|
Post by squirrel on Sept 27, 2018 16:02:37 GMT -5
I think Squirrel's spreadsheet is going in the right direction. But unless I am missing something there is nothing in there that allows for the overall rating to be taken into consideration. I think this could be built in, and then at that point we have really have a nice tool. Think we're saying the same thing Nick. The spreadsheet you looked at may not have had the function for putting in the overall rating...but just because of a cock up by me. Now fixed and you'll see it work along the lines you describe I think Welcome any further comments on this. I'm here to learn. Intrigued by the idea that sol or int could be a factor here...I don't factor that in, perhaps I should
|
|
|
Post by jeremy on Sept 27, 2018 16:05:45 GMT -5
Garrison is +3.3
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Sept 27, 2018 16:07:45 GMT -5
I think Squirrel's spreadsheet is going in the right direction. But unless I am missing something there is nothing in there that allows for the overall rating to be taken into consideration. I think this could be built in, and then at that point we have really have a nice tool. Think we're saying the same thing Nick. The spreadsheet you looked at may not have had the function for putting in the overall rating...but just because of a cock up by me. Now fixed and you'll see it work along the lines you describe I think Welcome any further comments on this. I'm here to learn. Intrigued by the idea that sol or int could be a factor here...I don't factor that in, perhaps I should No you 100% shouldn't. What we are working towards is a factual mathematical calculation. Something Jim didn't want us to have. SOL/INT floats around the truth in a very random way. As we can see from Greathouse it can be miles off. It is a separate entity.
|
|
|
Post by jeremy on Sept 27, 2018 16:07:54 GMT -5
Just watched someone change it -3.3 in real time.
|
|
|
Post by squirrel on Sept 27, 2018 16:09:20 GMT -5
Sorry mate, hit refresh. I have him -3.3. So the logic is: His bars, just his bars, mean he should be 83.3. But he is 80. So the hidden ratings make a contribution of minus 3.3 So still a boss QB skills-wise, but you're going to get plenty of picks along the way. Don't be too surprised if you find him losing the odd game to a keep-it-tight 40/40 guy with next to no red bars
|
|
|
Post by jeremy on Sept 27, 2018 16:09:59 GMT -5
But below 0 is good. Yes?
|
|
|
Post by jeremy on Sept 27, 2018 16:11:05 GMT -5
Sorry mate, hit refresh. I have him -3.3. So the logic is: His bars, just his bars, mean he should be 83.3. But he is 80. So the hidden ratings make a contribution of minus 3.3 So still a boss QB skills-wise, but you're going to get plenty of picks along the way. Don't be too surprised if you find him losing the odd game to a keep-it-tight 40/40 guy with next to no red bars lol ok. It was intersting to watch it change in front of my eyes Funny, I always see him losing. Period. He is also 5'9".
|
|
|
Post by ezlee2 on Sept 27, 2018 16:15:31 GMT -5
I don't know any reliable shorthand way to do it... ...but to show you what Nick means I've just put together a quick google sheet you can use to get an answer on your QB. Follow the link below and fill in the green boxes with your guy's details. Then follow the key at the bottom to get a sense for the hidden avoid INT rating and what it means. Hopefully it's clear, ping me if it isn't. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_a9GBxTw0i4jK07O6d6PS6oX7Vi-PHyEXDwCjA7HGHE Outstanding!! These are the types of things that are game changers for people.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Sept 27, 2018 16:16:42 GMT -5
My understanding is that we can forget avoid fumbles as it doesn't count towards the overall rating. This isn't fact, just what I read on FOFC. I am moving forward as though it is true.
I think we are talking the same language now Squirrel. You are just doing it a different way to me, so lets take a - as bad going forward.
From the results we can see that Garrison's AI is significantly less than his overall rating of 80.
I know Mariota isn't too clever, Rakkoon comes out pretty well, and Z pretty solid once he matures.
|
|
|
Post by thefatcat on Sept 27, 2018 16:18:31 GMT -5
Nick can you do Feigenbaum please, your scout rocks and mine sucks
|
|
|
Post by ManWithNoName on Sept 27, 2018 16:19:41 GMT -5
Reading all of this has just made me more confused. So is +7.2 good or bad?
|
|
|
Post by Joel on Sept 27, 2018 16:21:33 GMT -5
Reading all of this has just made me more confused. So is +7.2 good or bad? What do the weight of the bars say he would be before AI?
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Sept 27, 2018 16:21:40 GMT -5
So you just to drill the point home a -3.3 from Garrison's overall of 80. If another dude has a -3.3 from an overall of 60, his AI would be in the gutter. Where as Garrison's is merely knocked down to the solid/average area.
I think the next step in all of this is to apply actual figures to the (in this case) -3.3. Should we express that as a percentage? Or an actual figure? Hmm. That takes some thinking about. We need to use that -3.3 to come up with 0-100 AI score.
|
|
|
Post by thefatcat on Sept 27, 2018 16:21:56 GMT -5
bad, i'd bench Marie Antoinette
|
|
|
Post by squirrel on Sept 27, 2018 16:22:39 GMT -5
Reading all of this has just made me more confused. So is +7.2 good or bad? First thing to say is go back and type the numbers in again (sorry) as chances are when you did it before the spreadsheet was set up wrong Then: Plus is good, minus is bad...follow the key at the bottom of the spreadsheet for guidance based on what I've seen in the past If your guy is still +7 then he is generationally good and regardless of his overall rating he should be money
|
|