DRAFTING STRATEGY: Words Of Wisdom From GnR.

[Ben E Lou]

[JeffW]

lol, what were his combines? It will be interesting to see where these types go in MP.

[RedKingGold]

Was his development from consistent playing time, or did he ride the pine a little bit?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Was his development from consistent playing time, or did he ride the pine a little bit?

AI handled depth charts, so I can't say for sure, but based on # of plays, he has never been higher up than WR4 on a consistent basis:

Year 1: 77 pass plays
Year 2: 190 pass plays
Year 3: 196 pass plays

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JeffW

lol, what were his combines? It will be interesting to see where these types go in MP.

Well, in IHOF (with FOF2K4 up to now), studly combine guys have been going earlier and earlier as the league goes on. I drafted a bad-bar, good-combine WR at 3(19) in 2005 (Mark Poehnert). As the league has gone on, they've gone earlier, though. I grabbed Harris Douglas at 2(1) in 2010, again a bad-bar, good combine guy. He caught 11 TD's in his third season. Most recently, Bubba Raymond went 1(10) in 2012. If I recall correctly, none of these guys I've mentioned had a future potential above 40, and I know that people mentioned that Douglas and Raymond would have gone just a little later in the round where they went had they not been picked where they were.

[Flasch186]

Definitely proves you cannot whistle and look tough at the same time.

[Ben E Lou]

Donnie has developed into a star. As he has hit his prime, he's put up seasons of 86-1375-8, 76-1265-9, and 89-1488-6. Not bad for a stretch pick at 3(23).

[Ksyrup]

These are the kinds of guys I completely pass up during my drafts. I'm glad to see they exist, though. Maybe I'll start taking a shot at one every now and then. My problem is, a 24/36 would be the 53rd guy on my team. He would barely be my 5th WR, and he'd be inactive. So I'm not sure I'd ever see him develop, since he'd be buried on my depth chart.

[Narcizo]

That's the point. You have to take a gamble on players like this and play them a bit. Receivers is a great place to do it in though as they always seem to develop if they're active. The difference between 2004 and 2007 seems to be that the great combine guys you'd see in 2004 now get taken fairly quickly whereas in 2004 they would fall to the 3rd round in an MP league and right out of the draft in a SP game.

[QuikSand]

There are two ways to deal with "creeper" players (true in FOF 2004, as well as in FOF 2007 it seems).

One is to basically look at their current red and green bars, and make some judgment about whether the guy is worth anything. Often, he isn't... even if he inches a little bit forward from his current projections.

The other is basically to see players like that as an investment -- that these players will either one day develop enough ratings to become worthwhile, or that they might even be a lot better than their visible ratings already, and are simply being "masked" for scouting purposes. If the latter is true, then you're looking at a hidden 51/51 player and saying "nah, I already have a guy who's 41/48 and he's better than this stiff."

This was an interesting facet of the short-lived GroupThink FOF 2007 career, while we were focusing on building players through the draft. We had some interesting results from a few creeper players on that team, including one breakout that was even more profound than SkyDog's guy listed above.

[Ben E Lou]

The screenie I showed you was from the end of his rookie year. He was actually only 17/29 immediately post-draft.

[Ksyrup]

See, I don't know how to deal with guys like this. I've done a great job of scouting guys with potentials in the 50s-70s through all 7 rounds. In fact, here are the post-camp rookies from the draft I conducted last night:

1(1) RB - 69/80
3(18) CB - 30/50
3(25) LB - 28/57
4(9) FB - 25/57
4(28) T - 23/53
5(28) TE - 32/54
6(28) QB - 12/61

Undrafted:
SS - 18/53
CB - 21/47

Now, I know from experience that the RB is going to be a stud and the FB, TE, and LB have the best chances to develop fully from this group. I also know that several of these guys, even if they play regularly, will have their potentials dip into the 40s and finally settle in about their 3rd year anywhere from 35/35 to 45/45. But I'm finding it awfully difficult to paass up the potential for someone who is 17/29 post-camp. In fact, I''ve actually refused to sign guys I've drafted who have 30s potential on the theory that I don't want to waste the bonus money for 3-4 years. I'd love to have a guy boom like SD's guy, I just don't know if I can force myself to wait out that kind of draft pick on the off-chance he develops.

It's interesting how different the drafting philosophies can be in this game, though. The other thing I'm trying to deal with is picking decent QB prospects like the guy above and having them wither away behind my 87/91 franchise QB. I've gone through 4 or 5 potential decent QBs and I'm not sure if they were going to shrivel up anyway, or if I failed to develop them. If the 12/61 guy keeps his potentials around 60 by next offseason, and my franchise guy is still rolling along, I'm thinking about dealing the rookie for a draft pick before I completely drain him from non-use.

[Narcizo]

Unless the quarterback in question was a noshow at the combines I can as good as guarantee that his ratings aren't accurate. It will be interesting if you can convince the AI to give up something for him though.

[Ksyrup]

I'll fully admit that I hardly pay attention to the combine numbers unless I'm choosing between a couple of seemingly close picks. As far as overall combine ratings against the entire field of draftees at that position, I never do a full comparison. Mostly because I never know who I'll be drafting, of course, and I'm not going to spend that much time doing a comparison of players I know I'll never end up considering (once I get into the draft and see how it progresses, that is).

I guess I have a hard time understanding how above average scouts can be so wrong (even though I see it time and time again). If my scouts are good-great, shouldn't they be more accurate than that, on both sides of this issue (scouting both the 12/61 and the 17/29 guys closer to reality)?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Narcizo

Unless the quarterback in question was a noshow at the combines I can as good as guarantee that his ratings aren't accurate. It will be interesting if you can convince the AI to give up something for him though.

Well, no GM wants him right now, so I guess that should tell me something.

[Ksyrup]

At the beginning of FA the next year, that 6th round QB I drafted 12/61 is now 11/55 and has garnered trade interest from about a dozen teams. I did a quick test trade to gauge interest for the purposes of responding to this thread, and I could get Jacksonville's 4(11) for him right now. So, I can turn a 6(28), emergency QB prospect into a mid-4th round pick the next year. That ain't bad. I may be doing a deal very soon...

[Narcizo]

Sounds a bit exploity to me, as you're able to project the player's true potential far better than the AI is able to. :shurg:

[Ksyrup]

How so? A few of these types of QBs I have drafted have become useful players. This guy might not max out at his current 61 potential, but he might not completely bust, either. One of the reasons I draft guys like this is precisely because I DON'T know whether they will live up to their potential. I've had several guys with high 50s/60s potential come down a bit, but end up as 50/50-60/60+ players, several who come down to a 35/35 to 45/45 range, and 2 that I recall completely busted in year 3 or 4 (they dropped to like 4/15 or something). The only reason I would consider trading a guy like this is because I don't have use for him because of my starter and he's just wasting on my bench. Otherwise, I'd keep him if he continued to hold his potentials, like this guy did.

FWIW, post-training camp of his second year, he's at 12/52. So he is far from a bust...yet. Of course, it doesn't help that the team who traded for him has him as the 3rd QB, but we'll see if they do anything with him. I'll follow him to see how he progresses/regresses.

[Narcizo]

If don't think he's a bust why are you trying to trade him for so little value? Given the difficulty of drafting quality back-up QBs I'd hold onto him. (I've turned down offers of a low 1st round pick to hold onto a quality back-up QB).

[Ksyrup]

I find it much easier to sign 35-40 current-rated backups, who do just fine. In fact, the season that my first franchise stud QB left me high and dry because of the franchise designation, I traded him and ended up playing Charlie Fry, who had a current rating of 42, for that year and coaxed a 103 QB rating out of him (until he got hurt in game 11).

My point with the (potentially) high ceiling backup QB who will never play enough to develop is that I'm wasting him on the bench. If he was 35/52, then sure, I'd hold onto him. But at 15/52, he's not going to play for me unless there's a major emergency. So why not get some value for him?

[kcchief19]

I wish I saved the season files so I'd have the specifics on this guy, but I have a serious man-love for Winston. He was pretty lowly rated coming out of college, hence while I was able to nab him after the draft. I believe my scout had him highly underrated during the interviews and I recollect his post training camp numbers were something like 22/50. In 2023 when he went for 809 yards, he was the number three wideout on a team with a QB that went for over 4,000 yards and my two starters went over a 1,000 yards each.

I don't want to lose him, so I feel like I have to slap the franchise tag on him. I moved him to SE last season with no penalty because I've got a stud flanker who is a only a year older than him and my veteran SE suffered his first talent drop during the offseason.

[Joker]

I think Winston's pct. of catches (75 out of 108) is just amazing.
Normally you only see FB and TE's with those types of numbers this guy would be tops in any league for that stat. Normally WR barely get 50% between targeted and actual catches. Plus the amazing 13td's
Looks like a future Canton member to me.

[Chubby]

This thread will be even more interesting as the IHOF prepares for it's 1st 2k7 draft.

[Geld1941]

Kcchief,
To deveolp a player like that, were you the one calling the plays in the game, or what influence did you have on his progression?

[BYU 14]

Forgot how impressive Slash's Snake was..

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Geld1941

Kcchief,
To deveolp a player like that, were you the one calling the plays in the game, or what influence did you have on his progression?

Nope, I let my coaches call the plays. I've got a upper tier head coach, although his ratings are slipping in his old age. My offensive coordinator is also top shelf. I did very little to influence his development, other than getting him playing time.

One thing I'm noticing anecdotally is the impact one player seems to have. I talked in anothe thread about how my defense improved significantly when I acquired a top notch punt returner, prompting me to theorize that winning the field position battle may be helping my defense. In this case, it was the development of a third WR who seemed to spark my vetern QB. He had been very good before Lelond arrived, but his numbers have improved since I got Leblond. And it can't entirely be having three quality WRs, because as you can see Leblond got quite a few starts in years 2 and 3 due to injuries, so for much of those seasons I only had two quality WRs starting at any one time. This could all be coincidence, but I think there is something not entirely understood about team chemistry.

I've been looking through my league, and I have yet to come across a WR putting up the catch percentage Leblond is. I wish you could filter the career stats database for position, so I could see the catch percentage for just WRs and not TEs and RBs. Bu I'm normally ecstatic with a WR who can catch 60% of the balls thrown his way.

I'll get an update later when I can get back on my FOF computer.