Update on feedback from yesterday's franchise blog...

[canes21]

I think players shouldn't really have ratings. I mean yes, they need them to be special, but I mean they should all be hidden. We should get their combine stats and then get something explaining something, maybe a pro/con thing for each player. Like this:

Clinton Portis
+ Top pass blocker
+ Is a true workhorse
+ Has top notch strength for his position
+ Is used to a one cut system(this would depend on your O)
+ Great vision

- Gained some muscle and lost some speed
- Tries to fight for more yards and tends to fumble when doing so
- Can be too competitive and get penalties

Or Tom Brady

+ Excellent pocket presence
+ Great accuracy on medium and short routes
+ Above average accuracy on the deep ball
+ One of the best at seeing the field
+ Helps the team improve as a whole

- Lacks speed to avoid defenders
- Has had severe injury to knee in past

Terrel Owens

+ One of the strongest WRs in the game
+ Extremely soft hands
+ Has a high vertical
+ Will try hard for the ball

- Tends to show off and commit mistakes
- Complains when he gets less than 5 touches
- Acts like a Lone Wolf

Having that system along with their combine stats would make game planning easier IMO. It would also make the game a lot more realistic.

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by ghostlight85

Why is he getting 2,000 yards, he's only a fringe elite player? That's what I'd be asking. Maybe tie CONTRACTS into production more rather than only overall. Maybe that's what we should do. Seeing as that's the ACTUAL reward that players get for production, not an arbitrary and unrealistic ratings increase.

I would consider jamal and TD to be fringe elite players and that is 40% of players who have rushed for 2000 yards in a season. Something you have to realize about this is a fringe elite player is a guy who if he plays as expected should be the topic of "should he get into the HOF" discussions. Truly elite players will if they perform as expected be the nobrainers while these lower 90's are borderline in that area.

I will agree that production should influence value in terms of contracts, trades, etc. Actually head coach did something somewhat senseable in this area. They had smaller versions of overall for size, intangebles, athletecism, potential, production, and learning. I think that was all of them. Anyway all of those would factor into the overall rating which could then be used to determine value. I think with the current progression system this could be a very good idea.

Each rating still had a cap on it showing the player's actual potential in that area. These were the ratings that actually determined onfield play, at least in the idea that we assume ratings really matter for onfield play. These wouldn't go above their max. Size was pretty much a constant although I think there is some room for them to add variation in here gaining or losing weight. Learning, like other skills had a max.

Potential was actually somewhat varieable as well as it took into consideration production and how production effected overall. Production could then hugely raise or lower the overall which in itself was just your perception of a player's value and didn't effect onfield play. I think short term production effected it too much as one great game could raise the production rating a lot especially for young players which could lead to 4 or 5 point increases in overall in a game or 2 or 3 point drops.

I really liked this system because then production really effected how a player was looked at but without causing an undue ammount of production. Also, really high production or really low production could then effect the percieved overall enough to effect the overall potential rating

[RGiles36]

Great follow up Josh!

[red butler]

quote=canes21;2039399736]Clinton Portis?[/quote]

Portis, as good as he is, hasn't put up the same numbers since he left Denver. He hasn't gained the same total yardage since the trade and he's getting 60 more carries a year. In fact, his yards per carry average has gone down by at least a full yard per carry from 5.5 YPC to 4.3YPC. That's my point, he's not less talented, he just doesn't have the same line, he doesn't have the same receivers, or the same quarterback. Teams can load the box against the Redskins, and I don't think his ratings should suffer because his stats aren't as good.

On the flip side, Peyton Hillis averaged 5 YPC with the Broncos last year.

[Tito78]

It'd be tight if you could get fired in franchise mode like in head coach. It would make the game even more challenging.

[ghostlight85]

Quote: Originally Posted by kcarr

I would consider jamal and TD to be fringe elite players and that is 40% of players who have rushed for 2000 yards in a season. Something you have to realize about this is a fringe elite player is a guy who if he plays as expected should be the topic of "should he get into the HOF" discussions. Truly elite players will if they perform as expected be the nobrainers while these lower 90's are borderline in that area. I will agree that production should influence value in terms of contracts, trades, etc. Actually head coach did something somewhat senseable in this area. They had smaller versions of overall for size, intangebles, athletecism, potential, production, and learning. I think that was all of them. Anyway all of those would factor into the overall rating which could then be used to determine value. I think with the current progression system this could be a very good idea. Each rating still had a cap on it showing the player's actual potential in that area. These were the ratings that actually determined onfield play, at least in the idea that we assume ratings really matter for onfield play. These wouldn't go above their max. Size was pretty much a constant although I think there is some room for them to add variation in here gaining or losing weight. Learning, like other skills had a max. Potential was actually somewhat varieable as well as it took into consideration production and how production effected overall. Production could then hugely raise or lower the overall which in itself was just your perception of a player's value and didn't effect onfield play. I think short term production effected it too much as one great game could raise the production rating a lot especially for young players which could lead to 4 or 5 point increases in overall in a game or 2 or 3 point drops. I really liked this system because then production really effected how a player was looked at but without causing an undue ammount of production. Also, really high production or really low production could then effect the percieved overall enough to effect the overall potential rating

I totally agree. I was more saying I don't want a 92 (or a 99) RB to be able to put up back to back 2,000 yard seasons all that easily. I am with you on fringe elite guys being able to do it, but what I'm saying is that you should still be able to tell he's a 92 and not a 99.

[Steeler99]

Quote: Originally Posted by ghostlight85

Premade classes are great, as long as there really are enough that I don't see them over and over even playing multiple decade long franchises. There would have to be a lot. It is simultaneously an incredibly exciting idea and a frightening one.

I have to admit that the more I think about these pre-made classes providing us more accurate/realistic draft classes, the more I like the idea. Bad draft classes or unrealistic ratings have always been a real bummer in franchise mode.

Pertaining to the above discussion, if I can get 2,000 yards with a 92 rated RB, that would be more fun to me than knowing I "have" to roster a 99 rated RB to accomplish that feat. It adds to the realism of the game imo.

Barry Sanders would be an example of a 99 rated RB that was able to accomplish great things on a some horrible Detroit teams, while Terrell Davis of Denver is an example of a low-90's RB that was able to accomplish some of the same things, but on a MUCH better team (especially O-line). I like the idea of enjoying both of these very real possibilities in Madden. Ratings cannot mean everything or we may as well just make this a math game.

Every year I enjoy trying to take players that aren't all super-stars and building a team into a champion ... much like the early Patriots. I really like the direction Josh is taking this!

[JohnDoe8865]

Josh, just wanted to chime in here w/ my opinion. I'd much prefer letter grades if that's possible. I'd love to see A+ down to D-.