Ok, let's give it a shot: COMMUNITY ROSTER/DRAFT UPDATE, everyone get in here

[Flipmo23]

Quote:

94-97 would be fine, in my opinion. I don't do Weekly Preps in my franchise (helps with all the damn crazy trades) so him progressing to a super beast wouldn't really be a problem although by Year 2 and 3 of my Bengals franchise rookies Carnell Williams and Ronnie Brown were pushing 94 and 97 OVR so...

Ok, cool. Again, I'm sure someone has a way to translate 40 times into speed ratings.

EDIT - I guess I spoke too soon.
For Roster Editors: ESPN Speed Chart

So Bush would be a 97 speed. Happy?

Quote:

It's best to give rookies normal ratings but a consistency between 45-60. The reason is that the ratings will not improve that much in the franchise, but consistency can go up 5-10 pts per year. When I created rookies like Benson, Cadillac Williams, etc. that way, they start at 80-83 and go up to 89-90 after a year or two. Seems realistic to me.

Yea, I've noticed that. So to that I propose that whatever the consistency rating is, we lower it by 30. So Bush's starting consistency would be a 50 and not 80 (his consistency rating is a 8.0 on NFL.com), and by year #3 in a franchise it would be around 80+. Again, I would take everyone's consensual input and create a "rubric" to create these rookies based on the NFL.com projections.

[Flyboy]

Sounds good to me so far, Flip. Is there anyway to do the consistency some other way? I really don't like to have the rookies' consistency being so low even if they are just rookies.

[JWZZR]

hey i have a bunch of rookies with name a date of birth on here

[thegoons21]

I'm on board also. This sounds like a great idea. Not too experienced with all the editing stuff though.

[Flipmo23]

Quote: Originally Posted by Flyboy

Sounds good to me so far, Flip. Is there anyway to do the consistency some other way? I really don't like to have the rookies' consistency being so low even if they are just rookies.

Well, 50 is low? I mean, you can't have a rookie with a consistency of like 80. I mean, if a guy like Bush or Leinhart is going to come into the game with an overall over 80+, then they have to have some weakness to distinguish them as rookies, and the game usually does that through consistency. If you look at all the draft classes you've ever come across in franchise, the one rating all rookies have that is always low is consistency. So Bush @ 50 is actually good, since he'll be 70+ consistency mid-way thru his second season.

Quote: Originally Posted by JWZZR

hey i have a bunch of rookies with name a date of birth on here

That's a start. Now the question is, who is officially down with this project so I can compile a list of people that will be able to dedicate some time to doing this within a reasonable time frame.

Quote: Originally Posted by thegoons21

I'm on board also. This sounds like a great idea. Not too experienced with all the editing stuff though.

Well, I can easily teach you. And to not put too much pressure on you, you could be assigned round 7. You cool with that? It's only 32 players, with the editor it's a breeze.

[thegoons21]

Quote: Originally Posted by Flipmo23

Well, I can easily teach you. And to not put too much pressure on you, you could be assigned round 7. You cool with that? It's only 32 players, with the editor it's a breeze.

I'm down. I downloaded the editor but have yet to install it.

[Flyboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Flipmo23

Well, 50 is low? I mean, you can't have a rookie with a consistency of like 80. I mean, if a guy like Bush or Leinhart is going to come into the game with an overall over 80+, then they have to have some weakness to distinguish them as rookies, and the game usually does that through consistency. If you look at all the draft classes you've ever come across in franchise, the one rating all rookies have that is always low is consistency. So Bush @ 50 is actually good, since he'll be 70+ consistency mid-way thru his second season.

My bad, I'm straight ********. I read "30" instead of "50", but yeah 50-55 would be pretty good to start off.

Question: Now I know dan does this: by giving ratings and such by the player's position and whom was taken first (i.e. VY went #3, Leinart went #10 therefore VY would have a higher rating than Leinart).. is that how you do yours or do you go by their college achievements and from there?

[tpaterniti]

Well if you think about it, for most players, their best play in college is probably what they need to do in the NFL every play. So I think, how often is a rookie playing his best football? For some, like Bush, it may be close to 80% of the time, but for others it probably isn't. You also have to think, that for every NFL player, they only come into the league knowing only 30-50% of what they need to know to play at the same level in the pros as they did in college. So for many rookies, they can't even approach 80% consistency because they don't know enough yet. Watch any show about CBs or QBs or WRs coming into the league and you will see. Admittedly the transition is much easier for RBs, but they often have a lot of mental info to process about pass blocking, route running, learning the 600-700+ (vs. 75-100 or less in college) plays in the playbook, etc. I would rate Bush at about 88 to start. How good is his Run and Pass Blocking? How well does he hold onto the ball? What is his strength? I would say about 45-48. All these would affect his rating and I would put his consistencey at high 60s to low 70s. He could go up if I see him play and he is exceptional, but I want to see him in actual NFL play first. Running all over Fresno St is a lot different than running all over the Panthers