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

[The JareBear]

I have read every post in this thread and I honestly don't understand the point.

[Warren Piecee]

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.

The work I produced for the thread was done under the assumption that EA produces players and depth charts based not upon how things stand at the end of spring ball but how they should stand on the first day of the season. Young will be back in the fall and I think he and Clayton will claim the spots where I have them. Leal is very young and inexperienced. He did have a goodspring, though so I could be wrong to not have included him. I have to give him some thought. I gave Clayton and Young the same overall ratings they had in last year's game since it did not seem to me that either did anything last year or this spring to change their ratings.
>>
Another post also argued that Wilson should be higher. I think you both may be correct. >>
> >
At the very beginning or just before the start of spring ball James Hopper was slated to be the starting ROV (SS). I first created him as a SS and when he moved to HB I tweaked his rating some what and came up with the number I assigned him. I also need to give him some more thought.>>
> >
I have to assume that when the team moved Drager to TE it was because no other TE on the roster was good enough to start. I do not think I could see myself giving him an OVR of over 74. The initial spring depth chart was Drager, Martin and Dunn. The final spring depth chart was identical. Dunn did have a good spring catching the ball. He was known to be good in this area before the spring. It is the other aspects of his game that need work. I think the TEs are just where they should be.>>
>>
Boykin had an overall rating of 89 in NCAA 11. His stats from last season show the he did not improve upon his overall game especially when one considers that Taylor had his best season throwing the ball. He does have a year more experience going into this season but I do not think that this should be enough to give his rating a boost. It is possible, however, that EA Sports will raise his overall rating just so that the team will have at least one offensive player with an overall rating in the 90s. I think the same thing could be said of David Wilson.>>
> >
The final spring depth chart listed Davis as the co-starter with Coale. In NCAA 11 Coale had an overall rating of 88. Based upon his play last year I raised him to an 89. Since the two were named co-starters on the final spring depth chart I made both an 89.>>
> >
I was aware of Dyrell Roberts' injury. However, I was not aware of how bleak his future is at least as far as this season goes. I had assumed that he would be healthy and resume his place on the depth chart by season's start. I guess he does need some editing.>>
> >
Boyce has not been permanently removed from the team. Perhaps it was because I want to believe the claim I read online, that it was an accident and he will be back on the team, that I included him on the roster and in the depth chart. I have to rethink him.>>
>>
Rivers is still having enormous mobility issues due to the fact that he is not back to his old self. I do not think he will be by game number one of the season. Once two LBs return from injury and several LBs move back to the positions they began the spring at I think that the depth chart will look just as I have it. Rivers can not move well enough to be placed above Tyler and Tyler is only the backup.>>
> >
Beamer stated that he believes Coale will work on his footwork and technique over the summer and next fall and will be able to straighten out all his punting problems. The overall rating I gave him is about average for a punter in the ACC. In retrospect, it probably is a few points too high.>>
> >
I raised Coa's ratings to reflect his play last year. The 99 PR was incidental. I think it was rasing his BCV that raised Coale's PR rating. Coale's yards-per-catch last year was excellent and an improvement from the year before.>>
>>
Thank you again for the helpful post.

[Warren Piecee]

Quote: Originally Posted by jaredlib

I have read every post in this thread and I honestly don't understand the point.

It is all there.

[TDenverFan]

Quote: Originally Posted by Warren Piecee

It is all there.

Still, there are a couple of flaws in your experiment:

1. You have 1 Team, Over 1 Year
2. How do you have any idea if your rosters are accurate Overall wise (I know this was mentioned)
3. Couldn't it be a coincidence if EA has similar rosters to yours?
4. Even if your roster is identical to EA's in Game Hokies, that proves nothing.
Also, Generic Auburn QB was around an 85 in this game... The Real Auburn QB clearly played better than 85 overall.

[Warren Piecee]

Something that may not be clear to everyone is that I created all of these players within the game. (The team has been great fun to play with.) This was how I came up with the letter grades for offense defense and oeverall ability. However, I was more concerned with getting the OVR correct than every last one of a player's individual ratings.

[Warren Piecee]

A few weeks before NCAA 12 is released I will revise my work after taking into consideration the very helpful feedback I have recevied. I hope to get more feedback before that date.

[Warren Piecee]

Quote: Originally Posted by TDenverFan

Still, there are a couple of flaws in your experiment: 1. You have 1 Team, Over 1 Year 2. How do you have any idea if your rosters are accurate Overall wise (I know this was mentioned) 3. Couldn't it be a coincidence if EA has similar rosters to yours? 4. Even if your roster is identical to EA's in Game Hokies, that proves nothing. Also, Generic Auburn QB was around an 85 in this game... The Real Auburn QB clearly played better than 85 overall.

The fact that I referred to my work as a "case study" answers a good deal of the points you have raised.>>>
> >
You wrote: "1. You have 1 Team, Over 1 Year." It was for this reason that I referred to my work as a case study. It would be wonderful if others would try to do what I have done so that we can compare results. However, it is much easier for someone to give me ____ then to go ahead and create a case study of their own with a team that they follow. What I have done is much harder than it seems.>>
> >

You stated: "2. How do you have any idea if your rosters are accurate Overall wise (I know this was mentioned)" I have asked others to offer me constructive criticism in the hope that more input will make for more a accurate study. I appreciate all who have done so.


You commented: "3. Couldn't it be a coincidence if EA has similar rosters to yours?." No. >>

You stated: "4. Even if your roster is identical to EA's in Game Hokies, that proves nothing." I have wrote over and over again in this thread that I do not think my roster or depth chart will be identical to what is found in the game. In fact, I have related that I think there will be big differences between both and that the furhter one goes down the depth chart the bigger the differences will be. I will not know either way until the game is released.
> >
You noted: "Also, Generic Auburn QB was around an 85 in this game... The Real Auburn QB clearly played better than 85 overall." This is something that you are obviously curious about. I am willing to bet you have given a good deal of thought to it. If you engaged in an exercise designed to help understand this state of affairs I would understand.>>

[Warren Piecee]

Perhaps I should offer a few examples that will help make clear what I am trying to do. No one has debated my argument that a realistic virtual version of WR Danny Coale should have an overall rating of 89. If when the game is released I discover the player on tech's roster who share's Coale's number has an overall rating of 80 it will be an important piece of evidence. I believe that there is a zero chance of this happening but I do believe that this type of discrepancy will be found with other players on the roster.

The depth chart, as it pertains to TEs, has been unchanged for the entire spring. No TEs have been injured and as far as I can recall no strong freshman TEs are expected to report in the fall. If when the game is released I discover the depth chart, as it pertains to TEs, is not just as I have listed it in this thread it will be an important piece of evidence.

Furthermore, I am aware of what the conventional wisdom is on how the game handles heights, weights, races and hometowns. I am going to take a close look at these by comparing the real players with the ones that come loaded with the game.

Why am I doing these things? The answer is because I am a curious person. Not everyone is. If you are not than I will not condemn you.>>>
> >
Once the game is released I will also be looking at some individual ratings in addition to the overall ratings. I mentioned elsewhere in this thread Davis' jump rating and the speed of Tweedy. I will be checking these as well as the block shedding rating of Derrick Hopkins, among other ratings.