I think till we give him the Benefit of the doubt and he doesn't produce on the feild agian. It's really no different then giving Reggie Bush or Devin Hester the benefit of the doubt their first season wasn't a fluke. I mean, What if Hester doesn't run back anything next year (doubtful, but it wont be 6)? They already gave him the 100 speed, if he doesn't produce, he will be knocked down.
Im just saying, you should give the players who have done what good rookies have done their first season, for several seasons the benefit of the doubt. Unitl they prove us they cant play agian, then yeah, i guess something should be done. But players like Harrison and Holt who are ageing, are not losing a step in production, they are getting older, but they are still the top in the league. Harrison might be the best, and im wondering why Smith is a 99 before him.
But for players like Bruce or Rod Smith, who are still capable of hitting that 1000 yard mark and 5 TD's as 2nd WR, should still get the benefit of the doubt, like first year young rookies do. We can't forshadow their decline just because they are getting older. Until they really show us they can't play up to their abilities anymore. And I dont think we can forshadow a rookies next season by rating him higher then what they would, just because hes younger. I agree it should all be based on the pevious season, but players in between should get the benefit of the doubt, at least before rookies do.
|
Quote: |
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by BezO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's why there are individual ratings. Ignore the overall rating for a second and imagine him rated realistically. There's no doubt he's one of the most elusive players in the league, so reflect that in the game. But his vision sucks, so reflect that. He's 205 lbs and probably one of the weaker backs in the league, so reflect that. His indurance and toughness were also sub par, so reflect that.
Being a specialized player with great speed, elusiveness & hands may inflate his overall rating, but his lack of vision, size, strength, indurance & toughness will give you that 3.6 yard per carry. IMO, you can't penalize him in open field situations because he averaged 3.6 ypc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, but I don't you should grant him a high rating if he can only run in the open feild. Users are going to find holes, when the computer plays, he can run into blockers and have bad vision all he wants. But when someone is playing, they will find those holes. And then thats when Reggie Bush is better in the game then he is in real life, I think thats all im saying.
|
Quote: |
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by BezO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think we disagree except that you're concerned with overall ratings and I'm not.
But overall ratings changed when you switched positions. If they scaled it correctly, Hester's overall rating at CB or WR would be much lower than as a K/PR. And Bush should/would have a higher rating as a WR than a RB.
But, even if the overall ratings are not scaled properly, the individual ratings should take care of things. Hester's cover ability would be low, he may or may not have good hands, his routes may suck, ect. But with the ball in his hands, in the open field, he would be dangerous because of his speed and agility.
Same for Bush. He wouldn't break many tackles, he'd have to come out for a few plays after hard hits, when CPU controlled he would miss holes, ect. But with the ball in his hands, in the open field, he would be dangerous because of his speed and agility.
In other words, ignore the overall ratings. EA obviously doesn't scale them in a way most of see fit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I understand. Im just saying. I said Hester ratings changed. Thats what I hope happends when you move Bush around, as I said. Hes a much better RB/WR then he is a RB. Whens he is in the backfield, 3.6 ypc is not very affective. When his coming out on a slot, or from a swing pass, yes he is. I just hope when I put him in the backfeild I dont see a 94 rating.