Draft Pool Opinions

[Charlie-49ers]

Every year we have discussions regarding the quality of the Draft Pool, which I will be tweaking, now that the 49ers will be watching the playoffs. As some of you have noticed/commented, the Draft Pool has become better these last few Drafts due to the random method of generating attributes I am now using for both ACTs and POTs. However, it never turns out perfectly (randomness), and I always have to do a little tweaking. Below is the general concept using the Cornerback position for an example.

Currently, we have 180 Cornerbacks in the League, 147 of which are assigned to teams, either on active rosters or Practice Squads (82%), and the remainder are Free Agents. I anticipate that some small number of these will retire, and that I will make available approximately 25 Rookies in the upcoming Draft. In this regard, we all have our own version of evaluating players relative to their ranking within their respective position, as do I. As such, I have ranked all 180 CBs by potential, best to worst. In this regard, of the 25 Rookie CBs to be drafted, how many should be in the top 25 POT players when I add them to the current CB Pool? How many in the next 25 or 50 or in the top 100 POT players?

For example, in the last Draft, 28 CBs were available, 16 of which were drafted or picked up from free agency. Of the 16 on teams, 3 are in the top 25 POT players, 5 in the 26-50 POTs, 2 in the 51-75 POTs, and 2 in the 76-100 POTs. As you can see, in the last Draft, not every team even got a chance to draft even one top 100 POT Cornerback. BTW, I use a similar distribution for the other positions where only one player might qualify for the top 25 POT slots, but the average is around two. So, while I agree to some extent that there is compression within positions (everyone has one or two great to good Cornerbacks, but so do the NFL teams), I also have to keep the Draft interesting, making available a couple of good players at each position. If my random formula makes a player in the top five or ten, then I would consider him a great player.

Anyway, any and all suggestions as to how to modify my current approach to the Draft Pool are welcome.

[Dan-Cincinnati]

I think maybe 1 in the top 25 would be better, and maybe 2 in the 26-50....then put the majority in the next section, or even the 76-100 range. In my opinion the harder it is to come about a top player at a position, the more fun it is to try and acquire one. While you may have 2 guys in the top 25, and 5 in the 26-50, how wide is the difference in attributes between them? I think THAT is the issue. A guy may be the number 1 overall CB by pots, and still only have 1 or 2 attribute points better than #5? Im not sure of this, its just what i suspect.

Here is the number 1 pick last year and his POTS, and a CB taken in the mid 5th round
Byron Murphy 83 83 86 61 95 87 91 95
Joejuan Williams 82 83 85 61 95 87 91 95


This is what I personally see as the problem. Why would you invest heavily to get the #1 overall pick, when you can get a guy almost 6 rounds later with 2 fewer attributes?

I dont think every team in the NFL has even 1 good corner. The good ones do usually, a few teams have several...but many teams have none. The seahawks are an example of a team with just 1 CB I would classify as decent, and then several below average CBs. They also aquired a solid nickle midway through the season...but how many Gilmores and Ramseys are there out there...and then consider how much better those guys are from the 10th best guy.

Anyway, achieving a perfectly accurate system here will be a ton of work and borderline impossible so im not asking for that. Just trying to put into words what I think the roster issue actually is

[Joe-Colts]

I have to ask - why tweak? Get a good random method, like perhaps you do, and go with that. When you tweak, you get rid of the randomness and end up with the same generic pool year after year. The NFL has years that are strong for some positions and weak for others. If we had uneven talent levels at different positions it would create a real drafting/trading strategy. The drafting, trading and free agency would then matter unlike now.

[Mitch-Oilers]

I agree with the point Dan is making about the rating differention between "top" players and "avg" players. We have an attribute range for each skill category. In my mind, the "top" players should be on the high end of that range, the avg players should be in the middle of that range and the below avg players should be near that bottom of that range. Based on a bell curve, the top 10% of players in a position would play more like "superstars" and bottom 10% would be barely hanging on or fill the FA pool. Currently, you can calculate a difference between players. However, as it has been stated, there isn't much difference between the Top 10% and the avg player.

Also, as we look at long-term, I believe a change to anti-aging and retirements will need to be reviewed as well. Possibly a cap on the number of players each season a team can AA or UR.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I think AA and AR are fine. The key is the Max Pot's of the players. Charlie has already started tweaking that via the last few draft classes. It appears many more even more distribution than he is creating already. I've always wanted more distribution and have been happier with the latest draft classes. I would not mind seeing things just by attribute ranking but within the attributes themselves. Like a high pot SP AC RB with lower ST and vice versa. Make coaches decide what type player fits. The studs will always fit, but more thought that also may lead to different play styles. Of course the PNFL is identical to the NFL. It is a copycat league. Trends start and the whole league slow gravitates to it and then it shifts somewhere else.