There was alot of good rolls in this draft with no volatility being shown. Still i think there is a tell or an intuition i use. Similar techniques used as if i was scouting a real player. They all have a floor and ceiling.

I can almost forsee that Burroughs volatility is in the higher end. He had a great camp and will be an all pro, but how did i know that he would/ could boom.

I did something similar with a WR in custom 22. Alot of lower VOL. WRs drafted around him yet his was high and almost a tell to me he would boom. Perhaps this is luck, but two for two of late and over a 50 percent hit rate on first rounders is a pattern in itself. I seem to miss on oline early though.


Joseph Burrough
21/7

Edmund Buchanan
10/-1

Jorge Mueller
12/4

Otis Ward
3/1

#28 Lamont Williams
10/3
10/3

James Westmoreland
13/9

Harold Ellis
10/8

Daniel Weaver
10/-1

Ronald Frerichs
6/3

Kenneth Johnson
6/1

Eric West
5/1

Joseph Morrill
4/2

#90 Hugh Edwards
6/6


Alot of these guys are scrubs but i lost one point on a second round CB and one for a converted UDRFA who will gain points when his weight nears his target for the new position.

Granted none of this probaly is too obvious or intuitive to real life when you know a player has got the "it" factor.

What makes you think a player will gain in potential rating for a specific skill because of his weight?

Weight might impact how he plays, but not his rating (as far as I am aware).

It would be great if weight was factored in the overall rating for a player, especially if it was something we could edit in our custom weights. I hate seeing all those CBs who are rated highly as DTs because they have a few skills I value in that position.

Weaver is not the best example as he was a heavy DE and now is a lite DT at 286lbs. Looks as though he has gained some weight already. As a rough generalization a player is penalized in overall ratings terms at about 1 point per 10 pounds. Depending on how weights are done i have seen close to 3 points per 10 pounds.

A 260 lb WR will have ratings in the 70s down from 90 for my weights. Same as backs converted from 250 lbs. After that weight is lost and the player trends toward the generic weight his overall climbs a bit. I have a back in lg.1 a low volatility trending down several points as a rookie climbed back up a few points ovrr time even with his skill slightly still dropping.

I will convert a 220lb CB to dline. It just takes a while. For me he might be a 67 at that weight, but with just a positive trend and time he could be 77. Say he booms you got a pro bowler on your hands from FA for pennies.

The best boomer i ever got was a 238 lb WLB, but with elite speed and medicore strength CB was a natural switch to match his cover skills over his lower run and pass rushing skill. Having his skill match my weights for CB allowed a slighlty higher gain. Points wise once his weight dropped 40 lbs.

I wish you could custom weight also but feel it is arbitrary. There is a true effect in this game for player weight. The effect seen in overall is a reflection of this value. Or maybe i have my weight set in a certain way that relects this, but i highly doubt that. I have always said weight should have more of an effect but no feed back at all so yes this is hypothetical and could be by chance and manipulation of numbers.

I'm almost certain that physical weight affects a player's overall, but I'll have to find JDB's post.

It absolutely does.

Ok. I'll take your word for it, but that doesn't explain why I'll see small CBs with a good rating at DL just because they happen to have a high strength rating.

If player weight effects the overall rating I see, then we should definitely have that as an option in the custom weights. We should be able to set our own ideal weight for a position, and then how important that is to us in regards to the overall rating we want to see.

I mean, what's the point of being able to have custom weights if the ratings are still going to be determined by items we can't "weight"?

I'm sure this has probably been covered before but I guess I missed it. This is very disappointing to learn.

From what I've come to understand, a player that is overweight has a negative applied to his rating until he gets down to weight. However, I have never seen a player that is underweight have the same negative. The negatives for being underweight should be much more severe for positions like OL and DL.

My understanding is that the performance is 'weight x attribute rating.' Put simply, a 200lb player at 100 speed will be significantly faster than a 250lb player with a 100 speed. Conversely a 250lb player with a 100 strength will be much stronger than a 200lb player with 100 strength.

I obviously don't know the formula, but I'd hope a 100 strength CB would still get dominated by an average OLiner. Has anyone actually put a natural CB on the D line? I'm curious...

The 'current' rating is reduced if a player is not close to his ideal weight for the position, but the 'future' rating is not (since he will try to gain or lose weight if you change his position). I do intend to change it eventually where not every player migrates toward the mean, but right now they do so the future rating not taking the weight into account is accurate as a predictor (as much as any future rating is accurate).

Thanks for clarifying this.