How to get the most out of progression??

[Ueauvan]

i have no problems changing positions however if you enter the off season the players become older and the skills are more exp at any position to upgrade (assuming 76+)

[Madwolf]

I'd still rather see natural progression that actually works.

[fringeelement]

Glad people are finally talking about this. I didn't mean to be dismissive about the article people posted, it's just that I've been using it and it still doesn't seem to work. For example, have a 3rd year WR who's consistently posted great numbers (not on my team). This year, he had 8000 some points and I used them to add 16 points spread out among the 4 attributes that are weighted the highest (12%) and he only went up 1 point OVR. That doesn't seem right.


Thanks for the tip on improving CBs, Ajra21. Unfortunately, because I'm doing the progression for all 32 teams that may be a bit too time consuming for my needs and if I did it just for my team, it would give me an unfair advantage.


It's also an interesting idea to wait a few years before spending any points. Not sure I have the patience though, especially since I'm about to wrap up my 'chise and move on to The Show for a bit before '17 comes out. However, doesn't the cost of attributes go up as a player spends more time in the league. Therefore, would you not get as much for your points in his third year as you would if you spent them after his first?


I know a lot of people hate the whole XP progression, and I personally am indifferent towards it. I just want it to work properly. Last year it was too easy, this year too hard. Along those lines though, I do like that it prevents the league from being inundated with 90+ players, which I think should be reserved for HOF caliber players. However, there does need to be some of them that come out of the CPU generated classes.


It also would cease to be a problem if they would just do away with OVR, rate the intangibles by letter grade, and force players to make personnel decisions based on production.


But now I'm rambling...

[Mattanite]

The change in OVR in CFM is also linked to the scheme... e.g. so dumping lots of XP into route running when you have a possession scheme will increase the OVR less than if you put the XP into catch in traffic.


Balanced schemes are sometimes harder to progress than schemes that are a bit more extreme in what they look for, for instance, an MLB in balance scheme needs to increase block shed, tackle, awareness, play recognition and cover skills as they are weighted more evenly in OVR but a Cover 2 scheme LB increases mainly man and zone coverage (for way less XP) to get the same OVR boost.


Having said that, in game, the Cover 2 LB, whilst rated higher OVR in your scheme, will be a huge liability in tackling and stopping the run as the player has been developed unevenly.


This doesn't even mention how size, durability and physicality factors into the OVR, which essentially sets the cap on the OVR e.g. a zone CB that you develop with fantastic coverage skills and awareness but is injury prone, an average athlete and too small for your prototype scheme will likely not reach 90+ OVR despite the fact he is still a good player, where as a prototype CB with great size, physicality and injury will have his OVR inflated within your scheme, be higher on the depth chart, despite the fact he might suck in coverage.

[fringeelement]

Those are all good points Geodude, and basically the same conclusions that I've finally come too.


I've been paying attention to schemes when doing the progression for other teams and it has made a little bit of difference. You are very correct about "Balanced" players as they are mostly weighted towards the physical attributes that simply cost too much to upgrade. In that same regard, I've come to accept the fact that some guys just don't possess the "athleticism" to become elite, regardless of how good their intangible ratings are. I kind of like it like that, I just wish I knew it sooner as it definitely changes my draft strategy.