FanGM

Currently if a player has no published grade, and if they get used in the calculation for overall area averages (for offensive line, receivers, front-7, secondary) their value will default to 1.0 toward that average. Same situation for an empty spot, for example if you have 2 centers and both of them hurt so you have no healthy centers on your roster and it'll use a default value of 1.0 for a default backup body there when calculating your o-line average that needs a center position value.

The idea being not to completely wreck an average there (so give some value to a team being able to find somebody even out of position to take snaps there if nobody else can), but make a dent in the overall average calculation in those cases where no grade value at that spot to reward overall depth on teams. If the backup default for empty grades is really high, then no sense even signing a backup player with a real grade (of 4.0 or whatever) if the system gives you that kind of player for free anyway. So from the start we gave that empty uniform filler spot some value, but not a high value.

This question would be is 1.0 a good value for that as we use now, or should we increase it to say 2.0 or 3.0 for empty roster spot or no grade players?

I voted for higher grades.

My lowest rostered player is a 64 punter whose grade is 4.4. Realistically if a team signed a FA off the street he is going to be somewhere around 2.0 or 3.0 rather than 1.0. I would like to think I would be a 1.0 and not someone who is good enough to be signed by an NFL team.

On the other hand though I suppose it's that GM's responsibility to get a player signed to fill that role and not give them an advantage of higher default averages.

For reference:

90 - 7.0
80 - 6.0
70 - 5.0
60 - 4.0
My assumption is that a 50 would get a 3.0

Based on that information, I would say an empty roster spot should remain at 1.0 (or 0) and a 'no grade' player should be 2.0 or 2.5.

JonC wrote:Based on that information, I would say an empty roster spot should remain at 1.0 (or 0) and a 'no grade' player should be 2.0 or 2.5.

I'll have to check into it further, but something like that might be doable if supported and is kind of a mix between keeping the 1.0's still for empties but bending a little on guys without grades to have a little more value than empty roster spots. Especially if the voting is largely mixed, then maybe a mixed solution would fit best.

The thing I worry about in making defaults too high is that it removes some benefit of quality depth. If even teams with poor depth and tons of players out of the league on their rosters with no grades get good averages anyway because we make those guys worth just about the same as real guys on real teams with real grades, it takes away the rewards of building quality depth arguably, when we just have the sim give all teams great depth anyway no matter what. That's why we gave those guys lower values than players that could be signed, and encouragement that if you don't like that sign a guy actually in the league with a grade instead of guys no NFL team wants. I could see maybe updating the database at start of season where all guys with 0 grades get 2.0 value (or something) and the grade calculator treat the empty spots as it has been with 1.0. I don't think either of those are probably too high where it still gives more benefit to actually signing a real guy with real grade.

What if we knock down a player's rating by 10 points every 4 weeks he isn't on an NFL roster or rated by Madden?

For example, John Smith ended last season with an 80 rating, but wasn't rated by Madden when the new season started. So he gets a 70. If he doesn't appear on the Madden updates within the next 4 weeks, he drops to 60. If he still isn't rated after another 4 weeks, he drops to 50, and so on.

It would allow teams to gamble on some players that could arguably be picked up off the street during the season, while still encouraging the signing of players that are actually on NFL rosters.

Ben C. wrote:What if we knock down a player's rating by 10 points every 4 weeks he isn't on an NFL roster or rated by Madden?

For example, John Smith ended last season with an 80 rating, but wasn't rated by Madden when the new season started. So he gets a 70. If he doesn't appear on the Madden updates within the next 4 weeks, he drops to 60. If he still isn't rated after another 4 weeks, he drops to 50, and so on.

It would allow teams to gamble on some players that could arguably be picked up off the street during the season, while still encouraging the signing of players that are actually on NFL rosters.

Requires more work and individual player tracking, but makes some sense. Could be checked into how much would be involved in that.

The best advise is probably for our teams to act like the NFL more with these veteran fringe guys. Since guaranteed contract, they are more likely to be cut before the regular season, and then picked up after the season starts when needed when guarantees no longer apply. Veterans get cut in the NFL, maybe more than sim GMs willing to do here. We could change our rules to keep those fringe guys much more valuable (even as the NFL won't employ them), or our teams could just cut them like the NFL does if worried about guarantees there.

I agree that a non roster spot being a 1.0 and a player without a grade a 3.0.

Goodell wrote:

JonC wrote:Based on that information, I would say an empty roster spot should remain at 1.0 (or 0) and a 'no grade' player should be 2.0 or 2.5.

I'll have to check into it further, but something like that might be doable if supported and is kind of a mix between keeping the 1.0's still for empties but bending a little on guys without grades to have a little more value than empty roster spots. Especially if the voting is largely mixed, then maybe a mixed solution would fit best.

The thing I worry about in making defaults too high is that it removes some benefit of quality depth. If even teams with poor depth and tons of players out of the league on their rosters with no grades get good averages anyway because we make those guys worth just about the same as real guys on real teams with real grades, it takes away the rewards of building quality depth arguably, when we just have the sim give all teams great depth anyway no matter what. That's why we gave those guys lower values than players that could be signed, and encouragement that if you don't like that sign a guy actually in the league with a grade instead of guys no NFL team wants. I could see maybe updating the database at start of season where all guys with 0 grades get 2.0 value (or something) and the grade calculator treat the empty spots as it has been with 1.0. I don't think either of those are probably too high where it still gives more benefit to actually signing a real guy with real grade.

I'd agree completely with this. There's definitely a need to not overemphasize these marginal players, but at the same time...they are only not receiving a grade because for some reason, real life GMs believe that a veteran marginal player is a better allocation of resources than a rookie marginal player.

I would give anyone on a roster a grade of 50. Just because a GM opted not to choose them for the last spot on their real life roster, doesn't mean they aren't of similar value to the players chosen there.


Basically, anyone on an NFL roster has a grade at least 50 or so, right? So, anyone on OUR rosters should have the same grade.

Jared A wrote:I would give anyone on a roster a grade of 50. Just because a GM opted not to choose them for the last spot on their real life roster, doesn't mean they aren't of similar value to the players chosen there.


Basically, anyone on an NFL roster has a grade at least 50 or so, right? So, anyone on OUR rosters should have the same grade.

Isn't that saying, though, that your personnel decisions for depth don't matter so much. Fill your roster up with 30 guys who'll be out of the league next year and no biggie, they'll still be decent backup grades anyway automatically. No matter who they are. In the league, out of the league, all good. Just focus on signing 22 starters for as much of your cap as you can and leave the rest to a bunch of empty roster spots or guys out of the league and they'll still be decent enough backup grades without having to do any work to sign backup depth. Different from fantasy game, we hope to make this more of a 53-man roster team building game where depth matters a lot.

I think we can increase the value from 1.0 but if it gets too high it's basically saying who you have as backup becomes increasingly irrelevant the higher any backup no matter who they are have heightened grades comparable to signing real guys in the league instead. To me in a 53-man roster game, that should matter more and winning on depth should be part of the gameplay in a GM based game where real GMs focus so much on entire roster depth.