Question About Potential

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by RJTheDestroyer

Ok, I think what a lot of you guys don't realize (or are forgetting) is how much overall ratings affect what computers do in a Franchise. Sure, if you can own it up with your 74 overall guy, you can make him start, but the computers (at least from previous next-gen Maddens without position battles) would always start the guy that's rated the best no matter how good the back-up performed that season when the starter went down with an injury. For example, in one of my Madden 09 franchises, I decided to sim a season to see how the progression was. Matt Cassell starts for Brady since he went down with that terrible knee injury and ends up making it to the Pro Bowl with incredible numbers (at 75 overall or whatever he was rated). Does he go up like he should for making the Pro Bowl? No. He didn't go up at all probably because he was at his potential already or very close to it. The thing that was even worse was that Matt Gutierezz (the 3rd-stringer) goes up 3 for doing basically nothing and is now higher on the depth-chart than Cassell. With this, Cassell would pretty much never see the field again unless Brady and Gutierezz both go down with injuries in the next year (and even if they cut him, he likely wouldn't start for a team being 75 overall).

Here I really like how head coach figured overall. Production was one of six major factors that went into determining overall. That way production was able to increase a player's overall (overall here was more a matter of perceived ability and value rather than actual value) without actually increasing rating unduly due to production.

Quote: Originally Posted by RJTheDestroyer

In summary, I pretty much fail to see the logic with having a max potential that a player cannot exceed (especially with respect to the computers and their personnel management). If he's continuously putting up good numbers and making the Pro Bowl/winning awards, he should go up accordingly. Therefore, I'd say they should scrap the potential rating altogether and just have your scouts let you know what they think of a player's potential in the NFL when you're scouting them. For one, potential's just a pre-conceived judgement of how good a player could be...that view of a player's potential will change (in real life) based on how he actually performs when given the opportunity. If potential has to stay however, it had better be dynamic (if a player is playing better than expected, his max potential should go up as well and vice versa), but even this shows that the Potential rating is essentially useless because the player might as well not have a Potential rating and should just increase if playing well. After all, progression/regression should primarily be performance-based and a maximum overall should not be pre-determined or else it seems like progression is already pre-determined as well (which was a major issue with previous next-gen Maddens).

A person's potential is a set factor that cannot change. This is true in real life just like in the video game. People's perception of a persons potential is what you are describing here. There is a major difference in these 2 things. As long as the ratings control how well a player performs and therefore the player's ability then in the game they are no longer a matter of perception but how good that player actually is within the confines of the game. Therefore they shouldn't change in the same manner as perceptions change.

[PGaither84]

Something bothering me about ratings that i haven't touched on yet is the awarenss and tha ratings. I would think that with an consistant performace of thorwing shorter passes and high percentage passes along with some type of 2k5 weekly preperation system I think my QB's THA rating should go up over time, maybe even higher than his potential. When you start hitting 80-90% of your passes becasue of screens and slants and what not I should be ableto work my QB up to a better rating in THA over time. repation and perfect practice makes perfect.

I find hat while playing SIM football in 09 and other games you have to struggle with some QBs and their poor ratings. Despite all the work on my completion % I should not be able to improve my THA rating? I dunno man.

[Glorious Arc]

Quote: Originally Posted by kcarr

Here I really like how head coach figured overall. Production was one of six major factors that went into determining overall. That way production was able to increase a player's overall (overall here was more a matter of perceived ability and value rather than actual value) without actually increasing rating unduly due to production. A person's potential is a set factor that cannot change. This is true in real life just like in the video game. People's perception of a persons potential is what you are describing here. There is a major difference in these 2 things. As long as the ratings control how well a player performs and therefore the player's ability then in the game they are no longer a matter of perception but how good that player actually is within the confines of the game. Therefore they shouldn't change in the same manner as perceptions change.

I remember this mainly because I would have situational players from defense(pass rushers on long situations) and they would perform quite well. They would be pulling in 8-12 sacks a year but their overall was kinda weak(his potential was only as a pass rusher) because they couldnt do anythign else. There was a guy who was wanting me to shell out the big bucks, like what happens IRL in free agency. Players get overpaid a lot of the time IRL because people get hung up on what they could produce but not what their true "talent"(potential) is.

[RJTheDestroyer]

Quote: Originally Posted by kcarr

Here I really like how head coach figured overall. Production was one of six major factors that went into determining overall. That way production was able to increase a player's overall (overall here was more a matter of perceived ability and value rather than actual value) without actually increasing rating unduly due to production. A person's potential is a set factor that cannot change. This is true in real life just like in the video game. People's perception of a persons potential is what you are describing here. There is a major difference in these 2 things. As long as the ratings control how well a player performs and therefore the player's ability then in the game they are no longer a matter of perception but how good that player actually is within the confines of the game. Therefore they shouldn't change in the same manner as perceptions change.

Really, it's all perception-based (overalls and potential). To me a player's overall represents how good people think he is and his potential is how good people think he can be, which will change depending on how he performs. Also, sure a player has an innate potential that he either meets or not (and that ultimate value doesn't change in people's minds), but people will believe a person has better or worse potential than originally thought depending on how he performs, and thus, potential is mostly perception-based. To me innate potential's meaningless because no one knows what a person's true potential really is, so you can't really say if he ever reached his potential or not (all we have to go on is what we think they can do). Thus, for Madden to translate to real life properly, you would need to have a potential rating that can change over time based on performance in my opinion (due to perceptions changing). Or just get rid of a maximum overall based on potential for players and just provide what their perceived potential is in scouting reports, because really, that's all people have to go on when drafting players (how good we think they can be)

I'm pretty tired right now, so if this seems like I'm rambling and not making sense, that's probably why

[RJTheDestroyer]

Quote: Originally Posted by Glorious Arc

I remember this mainly because I would have situational players from defense(pass rushers on long situations) and they would perform quite well. They would be pulling in 8-12 sacks a year but their overall was kinda weak(his potential was only as a pass rusher) because they couldnt do anythign else. There was a guy who was wanting me to shell out the big bucks, like what happens IRL in free agency. Players get overpaid a lot of the time IRL because people get hung up on what they could produce but not what their true "talent"(potential) is.

If it's like this in Madden, it should be a good system and potential should work good in this way (but almost only in this way I believe).

[Megatron2k7]

Quote: Originally Posted by RJTheDestroyer

Ok, I think what a lot of you guys don't realize (or are forgetting) is how much overall ratings affect what computers do in a Franchise. Sure, if you can own it up with your 74 overall guy, you can make him start, but the computers (at least from previous next-gen Maddens without position battles) would always start the guy that's rated the best no matter how good the back-up performed that season when the starter went down with an injury. For example, in one of my Madden 09 franchises, I decided to sim a season to see how the progression was. Matt Cassell starts for Brady since he went down with that terrible knee injury and ends up making it to the Pro Bowl with incredible numbers (at 75 overall or whatever he was rated). Does he go up like he should for making the Pro Bowl? No. He didn't go up at all probably because he was at his potential already or very close to it. The thing that was even worse was that Matt Gutierezz (the 3rd-stringer) goes up 3 for doing basically nothing and is now higher on the depth-chart than Cassell. With this, Cassell would pretty much never see the field again unless Brady and Gutierezz both go down with injuries in the next year (and even if they cut him, he likely wouldn't start for a team being 75 overall). In summary, I pretty much fail to see the logic with having a max potential that a player cannot exceed (especially with respect to the computers and their personnel management). If he's continuously putting up good numbers and making the Pro Bowl/winning awards, he should go up accordingly. Therefore, I'd say they should scrap the potential rating altogether and just have your scouts let you know what they think of a player's potential in the NFL when you're scouting them. For one, potential's just a pre-conceived judgement of how good a player could be...that view of a player's potential will change (in real life) based on how he actually performs when given the opportunity. If potential has to stay however, it had better be dynamic (if a player is playing better than expected, his max potential should go up as well and vice versa), but even this shows that the Potential rating is essentially useless because the player might as well not have a Potential rating and should just increase if playing well. After all, progression/regression should primarily be performance-based and a maximum overall should not be pre-determined or else it seems like progression is already pre-determined as well (which was a major issue with previous next-gen Maddens).

Well said. I agree.

I've heard too many times now that overalls shouldn't matter if you can put up good stats with a player. This is false. When I play a franchise, I don't play ALL the games.... I simulate many games sometimes. In the games that are simulated, the cpu will deterimine the outcome of the game, as well as stats based on overall ratings. For the sake of simulating games, the overall ratings are very important.

The more I think about this potential cap, the more I don't like it. I realize it probably needs to be in the game to limit the number of super stars we have in franchise mode, but I don't think it should be set in stone either. Players should be able to go above it if they are performing extremely well especially consistantly. My main problem is the fact that we can see the potential cap.

No one can truly see what a persons potential is. People can take educated guesses at it, but no one knows. It's just not that easy.

If it was so easy for scouts, coaches, and GM's to see an exact measurement of potential, then why was Kurt Warner bagging groceries and playing Arena football from 1994 -1996 after being cut by Green Bay....???
The Rams signed him in 1997, and sent him to play in NFL Europe for a season or two. 1999 he gets his chance to start only because of Trent Green's season ending injury.

If the GM's in real life had a crystal ball to see Warner's potential, do you think any of this would have happened to him.....???......... Of course not. He would have been a starter in the league by 1996-1997 at the latest.

Seeing the exact potential cap of all your players is like having supernatural powers to see the future. It's so fake it makes my brain hurt. I thought we were going in a sim direction for this game, not fantasy........???

[STLfan92]

i get what you guys are saying how you guys don't care about the ratings as long as they're productive. but don't overall ratings have some effect while you are resigning that player? for example at first you resigned a qb with 75 potential for 3 years. within those three years he outperforms the superstars like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.
what will this do in terms of contract negotiations? again this is only if overall ratings have some say in that area (i'm not sure if it depends on that or stats) if it is based on ratings, it really isn't realistic to resign him to a backup's contract. what does this do to other CPU controlled teams?

[red butler]

The reason Kurt Warner wasn't a starter is because he didn't have a history of playing at a high level against elite competition. The same can be said for Tom Brady and Matt Cassel (because they competed for starting time in college there was very little history to estimate how they would perform at the next level). I'm sure the coaches in practice saw that these guys had strong accurate arms but weren't willing to risk their careers by starting an unkown commodity; especially when there was an established starter in place.

Here's the way I wish it would work:

In real life players are measured out of college by their physical abilities and their level of performance compared to their level of competition. This is where the art of scouting comes in. How will their college careers translate at the next level? When Mel Kiper ranks his draft order, guys like Tom Brady, Willie Parker, Matt Cassell, Kurt Warner, and Joe Flacco will be projected lower than their physical abilities suggest. For instance, you can see a guy like Willie Parker has the speed to be an NFL back. Because he didn't start in college, we have no way to know if he has the durability, endurance, consistency, and ball security attributes to make it in the NFL. Drafting him will be a risk, but you can tell he has tremendous upside.

I think physical abilities (speed, agility, strength, throw power, jumping etc) should be remain relatively constant throughout a players career. Progression should be tied to the intangibles (durability, awareness, consistency, and the technique attributes). If a player has the ability to develop his intangibles, he's a gem; if he can't, he's a bust.