Just a bit, wouldn't you say :)

With the 64th overall pick, Green Bay chooses the first quaterback in the 2033 draft:

http://s92878788.onlinehome.us/problem8.gif

He's a Trojan alum and a great looking starter.. think I can work out a trade? ;)

OHMYGOD, it's Todd Marinovich! :o

damn, what a prospect. Could you keep an eye on him and see how he's doing. One question do you like 5.0d of 5.0c. I haven't updated yet cause of all the problems.

More like Carson Palmer ;)

Update: 4243 yards and 26 TD's in his first season as a starter. Easy Rookie of the Year choice.

OHMYGOD, it's Todd Marinovich! http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/redface.gifBut did Marinovich look like this before the start of his second season :)

http://s92878788.onlinehome.us/problem9.gif

His "kick holding" is a little low for my tastes... :D

Good point dutch. I almost got excited about this until you mentioned that.

:)

Seriously though, this is what Jim says about level of play based on drafting status. The guy was picked #64 overall, so I would assume there were not many QB's ahead of him and not many teams interested in QB's, and he just slipped. Perhaps the guys picked before him were even better than this guy!!

From Jim's Help file - Here's a chart I compiled showing the currently active players at each position by the level they were drafted. The first number shows how often a player from that position was drafted in the top three picks of the draft related to how many players there are from that position in the league. The second number shows that frequency for the entire first round. And the third number shows how many percentage points each draft position seems to be worth given the player's level of play.

Position Top 3 Picks First Round Level of Play per Pick
QB 4.0 1.1 0.174
HB 1.7 1.3 0.032
FB 0.0 1.2 0.032
TE 0.0 0.6 0.014
WR 0.6 1.2 0.014
G 0.0 0.7 0.010
T 1.3 2.0 0.010
C 0.0 0.1 0.010
P 0.0 0.0 0.002
K 0.0 0.0 0.034
DT 1.9 1.3 0.030
DE 2.2 1.9 0.030
LB 0.7 0.7 0.046
CB 0.3 1.2 0.018

S 0.7 0.5 0.018

The level of play is based on an average of the ratings relevant to a player's position. For instance, if you have a defensive tackle drafted in the second round, and one drafted in the fifth round, you would expect the player in the second round to have (0.030 * 45 picks = 1.35) percent better ratings across the board. That may not seem like a lot, but it will amount to a significant difference over the course of a season.

I smell a bug.

Look at his bureau rating and adjusted rating: 8.7 and 1.0, respectively. When the QB adjust is applied to 8.7, it becomes a smidge over 10.0. I'm guessing Jim never expected to have to deal with double-digit bureau ratings, this it's representation as a 1.0 adjusted rating.

You could have drafted all day, and the AI wouldn't have come within 10 feet of him.

I wonder if that 1.0 adjusted rating causes a problem.

I smell a bug.

Look at his bureau rating and adjusted rating: 8.7 and 1.0, respectively. When the QB adjust is applied to 8.7, it becomes a smidge over 10.0. I'm guessing Jim never expected to have to deal with double-digit bureau ratings, this it's representation as a 1.0 adjusted rating.

You could have drafted all day, and the AI wouldn't have come within 10 feet of him.

But he was drafted in the 2nd round. That isn't where he should have gone, but it ain't too shabby either. I think it has got to be more complicated than that.

But he was drafted in the 2nd round. That isn't where he should have gone, but it ain't too shabby either. I think it has got to be more complicated than that.
I assumed that amdaily was the Packers.

If he isn't, of course, then that blows my theory to hell.

But he was drafted in the 2nd round. That isn't where he should have gone, but it ain't too shabby either. I think it has got to be more complicated than that.I've seen some evidence that the AI will grab guys with AAA combine ratings well apart from where their adjusted ratings say they "should" go.

This was the first QB taken in the draft and I was not the Packers. Definitely something wrong.

Edit - Just noticed the 1.0 :).

Further....things have changed considerably....

http://www.younglifenorthlake.com/fof/firstround.jpg

It sounds like adjusted rating is just one part of several factors which decides draft position and that this guy "slipped" to where he did because of the adjusted rating. Interesting that his adjusted rating was 1.0 or whatever and he still want fairly high for that rating.. makes me wonder what the secret formula for determining draft status is.

Further....things have changed considerably....

can you clairify what you mean by this? thanks.

2 in 35 years for me:

http://s92878788.onlinehome.us/problem10.gif

What is up with the guards going first!?!

can you clairify what you mean by this? thanks.Three QB's taken #1 overall in 17 years (as compared to one in 28 years with 5.0-->5.0b), but it sounds like amdaily is getting different results.

Three QB's taken #1 overall in 17 years (as compared to one in 28 years with 5.0-->5.0b), but it sounds like amdaily is getting different results.Even with your stats though, I don't think it was a big enough improvement. And technically I got cheated out of one, Rice should have been a number 1 pick :).

Even with your stats though, I don't think it was a big enough improvement. And technically I got cheated out of one, Rice should have been a number 1 pick :).Got a link to a list of real-life #1's?

What is up with the guards going first!?!
We speculated in the free agency thread that there are to many and to good offensive linemen (as they are left over at the end of FA moreso than any other position). Is this simply more evidence of that?

Got a link to a list of real-life #1's?
http://football.about.com/library/weekly/bl_draftfirst.htm

What is up with the guards going first!?!Also,

Orlando Pace was the only OL to go #1 in recent NFL history, yet OL comprise nearly 30% of the FOF #1's.

Edit - I'm my league anyways, SkyDog again came up different. I believe were using the same settings though.

Trends aside, the fact that this guy slipped that far is an alarming solitary incident. This guy should have been (without question) a 1st rounder, and coming out of college he's probably better than half the starting quarterbacks in the league.

http://football.about.com/library/weekly/bl_draftfirst.htmI would say thanks, but being reminded of Aundray Bruce wasn't a good thing. :(

Three QB's taken #1 overall in 17 years (as compared to one in 28 years with 5.0-->5.0b), but it sounds like amdaily is getting different results.
amdaily is always getting different results.

Trends aside, the fact that this guy slipped that far is an alarming solitary incident. This guy should have been (without question) a 1st rounder, and coming out of college he's probably better than half the starting quarterbacks in the league.I have a strong suspicion that this is a small bug related to the fact that his adjusted rating was only 1.0. As someone pointed out, it is likely a formula that doesn't expect a value >10.0

amdaily is always getting different results.
Screenshots don't lie.

amdaily is always getting different results.;)

For a while, he wouldn't use 200 injuries, and he apparently has an aversion to salary inflation as well. amdaily is very good at analyzing things, but I suspect that he wants things to work out in the settings that he likes. :p

We speculated in the free agency thread that there are to many and to good offensive linemen (as they are left over at the end of FA moreso than any other position). Is this simply more evidence of that?

If there were too many good offensive linemen to go around, wouldn't that make it less likely that a team would need to take an offensive guard with the 1st pick? Also, it is amazing that an OG went 1st three times in a row in your career, and more often then QB's went first. An OG has never gone first in real life and yet almost 16% of your 1st round picks were OG's. This would appear to need some tweaking.

Bad math.. it's actually about 14% of the picks that were OG's.. still seems unrealistic.

;)

For a while, he wouldn't use 200 injuries, and he apparently has an aversion to salary inflation as well. amdaily is very good at analyzing things, but I suspect that he wants things to work out in the settings that he likes. :p
That would be nice wouldn't it :).

I did have an epiphany on the injury issue last week and posted in big bold letter that they must be set to 200. That solved multiple problems right then and there :).

If there were too many good offensive linemen to go around, wouldn't that make it less likely that a team would need to take an offensive guard with the 1st pick? Also, it is amazing that an OG went 1st three times in a row in your career, and more often then QB's went first. An OG has never gone first in real life and yet almost 16% of your 1st round picks were OG's. This would appear to need some tweaking.

Bad math.. it's actually about 14% of the picks that were OG's.. still seems unrealistic.
Perhaps they are also overvalued.

no, they don't

http://fc.furman.edu/%7Echristopher.mason/difference.jpg

If there were too many good offensive linemen to go around, wouldn't that make it less likely that a team would need to take an offensive guard with the 1st pick? Also, it is amazing that an OG went 1st three times in a row in your career, and more often then QB's went first. An OG has never gone first in real life and yet almost 16% of your 1st round picks were OG's. This would appear to need some tweaking.

Bad math.. it's actually about 14% of the picks that were OG's.. still seems unrealistic.That speculation was around just centers.

I did have an epiphany on the injury issue last week and posted in big bold letter that they must be set to 200. That solved multiple problems right then and there :).Oh, you better believe I saw it, and I am pretty stinkin' impressed with myself that I didn't take the opportunity to gloat, razz you, or anything. :D

By the way, I haven't seen that many (or any guards) drafted 1st in my league. I was just stating that from that screen shot, that the game's evaluation of guards in the draft might be faulty.

Is that quarterback's name "Miles Long"? Ha.

Oh, you better believe I saw it, and I am pretty stinkin' impressed with myself that I didn't take the opportunity to gloat, razz you, or anything. :DThat's makes two of us :).

Trends aside, the fact that this guy slipped that far is an alarming solitary incident. This guy should have been (without question) a 1st rounder, and coming out of college he's probably better than half the starting quarterbacks in the league.


You could say that... that QB probably should've gone in the top five picks.... hopefully whatever bug that's causing this will be fixed soon...:)

My question would be, how did you pass on that guy, not once but twice?