Classic Teams - what is realism to you?

[capa]

One thing I struggle with a bit when creating the classic teams is how should I represent the player ratings?

I mean, the OL and DL for the teams from the 1950's and 60's had the guys at about 6'3" or 6'4" and anywhere between 225-260 pounds for most of the players. Once in a while you would have a 270 pound guy but not often.

This most likely would mean that if rated properly, their strength ratings would be in the mid 70's to mid 80's or thereabouts. This, of course, assumes a baseline of today's player where a 6'6" 300 pound guy may top out at 95 or 97 for strength.

Should oldtime teams from those eras be rated like that? Or should they be comparable to today's players based on their own era? For example, if rated based on today's baseline, a Jerry Kramer may have an 84 or 85 strength rating, while if based on his own era he might be a 92-94.

Speed and agility might be less of an issue for the skilled positions, but today's OL could probably outrun most of the FBs and even some HBs from years gone by. The LBs today are as fast as the RBs back then for sure. A Mercury Morris is an exception, but many RBs from the 60's and 70's probably would top out at 85-90 speed if rated in Madden now.

This plays into how the older teams would match up against the teams from the 80's, 90's and 2000's. The 66 Packers would probably be run over and around by teams today, yet they were considered world class back then. Could the Steelers of the 70's hang in there with today's behemoths?

What are your thoughts on how older teams should be rated?

C

[JSTUD]

Quote: Originally Posted by capa

One thing I struggle with a bit when creating the classic teams is how should I represent the player ratings? I mean, the OL and DL for the teams from the 1950's and 60's had the guys at about 6'3" or 6'4" and anywhere between 225-260 pounds for most of the players. Once in a while you would have a 270 pound guy but not often. This most likely would mean that if rated properly, their strength ratings would be in the mid 70's to mid 80's or thereabouts. This, of course, assumes a baseline of today's player where a 6'6" 300 pound guy may top out at 95 or 97 for strength. I think personally teams should be rated as if they were playing today. Should oldtime teams from those eras be rated like that? Or should they be comparable to today's players based on their own era? For example, if rated based on today's baseline, a Jerry Kramer may have an 84 or 85 strength rating, while if based on his own era he might be a 92-94. Speed and agility might be less of an issue for the skilled positions, but today's OL could probably outrun most of the FBs and even some HBs from years gone by. The LBs today are as fast as the RBs back then for sure. A Mercury Morris is an exception, but many RBs from the 60's and 70's probably would top out at 85-90 speed if rated in Madden now. This plays into how the older teams would match up against the teams from the 80's, 90's and 2000's. The 66 Packers would probably be run over and around by teams today, yet they were considered world class back then. Could the Steelers of the 70's hang in there with today's behemoths? What are your thoughts on how older teams should be rated? C

I think they should be rated somewhat era based... I like it when players have flaws and aren't completely overrated. Terry Bradshaw for instance is rated in the 95/96 area on your roster while he should probably be in the 85-90 area. Stars like Dan Marino, Elway, Barry Sanders, Jerry Rice should be elite. However the classic teams weren't playing against ridiculously good players. They were playing against guys who were of the same skill. What I mean is that if you look at teams like the Seahawks from last year, sure they had some superstars but lots of the players were average guys who worked well together. I think a more balanced approach would bring out more exciting gameplay. I love your rosters btw! Not bashing at all!

[capa]

Thanks. And I do agree that some of the players are probably not rated realistically. Another thing I have to take into account, like all roster makers, is what do the ratings need to be for the skilled position players to perform well and not turn their team into perennial losers. A guy like Bradshaw is a good example. He could be great or he could stink up the joint...especially early in his career when he was benched for Gilliam.

But to properly represent him on the 75 team, which might be the greatest Steeler team of them all, his ratings had to be bumped a bit. Also, if you notice, many FBs are rated 99. This is a Madden phenomenon as rating FBs well in some critical areas really elevates their overall rating.

My overall objective is to get the game looking like real football on the field and having players perform as expected. The overall ratings for players, and teams, can be a bit misleading I think at times.

Personally, I think there are too many categories for ratings. I mean, pass block footwork? LOL. Ok...well....yeah...



C

[doncropper]

Capa,

This could certainly ignite a very interesting discussion.

I have always held to the belief that when creating a roster of players from different decades , be it Football - Baseball - Hockey or Basketball, that all ratings should be based relative to how that player performed against the given competition during his time.

Thus Babe Ruth's 60 homers in 1927 would be rated much higher than Sammy Sosa's 66 in 1998 since Mark McGwire hit 70 homers that year. When the Babe hit his 60 the next closest to him was Gehrig with 47 then followed by a huge margin next was Lazzeri with only 18.

I think there are now statistics that reflect how a player performed relative to his given competition in many categories, at least for Baseball there is.

Thus, if I were to undertake a Roster building project and attempt to reflect a truly historical perspective for rating a Player I would choose to do it by rating each player by their Talent level against the competition of their time.

So, the average massive Offensive Lineman of today would be rated based on how they perform against their counterparts today and not how they would totally dominate a smaller Offensive Lineman from the '60s that was perhaps one of the best of his time. My vote would go to rate the '60s guy much higher due to his performance against his peers on the field at that time.

Now that would not apply to a non team oriented sport such as Track & Field, Golf, Swimming, Tennis etc. etc.

That's my 2 cents and I just spent it all at one time !!!

Don

[Culture Rot]

This topic is why ive almost always preferred specific season rosters. I dont even think its debatable. I think any teams that share a roster together should be rated on the same critera. 50's and 60's teams should be created accurately. No, their speed and strength, in MOST cases, would not be comparable to modern era.

But they certainly may have better fundamental skills. It's all about finding that sweet spot that highlights the positives and negatives of players from all eras. Some players skills would translate better to the modern era, and others would not have so much. So if you put that player into a strictly 60's simulation, he produces certain stats. If you plop him into an all time season with a greatly increased talent base, he produces differently.

If I put barry Sanders against the 67 Packers defense, he should run absolutely wild. If I put the 67 Celtics against a modern NBA Team, the Celtics should decimate the modern team with their fundamentals and execution.


A 4.0 40 yard dash is a 4.4 40 yard dash, whether its today, 60 years ago, or 60 years from now. So is a 12.0 40 yard dash.

Baseball IMO, would be the most similar from era to era ratings wise.

If your creating a strictly retro era roster, its not an issue. You have toned down OL strength, but also toned down DL strength. It becomes irrelvent whether your top strength guys are at 95, or 65.

And of course something that cant be said enough overall ratings are NOT RELEVANT beyond sorting, and not an accurate calculation of a players ratings ability. Each game has a different formula, each inaccurate and weighed too heavily or not too lightly. Sim testing is a good indicator of how the players will play and produce. As long as the stats are plausible, and nothing fails the 'eye' test during gameplay, I dont think its a major issue. But the fact that youve actually thought about this topic is why your one of the greats at roster making Don.

[raneman85]

You could take into account that the players of the earlier eras would have evolved with the times including conditioning, speed, and size. They also played in era where the gameplay was tougher and not catered to offense. If taken into account most of those teams would be even or superior to the modern teams. It's a subjective and debatable position. Lambert, Nitscke, Butkus, Bergey would could kick *** over any current MLB.