New Sticky Note

NOTICE: This league is using the BLEEDING EDGE game engine. For more information, click here.

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

League Forums

Main - Beta Chat

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By WarEagle
7/19/2017 9:41 am
jdavidbakr wrote:

I also like the idea of having the first camp for rookies move more than they do in the rest of their career.


There needs to be a chance that a late round pick (or UDFA) can go from a 50 potential to 80+ in their first camp, like Arian Foster, for example.

There also needs to be cases where a rookie can become one of the best players in the league quicker than usual.
Ex: Ray Lewis made the pro-bowl his second season, and then every full season after that.

Obviously, I just feel that development is too slow in general.


Re: Draft player obfuscation

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
7/19/2017 9:48 am
WarEagle wrote:
jdavidbakr wrote:

I also like the idea of having the first camp for rookies move more than they do in the rest of their career.


There needs to be a chance that a late round pick (or UDFA) can go from a 50 potential to 80+ in their first camp, like Arian Foster, for example.

There also needs to be cases where a rookie can become one of the best players in the league quicker than usual.
Ex: Ray Lewis made the pro-bowl his second season, and then every full season after that.

Obviously, I just feel that development is too slow in general.




If volatility is shown, though, during the draft, what I've noticed is that the high volatility players get selected by the middle of the draft. Are you suggesting that there be a possibility for a large boom/bust in the first year of camp that is not tied at all to volatility, but is completely random save for a link to the draft position?

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By WarEagle
7/19/2017 9:48 am
raymattison21 wrote:
WarEagle wrote:
I think the volatility being shown makes for some interesting choices at the top of the draft.

Do you take the 99 player with 90 volatility, or the 90 player with 15 volatility?

I've become of fan of volatility, I just wish the changes were quicker.


What if volatility were obfuscated . Made clearer by scouting


I don't like the obfuscation, period.

I think it's redundant when added with volatility, and items that shouldn't be obfuscated are.

When you factor in that coaches (or you) have no impact whatsoever on a player's development, being able to have some idea of their skills is vital when drafting.

In addition, my first pick was the last of round 2. I had no idea who to scout. There is no way I could have predicted which players would be available when that pick came around.

Having a limit on the number of players you can scout, and then requiring you use all those scouts before the draft begins, means that you are most likely going to have to hope someone else scouted some of the players available to consider when your pick rolls around.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By WarEagle
7/19/2017 9:52 am
jdavidbakr wrote:
WarEagle wrote:
jdavidbakr wrote:

I also like the idea of having the first camp for rookies move more than they do in the rest of their career.


There needs to be a chance that a late round pick (or UDFA) can go from a 50 potential to 80+ in their first camp, like Arian Foster, for example.

There also needs to be cases where a rookie can become one of the best players in the league quicker than usual.
Ex: Ray Lewis made the pro-bowl his second season, and then every full season after that.

Obviously, I just feel that development is too slow in general.




If volatility is shown, though, during the draft, what I've noticed is that the high volatility players get selected by the middle of the draft. Are you suggesting that there be a possibility for a large boom/bust in the first year of camp that is not tied at all to volatility, but is completely random save for a link to the draft position?


Yes. Players drafted in rounds 5-7, or UDFA, should have an increased chance of a significant boom/bust.

If one of the goals is to make the later part of the draft worth caring about, I think that would add extra value to those picks and might make them worth having (at least to me).

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By setherick
7/19/2017 10:23 am
raymattison21 wrote:
WarEagle wrote:
I think the volatility being shown makes for some interesting choices at the top of the draft.

Do you take the 99 player with 90 volatility, or the 90 player with 15 volatility?

I've become of fan of volatility, I just wish the changes were quicker.


What if volatility were obfuscated . Made clearer by scouting


I can get behind it. That way when your 1.1 QB eats himself out of a $120m NFL contract you can blame it on your scouting...oh, JaWalrus where are you? Seriously, where are you?

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By mardn72
7/19/2017 10:50 am
So far, off all the ways to having scouting, I like the it being used to reveal volatility the best. As far as how many "scouts" each team gets, if we stick with shared scouting, 5 is nice. If we went to private scouting, I'd want like 60 scouts.

I really like the idea of there being a hidden potential to have a super-boom for later round picks during their first training camp. It'd be cool if it even included their fixed attributes as well. Kinda mimics the idea of smaller schooler players being more of an unknown. Or those college backups that were stuck behind stars so never got to fully show their skills.

As I think about it, I wonder if it even needs to be tied to their draft position. Just give all players a chance to super-boom. If it was tied to draft spot, you may end up with a weird dead-zone in the middle of the draft where the good players are gone but super-boom potential hasn't kicked in yet?

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By Beercloud
7/19/2017 3:46 pm
Instead of adding a bunch more scouts, add a Pro Day where you scout 3 players with your whole staff and where only you see those results.

Add a Rookie Camp before Training Camp. Rookies can get those extra booms and busts. (unless they don't show up for rookie camp..... whaaaaaaaat?) Could add a personality trait or two for that.

Add the Combine with players running three 40's, three benches, three cones and a wonderlic. Results open to all GM's. You see their skills by how good your scout and HC's scout ratings are coupled with hidden volatility.

Add a Scout to the staff and add a "Scout Rating" to Head Coaches. All coaches and coordinators have a "scout rating" but are hidden until they have HC'd for a full season. This would also make hiring rookie HC's a lil more interesting. Have separate scout ratings for offense - defense - special teams.

A number of things could affect a scout rating:
Experience, coaching/scouting for a winning or losing organization, hometown etc... Sky's the limit.

Let the OC and DC handle the play calling on game day. Let the HC handle game time decisions, scouting and maybe a team preparation boost of some sort, play familiarity boost and media rating that boosts or hinders attendance and factors into a FA's decisions to join their team or not.


Sorry for all the "adds" jdb. Thought you were bored. <---- Follow the arrow for major sarcasm

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By Tecra031
7/20/2017 6:17 am
In theory, those are all cool ideas. However, we need to uncomplicate the draft process. I wouldn't have the time for that and ultimately would just trade away my draft picks not to deal with it.

The draft should be pretty straightforward and simplistic. The sims move too quickly to dedicate that kind of time to prep for a draft. We don't have NFL kind of time to evaluate players. All those steps and stages would probably add close to a week of sims to the season. We need to find a balance between adding some nice features, the value they bring, and time needed to invest in them.

On a side note, can we look at dialing back the salary hikes, veteran and rookie contracts a bit JDB? The players 'asks' are getting a bit outrageous compared to total cap increases. I was all for tightening the wallet a bit when teams had 90-100 mil open cap space, but now it is a bit overly restrictive. The bonus requirements are crazy now. I get it for 90s rated players, but not for 70s rated players asking 25-30 mil bonuses or year 8+ players asking for huge money.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By raymattison21
7/20/2017 6:58 am
Tecra031 wrote:
In theory, those are all cool ideas. However, we need to uncomplicate the draft process. I wouldn't have the time for that and ultimately would just trade away my draft picks not to deal with it.

The draft should be pretty straightforward and simplistic. The sims move too quickly to dedicate that kind of time to prep for a draft. We don't have NFL kind of time to evaluate players. All those steps and stages would probably add close to a week of sims to the season. We need to find a balance between adding some nice features, the value they bring, and time needed to invest in them.

On a side note, can we look at dialing back the salary hikes, veteran and rookie contracts a bit JDB? The players 'asks' are getting a bit outrageous compared to total cap increases. I was all for tightening the wallet a bit when teams had 90-100 mil open cap space, but now it is a bit overly restrictive. The bonus requirements are crazy now. I get it for 90s rated players, but not for 70s rated players asking 25-30 mil bonuses or year 8+ players asking for huge money.


As for salaries let them walk and then they can test the market. If nobody has money guys get smaller salaries then they will begin to ask for less at the resign. The market is flooded, but I still see nothing wrong with having players actively test the market This is the only way for them to get thier true worth , but be within the means of the cap.

I still got room but rarely over pay and I have been using this method before and after the hike.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By raymattison21
7/20/2017 7:15 am
mardn72 wrote:
So far, off all the ways to having scouting, I like the it being used to reveal volatility the best. As far as how many "scouts" each team gets, if we stick with shared scouting, 5 is nice. If we went to private scouting, I'd want like 60 scouts.

I really like the idea of there being a hidden potential to have a super-boom for later round picks during their first training camp. It'd be cool if it even included their fixed attributes as well. Kinda mimics the idea of smaller schooler players being more of an unknown. Or those college backups that were stuck behind stars so never got to fully show their skills.

As I think about it, I wonder if it even needs to be tied to their draft position. Just give all players a chance to super-boom. If it was tied to draft spot, you may end up with a weird dead-zone in the middle of the draft where the good players are gone but super-boom potential hasn't kicked in yet?


If it were tied to draft position the scale would need to be exponential after round 2 where there the gain would be

3rd rd. 100 vol. = 30+ with a default of 70
4th rd. 100 vol. = 35+ ..........................65
5th rd. 100 vol. = 40+ .........................60
6th rd. 100 vol. = 45+ ............................55
7th rd. 100 vol. = 50+ ...........................50

Or even if you tied it into the default scores as long as the boom neared 100

But not to flood the player pool that same higher total of boomers would need to bell curve towards a finite number of like 3.5 % in the UDRFAs. That's at least one boomer a team that could have probowl potential .

Combine it with obfuscated volatility scores and one would have to choose to scout safe players early or go for that diamond in the rough later.

To go even further . ...if it were possible have that same drop in ratings . ...50 points for a 100 volatility 100 rated player......to ensure he would drop.....possibly out of the first round.....or become J.Russell, R. Leaf. That may not be for everyone but I like risks....calculated ones.