Franchise quarterbacks (and other positions) and the draft

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

What are the odds that in real life the Rams would draft a quarterback in an early round in 2018? 2019? 2020? Practically zero. Yet they do in Madden.

Teams who invest a first round pick in a quarterback aren't doing that again a year later. Even teams who invest a second round pick rarely draft a first round qb the next year (the Panthers and Newton being a rare exception). But certainly not a qb drafted first overall. That never happens.

Wouldn't it be nice if Madden reflected this by, say, having an under the hood "franchise player" type rating, that affects how CPU controlled teams draft? Such a rating would automatically put quarterbacks drafted in the first round in that category. And it doesn't even need to be under the hood. I remember an older Madden had something similar (quarterback of the future type traits, for example).

An additional adjustment that would be nice is for teams to not draft back to back qbs in the same draft. I don't know what's going on with the algorithm there, but clearly the AI is not recognizing when they've spent a valuable resource on a position.


So in short, it would be cool if the CPU AI had some sort of gateway that prevented them from drafting a qb in the early rounds if they selected a qb in round 1 either within the last few seasons or within the same draft.

[CM Hooe]

Having intangible player tags / badges / roles / whatever you want to call them this week is something I also hope Madden brings back. I don't think that they were fully explored in older Madden games, and the game designers at Tiburon could offer a lot more creative behaviors with badges now if they wanted to.

For example, the QB Of The Future badge in Madden 08 just increased a player's trade value, IIRC, and the badge was dropped if the team drafted another R1 QB. Tiburon could expand that to outright prevent the AI from drafting a QB in R1 at all for at least one more season, and that only if the head coach didn't get fired.

I wouldn't limit badges to just modifying CPU behavior though, I'd also want to encourage specific user behaviors; this badge could also reward a small weekly XP bonus to that QB Of The Future player so long as he has the badge, as to prod along the player's development a tad and also encourage users to maintain having that badge. Thus it would also discourage users from drafting R1 QBs if they already have a QB Of The Future on the roster.

Another similar user-behavior-modifying idea that might be cool is a "Developmental Quarterback" badge. In M08, all the similar "Project Player" badge did was - just like the QB Of The Future badge - increase a player's trade value. The new reimagined badge might instead grant the badged player an automatic +5 AWR / +5 TAS / +5 TAM / +5 DAC / +5 PAC / +5 TOR immediately applied at the end of the season, but only if that player didn't record any stats (i.e. he didn't play and was basically practicing all year). He'd then show up in his second season a much improved player, possibly primed to take over the starting role for his team, but only if he got to sit and watch all year. If he was forced into duty or a coach threw him into the fire, then the potential bonus would be lost.

I'd be interested in seeing things like this which encourage different playing styles with the existing parameters of the mode. That in turn would encourage more varied user behaviors and experiences, which would make Franchise more interesting to play over time.

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Having intangible player tags / badges / roles / whatever you want to call them this week is something I also hope Madden brings back. I don't think that they were fully explored in older Madden games, and the game designers at Tiburon could offer a lot more creative behaviors with badges now if they wanted to. For example, the QB Of The Future badge in Madden 08 just increased a player's trade value, IIRC, and the badge was dropped if the team drafted another R1 QB. Tiburon could expand that to outright prevent the AI from drafting a QB in R1 at all for at least one more season, and that only if the head coach didn't get fired. I wouldn't limit badges to just modifying CPU behavior though, I'd also want to encourage specific user behaviors; this badge could also reward a small weekly XP bonus to that QB Of The Future player so long as he has the badge, as to prod along the player's development a tad and also encourage users to maintain having that badge. Thus it would also discourage users from drafting R1 QBs if they already have a QB Of The Future on the roster. Another similar user-behavior-modifying idea that might be cool is a "Developmental Quarterback" badge. In M08, all the similar "Project Player" badge did was - just like the QB Of The Future badge - increase a player's trade value. The new reimagined badge might instead grant the badged player an automatic +5 AWR / +5 TAS / +5 TAM / +5 DAC / +5 PAC / +5 TOR immediately applied at the end of the season, but only if that player didn't record any stats (i.e. he didn't play and was basically practicing all year). He'd then show up in his second season a much improved player, possibly primed to take over the starting role for his team, but only if he got to sit and watch all year. If he was forced into duty or a coach threw him into the fire, then the potential bonus would be lost. I'd be interested in seeing things like this which encourage different playing styles with the existing parameters of the mode. That in turn would encourage more varied user behaviors and experiences, which would make Franchise more interesting to play over time.

Developmental qb is a great idea. Would add a lot more realism with such a small addition. I mean, what are the odds of seeing Patrick Mahomes this season? Pretty low.

[itsmb8]

How about a "team value" rating, that takes into account overall, potential, player type, their contract, and maybe age? Then that rating could be used to rate team needs. So if you have the current Bears situation, at first glance just by overall, the QB position is a need. With the value rating, Trubisky would get a 80-90 because he is looked at as the franchise QB, and Glennon might get an 80 value rating because of his contract. With the value rating, the AI can then recognize that even with average overall QBs, that position actually isn't a need, and would look elsewhere with high draft picks.

[ParaAut]

Quote: Originally Posted by ForUntoOblivionSoar∞

What are the odds that in real life the Rams would draft a quarterback in an early round in 2018? 2019? 2020? Practically zero. Yet they do in Madden. Teams who invest a first round pick in a quarterback aren't doing that again a year later. Even teams who invest a second round pick rarely draft a first round qb the next year (the Panthers and Newton being a rare exception). But certainly not a qb drafted first overall. That never happens. Wouldn't it be nice if Madden reflected this by, say, having an under the hood "franchise player" type rating, that affects how CPU controlled teams draft? Such a rating would automatically put quarterbacks drafted in the first round in that category. And it doesn't even need to be under the hood. I remember an older Madden had something similar (quarterback of the future type traits, for example). An additional adjustment that would be nice is for teams to not draft back to back qbs in the same draft. I don't know what's going on with the algorithm there, but clearly the AI is not recognizing when they've spent a valuable resource on a position. So in short, it would be cool if the CPU AI had some sort of gateway that prevented them from drafting a qb in the early rounds if they selected a qb in round 1 either within the last few seasons or within the same draft.

I'm not so sure on that. I don't think it's necessary to block the CPU from drafting a QB in the early rounds if they just invested in a possible franchise QB. Even though draft logic could be improved a bit.

Let's say the Rams will fail miserably this year and end up with the first overall pick. Jared Goff completely fails too and to come back to Madden - ends with an overall of 76. Do you really think a QB is out of the question if there is a really good prospect? Maybe not after year 1, but after 2 years there are many teams giving up an their "possible franchise QB".

The CPU just needs to value more aspects (development, overall, attributes, age, ...) and then decide for the draft picks.

[Godgers12]

Quote: Originally Posted by ForUntoOblivionSoar∞

What are the odds that in real life the Rams would draft a quarterback in an early round in 2018? 2019? 2020? Practically zero. Yet they do in Madden. Teams who invest a first round pick in a quarterback aren't doing that again a year later. Even teams who invest a second round pick rarely draft a first round qb the next year (the Panthers and Newton being a rare exception). But certainly not a qb drafted first overall. That never happens. Wouldn't it be nice if Madden reflected this by, say, having an under the hood "franchise player" type rating, that affects how CPU controlled teams draft? Such a rating would automatically put quarterbacks drafted in the first round in that category. And it doesn't even need to be under the hood. I remember an older Madden had something similar (quarterback of the future type traits, for example). An additional adjustment that would be nice is for teams to not draft back to back qbs in the same draft. I don't know what's going on with the algorithm there, but clearly the AI is not recognizing when they've spent a valuable resource on a position. So in short, it would be cool if the CPU AI had some sort of gateway that prevented them from drafting a qb in the early rounds if they selected a qb in round 1 either within the last few seasons or within the same draft.

Actually I give it about a 50/50 chance that Rams take a QB in the top 3 rounds in 2018, and about a 85% chance of them doing so in 2019, because Jared Goff is a bum. So it won't take them long to realize that as well. But I do get what you're saying. Also, the Redskins took Cousins in the 4th round the same year they took RG3, if that happened in Madden people would be outraged, just saying.

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Quote: Originally Posted by Godgers12

Actually I give it about a 50/50 chance that Rams take a QB in the top 3 rounds in 2018, and about a 85% chance of them doing so in 2019, because Jared Goff is a bum. So it won't take them long to realize that as well. But I do get what you're saying. Also, the Redskins took Cousins in the 4th round the same year they took RG3, if that happened in Madden people would be outraged, just saying.

No. The 4th round is reasonable with a lot of precedence. My issue, and their issue, is a team drafting a qb at 1, then in the same draft picking one at 2, or drafting one at 1 in 201x and then again in 201x+1.

But I HIGHLY doubt the Rams draft another high qb until Goff is in his last year at the earliest. Thats too much money and draft capital tonthrow down the tubes for a position that is often the slowest to develop.

Quote: Originally Posted by ParaAut

I'm not so sure on that. I don't think it's necessary to block the CPU from drafting a QB in the early rounds if they just invested in a possible franchise QB. Even though draft logic could be improved a bit. Let's say the Rams will fail miserably this year and end up with the first overall pick. Jared Goff completely fails too and to come back to Madden - ends with an overall of 76. Do you really think a QB is out of the question if there is a really good prospect? Maybe not after year 1, but after 2 years there are many teams giving up an their "possible franchise QB". The CPU just needs to value more aspects (development, overall, attributes, age, ...) and then decide for the draft picks.

Yes it's completely out of the question because he isn't just their "potential franchise quarterback: he's the number one pick and costed massive drsft cspitsl to acquire.. There is zero chance the Rams give up on Goff when half of his contract remains. This is a position notorious for slow development, and as I said it's a player they've invested massive draft capital and money in.

Even the Raiders and Jamarcus Russell didn't end their relationship until after his third year.

So for a number one overall pick, or a top 5 pick in general, definitely not until after year 3. After all, that's hoe many it takes to get a good read on a qb anyway, minimum.

[DeuceDouglas]

Your premise is right but I think the Rams are a bad example just because after two years you probably know more or less what you've got and if they're terrible again like they've been and in a position to draft someone who they believe and are confident in putting them in a better position long term then they have to strongly consider it. Money isn't as much of a factor as it used to be where you have to try and make it work for more than a couple years and if you pass on a guy to keep trying to make it work it can set you back even more. If it works with a new guy the money and draft capital mean nothing because you've got your guy for potentially the next ten years. I think the Eagles, Cowboys or Chiefs would be a better example. The chances of either of them taking a QB high next year would be almost none I'd say.

But I'm still with you. There's no way anything like this:





should ever be happening under any circumstance. I like the idea of roles but have never been a fan of artificial or arbitrary boosts that seem to come with them. Something I'd like to see is the Dev Trait being calculated into OVR so teams would naturally value high potential players more and low potential players less but ultimately this issue still comes strictly down to the draft logic and anything extraneous should be secondary. It's obviously tough though because franchise mode has always seemed to be hamstrung by very poor roster AI not limited to the draft but also free agency and trades as well.