Smaller Draft Pool

[Dean-Atlanta]

I agree on the number of rookies in the pool, but NOT the severe nerfing.

[Mitch-Oilers]

Here are a couple of ideas for how we can breakdown each position for a 180 player draft pool as well as a 200 player draft pool:

[Barney - Vikings]

Conceptually I like the idea but it may not be practical. Mitch, in your example you have 21 or 22 wide receivers and we just had 21 drafted and one boosted FA taken .We may need the flexibility that the larger Draft class offers.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Barney

Agree. These examples are a starting place to begin the work. I built these example based off of my earlier post from the combine percentages.

Based on our league trends, we may need to have 30 WRs in the pool, but on 10 HBs. I haven't gotten into the weeds yet.

[Mitch-Oilers]

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.

@Dean

To illustrate how I was not trying to advocate radical changes in the ratings, here's a side by side comparison of the CB avg ratings from my sample pools and the actual 2044 draft pool. As you will see, the biggest difference is in EN, IN, and DI which I explained was purposefully lowered based on coach's feedback. In fact, some of my sample ratings are higher than the actual draft pool.

[Mitch-Oilers]

Using Barney's feedback, here's some analysis of the last 10 PNFL drafts. Based on the 10 year averages, I created a potential breakdown of a 200 player draft pool.

[Dean-Atlanta]

If we want to radically change the player ratings model in the league there are two ways to do this. One of them is radical quick change that is revolutionary, the other is a very modest and gradual approach that is evolutionary.

When I was commish of the ECCFL 2000-2001 we did the Revolutionary approach. We had concluded that our ratings were way too high and way too unbalanced and we wanted to move them much more in direction of the VP NFL ratings. So we used the Gelat editor and after looking at what the ratings would look like we voted and a clear majority of the league team owners voted in favor of the change and we implemented it. The scrubs rookie pool that Mitch proposes is radical revolutionary change done all at once in one Ricky pool. This pool has only TWO CVS at 676 or higher while our last draft had TWENTY of them. This is far too radical a change and would immediately plunge the value of rookies in the draft. Many team owners would be immediately trading away all the draft picks and I would be the first one posting on Trade Talk in the forum to do that. Many of us would be trading our draft picks for three items on the Value Menu at McDonald's. This would be extremely a bad move for the league.

The other way to do the change is evolutionary which means each draft pool is gradually changed to move in the direction that the ratings goal eventually wants to move towards. This I think is exactly what Charlie is doing. I think if we want to move in that direction and do it in a way that isn't too radical I think we need to stay the course and support with Charlie is doing.

Unless we believe the current ratings model is so broken that we need to do an immediate revolutionary change through a global re-edit, which I believe League officers do not want to do, I think the best way to gradually change the ratings model of the Lee is to stay the course and support with Charlie is doing.

Once again I Say No Scrubs.

[Dean-Atlanta]

CBs not CVS

[Jerry-Redskins]

The draft pool should not be just enough to draft in my opinion. It should not be a race to not run out at a position. There is nothing wrong with having plenty of players that are on the lower end of the scale. That does not have to have any affect on the spread of the best players at the top. All for slowly lowering the number of the top POT players, nothing wrong with having extra average and below.

You know why Justin is using so many vets? Even the non-top ones are better than the last few draft classes and too many teams under value them and give them away for little to nothing. They are already better than the stuff people are wasting points on in FA today. Teams have tunnel vision on young players and are inpatient I think. Charlie is moving the needle. What was wrong with this LB class? It sucked compared to the league normal thats what. It moved the spread. The number of LBs in the class had nothing to do with it. We want some players to stand out as stars. Doesn't mean the rest have to suck completely or not exist at all. No reason to force a team to draft a position they do not want because there's nothing left at a position

It should be the quality of the players available that people consider when drafting. Not the minimum quantity from my view.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Perfect example on the vets. Jacksonville is looking to dump their HB2 and CB2. So are they trying to win this season or not? Or is it the young player tunnel vision? Not sure, but changing the draft pool numbers wouldn't seem to affect the value equation in this case. They have a full roster of players otherwise.