Drafting: What do YOU see as most important? (bars, grade, combines)

[Ben E Lou]

If you had to rank the importance of these three categories, where would you put them?

[gstelmack]

Truly honestly, I'm going with gut feel as being as good as anything. But I've seen too many good combine guys at the top of the draft flat-out bust, and too many nothing-special guys break out. It seems like every guy I peg as being a decent player tanks, and I have no clue where the studs are coming from.

Grade is pretty much useless I think.

[Dutch]

I think of bars as where they are and combines of where they are gonna be.

So, do I want a blue bar special that looks like a 20/60 guy with a bad combine? He probably ends up 40/40 down the road...

Or do I want the combine stud that has bad blue bars and is 20/30? He probably ends up being 40/40 down the road...

Pick your magic, pick your poison.

And yes, the combine stud/football field dolt are all too common.

[Ben E Lou]

Rather than just voting, how 'bout commenting some, fellas. Seven have voted, and only three have commented. ;)

[digamma]

Like you, SD, I find myself relying more and more on combine scores. No extensive testing to back it up, however. Purely anecdotal at this point.

[Leonidas]

Grade is only good for a quick reference point when trying to figure out where guys should get picked. I use them to help me pick and choose which guys to scout and that's as far as it goes.

Combine provides a clue to physical talent.

The bars I use to find guys who fit my system best. I could care less about corners who cover zone well, but if he does man and BnR well with good play diagnosis and his combine scores show he has enough athletic talent to hang with the big boys then I might draft him.

[Ben E Lou]

The bars I use to find guys who fit my system best.
Ah, yes! I do that as well. I'm thinking that even if ratings are heavily masked forever for some players, at least the bars can tell me what he's best/worst at.

[Warhammer]

I switch from bars then combine early to combine then bars late.

The problem (not bad, only from a player's point of view who wants perfect knowledge) with 2007 is the difficulty in evaluating drafts. You really can't do it for several years due to the hit some players take over their first 2-3 years in the league to their potential.

I've found more and more that early in the draft, I use the combine scores to "backup" a player's bars. Late in the draft, I look for someone who's combine scores indicate he should have better bars.

I think looking at combine or bars only is bound to hose some people. It is very important to look at each in conjunction with one another. I have always felt that if you find a RB with poor bars in breakaway running, but the best 40-yard time, you'll be pleasantly surprised with how he ends up, etc.

[MIJB#19]

My order:
1. Combine - Most of all, I use these to confirm the accurateness of players' skill bars. It's no waterproof thing, but from time to time I go blind on the combine scores and ignore how low a player's scouted bar is in what I want him to do for my team.
2. Bars - I use these to see which areas are a player's strengths and how good they are in areas where I'm not sure they can be measured through the combine. Quite often (maybe more often than not) a player will 'wow' me and I will only look at the combine scores to justify the pick. In those cases I will end up using the bars over the perceived quality based on the combine.
3. Grade - So far I used these to make a judgement where I expect players to fall. That means it's not a decission of how good a player is, but much more where I'd expect to be able to get him.

[MrDNA]

Lately I've been going Combines, Bars, Grade

Combines are the most objective rating, whichI take to mean the least likely to outright lie to me :rolleyes: We'll see how that works out for me after a few MP drafts come to fruition. Like some have said, the bars tell me roughly how well the guy will fit into my system. Of course, I never know where the green will reach and the red will start. Grading does nothing but tell me where the CPU thinks he ought to be picked. Sometimes this seems way, way off.

[nilodor]

I'm starting to lean more and more toward "combine-only" drafting. At this point, it's more of a hunch than anything, but I'm wondering if FOF2K7's greater scout error can even be a permanent thing, where the true ability is never unmasked.

I think this is the most interesting comment for me so far as it is where I think I am going as well. There seems to be players where there ratings are fully developed after 5 years or so, they may be creeping upward or static, who consistently out perform their ratings. They may be a 40/40 guy, playing better than a 70/70 guy. I don't know if their real ratings are more like 55/55 and 50/50 or something, or the one guy doesn't work well in my scheme but there are definately instances that bring this in to question for me.

For the drafting I look at:
1. Bars - if a guys bars are really, really low, even with a great combine it seems to take too long for the guy to reach his full boom and he will either be unsignable or his ratings will already be on the way down. This could be rendered moot by what I said above. It also gives me an idea of how a guy is going to fit into my system.

2. Combine - If a guy has great bars, but a terrible combine, it's just too much of a risk for me to take. It seems that most of these guys will bust in ratings (or performance even if their ratings don't crash)

3. Grade - I use this more to try and figure out when the cpu is going to draft someone. Guys who look like booms, who have high grades will still go pretty early. Guys who have lower grades and look like booms, you can tend to wait a while to get.

[gstelmack]

The help file gives a bit of insight that might change my mind:

Their scores in these tests should give you insight into their raw abilities. But be forewarned that great test scores don't always make for great players. Draft busts are always a risk, and hidden gems are everywhere. Players are also rated for how fully developed they appear. This is a very important rating, as more developed players are much safer picks.

I used to keep in mind the "workout warriors" comment from 2k4, but you could read the above as saying the combine gives you a more accurate picture than bars, with volatility determining the booms/busts. And of course you've got the no workout guys.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

For me, bars is the most important for avoiding a bust. Combine the most important for finding a breakout player. For early rounds, I go with bars (but they still must be backed up by decent combines), and later rounds I go with combine (but not terrrible bars). Once thing that I find that helps a lot is percent developed. The help file says it, and I find it works that way to in the game. You can avoid more busts by going with percent developed (although that is definitely the opposite of when scouting women at the local bar).

[Sgran]

As soon as I have some success in the draft I'll happily share all my insight.

[Chubby]

Bars, scout impression, grade (a distant 3rd), combines (a very distant 4th)

[sabotai]

I pretty much just ignore grade, and give about 50/50 weight to bars and combine, but if I need a tie-breaker between two players I like, I go with their combine.

[MIJB#19]

My order: 1. Combine - 2. Bars - 3. GradeTo clarify the inconsistency between what I posted and voted, I voted Bars-Combine-Grade because even though the quoted order is what I think I should look at, most of the time I get drawn into liking a players' bars so much that I start justifying players with so-so combine scores...

[RedKingGold]

First off, it's important to mention that I don't find any piece of information (bars, combine, volitility, etc) more important than any other. Rather, I take all information into account.

For rounds 1+2, I'm looking for guys who are pretty much the entire package. Decent grade, nice bars in the skills I'm looking for, very good combine scores (especially in those which correlate to ratings), decent development, etc. etc.

For rounds 3+4, I'm looking mainly for one-dimensional players with solid combine scores. These players can at least be decent backups in my system and have a good shot of contributing

For rounds 5+6+7, I'm looking solely at combine guys or non-combine guys with solid intellignce/position drill. These guys are unlikely to make the roster unless they're at a need position, but they might be creepers. If they have an affinity w/in my position leader, then they have a decent chance to stick

Also, I never feel pressure to have to take a player that does not fall within these charachteristics. I freely trade up or down the draft boards as I've been burned in the past by picking a player purely based on overall rating.

Here's my draft strategy in terms of the polling:

1. Bars - "Does this player have moderate-to-high bars in the skills I want."
2. Combine - "Is he likely to reach/surpass his potential or do the bars presented by my scout equal his combine numbers"
3. Everything else - volitility, personality

Grade really doesn't enter into the equation.

[bmerryman]

I was reading through this good thread and wandered if anyone has more to say or have changed their approach since we've had 7+ weeks to further evaluate?

[CU Tiger]

I vote almost strictly combine with bars used to tie break and see whee their strength lies.
Grades I never look at other than guessing where cpu will draft.

[Richard Weed]

Bars, scout impression, grade (a distant 3rd), combines (a very distant 4th)
Same here. Perhaps this is a FOF v1.0 thing, but I still go by em.

[Izulde]

I use Bars, Combine, and Development in that order.

I've been burned too many times on low % developed guys to want to take them very often and the only time I do is when it's a historical dynasty and I know that's a good player there.

Grades I use strictly as a ballpark measure to figure out where they should approximately go.

[Eaglesfan27]

I go with Combine slightly ahead of bars but use them to tell me a guys strengths. % developed is my 3rd factor and scout's impression is 4th. If I ever get a scout who is even very good in any of my MP career's, I'll give more weight to the scout's impressions.

[Anthony]

i also look at development more than grade. i chose bars, grade and combine. to me how far along a guy is will determine how much use i have for him. too much can go wrong with a guy developed only 25%, also they require too much playing time to help develop them and my starters are normally in place by the time the draft comes around so i don't want to have to allot x amount of PT to such drastically underdeveloped guys.

[Dutch]

I really only consider development a negative if the guy is less than 20% developed. To me, that's going too far into the realm of possability that the player will never reach his future potential.

35% developed is "standard" (I think that's what the FOF help file suggests) and I don't give any bonus to highly developed players because I have no idea why I should give a guy at 65% a bonus over a 35% guy.

Once they hit that 35% threshold, I'm sold. Fall below that and I begin to question the guy.

[Sgran]

There's a running back in my upcoming draft (the only one worthy of going in the first round) who has decent bars, but 96 volatility and hard to read. He skipped his workout, but he's 56% developed. I still haven't figured out what I'm going to do if he falls to number 6.

[WebEwbank]

Primarily bars, but lately I am leaning very strongly towards players with good bars but ALSO low volatility and high intelligence - these guys seldom bust.

For me, the key to successful drafting is trading picks up or down to get the absolute best-suited player at a critical need position especially in the first two rounds. Rarely does anyone drafted 5th round or later make my roster. I use these picks as trade fodder.

One thing for sure: in this version of the game good linebackers go quick in the draft. These guys add value against pass and run and were previously undervalued - now, if anything, they are overvalued. I can rarely assemble a strong defense without two Pro Bowl LBs...

[Synovia]

I dont mean to be a total jerk Webewbank, but if you can't get anything out of 3-4-5th round picks, you're drafting poorly. Anyone can pull great players out of the first two rounds. What builds great teams is the 3rd, 4th and 5th round players that are useful, and there are a LOT of them in there. Sometimes the best player in a whole draft goes late. I dont mention the 6th and 7th because theyre essentially no different talent-wise than UDFA (theres some great players there too) <br><br>

I'm noticing something in 6.0e that I didnt notice in 6.0d. The computer picks almost entirely on combines. If you extract a draft file, and sort by total combine deviations, and watch the computer, except in the case of real bad need, they'll step down that list, only going down 2 or 3 from the top at any given point.<br><br>


Generally, once I get out of the first couple rounds, I'm looking for players whos combines drastically conflict with their bars. IE The 6'5 300 lb DE who runs a 4.75, and has a really low Pass Rush Technique and Pass Rush Strength, but a high Run defense. The idea is that if the combine is right, his pass rush is going to go up, and hes going to have great run D,and great pass rush, and be a stud. If the combine is wrong, hes a role player, and can be moved to be that 3rd DT for goalline. If just the combine is right, and he loses that high Run D bar, he may still end up as a good specialist pass rusher. If everything fails....well then you cut him.
<br><br>Every once in a while, you find one of these guys:<br>
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/9048/franklinbb4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[gstelmack]

I'm noticing something in 6.0e that I didnt notice in 6.0d. The computer picks almost entirely on combines. If you extract a draft file, and sort by total combine deviations, and watch the computer, except in the case of real bad need, they'll step down that list, only going down 2 or 3 from the top at any given point.

FWIW, I'm doing EXACTLY this in my current office league as a test, modified by scanning down a bit for a position of need (I didn't take any of the FBs sitting near the top, for example). Last year I had a 13/40 LT in the first round, this year it's an 18/41 DE. I'm still curious to see if either of these guys amounts to anything, as both have really good combines but below-average bars (I'm coming up on TC 2 for the LT).

[cmp66]

Generally, once I get out of the first couple rounds, I'm looking for players whos combines drastically conflict with their bars. IE The 6'5 300 lb DE who runs a 4.75, and has a really low Pass Rush Technique and Pass Rush Strength, but a high Run defense. The idea is that if the combine is right, his pass rush is going to go up, and hes going to have great run D,and great pass rush, and be a stud. If the combine is wrong, hes a role player, and can be moved to be that 3rd DT for goalline. If just the combine is right, and he loses that high Run D bar, he may still end up as a good specialist pass rusher. If everything fails....well then you cut him.


I am new to the game and was wondering how you find out what the end result is. Do you have to play the player a lot? Or will being a backup and going through training camps reveal if the player matches the combine ratings.

[Synovia]

I am new to the game and was wondering how you find out what the end result is. Do you have to play the player a lot? Or will being a backup and going through training camps reveal if the player matches the combine ratings.
Generally you can tell out of hte first TC. If the player's potential goes up, its going to continue to go up. If it goes down, its going to go down. <br><br>

I generally extract the class, sort by total combine deviations, and then pick one of the great combine guys who has good bars. A guy who starts out at 11/25 is never going to be a stud, but a guy who starts out 22/48 could be. 30 points seems to be about hte max that potential can creep up, barring creeping/booming at the same time. <br><br>I will pick an 11/25 guy with great combines over a 11/50 guy with bad combines though. Theres a good chance that 11/25 guy ends up 50/50, whereas that 11/50 guy is most likely going to end up 30/30

[Synovia]

Greg, the guy I posted above, was an 11/29 IIRC. Went to like 20/39 his first camp.

[SFL Cat]

bars, combine, grade

[Icy]

bars, combine, grade for me.

[gstelmack]

For the heck of it, in my office league I went straight combines, modified only by the position I was interested in.

My 1st and 3rd round picks were both low futures, but gained +6 or so in TC each which was welcome. My 2nd round pick had a high future but tanked 14 points in TC. Interestingly enough, 1st and 3rd were "very underrated", 2nd was "very overrated". Maybe I can trust my scout on that one now? My other picks were a mixed bag. However, combines by themselves are clearly not a complete indicator of player performance (which was what I was trying to test). I thought for sure that, except for the "very overrated" bit, that 2nd round pick was a stud MLB in the making.