Devil's Advocate Part 2

[CVELL]

Back again to contnue my quest for the 'perfect' game. Let's get into it -

An easy, yet time consuming, way I judge how teams are ranked/rated is to simulate about 10 year 1 seasons and see which teams do what. How many seasons did the Arizona Cardinals reach the Super Bowl out of 10 tries? 0. What about Dallas? 6.

This happens EVERY YEAR. Every year there are teams that are 'hyped' up to be this or that but do not live up to it. I want to eliminate this. How? Stop giving teams predispositions to succeed by computer assistance, and ALWAYS leave it on the User to determinate success. Just because your Defense is rated 96, doesn't mean you should be able to sit in Cover 3 all day.

Example - Pittsburgh. Excuse me, Blitzburgh. But WHY is this they're strenghth? Outstanding front 7, but i'll focus on the 3 first. DL ALLOWS LB's freedom to do what they need to do for success. We should have to do the same. Pittsburgh Defense shouldn't have the same 'bite' in a Dime because they are simply missing 3 starting LB's on the field. Just like

I'm so tired of having to play Dallas 7 out of 10 times I play with Indianapolis. Now, if thats your favorite team, cool, but 5 out those 7 times a User goes to get them just for the 'extra' help they will get on defense. This ruins my experience for 1 simple reason - its effective. Yes, it should be hard to exploit a good defense, but I have a question to anyone reading. If a good defense is more important/impactful than a good offense, what is the point of playing with a good offense? Didn't the Colts win a Super Bowl against the 'best' defense, statistically, ever?

Point being that Offense and Defense must have an equally important part of what makes a team successful, but it has to still be up to us to play the game. If you need to establish a run to pass or vice verse, there must be risks/rewards to influence that strategy. If a Defense constantly sits in a 2 Deep, don't make the Safties not react properly to a Streak just because its Randy Moss. Put the pressure on the Offense to be patient and work. Besides, throwing a Streak is something that needs to be set up or read due to risk, not reward.

Last point, for now - The NFL is considered boring to some die hard football fans because the players are just too AWARE to work certain strategies. This is why the NFL is commonly referred to as 'a game of inches' or 'its all about field position'. Example - Most head coaches would rather punt the ball untill they cross the 50. This NEEDS to be implemented. We have to bring the punt back to Madden, and I'm not talking that 'Fair Play' nonsense.

How? Unfortunately you gotta reward a User for doing it. Sad, but true until you change the current mentality of the 'cheese money baller'. I would simply add a team and individual Composure Rating that is effected by every thing that goes on during a game from how many carries you give your Elite RB, thrown to Elite WR, Clock Management, Audible, and especially not risk the game 4th and 3, on your own 36 in the first quarter.

If you havent read 'Composure Rating', i'll quickly sum it up. It's our Game Conscience. Something that should always be in the back of your head that influences most tough game decisions. Failing on 4th down not only lowers your Offense AND Defensive Composure Rating, but raises your opponents. While going on 4th and getting it just doesn't affect either team. 4th down should be all risk.

to be cont.
I'm gone or I wont stop
THANKS

[woowoo782]

It's about time someone took this game serious that all i have to say

[ohyeahbaby123]

Quote: Originally Posted by woowoo782

It's about time someone took this game serious that all i have to say

There is a person named Ian who takes it pretty seriously as well.

[woowoo782]

Quote: Originally Posted by ohyeahbaby123

There is a person named Ian who takes it pretty seriously as well.

well thats who i was referring to , Ian and his crew are the only people i trust because of NFL Head Coach 10

[Spartan_1]

Quote: Originally Posted by CVELL

Yes, it should be hard to exploit a good defense, but I have a question to anyone reading. If a good defense is more important/impactful than a good offense, what is the point of playing with a good offense? Didn't the Colts win a Super Bowl against the 'best' defense, statistically, ever?

I agree with most of the points your making but just for discussion I will be the Devil's Advocate to your views.

First to your question to anyone reading. Yes a good offense can beat a good defense. But I think that falls into the saying that you ignored throughout your whole post - ON ANY GIVEN SUNDAY ANY TEAM CAN BEAT ANY OTHER TEAM.

My point there is that you can't base a whole offense vs defense debate on one game. Since we can't replay real life over and over to see how many times the colt's would have won or lost, you need to go by historical data. And the data will show that a good defense will beat a good offense the majority of times.

I am a believer in the "Defense wins Champions" mindset. However, I do acknowledge that a great offense is a valid route to build to in today's NFL. I think that it has more to do with the rules that have changed that is making it this way though, and not because offenses have become that much better. Heck even the kickoff has been changed to allow offenses more scoring opportunities.

Anyway, just looking at it from a different view.

I do see your point on other things though and agree that some teams get predetermined outcomes. But IMO it has more to do with the ratings they give the players. Like If you take an 80 ovr rated QB and give him a pair of 99 rated WRs, the QB is going to have stats that are going to make him look better than he is. This gets interpreted in Madden to a 99 QB on the same team with 2 99 WRS. Which makes it even worse.

I think that is the problem you are seeing with your example of Blitzburg and the great Dime defense. The Great front 7 make the other 4 look better than they are. So in Madden they get ratings that are probably not what they should be. Maybe. But at the same time, how could anyone know how good Steve Young would have been without Jerry Rice and Terrel Owens. Did they make him better?, Did he make them Better? If they both made each other better then that is my point. None of them were really as good as their stats showed, they were getting the luxury of playing with good players that helped them look better.

Nice to see your thoughts though. Looking forward to Part 3

[Spartan_1]

Quote: Originally Posted by CVELL

Yes, it should be hard to exploit a good defense, but I have a question to anyone reading. If a good defense is more important/impactful than a good offense, what is the point of playing with a good offense? Didn't the Colts win a Super Bowl against the 'best' defense, statistically, ever?

I agree with most of the points your making but just for discussion I will be the Devil's Advocate to your views.

First to your question to anyone reading. Yes a good offense can beat a good defense. But I think that falls into the saying that you ignored throughout your whole post - ON ANY GIVEN SUNDAY ANY TEAM CAN BEAT ANY OTHER TEAM.

My point there is that you can't base a whole offense vs defense debate on one game. Since we can't replay real life over and over to see how many times the colt's would have won or lost, you need to go by historical data. And the data will show that a good defense will beat a good offense the majority of times.

I am a believer in the "Defense wins Champions" mindset. However, I do acknowledge that a great offense is a valid route to build to in today's NFL. I think that it has more to do with the rules that have changed that is making it this way though, and not because offenses have become that much better. Heck even the kickoff has been changed to allow offenses more scoring opportunities.

Anyway, just looking at it from a different view.

I do see your point on other things though and agree that some teams get predetermined outcomes. But IMO it has more to do with the ratings they give the players. Like If you take an 80 ovr rated QB and give him a pair of 99 rated WRs, the QB is going to have stats that are going to make him look better than he is. This gets interpreted in Madden to a 99 QB on the same team with 2 99 WRS. Which makes it even worse.

I think that is the problem you are seeing with your example of Blitzburg and the great Dime defense. The Great front 7 make the other 4 look better than they are. So in Madden they get ratings that are probably not what they should be. Maybe. But at the same time, how could anyone know how good Steve Young would have been without Jerry Rice and Terrel Owens. Did they make him better?, Did he make them Better? If they both made each other better then that is my point. None of them were really as good as their stats showed, they were getting the luxury of playing with good players that helped them look better.

Nice to see your thoughts though. Looking forward to Part 3

[seriousluboy83]

Aight 1st off the hyped teams def. need to go agreed 110%....but they wont cause EA bases it ratings off potential not acutality....hope I spelled that rite....if not..typo..2ndly offense sells ticket and defense wins game in my eye's but like homeboy said ANY GIVEN SUNDAY you can get that a$$ tapped....3rd composure rating good idea very good but not ready for it yet....still gotta get the basicS 1st brah....

AREVA DERCHE