PNFL

This is NOT a thread for changes in the league. This is about coach preference and what they see in a player while the draft goes along. I'll start with a diverse group and a disclaimer that EN always matters. It is the one stat that affects the others. Also POT's are not the be all end all. If the players ACT ratings are low especially in key stats, they can never reach the high POT rating.

C - I always look at Ha's first. I'll take a 64, but want 65. I think my theory may be in the minority, as I also do not value SP and AC in a center. I just want a stout center with AG. Sometimes I think a faster center may be a negative.

G - Similar to a center, I look at ST and AG as the key stats. I'm sure it helps to have more SP and AC for pulls, but I want my guard to not drift outside and protect the middle. I want to stop middle blitzes and not be out of position. Kinda like in todays NFL combine. a 340 LB DT ran a 4.84. People are excited. Doggone DT will never run that far in a game. Who cares I say.

T - I do value SP and AC here. I do think is is important for a tackle to pick up wide speed rushers and get in front on a sweep play. As in the real NFL, tackles need to be the most athletic OL I think. I can live with a 98 ST tackle if they are good everywhere else, but I'm a sucker for 99 ST.

I prefer ST and AC. I like linemen that are strong and can fire off the ball.

Who reads the book. I know what I see. I can settle for the max POT ST guard or center with low AC. The lack of AC does not seem to affect picking up the rushers. I see more sacks from shooting the center guard gap with guards who move quick to the outside. Slow and powerful inside I say.

My understanding is that AG helps with pass block and AC helps in run blocking.

I've never been too caught up in the EN as I prefer to be two deep and rotate frequently.

My thoughts. Yes, the book's key ratings probably affect game play. Liked what Jerry outlined too. BUT ... for some crazy reason the PNFL's ratings emphasize very different ratings based on where the 70+ max potentials are.

C = AG, HA, ST | Why? PNFL max AG 70 HA 65, book emphasizes HA & ST

G = SP, AG, ST | Why? PNFL max SP 71 & AG 71, book emphasizes AG & ST

T = AC, ST | Why? PNFL max AC 71 & ST 99, book emphasizes AC & ST

Everything else is theory.

If you look at the rosters of the teams that one of us has managed for several seasons, you can get a good idea of what ratings we value most. I have look at the rosters of other teams to assess this and in viewing rosters and PPPs, sought to figured what leads to teams like the Jets or Raiders, or Washington or Chicago winning a lot of games.

EN is highly important, even with depth at a position, because it affects the first five ratings. Two Cs woith lower EN may not entirely replace on solid C with high EN, for instance.

If you look at my roster you can see the following ratings ranked highly at these positions:

QB: AG ST IN DI Justin Fields has 81 96 92 84 pots in those ratings

HB: SP AC AG ST EN see Barry J. Sanders and Benny Snell Jr.

WR: SP AC AG HA EN remember here that most of our M2M defense is based on covering WRs by SP

C: AG ST EN

G: SP AG ST EN

T: AC ST EN

DE: SP AC AG ST EN

DT: AC AG ST EN

LB: SP AC AG ST EN must have 80 pot in AG or no contract. LB Correa has 79 was a FA pickup at a time I needed another LB

S: AC AG ST HA EN (79 SP ok but prefer 80)

CB: SP AC AG HA EN the ideal is 83 83 86 in SP-AC-AG but need at least either 82 83 86 or 83 82 86, but DJ White plays well with 82 82 86 in those ratings.

Generally I want 85/86 AG on CBs and 90/91 AG on WRs. 91/92 ST DEs and 97 ST DTs. I prefer 82-83 ST on HBs so they break tackles on runs. 95-96 ST with 92-84 IN-DI and at least an 80 AG on a starting QB. (* ST on a C, 96-97 ST on G, 98-99 ST on Ts.

Drafts, FA signings, trades are all assessed by these criteria, whic might explain why you might be surprised when I view an otherwise highly rated LB with 79 AG potential as worthless, or an 82 SP WR gets released to the FA pool despite 91 AG and 96 HA.

@Dean - basically, you would prefer to have players with max potential ratings in all the physical attributes. Is that what I'm reading?