Why give 3 schemes for WR's/CB's, only 1 works....

[PMO]

Quote: Originally Posted by mrprice33

You value OVR a lot more than the game does. Might want to consider changing that.

No reason to even comment with that....... I'm sorry I value overall as who to start over who and who deserves the contrwct extensions........ But thanks for your input on what I should change.

[mrprice33]

Quote: Originally Posted by PMO

No reason to even comment with that....... I'm sorry I value overall as who to start over who and who deserves the contrwct extensions........ But thanks for your input on what I should change.

No, there's a pretty good reason. The game, especially in CFM, doesn't put as much value into OVR as you do. It's incumbent upon you to adapt to the information the game is giving you instead of being obstinate and complaining about something you don't really seem to understand.

People wanted scheme-dependent ratings for YEARS, because different players on different teams serve different functions, and a good player in one role may not be a good player in another. We have that now and it's (hopefully) not going away.

To go back to your Derek Anderson example, many of the plays in Carolina's playbook are in fact dependent on having a quarterback who can run. Derek Anderson is demonstrably worse at running, making him a worse fit for what the Panthers actually do on offense, thereby reducing his rating. It's not pure overall in CFM, it's more a "usefulness to the team" rating.

[canes21]

You are putting too much stock into the overall rating. If it really matters to you about your thunder and lightning backs, then go look at their individual ratings. If you want to know how good a QB is, look at his individual ratings. OVR gives you an idea, not the whole picture.

[TMJOHNS18]

I think what the OP is getting at is that it's not utilized from the Users perspective like it should. With these extra slots per position, such as DT2, HB2, CB2, CB3, and MLB2 you may see, it would be nice if your depth chart reflected this.

What if I want to utilize 2 different sets of DTs, or I want my slot WR to be a different style than my #1? Can I do this? Sure, of course I can. It's just annoying that all players are compared to what the #1 does and not what they are there for.

Where this really impacts the Users I think is in FA. We can't see the ratings of players, only how their OVR compares to our schemes. If I have redzone threat as my WR scheme, if I'm trying to find different types of WR in FA I have to go back and move the schemes around. No team will employ only 1 type of WR, yet in the game that's how it is set up.

Does the scheme system help the CPU? I'm not sure, in CFM so many other variables may be effecting CPU decision making I can't tell. But from a Users perspective, where the schemes were hyped as something User oriented to deepen the mode, it's can also make it annoying in other areas as well.

I'm not saying that only OVRs matter, personally I wish the basic OVR would stay the same and it would simply tell me if the player was a good/ok/bad fit for my scheme, but if they are going to include all these other variables at least let them be usable for the User.

[PMO]

Quote: Originally Posted by TMJOHNS18

I think what the OP is getting at is that it's not utilized from the Users perspective like it should. With these extra slots per position, such as DT2, HB2, CB2, CB3, and MLB2 you may see, it would be nice if your depth chart reflected this. What if I want to utilize 2 different sets of DTs, or I want my slot WR to be a different style than my #1? Can I do this? Sure, of course I can. It's just annoying that all players are compared to what the #1 does and not what they are there for. Where this really impacts the Users I think is in FA. We can't see the ratings of players, only how their OVR compares to our schemes. If I have redzone threat as my WR scheme, if I'm trying to find different types of WR in FA I have to go back and move the schemes around. No team will employ only 1 type of WR, yet in the game that's how it is set up. Does the scheme system help the CPU? I'm not sure, in CFM so many other variables may be effecting CPU decision making I can't tell. But from a Users perspective, where the schemes were hyped as something User oriented to deepen the mode, it's can also make it annoying in other areas as well. I'm not saying that only OVRs matter, personally I wish the basic OVR would stay the same and it would simply tell me if the player was a good/ok/bad fit for my scheme, but if they are going to include all these other variables at least let them be usable for the User.

Thank you, exactly what my first point was and I really apologize my second point was so far off from everyone's opinion of meaning of overall.

[mrprice33]

Quote: Originally Posted by TMJOHNS18

I think what the OP is getting at is that it's not utilized from the Users perspective like it should. With these extra slots per position, such as DT2, HB2, CB2, CB3, and MLB2 you may see, it would be nice if your depth chart reflected this. What if I want to utilize 2 different sets of DTs, or I want my slot WR to be a different style than my #1? Can I do this? Sure, of course I can. It's just annoying that all players are compared to what the #1 does and not what they are there for. Where this really impacts the Users I think is in FA. We can't see the ratings of players, only how their OVR compares to our schemes. If I have redzone threat as my WR scheme, if I'm trying to find different types of WR in FA I have to go back and move the schemes around. No team will employ only 1 type of WR, yet in the game that's how it is set up. Does the scheme system help the CPU? I'm not sure, in CFM so many other variables may be effecting CPU decision making I can't tell. But from a Users perspective, where the schemes were hyped as something User oriented to deepen the mode, it's can also make it annoying in other areas as well. I'm not saying that only OVRs matter, personally I wish the basic OVR would stay the same and it would simply tell me if the player was a good/ok/bad fit for my scheme, but if they are going to include all these other variables at least let them be usable for the User.

This makes more sense. What I usually do for these types of hyper-specific situations is look more at physical traits than ratings. Like, if I'm looking specifically for a shifty slot receiver I'm staying away from guys who are taller than like 5-10 or 5-11.

But yes, there should be some type of way to separate types of players. They could take some of those player archetypes and just make them available to users. Maybe if when you were on the FA screen there was one word to describe the player. Like, for wide receivers you could see "shifty" which would mean a Welker type of player.

[dazzelle]

Sorry to hijack the thread, i posted this in the Q&A thread.

"Been out of the loop with madden for a number of years and just messing around with CFM before i start a legit one in a few weeks.

How or what do the schemes like QB1,HB1,WR1 effect my team, should i have players that use those schemes and does my team get a boost or something like play styles in MUT."

Does anyone have any more info or link to on what schemes do in CFM.

[Sheba2011]

Quote: Originally Posted by PMO

I disagree, I think he should be rated how he actually is because he is the backup, not the QB1 which my scheme says. If I change him to QB1 then yes please drop him letting me know he's a good QB but not in the current scheme and should change it. I shouldn't see all my QB's on my roster as mobile QB's. I'm sure out three in Cleveland Hoyer and Manziel font have same scheme offenses or out in Washington either with RG3 and Cousins. Actual overall should be seen until your placed into that scheme position ala QB1 or RB1........ What about teams with thunder and lighting type backs...... Pitt with Bell and Blount, NYJ with CJ and Ivory. Why if RB1 is set to speed do the big RB2 backs have to lose there "real" overall rating?

I understand your point but Carolina's entire offense/playbook is designed around a mobile QB, if they had to play Derek Anderson in say week 8 he would be forced into an offense with a team designed for Cam Newton's talents. Look at it the opposite way, if RG3 was Tom Brady's backup he would be significantly worse in the Patriots offense. He would be forced to sit in the pocket and act as a drop-back passer as the Patriots offense is built to take advantage of a mobile QB. He might still be a good QB but he won't be the RG3 everyone knows.