In real life though you have players that look great but there is a significant question about whether they will make it as a pro athlete. So you might have a Tim Tebow who looks like he could be a great player, but his volatility is really high ... either he's going to be really good, or it's not going to work. On the other hand, you have Andrew Lucks who it's very clear that they will be a good NFL QB, so he'll be more likely to get chosen early.

To me, hiding the volatility as it was previously makes the draft a **** shoot, because you don't know the likelihood of whether he will boom or bust or just stay the way he is. Showing the volatility will cause you to really consider whether to take that player with a 90 volatility early in the draft, causing his draft stock to sink a little more than it would otherwise, so you have a little bit more of an educated guess about the player.

Ok, that makes sense. What I noticed in this draft [and I may be wrong] but the volatility ratings seem to be very high. 80 plus in the top players. Didn't have much time as usual to study this draft.

Even the best teams when it comes to drafting would be estatic to hit on 40-50% of their picks.

I drafted a player 3rd pick 32 with a 98 volatility rating

Being a Bears fan I would be ecstatic for 20% !

I see a player will have to be real lucky to gain say 30 points like some rare gems with 100 volatility do now. Having it change each season would in theory level the talent. As the chances would be even greater to have 100 volatility each season of development. That is if I am understanding it correctly.

Still I really like the idea of it changing. IRL the best of the best do it every season. Despite the odds. Perhaps the level at what gains can be achieved each time is expanded to compensate for the lack of chance to hit 100 every season. The idea could be tied in to late career boomers.

Guys getting 6,7,8 points of gains a season later in their careers. After getting low volatility scores early in their careers with let's say slight gains the player received higher volatility scores for season 5 to 7 he gains 18-21 points in that span.

I like the current system so changing it is not a necessity. On the other hand I feel veteran gamers have clear advantage in knowing the current system. Trading older players for high draft picks would be a more difficult. That is probably the best benefit that would not just be my opinion of it emulating real life. Like Elway being so much better late in his career. I even see super gems evolving from this, but they would be as rare as Brady.

That seems very low to me. I think the best teams would be very disappointed to only hit on 40-50% of their picks.

What do you mean by "hit"?

I know it probably varies by round, but in general I would hope a round 1-3 pick would become starter quality, and 4-7 would make the team. I know 5-7 round picks rarely make the team in MFN, but I am referring to the NFL here.

Does your comment mean that you think more than 50% of NFL rosters are made up of undrafted players? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.

i wish there was a way to tie it into stats ex. reaching certain amount of yards, tackles, sacks, tds......not to just piggy back off a thread but the same with contract demands

A good read if you think 50% is low http://datascopeanalytics.com/blog/the-chance-of-a-bust-in-the-nfl-draft/

An interesting read indeed.

I don't suppose you've seen this type of data on a team by team basis? Surely the Cleveland Browns and Oakland Raiders are bringing these numbers down for everyone!

Also, there are never any "ready to start" players in the MFN drafts. Heck, in the MFN universe, RBs must fumble every 5th carry in college. WRs are dropping passes left and right, etc.