I was just thinking about how the ratings systems works. It seems like everyone gets upset if their team's players aren't rated the way they want, specifically the overall ratings.
That got me to thinking on how the overall rating shouldn't work the way is does. I believe there should be a overall rating depending on what the player is doing.
For example:
Matt Forte (Bears fan)
He is a good runner, receiver, and blocker with good speed. If you made all of those ratings high it would amount to a very high over all and would intern make people think he is over rater.
If they made an overall rating for each skilled area instead of the overall I think it would make more sense.
Offense
- Running
- Blocking
- Receiver ability
- Passing ability
These are generally all of the things a player could be doing while on offense. The overall for those areas would be passed on the ratings for that particular task and the players overall awareness, play recognition, athleticism, and size.
Something similar on Defense could be:
Defense
- Coverage
- Pass Rush
- Run stopping
I think you get the idea. That would make a player like Matt Forte maybe look like:
Running: 88
Blocking: 67
Receiving: 75
Instead of the most recent update overall of 92 and that is the only thing people care about. I think this leads people to believe he is a better runner then other backs which isn't always the case. Other backs might be much better runners but overall someone might prefer Forte because he is more of a complete any down back.
That way people can compare each player by what they want to use them for and not just the vague overall system currently being used.
I want to add that I really liked in the first NFL Head Coach game that the players ratings were not static, they were a range. The number for each game was determined by several factors and set before the game. The could base it on things like: mood, health, how well they have been playing, training, and who they are playing.
What do you think of the idea?
02-24-2009, 04:07 PM
