Recommended Videos

Collapse

The Draft

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • #1
    SwayGod53
    Banned
    • Jul 2006
    • 573

    The Draft


    Does anyone on here like to do the draft? I was at 2ksports and I posted my draft sliders, and someone said the people on here were really into the research of the game. Now, although I am fairly new to this website, I am probably the saddest person in regards to researching this game. I literally have pages and pages of notes dedicated to breaking down someones rating, how to improve draft potential, how a player progresses throughout his career, and I've even gone as far as to dedicate my franchise to watching 5 players in different positions make it or break it in the NFL. I recorded their individual game stats, which basically meant subtracting their totals from the week prior since I did not play the games. I saw a great WR go from starter to an injury prone career, a HB who was up and down and up and down, and a CB who was ranked #1 in the rookie report, but after 5 years was playing dime and nickel situations. Really good stuff.

    But the draft.

    I am not saying "Check out my draft sliders they are the best", etc, but I really think I helped keep the game alive with making the draft worthwhile again. I was as tired as the next guy, needing a back going into the draft, knowing the only way I was going to get a decent guy was to trade for a top 5 pick, but with the sliders you can pretty much take any of the top 10 backs and have decent results.

    Ex. I did three drafts in three different franchises, recording the draft rating of the players before the sliders and after. Here are the results.

    Tops 5 Backs, Draft 1- No sliders Ratings
    1.80
    2.74
    3.73
    4.68
    5.66

    Top 5 Backs, Draft 1- With sliders Ratings
    1.87
    2.81
    3.79
    4.75
    5.73

    You'll notice a 6-7pt increase in rating. So if you draft that second or third round back who is a 62, all of a sudden he is a 68-69, start of season a 72-73, maybe better.

    The numbers in the 2nd draft and 3 draft were the same. In draft 2 all 5 backs went up 6pts when the sliders were applied.

    You'll notice another big swing is the WR's. For some reason in this game the WR's stats just don't reflect their overall ratings. You'll notice the sliders I added don't touch catch, run route, or speed, the three biggest stats for a WR. The game does fine with this. It is the smaller stuff like jumping and consistency that was a little low, thus giving a worse rating.

    Did You know that no matter how much you add or drop composure, aggressiveness, or Pass Blocking, it will not affect a WR's rating. It will for sure impact his performance, but it will not impact his rating.

    Other players who got good bumps in rating were QB's, TE's catching, C, G, T's pass block and run block a little bump, because you are not going to have a T with a run block of 85 and a pass block of 50, which the game like to do.

    So check it out if you have a chance. Of course it will only work for the XBOX using Finn's editor. If anyone has some draft info they would like to share, please post. We need to keep 2k5 alive.!!!!!!!!!!!!

    SwayGod
  • #2
    slimm44
    MVP
    • Sep 2005
    • 3253

    Re: The Draft


    Re: The Draft

    Originally posted by SwayGod53
    Does anyone on here like to do the draft? I was at 2ksports and I posted my draft sliders, and someone said the people on here were really into the research of the game. Now, although I am fairly new to this website, I am probably the saddest person in regards to researching this game. I literally have pages and pages of notes dedicated to breaking down someones rating, how to improve draft potential, how a player progresses throughout his career, and I've even gone as far as to dedicate my franchise to watching 5 players in different positions make it or break it in the NFL. I recorded their individual game stats, which basically meant subtracting their totals from the week prior since I did not play the games. I saw a great WR go from starter to an injury prone career, a HB who was up and down and up and down, and a CB who was ranked #1 in the rookie report, but after 5 years was playing dime and nickel situations. Really good stuff.

    But the draft.

    I am not saying "Check out my draft sliders they are the best", etc, but I really think I helped keep the game alive with making the draft worthwhile again. I was as tired as the next guy, needing a back going into the draft, knowing the only way I was going to get a decent guy was to trade for a top 5 pick, but with the sliders you can pretty much take any of the top 10 backs and have decent results.

    Ex. I did three drafts in three different franchises, recording the draft rating of the players before the sliders and after. Here are the results.

    Tops 5 Backs, Draft 1- No sliders Ratings
    1.80
    2.74
    3.73
    4.68
    5.66

    Top 5 Backs, Draft 1- With sliders Ratings
    1.87
    2.81
    3.79
    4.75
    5.73

    You'll notice a 6-7pt increase in rating. So if you draft that second or third round back who is a 62, all of a sudden he is a 68-69, start of season a 72-73, maybe better.

    The numbers in the 2nd draft and 3 draft were the same. In draft 2 all 5 backs went up 6pts when the sliders were applied.

    You'll notice another big swing is the WR's. For some reason in this game the WR's stats just don't reflect their overall ratings. You'll notice the sliders I added don't touch catch, run route, or speed, the three biggest stats for a WR. The game does fine with this. It is the smaller stuff like jumping and consistency that was a little low, thus giving a worse rating.

    Did You know that no matter how much you add or drop composure, aggressiveness, or Pass Blocking, it will not affect a WR's rating. It will for sure impact his performance, but it will not impact his rating.

    Other players who got good bumps in rating were QB's, TE's catching, C, G, T's pass block and run block a little bump, because you are not going to have a T with a run block of 85 and a pass block of 50, which the game like to do.

    So check it out if you have a chance. Of course it will only work for the XBOX using Finn's editor. If anyone has some draft info they would like to share, please post. We need to keep 2k5 alive.!!!!!!!!!!!!

    SwayGod
    I read this kind of quickly since I'm at work, but I'm not exactly sure what you did. I understand you tweaked some ratings, but can you explain how? If I just missed it, please don't respond to this.
    Acts 2:38. Let the truth be told.
    John 4:23. He is seeking a seeker.
    John 3:20. Say no to normal.

    Comment

    • #3
      thejackal25
      Pro
      • Nov 2004
      • 535

      Re: The Draft


      Re: The Draft

      Welcome to OS sway. I did see your post on the 2k forums, I check there every couple of days...you should have posted your sliders in this thread so everyone can see exactly what you changed. Keep up the work on the draft, it would be really cool to figure out exactly how player progression works in this game.
      XBL Gamertag- thejackal25

      Comment

      • #4
        slimm44
        MVP
        • Sep 2005
        • 3253

        Re: The Draft


        Re: The Draft

        Originally posted by thejackal25
        Welcome to OS sway. I did see your post on the 2k forums, I check there every couple of days...you should have posted your sliders in this thread so everyone can see exactly what you changed. Keep up the work on the draft, it would be really cool to figure out exactly how player progression works in this game.

        This is what I meant to say in my previous post.
        Acts 2:38. Let the truth be told.
        John 4:23. He is seeking a seeker.
        John 3:20. Say no to normal.

        Comment

        • #5
          SwayGod53
          Banned
          • Jul 2006
          • 573

          Re: The Draft


          Re: The Draft

          I posted my sliders in the sliders thread on this site and am about to post it in the roster edits thread, so check em out and let me know!

          Comment

          • #6
            thejackal25
            Pro
            • Nov 2004
            • 535

            Re: The Draft


            Re: The Draft

            Originally posted by SwayGod53
            I posted my sliders in the sliders thread on this site and am about to post it in the roster edits thread, so check em out and let me know!
            The sliders do look good, especially ones for WRs...a lot of the rookies I usually see look pretty good, but they can't jump if their life depended on it, so their overall goes down a lot. My only thing is, don't these edits make the draft really stacked year after year? W/o these edits, I've drafted players in rounds 3-5 that end up w/ ratings of above 80 and 1st/2nd rounders who reach 90 (once regular season starts)...largely cuz the draft gets messed up by the 1st round glitch. I've also had QBs drafted in the 7th who end up w/ ratings above 70 once the season starts. I can't imagine making the draft class stronger w/ edits. Imo, this game's draft has always been a little too strong for my liking, w/ the exception of the WR and HB positions. Good job w/ the edits...I'll definitely use the ones you used for WRs and HBs. Keep up the good work and let us know what you find out w/ tests on player progression.
            XBL Gamertag- thejackal25

            Comment

            • #7
              SwayGod53
              Banned
              • Jul 2006
              • 573

              Re: The Draft


              Re: The Draft

              Originally posted by thejackal25
              The sliders do look good, especially ones for WRs...a lot of the rookies I usually see look pretty good, but they can't jump if their life depended on it, so their overall goes down a lot. My only thing is, don't these edits make the draft really stacked year after year? W/o these edits, I've drafted players in rounds 3-5 that end up w/ ratings of above 80 and 1st/2nd rounders who reach 90 (once regular season starts)...largely cuz the draft gets messed up by the 1st round glitch. I've also had QBs drafted in the 7th who end up w/ ratings above 70 once the season starts. I can't imagine making the draft class stronger w/ edits. Imo, this game's draft has always been a little too strong for my liking, w/ the exception of the WR and HB positions. Good job w/ the edits...I'll definitely use the ones you used for WRs and HBs. Keep up the good work and let us know what you find out w/ tests on player progression.
              Thanks for the post. It is definitely good to hear everyone's opinions. I think why I like drafting and everything that goes into the draft is there is prolly enough stuff to figure out in it to keep me busy till 2k10 comes out.

              I believed what I aimed to accomplish with the draft is to bring some solidarity to the draft and make the whole experience fun. If you play with the draft edits I put forth, you will notice that a player's rating is only going to go up about 5-7pts max. I totally agree with you that WR's and HB's were underappreciated in overall rating. I tore the WR position apart trying to see how a Terrell Owens was a 100 and Joe Reciever was a 65. What it mainly boils down to is the small stuff. I didn't touch catch, run route, or speed with the WR's, because there was nothing wrong with that. I think one of the problems might be that Pass Blocking doesn't increase overall rating in regards to WR's. Only Run Block will affect a WR's rating. Like I said though, the small stuff like Speed, Run Block, and Consistency were big opportunities for higher overall ratings.

              The halfback position wasn't in too bad shape, except for the catch, run route, and some blocking figures that needed a little bump. Again, I think the issue with RB's is the 1st round glitch. I did a draft where 18 RB's were taken in the 1st round. Not this could have just been a strong draft class, but here's the results. The top RB was an 87. That is very realistic to your #1 overall player. Now the next 17 backs were between that and 70. Again I believe this was a strong draft class of RB's, seeing as this draft was done 1 year into a regular franchise with no fantasy draft or roster updates. This is my reasoning behind why I think this case was a strong draft class and why I think you need to try it before you knock it (not saying you are being negative, just a figure of speech)

              I did 3 separate drafts, recording the overall ratings of the top 5 RB's before the edits and after the edits, here are the results.

              Draft 1 B4 Edit/After Edit
              HB 1 80/87
              HB 2 74/81
              HB 3 73/79
              HB 4 68/75
              HB 5 66/73

              Now that is an alright RB class there. You have one over 85, two over 80, and four over 75. I think that looks about right to me.

              Draft 2 B4 Edit/After Edit
              HB 1 79/85
              HB 2 75/81
              HB 3 69/75
              HB 4 65/71
              HB 5 62/68

              A little weaker draft here. See where you need these edits, because if you drafted the 5th best back available he is coming in at a 62 without the edit, 68 with the edit. Still one back over 85, two over 80, but only three over 75 and only four over 70. A weaker year, which means the past two drafts you only have about 4-6 good-great backs entering the league.

              Draft 3 B4 Edit/After Edit
              HB 1 74/80
              HB 2 67/73
              HB 3 66/72
              HB 4 65/70
              HB 5 ??/67
              HB 6 61/67

              HB #5 doesn't have a before because he actually leapfrogged the 5th back before the edit to get drafted 5th after the edit, and the 5th back before the edit got drafted 6th. I mean this crop is sad. We would starve from this crop. Only one over 80, only four over 70 and it is low 70's.

              So in three drafts here, we have about 6-8 backs who are good-great backs for teams. Not super crazy, I don't think.

              I did this with WR's and QB's too. I am suprised you didn't mention QB progression. With these edits you will finally have some decent QB contenders. WR's are not crazy with the edits, just a tad better. In the 3 edits, there was only 1 WR over a 75 (a 77), just one in three years. Now that guy is gonna be your Larry Fitz. All the others were 74 or lower. The top WR in each draft went like this 77, 73, and 70, and that is after edits.

              Please try out all the edits for a few years and leave me some feedback. Ex. I had too many stud T's. I can then take a look at the tackle position. I did a draft where the top tackle was a 93. I know, that is sick, I was shocked, but then I looked at the next three tackles to be drafted. 83,78,73, that was the pecking order. Why can't there be that occasional can't miss Reggie Bushesque stud? I did a draft where I recorded the rating of the top player in each position. There was only one 90 (literally rated a 90 DT), and one C rated 85. That is pretty good for a draft imo.

              But like I said I want people to try these sliders, go through a year or two or five, and let me know what you think. I have only gotten one person to commit to trying these, (thanks Dan77773- I think), so please give them a look.

              Now the QB who starts the season 70 after being drafted in the 7th round. The only way I think that would happen pre-edit is if you had a weak QB draft. One draft I did there was only 4 QB's drafted total! The last guy taken went RD 7 PK 17 and was a 70.

              But I will make this challenge to keep people busy. If there are more than 6 QB's taken in the draft, you will not draft a RD 7 QB higher than 70, including rating at beginning of regular season. Prove me wrong.

              Keep bangin, SwayGOD

              Comment

              • #8
                thejackal25
                Pro
                • Nov 2004
                • 535

                Re: The Draft


                Re: The Draft

                Originally posted by SwayGod53
                Thanks for the post. It is definitely good to hear everyone's opinions. I think why I like drafting and everything that goes into the draft is there is prolly enough stuff to figure out in it to keep me busy till 2k10 comes out.

                I believed what I aimed to accomplish with the draft is to bring some solidarity to the draft and make the whole experience fun. If you play with the draft edits I put forth, you will notice that a player's rating is only going to go up about 5-7pts max. I totally agree with you that WR's and HB's were underappreciated in overall rating. I tore the WR position apart trying to see how a Terrell Owens was a 100 and Joe Reciever was a 65. What it mainly boils down to is the small stuff. I didn't touch catch, run route, or speed with the WR's, because there was nothing wrong with that. I think one of the problems might be that Pass Blocking doesn't increase overall rating in regards to WR's. Only Run Block will affect a WR's rating. Like I said though, the small stuff like Speed, Run Block, and Consistency were big opportunities for higher overall ratings.

                The halfback position wasn't in too bad shape, except for the catch, run route, and some blocking figures that needed a little bump. Again, I think the issue with RB's is the 1st round glitch. I did a draft where 18 RB's were taken in the 1st round. Not this could have just been a strong draft class, but here's the results. The top RB was an 87. That is very realistic to your #1 overall player. Now the next 17 backs were between that and 70. Again I believe this was a strong draft class of RB's, seeing as this draft was done 1 year into a regular franchise with no fantasy draft or roster updates. This is my reasoning behind why I think this case was a strong draft class and why I think you need to try it before you knock it (not saying you are being negative, just a figure of speech)

                I did 3 separate drafts, recording the overall ratings of the top 5 RB's before the edits and after the edits, here are the results.

                Draft 1 B4 Edit/After Edit
                HB 1 80/87
                HB 2 74/81
                HB 3 73/79
                HB 4 68/75
                HB 5 66/73

                Now that is an alright RB class there. You have one over 85, two over 80, and four over 75. I think that looks about right to me.

                Draft 2 B4 Edit/After Edit
                HB 1 79/85
                HB 2 75/81
                HB 3 69/75
                HB 4 65/71
                HB 5 62/68

                A little weaker draft here. See where you need these edits, because if you drafted the 5th best back available he is coming in at a 62 without the edit, 68 with the edit. Still one back over 85, two over 80, but only three over 75 and only four over 70. A weaker year, which means the past two drafts you only have about 4-6 good-great backs entering the league.

                Draft 3 B4 Edit/After Edit
                HB 1 74/80
                HB 2 67/73
                HB 3 66/72
                HB 4 65/70
                HB 5 ??/67
                HB 6 61/67

                HB #5 doesn't have a before because he actually leapfrogged the 5th back before the edit to get drafted 5th after the edit, and the 5th back before the edit got drafted 6th. I mean this crop is sad. We would starve from this crop. Only one over 80, only four over 70 and it is low 70's.

                So in three drafts here, we have about 6-8 backs who are good-great backs for teams. Not super crazy, I don't think.

                I did this with WR's and QB's too. I am suprised you didn't mention QB progression. With these edits you will finally have some decent QB contenders. WR's are not crazy with the edits, just a tad better. In the 3 edits, there was only 1 WR over a 75 (a 77), just one in three years. Now that guy is gonna be your Larry Fitz. All the others were 74 or lower. The top WR in each draft went like this 77, 73, and 70, and that is after edits.

                Please try out all the edits for a few years and leave me some feedback. Ex. I had too many stud T's. I can then take a look at the tackle position. I did a draft where the top tackle was a 93. I know, that is sick, I was shocked, but then I looked at the next three tackles to be drafted. 83,78,73, that was the pecking order. Why can't there be that occasional can't miss Reggie Bushesque stud? I did a draft where I recorded the rating of the top player in each position. There was only one 90 (literally rated a 90 DT), and one C rated 85. That is pretty good for a draft imo.

                But like I said I want people to try these sliders, go through a year or two or five, and let me know what you think. I have only gotten one person to commit to trying these, (thanks Dan77773- I think), so please give them a look.

                Now the QB who starts the season 70 after being drafted in the 7th round. The only way I think that would happen pre-edit is if you had a weak QB draft. One draft I did there was only 4 QB's drafted total! The last guy taken went RD 7 PK 17 and was a 70.

                But I will make this challenge to keep people busy. If there are more than 6 QB's taken in the draft, you will not draft a RD 7 QB higher than 70, including rating at beginning of regular season. Prove me wrong.

                Keep bangin, SwayGOD
                You make some good points, but I still think that the rookies might be coming out a bit too strong w/ these edits. In the cases you gave, are these the ratings players have when the regular season starts or right after the draft? Cuz if you have a RB that's 87 before the season starts, the kid will likely be above a 90 when it does, and that seems a bit much. And if he's at an 87 when the season starts it still seems a little high, especially when you compare this rookie w/ rookie rbs from years previous. In most roster updates, Reggie Bush, "the once in a lifetime HB," is rated in the mid to high 80s...Carnell Williams and Ronnie Brown, who were stellar prospects were rated in the low 80s...Steven Jackson of the Rams was rated in the 70s on this game when he was selected as well. With these edits, it seems the rooks are coming in w/ more talent and better ratings than a good number of the veterans. I agree that you can have a "once in a lifetime player" in the cpu generated drafts w/ these edits, but you had consecutive years in which HBs were rated above an 85...combine these two with Bush and you have 3 "once in a lifetime HBs."

                In my experience playing, I've been able to pick up undrafted FA QBs w/ ratings above 70 once the season starts. From this, I personally think the rooks are already good enough, if not too good. If you look at second day QBs who have been picked and played in recent years (Krenzel, Dorsey, etc.) their ratings don't even reach 70 after progressing...I don't think that a handful of 7th round QBs should now have ratings above guys that they should be on par w/ and under.

                I like the work you've done on the edits, especially the WRs cuz I definitely think they needed work, and I think you've done an awesome job of making the WR classes more in line w/ the game's/community's rosters. However, I still feel that the edits to some of the other positions, primarily QBs, create rookies that are not on par w/ roster updates and make rookies far too good early on. If one plays w/ weekly prep on and uses these edits there are probably going to be a handful of rooks w/ ratings over 90 and I think that is just too good for a rook...but that's just my opinion. Again, keep up the great work, as figuring out franchise and player progression will be very helpful.
                XBL Gamertag- thejackal25

                Comment

                • #9
                  SwayGod53
                  Banned
                  • Jul 2006
                  • 573

                  Re: The Draft


                  Re: The Draft

                  Originally posted by thejackal25
                  You make some good points, but I still think that the rookies might be coming out a bit too strong w/ these edits. In the cases you gave, are these the ratings players have when the regular season starts or right after the draft? Cuz if you have a RB that's 87 before the season starts, the kid will likely be above a 90 when it does, and that seems a bit much. And if he's at an 87 when the season starts it still seems a little high, especially when you compare this rookie w/ rookie rbs from years previous. In most roster updates, Reggie Bush, "the once in a lifetime HB," is rated in the mid to high 80s...Carnell Williams and Ronnie Brown, who were stellar prospects were rated in the low 80s...Steven Jackson of the Rams was rated in the 70s on this game when he was selected as well. With these edits, it seems the rooks are coming in w/ more talent and better ratings than a good number of the veterans. I agree that you can have a "once in a lifetime player" in the cpu generated drafts w/ these edits, but you had consecutive years in which HBs were rated above an 85...combine these two with Bush and you have 3 "once in a lifetime HBs."

                  In my experience playing, I've been able to pick up undrafted FA QBs w/ ratings above 70 once the season starts. From this, I personally think the rooks are already good enough, if not too good. If you look at second day QBs who have been picked and played in recent years (Krenzel, Dorsey, etc.) their ratings don't even reach 70 after progressing...I don't think that a handful of 7th round QBs should now have ratings above guys that they should be on par w/ and under.

                  I like the work you've done on the edits, especially the WRs cuz I definitely think they needed work, and I think you've done an awesome job of making the WR classes more in line w/ the game's/community's rosters. However, I still feel that the edits to some of the other positions, primarily QBs, create rookies that are not on par w/ roster updates and make rookies far too good early on. If one plays w/ weekly prep on and uses these edits there are probably going to be a handful of rooks w/ ratings over 90 and I think that is just too good for a rook...but that's just my opinion. Again, keep up the great work, as figuring out franchise and player progression will be very helpful.
                  I am hoping some people actually play with the edits for a few years so they can tell me if they think they are two high. I do appreciate your comments but I really think you should try these edits for, say 3-5 years before you make assumptions on whether the class is too high. All you have to go by is numbers that I have given you.

                  As far as before season or after season, most of the numbers are before season starts, as I was recording them right when the draft starts. Some of the info like top position rated 90 or more are after the season start is applied.

                  I am suprised you think Qb's are too strong with these edits. One thing I have noticed about QB's is their progression through the years is low. Of those 5 QB's drafted in the 7th round, they all went up 2-4pts as the season started, but the following year only one QB went up any overall rating and it was by just 1pt, from a 72-73. If you notice, even when you draft a QB rated 75, he won't get to 80 for like 3-5 years, possibly never. I know you can respond back and say well that is what it takes for a QB, 3-5 years, but I am talking about your big names, which brings me to the Reggie Bush, RB situation.

                  I do not consider 85 by any means "once in a lifetime HB". That you are talking 95+. If you go by college skill and hype, Bush would be like a 93. I think what I wanted to correct was the HB's was the depth. I had 18 backs drafted in the first round, and if you happened to grab that 18th back he would have been a 70. Also, play with the edits. There is alot of fluctuations. A back that is an 85 one year can easily go to a 70. Try the edits for 5 years and let me know what you think.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    thejackal25
                    Pro
                    • Nov 2004
                    • 535

                    Re: The Draft


                    Re: The Draft

                    Originally posted by SwayGod53
                    I am hoping some people actually play with the edits for a few years so they can tell me if they think they are two high. I do appreciate your comments but I really think you should try these edits for, say 3-5 years before you make assumptions on whether the class is too high. All you have to go by is numbers that I have given you.

                    As far as before season or after season, most of the numbers are before season starts, as I was recording them right when the draft starts. Some of the info like top position rated 90 or more are after the season start is applied.

                    I am suprised you think Qb's are too strong with these edits. One thing I have noticed about QB's is their progression through the years is low. Of those 5 QB's drafted in the 7th round, they all went up 2-4pts as the season started, but the following year only one QB went up any overall rating and it was by just 1pt, from a 72-73. If you notice, even when you draft a QB rated 75, he won't get to 80 for like 3-5 years, possibly never. I know you can respond back and say well that is what it takes for a QB, 3-5 years, but I am talking about your big names, which brings me to the Reggie Bush, RB situation.

                    I do not consider 85 by any means "once in a lifetime HB". That you are talking 95+. If you go by college skill and hype, Bush would be like a 93. I think what I wanted to correct was the HB's was the depth. I had 18 backs drafted in the first round, and if you happened to grab that 18th back he would have been a 70. Also, play with the edits. There is alot of fluctuations. A back that is an 85 one year can easily go to a 70. Try the edits for 5 years and let me know what you think.

                    85 may not seem like much, but when you're considering how a "rookie" should be rated and be able to perform, 85 is quite high for a rookie and a 90 is unheard of. I understand that what he did in college was amazing, and he has the potential to be great, but a 93 rating would put him in position to be, as a rookie, better than backs like Willis McGahee, Thomas Jones, Reuben Droughns, and other backs that have actually proven themselves as competent players in the NFL. So unless you're bumping nearly every 1,000 yard rusher above 90 in this game, I don't see how an unproven rookie can start out w/ a 90 rating. I see why you're doing the edits if you believe Reggie Bush would be a 93+ rating...I think we simply have different ideas of how good rookies should be in the game. Personally, I think all created rookies should be created w/ the game's original rookie ratings in mind. For example, when the game first came out, Eli Manning, Big Ben, and Philip Rivers were all around the 80 mark. Taking into consideration what scouts thought of them, when I decided to edit Alex Smith, he was in the 76-77 range by comparing scouting reports. Then this year, Matt Leinart was compared to those who came out in previous years, and I thought his overall grading was comparable to Big Ben's from two years ago. By making the rookies' ratings higher, you're making the players already on the game less valuable and creating a talent gap between those players originally in the game and those that are coming in.

                    Your point about 7th round QBs not progressing is well noted, but you have to think about how far most 7th rounders come. Most late round QBs progress into serviceable backups and that is it...which would be mid 70s range at the peak of their careers. You can't seriously expect every player you draft to reach a rating of 80 within their career. For every Tom Brady taken late in the draft there are handfuls of Ken Dorseys, Tim Rattays, Craig Krenzels, etc. who plateau at a level of mediocrity and should never be starting unless your team is in a bad way. Then there are the dozens of late round picks that never amount to anything in the NFL and are never heard of again after a couple years in the league. What your edits are doing is creating a draft that produces more competent players than the real NFL draft produces at certain positions. Getting a 7th round QB that ever becomes a starter should be extremely rare, getting a 7th round QB that remains a steady backup his entire career should be pretty rare, and getting a 7th round QB who is at the bottom of the depth chart when he's drafted and is cut after a few years should be the norm.
                    Last edited by thejackal25; 07-17-2006, 11:52 PM.
                    XBL Gamertag- thejackal25

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      SwayGod53
                      Banned
                      • Jul 2006
                      • 573

                      Re: The Draft


                      Re: The Draft

                      Originally posted by thejackal25
                      85 may not seem like much, but when you're considering how a "rookie" should be rated and be able to perform, 85 is quite high for a rookie and a 90 is unheard of. I understand that what he did in college was amazing, and he has the potential to be great, but a 93 rating would put him in position to be, as a rookie, better than backs like Willis McGahee, Thomas Jones, Reuben Droughns, and other backs that have actually proven themselves as competent players in the NFL. So unless you're bumping nearly every 1,000 yard rusher above 90 in this game, I don't see how an unproven rookie can start out w/ a 90 rating. I see why you're doing the edits if you believe Reggie Bush would be a 93+ rating...I think we simply have different ideas of how good rookies should be in the game. Personally, I think all created rookies should be created w/ the game's original rookie ratings in mind. For example, when the game first came out, Eli Manning, Big Ben, and Philip Rivers were all around the 80 mark. Taking into consideration what scouts thought of them, when I decided to edit Alex Smith, he was in the 76-77 range by comparing scouting reports. Then this year, Matt Leinart was compared to those who came out in previous years, and I thought his overall grading was comparable to Big Ben's from two years ago. By making the rookies' ratings higher, you're making the players already on the game less valuable and creating a talent gap between those players originally in the game and those that are coming in.

                      Your point about 7th round QBs not progressing is well noted, but you have to think about how far most 7th rounders come. Most late round QBs progress into serviceable backups and that is it...which would be mid 70s range at the peak of their careers. You can't seriously expect every player you draft to reach a rating of 80 within their career. For every Tom Brady taken late in the draft there are handfuls of Ken Dorseys, Tim Rattays, Craig Krenzels, etc. who plateau at a level of mediocrity and should never be starting unless your team is in a bad way. Then there are the dozens of late round picks that never amount to anything in the NFL and are never heard of again after a couple years in the league. What your edits are doing is creating a draft that produces more competent players than the real NFL draft produces at certain positions. Getting a 7th round QB that ever becomes a starter should be extremely rare, getting a 7th round QB that remains a steady backup his entire career should be pretty rare, and getting a 7th round QB who is at the bottom of the depth chart when he's drafted and is cut after a few years should be the norm.
                      Again, I am glad to hear your opinion on the edits, but you have to try them before you can make a serious claim against them. Like I stated before, in the draft where I had 5 QB's go in the 7th round rated 68, none of them were even close to starters by their third year. One QB was a 73, two of them had been released and were sitting in FA, probably ready to retire. I understand what you are saying about flooding the draft, etc, but I don't think that is happening here. I keep asking you to try the edits because if you have potent information such as "After 5 years there were 6 QB's rated 100", something to that extent, I can look at the QB's and say, ok, maybe I need to adjust this a little, etc. I understand we have different opinions on ratings, but I believe these edits are good. I am going to have some time today and I am going through 5 years with edits. Are you going to attempt to use the edits at all?

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        SwayGod53
                        Banned
                        • Jul 2006
                        • 573

                        Re: The Draft


                        Re: The Draft

                        Also, my point about the QB's not progressing was not referring to only the 7th round. I was talking about drafted QB's in general.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          thejackal25
                          Pro
                          • Nov 2004
                          • 535

                          Re: The Draft


                          Re: The Draft

                          Trust me, I will try these out...I'm just stating how things don't line up right at the onset with rookie ratings that don't coincide w/ rookie ratings the game came with. I just don't see how a 7th round QB should even near 70 as a rookie when the game's base roster clearly has most 7th round rookie QBs in the low 60s, and even first day picks like Matt Schaubb are lower than 70 as a rookie. I just feel you're putting players from the base roster and even the roster updates that can be downloaded at a distinct disadvantage to those players coming in from your edited draft class. The WR edits seem great, as I've stated before. I know you don't like the player progression of the rooks...and I understand that, but you have to realize that even 1st rounders progress slowly or not at all. If you look back at the draft, for every Donovan McNabb, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Big Ben, and Mike Vick, you have a handful of Patrick Ramseys, Joey Harringtons, Akili Smiths, Tim Couches, Cade McNowns, Kyle Bollers, Ryan Leafs, Chad Penningtons, Rex Grossmans etc. who actually digress in performance from their rookie year or completely stagnate. And for every QB that's groomed into a starter after years of backing up, like Matt Hasselbeck, there are tons of guys who never live up to potential and get a shot like Shaun King, Charlie Batch, Chris Redman, Jesse Palmer, Mike McMahon, A.J. Feeley, etc. and become career backups...and even more who never do anything like Giovanni Carmazi, Chris Weinke, Josh Booty, Tee Martin, Brock Huard, etc.

                          Some stats for you: of the 21 first round QBs selected between 1999 and 2005, 13 are currently starters in the NFL. 3 of these aforementioned starters actually don't have the starting role completely secured (Pennington, Grossman, and Losman). 5 of the 21 will definitely be backups this coming year. The remaining 3 of the 21 have already retired from the NFL. Let's remember that these are the 1st round selections only...the best QBs of their draft class and "saviors" of franchises. The simple fact is that you can't expect 1st rounders to always progress into stars. Of the 13 starters that have come from this group of 21, only McNabb, Culpepper, Palmer, and Big Ben can even be considered top tier passers...with most people probably concluding that only Big Ben and McNabb have done enough to warrant such a title thus far...but Palmer, Big Ben, and Culpepper's progression may now be hampered by recent injuries.

                          If you want 7th rounders or late round QBs to progress into starters here's some info for you: in the same time period I gave you before (1999-2005), I believe 59 QBs were selected on the second day of the NFL draft. Of these 59, 3 are NFL starters (Aaron Brooks, Marc Bulger, and Tom Brady). Brooks is a very mediocre NFL starter at best, Bulger is an above average NFL starter, and Tom Brady is an elite NFL starter.

                          The point I'm trying to make is that the draft on the game and the progression of players, though it seems random and often unfair, mirrors the real NFL and real NFL Draft quite well. If in 6 seasons you're getting more than 3 second day QBs capable of being starters in the league, then the game's draft is stronger than real life. Most second day picks will have a short career as a backup. In fact, the average NFL career is under 4 years according to the NFLPA. The fact is that the NFL draft is random. Regardless of where they are selected, a player can progress, digress, or stagnate...where they are selected changes the odds, but ensures nothing. It is every GMs dream to have every player selected become capable of competing for a starting role, but that's just not realistic. If you play a franchise and get a second day QB to even be reliable 2nd stringer for more than a few years you're already doing better than most NFL GMs. If you turn a second day QB into a worthy starter for more than a season you have done what most NFL GMs will never be able to do.
                          Last edited by thejackal25; 07-18-2006, 06:15 PM.
                          XBL Gamertag- thejackal25

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            SwayGod53
                            Banned
                            • Jul 2006
                            • 573

                            Re: The Draft


                            Re: The Draft

                            Originally posted by thejackal25
                            Trust me, I will try these out...I'm just stating how things don't line up right at the onset with rookie ratings that don't coincide w/ rookie ratings the game came with. I just don't see how a 7th round QB should even near 70 as a rookie when the game's base roster clearly has most 7th round rookie QBs in the low 60s, and even first day picks like Matt Schaubb are lower than 70 as a rookie. I just feel you're putting players from the base roster and even the roster updates that can be downloaded at a distinct disadvantage to those players coming in from your edited draft class. The WR edits seem great, as I've stated before. I know you don't like the player progression of the rooks...and I understand that, but you have to realize that even 1st rounders progress slowly or not at all. If you look back at the draft, for every Donovan McNabb, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Big Ben, and Mike Vick, you have a handful of Patrick Ramseys, Joey Harringtons, Akili Smiths, Tim Couches, Cade McNowns, Kyle Bollers, Ryan Leafs, Chad Penningtons, Rex Grossmans etc. who actually digress in performance from their rookie year or completely stagnate. And for every QB that's groomed into a starter after years of backing up, like Matt Hasselbeck, there are tons of guys who never live up to potential and get a shot like Shaun King, Charlie Batch, Chris Redman, Jesse Palmer, Mike McMahon, A.J. Feeley, etc. and become career backups...and even more who never do anything like Giovanni Carmazi, Chris Weinke, Josh Booty, Tee Martin, Brock Huard, etc.

                            Some stats for you: of the 21 first round QBs selected between 1999 and 2005, 13 are currently starters in the NFL. 3 of these aforementioned starters actually don't have the starting role completely secured (Pennington, Grossman, and Losman). 5 of the 21 will definitely be backups this coming year. The remaining 3 of the 21 have already retired from the NFL. Let's remember that these are the 1st round selections only...the best QBs of their draft class and "saviors" of franchises. The simple fact is that you can't expect 1st rounders to always progress into stars. Of the 13 starters that have come from this group of 21, only McNabb, Culpepper, Palmer, and Big Ben can even be considered top tier passers...with most people probably concluding that only Big Ben and McNabb have done enough to warrant such a title thus far...but Palmer, Big Ben, and Culpepper's progression may now be hampered by recent injuries.

                            If you want 7th rounders or late round QBs to progress into starters here's some info for you: in the same time period I gave you before (1999-2005), I believe 59 QBs were selected on the second day of the NFL draft. Of these 59, 3 are NFL starters (Aaron Brooks, Marc Bulger, and Tom Brady). Brooks is a very mediocre NFL starter at best, Bulger is an above average NFL starter, and Tom Brady is an elite NFL starter.

                            The point I'm trying to make is that the draft on the game and the progression of players, though it seems random and often unfair, mirrors the real NFL and real NFL Draft quite well. If in 6 seasons you're getting more than 3 second day QBs capable of being starters in the league, then the game's draft is stronger than real life. Most second day picks will have a short career as a backup. In fact, the average NFL career is under 4 years according to the NFLPA. The fact is that the NFL draft is random. Regardless of where they are selected, a player can progress, digress, or stagnate...where they are selected changes the odds, but ensures nothing. It is every GMs dream to have every player selected become capable of competing for a starting role, but that's just not realistic. If you play a franchise and get a second day QB to even be reliable 2nd stringer for more than a few years you're already doing better than most NFL GMs. If you turn a second day QB into a worthy starter for more than a season you have done what most NFL GMs will never be able to do.
                            Very good info here. I am curious to see how the QB's fare. I am going to do 6 seasons worth of franchise QB's today to see how it looks. I will let you know how it turns out. Please let me know how you do with the edits when you get a chance.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              thejackal25
                              Pro
                              • Nov 2004
                              • 535

                              Re: The Draft


                              Re: The Draft

                              Originally posted by SwayGod53
                              Very good info here. I am curious to see how the QB's fare. I am going to do 6 seasons worth of franchise QB's today to see how it looks. I will let you know how it turns out. Please let me know how you do with the edits when you get a chance.
                              Good deal sway, I'll try these edits out tomorrow and see what happens when I sim through franchise. Oh, and if you want your players to progress better, be sure to use weekly prep. I'm not sure if you use it or not, but I've found that having a good weekly prep generally helps them have an overall more positive progression.
                              XBL Gamertag- thejackal25

                              Comment

                              Working...