Player ratings rant

[Donovon-Steelers]

Sometimes its not just this - time and experience are major factors. I have no doubt the Justin, Jerry and many others can figure things out in 1/2 the time or less than I can -- I'm still learning so much even after 4 seasons. I've also found that weeks I fully prepare, sim, scout, etc, that I win 75% of the time whereas weeks I'm too busy, I lose 75% of the time, so PPP planning is a major factor to success.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I think the late draft is no different than the NFL in most respects. Other than the surprise, late rounders end up as depth as much as anything. Of course real people have intangibles that CPU players do not. I think FA's are better some what because, in my opinion, some teams carry low rated players and let better ones go or we are all human and have an affection for players on our roster and we draft and hate dropping them. The 250th rated ACT LBer is on a roster. The player will be up for FA before ever being able to play a down and a similar POT player is available around ACT #90. The 250th player needs 6 more TC's to get to 75-75 SP AC and 82 ST.

Yes, this is from an owner that believes a 74-74-80-81 LB is way worse than a 75-76-81-83 one. Now Washington did lose to the $%#@ less talented 49ers in the playoffs, but the rain curse and an obvious ref payoff happened.

The Eagles also won like crazy and yes there were some interesting PPP things they did at times that worked and they played to their talent strength. WR was their best position and they threw the ball while having decent CB play as well. So PPP was a big factor, but is was geared to the talent available.

Each play and each game are affected by the PPP, talent, and the game background formula so anyone can win any week, but over time the most talented teams win more often and I do not believe the best talent and best PPP's are mutually inclusive in our league.

I definitely have a different view on point value than most. I do not see trading points for late picks meaning the picks are undervalued. I think the points are. Every 2 points is a year on a contract. I believe another year of a starting player is worth more than picks for players that will not ever start. I think too many throw points around too easily. If I trade points to another team for late picks, I just helped them keep a better player more years for what is likely a player I will cut or never see the starting lineup. This is a competition so I want to help myself more every time. I see trading points for late picks as giving the points away for nothing most of the time.

[Brian-Broncos]

Welcome to the club, Brian. I will send you a start-up kit. ha!

Why do you think I drop out of the bidding war on Muma? I was able to make you eat 5 pts while I picked up another LB that is 99% of MAX ratings for 1 pt.

Yeah, I was debating about whether to go up to 5, but I figure the points don't even really matter because there are such good players available to pickup for 1 point, or zero even, at least in some positions.

[James-Eagles]

Welcome to the club, Brian. I will send you a start-up kit. ha!

Why do you think I drop out of the bidding war on Muma? I was able to make you eat 5 pts while I picked up another LB that is 99% of MAX ratings for 1 pt.

Yeah, I was debating about whether to go up to 5, but I figure the points don't even really matter because there are such good players available to pickup for 1 point, or zero even, at least in some positions.

Points matter because you need them to be able to sign your top QB, WR, CB etc that above the the stuff in the free Agent pit.

[Mitch-Oilers]

Welcome to the club, Brian. I will send you a start-up kit. ha!

Why do you think I drop out of the bidding war on Muma? I was able to make you eat 5 pts while I picked up another LB that is 99% of MAX ratings for 1 pt.

Yeah, I was debating about whether to go up to 5, but I figure the points don't even really matter because there are such good players available to pickup for 1 point, or zero even, at least in some positions.

Points matter because you need them to be able to sign your top QB, WR, CB etc that above the the stuff in the free Agent pit.

Agreed

[Shawn-Giants]

LB Greg Muma: I was curious why Dean would drop such a highly rated LB, so I looked at Dean's roster. What I learned is that there is no significant difference between Muma and Dean's worst-ranked LB, or really any of our worst-ranked LBs.

I then looked at the 83!! (smh) free agent linebackers available. Using my patented rating system, 22 of the free agent LBs score equal to or better than Dean's worst-rated linebacker, and none of them are significantly different than Dean's worst linebacker. And another 18 are no more than 4 rating points below Dean's worst linebacker, meaning there are 40 linebackers available that are completely indistinguishable from Dean's worst linebacker (or even Muma). In reality, it's closer to 65 of the free agent linebackers are insignificantly different than Dean's worst rated linebacker. This is INSANE!

So, then I looked into C Biadasz who I had considered picking up as a free agent. I found the same thing. There is no significant difference between Biadasz and the worst center on the Giants roster, and therefore the Giants didn't bother paying to extend him.

This is also why I was able to pick up what are now my 2nd and 4th WRs for the next 3 years, for a total of 4 points!!

Why am I even spending time on free agency or the draft? Clearly, none of it matters.

Looking at the draft pool, of the 23 HBs in the pool, the top 8-12 are really insignificantly different from each other. It could even be argued that the top 16 are insignificantly different.

I don't mean to be difficult or disrespectful to Charlie and Rich, but I cannot see how this will possibly change anything to increase variance in players or reduce the number of good players available in the free agent pool.



Someone convince me I'm wrong!

You're not wrong Brian, I'm laughing at the fact you realized were trading peanuts and points around, it's like were in the middle of a card game and you realized by counting the cards were playing with 2 decks, HEY MAN!

Here's a closer look, the totals are the combined pots points. After the top 3, the max potential ratings of rest are the same total output, just different names. Yeah the ratings allocation distribution is different but overall the same total in combined output points.

The only one's with the "unique" max point output totals is the #1,#2, and #3 half back the rest are clones and were talking points apart as the difference between the top 3 and the "rest", this is without placing any specific weights on any individual rating, just from a numbers ranking perspective.

Half backs 4-10 have the same output max totals.

Half backs 11-15 have the same as well.

That's 12 HB's where only 1 point is the difference in the max pot totals. Their unique by way of individual attribute allocation, but overall the same.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Like playing Pinochle with 2 decks of cards and playing the cards thinking we're playing spades. And then you get dealt a hand with both aces of spades and figure out they're not worth much because your opponent won the bid and declared diamonds are trump.