Home

VT Hokies 2011 Roster as Case Study on How Closely Video Game Players Match Real Ones

This is a discussion on VT Hokies 2011 Roster as Case Study on How Closely Video Game Players Match Real Ones within the EA Sports College Football and NCAA Football forums.

Go Back   Operation Sports Forums > Football > EA Sports College Football and NCAA Football
MLB The Show 24 Review: Another Solid Hit for the Series
New Star GP Review: Old-School Arcade Fun
Where Are Our College Basketball Video Game Rumors?
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-11-2011, 08:58 PM   #41
Pro
 
OVR: 3
Join Date: Jun 2010
Re: VT Hokies 2011 Roster as Case Study on How Closely Video Game Players Match Real

Quote:
Originally Posted by osubeavs721
my question to the OP is where is he gonna get a CD-ROM of the game? That would be pretty impressive if the game fit on a CD-ROM. Especially since its 750 MB of data on a CD-ROM. Quite a feat EA will pull off if they print the game on a CD-ROM especially since they havent printed a game on a CD-ROM since the PS1 days
You are absolutely correct. I made a mental slip and wrote CD-ROM instead of DVD-ROM. The fact that I did so invalidates everything I have written in this thread. Thank you so much for straightening me out.

Last edited by Warren Piecee; 05-11-2011 at 11:03 PM.
Warren Piecee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisements - Register to remove
Old 05-11-2011, 09:14 PM   #42
Pro
 
OVR: 3
Join Date: Jun 2010
Re: VT Hokies 2011 Roster as Case Study on How Closely Video Game Players Match Real

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseySuave4
if its for the sake of your own curiosity then why did you feel the need to make a thread about it? The whole thing is based on your opinion and projections of what kids without much experience will do.
I have elsewhere in the thread already answered fully the points that you raise. If you are going to try and cut down my thread you could at least do me the favor of reading the entire thread before making a post. Among other things I already explained is that the depth chart is half the issue. The depth chart has nothing to do with my personal opinion. It is based upon research.
> >
If you do not think my thread is worthwhile why did you take the time to read a good part of it and make post in reply to it yourself? As I write this you are one of 1,705 people who have shown interest in the thread and viewed it. In fact, since you have made one of the 40 posted replies to it you are among the most interested of those of the 1,705 who have expressed interest in the thread. Thank you for your interest.>>

Last edited by Warren Piecee; 05-11-2011 at 11:08 PM.
Warren Piecee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 09:28 PM   #43
Pro
 
OVR: 3
Join Date: Jun 2010
Re: VT Hokies 2011 Roster as Case Study on How Closely Video Game Players Match Real

Quote:
Originally Posted by cparrish
Ugh.........
If you think the only difference between the way ALL players are produced for the NCAA game and the way ALL players are produced for the Madden game is that names are left off the jerseys in the NCAA game you are mistaken. (I know about heights, weights, etc. but these things are irreverent to my point.)
> >
I have already mentioned that a player with a monster vertical jump, Davis, only received a 88 jump rating in NCAA 11. I will give you another example. Tweedy is known to be one of the fastest and most explosive runners on the entire team. However, his ratings in NCAA 11 do not reflect this fact.>>
> >
It is ironic that some use the board to argue that players on the team they follow are not rated as high as they should be. One of my working assumptions is that EA makes less of an effort to match the player in the game with the actual player on the team than most believe.>>
Warren Piecee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 09:47 PM   #44
Pro
 
OVR: 3
Join Date: Jun 2010
Re: VT Hokies 2011 Roster as Case Study on How Closely Video Game Players Match Real

Quote:
Originally Posted by BROman
actually he's right on in some areas. davis ended the spring tied @ #1 on the depth chart with coale & coale is the #1 punter at this point- they are obviously waiting for one of the young punters to step up, but if no one does, coale will be punting. and oglesby was the #2 tailback his first two seasons, but was moved to fb/h-back last year to get him on the field more, so it's not like he's never run tailback. to the op- the roster on the game will look nothing like this for two reasons. #1- your apparent fandom has grossly overrated VT (cody journell an 88! really bro?!?) #2- you didn't take in account true freshmen, so at least 10-12 of the players you listed won't be on the game b/c of new recuits like lockhart, marshall, jarrett, and harley et al will be.
I read in another thread that the game rosters include 69 men. If I remember correctly, a real roster has 110 men. If the roster that comes with the game is accurate and realistic very few of the recent high school graduates will be on it.

Last edited by Warren Piecee; 05-14-2011 at 11:49 PM.
Warren Piecee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 01:14 PM   #45
Rookie
 
MikeHokie's Arena
 
OVR: 1
Join Date: Apr 2010
Re: VT Hokies 2011 Roster as Case Study on How Closely Video Game Players Match Real

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHooe
I get the impression that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm not sure where you got these ratings from, but wherever they came from obviously doesn't know that the Hokies' top three receivers are Jarret Boykin, Danny Coale, and Dyrell Roberts. A person who has been following the team for many years should know that. Marcus Davis did play in all fourteen games and he did catch passes for 239 yards last season, but that's hardly enough to warrant an equal rating to and a starting spot over senior Danny Coale, who more than tripled that yardage output in 2010 with 732 yards receiving. Davis wasn't really a hot-shot recruit either, rated as a 3* athlete by Rivals, and he was converted from quarterback to wide receiver shortly after he arrived in Blacksburg.

Not sure how you decided that the Hokies' offense and defense will be on par with each other this season given that the Hokies offense has to replace its best three players from last season - QB Tyrod Taylor, RB Ryan Williams, and RB Darren Evans. Junior David Wilson is good, but there's nothing proven behind him. Josh Oglesby will get the first crack at reserve tailback, but he spent all of last season playing fullback.

Moving on, a person who has been following the team for many years should also know that Danny Coale is absolutely NOT the punter and isn't even listed amongst any of the Hokies specialists. He's strictly a wide receiver. There is no other player with the last name "Coale" on the Hokies.

Further, I have no idea where you got Lorenzo Williams from at SS, he isn't listed on the two-deep in the Hokies' spring media guide and hasn't recorded a single tackle for Tech in his career. The reserve rover should be Wiley Brown, who appeared in eight games last season.

I have other issues with the ratings, in particular I want to know how on earth a redshirt sophomore quarterback with all of 106 passing yards to his credit gets an OVR rating of 86 (QB Logan Thomas) and in general the generosity with ratings for other players who lack true gameday experience. Ratings are more subjective admittedly, but I digress.

Basically, the cynic in me simply thinks you took the Virginia Tech team in NCAA 11, advanced a season in dynasty, thus removing the seniors and Ryan Williams, and went from there for this "projection".

I have no idea what the point of this exercise altogether is. "Post your conclusions"... what are you even looking for? Why is this thing you are doing of any interest to anyone?
Let me just clarify some things.

The top receivers are as follows:

1. Boykin
2. Coale
2a. Davis
3. Coles

Dyrell has that compartment syndrome and there isn't really a timetable on his return. He's said he's about 70%, but that's pretty optimistic for the severity of that injury. At this point I'm leaving him off the depth chart because there may be a chance he won't play this season. Just all depends on how that heals up until August. Davis has been establishing himself as Logan's favorite target, he may not be the best but he is the favorite. Reason is those two guys worked with the 2's the last two springs and now this spring is essentially their third season working together. He feels more comfortable with him since Tyrod generally worked with Jarrett and Danny. Not taking away from those guys, but he's definitely felt more comfortable. Also just because Marcus wasn't a 5* doesn't mean he isn't a good player. Danny was a 2* guy and Roc Carmichael who was drafted was a 2* guy. You'll also remember Kam Chancellor was a QB coming out of high school. So while three years ago maybe he wasn't considered a top receiver by Tech's coaches, his athleticism has always been there. He's a 4.4 40-yard guy with a 40-inch vertical and absolutely has an NFL body. Mike Gentry has these guys getting in shape so don't be deceived by what Rivals tells you. Wait a year for these guys to develop in Tech's strength program.

Also you mention nothing proven behind David at RB, to a degree that's true but Josh Oglesby is a redshirt senior and has backed up Darren, Ryan and now David this season. So he's to say the least experienced, plus he's a good hard runner and had a lot of respect from Billy Hite. Also while he was technically playing fullback it wasn't in the strictest sense of the word. It's kind of like how GT does their RB's with difference letter assigned, so while he was a FB it wasn't like he was just blocking downfield the whole time.

Coale is the punter and Frank has said he's the leader going into August.

Logan Thomas now has three springs under his belt and has exceeded the expectations of QB's coach Mike O'Cain. He warants an 86 and don't be surprised if he deserves a ratings boost depending on what happens during the season.

To the OP:

1. Mark Leal should be in the game. Ricardo Young got hurt in spring practice, he will be out until they start back up and Leal has been progressively moving up the ranks to take the No. 2 job. Obviously Clayton and Young still have time to prove themselves, but from what Frank has said Leal is certainly in the mix.

2. On that point, Clayton is too high I would rate him in the 70-75 range and put Leal maybe a point or two higher. Ju-Ju disappointed the coaches this spring and O'Cain is still looking for that No. 2 spot which really should have been securely held by Ju-Ju.

3. I would bump Wilson maybe a point up because he has had an incredible spring. Had three touchdowns in one of the scrimmages and all while running track in addition to football. James Hopper needs a point or two boost, has looked good in the spring.

4. Randall Dunn needs to be up in the 70-75 range, has made huge strides the spring in the receiving department and has positioned himself to take the No. 1 job if he continues to play this well. Has a great chemistry with Logan and could provide a good receiving option Tech hasn't seen since Jeff King. Not to discount Andre Smith either, but he was more red zone and a blocking TE.

5. Boykin is underrated needs to be at least a 90. I would bump Davis down a few notches, while physically he is an absolute beast he's not better than Coale at this point. Dyrell needs a point decrease, that compartment syndrome he's got is still affecting him and he missed all of spring ball. Xavier Boyce also isn't on the team right now because of a pending child endangerment case.

6. On defense the only glaring thing I noticed is Jack Tyler's 84 rating and being rated ahead of Barquell Rivers. I'm not sure if you've got that mixed up, but Barquell has been ahead of Jack in the depth chart and has played pretty damn well this spring for that quad injury he had. Also if you remember Bud called out Jack on his play in the Orange Bowl where he missed several assignments, hence why Stanford had some pretty big runs. His play tailed off at the end of last year, and he's got to improve this fall to get back.

7. Coale is rated way too high as a punter. One 50+ yard kick is nice, but he's still a three-step technique as Frank said so I'd bump him down to mid-70's. Also Coale as a 99 PR guy is incorrect, you can't rate him the same as Jayron. He may be the most reliable guy back there, but not a 99 if you're rating Jayron as that too.

I know it's all a prediction, just thought I'd give my thoughts.
MikeHokie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisements - Register to remove
Old 05-13-2011, 09:47 PM   #46
Pro
 
OVR: 3
Join Date: Jun 2010
Re: VT Hokies 2011 Roster as Case Study on How Closely Video Game Players Match Real

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeHokie
Let me just clarify some things.

The top receivers are as follows:

1. Boykin
2. Coale
2a. Davis
3. Coles

Dyrell has that compartment syndrome and there isn't really a timetable on his return. He's said he's about 70%, but that's pretty optimistic for the severity of that injury. At this point I'm leaving him off the depth chart because there may be a chance he won't play this season. Just all depends on how that heals up until August. Davis has been establishing himself as Logan's favorite target, he may not be the best but he is the favorite. Reason is those two guys worked with the 2's the last two springs and now this spring is essentially their third season working together. He feels more comfortable with him since Tyrod generally worked with Jarrett and Danny. Not taking away from those guys, but he's definitely felt more comfortable. Also just because Marcus wasn't a 5* doesn't mean he isn't a good player. Danny was a 2* guy and Roc Carmichael who was drafted was a 2* guy. You'll also remember Kam Chancellor was a QB coming out of high school. So while three years ago maybe he wasn't considered a top receiver by Tech's coaches, his athleticism has always been there. He's a 4.4 40-yard guy with a 40-inch vertical and absolutely has an NFL body. Mike Gentry has these guys getting in shape so don't be deceived by what Rivals tells you. Wait a year for these guys to develop in Tech's strength program.

Also you mention nothing proven behind David at RB, to a degree that's true but Josh Oglesby is a redshirt senior and has backed up Darren, Ryan and now David this season. So he's to say the least experienced, plus he's a good hard runner and had a lot of respect from Billy Hite. Also while he was technically playing fullback it wasn't in the strictest sense of the word. It's kind of like how GT does their RB's with difference letter assigned, so while he was a FB it wasn't like he was just blocking downfield the whole time.

Coale is the punter and Frank has said he's the leader going into August.

Logan Thomas now has three springs under his belt and has exceeded the expectations of QB's coach Mike O'Cain. He warants an 86 and don't be surprised if he deserves a ratings boost depending on what happens during the season.

To the OP:

1. Mark Leal should be in the game. Ricardo Young got hurt in spring practice, he will be out until they start back up and Leal has been progressively moving up the ranks to take the No. 2 job. Obviously Clayton and Young still have time to prove themselves, but from what Frank has said Leal is certainly in the mix.

2. On that point, Clayton is too high I would rate him in the 70-75 range and put Leal maybe a point or two higher. Ju-Ju disappointed the coaches this spring and O'Cain is still looking for that No. 2 spot which really should have been securely held by Ju-Ju.

3. I would bump Wilson maybe a point up because he has had an incredible spring. Had three touchdowns in one of the scrimmages and all while running track in addition to football. James Hopper needs a point or two boost, has looked good in the spring.

4. Randall Dunn needs to be up in the 70-75 range, has made huge strides the spring in the receiving department and has positioned himself to take the No. 1 job if he continues to play this well. Has a great chemistry with Logan and could provide a good receiving option Tech hasn't seen since Jeff King. Not to discount Andre Smith either, but he was more red zone and a blocking TE.

5. Boykin is underrated needs to be at least a 90. I would bump Davis down a few notches, while physically he is an absolute beast he's not better than Coale at this point. Dyrell needs a point decrease, that compartment syndrome he's got is still affecting him and he missed all of spring ball. Xavier Boyce also isn't on the team right now because of a pending child endangerment case.

6. On defense the only glaring thing I noticed is Jack Tyler's 84 rating and being rated ahead of Barquell Rivers. I'm not sure if you've got that mixed up, but Barquell has been ahead of Jack in the depth chart and has played pretty damn well this spring for that quad injury he had. Also if you remember Bud called out Jack on his play in the Orange Bowl where he missed several assignments, hence why Stanford had some pretty big runs. His play tailed off at the end of last year, and he's got to improve this fall to get back.

7. Coale is rated way too high as a punter. One 50+ yard kick is nice, but he's still a three-step technique as Frank said so I'd bump him down to mid-70's. Also Coale as a 99 PR guy is incorrect, you can't rate him the same as Jayron. He may be the most reliable guy back there, but not a 99 if you're rating Jayron as that too.

I know it's all a prediction, just thought I'd give my thoughts.
Thank you for the very helpful post. I have to digest this before I can respond in full. One thing I will mention now, though, is that some of your comments are based upon how things stood in as far as the final spring depth chart was concerned. My depth chart is based on how things should look in the fall after those who have been injured and missed all or part of the spring return. (I did not realize that things are that bleak for Roberts. This was big for me to learn.) Tyler was injured almost all spring. Rivers only became the starter be default since another man above him moved to a different LB position for the spring after Tyler and another LB were injuried. Rivers had significant movement problems during the spring.

Last edited by Warren Piecee; 05-13-2011 at 09:56 PM.
Warren Piecee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2011, 06:20 PM   #47
MVP
 
blklightning's Arena
 
OVR: 9
Join Date: Oct 2007
Re: VT Hokies 2011 Roster as Case Study on How Closely Video Game Players Match Real

in my game, they're all going to be replicas of the real thing after i download a custom roster.
__________________
My score for Madden 13: 4.5/10

3 points for graphics, 1 point for the passable commentary, and a half point for the boxart. I can give no further points since the all over the place gameplay would ruin it anyway.
blklightning is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2011, 09:46 PM   #48
Pro
 
OVR: 3
Join Date: Jun 2010
Re: VT Hokies 2011 Roster as Case Study on How Closely Video Game Players Match Real

Quote:
Originally Posted by blklightning
in my game, they're all going to be replicas of the real thing after i download a custom roster.
If you think the only difference between the way ALL players are produced for the NCAA game and the way ALL players are produced for the Madden game is that names are left off the jerseys in the NCAA game you are mistaken. (I know about heights, weights, etc. but these things are irreverent to my point.) If you read the entire thread you will see my point. You can't play online with player ratings other than those that come on the game disc.

Last edited by Warren Piecee; 05-14-2011 at 10:38 PM.
Warren Piecee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

« Operation Sports Forums > Football > EA Sports College Football and NCAA Football »


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:55 PM.
Top -