FOF2K7: Fewer breakouts, better draft AI, or both?

[Ben E Lou]

Personally, I think we're seeing a pretty significant shift in both the number of breakouts *and* in the ability of the AI to see guys who may be better than advertised. In both cases, I'd have to say that it is a good thing. Doing a little poking around of NFL rosters, I was a bit surprised how many starters were 1st and 2nd round picks. I guess I remember the Kurt Warner and Terrell Davis stories, but don't think about all the 1(23) type picks who are starting, but not starring. At any rate, it is interesting (and refreshing) to see in FOF2K7, I'm getting jazzed up when I find a guy like this:

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/mcgraw.jpg

In the last game, a guy like that would hardly have raised an eyebrow. I'm hoping to see him start to put up some numbers that match those ratings this year.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

I guess my point is to post the question: have you, like me, adjusted your expectations of what you consider to be a middle-to-late-round "find?"

[Narcizo]

From what I've been seeing in my SP game and the GroupThinkTank it looks like scouting error is doing a great job of burying potential boomers so that they don't get a chance to show their potential. It looks to me as though boomers who were rated something like 20-30 or something in 2004 are now rated, for example, 14-20. This added to the fact that you don't seem to see much potential increase under the course of a year means that it's all too easy to overlook them (the AI certainly does) and such players invariably wind up retiring after a couple of years.

I disagree that the AI is better at spotting players who might be better than advertised incidentally. Generally that equates with great combines and poor scout reports - and the AI seems to be pretty much chained to using scout reports. The only reason that they're doing better is the fact that combine scores push a player further up the draft board than the players would have appeared in 2004.

I'm currently running an empty cupboard game filled with combine warriors to see just how much these sort of players increase when they are given plenty of playing time. Please, don't all get too excited at this news.

[Ben E Lou]

I disagree that the AI is better at spotting players who might be better than advertised incidentally. Generally that equates with great combines and poor scout reports - and the AI seems to be pretty much chained to using scout reports.I call your disagreement and raise you one:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=54419

It sure looks like to me that the AI is looking at combine numers.

[JeffW]

Even in 2k4 single player that guy would be a great find and a pretty rare breakout for a 5th rounder.

[yabanci]

I call your disagreement and raise you one:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=54419

It sure looks like to me that the AI is looking at combine numers.

Agreed.

[Ksyrup]

I'm not sure how I'm doing it, but I'm getting pretty good at drafting 60/50 ceiling guys through the late rounds of the draft. My toughest rounds to pick are the 2nd and 3rd. Second round is a bitch and I usually don't get very good value. In fact, I routinely find guys in later rounds who are better or as good as my second round pick, and one of them was so bad coming straight out of the draft, that I decided not to sign him and let him go back into the draft (no sense in wasting the cap space on him).

My interviewing "style" has been to go through my targeted positions and just interview guys who have good-to-high bars in skills I want them to have. And that seems to get me a fair number of "as scouted" or "underrated" players. Looking at combine numbers or developed %, I was getting nearly all "overrated" comments. The other way has served me better - stay away from the guys with low bars and just find the guys with high bars at particular skills. I'm not finding any huge breakouts that way, but a bunch of serviceable, cheap guys who get up to 50/60 potential.

[bulletsponge]

I'm not sure how I'm doing it, but I'm getting pretty good at drafting 60/50 ceiling guys through the late rounds of the draft. My toughest rounds to pick are the 2nd and 3rd. Second round is a bitch and I usually don't get very good value. In fact, I routinely find guys in later rounds who are better or as good as my second round pick, and one of them was so bad coming straight out of the draft, that I decided not to sign him and let him go back into the draft (no sense in wasting the cap space on him).

My interviewing "style" has been to go through my targeted positions and just interview guys who have good-to-high bars in skills I want them to have. And that seems to get me a fair number of "as scouted" or "underrated" players. Looking at combine numbers or developed %, I was getting nearly all "overrated" comments. The other way has served me better - stay away from the guys with low bars and just find the guys with high bars at particular skills. I'm not finding any huge breakouts that way, but a bunch of serviceable, cheap guys who get up to 50/60 potential.


*makes notes*

[DolphinFan1]

When I used to play 2K4 and I had a lot of time to play, (Three years ago before my son was born), I used to make a draft board and really scout a lot of players. But now I don't have that kind of time. So the interviewing process helps a lot for me.

[JMO]

I'm not sure how I'm doing it, but I'm getting pretty good at drafting 60/50 ceiling guys through the late rounds of the draft. My toughest rounds to pick are the 2nd and 3rd. Second round is a bitch and I usually don't get very good value. In fact, I routinely find guys in later rounds who are better or as good as my second round pick, and one of them was so bad coming straight out of the draft, that I decided not to sign him and let him go back into the draft (no sense in wasting the cap space on him).

My interviewing "style" has been to go through my targeted positions and just interview guys who have good-to-high bars in skills I want them to have. And that seems to get me a fair number of "as scouted" or "underrated" players. Looking at combine numbers or developed %, I was getting nearly all "overrated" comments. The other way has served me better - stay away from the guys with low bars and just find the guys with high bars at particular skills. I'm not finding any huge breakouts that way, but a bunch of serviceable, cheap guys who get up to 50/60 potential.


I do something similar but it does tend to have its drawbacks. It seems like in most drafts I could get very well rated O linemen/dline men for example with very low blocking strength/endurance on down te draft.

Alot of these guys are deficient in power or speed. Recently Ive been trying to mix it up slightly and valuing physical gifts rather than skill sets.

Also those overrated guys may be not be as good as advertised but still may be better than the under rated guys. For example my top DE yet in this game was graded over rated and his run stoppingdropped significantly(almost to zero) during his career. His strentgh and pass rush made him a leauge leading sack artist. Overall I'd say the 2nd and 3rd rds is where you will et the players that make your franchise.