PNFL

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!

It is being done very slowly in the draft by slowly increasing the gap in top and bottom players while decreasing the number of player in the draft. And welcome to the party Mitch is the ring leader of there is no difference between top players and top free Agents.

Mitch is right, otherwise Muma and Biadasz wouldn't have been dropped. Plus they should have cost more to sign them in the free agency market than to extend them.

Clearly, with this many good players in the draft pool (in most positions) there won't be a noticeable difference between players or an over abundance of quality players available, ever.

The number of players in last year's draft was perfect. This year, the amount is far too high. Did people complain about last year's draft?

Maybe it's not really about creating a widening gap in ratings but instead making certain max potential ratings more rare and more special to have.

For HB some would argue that AG is far more important than any other rating. Some would argue that it is SP. Others would argue that it's ST. Some think it's AC.

If you are the coach who prefers 83 max ST for HBs, this draft only has 4 HBs with 83 ST potential.

Yes, there are lots of HBs with 82 ST max potential, but the HBs with 83 max ST seem to be a special commodity in this draft.

I think this part of what they are doing. They are making key max ratings more rare in the draft pool while at the same time diminishing those players with poor ratings in other ratings.

One of the 83 ST may potentials HBs has a 78 AC and 77 HA max potentials. Another has 80 SP max potential. This makes only two of them really viable for the coach who prefers their HBs to always have 83 ST.

We can always dispute the relative strength of a draft position or the whole class. While we want a trend moving the curve spread, one time is not a trend. I will state as I always do that that the same as the NFL, most of our games are decided with just a few plays each week. The game is a formula in the background and the attributes fit in with the game probabilities and produce results. The means a 1 or 2 point different is the most important attributes can/will affect the outcome in the better players favor a few times a game. If that occurs at the right time it is a win on a play. It only takes one different first down change to affect the entire game. The small differences matter as it is math.

It is also true that while the players spread was a bit more than today, Rich's teams would win with his and your PPP. This meant talent was the issue. I used to sim a lot and Rich could go 100-0 with either PPP. He was not beating me in sims with my players, but his players beat mind no matter what. I learned talent mattered lesson from it. I also wonder that we are saying that the best PPP folks are also the best talent folks as if you look at the PNFL, the most talented teams have the best records over time. Yeah the lousy Cards sucked this season , but overall it is true. I believe better talent, even smaller differences, causes a couple more wins here and there. Good game planning will win some games as well, but better players as they are now matter as well.

Other than a few players, the NFL is pretty much even teams and talent. The differences are small and affected by coaching and player intangibles as well. Way larger differences will just have the best talent folks winning more often and by larger scores in the PNFL.

Brian, your concern is valid. The "high end" players just aren't differentiated enough from the mid-range players imo. They're simply not *impactful* at almost any position. In addition, I have the existing FAs on a spreadsheet along with the rookie pool. By the time the 5-6-7th rounds occur, there's almost no one draftable compared to the FA pool which is @ 0 pts after season start. Late draft picks are becoming almost worthless with the current ratings spread - that's why so many people are wanting to trade them for points.

Brian-Broncos wrote: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!

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.

Many will say that even one point makes a big difference. When I came into the league, I would trade back because so many players were cookie cutter. I was like what is the point in getting seven guys in a draft when I can turn over half my team and have guys who weren't that much worse or were very similar.

I still am not 100% convinced that one point will make a huge difference, but I do see that with only a couple notable exceptions the teams with the worst rosters tend to have the worst records, so maybe these people are right.

Matt-Jacksonville wrote:Many will say that even one point makes a big difference. When I came into the league, I would trade back because so many players were cookie cutter. I was like what is the point in getting seven guys in a draft when I can turn over half my team and have guys who weren't that much worse or were very similar.

I still am not 100% convinced that one point will make a huge difference, but I do see that with only a couple notable exceptions the teams with the worst rosters tend to have the worst records, so maybe these people are right.

Part of that reason is because teams that continuously have bad rosters are also poorly coached on the field.

Mitch-Oilers wrote:

Matt-Jacksonville wrote:Many will say that even one point makes a big difference. When I came into the league, I would trade back because so many players were cookie cutter. I was like what is the point in getting seven guys in a draft when I can turn over half my team and have guys who weren't that much worse or were very similar.

I still am not 100% convinced that one point will make a huge difference, but I do see that with only a couple notable exceptions the teams with the worst rosters tend to have the worst records, so maybe these people are right.

Part of that reason is because teams that continuously have bad rosters are also poorly coached on the field.

And give away their 1st round picks and points and wonder why teams have better rosters and more points.