Thanks, Ben. I can finally draft punters properly!

:lol::lol::lol:

is 11.4 broad jump right for running back?

It's 114, not 11.4

114 inches = 9 feet, 6 inches

ah crap! thanks garion!

Ben, based on the numbers you gave later, here are a few things that seem out of whack from the OP. It should be:

FB
Most Important: Broad Jump (104)
Also: PosDrl (22), Bench (20)
Least: Solecismic

RB
Least: Bench

ILB
Least: Sole


There are a couple Also's I'd probably remove, but that's more of a judgment call.

Worth noting with RBs that everything has a decent correlation while nothing really stands out.

So I've got a situation in the APFL league.
I have 1.3 and no doubt right now that the first 2 QBs will be gone (teams without QBs have traded for 1.1 and 1.2).

The 2 highlighted players are the ones I'm struggling with. Hundley has the combines but not the bars (sorry I don't have screenshot of the bars).

Hundley has high sense rush, low timing, and the various passing bars are around the 40 mark.

Grayson has high bars, similar to Mariota - same sense rush as Hundley, high timing and high passing bars around the 80 mark.

Both interviewed "very underrated". Normally I would go with the high combine guy seeing as both have the same sense rush, and I've been lead to believe a very low timing bar is a good thing.

Thoughts?

A 53 Sol?? I think I'm in love!

go with the RB ( I already told you this) ;0)

Winston went to Columbia and Mariota to UNLV?

The draft class was game generated, it was just the names that were adjusted to match the current draft class. It also just happened to be that the generated class produced at least 2 super rated QBs to match Winston and Mariota.

Be that's besides the point...where is your suggestions? LOL

And here are the 2 QBs bars.
My OC and AC have primary focus on QBs...

what's your scouting and interview for HC and OC?

OC = Scout (85), Interview (15)
HC = Scout (75), Interview (50)

I've attached an example of a similar player (took me 20+ regens to get a similar QB to Hundley) and I simmed until the completion of his 5th seasons 10 times and for the most part he ends up where his bars suggested. Of the 10 sims, 3 of those were hit by the VSOD, dropping him to 20/30-ish rating. The examples below were obviously NOT when he BUSTED.

Interestingly enough, his ratings stayed at about 60/65 after 5 seasons.

So with all things being equal, assumng no VSOD hits either QB here is another way of looking at it - see the projected bars purely based on current scouted bars staying put.

You forgot to tell us a critical piece of the puzzle: Combine Correlation.

I don't understand...sorry I'm not new so I probably should...but I don't :)

50 is combine corr.

____
Sefor -- my scouting is about the same
my interviewing is much better 63/60 (HC/OC) -- and I see the same bars as you - one is underrated and one is Hard to Read ---

I drafted a 48 sole QB and he turned out to be shitty. Don't get too excited. ;)

Just a hunch, but Hundley is probably better.

can you expand on that? why would low timing be a good thing?

just curious.

I read a comment somewhere, can't remember where, that mentioned this. I then went looking at all the QBs in the leagues I'm in and checked the top performers and for the most part the ones with very low timing are right up there.

The following QBs graded top 10 in CCFL and FOOL, I only picked the ones with low/no timing.

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/...playerid=26683

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/...playerid=35079

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/...playerid=24165

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/...?playerid=7434

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/...playerid=11541

Have you noticed RB's with low Elusiveness fit this mold as well?

hmmm interested enough to have a look and yes, most of the players in the top 10 in performance last season (CCFL and FOOL) have a low ELU rating.

The most interesting is this player...

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/...playerid=30927

Yeah, Hole Recognition is one of the bigger influences on YPA rushing. :)

EDIT: and not having to deal with the run-stuffs from high elusiveness also helps.

LeSean McCoy says he lets his numbers speak for themselves. Also, he thinks you're racist.

Demarco Murray laughs and disagrees.

Isn't grade more closely correlated to bars than adjusted grade, though?

If this choice were one to be made on the 39 combine setting then Grayson would have been the pick hands down.

What's Hundley's intelligence? I've read somewhere that when Solecismic + Intelligence + Sense Rush (?) are high, he is a pick machine.
So if his intelligence is low, he shouldn't throw many interceptions

Intelligence low is a good thing, but your equation isn't quite right.

Solecismic = Intelligence + Hidden Avoid Pick rating.

So a high Sole is good, even better with a low intelligence, because it means the avoid pick rating is very good.

Worst case is high intel + low Sole score, because it means Avoid Pick rating is low, and the guy is and interception factory.

hi everyone, I just stumbled upon this table - is it still relevant with FOF8?

cheers

I'm wondering this myself. I have read some people that say it is and some that say it isn't.

No

No they aren't relevant? If that's true I'm surprised the maker of Front Office Football didn't say the important combines changed for the positions.

The randomness factor for combine scores setting (introduced in FOF8) makes the exact numbers less relevant, but relative figures still can be a sign of how good or bad a player is.

FOF8 is all about bars, unless you have combines accuracy at 100, they are meaningless.

Thanks for the help. Sharkn20 you really feel like the combines are completely meaningless? There must be confusion about this topic because I see a lot of different types of answers.

I kind of like MIJB's advice of using them as a relative measure.

I got to the point where I ignore them when they are in the static bars, you can use them as a reference to see if the bar makes sense. But with good scouting bars I trust more the opinion of my Coaching Staff, like a lot more.

The problem is not everyone is going to have good scouting.

Combines are absolutely not meaningless and saying as such is hurtful to the community at large.

Ignoring combines is ONE way to draft. Get good scouts and then make judgement calls based on those.

But even then the combines are a useful tool to compare to what you are seeing.

Combines are fuzzier than they used to be, which means the margins of what's good/bad and inbetween is no longer a firm, hard rule. Sometimes you will get WRs who have a 4.6 40 and they're perfectly fine players. Other times you get a guy with a 4.3 40 and he sucks. Just like in real life.

Doesn't make the combines worthless, but if you DO manage to get the best scouts it does minimize the impact of combines because you're generally seeing the bars as close to true as you can.

But not everyone, especially in mp, is able to get the best scouts, especially when the best scouts are NEVER let go by the people who have them.

That's what I said that if you have the big Scouting bars, combines are meaningless... Otherwise I just use them to see how they compare to the bars that are not static, and relate them to the ones that are static to make some decisions, but bars are King.

don't ignore combines... high bars and poor combines (specially those related to static bars) = good recipe for busts

Thanks. Speaking of scouting ratings I find it odd that offensive and defensive coordinators are more important than head coaches. I came to this conclusion because head coach and assistant are mostly for interviews and the offensive and defensive coordinators are for scouting.

Lets be honest here, if a person has to keep databases and research every minute detail to figure out how the game works, something is really wrong with the game. If the bars hold no value, you scouts hold not value, and the combine scores hold no value, what is the point?

if you want more certainty, just turn the combine correlation to 100.

There are 2 different bars, static and nonstatic? I've never seen 2 different ones.

If you want combines to be everything, set it to 100 and draft by combines. IF you want bars to be everything, set it to 0 and draft by bars.

Uncertainty is there to simulate the uncertainty that every staff feels on NFL draft day.

Do some digging on the term here for more background, but "static bars" is a global reference to certain skills that, in FOF, are basically always fully developed. Easiest example to see is with defensive coverage skills... man-to-man and zone coverage frequently show up as something like 21/54, right? But check out bump-and-run coverage... with very few slight exceptions, this bar will be fully complete in every player, even a freshly minted rookie, like 41/41. Every position has at least one, sometimes several, of these ratings that are just different than the rest. This community has taken to calling them "static bars" to reflect that they don't really evolve over time... that guy with 21/54 zone coverage is probably going to develop over his first few seasons from 21/54 to 24/50 to 33/44 to 39/39, as a fairly common example. The guy who started out 41/41 might hover slightly around that level, but probably won't move much there... 41/41 to 42/42 to 42/42 to 40/40, frex.

So, take a look in game, and you can quickly see which ratings are like this. Running backs have three IIRC, and so forth. There's a good deal of evidence suggesting that these ratings are themselves useful indicators of what draftees are more "real" than others. Two guys with fairly comparable bars and fairly comparable combines... but one DB happens to have much higher projections in bump coverage and punishing hitter... then makes him a better bet to develop than the other guy, all else equal.

Is there somewhere I can find the list of all these static bars?

This is interesting Quik because this isn't what I thought static bars means.

For me I thought it meant the bars where the correlation between the draft prospect's bar and the actual player's bar is particularly high. I think I mean the future bar but I suppose I mean the current bar as well as I think I'm right in saying that players with high statics tend to have high current, relative to the % dev.

Am I missing something, do you think?

In Draft Analizer the green ones.