I'm considering adding a 'volatility' attribute to the player information. Basically this attribute tells you how likely a player's future ratings are going to change - but not tell you the direction.

So if you are picking a high pick, there might be a player with a 95 future but 100 volatility - which means they are very likely to bust (but equally likely to boom, but in this case there's not much room to boom). This may reduce his draft stock a bit because you know that there's a good chance he's going to bust. On the other hand, when picking a player in the later rounds, you might gravitate toward those high volatility players knowing that, again, there is a good chance that they will boom, and there is less risk if they bust. It could also help drive you toward players in late free agency that you might otherwise not look for.

My main goal would be for those low-rated players who are going to boom to have a better chance of being discovered. I did recently make some changes where the boomers will still boom in their future ratings even if they are not on a team, so in future free agencies you should be able to find some better players in the pool than you have up until now, but this might get them on teams earlier than they would be otherwise.

The downside is that for players with low volatility you have a good confidence that you're getting what you're seeing, which reduces the risk of those top picks. Or is that an upside?

Curious to hear your comments on this idea.

I love the idea. I think it is fairly realistic as well, as there are those players you know what you are getting and some with a lot of potential but a lot of unknowns as well. It would make it more worth while going after those later round picks if you there is a descent chance they might blossom into a good player. Versus now where it seems most of the time they don't pan out at all.

I like it in theory but, I kind of like the randomness to getting gems late in the draft. With this every 60 something overall guy with good speed and high volatility would be snatched up super early.

While true, it would in affect create demand for those lower rated players because of a chance at finding a boom. Now that player could easily bust into nothing so it still has some randomness in terms of finding gems. It will give more volatility at the top tier picks as teams might be more likely to pass over a highly rated player who happens to be also highly volatile.

I like it as long as it's fairly vague and has uncertainty. I'd really like the consistent players to still occassionally boom or bust and the volatile players still just play as expected. Scouts and Draft experts still have those wildly incorrect reads. In the draft, nothing should be certain.

"JaMarcus Russell is going to immediately energize that fanbase, that football team -- on the practice field, in that locker room. Three years from now you could be looking at a guy that's certainly one of the elite top five quarterbacks in this league. ...You're talking about a 2-3 year period once he's under center. Look out because the skill level that he has is certainly John Elway-like." -- Mel Kiper

+1 like the idea, sounds interesting to try out!

This, and this is already kind of happening...
at least that's how my late round drafting is leaning towards

I am not overly keen on this.

What I would like to see happen is the late boomers that might not gain or lose much the first couple seasons they play but then all of a sudden *get it* and finally break out, specially if they are getting a lot of playing time. I know playing time doesnt guarantee growth either but it doesnt hurt.

I like the idea.

It's probably the closest we're going to get to moving away from completely 100% randomness about whether a player will be any good or not.

At least we would have something to consider when making a pick or signing a FA.

An extension thought I had is to have the volatility actually have progress to it (obviously independent of itself) to get some players who start to boom later in their careers.