Re: Rebuilding the Off-season
I would be on board with this and even go as far as to say that certain attributes should be somewhat blurred or hidden for like a year as well even after you sign or draft them. That's kind of what I would like to see with a chemistry rating. I wouldn't mind seeing Free Agency handled similar to scouting where you don't get a crystal clear picture of exactly what you're getting. Maybe you have a GM with ratings or a Player Personnel position on your staff that contributes to how much info you have on free agents and the longer guys have been in the league, a more clear picture you have.
I was actually just thinking about something like this the other day. I'm sure people would love to scout and just know exactly what players attributes are from the jump and that's fine but put something in the franchise settings where you have it from Easy to like Very Difficult so that you can take it to that next level. I really wish they would add the variable difficulty too where you can choose different levels for each part of the game but the whole slider discussion is one for another day or week even.
Back to the scouting though, one thing I didn't really hit on with the mock-ups and the letter grades in those is with something like that as well, the key thing is not knowing exact details when it comes to certain attributes. That's where I think the current scouting system fails. If you scout something and it's an A, you immediately know it's good. There's no point to scouting it further just to pinpoint the number because you already know it's high. There's nothing dynamic about it. What I wanted to accomplish is the fact that you get all this data from the 'experts' and scouts but none of it gives you a clear, pinpoint lock on anything. Even the raw data can still leave a cloud of mystery if there is a discrepancy among times between combine and pro days and what not. If you have a bad scout, he might say his man coverage is A+ when in reality it is a 78. The entire crew of experts might say a QB's AWR is A+ but it turns out he's actually a scrub with 53. This is where the boom/bust factor plays into things as well as the diamond picks late in the draft. As it is now, you can scout a guy and basically reveal the fact that he is what EA considers a "gem" because he is a 5th round projection with great ratings. Scout a RB and get a bunch of A's on key attributes and you already know. The CPU doesn't know, so they won't take him until at best the fourth. So what do you do? You take a fifth round projected in the second or third round and get a stud. I personally think that concept is beyond stupid. With this way, the prospects are all on some kind of global scale where their projections are more or less the same among experts and scouts and the mock grades kind of fall into that. There's a reason he's a grades out as a sixth round prospect. But it doesn't change the fact that just because everybody gave him D's and C's on his attributes that he won't come out and potentially shine.
Which brings me to the next point about scouts and rating them. What would be consider an excellent scout shouldn't counteract all of this by just working like the current system where their feedback is so close to the exact numbers that it makes it too easy. There should still be a decent gap in between him saying something is a B and it potentially ranging from 70 to 90, not just somewhere in the 80's. The greatest of scouts get things wrong. And that's where the difficulty setting comes in. I understand some people don't want to deal with stuff like this, so let them set it to Easy and be fine with it. But for online leagues and solo franchise goers, give them the option to take it to the next level and make it as easy or tough as they want.
I rambled on way more than I figured I would there so I apologize for that.
I would be on board with this and even go as far as to say that certain attributes should be somewhat blurred or hidden for like a year as well even after you sign or draft them. That's kind of what I would like to see with a chemistry rating. I wouldn't mind seeing Free Agency handled similar to scouting where you don't get a crystal clear picture of exactly what you're getting. Maybe you have a GM with ratings or a Player Personnel position on your staff that contributes to how much info you have on free agents and the longer guys have been in the league, a more clear picture you have.
I was actually just thinking about something like this the other day. I'm sure people would love to scout and just know exactly what players attributes are from the jump and that's fine but put something in the franchise settings where you have it from Easy to like Very Difficult so that you can take it to that next level. I really wish they would add the variable difficulty too where you can choose different levels for each part of the game but the whole slider discussion is one for another day or week even.
Back to the scouting though, one thing I didn't really hit on with the mock-ups and the letter grades in those is with something like that as well, the key thing is not knowing exact details when it comes to certain attributes. That's where I think the current scouting system fails. If you scout something and it's an A, you immediately know it's good. There's no point to scouting it further just to pinpoint the number because you already know it's high. There's nothing dynamic about it. What I wanted to accomplish is the fact that you get all this data from the 'experts' and scouts but none of it gives you a clear, pinpoint lock on anything. Even the raw data can still leave a cloud of mystery if there is a discrepancy among times between combine and pro days and what not. If you have a bad scout, he might say his man coverage is A+ when in reality it is a 78. The entire crew of experts might say a QB's AWR is A+ but it turns out he's actually a scrub with 53. This is where the boom/bust factor plays into things as well as the diamond picks late in the draft. As it is now, you can scout a guy and basically reveal the fact that he is what EA considers a "gem" because he is a 5th round projection with great ratings. Scout a RB and get a bunch of A's on key attributes and you already know. The CPU doesn't know, so they won't take him until at best the fourth. So what do you do? You take a fifth round projected in the second or third round and get a stud. I personally think that concept is beyond stupid. With this way, the prospects are all on some kind of global scale where their projections are more or less the same among experts and scouts and the mock grades kind of fall into that. There's a reason he's a grades out as a sixth round prospect. But it doesn't change the fact that just because everybody gave him D's and C's on his attributes that he won't come out and potentially shine.
Which brings me to the next point about scouts and rating them. What would be consider an excellent scout shouldn't counteract all of this by just working like the current system where their feedback is so close to the exact numbers that it makes it too easy. There should still be a decent gap in between him saying something is a B and it potentially ranging from 70 to 90, not just somewhere in the 80's. The greatest of scouts get things wrong. And that's where the difficulty setting comes in. I understand some people don't want to deal with stuff like this, so let them set it to Easy and be fine with it. But for online leagues and solo franchise goers, give them the option to take it to the next level and make it as easy or tough as they want.
I rambled on way more than I figured I would there so I apologize for that.
Comment