I have had several people on the forums as well as privately bring up some issues with the more recent player ratings, and the fact that the player quality seems to have declined recently. I intend to write a blog post about this but thought I'd start with a thread so I can see what kind of questions this topic might bring, and also in a less formal format so I don't have to organize my thoughts as much as I need to for a blog post.

First, here's my vision for the player ratings: you have complete control over them. You can go into your settings and adjust each position, weighing different attributes than the default as you desire. So a player might be rated 99 for you and only 50 for your opponent - because, maybe, you only care about the pass blocking attribute, while they have a higher rating for the discipline etc.

The secondary attributes - like discipline, intelligence, speed (for players whose speed doesn't matter a lot like the OL), etc - are probably bringing your overall ratings down, because those attributes have been randomized quite a bit recently whereas before they all maxed out with the primary attributes. I just went through and tweaked the "recommended" values to help the 'sticker shock' when you take over a team - because they had some of those attributes weighed higher than they should.

So if you are looking at the draft class and don't like what you see, look more closely at the players in question - I want you to do that, that's a big part of the game. Look at the individual strengths and weaknesses, not just at the overall composite. And make the composite ratings what you want them to be - and save a few, if you like, and switch between them as you make various decisions.

The "average" player in the league is in the 50's. You shouldn't be able to have more than a few 90's rated players on your team, and they should demand a lot of money, and you should have to have players in the 50's to fill your roster. I am hoping you also need to start players in the 60's. If you have lots of 80's and 90's rated players, you should have a very hard time keeping them and staying under the salary cap. Also, the functional difference between a player in the 60's and a player in the 90's is less than you might think - while a 90's rated player will beat a 60's rated player most of the time, the 60's rated player can still beat the 90's rated player. Essentially, a 60's rated player will throw the perfect pass or kick the perfect kick less frequently than a 90's rated player, but these are all professionals and wouldn't even be in the league if they weren't competent to a reasonable degree.

Are we there yet? No, there really are some leagues with too many superstar players. This will take time to sift itself out. But it should start to resolve itself especially with salary cap issues - I have fielded a few questions about owners not being able to re-sign some of their superstars because they are asking for too much money - and if all goes as planned, we'll see more players entering free agency with higher ratings because of the salary cap, which will spread out those superstar players among the teams more.

Thanks for sticking through this post, I know it's disjointed but I wanted to throw these thoughts into a public forum. And I really do appreciate your patience and input as the game develops.

Thanx for this, good write up and explanation IMO

I appreciate you taking the time to make this post.

My issue is not with the overall ratings. It is with the individual skill ratings for the top players in the draft.

For example, in MFN 2 I changed my weights for QBs to basically only consider accuracy, arm strength, field of vision and release, along with intelligence and a small amount for avoid fumble.

The top rated QB in that draft pool has an accuracy rating of 20/81. The next best QB has an accuracy rating of 17/67.

There just doesn't seem to be any potentially great players anymore, considering the skill ratings, not the overall ratings.

Occasionally there will be a lineman with great pass/run blocking and a decent discipline rating, and maybe a great DT.

These drafts do not resemble real life, in my opinion. I can't forsee one of these drafts ever having a situation where there were two great QBs everyone was wondering who would go #1 and who would go #2, like is often the case in the NFL (whether they pan out or not). Where is the player that everyone knows can become the cornerstone of your franchise?

If these types of players are in these pools, I would like to see some examples. Maybe I am just looking at things wrong? Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about and 67 is actually very good for passing accuracy?

The bottom line (for me) is that I no longer look forward to the regular yearly drafts. Which is a disappointment because it used to be my favorite part, even if I didn't have a high pick. I liked seeing good players come into the league and what the drafting team would do with them, ideally something more than just fill out their roster.

I understand what you are saying but as far as QB's besides Andrew Luck what QB that was taken in the first round recently has been a franchise QB? To be honest seems like the better QB's have been taken in the 2nd round and later so QB isnt the best example. The talk has been there to take a lot of QB's in the first round but they just dont pan out and same goes for RB's. The draft is a gamble for the glorified positions in the NFL. Its why your seeing a trend that teams go for O-Line and defensive players usually in the top 5 now. Skilled positions are becoming a dime a dozen now and more fitting to a teams scheme then pure talent. Of course there are exceptions

I bet a QB goes first this year, probably 2 in the top 6.

Bortles went 3rd last year.
Luck / RGIII / Tannehill all in the top 10 in 2012.
4 in the top 12 in 2011.

The point is that regardless of whether these players turned into franchise QBs, they were all considered to have the potential to be one.

I'd rather have players projected to be great and then not quite live up to it, than to not even have anyone projected to be great.

While I've been outspoken in my defense of the new player gen system, which I definitely love, I wouldn't object to more players projected to be great but who fail to live up to that potential. The one fear I do have for that is user burnout. Nothing is more gutting than taking your amazing future-of-the-franchise QB #1 overall and seeing him bust after that first training camp, haha. So kind of deciding between the lesser of two evils in that respect.

You would definitley have to have some Andrew Lucks mixed in with the Jamarcus Russells.

But you'd also need Tom Bradys and Russell Wilson, players who BOOM with late round picks.

I think some sort of scouting could help a lot in this regard if we could somehow identify who might boom or bust.

I can say that I've seen several instances of 'Tom Bradys' and 'Russel Wilsons' in the little time I've thus far spent here, so I know those most definitely do exist; in fact, my L9 team lucked into one!

Who might that be? Just curious. I want to take a look at him.

We were just talking about one such player in MFN-1

http://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/player/7636

who happened to be cut by the team that drafted him (prior to the current owner, who had just lost a game to his current team) - drafted at 47/67 (by my weights) and is currently 74/81 and will likely get into the 90's easily.

I haven't investigated but I'd be curious how many of the current 80's and 90's players were drafted with much lower futures than that. I've had a handful of booms (my luck seems to be with RB's, I've had several who have improved way beyond what I expected) as well. I honestly don't know why more QB's don't land rated high, it has to just be a numbers thing with how many of each position is generated, because each player has the same probability along the spectrum. (Kickers and Punters are given a bonus which is why there are so many good ones. I do have a ticket to reduce the probability of a new player being generated as a kicker or punter.)