Watching Another Interesting Development Case (Johnny Helmic)
 

PRECAMP OBSERVATIONS

• 58% developed, yet 55/63
• E positional experience seemed to match up with % developed
• Very low run blocking bar for a guy with those combines

POSTCAMP OBSERVATIONS

• -1, usually a sign of dropping, but not always
• Run blocking bar all red...was thinking then it almost had to be masked
• Gained a level of positional experience in camp

CURRENT OBSERVATIONS

• RR has already filled out 15 points in just 4 preseason and 2 regular season games.
• Has gained another level of positional experience in camp.
• 65/65, yet with green showing in several categories, and several all red bars still moving upward.

We do have a mentor TE.

I'm mainly posting this to have an easy record of where he was and where he's headed. I'm very curious about him.

How do I get the letter grade for development status?

Use the resource patcher in the StelmackSoft Utility Suite.

thanks Skydog

This thread is painful to read.

FWIW, I had Helmic as the 3rd best TE. If I'd picked where you did, I doubt I would have gotten him.

I still think that he'll be short on run blocking. As you can see, he's still gaining there, but not as much as in most other skills. I'm expecting a finish near 40, maybe just short of 50, but more likely around 38-42.

What happened to Dylan King?

Week 3 complete.

He gains two more overall points, to 67/67. Positional Experience goes to "B" this week. GD and RR both go to 91, RB to 28. Green fills out 2 to 3 points in those five categories, with no change to red.

I seem to be seeing a lot of that since the last update: players dropping 1-3 points in camp, and being creepers. Never more than 3 points though.

My 1st round LB last season (in Shiba) went from 45/69->48/66, and is now sitting at 69/69 with a 9 (B?) in position experience.

Agreed. As far as I could tell, the points of no return up to 6.1 were +1/-2, but they seem to have widened a bit now.

Over in the USFL 2 years ago I had a rookie RB pre camp 63/63 and post 61/61. He finished at 79/79

No change from this in Week 4.

Week 4. no change.

Weed 5 complete: two more overall to 69/69, exp still holding at B. GD to 92, RR to 94, RB to 28. AD all red at 86/86. Third down catching goes up a point to 67. Special teams +2 to 97.

Will players continue to "creep" after their position experience is maxed out?

Yes.

Especially QBs.

Not every player creeps, it's pretty random. I had a DT once who was 65/81 when I drafted him, then 68/75 after camp and he started creeping from there until he maxed out at 83/83. Most guys seem to "creep" the wrong way though.

I should have given an example but I'm pretty sure SD knew what I was asking. Lets say a rookie WR started at 15/21 in his 3rd year is 45/45 but his position experience is maxed out. Is it possible for him to continue "creeeping"? sounds like it is. I haven't seen an example of it yet but i'll be watching more closely.

Yes, zbuckley. It happens (in small numbers) a decent amout of the time with all positions. For QBs, it's usually significant. Let me check something...

Yup, Aaron Sweazy, the QB in my dynasty thread, was 16/43-->57/57 with full positional experience, but he continue to creep as high as 76/76.

He's the guy you couldn't find the combine #'s for right?

If I had them, I certainly wouldn't tell y'all!!! :D



But no, I don't have them. :(

...Week 4. no change.

Week 5 complete: two more overall to 69/69, exp still holding at B. GD to 92, RR to 94, RB to 28. AD all red at 86/86. Third down catching goes up a point to 67. Special teams +2 to 97....

Week 6 complete: 70/70 overall. (+12/+8 since postcamp)

RunBlk: 29 (+7)
PsBlk: 77/81 (+19/0)
BlkStr: 57 (NC)
AvDrps: 88 (+21/+2)
GtDnfd: 92 (+6)
RtRn: 97 (+24/+8)
3dCtc: 68 (+5)
BgPly: 65 (NC)
Courage: 70/71 (+4/0)
Adjust: 68/72 (+16/0)
Endurance: 64/71 (+4/0)
Special Teams: 98 (+7)
Long Snapping: 47 (NC)

Hey Sky, you've done a couple of threads with creeping WE/TE/RBs, etc. Have you noticed any specific bars that seem to be prone to heavy unmasking?

It seems like most of the cases I've seen, Route Running gets some heavy changes.

Well, Helmic is the first post-6.0e draftee for one of these threads. The other guys were picked before scout error was lowered, so it may be difficult to draw any conclusions at the moment.

...Week 4. no change.

Week 5 complete: two more overall to 69/69, exp still holding at B. GD to 92, RR to 94, RB to 28. AD all red at 86/86. Third down catching goes up a point to 67. Special teams +2 to 97....

Week 6 complete: 70/70 overall. (+12/+8 since postcamp)

RunBlk: 29 (+7)
PsBlk: 77/81 (+19/0)
BlkStr: 57 (NC)
AvDrps: 88 (+21/+2)
GtDnfd: 92 (+6)
RtRn: 97 (+24/+8)
3dCtc: 68 (+5)
BgPly: 65 (NC)
Courage: 70/71 (+4/0)
Adjust: 68/72 (+16/0)
Endurance: 64/71 (+4/0)
Special Teams: 98 (+7)
Long Snapping: 47 (NC)


Week 7 complete: 72/72 overall. (+14/+10 since postcamp)

RunBlk: 30 (+8)
PsBlk: 80/81 (+22/0)
BlkStr: 57 (NC)
AvDrps: 90 (+23/+4)
GtDnfd: 94 (+8)
RtRn: 100 (+???) (+27/+11)
3dCtc: 68 (+5)
BgPly: 65 (NC)
Courage: 72 (+6/+1)
Adjust: 70/72 (+18/0)
Endurance: 65/71 (+5/0)
Special Teams: 99 (+8)
Long Snapping: 47 (NC)

Positional Experience still at "B."

...Week 4. no change.

Week 5 complete: two more overall to 69/69, exp still holding at B. GD to 92, RR to 94, RB to 28. AD all red at 86/86. Third down catching goes up a point to 67. Special teams +2 to 97....

Week 6 complete: 70/70 overall. (+12/+8 since postcamp)

RunBlk: 29 (+7)
PsBlk: 77/81 (+19/0)
BlkStr: 57 (NC)
AvDrps: 88 (+21/+2)
GtDnfd: 92 (+6)
RtRn: 97 (+24/+8)
3dCtc: 68 (+5)
BgPly: 65 (NC)
Courage: 70/71 (+4/0)
Adjust: 68/72 (+16/0)
Endurance: 64/71 (+4/0)
Special Teams: 98 (+7)
Long Snapping: 47 (NC)


Week 7 complete: 72/72 overall. (+14/+10 since postcamp)

RunBlk: 30 (+8)
PsBlk: 80/81 (+22/0)
BlkStr: 57 (NC)
AvDrps: 90 (+23/+4)
GtDnfd: 94 (+8)
RtRn: 100 (+???) (+27/+11)
3dCtc: 68 (+5)
BgPly: 65 (NC)
Courage: 72 (+6/+1)
Adjust: 70/72 (+18/0)
Endurance: 65/71 (+5/0)
Special Teams: 99 (+8)
Long Snapping: 47 (NC)

Positional Experience still at "B."

I don't usually do week-to-week tracking, so I have no idea if this is odd, but it seems at least notworthy: his overall didn't change at all, but several of his individual numbers did.


Week 8 complete: 72/72 overall. NC this week.

RunBlk: 31(+1)
PsBlk: 81 (+1/0)
BlkStr: 57 (NC)
AvDrps: 93 (+3)
GtDnfd: 94 (NC)
RtRn: 100 (???)
3dCtc: 68 (NC)
BgPly: 65 (NC)
Courage: 72 (NC)
Adjust: 72 (+2/0)
Endurance: 65/71 (NC)
Special Teams: 99 (NC)
Long Snapping: 47 (NC)

Positional Experience still at "B."

So now here's a new twist (at least to me, I think). Helmic goes to "A" positional experience this week, but still has a bit of green in endurance. My best guess as to what's going on there is that positional experience is similar to coaching ratings. We're only seeing it change at certain increments, but it's changing under the hood at smaller ones.

...Week 4. no change.

Week 5 complete: two more overall to 69/69, exp still holding at B. GD to 92, RR to 94, RB to 28. AD all red at 86/86. Third down catching goes up a point to 67. Special teams +2 to 97....

Week 6 complete: 70/70 overall. (+12/+8 since postcamp)

RunBlk: 29 (+7)
PsBlk: 77/81 (+19/0)
BlkStr: 57 (NC)
AvDrps: 88 (+21/+2)
GtDnfd: 92 (+6)
RtRn: 97 (+24/+8)
3dCtc: 68 (+5)
BgPly: 65 (NC)
Courage: 70/71 (+4/0)
Adjust: 68/72 (+16/0)
Endurance: 64/71 (+4/0)
Special Teams: 98 (+7)
Long Snapping: 47 (NC)


Week 7 complete: 72/72 overall. (+14/+10 since postcamp)

RunBlk: 30 (+8)
PsBlk: 80/81 (+22/0)
BlkStr: 57 (NC)
AvDrps: 90 (+23/+4)
GtDnfd: 94 (+8)
RtRn: 100 (+???) (+27/+11)
3dCtc: 68 (+5)
BgPly: 65 (NC)
Courage: 72 (+6/+1)
Adjust: 70/72 (+18/0)
Endurance: 65/71 (+5/0)
Special Teams: 99 (+8)
Long Snapping: 47 (NC)

Positional Experience still at "B."

I don't usually do week-to-week tracking, so I have no idea if this is odd, but it seems at least notworthy: his overall didn't change at all, but several of his individual numbers did.


Week 8 complete: 72/72 overall. NC this week.

RunBlk: 31(+1)
PsBlk: 81 (+1/0)
BlkStr: 57 (NC)
AvDrps: 93 (+3)
GtDnfd: 94 (NC)
RtRn: 100 (???)
3dCtc: 68 (NC)
BgPly: 65 (NC)
Courage: 72 (NC)
Adjust: 72 (+2/0)
Endurance: 65/71 (NC)
Special Teams: 99 (NC)
Long Snapping: 47 (NC)

Positional Experience still at "B."



OK. So is he done now? :confused:



WEEK 10 complete: scouted 75/75 overall. +3 this week, +17/+13 overall

(Changes in scouted ratings listed are overall since post-camp stage.)

RunBlk: 33 (+11)
PsBlk: 87 (+29/+6)
BlkStr: 57 (NC)
AvDrps: 99 (+32/+13)
GtDnfd: 96 (+10)
RtRn: 100 (+27/+12)
3dCtc: 70 (+7)
BgPly: 65 (NC)
Courage: 73 (+7/+2)
Adjust: 77 ( +25/+5. The +5 was after he got to red experience.)
Endurance: 67 (+7/-4)
Special Teams: 100 (+9)
Long Snapping: 47 (NC)

Good thing I didn't know about his 21 popularity, huh???

Hope people won't miss this comment.

Since I have yet to do a draft, where was he taken in the draft and where would be expected to be taken in a SP draft?

He was 1.29 in this particular MP league. SP leagues... all over the place.

If I am reading this right, you think people have a concern with low popularity being a tell for bad players? Has that ever been misconstrued? From my understanding, having a low pop score means nothing, but having a high pop score tells you everything you need to know.

Yes, it was. Ben was using sarcasm here to make a comment on the several people who attempted to counter the high pop tell theory by giving examples of successful low pop players.

Ok, I see. 60% of the time I detect sarcasm all the time.

When I came back to the thread, I remembered the draft position was listed in there as well. Even for a MP league, he was late first round. Good to know.


Anybody who read Ben's thread saw the continual restating that low pop. players still could pan out of be HoF type guys.

Short and sweet:

Player with >40 pop = solid player
Player with <40 pop = need more information (bars/combines)

Right. I was under the impression that everybody was on the same page on this. I don't read all threads verbatim and missed the "low pop=teh suck" crowd.

Well, one other key info bit here is that there were three studly-looking TEs in that particular draft class. Helmic was the last to go. The other two went at #15 and #22. I suspect that if the other two hadn't been there, Helmic would have gone higher.

If you're going to bump this thread, well, you know the px pls drill!

i'm seeing his as 66/66

Yup. His numbers dropped 4 or 5 points in FA1:1--either that odd year 2/3 false negative stuff, or he's one of the early peak guys. We'll know much more at camp.

dropping fast

I thought the latest patch made this untrue? It was an easy tell and Jim changed it right?

Yes, but RKG posted that in August of 2008.

Good thing, acute priapism is no fun.

Heh.

Yeah, Helmic was one of those "develop early, start dropping in year 4ish" types. These types seem to be found at RB fairly often, but evidently TEs can do it, too. No worries, as he's still at a career 9.3ypt, and I found another good one fairly late in the third round last year. I love me some TEs. ;)

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/...playerid=15915

So its true then, high popularity = solid player?

It was true in August of 2008.

There you go QS, making me look up words again.

Just to cover all of our bases.

IT'S NOT TRUE NOW!!!

Sometimes, I wonder how your jaw doesn't lock up.

They should've locked my jaw years ago.

This is a really old thread, and maybe things have changed since then, but I am wondering if this TE always dropped at intervals - FA stages, negative cut tests at every point in his career, and so on.

If that's the case it sounds like something that happens all the time right now, guys who drop at camp, drop at those stages, drop when you cut 'em, but develop well beyond their potential with playing time -- they simultaneously are creeping and dropping, it's just that their development creeping overrides the dropping.


I am just curious what you mean by this, though, since I haven't noticed it myself.

Could it merely be a case of their development creeping being done, and only the dropping in ratings at time stamps remains? (in which case, it would apply to any position)

Or is there actually something more to "odd year 2/3 false negative stuff" in the FA stage, not TC, and "start dropping in year 4ish" quirks for certain positions?

FYI - cut test is scout ratings, not a true indicator. Wasn't sure if you knew that.

As for the drops, I would think they are random if nothing else - fairly had to predict when a player is going to drop at their 4th year when they have been playing close to their ratings.

What do you mean by "scout ratings"?

It has always seemed to be a fairly strong indicator, not only of overall direction, but also of the direction each bar is going in.

Different scouts give players different ratings. So if you have a player rated at 55/55, I might only see that player as a 52/52 player. When you cut him, he will lose points. The same applies for a player that I see rated higher then you, you cut him and he goes up.

That is why no one uses the cut-test anymore as an indication.

Well, I won't dispute that scouts see players differently, but I guess I just can't think of an example where the cut test did not match whether a player was creeping, or falling, as evidenced by TC or offseason FA stage unmasking. And more important, if a player had bars coming up and going down, the cut test will bear that out -- which ones up, which ones down.

(Except where the cut test is inconclusive, of course)

Additionally, scouts are apparently bad at how they view their own masked players, which should make it a pretty good indicator, unless you have an awful scout. I've never tried having an awful scout, though.


If you see him as 52/52, and someone else sees him as 58/58, what happens when I cut him?

I was just giving you an example while using my scout's rating when you cut a player. I actually don't know who's scout is used when the player is cut in SP, but in MP it is the Commish.

Believe what you want, those that know about this know not to use it as an indicator anymore.

Oh, it is the commish? That's interesting, I didn't know that. I always thought it was just how your scout sees FAs.

This should be fairly easy to confirm, I guess, if it is the commish.

For one thing, it means everybody sees players in the FA pool identically.

In one of my leagues, another GM posted in our forum his version of the player’s ratings after TC. I compared some of the free agents and his view of the ratings differs from mine.

And I checked with one of my commishes and we found a player that was viewed differently between our scouts.

I do not doubt there are many knowledgeable people who believe the cut test is not meaningful. Although I hope for a more satisfactory answer as to why not.

When was this declaration made? I don't recall any study expressly refuting the cut-test.

Actually, I think it is the other way around. Those who know, know to use the cut test as at least somewhat of an indicator of what I call a "time stamp creeper".

I will say that I believe Aston takes the cut test thingy a bit too far. The cut test is not always accurate. I have a C who crept a fair amount over the seasons, has never dropped, yet shows a negative cut test.

I think it is hard to say what the cut test means in every situation but indeed a major creeper will almost always show a positive cut test. Sometimes when a guy hits fully developed he will lose the positive cut test but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

I always thought it was an average of all the scouts in the league.

It is not the commish's scout. The easiest way to prove this is to start a multi-player league, open the league as the commish and start cutting player's from the commish's team. You will see that when you cut players, you will still see different ratings. :cool:

03-13-2012, 07:05 PM

:lol:

Hey, laugh it up all you want but as far as I can tell, out of you and Aston you're the only one saying things that are clearly false in this thread (ie: you see the commish's view of FAs in multi-player). The cut test, as a measure of creeper, may be a misleading indicator but I don't think it is as useless as you make it out to be.

I really thought a lot of the vets here don't use the test anymore. I know I don't.

As for seeing the commish's view of FA's in MP, that is what I thought. If it isn't, it has to be someone's view of them. Because I sure as hell don't think it is the secret fairy view that tells you that a player is going to be a creeper or a shitter.

:)

oh, no fairies at all. I just suspect it is a funky implementation of scout error where your scout is always worse at evaluating masked players on your own roster. This is why when you trade a player, your scout will see them on the other team the same as if they see them post-cut: scouts are not as bad at masked players on other teams. A consequence of that is, players who are unmasking up will tend to be underestimated (positive cut test) and players who are unmasking down will tend to be overestimated (neg cut test).

That's just my guess, though (as to the underlying mechanism). Mostly it just seems to work, in the majority, but not all cases.

And you don't really need it, I guess. Most often it just confirms what changetrackers already told you. Sometimes it's nice to have an extra data point, but you aren't really missing out on too much if you don't.

When I load up my MP league, in say CCFL, I don't see how the game can determine what team is the commish's team.