PNFL

I TE I suggested is NOT a "super player" it is still a total 682 TE but it is more of a pass catcher and less of a blocker, hence the lower ST and re-allocating some of those points to SP and/or AC and/or HA and creating a TE that is more of a receiver staying within our ratings model.

Dean-Atlanta wrote:I TE I suggested is NOT a "super player" it is still a total 682 TE but it is more of a pass catcher and less of a blocker, hence the lower ST and re-allocating some of those points to SP and/or AC and/or HA and creating a TE that is more of a receiver staying within our ratings model.

Actually, if we create a TE with 80 SP 88 AC 88 AG 92 HA as one off players, those ratings are not in our current TEs ratings model. Those ratings are above the MAX in our current ratings model. We could create a TE with 99 SP 99 AC 99 AG 70 ST 99 HA 76 EN 70 IN 70 DI and that player would be a 682 as well. I know that is an extreme example, but the point is if we are going to starting creating players with Super Ratings (above MAX), do we start doing it for every position at some point?

Also, I reject so called "nerfing" ratings as well. However, out definition of this "nerfing" you speak of is apparently different.

What you call "nerfing", I call "lower the floor". Our current floor for a lot of positions is pretty high. This is why some positions, especially TEs and Ss, seem far less attractive than WRs and CBs. A top floor S should look similar to a bottom floor CB and the same between a TE and WR.

For the above reason, this is why I do advocate for continued widening of the spread between Top Floor Players and Bottom Floor Players. Not all players need to live on the Top Floor nor do they all need to live on the bottom floor. Your "nerfing" accusations come across as you prefer all players on the Top Floor and any deviation from that is bad.

I think our ratings are pretty close to where they need to be.

Rob Gronkowski - 4.68
Travis Kelci - 4.61
George Kittle - 4.52


The top TE's in this year's draft combine ran about what Gronk ran. Arkansas's phenome TE that we used as a WR most of the year till he got hurt, runs about a 4.68.

With that said, MItch's findings on the 40 yard dash were as follows.

4.20 (84 SP)
4.40 (80 SP)
4.70 (76 SP)
5.00 (71 SP)

So if we want to make a better pass catching TE, my recommendation would be to bump SP to 78 up from 76. So something like this maybe?

78 86 88 90 90 86 91 90

I would add the 2 pts in SP and add 2 in AG to make them a bit closer to WR's without going way overboard. You MIGHT consider dropping the ST on some and increasing the HA to make a PURE Non blocking Pass catching TE if you wanted that. So,

Pass catching TE only
78 86 88 86 92 86 91 90

Balanced TE
78 86 88 90 90 86 91 90

Run blocker
74 86 86 90 86 86 91 90

Keep in mind these would be the top of their class for their "Type" and not the mid or lower ranked TEs.

Matt-Jacksonville wrote:I think our ratings are pretty close to where they need to be.

Rob Gronkowski - 4.68
Travis Kelci - 4.61
George Kittle - 4.52


The top TE's in this year's draft combine ran about what Gronk ran. Arkansas's phenome TE that we used as a WR most of the year till he got hurt, runs about a 4.68.

With that said, MItch's findings on the 40 yard dash were as follows.

4.20 (84 SP)
4.40 (80 SP)
4.70 (76 SP)
5.00 (71 SP)

So if we want to make a better pass catching TE, my recommendation would be to bump SP to 78 up from 76. So something like this maybe?

78 86 88 90 90 86 91 90

I would add the 2 pts in SP and add 2 in AG to make them a bit closer to WR's without going way overboard. You MIGHT consider dropping the ST on some and increasing the HA to make a PURE Non blocking Pass catching TE if you wanted that. So,

Pass catching TE only
78 86 88 86 92 86 91 90

Balanced TE
78 86 88 90 90 86 91 90

Run blocker
74 86 86 90 86 86 91 90

Keep in mind these would be the top of their class for their "Type" and not the mid or lower ranked TEs.

@Matt

You're right. Our current MAX ratings for TEs are actually in line, for the most part, with where Top TEs should be rated based on combine data, etc. On the flip side, do most WRs in the draft run under a 4.4 40 yard dash? My assumption is they run in the 4.45 to 4.55 range.

In case you are interested...

Just because ratings are similar to the NFL doesn't matter if the on-field results are not NFL commensurate due to game deficiencies. Right now, the top TEs are probably 30% effective compared to the top ones in real-life so they are pretty much useless as an offensive weapon.

The software is 25 years old and the game was different. The algorithms are built on the game at that time. One change can begat another needed one and never create 2023 NFL with the silly rules that allow offenses to be too easy. The games in the PNFL are competitive and interesting.

Everyone have their Week 1 PPP's ready?

Donovon-Steelers wrote:Just because ratings are similar to the NFL doesn't matter if the on-field results are not NFL commensurate due to game deficiencies. Right now, the top TEs are probably 30% effective compared to the top ones in real-life so they are pretty much useless as an offensive weapon.

But, is that due to the ratings or due to the way they are used in the current play pool? A spot check of TE's has them a few yards below the WR's in YPC; however, when was the last time you saw a play where a TE was lined up where you would normally see a WR1 or WR2? Typically they are lined up where a WR4,5, or 6 may be. These are not typically your longer routes that would get them more YPC. Checking my stats, WR Blue Berryhill was almost right on the money with my TEs and I know for a fact he would have been running the same routes as my TEs. I also saw several TE's that were averaging double digits in YPC. Some even were getting within 3 ypc of starting WRs.

I would say someone needs to design us some passes where we can fully utilize the TEs in the passing game a bit more before we declare they are useless.

Donovon-Steelers wrote:Just because ratings are similar to the NFL doesn't matter if the on-field results are not NFL commensurate due to game deficiencies. Right now, the top TEs are probably 30% effective compared to the top ones in real-life so they are pretty much useless as an offensive weapon.

@D

Here's a list of the most effective plays with a TE listed as the primary receiver in the play name code:

DC1YT01
DC1YT02
JJ1YBblT
NE1YCrsX
SC1YoutW
SF1UmimT
SF1YmimT
WR1YCRSZ
AT2YshoT
DC2YT01
DV2Yout
JJ2YbblT
JJ2YoutZ
LV2UshoT
SC2YoutW
SF2UmimT
SF2YcrsH
SF2YemTy
SF2YmimT
SF2YslnT
SF2YzipT
DN3YSR01
GP3YinT
LV3YIOX
NE3YbblT
OR3YmidT
OR3YQOUT
SC3YoutW
SF3UemTy
SF3UzipT
SF3YemTy
SF3YqinT
SF3YzipT
SF3ZzipT
WA3YBfly
BB4YML01
DC4Y02
DC7Y03
MN7YAfly
SF4YrolR
SF7UdouT
SF7UrolR
WA7YAfly
AZ8Yhot5
DC5Y01
JJ8YdsmU
LA8YwgTR
SC8YoutT
SF5UemTy
SF5YemTy
SF8UdouT
SF8Usprd
SF8Yjuke
WA8YAfly
SF6YdouT
SF6YemT2
SF6YemTy
SCGYinW
SCGYoutW

I'm not saying they will be great every snap, but these are these TE plays that are on my Top 100 list that I made for each play category.