VC - Whats up with the week 5 update ?

[Tears2040]

Alot of players + team ratings went up + down.

Also Ricky Willaims is'nt having the best season, now should his rating be lowered to reflect this = no


i feel Vc is doing an excellenct job with thier game & roster updates, minus that we can't use them online

, peace

[triplej96]

Quote:

---

sportsgeist said:
Actually VC only added some missing players and updated the rosters and Depth charts. I didn't notice any adjusted player ratings. They only posted what you would get and use online anyway.

IMO there should be weekly official depth chart adjustments and 4 official player rating adjustments during the season. Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16.

---

Whic players did they add that you noticed?

[TombSong]

I think they should look at what a players stats were last year at this time and compare them to now then make sensible adjustments accordingly.

Example: Ricky Williams has 555 yds rushing so far this year. Lets say he had 700 yds rushing at the same time last year. He has dropped off. It could be him, It could be the offensive line sux, it also could be neither, it could be the defensives schemes they are facing(lots of 8 man fronts) what ever the case 145 yds aint a big drop off so lets suppose you measure drop offs as small medium and big.
the hit you take would be 8 points 16 points 24 points as a deduction factor. Since this is offense and we will consider this a small drop off the offensive line will take 25% of rickys hit(because maybe they aint blocking well) So all the offensive line men get 2 points deducted from their run block rating and ricky gets 6 points taken from either breaking tackles or his speed or agility ratings based on what it is he is not doing well at.


As for my gripes with the quincy carter numbers. He has a 86 QB rating and has completed 58% of his passes. That has GOT to translate to better than a 70 rating for QB accuracy rating in this game. A QB throwing for 47% completions should not have a 83 QB accuracy rating. Peyton Manning has a 101 QB rating at this point and is completing 68% of his passes. Should he be rated lower than Mcnabb also just because he did not play well last year ?!? = NO

[slongo]

Not to nitpick, because I love the 2k/ESPN series (and VC for making it), but other issues with the week 5 update include a "clone" Ed Reed in the FA pool. So not only is he on the Ravens, but there is a second one chilling in FA. And the other one, which can be fixed easily by editing, is that Lee Flowers has his last name in all caps.

[JohnDoe8865]

Quote:

---

slongo said:
Not to nitpick, because I love the 2k/ESPN series (and VC for making it), but other issues with the week 5 update include a "clone" Ed Reed in the FA pool. So not only is he on the Ravens, but there is a second one chilling in FA. And the other one, which can be fixed easily by editing, is that Lee Flowers has his last name in all caps.

---

Yeah, I love the game, but those two mistakes in particular seem REALLY amateur.

[onetonmartin]

that's funny tombsong, I don't recall saying a QB should be rated on how everybody around him is doing. My message must not have been clear. Just because McNabb is having a bad season thus far (for reasons forementioned), does not mean that he is a worse athlete/QB/football player. He just does not have alot going for him. He is, however rated higher (pa-83, prr- 83 ... really isn't even that high) because of past attributes. Case in point...his 2002 MVP-like #'s (before his injury). Numbers Quincy Carter will only produce in his head while staring into that dreamy Texas sky. So please stay away from even mentioning Quincy Carter in the same breath as NFL's elite.