Ask and you shall receive.

[Herky]

Any indication of the free agent pool drying up like last year?

[JMD]

Thanks for posting the pic's. Next time turn your flash off.

[PacMan3000]

The problem was not that players didn't progress, it was that it was pre-determined progression. Sure, McFadden goes up to an 88 and then to a 90, but other people have reported the exact same trend after the exact same amount of years. I guess it's progress, but it's 100% arbitrary.

Also, I think there were claims that certain players did or didn't regress due to editing, that players that ride the bench get better when starters don't, a lack of regression...things like that.

[sois]

Someone put McFadden on (the broken) Injured Reserve, or bench him for a season, see if he still gets up to the same progression levels.

[ACardAttack]

Quote: Originally Posted by sois

Someone put McFadden on (the broken) Injured Reserve, or bench him for a season, see if he still gets up to the same progression levels.

I like this idea

[RoyalBoyle78]

CB, you the man, I didn't even look into franchise, but I had doubts on what people said, I honestly for minute didn't think it was broken, also I see some players change and some don't, and that absolutely realistic, not every freaking player in the NFL gets better or worse every year, if there solid I wouldn't accept there ratings to change, but if they have a big season they of course, some for guys looking for every player to change that just doesn't happen, not even in reality.


Anyway big props to CB for this.

[Jono078]

I hope noone calls me a noob and all..

But the fact is progression sucks.

What CB failed to show you is for example McFadden after 10 seasons.

He would always go up to 90 after 2 seasons, then after that he didn't move 1 bit until he lead the league in rushing AND also won the SB with the Raiders. And even then he only went up to 91 OVR.

As you guys above mentioned, in one of my franchises McFadden failed to progress at all. If they don't play any games it seems they won't progress in their first season, if they touch the ball a bit they'll still move up though.

Veterans don't regress either. Only players i've seen go down are kickers and punters and also rookies after a first season.

From what I can see players that you start the franchise with will only progress in 3 seasons maximum while from then on generated rookies progress a bit better an over a longer time.

EDIT: And this is what I hate most.

I HATE that in the 3rd season I only saw 2 players on my Vikings roster progress, they can't just stay the same if they don't play football or on the other hand they have wonder seasons and move not 1 bit.

What this causes is the already existing top teams will stay at the top because they don't regress and they already have good players so don't need to progress.

Put it this way, I reckon if you sim a Dolphins franchise for 15 season they won't even win 1 superbowl. Heck i'm yet to do it with the Vikings just by simming!

It's always the Patriots, Colts, Chargers, Steelers, Cowboys and Eagles

[RoyalBoyle78]

Quote: Originally Posted by PacMan3000

The problem was not that players didn't progress, it was that it was pre-determined progression. Sure, McFadden goes up to an 88 and then to a 90, but other people have reported the exact same trend after the exact same amount of years. I guess it's progress, but it's 100% arbitrary. Also, I think there were claims that certain players did or didn't regress due to editing, that players that ride the bench get better when starters don't, a lack of regression...things like that.

bench players getting better then starters, where did you read this, I find this hard to believe. No offense man.