What are we to make of...

[Ben E Lou]

...a rookie who is scouted at 39/61, but is listed as 33% developed. He's a WR with the following combine results:

Sol: 27
40: 4.43
BP: 15
Agi: 7.17
BrdJmp: 8'11"
PosDrl: 54

My scout is "Good" at Young Talent, "Average" at WR. Is there a sesne yet of whether % developed or cur/fut can be more trusted?

[RedKingGold]

pics plz.

[Ben E Lou]

pics plz.

Precamp
http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/comptonpre.jpg

Postcamp
http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/comptonpost.jpg

[JeffW]

Looks like you can give him a bump if you shift him to SE.

Re: Current rating vs. developed, I have no clue yet.

[Ben E Lou]

Looks like you can give him a bump if you shift him to SE.Heh. I wasn't paying attention to that. Yeah, he goes to 44/58 immediately with the position switch.

[Peregrine]

How did you know he'd go up if he was moved to SE? Aren't his experience ratings the same at both positions?

[Ben E Lou]

How did you know he'd go up if he was moved to SE? Aren't his experience ratings the same at both positions?Check the experience colors (and letters, due to Icy's Mod).

[Peregrine]

Hmm the colors look the same to me, but the letters are different, I guess F means he's Fair at SE and Good at FL?

[Ben E Lou]

Hmm the colors look the same to me, but the letters are different, I guess F means he's Fair at SE and Good at FL?The colors are a little different, blue-green vs. light blue.

The color background for each position shows the player's rough experience level at his position. A red background indicates a player is fully developed, orange is a step down, then orange-yellow, yellow, lime green, blue-green, light blue, medium blue, blue and finally purple, indicate the player has little to no experience at the position.
Icy's mod gives us:
A: red
B: orange
C: orange-yellow
D: yellow
E: lime green
F: blue-green
G: light blue
H: medium blue
I: blue
J: purple

[Peregrine]

Gotcha, I use the other mod that shows numbers so it's easier for me, a lot of those similar colors run together for me, unfortunately.

[MizzouRah]

I'm still laughing at "city of". :)

I'll have this song in my head all day now.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm still laughing at "city of". :)

I'll have this song in my head all day now.Tucker High had a player named Myke Compton who is now at LaTech. Every time Myke scored (which was quite often), Ol' SkyDog could be heard hummin' a little Dre and Tupac.

[QuikSand]

Back to your original question - we had some discussion about this in the GroupThink thread, and the best post I could quote to crystallize one theory on tis is here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MizzouRah]

Tucker High had a player named Myke Compton who is now at LaTech. Every time Myke scored (which was quite often), Ol' SkyDog could be heard hummin' a little Dre and Tupac.

Keep it rockin'

[Narcizo]

My view in the same thread Quiksand mentions is that the players development can actually give you a great idea of what the players' true potential is, and if that's the case then it's a big give away in a lot of cases. For example Artie Markiewicz hits post-draft free agency scouted at 12/13 but with 16% development. To no-one's great surprise he's "true" potential (as revealed by the first patch scouting changes made by Jim) is 61. This follows on from current rating being fairly accurate for rookies while potential is all over the place. I have several cases of this, including the studliest of stud quarterbacks. Of course you might draft a player based on this only to find out he's rated 3/18 or something and then you won't be a happy bunny.

[Narcizo]

Of course, applying this to your player means that his potential must be 120 odd, so it might not really apply to him.