FOF2K7: Can a 3.3 grade RB ever be useful?

[Ben E Lou]

My scout is Good at both Running Backs and Young Talent.

PREDRAFT
http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/freeman.jpg

His agility was fifth-best among RB's in his draft class, his broad jump was 8th-best, his strength and 40 times were respectable, and he's a 230-pounder. I figured "What the heck? I'm learning!" so I grabbed him in the fourth round. He came onto my team rated a rousing 10/11. In his first training camp, he increased to 11/14. No playing time in season one, but he just increased to 13/16 in the FA-1 stage of year 2. Here's his player card at the end of 2008:
http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/freeman2008f.jpg

Current (FA-1, 2009):
http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/freeman2009b.jpg

So, what do you think? Does this guy have a chance?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't think too many third graders are going to be significant contributors at this level of football.

;)

[RedKingGold]

Let em' play!

[JeeberD]

So I guess agility doesn't correspond to elusiveness anymore?

Edit: After looking at his current bars, it looks like it might... :o

[Raiders Army]

His volatility is reasonable so I'd take a shot at him...maybe.

[TRO]

Considering the short careers of RBs, if he does become respectable, I don't think he'd be effective for long.

[cuervo72]

That's a good point. Might not see much in the way of "creepers" for RB.

[General Mike]

Move him to FB.

[MizzouRah]

Yep, maybe fullback.. looks like he might be able to block. ;)

[dbd1963]

I just picked one of these because he was below your position lows (per your draft chart from 2k4). In the beginning of his second year he had a minor blossom to 15-18. Not a big jump from 11-17, but I haven't gone through training camp yet. I let him backup my starter and he had a couple of good games, over 4yds a carry, 2 tds and no fumbles. Worth watching..

[Narcizo]

The only reason to keep him is if you think that he has much higher potential that he will
a) grow into, and
b) influence his current playing.

Or
a) the scout is undervaluing his current ability.

It seems great combines usually mean that crappy players creep up a bit like this while anything else means players ratings plummet. We've got a couple of test cases like this in the GroupThink thread but my gut reaction is that they're not going to amount to a great deal.

[Honolulu Blue]

He could rush for 1000 yards if you give him enough carries, but you could say that of a hundred backs in the real NFL. In previous versions of FOF, I'd park him on the bench/IR until his contract ran out, then let him walk without a second glance.

One thing I notice is that "avoid fumbles" is apparently now a hidden rating. I don't agree with it, but it is interesting.

[CraigSca]

No fumble rating just gives more credence to the "you don't know until you play him" aspect of FOF2007. I love that.

[JeffW]

No fumble rating just gives more credence to the "you don't know until you play him" aspect of FOF2007. I love that.

It doesn't make much sense from a realism standpoint--whether he's a veteran or a rookie we should know something about his fumbling tendencies from his past performances.

Same goes for Avoid Int.

[CraigSca]

Right, and it's all there in black and white, you just need to click on the Statistics button.

[Samdari]

Right, and it's all there in black and white, you just need to click on the Statistics button.

The vast majority of backs entering the NFL have a significant number of college carries. We have some idea about their tendency to fumble. Same with QBs and INTs. Getting rid of that rating without adding college stats is one of the few design decisions I disagree with in this version.

[CraigSca]

I wonder if there's been a study that shows correlation between college fumbles and professional fumbles. One would think there's an extreme correlation, but you never know.

While I agree that a best-case scenario would allow access to some sort of college database for past history, I rather like not knowing certain things about any player until they actually get into the game.

[Honolulu Blue]

While I agree that a best-case scenario would allow access to some sort of college database for past history, I rather like not knowing certain things about any player until they actually get into the game.

I'll agree with you to a certain extent. If we never had an avoid fumbles rating visible in FOF, then I'd say OK, it'll show up in the stats. But that rating has been around and visible since FOF2 (I think), and now it's gone.

I still find it curious that the "avoid drops" rating is still visible, even though that stat will show up faster and with more accuracy than fumbles (there being more dropped passes and a higher % of drops vs. fumbles).

[QuikSand]

We've got a couple of test cases like this in the GroupThink thread but my gut reaction is that they're not going to amount to a great deal.

One of those guys just was awarded the Defensive Player of the Year Award, FYI. Low-ratings creeper, posted 14 sacks from the SLB slot, with very modest apparent ratings (but ratings that that did bump up in his first camp, and again in year two at the start of free agency).

I don't claim to really know how this stuff works, either, incidentally. but if this discussion might morph into "creeper central" then this guy needs to be in the discussion, I guess.