Drafting: Is Overated/Very Overrated really a Killer?

[flair1234]

I have been watching this (Albeit not using any scientific method). What I have noticed is these players do not necessarily tank as much as they just don't turn into studs.

The pattern I have seen is a for a 1st or 2nd round caliber player, they might come out of the draft rated something like 35/70, and maybe after camp drop to a 35/58 or something like that. After they develop the may look like 52/52 (and possbily creep up a couple points).

I am not sure if they bust more than other players. But I think if you know what you are getting into on the front end and realize that you are probably not getting a stud, but will still probably get a solid player. Also in some cases your scout is simply wrong.

[Ben E Lou]

Somewhere, either in the help file or in a thread, Jim made a comment that % Developed is very important for draftees. My take is that this is one of the places it's most important.

[QuikSand]

Well, there is also clearly some built-in inaccuracy to the interview results (I presume this is pinned to the skill of the scout, but have not done any testing to confirm this presumption). So, there's a separable issue there -- some guys just get mis-labeled. (I have been victim multiple times of my own scout's irrational exuberance over certain rookies only to find that the big hoped-for +5 training camp wasn't forthcoming after all)

So, by and large, I think an accurate forecast of which direction the future potential rating is heading is certainly worthwhile and useful. But it isn't the end of the story, either. Sure there is value in a player like the guy you describe (who ends up rated 52/52). Even if the scout was correct to identify him as being "very overrated" by that initial assessment that he's a 70/70 guy waiting to unfold.

I think the main problem is that if you are essentially paying for the full 70/70 potential that you see by taking a guy like this with a high draft pick, and he turns out to only be 52/52 at the end of the line, that is where you get into trouble. Not that he is a useless player, but that you may have spent the 1.15 pick for a guy who is really just a complementary role player, and not the anchor player you thought he'd be.

[flair1234]

I think the main problem is that if you are essentially paying for the full 70/70 potential that you see by taking a guy like this with a high draft pick, and he turns out to only be 52/52 at the end of the line, that is where you get into trouble. Not that he is a useless player, but that you may have spent the 1.15 pick for a guy who is really just a complementary role player, and not the anchor player you thought he'd be.

I guess that was one of the points I had in my head that I did not clarify. It seems in MP leagues that the VO tag makes people avoid them like the plague. I think they tend to drop a bit further than is sometimes warranted.

I tend to look for supporting evidence from the combines to see how severe the problem may actually be (and what attribute(s) is driving the alleged overrating).

[ddrrbb]

Another problem that I just encountered during the last draft was after a player was drafted, the team asked if any other teams liked the player. One team said he was very underrated, and I checked my interview and it said very overrated. My scout is good and good at that position and young talent.

The point is a VO guy to you may be an U or VU guy to someone else and that's where combine analysis is important to double check the bars that you are seeing. (especially now that we kind of know which combine scores and bars correlate)