nah, thought you were the better side. Lots of holes on my side need addressing - gameplan still not where I want it to be.

Good game Packers! Good luck the rest of the season.

Yeah, you too Las Vegas. I predicted a 48–10 win by us over you, but it is how it is. Hopefully we do successfull throughout the rest of the season.

Bears Safeties, #31 Bunch & #9 Bass, "Sheriff" Bass was picked up off waivers on Mid Week 2 sim after being cut by the Packers. So far, he has put up a great stat line, only 30% CA on 30 thrown ats, 14 tackles/1 miss. His default rating is only 66, my special sauce weights have him rated 84. He's a good recommendation for custom weighting, so far, hopefully this post doesnt jinx him, lol. Big test against the Bucs next game.

Cool kids don't use weightings, all versions have flaws.

I dont agree Mr Cool Kid, weights have been an important part of my player evaluation, but what do I know? I just keep winning. lol

add... one of the big mistakes made in this game is using only the default weights, and have advised many not to do so.

There are different metrics used, as per Seth.

Agree default weightings are poor, but weightings are too restricted.

Speed key in current engine - great, weight it high. Problem is that then skews everything, you find high speed players rated higher than those with lower speed, better overall attributes.

You then raise weightings of the other skills, end up with lower speed players rated higher.

The weighting formulae imo aren't too fit for purpose.

I guess my weights have worked out real well over several years, including comparisons and debate with Seth's recommendations. By the way Martin, if you havnt already read or know about it, highly recommend the book "Seth Speaks". not game related. I was mysteriously guided to the book back in the 90s. Anyway, speed is always a key consideration, there are exceptions that show up in the league player stats, and highly rated (90+) dont always produce to their rating. Ive had a couple of players that come to mind right away, in different versions of the game, that were sub 70 speed and average overall rating that were superstars, consistently, not just one or two seasons. Nothing in their attributes indicated that high level of performance, one was a TE the other a WR. The one who was a TE was before the increase of TE performance overall, which was really astounding. There have been many playoff teams that Ive played against that had me wondering how they did so well with the roster that they had. Roster is only half the game, play selection and gameplan/rules/scouting is the other. There is alsothe part of the game that you cant account for, it defies analyses and probability, the X factor for lack of a better term. The luck of the sim. Similar to what the game is trying to simulate as much as possible. Just noticed how "sim" popped up in three words in those last two sentences, relativity. :)

I really like the pic of the two Bear safeties, the numbers match. Dont like the size of the image/pic, it has changed recently to the larger size but a few have been normal, mentioned it to JDB.

I guess what I'm saying is the weighting system is too linear.

Need high speed? Then weight it high - but it can then rank players with, as you say, lower speed as lesser players. The weighting system just isn't set up for such an imbalance. Even with setting weights over years, still have times when players rated in the 60s perform well.

These days I tend to look for minimum attribute values. I know Seth looked at creating a formula that way, which has a lot of merit. Playing around with a few more advancements, but that's a longer term thing.

Its definitely a debatable subject, but... I love when my weights find a gem sitting in the FA pile, like Bass. Again, so far anyway, short term, will see how it goes longer term. Will be interesting.