It may be close to real life for the Browns, and pretty accurate if you let the Ai pick for you, but I wouldn't set that as the bar.

The Browns are probably the worst. That's not what I aspire to.

I would rather have a chance to be more like the Patriots.

2001 - 2012 NFL Drafts
12 drafts - 13 first round picks

Of those 13, 8 became Pro-Bowlers

The 5 who did not:
Ty Warren was a starter on the DL for 6 consecutive seasons.
Ben Watson was a decent #2 TE for them for 5 or 6 seasons, then played 6 more seasons elsewhere primarily as a starter.
Daniel Graham was a bust at TE.
Lawrence Maroney was a bust at RB.
Nate Solder has started every game for them on the OL since he was drafted, with the exception of when he was out with injury.

So, out of 13 #1 picks, I would only count 3 as a bust (Watson / Graham / Maroney).

Also good to remember, of those 13 picks, only 4 were in the top 20.


Would that ever happen in MFN without some serious luck with the "dice rolls"?
Not if the Browns are the standard.

that's just one team though. Go look at at at multiple teams and there's more balance. Especially in top 10 picks there are a lot of guys that don't become stars or even get a second contract with their team. I do agree it's a **** shoot sometime on mfn and you don't have enough to really determine if a guy with high vol will bust or not. If we had more attributes like attitude, leadership, work ethic, etc, we might have more to go by. As it is, i like that the draft is not guaranteed stars year in and year out. it makes me study that much more and develop strategies for early and late rounds.

I'm not saying every pick should be a star player, but I would prefer that there wasn't such a high probability of busts in early rounds.

My point in using the Patriots as above example is that what they've done isn't even possible in MFN without a bunch of really lucky dice rolls. There is no option to be good at evaluating players. Just lucky.

You mention studying. What is there to study when it's just all random?

i disagree that you can't have good drafts in mfn. I think you can base your draft around drafting a certain way that you minimize your risks early and maximize them later. I do agree sometimes you have to just pray but a lot of the players i draft in my leagues will still be good even if they bust or go down by the ratings that are stable. You can see across leagues where certain teams build through the draft even with the risks. In a league like 75 it is much tougher but still possible. I'm not trying to argue or anything i just think the draft shouldnt yield too many superstars like some games i've played. It's a good debate that more opinions should be welcomed :)

My draft in MFN24 last season netted me 8 starting caliber players, all of them except one I have rated at 80+ (future potential) after just one season.

Well, IRL (in real life) you guys took the two teams on opposite ends of the spectrum to back up your arguments. I honestly think if you look around the entire NFL, you will have as many 1st/2nd Round busts as we do.....and probably as many 6th/7th Round boomers.

Only a handful of ppl had any idea that Dak Prescott (4th Rd) would be as great as he has been. And only a handful were totally wrong about Ezekiel Elliott (1st Rd) being a bust.

You will always be hit or miss with these drafts, regardless of how much information you have. My personal strategy so far (only 1 draft in any League) is low Vol early/high Vol late. It seems to minimize my risk. Granted I honestly can't tell you if it works consistently, yet. :/

The Patriots are one end of the bell curve, the Browns are the other. The rest of the league is somewhere in between. Is it unlikely to flip 8 heads out of 13 trials? Sure (15.71%, in fact). But if 32 people are flipping coins, what are the odds at least one of them will get 8? Almost guaranteed (99.58%). So actually, in MFN terms, it's not only possible, but extremely likely that someone will be the Patriots. And on the other end of the coin, just as likely that someone will be the hapless Browns, too. Yes, it is frustrating that we have no control over that, but there's no good solution that I've yet heard. JDB believes that any type of 'scouting' mechanic will promote cheating. So if you want to limit your 'bust' potential, draft conservatively and get low vol guys.

I think part of the reason it may "feel" like top end picks bust more than they boom, is because when they boom, you don't really see much benefit, since they were likely already close to 'perfect' to begin with (not to mention confirmation bias: if you think you get unfairly punished by busts, you're going to always focus on the negative outcomes and forget all the positives).

I personally like the system, but then again I've also been a vocal fan of nerfing the current player gen system that pumps out tons of perfect-in-every-conceivable-category players. I like a "weaker" and imperfect player base overall, because it forces users to think more about how to use and value their players. There's nothing to think about with a player 100 rated in literally every way, and I find that both boring and unrealistic. I think it'd be way way cooler if a perfect 100 in all categories player was a once in a generation type, that everyone would be shocked to see. But maybe I'm just an odd duck.

I've thought about that as well, how many players in a real football league would truly be rated at 100 speed, or 100 strength. How many Guards in the day were as strong as Larry Allen for the Cowboys, how many guys had Darrell Green like speed? How many RBs have young Chris Johnson like speed? There shouldn't be 20-30+ players in every draft that have 100 speed (if we're talking about a realistic comparison of physical attributes versus what you'd normally see).

i was talking to Flys about this exact thing. I said how many guys in the NFL run like Deion Sanders or Adrien Peterson at their positions? Why is there so many 100 speed guys? there should rarely if ever be a guy that high imo. This devalues certain attributes so much cause they're so prevalent.

I consider the ratings to be relative to the MFN universe, where a 100 does not mean perfect.

How many times have we seen a fumble by a player with 100 avoid fumble? Or a drop by a player with 100 catch?

100 speed in MFN doesn't mean Usain Bolt, even if the player were the same height and weight.

Also a 100 in MFN is not the same for every player due to the other items like weight, experience, play knowledge, fatigue, pressure on a QB, etc.

Anyway I say all this because some of you seem to think a 100/100 WR in MFN is the same as Jerry Rice mixed with Bo Jackson and Carl Lewis.

I don't see it that way.

More like Antonio Brown or Steve Smith.