We tried this in beta as well....owners would scout players and thier ratings would then become less obscure pending volatility and how many times different teams scouted them.

The way I see it, the future ratings are simply what scouting reports suggest a player’s future potential is. And as we all know, some players fulfill that scouting report, some surpass it and boom, and others don’t live up to the scouting report and bust.

I like it as it is.

I am not against or for the future or current being displayed but when things were obscured in beta the idea of static ratings being "not set in stone" was the most intriguing part for me.

Essentially i just classify guys by how fast or strong they are. If we ever had a combine here these two ratings would dominate there. IRL there is some correlations on that front that translates to effectiveness on the feild, but not like it is here.

That is reason i feel speed or strength should be some what obscured . Along with if a guy booms hes always going to go up or if he busts hes always going down. THere is some varition there but its only seen in super small increments in extremely low volatility players. That part should fluctuate more wildly between camps or whatever time frame.

Same as the athletic fall off of speed and strength....its just not strong of a change with all guys IRL....

Forever the main focus in beta of non static ratings actually making a difference in out comes on our digital feild is one way to remedy some things. But its been a long process where i see it in QBs and Linemen stronger than say Dbs or WRS, but it different than past codes for sure.

The future dictates contract renegotiations and trade values so there definitely a game to play there and obscuring things would make that part tougher to expliot than it is now

It'd be interesting if when drafting someone the ratings were qualitative descriptors rather than quantitative ones.
Speed: Elite (90+)
Strength: Very High (80+)
Acceleration: Good (70+)
Intelligence: Above Average (60+)
Average: 40-60
Bad: under 40

It'd prevent drafting from being quite as formulaic as it is now. I'm pretty new but after two drafts there's a pretty clear meta hierarchy of which positions to draft and when based on certain base stats. If everyone played optimally most drafts would resolve pretty much exactly the same every year, but even without optimality even 10 players or half a league doing it makes most drafts look similar. Certain positions get drafted at the same spots every year due to clear relative value based on a couple factors but mostly base stats