Potential in FOF

[Coder]

Originally posted over at Imperial Football League.

Just wondering.. I remember a few years ago reading an interview with Arlie about TPF and potential. He said that potential is not just a number that the players might achieve one day, but sometimes when they're on the field they show "flashes of brilliance", meaning that particular play they're rated at their potential skill rather than their current skill.

Anyone have a feel for how Jim handles potential, other than as a roof for the skills? Could a promising young QB actually do pretty well in a single game, despite only being 18% developed?

[Vince]

I have no data whatsoever to back this up...

...but I've always felt that a player can play on a scale anywhere up to his potential on any given day, but reasonably should be expected to play at or around his current consistently.

[Darkiller]

Originally Posted by Vince

I have no data whatsoever to back this up...

...but I've always felt that a player can play on a scale anywhere up to his potential on any given day, but reasonably should be expected to play at or around his current consistently.

ditto.
I have always figured the the player could have somes "flashes of brilliance" as you mentionned, on any given play, based on his potential.

I also believe it is a lot more interesting to think that way, so I do hope this is true (date-wise). If not, I don't necessarily want to know

[QuikSand]

So, do you (those who buy this theory) then also argue that a young player who shows no meaningful "green bar" potential will *never* show flashes of brilliance? That such things are only a function of having high potential ratings?

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

So, do you (those who buy this theory) then also argue that a young player who shows no meaningful "green bar" potential will *never* show flashes of brilliance? That such things are only a function of having high potential ratings?

Let me add another element to that theory: the career/long-term booms/busts. Some players never reach their first impression potential, some go beyond it. In the given theory, their performance on the field could be an indication of what the player can be some day, while the non-developers won't play up to their potential, the 'hidden' developers will always play above their ratings.

I have no (annecdotal) evidence of these kind of things going on, but it would make for a cool feature.

[Darkiller]

The way I see it, the player who doesn't have the green bars is less capable of having regular flashes of brilliance (he will likely have some, from time to time...but maybe/potentially less than the player who has plenty of green bars and who could show more frequent flashes of brilliance since he is --normally-- bound to continue to progress (if he doesn't bust).

[Darkiller]

dola.

I have an example:
A Running Back rated 32/32 can still post better stats than a 55/89 RB.
Still, the likelihood that the 55/89 RB ends up with more good runs over a certain period of time is higher than for the 32/32 RB.

Maybe this is where talent comes into play....and joins the so-call "potential" ?