What rating are you most annoyed at?

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by Smallmoneyjeff

Is anyone gonna address that this guy really said carr should be an 89? I’d say he’s overrated now.

Never going moan about or bother to debate specific ratings ( especially with "homers" ) it's hard enough to debate about reality let alone the peculiar beast that is any Madden rating
Everybody is entitled to an opinion , and everybody's will vary
Secondly what is a Madden rating anyway ? Is it describing that player as of the end of the previous season ? , is it a reflection of that players career so far ? Is it a predictor of the upcoming season ? To some extent it's at least it has elements of all 3 in my mind

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

Confirmation bias is fun. No, AWR is completely inert when you're controlling the player. Clint has confirmed this repeatedly, now I'm verifying it. https://twitter.com/ClintOldenburg/s...70337740259328 https://twitter.com/clintoldenburg/s...35029592387584

To be fair all Clint actually CONFIRMS is that AWR doesn't impact the QB play if user controlled , no specific reference to other implications , though that may be just semantics
I'd agree though this is likely to be placebo , certainly it's never been stated by any dev , or proven beyond any doubt , there's a minefield of theories in the slider forum , some may be true , but rarely is any concrete evidence posted , I'd imagine many 'tests' involve such small sample sizes that a lot if the variation is no more than random noise , and as stated confirmation bias

[adembroski]

Quote: Originally Posted by briz1046

Never going moan about or bother to debate specific ratings ( especially with "homers" ) it's hard enough to debate about reality let alone the peculiar beast that is any Madden rating Everybody is entitled to an opinion , and everybody's will vary Secondly what is a Madden rating anyway ? Is it describing that player as of the end of the previous season ? , is it a reflection of that players career so far ? Is it a predictor of the upcoming season ? To some extent it's at least it has elements of all 3 in my mind

I would call it a compromise between the general public's perception of a player and his actual ability at the moment. I have no argument with that.

That said, with young or inexperienced players, I find both Kane and Donny before him tend to not give players the benefit of the doubt (otherwise Garoppolo would be a 90), but wait until they prove it. This is the approach I don't like. I think guys like Garoppolo should be placed at least halfway between their floor and ceiling until they start trending one way or the other. Wentz put up 95 rating numbers last season, are we really going to assume he's a middle-of-the-pack starter just because he got hurt? MOST players come back from injury just fine, why do we assume he'll regress? Why do we assume a 5 game winning streak on a talentless roster is a fluke?

As for Derek Carr, there's conflicting evidence. The tape says he lacks some tools, the number say he overcomes this. I'm really not willing to have the argument because I don't know. I wouldn't sign the guy as my franchise QB right now, but if I already had him I'd keep him.

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

The real question is why. While it would be more realistic for teams to play a player who's productive over one whose young and slightly more talented, it would be realistic because reality is not knowing precisely who's better. In Madden, we kinda know who's better, right? This would put CPU teams at a disadvantage. So by doing as you suggest, we're treating a symptom and putting the CPU at a disadvantage. A far better solution would be to treat the disease and insert some uncertainty in talent evaluation. The way I'd do this would be to have ratings replaced by evaluation; your position coach and coordinator's opinion of a guy's talent. Those, btw, might be different, and you as the head coach are responsible for making the final call. It still translates into something like the archetype overall rating, but it's less certain. Your DBs coach, being a guy who favors big press-man type corners might say Richard Sherman's the best CB in the league, while your defensive coordinator, a cover 2 guy, would rather have a Ronde Barber. Now you have to decide; your DC is a more experienced, accomplished coach, but he's a former d-line coach and has a forest over the trees perspective, while your position coach spends more time with the particular player but might not quite have the same level of experience or isn't looking at the big picture and how he fits into the defense. So you get *mostly* accurate but uncertain information. It's very important it's close enough and enough information is available to make an informed decision, but it need not be spelled out for you as it is now. How the CPU would do this is to give the Head Coach the same kind of logic as the DC and DB coach, allowing him to break the tie. This was actually the intent of the "big decisions" feature when I first started talking about it back in '13 (I don't know if my idea was directly responsible for the '17 feature, I only know it resembles what I suggested back in '14 somewhat). The idea was two-fold; 1.) By finding a way to boil as much down to binary decisions, presented directly to the user, we'd increase retention in CFM by not overwhelming inexperienced players with information, and 2.) by presenting the CPU with the same binary choices, we can more easily create logic that would compete with User players. So the plan was to bake as much of the decision-making process into the talent evaluation system as possible. For example, players would ultimately have 3 "Overalls", based on right now, a 3-year projection, and a 5-year projection. This took care of teams drafting QBs in consecutive years because CPU teams would evaluate how close they were to compete for a title and use the appropriate projection to evaluate their roster. Clearly that's not where it went after I left, but that was the idea.

Yes excellent ideas and you're right my idea would have put CPU teams at a disadvantage if the user chose not to "play the game" , badly thought though on my part a consequence of too many years of using 32 team control I'd imagine

[Madden08PCgmr]

Brady-Brees.

Both are on the verge of historical accomplishments.

How can 1 be a 99, the other a 91?

Silliness.

[adembroski]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madden08PCgmr

Brady-Brees. Both are on the verge of historical accomplishments. How can 1 be a 99, the other a 91? Silliness.

You're not kidding?

[stinkubus]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madden08PCgmr

Brady-Brees. Both are on the verge of historical accomplishments. How can 1 be a 99, the other a 91? Silliness.

Do you think Drew Brees' play will be limited in any way? He's going to be fine and almost certainly capable of making most of the throws in the game. Why get so hung up on the OVR?

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

I would call it a compromise between the general public's perception of a player and his actual ability at the moment. I have no argument with that. That said, with young or inexperienced players, I find both Kane and Donny before him tend to not give players the benefit of the doubt (otherwise Garoppolo would be a 90), but wait until they prove it. This is the approach I don't like. I think guys like Garoppolo should be placed at least halfway between their floor and ceiling until they start trending one way or the other. Wentz put up 95 rating numbers last season, are we really going to assume he's a middle-of-the-pack starter just because he got hurt? MOST players come back from injury just fine, why do we assume he'll regress? Why do we assume a 5 game winning streak on a talentless roster is a fluke? As for Derek Carr, there's conflicting evidence. The tape says he lacks some tools, the number say he overcomes this. I'm really not willing to have the argument because I don't know. I wouldn't sign the guy as my franchise QB right now, but if I already had him I'd keep him.

Haha certainly didn't mean to imply I'm not going to edit the rosters to be more in line with my own opinion , merely that im not prepared to spend time attempting to convince others that MY opinion is any more worthy than anybody else's