I was thinking that we wouldn't really see anything worth feeding back on til at least after Camp and prolly after this season is over to see how players actually perform vs their draft positions. Does this sound realistic or am I missing something?

I'll start a feedback thread after the draft is over (at that point the obfuscation will be removed) - I'm interested to hear how you all feel about where the players were selected vs. where they may have been selected previously. But yes, I would love to continue the conversation throughout the season, I am in no hurry to make the decision.

In 87 we finished our draft with the player obfuscation yesterday. At what step are the players supposed to become known? There are a couple UDFA that I've got interest in but would rather wait to see if they're actually better than my current players.

I like the idea that players who have never been on a team are unknown.

Oooooooooooo. We should add practice squads so we can sign these young guys and see how good they are.

I think I said at one point that it was uncovered after the draft but I misspoke, it is revealed after training camp.

Me too....I actually like it if we could scout 7 players during the draft or mix and match it with free agents...For example: You could scout 5 players and 2 Free agents.....for a total of 7

There is no doubt that scouting matters more under this system . Also, low volatility players have become very valuable in order to secure desirable individual ratings. Which in turn will push potentially higher rated players deeper in to the draft. Some real good UDRFAs in 87.

The ratings that do not matter for a particular position are no longer a "tell" if a player will boom or bust . In a pre analysis assumption I feel this system is way more immersive and real. Perhaps too difficult for some, but I foresee all the objectives are and will be met by obfuscation of the players . Minor adjustments will be needed , but the foundation is there.

Still, I like the idea of never showing speed, strength , acceleration , and intelligence (Perhaps by year three or five it would be cool) . Instead numerical measured combine values , with an expected variation in each rating, that tell you what to expect out of a player .

In addition to combine/ pro day numerical values.....I like the idea of scouting going deeper. For example, instead of a simple scouting button a gm will have a choice to send scouts to the east west shrine game that will show a bit more on the players technical skills. Or have one or several in depth interviews that will go deeper into all ratings such as intelligence and discipline as well as athletic and technical values .

Using alot more real life scouting options will help gms get the ratings they want if they have the time, but a simplified AI option will do the trick to for the ones with real life time constraints .

I love everything mentioned by raymattison21, especially deeper scouting down the road. Except the quote above part.

When/if the combine is implemented I think there should be a degree of certainty with speed strength and to a lesser degree accel and an even lesser degree intel. You could have 3, 40 times and 3 bench press counts, cones etc...to see how consistent they performed. But they should be measurable numbers and not hidden imo........unless......a player skips the combine maybe?

But after the combine those attribute should be rated only cause once a player is in the league and signed to a contract he's prolly not being timed running the 40 very often if at all.

You could carry this scouting deal even farther. Once/if a practice squad is in place ya could have a one or two per week scouting allowance for other teams practice squad players and FA's that haven't been scouted or didn't go to the combine. I think players who weren't drafted should have their values remain hidden. Unless they'd already been scouted of course.

To be a bit more clear.....I wouldn't like the numbers of the static ratings such as intelligence , speed, acceleration , and strength to be completly visable until like year three of a players career . Instead something like your suggestion of what a GM would see at the combine or pro day. Those would be available as a measure at all times for drafting or UDRFAs.

I am in agreement in keeping unsigned FAs ratings obfuscated until they go through a teams camp....or like year three or five of their career.

So it takes years for a coach to be able to figure out how fast or strong someone is?

That's worse than taking years for a player to learn plays.

I would not like this at all.