One thing really jumped out at me, the most critical part of the ratings should be lack of bias. I've long been against one guy being a "ratings czar" because browse through any FF guide and you find 15 reputable writers with 15 very different per positon lists.
"Next, I looked at statistical reports and scouting reports for each and every lineman that I wasn't personally familiar with from my own playing days."
Now, I don't mean this personal. Clint got further than myself, and most likely any person in this thread. However, the guy played two games and rarely saw anything off a practice squad. I really don't know how he could have build fair representation of defensive players in that brief time.
Apart from that, I think the article confirms fears many of us had. Ratings we thought matter don't exactally impact the way we thought they should. Some ratings we thought mattered, don't exactally impact what we thought either.
In this case, I fear it's over simplified. Expecially with the long list of ratings that should lead to millions of player build combinations with dynamic differences between them.
Clearly, nobody is going to be right or wrong, no "best" answer on how to build players exists. However, I think we can all agree common sense needs to be the key ingredient and based on what I read, it's not.
Comment