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 raymattison21
7/09/2017 1:20 pm
WarEagle wrote:
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.


All athletic numbers are made up unless that is what they did. Some one who benches 225 50 times deserve s a 100 ratings in strength and some one who runs a 4 second 40 deserves 100 speed but after that it's an opinion .

You can put those in to a scale, but what someone actually does on the feild at various moments varies greatly . At least combine numbers are real measurements and one cannot argue those. I actually think it would be easier for a new to grasp than jdb s current system which is a scale based off size.

To go even further t. Owens ran a faster 40 at age 32 then at age 23. So take speed for what you want as I had a wr in his ninth season drop from 100 speeD to 76 in one camp. To me that is like a 4.3 player now running a 4.6. To say the least he lost a step. I actually noticeD this in his first preseason game as he looked slower . Then I checked his card to be baffled by a large loss in speed. In other words, much like real life I saw him lose a step . ...not that I noticed a 20 something loss in his speed.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By trslick
7/09/2017 1:54 pm
I agree WarEagle, we always knew after a few weeks of workouts who had the speed or who
was stronger and by the first game what position they would start at! I like the way this scouting
works, but we have to scout more!

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By raymattison21
7/09/2017 6:21 pm
trslick wrote:
I agree WarEagle, we always knew after a few weeks of workouts who had the speed or who
was stronger and by the first game what position they would start at! I like the way this scouting
works, but we have to scout more!


In this game speed means alot....so does strength . ...If those two were not so valueable and effective my suggestion would go the other way.

Still, for emersion factor I would rather have combine numbers the only value anyone sees at all . The fast would still be fast and you would know due to the elite scores, but tell that to e.smith and j.rice. and as for strength j.allen and his 136 sacks seem to disagree with combine numbers and what we might value an effective strength for a dline man in this game.

Really I would rather the outcome tell you who was good and maybe after they retire you could see their actual values (in thiermprime) not that it would matter by then but it would be neat to look back.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By Beercloud
7/12/2017 2:30 pm
To get a read on the draft picks, im going to start everyone of my picks every game and see where each one of em shakes out at the end of the season.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By raymattison21
7/13/2017 6:12 am
In 87 my best player drafted was not drafted . A wr with a C + grade not only will make the team, but was my my best pick even though it was from FA. There is no doubt that desired effective has happened .

Gambling on high volatile players is that a complete gamble.(with out scouting)....so much so only because the athletic rating are muddled a good 25 points . Yeah he could be 99 speed or 99 strength , but guess what he's 75 or better yet 50 . There no doubt my draft stragedy will change if obfuscation stays.

In the middle of the fith round an A grade linemen was selected . There was five players with a C rating or below selected in the first round. Also, in the first there was a total of 11 guys that were below 80 yet an A+ DB was ignored til like pick twenty . The second round looked secure , but only with a bit of luck or a low volatility pick . A first round DT that was on my AI board completely busted to a F rated player . Never see that in all my drafts here. The fourth round looked weak , but a bunch of decent oline were completely over looked . Still, many will not like the results of the new draft but I believe it will be the same ratio as the boom bust ratio .

Also, as I mentioned before I am on the fence with the range the athletic ratings and wish to see combine numbers in addition to obfuscated ratings . Other wise I am quite pleased with the draft and am excited to see what happens in mfn1.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By Mcarovil
7/13/2017 8:06 pm
It was eye opening to say the least. My 1st rd 1.31 rated out at 59 overall with 24 speed (low risk 28 vol). 2nd rd was an elite OL. Pure luck. 3rd rd a 36 overall. Ha. Definitely not a draft that we are used to where you could hedge most of your picks. Even scouted players left a lot to question.

raymattison21 wrote:
In 87 my best player drafted was not drafted . A wr with a C + grade not only will make the team, but was my my best pick even though it was from FA. There is no doubt that desired effective has happened .

Gambling on high volatile players is that a complete gamble.(with out scouting)....so much so only because the athletic rating are muddled a good 25 points . Yeah he could be 99 speed or 99 strength , but guess what he's 75 or better yet 50 . There no doubt my draft stragedy will change if obfuscation stays.

In the middle of the fith round an A grade linemen was selected . There was five players with a C rating or below selected in the first round. Also, in the first there was a total of 11 guys that were below 80 yet an A+ DB was ignored til like pick twenty . The second round looked secure , but only with a bit of luck or a low volatility pick . A first round DT that was on my AI board completely busted to a F rated player . Never see that in all my drafts here. The fourth round looked weak , but a bunch of decent oline were completely over looked . Still, many will not like the results of the new draft but I believe it will be the same ratio as the boom bust ratio .

Also, as I mentioned before I am on the fence with the range the athletic ratings and wish to see combine numbers in addition to obfuscated ratings . Other wise I am quite pleased with the draft and am excited to see what happens in mfn1.
Last edited at 7/13/2017 8:10 pm

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By WarEagle
7/17/2017 6:08 am
Now that we've gotten to see the type of players that were actually drafted, I do not like the new obfuscation.

Where are all the "good" players that were supposed to drop to the later rounds because of this? The only thing I see are a lot of players picked in the first 3 rounds that have no business being taken that high.

I feel sorry for some of these teams.

This was the best year ever to not have a 1st round pick. Whew!

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By setherick
7/17/2017 6:18 am
I'm the opposite. I liked the challenge of the obfuscation draft system.

One thing to keep in mind was that this draft was weak anyway. Only 38 players with a rating >80 after camp. (I don't know what the busts looked like.) And all of the >80 non-kickers were taken in rounds 1 or 2.

Rounds 3-7 were a lot more interesting than in previous drafts. There were some players that fell to 5 that should have been in round 3. Once the scouted players were taken, gambling was a lot more interesting than past drafts.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By Tecra031
7/17/2017 6:28 am
WarEagle wrote:
Now that we've gotten to see the type of players that were actually drafted, I do not like the new obfuscation.

Where are all the "good" players that were supposed to drop to the later rounds because of this? The only thing I see are a lot of players picked in the first 3 rounds that have no business being taken that high.

I feel sorry for some of these teams.

This was the best year ever to not have a 1st round pick. Whew!


1000% agreed. Wasted my 1st rd pick and am now stuck with a 10m+ a year salary. How does my #1 pick have a bunch of individual ratings that actually came out below his scouted numbers? I shouldn't have to guess on a 1st rd pick this much. I would have NEVER drafted a 74 rated player in the 1st rd. Save the intrigue for later round players. I am usually not very outspoken, but kill this feature.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By setherick
7/17/2017 6:39 am
Tecra031 wrote:
WarEagle wrote:
Now that we've gotten to see the type of players that were actually drafted, I do not like the new obfuscation.

Where are all the "good" players that were supposed to drop to the later rounds because of this? The only thing I see are a lot of players picked in the first 3 rounds that have no business being taken that high.

I feel sorry for some of these teams.

This was the best year ever to not have a 1st round pick. Whew!


1000% agreed. Wasted my 1st rd pick and am now stuck with a 10m+ a year salary. How does my #1 pick have a bunch of individual ratings that actually came out below his scouted numbers? I shouldn't have to guess on a 1st rd pick this much. I would have NEVER drafted a 74 rated player in the 1st rd. Save the intrigue for later round players. I am usually not very outspoken, but kill this feature.


I would be curious what the player's pre-camp numbers were. Do you have them saved off by chance?