Insight into development?

[Ben E Lou]

Beginning of preseason:
http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/woof/draft_03_27_fl_ford.JPG



After four weeks of regular season:
http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/woof/fordnow.jpg



I do have a mentor WR.

Discuss.

[Ben E Lou]

I've seen this sort of thing happen before, where a rating becomes unmasked during the season. I don't think I've seen it quite this pronounced, though. What's fascinating here is that while his Route Running has gone up so much, there has been *no* increase in his overall future potential. Does this mean that the scouted rating takes into account his "real" future? If so, then theoretically if we could determine the weightings for overall ratings, we could pre-unmask some guys, correct? Help me with an alternate explanation for RR being unmasked so far by over 70%, but overall remaining static. So far, I haven't come up with anything else.

--Ben

[albionmoonlight]

I've seen this sort of thing happen before, where a rating becomes unmasked during the season. I don't think I've seen it quite this pronounced, though. What's fascinating here is that while his Route Running has gone up so much, there has been *no* increase in his overall future potential. Does this mean that the scouted rating takes into account his "real" future? If so, then theoretically if we could determine the weightings for overall ratings, we could pre-unmask some guys, correct? Help me with an alternate explanation for RR being unmasked so far by over 70%, but overall remaining static. So far, I haven't come up with anything else.

--Ben

I assume, based on his third round status, that he was a post-draft boom?

If so, then perhaps he is not the best test case for the typical player. Perhaps (and I'm just speculating here) the post-draft boom process (whatever it is) is a separate mechanism that might have caused the unmasking that you are seeing.

So, maybe we can learn something from the fact that his overall did not change. But maybe whatever we learn can only apply to post-draft boomers.

Also, maybe it is as simple as the change in his overall rating not being recorded during the season, but only in the offseason. That might be something Jim put in so that two guys who are very close in rating don't keep getting pulled in and out of the depth chart as the AI keeps seeing their relative ability flip-flop viz a viz each other.

Progress to the offseason and see if his overall rating increases.

[Raiders Army]

I assume, based on his third round status, that he was a post-draft boom?
Nope. 3rd round pick in the allocation draft. That's why his salary is so high.

[Ben E Lou]

I assume, based on his third round status, that he was a post-draft boom?

If so, then perhaps he is not the best test case for the typical player. Perhaps (and I'm just speculating here) the post-draft boom process (whatever it is) is a separate mechanism that might have caused the unmasking that you are seeing.

So, maybe we can learn something from the fact that his overall did not change. But maybe whatever we learn can only apply to post-draft boomers.

Also, maybe it is as simple as the change in his overall rating not being recorded during the season, but only in the offseason. That might be something Jim put in so that two guys who are very close in rating don't keep getting pulled in and out of the depth chart as the AI keeps seeing their relative ability flip-flop viz a viz each other.

Progress to the offseason and see if his overall rating increases.It's 2006. We drafted the first 12 WOOF rounds manually. The other possiblity that hit me is that maybe this is unique to the first year because the scouting algorithm hasn't had a full year to kick in. I know for a fact that overall rating unmaskings do happen during the regular season, though. I've seen a guy go up like 20 points during the regular season.

[Raiders Army]

Interesting that his Route Running and 3rd Down Catching increased beyond their max, but his Big Play Receiving did not. I think that because both of those ratings were already "maxed" out in terms of potential, that's why his overall potential did not increase.

[albionmoonlight]

Ah, I missed the allocation draft part.

You might be on to something, though, about the first year maybe not being the best test case for some of these issues.

[Ben E Lou]

Ah, I missed the allocation draft part.

You might be on to something, though, about the first year maybe not being the best test case for some of these issues.Unless someone comes up with a better explanation, I *really* hope that's what's going on here.

[RedKingGold]

Ah, I missed the allocation draft part.

You might be on to something, though, about the first year maybe not being the best test case for some of these issues.

Also, keep in mind that the allocation draft is done "after" where training camp would take place in a normal FOF schedule. So it's possible that much of the mask which would exist pre-draft was dissolved during the allocation draft because of the location within the FOF calendar.

This was one of the reasons why I focused on rookies in the WOOF Draft and why I was (and am still) steamed at Ben picking Ford three picks away from my selection in the 3rd round.

[gstelmack]

I think he'll turn out better than his future indicates. Especially going up that much current, I bet he turns in to one of those guys where you'll see his ratings go:

67/68
68/68
69/69
70/70
71/71

etc until they peak. You've got two pegged abilities already going up, it'll be interesting to see if any of the others creep up after being pegged.

[timmynausea]

In my experience these players continue to develop beyond their potential without any adjustment in the future rating until the current actually passes it. It seems to me that the scout comes up with a future number and sticks with that. So even though we can see that Ford has the potential to develop in several categories, the scout is showing a close to maxed out current/future. The scout will only "realize" Ford is better than projected when his current slides up to 69 and beyond, and it'll rate him 69/69 and then 70/70 and so on as the weeks go by.

Basically I think of it as your scout being wrong about this guy. We don't quite know how good he will be, but he is going to be better than projections. It is an interesting point, though, as logically his overall future rating should've been adjusted up. It just doesn't seem to work that way.

[QuikSand]

Kind of obvious, but here, the development in RR is particularly (a) surprising, and (b) valuable.

[gstelmack]

Adding another data point: I drafted a rookie CB who was 38/60 after TC (I need to go back and dig up his pre-TC numbers, but I believe he lost a couple of points of future, maybe -3 or -4 over TC). He was doing nicely over the season, starting quite a bit and getting up to 48/60 as the playoffs started.

Heading in to the Super Bowl, I notice he's a 49/49. He got the one last bit of experience, is now fully developed at LCB and RCB, and dropped that last 11 points of future.

Interesting that all season long his future held steady until he his experience filled out, then it dropped like a rock. During the playoffs no less.

[QuikSand]

Okay, yet another curious case of player development…


My Chesapeake Chili Dogs team drafted a nice run-stopping defensive tackle in mid-round one:

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/lents.jpg

…then after a couple years in the league, he started to look more balanced:

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/lents2011.jpg

…and by now, in FOF 2007 and fully developed, he isn’t really the player we thought we were getting at all:

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/lents2014.jpg

So… in particular I’m curious about his development in pass rush technique. I honestly drafted him mostly looking for a guy who would be a run stopper first and foremost, and I was fine with him being a non-factor in the pass rush. However, over his development years, he not only grew there – he exploded, and now his pass-rushing skills are nominally his strong suit. Go figure.

Anyway… more food for thought in the mix on this intriguing subject.

[Dutch]

I have to wonder if Bryan Lents benefitted from the conversion process somehow.

Regardless, he had some killer combine scores (probably top 1, 2 or 3 in all categories except maybe Sol) that showed a lot of promise (boom candidate)--and if he's maxed out at RD, any future boom had to happen somewhere else.

Two excellent examples of FOF2k7 boom's. Has anyone ever seen bust's happen in the same way? But in reverse?

[QuikSand]

FWIW, in the final FOF 2004 stage, the same scout showed Lents as 76, 78 in the top two ratings. So most of that development had already unraveled. But it does seem that he is now even better-rated than before, whether that's scout error or something else I can't say.

[MIJB#19]

Lents ran a 4.88 40-dash, that just screams for a pass rush technique in the very good or even excellent regions (for a defensive tackle at least) in FOF 2004. Take that into account and the eventual rating isn't a total surprise.

I noticed pretty big ratings increases with my top DL players in both the IHOF and GEFL after conversion, Dutch could be right here.

[Ben E Lou]

Update on Ford after Week 6 of the regular season:

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/woof/ford6969.jpg


So, the route running bar added four more points in 2 weeks, and third down catching added a point as well. What's VERY interesting to note is that Ford is only at "E" positional experience, but is 69/69, but has a good bit of green. One thing I speculated from the start (but haven't really tested or heavily examined) is that a guy with a relatively high (cur/fut) but with low positional experience is probably better than the revealed future rating. It's certainly looking like that is going to be the case with Ford. Now that he's hit that original 68 potential in his current rating, it appears that both will start being revealed as higher than advertised.

Thoughts?

[adubroff]

One thing I speculated from the start (but haven't really tested or heavily examined) is that a guy with a relatively high (cur/fut) but with low positional experience is probably better than the revealed future rating. It's certainly looking like that is going to be the case with Ford. Now that he's hit that original 68 potential in his current rating, it appears that both will start being revealed as higher than advertised.

Thoughts?

I think that might be coincidental. I think positional experience is just how much he's played the spot (or spots like it where he'd learn about that spot). I think I think current/potential being full or close to full and the guy still being relatively young leads to situations where the bars (despite looking red) are really not based on enough information from the scout and contain a lot of scouts error. I think as you play the guy, the error gets corrected.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

One thing I speculated from the start (but haven't really tested or heavily examined) is that a guy with a relatively high (cur/fut) but with low positional experience is probably better than the revealed future rating.


Nothing concrete to add but I do agree with this. I am a big fan of the percent/developed player. Also, I will add this from the help file:

Players are also rated for how fully developed they appear. This is a very important rating, as more developed players are much safer picks.

[Wessinmouse]

I was going to suggest that "volitility" played a role, but the second example would seem to negate that.

How exactly (or vaguely) does vol. come into play? (no pun intended)

[MIJB#19]

I was going to suggest that "volitility" played a role, but the second example would seem to negate that.

How exactly (or vaguely) does vol. come into play? (no pun intended)
In FOF2004 volatilty caused a random increase/decrease of ratings, with players with higher volatilty having a higher chance to make such a 'boom/bust'. All of those happened right after the draft, it seems that the rating was meaningless during the rest of the season. It was easy to notice at the start of the second free agency period after the draft. I honestly doubt it works differntly in FOF2007, except that the ratings 'boom/bust' is sort of hidden and hard to notice.

[Ben E Lou]

After Week 10...

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/woof/ford_post_week_10.jpg

So, in the last 4 weeks, he's shown +2 to third down receiving, and +7 to route running.

Since the beginning of preseason:

Avoid Drops: +31/0
Getting Downfield: +9/0
Route Running: +33/+33
Third Down: +10/+10
Big Play Receiving: 0/0
Courage: +8/0
Adjust To Ball: +14/0
Punt Returns: +7/0
Kick Returns: +9/0
Endurance: +6/0

Overall: +16/+4

I still think it's worth noting that while his overall rating is at 72/72, he still has green, and he has a good bit of positional experience to be gained. (He has increased two "color levels" since the beginning of the preseason.) My guesses about this guy are:

1. He's still got 8-15 points in overall ratings that he can gain
2. When his Route Running is fully revealed, it's going to be in the 80s or 90s.
3. The unmasking will stop when positional experiences hits Level "A" (red).

[liquid_zen01]

Hey, you forgot to mention he got +5 in Special Teams too!

[korme]

I forget, do mentors have to be on the active roster to be effective?

[MrBigglesworth]

I forget, do mentors have to be on the active roster to be effective?
They did in 2k4, not sure about the new version.

[Leonidas]

In FOF2004 volatilty caused a random increase/decrease of ratings, with players with higher volatilty having a higher chance to make such a 'boom/bust'. All of those happened right after the draft, it seems that the rating was meaningless during the rest of the season. It was easy to notice at the start of the second free agency period after the draft. I honestly doubt it works differntly in FOF2007, except that the ratings 'boom/bust' is sort of hidden and hard to notice.I does work somewhat differentlyt in 2K7 in that the big rating changes seem to happen during camp, not before. Also a lot of changes seem to happen between staff hiring and the beginning of FA.

[RedKingGold]

I does work somewhat differentlyt in 2K7 in that the big rating changes seem to happen during camp, not before. Also a lot of changes seem to happen between staff hiring and the beginning of FA.

This change is probably more likely due to when you change your scout, as you see his perception of your roster instead of your previous scout's.

[MIJB#19]

For the general discussion: In the WOOF mp league, I have a veteran quarterback who was rated 50/62 at the season start. At mid-season he has improved to 56/56, which makes you think he's fully developed, right? Wrong, a week later he has improved to 57/57. So unlike Dusty Ford, my quarterback hasn't hit the initial cealing yet, but somehow does seem to hit his hidden potential and then goes on to make more progress...

[Ben E Lou]

At the end of his first regular season...

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/woof/fordendofregularseason.jpg


So, over the course of one preseason and one regular season his scouted ratings grew:

OVERALL: +26/+14
Avoid Drops: +51/+0
Getting Downfield: +25/+5
Route Running: +53/+53
Third Down Catching: +10/+10 (at least)
Big-Play Receiving: +0/+0
Courage: +13/+0
Adjust To Ball: +24/+0
Punt Returns: +12/+1
Kick Returns: +15/+1
Endurance: +10/+0
Special teams: +5/+5 (at least)



Worth noting again...I still think it's worth noting that while his overall rating is at 72/72, he still has green, and he has a good bit of positional experience to be gained. (He has increased two "color levels" since the beginning of the preseason.) My guesses about this guy are:

1. He's still got 8-15 points in overall ratings that he can gain
2. When his Route Running is fully revealed, it's going to be in the 80s or 90s.
3. The unmasking will stop when positional experiences hits Level "A" (red).There's nothing so far to indicate that this isn't accurate. He's still got two "color levels" of positional experience to go, suggesting that his potential may even be in the low 90s. :eek:

[Ben E Lou]

As far as his performance, he had a very solid year for a rookie WR: 64 catches, 1064 yards, 8 TDs, 4 drops, 9.09 yards per target, and 5 100-yard games.

[gstelmack]

Worth noting again...There's nothing so far to indicate that this isn't accurate. He's still got two "color levels" of positional experience to go, suggesting that his potential may even be in the low 90s. :eek:

Just to continue to back this up, I've got another example of a guy who looked like he had plenty of green, but hit his positional experience cap and immediately lost the remaining future.

I think positional experience vs the current/future ratio is a good indicator of whether or not a player will really reach their potential or fall short. I'm still curious to see how this plays up in a draft (and I REALLY wish I had a good way to grab the positional experience and dump it into DraftAnalyzer; I've got some ideas, but they'll take a while to germinate).

[sabotai]

Little tidbit Jim said in the draft IRC chat room on player development.

[12:46] <sabotai>[sabotai] Does FOF reflect OL taking longer to develop than other positions?
[12:46] <jimg> [JimG] Yes.</jimg></sabotai>

[cuervo72]

Just to continue to back this up, I've got another example of a guy who looked like he had plenty of green, but hit his positional experience cap and immediately lost the remaining future.

I think positional experience vs the current/future ratio is a good indicator of whether or not a player will really reach their potential or fall short. I'm still curious to see how this plays up in a draft (and I REALLY wish I had a good way to grab the positional experience and dump it into DraftAnalyzer; I've got some ideas, but they'll take a while to germinate).

I'm agree. My BRH team has a couple of guys that illustrate this fairly well. A 4th round WR who was at 37/43 and displayed a "max" development which was still not quite 100% recently went to 37/37, losing the rest of his green. That was pretty obvious to me that that would occur. I also have a 2nd year center who boomed huge in 2k4, but was remasked moving to 2k7. He was just about out of green, but was two steps from being fully developed in the experience chart. He's been gaining ratings since then (was maybe at 53/53 or so, now at 57/57), and just recently went up to the next to last "step". I expect him to continue to climb (which isn't a shock given he'd already boomed once in 2k4, only to have been reverted).

[gstelmack]

I'm watching my RB, and he went from 53/53 -> 54/54 this last sim while showing only 8 (of 10) experience at RB and still has some green bars.

[Ben E Lou]

Beginning of preseason (year 1):
http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/woof/draft_03_27_fl_ford.JPG



During preseason, year 2:

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/woof/fordpreseasonyear2.jpg

And he still only has "C" experience. 31 in route running, my black butt. Looks like he's really in the low-to-mid 90s in it. :eek:

[Anthony]

i don't think i've ever seen a red bar increase that much. that is literally insane.

[Ben E Lou]

i don't think i've ever seen a red bar increase that much. that is literally insane.

I no longer have the details of it, but I had something similar happen to one of my 6.0d players. It was a red bar going from somewhere in the 20-40 range (fully red) to somewhere in the 65-95 range. Interesting stuff.

[bulletsponge]

i just noticed in one of my leagues i have a wr rated 36/49. but hes only developed at 5. meaning he still half way to full development.

[Ben E Lou]

i just noticed in one of my leagues i have a wr rated 36/49. but hes only developed at 5. meaning he still half way to full development.

Remember that the numbers that people used to replace the experience tags are relative. The scale may be arthmetic, logarithmic, or something else entirely. That's a big reason why I used the A-B-C tags, so I don't fall into the trap of thinking about them numerically.

[Ben E Lou]

UPDATE: Ford is showing 88/88 overall now (midway through his second season), and a 100 in Route Running.

[MartinD]

Not sure if this will add anything to this thread, but I have a receiver in one of my MP games that I've been tracking.

This is after his rookie training camp:

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/7476/dauberpostcampfz1.jpg

(Very good value for a guy at the bottom of the second round, particularly for a team in dire need of a starter-quality receiver.)

Dauber started all 16 games in the 2008 season (despite a minor injury early in the season) and finished with 86 catches for 847 yards and 3 TDs. (This was very much a pass-first team - our starting QB threw 672 passes for the year - so the 86 catches was good only for third on the team!)

This is his profile during staff hiring of the 2009 season:

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5669/dauberstartof2009sm6.jpg

On first glance, it appears that he's just had a solid year of normal development (i.e. converting green into red), but he appears to have improved beyond his original potential in a couple of areas (third down catching, kick and punt returns, special teams) - this appears a little bit strange (to me at least!) because these bars are generally pretty much set (i.e. the values shown as a rookie tend to remain unchanged until the guy starts on the age-related decline at the end of his career).

This suggests that there has been a mask to his original ratings (if only a few points' worth), but this mask does not appear to apply to all the ratings in the same way - his potential in the main pass-catching skills (top three bars) has dropped a few points.

I may be barking up the wrong tree with some of this analysis, but thought I'd throw this example out there to see what other people think.

Martin

(Edit: Forgot to add - this class of rookies was taken from a TCY export rather than being generated within FOF.)

[Ben E Lou]

Another player, different position, with very similar growth is on my team at IHOF. My realization of the similarity between the two is very recent. Discussion about him is here (http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=147128#147128), and here's a current screen shot:

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ihof/swampthing.png



His run blocking started at 17/45, went to all red at 45/45, and jumped up four points in today's gameday sim. Both run blocking and pass blocking (like, it turns out, Ford's avoid drops and route running) have grown in current rating in concert. I can't help but assume run blocking is heading to somewhere in the 90s, maybe even 100.

[MalcPow]

What were his combines?

[Ben E Lou]

What were his combines?

He was 5.2/5.7, #34 on the adjusted rating scale, but he didn't attend the combines.

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ihof/johnsonrookie.png

[Ben E Lou]

Swamp Thing, you make my heart sing. In two more games, experience is still "F", but he's up to 57 run blocking, 56/87 pass blocking. There's little/no question about this now...

[Ben E Lou]

It looks like we're going to have to wait until next season to see what happens once he hits the max. He's now at 60/60 run blocking, 60/87 pass blocking, with just one game to go. Positional experience is up to "F," and his overall scouted rating is 70/74.

[Ben E Lou]

Johnson's run blocking bar is now up to 90. He's 90/88/87/100, all red, but only "B" positional experience at LT. I don't know how much just one level of positional experience can gain for him, but I'm finding myself hoping that he can become the first 100/100/100/100 player I've had. He seems like a lock for at least the low 90s in all four bars, though.

[Ben E Lou]

Johnson's run blocking bar is now up to 90. He's 90/88/87/100, all red, but only "B" positional experience at LT. I don't know how much just one level of positional experience can gain for him, but I'm finding myself hoping that he can become the first 100/100/100/100 player I've had. He seems like a lock for at least the low 90s in all four bars, though.

He gets a big boost this week, staying at "B" experience: 94/92/87/100. Overall 92/92.

[Ben E Lou]

He gets a big boost this week, staying at "B" experience: 94/92/87/100. Overall 92/92.
No change in Week 4.

[Anthony]

seriously, you must truly suck as a gameplanner if you able to get all these awesome guys and not win many championships. i may have to delete your gameplan templates. with all this knowledge you should be winning championships every other season in all your leagues.

[Ben E Lou]

Heh. Nice HA rant.

Swamp Thing was acquired in 6.0e, actually. I was one of quite a few people who had figured out the huge "tell" there with no-combine guys. Helmic? Lucky on that one. I had him as the #3 TE in the draft and only grabbed him as a BPA because the other two TEs were already gone.

[bulletsponge]

wow, the Swamp thing was a steal. i personally avaoid drafting no-combine guys. i dont trust them and even when my scout likes them they are always taken before i get to em. but not my last UFL draft, i took 3 No combine guys, 1 OR, 2 UR.

[bmerryman]

Heh. Nice HA rant.


I know. Winning championships = pure luck. I keep telling myself the same thing. I'm hoping to get lucky in at least one league this year.

[Ben E Lou]

wow, the Swamp thing was a steal. i personally avaoid drafting no-combine guys. i dont trust them and even when my scout likes them they are always taken before i get to em. but not my last UFL draft, i took 3 No combine guys, 1 OR, 2 UR.

In 6.0e and previously, skipping the combine was a HUGE likely "tell" for a guy who was better than advertised. I literally interviewed every single combine-skipper in those days, both in SP and MP. That's why in the 6.1 change log you see:

Change thresholds for players choosing not to attend the combine, so that it's not as likely they are better than scouting bars.I tracked every draft pick I made (in both SP and MP) for 31 total seasons in 6.0e, and the rate at which no-combine guys improved over their draft numbers was substantial. Over those 31 drafts (sometimes trading out entirely), I picked up 27 guys in rounds 5, 6 and 7 who ended up being rated 50/50 or better. 21 of those were combine-skippers. And overall, of the 36 guys I drafted who ended up 70/70 or better, 20 of those were combine-skippers, and only 9 of those 20 in the first round. (In other words, over half of the stud combine-skippers I drafted had bars that caused people/the AI to shy away from them to go in Round 1.) This got a big change in 6.1. Like I said, Swamp Thing was a 6.0e draftee. No great pick there, just paying attention. Back then, no combine + UR = automatic pick.

[RedKingGold]

It made sense from a RL perspective as most top ten prospects choose not to work out at the combine before the NFL Draft. However, the problem was that their scouted and adjusted grades were hurt by a large margin when they chose not to go to the combine. Thus, they were overlooked or not taken a risk on with the lack of combine numbers.

[zbuckley]

It made sense from a RL perspective as most top ten prospects choose not to work out at the combine before the NFL Draft. However, the problem was that their scouted and adjusted grades were hurt by a large margin when they chose not to go to the combine. Thus, they were overlooked or not taken a risk on with the lack of combine numbers.

I was thinking the same thing. Only difference is they do perform at their pro day and their draft grade isn't effected much by not working out at the combine.

[Ben E Lou]

Oh, it made sense, but with the way the AI (and many humans) overvalued the bars, combined with the heavy scout error pre 6.1, we were heading toward a pretty serious imbalance in MP. The competitive side of me liked it to some degree, but ultimately, it's probably better for leagues that the scout error was lowered.

[bmerryman]

It made sense from a RL perspective as most top ten prospects choose not to work out at the combine before the NFL Draft.

You're off on this one, chief. Most top ten prospects do work out at the combines.

[RedKingGold]

You're off on this one, chief. Most top ten prospects do work out at the combines.

Perhaps "most" was the wrong choice of words, but there are "many" top-ten prospects who choose not to work out at the NFL Scouting Combine in preference of their own college team's pro day. Those players skip because they know they will likely be selected in the first round and do not want to hurt their stock by working out at an unfamiliar field.

Regardless, I don't understand why you would scrutinize my post so closely.

[sovereignstar]

wow

[bmerryman]

Regardless, I don't understand why you would scrutinize my post so closely.

Didn't mean to come off as overly critical, was just setting the record straight.

[Ben E Lou]

He gets a big boost this week, staying at "B" experience: 94/92/87/100. Overall 92/92.No change in Week 4, but in Week 5, he gets a +3 overall, and is 97/96/87/100. Still "B" experience, but the 87 isn't moving, so I'm guessing 100(+?)/100(+?)/87/100(+?)

[Anthony]

Regardless, I don't understand why you would scrutinize my post so closely.

if you're going to make a statement then choose your words more carefully. considering this isn't a live conversation and you can easily hit the edit button - if you choose to leave your post as-is you leave someone no choice but to call you out.

i can't think of many teams who would risk a top 10 pick on someone who *hasn't* worked out at the combine. does it happen? sure. enough to back up a statement that suggests it happens a lot? not at all. and it's not like people who skip the combine don't work out at all - they hold private workouts. so it's not a situation where scouts are going into it blind.

name 5 top ten picks off the top of your head that have skipped the draft. even if it isn't "most" or "many" like you claim, name just 5.

[digamma]

if you're going to make a statement then choose your words more carefully. considering this isn't a live conversation and you can easily hit the edit button - if you choose to leave your post as-is you leave someone no choice but to call you out.

name 5 top ten picks off the top of your head that have skipped the draft. even if it isn't "most" or "many" like you claim, name just 5.

It's like raaaiiiinnnnnn on your wedding day.

[RedKingGold]

if you're going to make a statement then choose your words more carefully. considering this isn't a live conversation and you can easily hit the edit button - if you choose to leave your post as-is you leave someone no choice but to call you out.

i can't think of many teams who would risk a top 10 pick on someone who *hasn't* worked out at the combine. does it happen? sure. enough to back up a statement that suggests it happens a lot? not at all. and it's not like people who skip the combine don't work out at all - they hold private workouts. so it's not a situation where scouts are going into it blind.

name 5 top ten picks off the top of your head that have skipped the draft. even if it isn't "most" or "many" like you claim, name just 5.

BTW, you're right. I can't name five top-ten picks who have skipped the draft. Only OT Joe Thomas last year comes to mind.

However, if by "draft" you meant "combine", then perhaps you need to look closer at the words you type before you post.

[Anthony]

so just one guy you can think of.


...interesting. still waiting for the part when you say "ok, so i didn't know what i was talking about when i made that statement, clearly this isn't the widespread phenomenom i made it out to be".


now that i think about it, and i never thought about it before until now, i always assumed that for a guy (in FOF) who skipped the combine just didn't workout at all, and that my scout was forming his opinion based off of gamefilm from the guy's playing days. and it may just be the case for people i don't interview. but if i interview a non-combine attendee, i guess it's the same as my scout being invited to the private workout for the player. you know when the guy does the 40 yard dash at his school and does other trials at the most optimal of conditions. i'm not saying this is a big revelation, but i guess it'd be cooler if instead of calling it "interview" for a non-combine attendee, it's labelled as "attend private workout". it's such a minor thing, but it's closer to what is actually happening in-game and in real life.

[RedKingGold]

...interesting. still waiting for the part when you say "ok, so i didn't know what i was talking about when i made that statement, clearly this isn't the widespread phenomenom i made it out to be".

Funny, I had that same feeling.

*starts holding breath*

[MalcPow]

Not to continue the threadjack but I can think of three top 10 prospects in this year's draft that didn't perform drills. DT Glen Dorsey, QB Matt Ryan, and WR Malcolm Kelly. A number of OTs with first round grades also didn't do the drills, and a handful of guys have injuries that are preventing them from doing things (which conceivably could be part of what's being simulated by the game's no combine guys).

Point still holds that most top 10 guys do work out, but hey some (maybe even many!!11!) don't.

[Ben E Lou]

No change in Week 4, but in Week 5, he gets a +3 overall, and is 97/96/87/100. Still "B" experience, but the 87 isn't moving, so I'm guessing 100(+?)/100(+?)/87/100(+?)

Well, we get to see what happens next. He's at "A" experience in his main position, but probably still has a bit more growing to do at others.

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/000/swampthing97.png

[Ben E Lou]

No change at all in Week 7.