New Sticky Note

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

League Forums

Main - League News/General Discussion

Re: 2005 Draft Discussion

By Ritzi
7/07/2018 2:43 am
I have set my top 12 Players, but honestly - this draft class is sh...!

You dont have a surefire star at a skill Position like in many other drafts. Either the Players in this one arnt that good or they carry a lot of Risk with them. Just look at the 2001 draft to compare it.

Re: 2005 Draft Discussion

By Smirt211
7/07/2018 4:00 am
Ritzi wrote:
I have set my top 12 Players, but honestly - this draft class is sh...!

You dont have a surefire star at a skill Position like in many other drafts. Either the Players in this one arnt that good or they carry a lot of Risk with them. Just look at the 2001 draft to compare it.


It is sh** and very disappointing. At #10 I should be able to add a difference maker. I was just looking and if it breaks bad I'm looking at getting a player rated akin to where I normally draft in the middle to the end of the round; skewed more towards end of round.

That's the issue. Between weak drafts and up until this point non-existent FA classes due to a newish league, there's no way to improve one's team....

Re: 2005 Draft Discussion

By Smirt211
7/07/2018 4:49 am
I actually pick 8th and just splattered a list together. I don't tank, battle hard every game and honestly I feel bad for those picking after me...

Don't want to discuss too much tactics except a generalized this is BS draft class. shakes head I get that the days of /99s-95s are over but how can teams improve when this is what's put out there.

Re: 2005 Draft Discussion

By Mcarovil
7/07/2018 5:34 pm
Yawn. Always picking at 7:30 or 7:45 pm, I have plenty of time during draft day to watch all the good players go well before I pick some 70 rated scrub hoping he booms to 75. Ha ha. I can’t complain though.

Re: 2005 Draft Discussion

By greyghost1225
7/07/2018 5:35 pm
Maybe someone in the AFC will step up and challenge you some day, lol.

Re: 2005 Draft Discussion

By Ritzi
7/08/2018 4:14 pm
Sorry Mcarovil, but i think you are defintly wrong here.

Just because thats not the point. This draft is just very weak. Just look at the 2001 draft for example. There is not a single Player in this draft that could compete with one of those from 2001. Also in the later rounds. In my other league i did pick a DE with OVR 88 with #85. Of Course he had some Risk attached to him, but in that draft there has been a possibility to get that Kind of Player aith that pick. I dont see any Player that has that Kind of potential and could fall to the third.

Usually there are Always such Players in the third and fourth. I had such picks regulary. But we can see after the draft, how many picks in the third are over OVR 80 (OL not included)? I had a DE and WR in that league with 88 and 82.

Re: 2005 Draft Discussion

By raidergreg69
7/08/2018 7:07 pm
greyghost1225 wrote:
Maybe someone in the AFC will step up and challenge you some day, lol.


We need a dislike button.

Re: 2005 Draft Discussion

By Ritzi
7/09/2018 2:14 am
Check this!

In the 2001 draft we had at 1.1 a WR with low Vol. that just fell short of beeing 90+ (Default he has 87 now).

That draft also features 3 other WRs in the top 10 that has 90+ Ratings. 1.3, 1.4 and 1.9. - 1.3 and 1.4 had Vol. 26 and 32 so its fair to say they where sure bets to be high 80s at least. 1.9 had Vol 48 if i recall it right, that a bit higher but you could be sure to get a #1 WR too. 1.2 was a Stud OL i think.

I dont see that amount of sure top players in the hole draft. 2001 may have been an excelent one, but this one is definitly poor.

Re: 2005 Draft Discussion

By Mcarovil
7/09/2018 7:27 am
Every player has a 50/50 chance of booming or busting. VOL does not increase the chances of busting. Just how much change is in that players future.

JDB was supposed to add several “diamonds in the rough” to these watered down drafts but honestly I haven’t seen them compared to the trade off of higher talent. Drafting used to be my favorite part of this game but now it’s just eh.

I’ve had guys with +70 vol only move about 3/4 points and vice versa. It’s really a **** shoot.
Ritzi wrote:
Check this!

In the 2001 draft we had at 1.1 a WR with low Vol. that just fell short of beeing 90+ (Default he has 87 now).

That draft also features 3 other WRs in the top 10 that has 90+ Ratings. 1.3, 1.4 and 1.9. - 1.3 and 1.4 had Vol. 26 and 32 so its fair to say they where sure bets to be high 80s at least. 1.9 had Vol 48 if i recall it right, that a bit higher but you could be sure to get a #1 WR too. 1.2 was a Stud OL i think.

I dont see that amount of sure top players in the hole draft. 2001 may have been an excelent one, but this one is definitly poor.

Re: 2005 Draft Discussion

By Ritzi
7/09/2018 10:38 am
I know that it "only" has influence on how much a player can boom or bust and not if he goes in one direction or not.

But still: Lets say you pick first overall, wich one would you rather draft? A CB with a Future Rating of 96 and Vol 0 or a CB with Future Rating 96 and Vol 100? All other Ratings are the same...

You cant say that Vol doesnt have an impact, i did see a player taken first overall with Vol 100 drop 30 points in Camp. That was one season ago, and it was a bonehead move. But still it proves that Vol. has a big influence.