FOF2K7 Drafting Thoughts

[Ben E Lou]

1. It still appears, in general, that good performance at the combines usually = good player.
2. I think part of the reason people are not doing as well is that the AI is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better at drafting than in the past. Just now, I picked 1(24), and then looked for my next pick. I decided that I'd go after a CB who I'd interviewed, looked good, scouted well, did well in the combine. He was the fifth-best CB left on the board, in terms of Adjusted Rating, so I figured I had some time before I needed to even think about trading up to get him.

No dice. The sumbitch went with the 1(31) pick, before any of the other four CB's who had better Adjusted Ratings. :mad:

I'm gonna LOVE this game. :D

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Everything I keep hearing about the draft just keeps getting better and better. This is really shaping up nicely. We have:

- additional combine scores for broad jump and for position
- players skipping the combine
- interviews (making scouts more valuable)
- no busts until after training camp/signing
- no current/future rating to view
- better AI in picking players
- better AI in trading picks

They're all HUGE improvements. The list just keeps growing.

[Ben E Lou]

Others' thoughts on the draft so far?

[azjoe_02]

1. It still appears, in general, that good performance at the combines usually = good player.
2. I think part of the reason people are not doing as well is that the AI is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better at drafting than in the past. Just now, I picked 1(24), and then looked for my next pick. I decided that I'd go after a CB who I'd interviewed, looked good, scouted well, did well in the combine. He was the fourth-best CB left on the board, in terms of Adjusted Rating, so I figured I had some time before I needed to even think about trading up to get him.

No dice. The sumbitch went with the 1(31) pick, before any of the other four CB's who had better Adjusted Ratings. :mad:

I'm gonna LOVE this game. :D

I have seen the same exact thing happen....and I gotta say, after the heartache of losing out on a guy that I wanted, I felt that it was a much improved drafting AI and was excited that it would now be a challenge.:D

[Groundhog]

I still haven't bought the game yet, but things like this keep making me want to.

[nilodor]

What are your thoughts on the underrated/overated label from your scouts?

I think it has something to do with where in those blue bars a guy will be, so an overrated guy, when interviewed will have his yellow ratings appear lower in his blue bars, while an underated guy will have his ratings nearer to the top of his blue bars. If this is true then you would need to spend most of your interviews on players where your scout is rated good or less, and not need to spend them on players where your scout is rated highly.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Not if scout error carrysover to interviews.

[MrBug708]

Tom Brady Jr. was in one of my draft classes and he was the top player on the draft board at RB

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I still haven't bought the game yet, but things like this keep making me want to.

Just copy and paste this into every game-related thread for the next three years...

:D

[Galaxy]

Others' thoughts on the draft so far?

Love that its harder to trade up/down, but I think that it needs to tweak in current emphasis of future picks.

Here's an example of a draft I ran:

Interesting sim of the draft I ran tonight:

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

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

At the 7th pick, Kansas City sends a 2009 1st round pick to Cleveland for that pick. I don't understand the logic at all of this. A bug?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe future picks are value the same as the current round picks?

Any notices of any "diamond in roughs" in the mid-to-late-round picks? Are they more important?

[Narcizo]

I think diamond in the roughs are harder to spot coming straight out of a draft, you have to have the player on the team a while and his scouted ratings will improve. I don't think I've seen any completely random booms or busts. I believe Jim said one of the main reason for the random boom/busts was to prevent the draft becoming too easy to cheat in MP. Take away that with the password lock and there's little need to have them. It seems more realistic and natural for you to gradually learn that you have a boom/bust over time rather than straight after drafting.

[Peregrine]

I can't help but think that the AI managers have different styles, this may not be the case but it certainly seems like it. In the league I'm running for my dynasty I saw the dominant team, Chicago, repeatedly trade a lot for one good player, it seemed like several years in a row at one point their attitude seemed to be, as long as we get the one good player we're really interested in, we don't need the rest of our draft picks. And it really seemed to work, they were loaded with talent and kept re-stocking with great players through the draft this way.

[Narcizo]

1. It still appears, in general, that good performance at the combines usually = good player.


I think a reason people (such as myself) are finding the draft difficult is because what the scout goes against all that we learned in FOF2004. In 95 cases out of 100 interviewing a player with a great combine score for their adjusted grade will result in "Very Overrated". It seems that the scout goes solely after the blue bars - and because great combines inflate a player's draft value while their scouted rating stay where they were then they're bound to look overvalued.

To take a classic example of a boom player in 2004. Say there's a wide receiver scouted ratings 30/39 and a sub 4.40 dash and 7.00 agility. As the adjusted rating was almost solely based on potential in 2004 he will be buried under a horde of other receivers in the draft. If you look at his scouted ratings he's probably got a spike on big play and on getting downfield, but the rest will be nigh on non-existent. Draft the player and play him a fair bit and 9 times out of 10 his ratings will probably wind up in the 50-60 range.

Now take the same player in 2007. His combines and development and stuff means that he's raised up in the draft way above other receivers. However it seems that the scouts still look at his scouted rating which we can't see now (39) - and looks at his position in the draft (above a lot of wide receivers with potential that seem to be higher) and consequently judges him to be highly overrated. Despite the fact that he will develop into a better receiver than most of those receivers.

If this is the case (and it really does seem to be) then it pretty much makes interviews irrelevent from a point of view of judging what sort of rating a player can be expected to reach - it's sole use is to find out the player's personality traits. It would be better if good scouts actually "see" more of the players "true potential" rather than his "scouted potential" and based their judgement on that.

Consequently I would say a lot of people are finding drafting difficult compared to 2004 because they are paying too much heed to their scouts in interviews. Well, I have been anyway.

[Narcizo]

Of course, there is also the possibility that your scout is right and the combine warrior actually is a load of crap.

I think the AI has improved but there's still room for improvement. In my current draft the Steelers have the #1 pick and there's a sweet looking QB near the top of the boards. They have a young quarterback locked up though so they take a cornerback. In a similar situation in an MP league you would almost certainly see teams desperately trying to trade up to get the QB. I was desperately hoping that Pittsburgh would trade down a bit. Especially as the next 3 teams drafted quarterbacks. Surely the team drafting #4 would have liked to grab the top quarterback and would have tried to trade up.

[Maple Leafs]

Has anyone had any luck making draft day trades of picks only, without getting the "adding value" message?

[WebEwbank]

Yes, I've traded a lot of picks during the draft.

In general, there are a lot less sure things in the draft and a lot more gambles. When you get a player who has good bars, good Combine and Very Underrated, he goes Very Quickly.

My old strategy, of being conservative risk-wise in the first round, has needed adjustment.

[Narcizo]

Generally you have to offer over what normal draft charts say. (ie offer added value in order to entice the team to deal).

[gstelmack]

One other thing on player development: in the testing we've done in the office (and by "testing" I mean a couple of us each running SP careers and talking over what we've seen), we've seen guys "boom" at TC and then "bust" after week 1. For example, 50-rated at draft, 70-rated after TC, 50-rated after week 1. So there seems to be one adjustment when you see him in TC, and then another adjustment after you see him actually play. The converse has happened as well.

Which means you don't REALLY know how well your pick will turn out until he starts playing.

[Galaxy]

I can't help but think that the AI managers have different styles, this may not be the case but it certainly seems like it. In the league I'm running for my dynasty I saw the dominant team, Chicago, repeatedly trade a lot for one good player, it seemed like several years in a row at one point their attitude seemed to be, as long as we get the one good player we're really interested in, we don't need the rest of our draft picks. And it really seemed to work, they were loaded with talent and kept re-stocking with great players through the draft this way.

I wonder about this as well.

[Galaxy]

I think the AI has improved but there's still room for improvement. In my current draft the Steelers have the #1 pick and there's a sweet looking QB near the top of the boards. They have a young quarterback locked up though so they take a cornerback. In a similar situation in an MP league you would almost certainly see teams desperately trying to trade up to get the QB. I was desperately hoping that Pittsburgh would trade down a bit. Especially as the next 3 teams drafted quarterbacks. Surely the team drafting #4 would have liked to grab the top quarterback and would have tried to trade up.

It takes a lot to move up. Who was the first team that truly needed a QB after the third pick?

[Galaxy]

So,
How should interviews be handle then?

[Dutch]

In a similar vein, after following QS's think tank, I decided to trade my 1.1 (after ungraciously landing that pick). There was a decent QB that I figured would go in the top 10 (top 30 in FOF2k4). I needed a QB, but wanted to trade down to get this guy since there were two killer CB's and a monster DE on the board. So I trade down to 1.4, picking up a 2.4 and a future 1st rounder in the process.

Sweet. I raped the the AI...

Or so I thought. The team that traded up snagged my QB. The monster DE goes next. One of the stud CB next after that. So, of the four guys I thought were tops on my personal list, three of them go 1-2-3. I do land the other CB, but would take that trade back for the QB knowing that the AI wanted him that badly. And now I know for sure how much the AI drafting has improved.

[albionmoonlight]

I hope that there are still some random booms/busts in the draft.

The occasional Terrell Davis or Marcus Colston still happens--a guy who has a rookie training camp so good that you have to readjust your perceptions of him.

[albionmoonlight]

Also--has anyone answered whether your perceptions after the interview are through the eyes of your scout--or independent of your scout?

[SunDevil]

I thought they were through the eyes of your scout.

[Galaxy]

In a similar vein, after following QS's think tank, I decided to trade my 1.1 (after ungraciously landing that pick). There was a decent QB that I figured would go in the top 10 (top 30 in FOF2k4). I needed a QB, but wanted to trade down to get this guy since there were two killer CB's and a monster DE on the board. So I trade down to 1.4, picking up a 2.4 and a future 1st rounder in the process.

Sweet. I raped the the AI...

Or so I thought. The team that traded up snagged my QB. The monster DE goes next. One of the stud CB next after that. So, of the four guys I thought were tops on my personal list, three of them go 1-2-3. I do land the other CB, but would take that trade back for the QB knowing that the AI wanted him that badly. And now I know for sure how much the AI drafting has improved.

The trade seems realistic, compared to the trades of the top picks in recent years.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I think that QB's might even be TOO highly valued... I've only run a few drafts so far, but I have seen teams draft a QB one year in the top five, not play him because his current rating is slightly below a journeyman like Doug Johnson, end up in the top five again and take another QB.

Another thing I would really like is if the AI teams would initiate trades with me during the draft. Maybe I would go for some of these trades, maybe I wouldn't... But it would be nice to once see some idiot GM offer me a trade that I would take in a heartbeat!

[Ben E Lou]

In a similar vein, after following QS's think tank, I decided to trade my 1.1 (after ungraciously landing that pick). There was a decent QB that I figured would go in the top 10 (top 30 in FOF2k4). I needed a QB, but wanted to trade down to get this guy since there were two killer CB's and a monster DE on the board. So I trade down to 1.4, picking up a 2.4 and a future 1st rounder in the process.

Sweet. I raped the the AI...

Or so I thought. The team that traded up snagged my QB. The monster DE goes next. One of the stud CB next after that. So, of the four guys I thought were tops on my personal list, three of them go 1-2-3. I do land the other CB, but would take that trade back for the QB knowing that the AI wanted him that badly. And now I know for sure how much the AI drafting has improved.Methinks we'd gotten a little too used to trading down, or to sitting where we were and waiting for the guy to fall to us. The SP draft is feeling a lot more like a MP draft now, in terms of needing to give up something in order to get the guy I want.

[Galaxy]

I think that QB's might even be TOO highly valued... I've only run a few drafts so far, but I have seen teams draft a QB one year in the top five, not play him because his current rating is slightly below a journeyman like Doug Johnson, end up in the top five again and take another QB.

Another thing I would really like is if the AI teams would initiate trades with me during the draft. Maybe I would go for some of these trades, maybe I wouldn't... But it would be nice to once see some idiot GM offer me a trade that I would take in a heartbeat!


I was going to ask about the QB's. In addition to your debate, are the quarterbacks taken a big reach in the selection slots?

[kingnebwsu]

So I did my first draft (in which I participated) the other night and it was pretty interesting. I love the interview feature, since it forced me to examine players at each position before the draft. This led to about a 90-minute prep session for the draft. I started at 1 AM went to bed after finishing the draft after 3 AM (and I had to open the next day!).

As far as QB's drafting position, my analysis of the draft during free agency lead me to believe that the QB class was absolutely horrible. There was one solid QB, but the rest were horrible. As in, so horrible, if I saw the AI taking multiple QB's high up, I would question their logic. So the draft went and a QB got taken 1.7 who's currently holding out (preseason) with an 18/62 rating. The next QB taken in the draft was picked at at 4.18!!!

I know this will be an exception rather than the rule, but it was refreshing to see that the AI recognized that these QB's were all late-round talent as opposed to reaching for them early. I'll summarize the QB's drafted:

1.7
4.18
5.6
5.13
6.9
6.16
6.27
five chosen in the 7th round

Honestly this is pretty much where I think the QB's should have gone in the draft. It was that barren of QB talent. I think the first QB pick may have been a slight stretch (like 5-10 slots too early), but Favre just retired and GB really needed a QB (no Rodgers). Hopefully they start him even though his rating is a 18/62 and the starter is a 24/24.

---

Anyway, as far as my draft, I think I did really well. I looked at the "green page" right after I signed everyone in late FA and I had FIVE guys on there!!! Granted, this was before camp and before most of the 1st-rounders had signed, but wow. I really had to strategize pre-draft and it went pretty well. My 4th round sucked, as I had two guys targeted and they both got picked in the 10 picks before me (even though they weren't the highest rated guys on the board). It made me feel good to see that the guy I was gonna pick in the 4th is on the green page after camp. I almost had a potential boom DE...damn!

I'm still learning how to use my interviews and what ranked players will go where. Something I did was look at each position overall and rate each position's strength/depth. This helped me know how soon I had to pick and so forth. In my draft, here's my master sheet:

T-Griggs+++ 5.3/5.8, 6**
CB-Sullivan+++ 4.9/5.0, 9**
DE-Newton+++ 4.6/5.1, 11*
DT-Wilkins+++ 4.7/5.1, 16x
C-Morgenstern+++ 4.6/4.0, 7xx
DT-WINTERS 4.6/5.0
G-Moseley+++ 4.3/4.1, 12*
OLB-Thomas+++ 4.4/4.2, 17x
OLB-BATTS 4.2/4.0
QB-T.Gonazlez+++ 4.0/4.6, 21

*** means I was able to draft the player and "x" means he got picked by someone else. The number on the right is where my scout had him ranked at his position. I also kept a tally of how many players were picked at each position to make sure I'd pick anyone who was apparently next/close to next on the board.

I'm also excited that the QB I picked at the end of the 7th round is ranked as the player with the 4th-highest QB rookie potential after camp. We'll see how he pans out.

I also made a list of the adjusted ratings of players on the big board and here's what I found:

#21 5.9
#42 5.4
#63 5.3
#84 5.1
#105 5.0
#126 4.9
#147 4.7
#168 4.6
#189 4.6
#210 4.5

So in my draft there was a big drop between the mid-first rounders and early-second rounders. And there's not much of an adjusted-rating difference between the 6th and 7th round players. It apparently is all up to us interviewing/looking at all the players at that point to try and find a diamond in the rough.

So that's my unqualified findings after one FOF 2007 draft :)

[Dutch]

Methinks we'd gotten a little too used to trading down, or to sitting where we were and waiting for the guy to fall to us. The SP draft is feeling a lot more like a MP draft now, in terms of needing to give up something in order to get the guy I want.

Definately. When watching a draft unfold at the "fastest" speed. You can sort by "Adjusted Grade" and just watch the top players fly off the board. I'd say that is vastly different from FOF2k4. But how does the AI still make smart position moves vs "best player available" moves?

Just a hunch, but I am thinking that the first couple rounds (or so) have a new and improved "best player available" logic and the rest of the draft is still geared toward team needs in the flavor of FOF2k4.

I'm still not sure how the AI grades what MP worlds find as "curious" picks--most notably the "combine stud" players.

[Galaxy]

Interesting stuff posted.

[Ben E Lou]

What are your thoughts on the underrated/overated label from your scouts?

I think it has something to do with where in those blue bars a guy will be, so an overrated guy, when interviewed will have his yellow ratings appear lower in his blue bars, while an underated guy will have his ratings nearer to the top of his blue bars. If this is true then you would need to spend most of your interviews on players where your scout is rated good or less, and not need to spend them on players where your scout is rated highly.I think it is even more simple than that.

Underrated=His blue/orange bars are better than his overall adjusted rating.
Overrated=His blue/orange bars are worse than his overall adjusted rating.

Thoughts?

[kingnebwsu]

I agree with you SD.

Something I really noticed when I was doing interviews is that, regardless of their rating, guys with bigger bars were often underrated. What I mean is, I would scroll through all the players and look for players with fuller bars than their rating would indicate. I also looked for players with fuller bars in the most important attributes for their position.

Like for CB's (for example) I found a guy rated as a 6th-round choice (or so) but his top 5 attributes were about 60% full. I then interviewed him and he was underrated, and his bars went up a bit. There's no way this guy should have been a 6th-round choice, but by scrolling through all the players I was able to find him.

BTW, for this example, my scout is rated good with secondary and good with young talent.

[DolphinFan1]

I just tried to trade down and still get a guy I thought would still be there like FOF2K4, guess what? The computer took him and a few others I targeted. Frustrating but that's a good sign. I like it. No more Centers who should go in the top 3 rounds and drop to 5th or 6th round.

[Tasan]

I think diamond in the roughs are harder to spot coming straight out of a draft, you have to have the player on the team a while and his scouted ratings will improve. I don't think I've seen any completely random booms or busts. I believe Jim said one of the main reason for the random boom/busts was to prevent the draft becoming too easy to cheat in MP. Take away that with the password lock and there's little need to have them. It seems more realistic and natural for you to gradually learn that you have a boom/bust over time rather than straight after drafting.

There are most definately random busts still, at least. I've had two late 1st early second round CB picks who looked really good absolutely implode on me.