Dean-Atlanta wrote:This repeated and nauseum "one percent" argument about player talent is rubbish because it doesn't reflect what actually happens in our games
Using your numbers, lets say there are 2 CBs that reflect those on teams:
CB1 82 82 85 59 95 86 89 94
CB2 80 82 84 59 94 85 89 93
CB1 is on Washington. CB2 is on one of the ten expansion teams. Washington plays against Tampa Bay, one of the expansion teams built from FA poll riff raff.
Because of lower EN, TB's CB is 2-3 points lower in actual in game ratings in the first 5 skill attributes due to lower EN, and they give up more pass completions and longer passes to Wash WRs. QB Kyler Murray completes 70 percent of his passes and Wash. scores at least 50.
On TB, QB Logan Woodside only sustain 45-50 percent completions against Wash CBs.
Extrapolate that to all positions, and sim 100 games, and Wash likely wins 90 percent of those games. That "one percent" makes that much difference. In XFBS, we have 4-5 percent difference between the regular players and the "blue chips" and we have 105-7 type scores all too often.
The league balance is much closer than "one percent" and those inferior teams would upset that balance.
No one really believes this one percent canard anyway, this is spin. EVERYONE takes trading and drafting VERY seriously to the point of getting players with one more point of getting one more point of SP or AC or AG or HA etc.
Let's not pretend otherwise. If we are serious about expansion (which won't happen until we have more DEMAND fore teams as Rich pointed out) we need to so it roight and no ham handed by creating 10 loser teams that no one wants to coach and manage.
Now try that scenario in reverse. If CB2 had 86 EN and CB1 had 85, then does CB1 drop enough to match CB2? The difference would be much closer.
