'Creepers'

[imdashep]

Curious if there are any anecdotes on guys who gain a ton of points from their original drafted rating. Trying to figure out how high of a climb one of my players will make.

Drafted: 30/46
Post TC 1: 40/58
Pre-TC2: 59/59
Post TC2: 63/63
Now: 70/70 (week 4 of year 2)

One interesting aspect is that he had 0/17 in play diag which NEVER got better. All of the other ratings though have gone up.

[bighouserulez]

The old chart used to be 4*(future TC growth) would be what your guy would max out around.

That has not been true since the last two patches though.

[aston217]

A bump that big could be a volatility thing...also, play diag probably was always 0 to begin with.

It seems that with 6.3 and 6.4, big jumps and falls in training camps are both less indicative of where they'll end up than before. To be fair I have a small/limited range sample size, so who knows. Makes it harder to be excited about the 17/25 guy who goes +8, though.

[bulletsponge]

that guy looks a lot like a WR i drafted.

[aston217]

On a related note, I noticed in a SP game that it SEEMS that players who hold out through training camp, still get the TC bump/fall.

I always sign my rookies in the SP test I'm doing, so this is really based on a sample size of one CPU QB I was looking at. But, he went from 14/46 to 14/50 after TC, without being signed. I'm not sure what else it could be, other than some unmasking going on. At his second year's start he is 22/52, so it looks like he is indeed climbing.

I had always thought that if you didn't go through TC, you wouldn't be able to see if the rookies had a bump or not. Maybe I was just unaware of what everyone else knew already, but it looks like regardless of TC (so, including holdout rookies and unsigned rookie free agents), you can tell who is a creeper and who isn't.

[imdashep]

The old chart used to be 4*(future TC growth) would be what your guy would max out around.

That has not been true since the last two patches though.

So he ends up at 94? :) Sweet

[Rando]

So he ends up at 94? :) Sweet

He'll probably end up somewhere in the mid to high 70's.

Here (http://operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=74046) is the thread the rule of thumb comes from.

4*initial camp change if the change is 3-8 points. If more than 8, just use 8. Which would put him at 78.

For some examples my last three players with initial camp changes of more than 8 ended up +28 (+16 initial), +32 (+18 initial) and +30 (+15 initial).

As mentioned above, it doesn't work exactly to formula (notice Ben says "on AVERAGE"). Looking through my OSFL roster for fully developed players for initial changes between 3-8 points I see a +8 (+3 initial), +17 (+7 initial), +19 (+6 initial), +12 (+4 initial), and a -19 (-6 initial).

It might not be perfect, but it is still a safe bet that if a guy has a good first camp (+3 or more) you might want to keep him around, but if he as a bad one (-3 or more) he's going to be a disappointment. Barring a later volatility boom/bust, of course.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, and that guy was clearly VSOL, so the formula doesn't apply at all there.

[Surtt]

VSOL?

[Ben E Lou]

Volatility Stick Of Life

[imdashep]

Only 46 in that category, but who knows..

[aston217]

Volatility hits can happen to anyone, of course...it's just more unlikely for a 46 guy than a 99 guy.