Attribute Idea

[Charlie-49ers]

I wanted to float an idea as I am doing the Draft Pool to get some feedback! We are always talking about attribute changes and the spread between players. I was thinking that we could pick some impact players and introduce a one-point attribute boost in a selected category above the current Max and it would only apply to one player per category per season. I do not want to do all positions, just what we would consider impact players. For example, I would make one WR per season with a POT SP of 95 or AG of 92, and one QB with an ST of 97 or IN of 93, etc. In this thread, I would like comments on two things: first, is this an idea worth pursuing? Second, what players would you recommend (three on each side of the ball) and what attribute would you recommend bumping? All the players selected would get one point over the current Max POT in the selected attribute.
The random selection of attributes in the other categories probably would not make any of these players the best overall, but they would probably be in the top three to five in their position. Example:

QB - IN
HB - ST
WR - SP
DE - AC
LB - HA
CB - AG

[Mitch-Oilers]

I like that you are looking to widen the spread between player attributes. However, I believe we need to move ratings down, not up.

We already have a league of Super Stars. I vote no.

[Donovon-Steelers]

I've been a proponent of wider player attributes because it would be conducive for GM activity, trades, etc. as well as building teams with unique identities -- ie a run heavy & play D team vs a fast run & shoot team? At present, most rosters are pretty much homogenous. There is so little rating deviation that players just aren't as important compared to PPP strategy. For example, my backup RBs are 92-97% as good as my RB1, so an injury to my top HB doesn't really have a big effect as it would in the NFL. Likewise, how many players have gotten poached from someone else's PS this year? All this is due to lack of ratings spread.

So I'm all for wider spread of attributes, however I don't know how Mitch's idea of moving ratings down is possible unless we're talking about a league-wide ratings decrease en masse? You can't just have a wider spread with less ratings only via the draft pool because that will hinder teams with lesser records & higher draft picks.

For Charlie's idea:

RB / AG (a Barry Sanders type guy)
QB / ST (every once in a while you get a QB with a cannon)
WR / SP (Tyreek Hill or DeShaun Jackson)
DE / ST (Aaron Donald type with both speed/strength)
LB / SP (someone who can sack and cover RBs)
DB / HA (Trevon Diggs, has holes in his games, but makes lots of picks)

These would be helpful (albeit only slightly) to the bottom teams of the league to help increase parity.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I would add the one point boost to these ratings:

QB - IN
HB - AC
WR - SP
DE - AC
LB - ST
CB - AG

[Justin-Chicago]

I vote NO. Same logic as Mitch already mentioned. The max should be the max, differentiate more by having less at the max.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I'm with Mitch and Justin. We need to continue the downward trend in the bell curve. The idea should be only minimal players at the current top POTs.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Donnovan - I hear what you're saying. With a structured ratings reduction plan through the draft, the league can be reshaped overtime with reduced impact to current teams.

For each new draft class, a group of veterans retire. Increasing the ratings spread by 1% each year will transform the league overtime as veterans retire without hurting current team rosters.

That said, the biggest thing hurting bad teams now, besides PPP structure, is trading high round draft picks to good teams.

As it stands right now for the upcoming draft:

NYJ - the #1 pick in rounds 1 and 2 from JAX. Top 9 pick in round 2 from NE. Top 9 pick in round 4 from ATL.

CHI - Top 9 pick in 2nd round from ATL. #1 pick in round 3 from JAX. Top 9 pick in round 4 from LV.

WASH - Top 9 pick in rounds 1 and 3 from ATL. Top 9 picks in round 3 from LV, NE and SEA. Top 9 pick in round 4 from NE.

[Barney - Vikings]

I agree with Mitch. There is virtually no difference in our rosters and GM’ing doesn’t matter.
I don’t like the bell curve nature of our player ratings. The reality is that NFL players are on the far, far right of the bell curve compared to other human beings, like four or five Sigma‘s. Instead of there being a large bump of average players, there should be a large bump of below average players and a declining curve with just a handful of superstars much like Steve had in the XFBS. The one problem there was that the better teams kept getting the better players due to the fact that in replicating a realistic college league the better teams should also recruit better.

[Tim-Colts]

I think it would be nice to have a guy with a better POT, but it should never be on a primary ability. So for instance the HB position has hands that is way below what some real players in the NFL have. Christian McCaffrey has great hands and plays more like a WR. Another good one would be to have an endurance higher than normal (as there are players like that also in the NFL). Getting players with primary ratings too pumped up will most likely lead to 1 or 2 dominate teams in the league (as some owners have explained in the past).

Not sure if we have a tool to do this, but what if the "pots" and "max" were 2 different things. So maybe a guy has a pot of 85 for SP, but once you hit 84, then it won't go any further. If you waste you camp on the SP 84 -> 85, it will get pushed back down after camp... Again this was probably a bad example as I would prefer it not to be a primary ability, just an example that popped into my head.

My biggest frustration with building players is just how slowly they build unless they are extremely bad to begin with. That is just my 2 cents.

Tim

[Jerry-Redskins]

I think the key is as Mitch is trying to describe. Once the distribution of player POTs gets lower, a MAX pot guy will be like an above POT player compared to todays distribution. You can already see the draft classes getting weaker. Slowly, but weaker.