This class looks terrible. I see 36 players above 70 future (including kickers!!)! And there's a 1/2 player. Was a change in player "demographics" announced? Or maybe the numbers don't take in account the position weighting, hence are much lower than what we see usually?

And NOBODY with a future over 87, at least by the default player weights.

Geez.

This is not an 'down' year, rather a pitiful year and this type of thing lowers the overall quality of the league as talent regresses.
Something is wrong when the potential is that low, really pitiful and a death knell to a game if that is how things will be :(

...and 10 players at 80 or more including kickers??? :facepalm:

By far the worst I've ever seen, not even close to being acceptable

The draft used to be my favorite part of this game. I'd get excited about being able add a player or two who could come in and make an impact, especially with my first round pick.

Not anymore.

Makes me wish I had waited to see the draft class before I renewed for next season.

Very disappointing.

I totally get the disappointment, but for myself personally I think this is actually a move in the right direction. There were way too many 'perfect' players before. King, your team alone is sporting 10 90+ overall players based off my personal weighting system, and not one player under 60; your back-ups are better than most of my starters, and I got a bye in my conference, haha. I like jdavid's vision of 90+ rated players being the superstars of the league, and most every team having to field at least a handful of 50s at starting positions.

I think a lot of the frustration being felt is due to the perception of what an 'average' player ought to be based off how players were previously gen'd in the past, compared to what they look like now. It'll take some time to adjust perspective, but I think it'll be for the best now that 80 is the new 90. Yes, it'll take some time for a first round selection in the bottom half of the draft to unseat a veteran on a team as stacked as many are here, but eventually those 70 rated players will be above-average starters, it'll just take some time for the current crop of talent to begin to cycle out to make way for the new standard of quality.

I totally disagree. It's not just a matter of balance. We all leave in a bear market and a game should give some relief. Struggling with fumbling punt returners, slow safeties and penalty prone linemen is not exactly my idea of fun. And, whatever the players demographics, the best managers will have the best players and the struggling ones the worst. They just won't have anymore the little ray of sun of having one or 2 star players in their team.

I would think each year there should be a few potential superstars in the draft. Not the case here.

I disagree Ares. To have a projected Top 10 pick have under 80 potential right out of the gate is not a good thing. The entire league gets watered down in mediocrity if we dumb down our talent pool. Even stud rookies take time as evidenced by their 'current' rating as the top-end rating is something that takes time for a player to mature into.

On the flip side, in real life we have rookies every year that are stars from day 1 and that is not even possible in MFN given this new lowering of quality. Why would we lower the quality of play and view that as a good thing?

As it is, I see guys in the 60's playing at high levels and making great plays and having effectiveness higher than a player with a loftier rating. That is totally realistic as some players don't have the measureables on paper but perform awesome on the field.

A draft with a number of 90's, 80's and 70's is a good thing overall for the league. A lower 1st rd pick should be in the high 70's for potential. Again, word it however you want, but why would anyone want to lower quality???