ratings) or is one guy a much better fit for the scheme that is going on, or is one guy benifiting from hidden interactions, through intellegence, personality, cohesion or other possibly hidden ratings?

Which is why I hate scout error. You ought to know how well the guy is playing week in and week out (and their CURRENT ratings should reflect it), and if a guy is outperforming you know he's doing well in your system. Kind of like, say, Deion Branch.

Where scout error should play in is the evaluation of how good a guy might eventually become, and the current value of players who have never played an NFL down.

Vinatieri for Prez
06-03-2007, 01:25 PM
I agree with this. Scout error on current ability should match stats and get unmasked fairly quickly. Future rating (and current for rookies) should remain foggy until a player actually peaks.

Sgran
06-03-2007, 02:37 PM
I take it we're talking about SP here, right? Because in an MP the owners determine value. In the SP, the ratings seem (although I've never actually studied this) to determine interest from CPU teams, and contract demands. My best example is a DE that I had with 100 pass rush technique and 0 for run support. His overall was in the high 30s or low 40s. I used him on nickel and dime packages and he led the league in sacks, hurries and knockdowns. The guy earned 1rst team honors, yet the next year I could resign him in FA without any other bids at a bargain price.
Could you imagine in RL if the league's sack leader came on the market? I refuse to believe that he simply fit well in my system. The game simply fails to acknowledge performance.

RedKingGold
06-03-2007, 07:45 PM
I take it we're talking about SP here, right? Because in an MP the owners determine value. In the SP, the ratings seem (although I've never actually studied this) to determine interest from CPU teams, and contract demands. My best example is a DE that I had with 100 pass rush technique and 0 for run support. His overall was in the high 30s or low 40s. I used him on nickel and dime packages and he led the league in sacks, hurries and knockdowns. The guy earned 1rst team honors, yet the next year I could resign him in FA without any other bids at a bargain price.
Could you imagine in RL if the league's sack leader came on the market? I refuse to believe that he simply fit well in my system. The game simply fails to acknowledge performance.

Sounds like a bad MP league

bignej
06-03-2007, 08:05 PM
Sounds like a bad MP league

I think he's talking about SP CPU teams not trying to sign the guy.