PNFL

As many of you know, Mitch has been saying our player ratings are too similar and there is little differentiation among ratings. Jerry has pointed out that those differences are significant and that they do matter in our games. Based on what I have been seeing in my games and practice games and game planning process, I have to give credit where it's due and says that I am finding that Jerry is right on this issue.

What do you all think?

Agree with Mitch.

They are both right, but I lean more toward Mitch. I think we do need more diversity; however, I think when talent level is similar those little differences CAN make all the difference.

Clarify your question Dean. Seems some are answering we need more diversity in ratings. I think you mean it concerning the talent and ratings as they are Is it:

Mitch -The ratings are so similar there is not much difference in value of players or game play. Jerry - Games turn on just a few plays each week. The small differences affect every play. Meaning an extra scoring drive or defensive stop is impacted by talent differences and outcomes. Trade and draft decisions matter

I think they are both right. I do think Mitch wants too much of a variance though. I think we need to be careful with big changes in the league. Things are really good and competitive. We still have the new anti-aging and draft variance that is slowing going to make choice made now matter a lot more later.

I will say this. I think we need to be careful when we saying Jerry is right. I would say bad coach is more of a reason for losing than any player ratings. This game is a play vs play simulator. If you aren't in the right play to stop the other team ratings aren't going to matter much. Ratings mater when plays are close to 50/50 chance of working against the other play then they can tip the scale a few percentage points one way. It also can be the difference between a knockdown vs Int. You will notice LB CB and S on my team have high hands. If you want to know how I beat Jerry 3 times in one season. It was INTs. That season I tie for the league lead in INT at 17.

I don't think there is a debate we already decided to slowly increase the variance in rating through the draft while making anti-aging more level for all teams. As you see more players retire you see a larger variance of players. But the reality most people lose because they have the wrong game plan or the profile is too one dimensional so easy to stop or exploit.

I think the ratings matter despite the slight variances. My advice: Pick 2-3 ratings you prefer maxed out on each position to achieve a preferred style or statistical goal. Example: Detroit prefers CBs with 96 HA because his goal is to get more INTs.

The closer the ratings, the less front office management decision matter. Widen those differentials and there will be more league activity for player procurement & movement between teams, FAs, PS players, etc

@James - I'm not looking to dramatically increase the spread overnight. My plan is to widen the ratings ratings spread by 1% each season for the next 5 to 10 seasons to create a new MIN floor.

Example:

WR MAX/MIN SP in our previous draft was 84/79.

In 5 season, WR MAX/MIN SP being drafted should be 84/75

A SP of 75 MIN for a WR is 90% of the MAX. Top 10% of WRs should have SP MAX of 82 to 84, the middle 80% of WRs should MAX SP between 81 to 77 with the bottom 10% of WRs with a MAX of 76 to 75.

The FA pool during the season should likely be made up of WRs with SP MAX below 81.

As Lee Corso would say... Not So Fast...

When you reach that after 10 seasons, and you get the team that thinks a single 84 SP WR is enough or two of them and then gambles on having WR3-WR6 having 78-79 SP, and that same team has several 79 and 80 SP CBs plays that team with mostly 83+ SP WRs and mostly 82+ SP CBS... those small differences, as Jerry has reminded us, are significant, and bingo, we're seeing 56-7 type scores.

Let's slow down the pace of change, keep evolutionary, not revolutionary.