http://www.thecfl.us/forum/ |
|
| 2014 Draft Discussio http://www.thecfl.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3631 |
Page 4 of 16 |
| Author: | TurfToe [ Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quoted068e2a="timmynausea"][quoted068e2a="clubber lang"] in my experience i have never had great luck swithing a player from S to CB, sometimes the switch is no change, but never have a seen it say that it could increase the players rating, usually its a loss, the same can not be said for the reverse, switching a player from CB to S you can frequently increase a players rating. thats just some things i've noticed. good luck on the change, his volitity was too high for me to have taken a chance on but thats just me.[/quoted068e2a] He won't get an immediate ratings bump for moving to CB, but he has the combine numbers to be very good. For example, I ran some test drafts in SP last night, solely looking for good candidates to move from S to CB. The best athlete of the bunch showed up on the roster at 66/81 and dropped to 60/74 when I made the switch. After training camp he was 57/74. By the end of his second season he was 91/91.[/quoted068e2a] Thanks Timmy! That was the info I was looking for... So you're saying that his physical attributes (height/weight profile for starters) are the determinant and as with all positions, the combine numbers ultimately determine the quality of the player? |
|
| Author: | timmynausea [ Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quotef496b8a="TurfToe"] So you're saying that his physical attributes (height/weight profile for starters) are the determinant and as with all positions, the combine numbers ultimately determine the quality of the player?[/quotef496b8a] Essentially, yes. It seems to work very well if you're moving a guy within his positional group, so S to CB or T to G. If he has the athletic skills and size to play the position, it usually works out. The earlier you switch him, the better, though. I'm going to move Meadows before I even sign him. If I wait until after camp, he'll already have the potential to take a bigger ratings hit, and it's much worse if you wait until the second season. It doesn't work as well if you're making a more dramatic switch. A QB can have great RB numbers but not make the transition, for example. I have seen some RBs make a really successful move to WR, but I really just stick within the positional group when looking at possible moves. |
|
| Author: | JeeberD [ Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote375310a="Stretch"][quote375310a="JeeberD"]Osborne could be a huge stud, or he could bust on me. DE is a major need for us, so I'm taking that risk...[/quote375310a] Damn you JeeberD. I was trying to work my way back up to draft Osborne. I think he's going to be an absolute stud. Congrats on a great pick![/quote375310a] Thanks, fellow Jeremy. I really hope he's as good as we both think he is... |
|
| Author: | Cheesehead Craig [ Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quotebada18f="timmynausea"][quotebada18f="TurfToe"] So you're saying that his physical attributes (height/weight profile for starters) are the determinant and as with all positions, the combine numbers ultimately determine the quality of the player?[/quotebada18f] Essentially, yes. It seems to work very well if you're moving a guy within his positional group, so S to CB or T to G. If he has the athletic skills and size to play the position, it usually works out. The earlier you switch him, the better, though. I'm going to move Meadows before I even sign him. If I wait until after camp, he'll already have the potential to take a bigger ratings hit, and it's much worse if you wait until the second season. It doesn't work as well if you're making a more dramatic switch. A QB can have great RB numbers but not make the transition, for example. I have seen some RBs make a really successful move to WR, but I really just stick within the positional group when looking at possible moves.[/quotebada18f] But how does this compare if you simply play him out of position? Wouldn't the ratings hit not be as bad if he played several games at CB first? |
|
| Author: | timmynausea [ Wed Jul 04, 2007 4:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote8094ee5="Cheesehead Craig"] But how does this compare if you simply play him out of position? Wouldn't the ratings hit not be as bad if he played several games at CB first?[/quote8094ee5] Nope. I think what you're saying is logical, but not how it works in FOF. First of all, players develop very, very slowly playing out of position. Almost not at all. Beyond that, when I say he might take a bigger hit, I'm talking about his potential, not just his current ratings. For whatever reason, there is just less leeway on a position change as time passes, and you're more apt to take a devastating hit like 50/70-->20/50 as a second year player instead of 50/70-->45/66 as a freshly drafted rookie. |
|
| Author: | Meatholes [ Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote4bc0162="timmynausea"][quote4bc0162="Cheesehead Craig"] But how does this compare if you simply play him out of position? Wouldn't the ratings hit not be as bad if he played several games at CB first?[/quote4bc0162] Nope. I think what you're saying is logical, but not how it works in FOF. First of all, players develop very, very slowly playing out of position. Almost not at all. Beyond that, when I say he might take a bigger hit, I'm talking about his potential, not just his current ratings. For whatever reason, there is just less leeway on a position change as time passes, and you're more apt to take a devastating hit like 50/70-->20/50 as a second year player instead of 50/70-->45/66 as a freshly drafted rookie.[/quote4bc0162] Does playing someone at LDE instead of thier designated position of RDE slow devopment as it would be to play them at DT? |
|
| Author: | eckman [ Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry to hold the draft up. I have been getting many offers for the 13th pick. If i don't get an offer i feel i want to move for, i will pick by noon today. Thanks for all the offers. |
|
| Author: | timmynausea [ Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote04eb173="Meatholes"] Does playing someone at LDE instead of thier designated position of RDE slow devopment as it would be to play them at DT?[/quote04eb173] It seems it's not quite as bad, but they will still develop slower. Here's a thread that goes into detail about it: http://fof.sportplanet.gamespy.com/foru ... hp?t=58337 |
|
| Author: | Cheesehead Craig [ Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote7968677="timmynausea"][quote7968677="Cheesehead Craig"] But how does this compare if you simply play him out of position? Wouldn't the ratings hit not be as bad if he played several games at CB first?[/quote7968677] Nope. I think what you're saying is logical, but not how it works in FOF. First of all, players develop very, very slowly playing out of position. Almost not at all. Beyond that, when I say he might take a bigger hit, I'm talking about his potential, not just his current ratings. For whatever reason, there is just less leeway on a position change as time passes, and you're more apt to take a devastating hit like 50/70-->20/50 as a second year player instead of 50/70-->45/66 as a freshly drafted rookie.[/quote7968677] Thanks for the explanation Timmy. Like you said, it seems logical, but apparently it's simply not programmed into the game. Good to know this stuff. Oh, I don't think that Meadows was a reach at all at 1.11. He's an excellent pick. |
|
| Author: | eckman [ Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
We decide to take Donnell Younger RDE. After receiving several good offers we just liked this player better than what was out there for our team. Thanks again for the offers. |
|
| Author: | wademoore [ Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quotec0143c9="eckman"]We decide to take Donnell Younger RDE. After receiving several good offers we just liked this player better than what was out there for our team. Thanks again for the offers.[/quotec0143c9] I was playing catchup yesterday on the draft, entering stuff in the StelmackSoft utilities, etc.. and I was amazed out how Younger was just flashing out there saying "pick me! pick me!".. Nice pickup at 1.13 for sure, in many other drafts he's a top 5 pick. |
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quotec63f403="wademoore"][quotec63f403="eckman"]We decide to take Donnell Younger RDE. After receiving several good offers we just liked this player better than what was out there for our team. Thanks again for the offers.[/quotec63f403] I was playing catchup yesterday on the draft, entering stuff in the StelmackSoft utilities, etc.. and I was amazed out how Younger was just flashing out there saying "pick me! pick me!".. Nice pickup at 1.13 for sure, in many other drafts he's a top 5 pick.[/quotec63f403] Yes, good pick indeed at 1.13. |
|
| Author: | Raven Hawk [ Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Younger was a steal at 1.13 |
|
| Author: | Cheesehead Craig [ Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry for the delay guys, was offered a trade dependent on what eckman did and I promised I wouldn't pick until the guy saw who was taken. Turns out no trade and thus, I have picked my shiny new MLB in Cencerik since I lost out on keeping Pittman this offseason. Given my only other option was starting my 30/40 guy, this was a no-brainer. |
|
| Author: | Raven Hawk [ Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quotea3930b6="Cheesehead Craig"]Sorry for the delay guys, was offered a trade dependent on what eckman did and I promised I wouldn't pick until the guy saw who was taken. Turns out no trade and thus, I have picked my shiny new MLB in Cencerik since I lost out on keeping Pittman this offseason. Given my only other option was starting my 30/40 guy, this was a no-brainer.[/quotea3930b6] I'm a little surprised to see him go this early. I was hoping to snag him at 1.23. Oh well, that just means that other talent will fall to me at my spot. I think Cencerik is going to be a good one. Durham got a good CB in Norton, too. |
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was honestly expecting another RB to go before me and was rather disappointed to see Norton nabbed. Ah well, more choices and harder decisions ahead so I guess I need to get to making up my mind and pick someone... Edit: The guy I traded up to get was there but it was not an easy decision with what was out there. The next handful of picks should be interesting and have considerable value. A WLB running a 4.41 is [Borat] Nice! [/Borat]. |
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
dola Wow, we hit a brick wall. I thought we were carrying good momentum for the week, even through the holiday, only to hit a post-holiday speedbump. Hopefully it will pick up again heading into draft-clock-startage... |
|
| Author: | Stretch [ Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote1d2de71="TurfToe"]dola Wow, we hit a brick wall. I thought we were carrying good momentum for the week, even through the holiday, only to hit a post-holiday speedbump. Hopefully it will pick up again heading into draft-clock-startage...[/quote1d2de71] Sorry for the delay. I think eckman was evaluating trade options. I just acquired the 1.17 pick. I've put a trade proposal together and have sent it. As soon as I hear back on that, I'll either make that trade or make the selection. |
|
| Author: | wademoore [ Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote0c999dd="Stretch"][quote0c999dd="TurfToe"]dola Wow, we hit a brick wall. I thought we were carrying good momentum for the week, even through the holiday, only to hit a post-holiday speedbump. Hopefully it will pick up again heading into draft-clock-startage...[/quote0c999dd] Sorry for the delay. I think eckman was evaluating trade options. I just acquired the 1.17 pick. I've put a trade proposal together and have sent it. As soon as I hear back on that, I'll either make that trade or make the selection.[/quote0c999dd] I know the official clock hasn't started, but again I think we REALLY need a rule against re-trading a pick if you acquire it while that pick is on the board. |
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry, I wasn't talking about selections, i was talking about forum activity. |
|
| Author: | Shooter [ Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote436e71b="wademoore"] I know the official clock hasn't started, but again I think we REALLY need a rule against re-trading a pick if you acquire it while that pick is on the board.[/quote436e71b] We have one. You have 30 minutes to make the pick or the trade once the trade is confimred. Technically the draft hasn't started so I don't see how it applies yet. |
|
| Author: | wademoore [ Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote7a1b937="Shooter"][quote7a1b937="wademoore"] I know the official clock hasn't started, but again I think we REALLY need a rule against re-trading a pick if you acquire it while that pick is on the board.[/quote7a1b937] We have one. You have 30 minutes to make the pick or the trade once the trade is confimred. Technically the draft hasn't started so I don't see how it applies yet.[/quote7a1b937] It's just a principal thing for me. That a pick is on the clock, you trade for it, then turn around to trade it again? wtf? I just think it's wrong. |
|
| Author: | Raven Hawk [ Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote46fe82f="wademoore"][quote46fe82f="Shooter"][quote46fe82f="wademoore"] I know the official clock hasn't started, but again I think we REALLY need a rule against re-trading a pick if you acquire it while that pick is on the board.[/quote46fe82f] We have one. You have 30 minutes to make the pick or the trade once the trade is confimred. Technically the draft hasn't started so I don't see how it applies yet.[/quote46fe82f] It's just a principal thing for me. That a pick is on the clock, you trade for it, then turn around to trade it again? wtf? I just think it's wrong.[/quote46fe82f] I agree with Wade here. If the pick is on the clock and you trade for it, then make your pick. |
|
| Author: | thater [ Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quoteba24e09="Raven Hawk"][quoteba24e09="wademoore"][quoteba24e09="Shooter"][quoteba24e09="wademoore"] I know the official clock hasn't started, but again I think we REALLY need a rule against re-trading a pick if you acquire it while that pick is on the board.[/quoteba24e09] We have one. You have 30 minutes to make the pick or the trade once the trade is confimred. Technically the draft hasn't started so I don't see how it applies yet.[/quoteba24e09] It's just a principal thing for me. That a pick is on the clock, you trade for it, then turn around to trade it again? wtf? I just think it's wrong.[/quoteba24e09] I agree with Wade here. If the pick is on the clock and you trade for it, then make your pick.[/quoteba24e09] Yes, I believe it is the old Cooley Rule thanks to Fargo after getting the 10th overall pick from me in whatever year that was. |
|
| Author: | Stretch [ Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote184a912="wademoore"][quote184a912="Shooter"][quote184a912="wademoore"] I know the official clock hasn't started, but again I think we REALLY need a rule against re-trading a pick if you acquire it while that pick is on the board.[/quote184a912] We have one. You have 30 minutes to make the pick or the trade once the trade is confimred. Technically the draft hasn't started so I don't see how it applies yet.[/quote184a912] It's just a principal thing for me. That a pick is on the clock, you trade for it, then turn around to trade it again? wtf? I just think it's wrong.[/quote184a912] Sorry but teams in the NFL do this as well. There's nothing illegal about it. Besides, the clock hasn't started yet. If I haven't heard from JeeberD by noon central I'll make the pick. |
|
| Page 4 of 16 | All times are UTC-07:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|