Questions regarding the player pool shift

[James-Eagles]

There are way too many factors to take into account. Especially when looking at the Burrow and Purdy thing
this season
Passing Att Com Pct Yds Avg Lg TD Int Rtg Sks-Yds
Purdy 404 262 64.9 3,132 7.8 68 34 4 112.4 23-132
Burrow 103 54 52.4 880 8.5 67 5 2 89.5 6-46

But Burrow is clearly the better QB but it looks like on field Purdy is.

Burrow played 3 games against Minnesota, Chicago and Philadelphia at the beginning of the season.

When you look at why a player does well or not. My thoughts are always been Attributes matter but this is still a play vs play sim. Attributes give you an edge when it is close. But if you are in the wrong play none of that matters.

I went 12-4 with only one team having a lower cap hit than me Atlanta and Seattle being the only other team close. Range just makes being a GM matter a little more than we do now. I also did with almost all players after the draft classes were starting to weaken. That is how I got a lot of my rookies people said how there were no starters in the first class I heavily drafted in. Steve and Shawn were all over how horrible that draft class was. This tells me we still have a long way to go in adjusting.

I like to see injuries matter. No teams on their 4th QB making the Playoffs or the Super Bowl. I would also see where it isn't really easy to set subbing at out 99 and in 100 work for almost every positions because that is how close backups are. I like to see a good gap and we can adjust back if things go south.

[Brian-Broncos]

You all are over thinking this. Faster is faster, better hands are better hands, and so on.

There should be a Josh Allen and Jalen Hurts-like QBs with significantly better rushing skills, and a couple of WRs that are significantly faster than the others, and a Derrick Henry-like RB that is significantly stronger and just as fast as the fastest RBs, and a Peyton Manning-like QB that is significantly more intelligent and disciplined (and significantly poorer at running.)

Why?
1. Because that is what the NFL is like
2. It would be fun

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

So what you are suggesting is for the draft pool to have maybe 1-3 players that exceed our maximums in Potential in one rating?

We basically have at least one GOAT player in every draft. This player becomes the obvious #1 pick. Maybe there is one DE with a 65 AC. Or a QB with 99 IN. Or a WR with 90 SP. Or a TE with 85 SP. Or a G with 99 ST. OR a S with 83 SP. etc.

[Brian-Broncos]

So what you are suggesting is for the draft pool to have maybe 1-3 players that exceed our maximums in Potential in one rating?

We basically have at least one GOAT player in every draft. This player becomes the obvious #1 pick. Maybe there is one DE with a 65 AC. Or a QB with 99 IN. Or a WR with 90 SP. Or a TE with 85 SP. Or a G with 99 ST. OR a S with 83 SP. etc.

Yes and Yes. I turned this idea into a new thread: https://pnfl.biz/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5347

[Mitch-Oilers]

I think we should remember that roster ratings on the player are maybe half the equation of what makes a "superstar" player. Look at QB Mac Jones on the Jets, I think Mich said he was the 32nd best QB in ratings by his criteria. Yet he has won many Player of thew Week and MVP awards and is always a top 3 QB in the season stats.

Or Brock Purdy on Charlie's SF 49ers team. He's played well enough that Charlie is trading former first overall pick in QB Joe Burrow.

The other half of the equation is coaching.

A fully MAXX QB with ratings of 81 81 81 96 71 87 92 84 would be no guarantee of leading the league in passing without starting for a well coached team.

Imagine in real life Patrick Mahomes playing for a poorly coached team. Same thing.

It's because the 32nd best QB is still 98%+ of MAX, so the player can still be a stud, just the 32nd ranked stud.