Madden NFL 19 Franchise Blog

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

IMHO regression and progression should have absolutely NOTHING to do with stats and should instead be tied to HC ratings, OC/DC ratings (need those in the game), Position coach ratings (need those in the game), player DEV ratings, and practice/training, and maybe playing experience. Nothing else.


How many 2000 yard running backs come back and do it again? None of them. Because they don't magically get better because they had a great year. They have a great year because they (and their team) had already gotten better. That and a lot of things went their way.


Putting up stats doesn't make you better. Never has, never will.

[Ueauvan]

in hc06 players got better because the coaching staff got better or were good to start. you had more chance to progress/increase potential or even realise potential if you were younger. same should happen with vet hc and young staff they should have higher chance to improve if they are younger.

i usually have 10 lbers on my roster, 7 are likely to regress given this blog. my backup oline, dbs will regress. my 4/5/6 wr and #3 hb etc

this is rubbish

[howboutdat]

Quote: Originally Posted by ForUntoOblivionSoar∞

IMHO regression and progression should have absolutely NOTHING to do with stats and should instead be tied to HC ratings, OC/DC ratings (need those in the game), Position coach ratings (need those in the game), player DEV ratings, and practice/training, and maybe playing experience. Nothing else. How many 2000 yard running backs come back and do it again? None of them. Because they don't magically get better because they had a great year. They have a great year because they (and their team) had already gotten better. That and a lot of things went their way. Putting up stats doesn't make you better. Never has, never will.

Yes, and honestly its one of my biggest issues with a stat based xp system to progress players. No coach has ever said " Jim needs 50 more yards receiving so he can improve his catching in traffic ability." There is nothing realistic about that at all. I get why they have it this way, but its not a realistic way. Most guys get better thru training , practicing with team , studying film , etc.



Sorry if this was addressed earlier in this thread, but ive not had time to read over the 30 pages .

In past maddens there has been ( on average) 2-4 pretty good players per position ( some on lower end to 1 in some drafts). I am kinda curious now though with these schemes in place to make some difference. They seem to be focusing on you would want to draft guys to fit your scheme which is cool. However it makes me wonder ( as an online commish) - Will there be more than 2-4 pretty good players per position . Like will there be 2 good possession catching , 2 deep threat , 3 red zone threat, 2 slot receivers ? Or will it just be 2-4 total in wr group and possibly your scheme does not have one of them?

I can see a positive and negative for both ways here. Just curious if this is something that a dev has answered and i missed it or not ?Personally i hope nothing there has changed to make people really have to think of new ways in which they draft, instead of just going with the fastest, or strongest.

[Reed1417]

I just hope that if I decide to let Lamar Jackson "learn" from Flacco the first year or so he doesn't regress because he doesn't fit the scheme or get enough playing time to put up stats. That would not be ideal.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[jfsolo]

We'll see soon enough, but I'd bet money that no rookie is going to regress in his first year if he doesn't play. It's possible I guess that a player may shift from Superstar to Star development if he doesn't play at all, but Arron Rodgers notwithstanding, I'm okay with that because they could also flip back if they ball out later. Also Verts has been talking about how the goals have been changed so we'll see how that alters the development of players.

[Ueauvan]

i dont believe any HC has a target in a game except win, screw how its done just do it same as players.

[mtmetcalfe]

Quote: Originally Posted by jfsolo

We'll see soon enough, but I'd bet money that no rookie is going to regress in his first year if he doesn't play. It's possible I guess that a player may shift from Superstar to Star development if he doesn't play at all, but Arron Rodgers notwithstanding, I'm okay with that because they could also flip back if they ball out later. Also Verts has been talking about how the goals have been changed so we'll see how that alters the development of players.

At this point, if they're going to keep the progression system they have now, they should just heavily weight assigned xp according to age, scheme fit, dev trait and sprinkle in xp for performance at a much reduced allowance

[adembroski]

Quote: Originally Posted by ForUntoOblivionSoar∞

IMHO regression and progression should have absolutely NOTHING to do with stats and should instead be tied to HC ratings, OC/DC ratings (need those in the game), Position coach ratings (need those in the game), player DEV ratings, and practice/training, and maybe playing experience. Nothing else. How many 2000 yard running backs come back and do it again? None of them. Because they don't magically get better because they had a great year. They have a great year because they (and their team) had already gotten better. That and a lot of things went their way. Putting up stats doesn't make you better. Never has, never will.

This.

Production based progression is bad on 3 fronts;

1. It's unbalanced. It means the rich get richer. You can't develop a young team because they can't reach stats players who are already good.

2. You can't have projects like a Steve Young who spendd time learning before becoming MVP his 1st 2 years as a starter and winning a ring in year 3.

3. It's unrealistic and back asswards. Improvement leads to performance, not the other way around.