Madden should have a recruiting system rather than a bidding system for FA

[stux]

This is one thing that drives me nutz about Head Coach. You can't bring in some free agents to see what kind of POT rating they have.

I think the same thing could be said about trades. Why can't you scout other team's players for possible trades as well.

The idea being you see more of their ratings and for FA maybe increase the likely hood they join your team for less money.

I agree though you should be able to sign in FA or trade for any player providing you are willing to pay enough.

[jdrhammer]

Quote: Originally Posted by thekodinator

I don't really like this idea. Leave the recruiting to NCAA. If anything, just give each player certain interests (big market, playing time, good coach, money, etc.), and the player would be more interested in the teams that fit that player's interests. Teams that don't fit that player's interests would have to front up more money and would have a harder time signing that player.

Y'all are missing the point. It's not recruiting, just pitching possibilities other than just dollar amounts to sign FA's making it more realistic. The pitches would be packaged with money to sign the guy so it wouldn't be so random. It would help with making it more realistic so it would be harder for you to sign a guy who is a 4-3 end and you run a 3-4 D. It would add to the realism.

[shep64]

I like this alot. The only thing I think is how deep do you make it?

It could go insanely deep. I understand though. And The idea is great.

Just thinking about it, about a current FA and his desires.

Edgerrin James
He loves Miami.
He loves money more.
he's getting old and wants to win a chip.

Miami is packed full of RB's, so is Tampa, I could see Jax being an option but IDK who their #2 guy is and they did just get rid of their other 30 something RB so, Team need for him in that region is out.
He would play for slightly less money for someone like New England. But new england doesn't really need him and the backfield is already loaded with old guys and a first round flop.

He would play for significantly more money in a place like detroit. But they dont need him either.
New Orleans needs a #1.5 to go with Reggie Bush, they've got the cash and they are/should be contenders.


In this case I see Edge being picked up by the Saints. I'm just not sure that each player can be this in depth in the game. And at what point does the player say, "I cant pass up that much money"?

I love the idea I just think its execution would be difficult. I think it would be frustrating to watch a 90 overall RB go to a team with another 90 overall RB because the other team bidding for him plays 200 miles south of you.

But if done well, I think it would make franchise that much better.

[Speedy]

I agree to what the OP suggests, but accordingly the factors should definately be weighed differently. Title contendor would be more prevalent for veterans, money for players in their prime, PT for 3-4 year players, city/location/fan base for hometown players or egocentrics ().

Good idea!

[dougdeuce]

Quote: Originally Posted by Derrville

i dont want to be limited to who i can sign.

I do.. I've never had a FA turn me down... EVER!

In real life it happens. Not everyone wants to be a packer. I remember crapping my pants when we signed Reggie White, cause at the time nobody wanted to come to Green Bay. It should be more realistic.

[4solo]

Yea i agree money shouldn't be the only factor esp with older players b/c just this year Jason Taylor turned down 8.8 mil from the Skins to sign with Miami for 1.1 mil

[NoSubs]

Quote: Originally Posted by 4solo

Yea i agree money shouldn't be the only factor esp with older players b/c just this year Jason Taylor turned down 8.8 mil from the Skins to sign with Miami for 1.1 mil

What? I think he made $8.8M last year but iirc the Redskins released him this off-season. He was not turning down their offer.


I really hope that there is nothing similar to NCAA recruiting. I posted in another thread about this a few weeks back. Basically, NCAA recruiting is annoying, time consuming, and unrealistic in an NFL setting.

Money talks. TO signed in Buffalo, not because it's a great city, not because he will win a Super Bowl there, not because it was his hometown, just for money.

Maybe some players can have a few teams that they will sign with for less (i.e. Foote and the Lions) and a few they will never sign with (i.e. TO and the Eagles), but at the end of the day if you have the money you should get the player.

I hope the day never comes when I have to call up a free agent and tell him that there is an Applebee's near the stadium, and that the team jet has a leather interior, and that the team has a really good dental plan.

Bottom line, I sign the players that I want. I do not make unrealistic signings. Let me continue to do that.

[splff3000]

Quote: Originally Posted by Deegeezy

I think an NCAA-style recruiting visit system would make free agency more realistic. Right now, it is just a straight bidding-war and in no way captures the essence of NFL free agency. For a lot of players, it isn't always about the money...especially with older guys. Players should all have wants (money, winning team, prestigious coach, etc) and you should have to recruit them before even hitting the negotiation table. for example: lets say you wanted to sign al haynesworth and you know he's gonna take a lot of smoozing and money. they could allocate you with like 100 free agent points. You could click on Haynesworth and see how much each action would cost you points wise. Take to dinner: 20 points Show them around town: 16 points. Put up in nice hotel: 14 points... and so on. Not exactly like that but you get my drift here. Haynesworth would probably take many points away from you because he's a top level fa. But they could categorize them. Someone like Lance Moore for instance wouldnt have taken as many points. Maybe before the visit the game should give you about how much the player is looking for but I think you should have to get the free agent to "commit to team" before even approaching the true negotation table...That's typically how it works in real life. In real life, free agency isn't just an auction.

+1
I loooove this idea. They had something similar on last gen and it was great. I remember occassionally going hard after some guys, but they just wouldn't sign with me. I thought that was tight as hell. Good idea to bring it back and have it even deeper ala NCAA recruiting.

Quote: Originally Posted by Derrville

i dont want to be limited to who i can sign.

Why not? The Cowboys(your team) are limited to who they can sign in real life. Let's say, Pacman comes back into the league, signs a one year contract with the Raiders to prove himself, and just goes the f*** off. Now, let's say ole JJ wants Pacman back, but Pacman had a ball here in Oakland and wants to come back. JJ offers him 10mil over 3 yrs. Good ole AL offers him 9mil over 3 yrs. Who do you think he's gonna sign with? The OP's idea is the way to translate that same scenario into the game. Of course it has to be tuned and can't be as drastic as it is on NCAA, but it is how things are done. Do you know why the Raiders have to pay out enormous contracts to have people play for us or stay with us? Well, if you don't, you need to consider yourself a CASUAL NFL fan lol. Oakland has become known as the "black hole" for NFL players so it takes enormous contracts to get guys to come here. Even if Al outbids another team, he still has to go pretty much way above market value to get them to come to Oakland. This idea is a simulation of that. Players take more into account than just money when deciding what team they go to. True, money is a major factor for MOST, but it's not the only factor.

Quote: Originally Posted by Pantherbeast

Agreed. the kind of system he is talking about would really work for college football game only. I like it the way it is.

Why only for college? NFL teams ARE "recruiting" players. Why do you think they fly them out to see the facilities and take them out to see the city? Players factor all that stuff into their decision. It's kinda similar to a college coach bringing a recruit in for a campus tour. If money was the only factor then they could do all their negotiations over the phone. No need for the player to be flown out. It could save the owners money on gas. Take the same scenario as above for example. Both Oakland and Dallas fly Pacman to their respective city to woo him. Oakland is a beautiful place with good schools , low crime , lots to do, and it's close to where most of his relatives live(remember, this is hypothetical). Now Dallas is rundown and and pretty much looks like one big ghetto(remember again, this is hypothetical). Also he gets robbed while on his visit. Way to go Dallas! JJ offers him the same 10 mil over 3 yrs and Oakland offers him the same 9 mil over 3 yrs. Who do you think he's gonna sign with? Well, maybe I shouldn't have used Pacman for this example lol, but you guys get what I'm saying.

Quote: Originally Posted by NoSubs

What? I think he made $8.8M last year but iirc the Redskins released him this off-season. He was not turning down their offer. I really hope that there is nothing similar to NCAA recruiting. I posted in another thread about this a few weeks back. Basically, NCAA recruiting is annoying, time consuming, and unrealistic in an NFL setting. Money talks. TO signed in Buffalo, not because it's a great city, not because he will win a Super Bowl there, not because it was his hometown, just for money. Maybe some players can have a few teams that they will sign with for less (i.e. Foote and the Lions) and a few they will never sign with (i.e. TO and the Eagles), but at the end of the day if you have the money you should get the player. I hope the day never comes when I have to call up a free agent and tell him that there is an Applebee's near the stadium, and that the team jet has a leather interior, and that the team has a really good dental plan. Bottom line, I sign the players that I want. I do not make unrealistic signings. Let me continue to do that.

Now, I know this is a little off topic, but it was WIDELY reported that the Redskins wanted to resign him for 8.5 mil for one year, but he chose to go back to Miami because that is where his family is. See here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4164099

Quote:

The new deal is $7 million less than what Taylor could have earned this year with the Washington Redskins. On March 2, Taylor walked away from the $8.5 million he was scheduled to make from the Redskins when he refused to spend the offseason at Redskins Park, preferring to spend the offseason with his family.

and here:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11742709

Quote:

The Redskins released Taylor after he turned down a chance to play another season with them for $8.5 million. Taylor didn't like being away from his wife and three children last season and wanted to rejoin the Dolphins regardless of how much money they offered, said his agent, Gary Wichard.

and all over the web and TV. Where have you been my friend?

Back on topic, these articles also mentioned that he turned down the Patriots as well. Thus supporting the "money isn't the only thing that matters" argument. Also, the bold part of your post is confusing to me . You're saying that some players will sign for less money or won't sign at all, but then you're also saying that if you have the money you should get the players. Did the other teams that wanted Larry Foote get the player because they had the money?

Whew!!!! That was a lot of typing and copying and pasting and stuff lol. I don't usually rant this long.