Smaller Draft Pool

[Mitch-Oilers]

I want to provide some information to the league in regards to creating small draft pools in the future. This topic has come up on a few of our recent podcasts as well as in the group chat.

The intent of the conversation is not to disrespect Charlie or to not show proper appreciation for the work Charlie puts into creating the draft pools. We all know this is a labor of love and takes great time and energy.

The intent of the discussion is to collaborate on ways to make the league even better through the size of the draft pool.

Recently, our draft pools have been roughly 370 players. With an 18 team league, there are only 126 players drafted in any given draft. This creates a lot of free agents and flattens out the ratings arch.

Here are some impacts of a smaller draft pool:

- Higher value for players in the draft pool since fewer players will be in the pool
- Higher value for all players since fewer FAs will be available
- Increase the ratings arch between "Top Talent" and "Bottom Talent"
- Increase the trade value of veteran players due to lack of players available in FA
- Reduce the need for "clean-up" that Rich just did with the FA pool

Taking information from the 2023 NFL Combine and Draft, I created 2 separate draft pools to mimic what Charlie does in creating 2 draft pools per NFL draft. I've attached them in this email.

The ratings for the pools were generated using the following guidelines:

- No more than a 5 point spread between MAX/MIN in any category for QBs.
- No more than a 5 point spread between MAX/MIN in any category except IN, DI and EN for non-QBs.
- No more than a 10 point spread between MAX/MIN in IN, DI and EN for non-QBs.

319 players from the combine were split to create the 2 draft pools:

Pool A
- Consists of 160 players

Pool B
- Consists of 159 players

Take a look at the information and share your thoughts on the forum or our WhatsApp group chat.

Thanks!

[Jerry-Redskins]

Share on the forum. Its official.

I think smaller pools is not a good idea. I've been pushing to have them larger at some positions. I think there should be plenty of players at each position. With a smaller pool you push people to other positions they may not draft otherwise no matter the quality of the players. The talent does not have to be an even curve. Heck LB this season was crap at the top. We should not be racing to get the last player in a position. It's the top that should be smaller, not the total pool. Plus there should be more of different kinds of players. with deviations in the attributes and between ACT and POT which this draft did quite a bit. I think Charlie hit it pretty good this season.

I also think big deviation is bad. You grow the deviation too much and we'll get 70-0 every week. A difference and a little actual star power is good. Bigger differences between the teams in whole is bad. The small talent differences does make a difference in the games. We do not need 96 ST QB's against 90 ST every week. Less 96 and 95 yes.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Jerry

I understand some of your concerns. I wouldn't want to create 70-0 scores each week or every game being match-up of 96 ST QBs vs 91 ST QBs.

The 5 point MIN/MAX spread is pretty much what we have now in our draft pools. When you look at the QB ST ratings of the 15 QBs in my 2 sample draft pools, 11 of the QBs have a ST POT rating of 96. It's likely QBs below 95 ST for QBs would be back-ups or FAs. You might see the occasional 93 vs 96 QB match-up in some game due to injury, but that would be realistic.

[Charlie-49ers]

The real question is how many players do you want at each position? You should have noticed from the last couple of Drafts that I have reduced the C, FB, P, and K positions. The NFL Draft usually dictates these positions and to some extent the QBs. Determine what you want to see at each position then add all the positions together and you will get a rough idea of how big the Draft could/should/would be next season. If we have somewhat of an agreement I can accommodate and apply some reasonable curve.

The top NFL draftees will always be the best POT players in the PNFL. What I want to do next Draft is tighten up the ACT for these players so that they get on the field after one/two TCs. According to the NFL, the expectation is that 1st and some 2nd Round picks are starters. Of course, an NFL team needing to fill a critical position will dictate if or when a player will start. I would like to see the 'impact' 1st Rounders on the field as a 2 or 3 after their first TC and maybe get in a 1 here and there.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Charlie

The 2 sample draft pools I created had roughly 160 player in each pool, roughly 320 players total.

The reason the total number of players was 320 players is because that's how many players participated in the 2023 NFL combine. I pulled the player names from Football References NFL combine information.

Our 18 teams is 56% of the NFL 32 team league. With that in mind, I'd say the number of players in our draft pool would be roughly 56% of the NFL draft pool.

320 x 56% = 180 PNFL draft pool (rounded)

We can use the same logic for each position.

[Mitch-Oilers]

Using the 56% guideline, here's a position breakdown using the 2023 NFL combine as a baseline:

QB - 8
HB/FB - 15 (Likely a 13 HB/2 FB split)
WR - 28
TE - 11
C - 6
G - 10
T - 13
DE - 20 (may adjust some to LB due to EDGE rusher category)
DT - 11
LB - 17 (may adjust some to DE due to EDGE rusher category)
CB - 21
S - 12
K - 3
P - 3

[Dean-Atlanta]

the total pots in that draft pool are WAY TOO LOW in that draft pool, I don't Charlie will lower the ratings ansd NEREF the players that much. There are only TWO CBs in that pool that would EVER make my roster. Way too low overall at most positions.

I vote a hard NO on creating rookies that low. Lowering actuals is one thing but lowering pots that far is a hard no.

[Mitch-Oilers]

the total pots in that draft pool are WAY TOO LOW in that draft pool, I don't Charlie will lower the ratings ansd NEREF the players that much. There are only TWO CBs in that pool that would EVER make my roster. Way too low overall at most positions.

I vote a hard NO on creating rookies that low. Lowering actuals is one thing but lowering pots that far is a hard no.

The reason the total POTs are lower than you are used to seeing in current draft pools is because of the spread in EN, DI and IN.

The MAX/MIN ratings for every other category are very similar to what we've seen over the past several seasons, about a 5 point spread.

However, with a 10 MIN/MAX spread in the EN, IN and DI categories for all positions except QB, it's no surprise than total ratings scores will look lower in non-physical categories.

The ratings spread sample for EN, IN and DI was example purposes since several coaches have shared a desire to increase the ratings spread in the categories.

I'm more interested in the positive impacts of lowering the draft pool to between 180 to 200.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I DO NOT AGREE.

That draft pool is way too low not even close to our current pools. This is a debate about the SIZE of our drafts not totally nerfing 99 percent of the talent.

Spin all you want, that draft pool is a non-starter and will not be good for the league. I doubt Charlie will create one that radical.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Dean

These draft pools were samples based on dividing the 2023 NFL combine participants to show how we could create 2 smaller draft pools. I'm more interested in reducimg the size of the pool than changing the ratings.

When generating the draft pools, the only difference in ratings spreads were in EN, IN and DI for non-QBs. I used this as a sample to represent a change on non-physical categories. I didn't propose using those draft pool ratings. I'm only showing on paper what many coaches have been asking about for several seasons. Obviously, you are not a fan of wider spreads for non-physical categoies.

Take the draft pool ratings out of the equation and focus on the draft pool size. I believe the pool should be between 180 to 200 players.