FOF2K7 Drafting: things I still don't get.

[Ben E Lou]

So, I'm at 6 1/2 months in with the new game, and some things, I still just don't get. Specifically, I'm having a MUCH harder time making head or tail of late-round finds. Maybe there's been a huge shift from FOF2K4 in the way these are handled, or maybe I'm just missing something. I'm not talking about the somewhat random-looking rookie booms (and I'm not sure they're still around like they used to be). I'm talking about the guys that get drafted in the later rounds, and for some reason their bars never drop like virtually all of their other late-round counterparts. I'm at the end of 2009 in my first real 6.0e SP career, and here's a look back at a few guys from the 2007 draft, and how they panned out.

None of these guys are "booms" as we used to know them. All of their bars look similar to the way they did at draft time. First off, here's my scout at the time of the draft.

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/draftinformation/scout.JPG


RG LEVON CRACKEL
GRADE: 4.4

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/draftinformation/crackelrookie.jpg

So my scout, who is VG at offensive linemen and G and young talent, says this guy is "Very Overrated." He was tied for being the 9th-best guard in the draft. His combine results were decent, but nothing all that special, either--not a single result that was a standard deviation above the average. However, three years later, Crackel is the third-best guard from his draft class, better than several guys who had better combines, and it turns out that he is pretty much who his bars said he was, with a couple of exceptions:

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/draftinformation/crackel3yr.jpg


Run blocking and pass blocking both look like they will end up around the scout range. Blocking strength is a little above the range, but makes sense with his 31 reps. The endurance, and the fact that he was able to keep or improve all of his bars (unlike nearly every other guard in the draft) are the two mysteries to me here.

I'll post these one player at a time, but feel free to comment on Crackel while I prepare the next player.

[Ben E Lou]

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/draftinformation/farrrookie.jpg

Stan Farr graded 4.3, tied for the 27th-best CB in the draft. He performed well on the bench press, but nothing else was anything to write home about, and his position drill and % developed were both below average for a CB. He had some nice blue indicators, but really nothing suggested to me that he might hold his ratings. However, because I wanted to do some BnR experimenting in this career, I grabbed him as an undrafted free agent. 2 1/2 years later, he's the 9th-best CB from that draft class:

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/draftinformation/farr3yr.jpg

He didn't hold all of his bars, but he held enough to be a fairly useful cornerback as an undrafted free agent. And, most significantly, 18 other cornerbacks who were more highly touted at the time of the draft are either below him now, or out of the league altogether. Was there anything special about this guy that could have led us to predict that?

[Ben E Lou]

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/draftinformation/tobinrookie.jpg

J.B. Tobin landed a 4.3 grade, tying him for 18th-best DE in his draft class. He performed very well in the broad jump, but didn't distinguish himself in any other way. However, now, despite little playing time, he's the 5th-best current-rated DE from his class, and the 3rd-best in future potential:

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/draftinformation/tobin3yr.jpg

Once again we see a marginal-looking guy hold his ratings for some reason...

[Sgran]

What about their stats?

[Ben E Lou]

What about their stats?

I have every reason to believe that once players are at or near full development, they will perform in accordance with their ratings, and any fluctuations we see are due to system, team chemistry/cohesion, usage, etc. In other words, my OG who is 50 run block, 42 pass block, 59 strength, 65 endurance is pretty much the exact same player as another OG with the same ratings. They perform differently because of their situations, and good/bad rolls of the dice, not because of some hidden performance-changing factor or factors.

[Sgran]

I have every reason to believe that once players are at or near full development, they will perform in accordance with their ratings, and any fluctuations we see are due to system, team chemistry/cohesion, usage, etc. In other words, my OG who is 50 run block, 42 pass block, 59 strength, 65 endurance is pretty much the exact same player as another OG with the same ratings. They perform differently because of their situations, and good/bad rolls of the dice, not because of some hidden performance-changing factor or factors.

I bow to your greater wisdom on the matter, but is this just a red herring then:
Player ratings. Each player is rated for 53 different skills. But you don't have access to the raw numbers. Where's the fun in that? You hire a scouting staff, with varied strengths and weaknesses. Your scouts tell you how good they think your players are - and how good they think your opponents' players are.

[Ben E Lou]

I bow to your greater wisdom on the matter, but is this just a red herring then:
Player ratings. Each player is rated for 53 different skills. But you don't have access to the raw numbers. Where's the fun in that? You hire a scouting staff, with varied strengths and weaknesses. Your scouts tell you how good they think your players are - and how good they think your opponents' players are.Let's not get this discussion sidetracked. We can start another thread on scout error, if you'd like.

[MalcPow]

Looking at OT Wynn, his agility score is very good and might explain why his pass blocking has ended up better than your scout initiall suspected. He also has a good long jump for a lineman. Most importantly though in my mind, he went to the summer league. Offensive lineman seem to take a little longer to develop than other positions and I am finding that I see great results by sending them abroad. A 23/48 LT or something like that is a nearly perfect candidate for La Ligue in my experience, and they often end up as 58/58 players or so in the end.

[Sgran]

Maybe there is some correlation between their personality/intelligence and how they respond to coaching or mentorship.

[MartinD]

One thing that I noticed was that all of these guys had relatively high volatility (75, 68, 54, 80) - could be that these are the guys that got the upside of that...

I have seen a few players like Wynn where the final bars bear very little resemblance to the rookie blue/orange bars (a couple of guys I drafted for the Colts in the RealDeal MP league are good examples - drafted LT Cascini as a solid all-round blocker, and it looks very like I'm going to end up with a mauler who isn't a great pass blocker, while SLB Terry looked like a decent coverage linebacker who wasn't all that good against the run (as in run defence of 40-50 max), but has ended up as being a great run-stuffer (80+) who can cover as well...) My guess is that the initial profile for a player can have fake green in some ratings but hidden potential in others (unlike previous versions where the 'mask' was fairly universal over most or all of the ratings).

Martin

[Ben E Lou]

Apologies. I deleted the summer league guy. They can become entirely better players. For the purposes of this thread, I'm talking about guys who are the rarities in FOF2K7: guys who aren't anywhere near fully developed as rookies, but whose initial scouted future potential is later on revealed to be very close to being accurate.

[Warhammer]

What type of "adjustments" did you make with these players? Did any of them go on weight regimes that might have helped them? I wonder if weight training could help linemen develop endurance, or possibly help a DBs coverage skills, etc.

What is interesting, is that in the case of the linemen, it appears that both linemen had their endurance increase substantially. Most other ratings have stayed within their expected bars.

[heardie]

Any mentors?

I don't see any reason why these players should be as good as they are. Maybe there is no predictive nature? I wouldn't be too disappointed - sometimes scouts are wrong, sometimes people get better with age, sometimes people were in a bad place in college.