Some Testing on Imported QBs

[eraserx13]

Quote: Originally Posted by zav

Found something interesting... if you clone a player (i made 9 jake lockers...) they all come out with almost the exact same potential. I in 12 reuploads ever got even one player to hop between the lockers no matter where on the potential board they were and when we did the draft low and behold the ratings ( i only did two) 79,78,74,73,71,70,70,70,66 the first time and 73,73,72,70,66,65,65,64,61 i changed each lockers weight by one pound to identify them and the only difference in order was that locker 5 and locker 3 switched places the second draft which proves your range theory but gives me some serious pause about the system because there is no reason for them to be this close all the time. I had them ALL at washington and the only one that played was locker 2

That's an interesting find which gives credence to one of my theories that the ratings from the imports are all relative. Meaning if you had 30 "Perfect" QBs, they would all be rated differently in order to avoid having a stacked draft. The different QBs would probably form a normal distribution. Its kinda silly but understandable since you have to maintain some balance. Since ratings are identical, then the logic probably defers to size in order to differentiate. It kinda makes sense in away where if you had two identical atheletes in terms of skills, you would default to the bigger guy.

I did similar tests with RBs and MLBs and the results where not as variable as QB. A stud RB or MLB in college translated pretty well into the pros. The only interesting find is that size plays a big role in RB. I have found that a RB who is under 5'9" and is small will come in with a B potential 75% of the time as opposed to a RB with the exact same rating that is bigger with prototypical size will come in as an A potential 75% of the time.

[football5680]

good thread.

[zav]

Quote: Originally Posted by eraserx13

That's an interesting find which gives credence to one of my theories that the ratings from the imports are all relative. Meaning if you had 30 "Perfect" QBs, they would all be rated differently in order to avoid having a stacked draft. The different QBs would probably form a normal distribution. Its kinda silly but understandable since you have to maintain some balance. Since ratings are identical, then the logic probably defers to size in order to differentiate. It kinda makes sense in away where if you had two identical atheletes in terms of skills, you would default to the bigger guy. I did similar tests with RBs and MLBs and the results where not as variable as QB. A stud RB or MLB in college translated pretty well into the pros. The only interesting find is that size plays a big role in RB. I have found that a RB who is under 5'9" and is small will come in with a B potential 75% of the time as opposed to a RB with the exact same rating that is bigger with prototypical size will come in as an A potential 75% of the time.

RBs do translate well Mark Ingram and Demarco Murray are always top 10 picks

[cletusdog]

the flaw is that QB is a PREMIUM position and more of the top guys should be top 10 projections.
they seem to be few and far between.
other obvious important positions that should carry more weight are cb, LT and D Line.

great study you performed. I'd be curious to see similar tests at other positions.