FOF 7.2 Update

[Dutch]

I kind of know about the "cliff" but I never took I seriously. I'm a....so the chance of this dude being good is .00003%? So you're saying there's a chance!!

[Aston]

Those cliffs were super serious stuff. But I do agree with you guys. The draft to me has always been something to learn and I'm glad that there were so many resources available for that -- and I had spent no shortage of time trying to pass on what I had gathered. But no matter what, people weren't remembering these numbers. ">37 position drill on a defense back" isn't the kind of thing that sticks with people. It's not meaningful.

I think we're going to go with 39 here. I wish Jim would just take the constraints out of everything, though. That way we can have both the "default accuracy" as well as the "no constraints" behavior.

[irabowman]

This was very reason I left the OSFL the first go around. It was frustrating to know that everyone could look just look at combines and pick star after star.

Not. Fun.

LMAO Not everyone can, I strike out all the time with my later picks. I usally get 2 good picks out of 7, if I have my 1st & 2nd rd picks.

[Guest]

Those cliffs were super serious stuff. But I do agree with you guys. The draft to me has always been something to learn and I'm glad that there were so many resources available for that -- and I had spent no shortage of time trying to pass on what I had gathered. But no matter what, people weren't remembering these numbers. ">37 position drill on a defense back" isn't the kind of thing that sticks with people. It's not meaningful.

I think we're going to go with 39 here. I wish Jim would just take the constraints out of everything, though. That way we can have both the "default accuracy" as well as the "no constraints" behavior.

Is that the kind of thing he was talking about, like >37 PD on CB? Dayummmmm. Anyone with less than 37 PD on CBs tended to look pretty crappy anyway across the board, right?

[Guest]

BTW - Off topic, but is midweek nixed or evening sim?

[Aston]

Oh, gosh. I thought I had done it already -- my mistake. I'll run it now.

Most players with bad combines tended to be "obviously" bad, but it wasn't always clear what was a bad combine and what wasn't. For example, some combine scores that weren't green were nonetheless very bad.

[Guest]

Oh, gosh. I thought I had done it already -- my mistake. I'll run it now.

Most players with bad combines tended to be "obviously" bad, but it wasn't always clear what was a bad combine and what wasn't. For example, some combine scores that weren't green were nonetheless very bad.

TBH in the past version I mostly based my drafting on bar patterns and outlier combine scores, with malcpow coming in later. I hardly looked at it in later rounds and probably did myself a disservice.

Combine outliers seem to be less important in this version.

[umd]

This was very reason I left the OSFL the first go around. It was frustrating to know that everyone could look just look at combines and pick star after star.

Not. Fun.

Me too. That and the interface just sucks. I wish it was more intuitive.