Re: the CPU doesn't progress players based on scheme
Personally, I don't think the CPU should aggressively min-max their player progression by railroading all their roster to progress via whatever their scheme setting is.
To provide one example where this works poorly: if the CPU were to min-max aggressively, that would mean a team like the Cowboys - set to Balanced 4-3 by default - would railroad DT David Irving to progress as a Run Stopper (the DT setting for Balanced 4-3). David Irving is an accomplished pass rusher and a 3-technique for the Cowboys. His primary role isn't to stop the run, but rather to attack the quarterback. He's not a Run Stopper, and shouldn't be made to be one at the expense of developing his ability to attack the quarterback.
My opinion is that the scheme system introduced this year at the team-building level is far to rigid. The player archetype system to streamline progression is great, but there aren't enough scheme types to get all the way there and there's no consideration for different roles players have on a team. Compound that with the issue that the available scheme settings are outdated - especially on defense - and you have a system which I'm honestly not fully happy with. The icing on the cake is that the massive progression bonus provided by perfect scheme matches. That bonus should be determined the same way the scheme fit percentage is calculated, in my opinion (if the player's scheme OVR is within 3 OVR points of being his best OVR, he counts as a fit for the percentage; why is the progression bonus different? That's unnecessarily confusing).
Personally, I don't think the CPU should aggressively min-max their player progression by railroading all their roster to progress via whatever their scheme setting is.
To provide one example where this works poorly: if the CPU were to min-max aggressively, that would mean a team like the Cowboys - set to Balanced 4-3 by default - would railroad DT David Irving to progress as a Run Stopper (the DT setting for Balanced 4-3). David Irving is an accomplished pass rusher and a 3-technique for the Cowboys. His primary role isn't to stop the run, but rather to attack the quarterback. He's not a Run Stopper, and shouldn't be made to be one at the expense of developing his ability to attack the quarterback.
My opinion is that the scheme system introduced this year at the team-building level is far to rigid. The player archetype system to streamline progression is great, but there aren't enough scheme types to get all the way there and there's no consideration for different roles players have on a team. Compound that with the issue that the available scheme settings are outdated - especially on defense - and you have a system which I'm honestly not fully happy with. The icing on the cake is that the massive progression bonus provided by perfect scheme matches. That bonus should be determined the same way the scheme fit percentage is calculated, in my opinion (if the player's scheme OVR is within 3 OVR points of being his best OVR, he counts as a fit for the percentage; why is the progression bonus different? That's unnecessarily confusing).
Comment