CFM Draft classes impressions

[imskykid]

I haven't had an in-depth look at the ratings, but you all seem to have honed in on the areas that are realistic and areas that need work. My complaint is in the size department for DTs. There might be a few DTs IRL that come out weighing less than 290 lbs... And even then after a year in a NFL weight room the undersized DT puts on weight. Even pass rushing DTs are typically required to weigh in at 290+. There are too many DTs in the 270 range and they stay that weight throughout their career. Users can take them and move them to DE for realism, but the CPU doesn't unless they switch schemes (and even then, they aren't big enough to play 3-4 end).

My other gripe is the ages. Even before this year there were way to many kids who were 20 years old. That maybe happens once or twice in an entire draft IRL... Not 5 in the first round. On the flip side, this year there are way too many 24 year olds... I don't even consider players that old. Most should be between 21-23 with a couple 20 yo and 24 sprinkled in, not dominated by them.

[Sheba2011]

Quote: Originally Posted by imskykid

I haven't had an in-depth look at the ratings, but you all seem to have honed in on the areas that are realistic and areas that need work. My complaint is in the size department for DTs. There might be a few DTs IRL that come out weighing less than 290 lbs... And even then after a year in a NFL weight room the undersized DT puts on weight. Even pass rushing DTs are typically required to weigh in at 290+. There are too many DTs in the 270 range and they stay that weight throughout their career. Users can take them and move them to DE for realism, but the CPU doesn't unless they switch schemes (and even then, they aren't big enough to play 3-4 end). My other gripe is the ages. Even before this year there were way to many kids who were 20 years old. That maybe happens once or twice in an entire draft IRL... Not 5 in the first round. On the flip side, this year there are way too many 24 year olds... I don't even consider players that old. Most should be between 21-23 with a couple 20 yo and 24 sprinkled in, not dominated by them.

This. At the combine this year there were exactly 4 DT's under 290 and only one under 280.

[texranger]

Quote: Originally Posted by buttonyjeff2009

Wow I'm jealous. What was his overall when you drafted him???

Overall was 76 when I drafted him.

[TrufflesEater]

Quote: Originally Posted by BleedGreen710

I am finding that the storyline players are often.. well.. lies the player who ran the 'fastest 40 time' and had 'sub 4.30' 40 yard dash came in with a whopping 88 speed the guaranteed #1 pick by skip bayless? didn't go until the 2nd round some head scratching things..

Yeah, the media are never wrong!! And guys always play in pads at the speed they run at a the combine!!!

[TrufflesEater]

Quote: Originally Posted by Yukon46

And I dont get why so many people just overlook this.... !! ?? This is something I have harped on since they started using real headshots for their recruits, and taking away full editing ! There is no reason to not let us Edit things like Faces, Headshots, Skin colors or even Names in our Franchises. "Create a Player" is in the game, We can make anyone we want and use them in a franchise ! None of this "College" likeness excuses people keep saying holds any meaning.....it is just another excuse, layered upon other excuses that never really make sense.

OMG. Haircuts are broken!!!

[Yukon46]

Quote: Originally Posted by TrufflesEater

OMG. Haircuts are broken!!!

Yeah... not really about the haircuts being broken.... but about EA giving us some editing capabilities back, so we can fix stuff like this if it does bother us.

But I am sure your plan is better.... like dont look at them or something.

[SlackJawedYokel]

Quote: Originally Posted by Shinywalrus

I've looked at the entire rookie classes from about 20 different drafts with an eye toward realism and balance and have some observations. Wrapped in spoiler tag below. Spoiler The draft uses a number of archetypes for different positions that do appear to be larger in number than in prior years. This goes for both random and "story" players, who are randomly inserted by both name and draft this season. There are some positions that generate a good mix, some that generate an "OK" mix, and some that are just awful. The Good: - QBs appear to be reasonably well distributed in terms of quality, with a range of THP and accuracy combinations. Usually 1-4 QBs who have something other than Normal Dev skill in a year. - WRs are also reasonably well distributed in quality and type, although biased far more toward higher SPD/AGI/ACC than the NFL universe at large. It's not game-breaking by any stretch. The biggest inaccuracy here is the bias toward taller receivers, which is about twice as common as on actual NFL rosters. - DEs are probably the best balanced, with probably more "sleeper" opportunities than any other position that require some development on great physicals. It appears that there is less of a 34 DE bias than in prior years - there are enough true 43DEs to populate rosters and get drafted. The "OK" - HBs are (generally speaking) slower and less agile than current rosters. It is challenging to compete in the running game with these players in early years when the faster, stronger and more agile backs are still in the game. There are exceptions, but generally speaking even the "good" physical characteristics backs in drafts top out around 90-91 spd. - Offensive linemen suffer from a similar issue in ways. More to the point, the "zone blocker" archetype is exaggerated in draft classes that are produced, such that >70 AGI >70 ACC blockers are the rule rather than the exception. STR ratings come consistently under the league average, but not offensively so. It's just a lot rarer (ie - only really with story players) to get a very high STR blocker. - Safeties are OK, with a reasonably wide variation and a good mix of strong physical characteristics players who need development and more polished candidates who can play now. For whatever reason I have found the game me's safety development in general to be very fast (it's a challenge not to have ANY safety above 90 OVR after a season and a half of so), but that's as separate issue. The Bad - The CFM draft cornerbacks make Richard Sherman look like a young teenager. The number of high STR press corners with 97 speed and >90 AGI and ACC scores is simply overwhelming, and they can be had quite late in the draft in many cases. There is no reason not to play a press system in CFM given the talent you will be able to acquire. And even with the new position-switch penalty, you're usually better off drafting press corners and converting them to safety, as they will generally have significantly better characteristics. - There is a bizarre tendency to have unrealistic body types for DTs - ie, you should expect 2-5 guys per year who are 6'1 265 to 6'3 274 playing the position, and these are invariably one of the "pass rusher" archetypes of players that are, for example, 83 SPD, 87 STR, 89 AGI and 91 ACC. A little bit of development focus, and getting a top rated D-Line by simply drafting these guys and converting them to DE (or keeping them at DT) is a simple matter of looking for the size archetype (ie unrealistically small DTs) with A physical grades. - Tight ends are a bit of a disappointment, mostly because of a narrow band of randomness. A great TE worthy of a top pick is generally not dramatically better than a later round opportunity - there are a couple exceptions for story players, but generally if you're looking for an athletic freak at the position, you'll need to go to the existing pool of players. The draftees are largely quite weak and top out in the low-to-mid 80s on the other physicals. The Ugly - Linebackers are, quite simply, a mess. Every year sees somewhere between 3-6 linebackers come out across the three positions who, upon entering the league, are immediately the most athletic, impressive specimens at the position, excepting perhaps Patrick Willis. (>90 SPD, >85 AGI and ACC, >80 STR and in many cases nice skills in other expensive to develop areas.) If you play a CFM franchise through the 3rd or 4th year, you should have 99s starting at every linebacker position.

This is spot on. After simming through multiple years of cfm today and looking through more of the classes, how the league evolves etc, it's clear that there are some serious flaws. What's weird is that at certain positions in the draft EA nailed it and created a realistic representation of what kind of potential prospects would most likely come out over the course of a few drafts....DE being one example that they got right as mentioned. The DE ratings are very well balanced & there's a good mix of different player types, sizes, etc..

At first I thought the LBs in the drafts were realistic and balanced, but after going through multiple drafts there are just too many players with speed/acc in the low 90s....and just physically too dominant as mentioned.

RBs are too weak physically, although you can develop them and it's not a major issue.

Every TE in these draft classes seem to have very weak strength 50s-60s with few exceptions. This is especially odd because CBs have AMAZING strength 80+ routinely.

The bottom line is that with certain positions the players are overpowered and with some they're lacking a bit, especially with certain attributes...like TE strength and HB speed. Fixing the overpowered positions is definitely more of a concern though because it creates too much of an imbalance. After 3-4 years into cfm you'll see way too many elite CBs for example - there were almost 10 90+ rated CBs in free agency during the last offseason i did 4 years into my cfm.

With just a few tweaks these draft classes would be awesome, but they're not there yet.

[Sheba2011]

Quote: Originally Posted by Yukon46

Yeah... not really about the haircuts being broken.... but about EA giving us some editing capabilities back, so we can fix stuff like this if it does bother us. But I am sure your plan is better.... like dont look at them or something.

We all want editing but for some of us haircuts really aren't that big of a deal. That is just our opinion though its not right, its not wrong. For you they are a big deal.