What Has Always Bothered Me With Progression

[Phife1442]

Quote: Originally Posted by The Man 451

I think the idea is that if you have a QB with a 60 OVR... he shouldn't pass for over 4000 yards and 40 TDs. He's a project player and needs to be groomed for a few years before he even sees the field. See, to me, if you're putting up gaudy stats with crap players, then ratings AGAIN, don't mean a thing. Or, could mean that he's a system player and his stats aren't indicative of his skill level, kinda like in college ball.

But what if he gets in and shines? A better example is Adrian Peterson. After 2 years he is a 97 OVR. Now say Glenn Coffee is the leading rusher in your league and is MVP. He will probably go from a 69 to a 72. Then say you did it again the next year, he would end up at a 75 even though he is producing at an AP level.

I'm also not talking about juking the stats to make guys better, just what if?

They should jump real quick from 60 to 70 and then it is a lot harder from that point

[ACardAttack]

Quote: Originally Posted by Exonerated

You do see their potential... its a letter grade....

I konw, but I wish we DIDNT see it

Quote: Originally Posted by The Man 451

I think the idea is that if you have a QB with a 60 OVR... he shouldn't pass for over 4000 yards and 40 TDs. He's a project player and needs to be groomed for a few years before he even sees the field. See, to me, if you're putting up gaudy stats with crap players, then ratings AGAIN, don't mean a thing. Or, could mean that he's a system player and his stats aren't indicative of his skill level, kinda like in college ball.

So I guess Tom Brady shouldnt have had that great year the year he took over for the Hurt Bledso because he was some scrub with no exp and under the radar.

I think what EA needs to do is plug it into players randomly in randomly generated draft classes and such that despite their ratings will put up numbers greater than their ovr rating...or at least when drafting rookies and late round sleepers dont show rookie's overall ratings and some ratings until they have played some

[stux]

I am pretty sure there is a cap of 6 point MAX increase per season.

So, if you want that player rated 60 with A potential to be a 96, it is going to take 6 years, at least.

So, NO I do not think it is possible for a player to have a break out year and bump up 15 or more points in a single season with this current system.

I do agree there should be a RARE potential to do so. And just so you know, I mean RAAAREE!

[mavfan21]

With ratings actually counting this year there's no way your 60 OVR players can dominate (unless you play on something less than All-Pro difficulty).

Players are designed to progress based on their overall potential rating and thier performance. Some players won't get better no matter how much they play (see John Beck, Chad Hutchinson, Drew Henson, Quincy Carter, Lorenzo Booker, Freddie Mitchell, Todd Pinkston, and MANY more in real life).

I really like the way they do ratings and progression this year, it's realistic.

[mmorg]

Progression should not be performance based.

Your Tom Brady example is dumb here is why. Tom Brady wasn't even in Madden that year but that doesn't matter. In real life he was able to step in right away and be productive because he was already that good. It's not like he got into his first NFL game and could only throw the ball 20 MPH and could only his short passed with any reliability in real life because he never played in the NFL before. Coming into the game he already had an above average level of physical attributes that allowed him to become what he is today.

This is why performance based progression doesn't make any sense. A 60 OVR QB shouldn't be able to put up huge numbers in the first place because he doesn't have the physical set of skills to be able to to. Players in real life don't get better by putting up huge numbers, players in real life get better through hard work and good coaching.

[ACardAttack]

Quote: Originally Posted by mmorg

Progression should not be performance based. Your Tom Brady example is dumb here is why. Tom Brady wasn't even in Madden that year but that doesn't matter. In real life he was able to step in right away and be productive because he was already that good. It's not like he got into his first NFL game and could only throw the ball 20 MPH and could only his short passed with any reliability in real life because he never played in the NFL before. Coming into the game he already had an above average level of physical attributes that allowed him to become what he is today. This is why performance based progression doesn't make any sense. A 60 OVR QB shouldn't be able to put up huge numbers in the first place because he doesn't have the physical set of skills to be able to to. Players in real life don't get better by putting up huge numbers, players in real life get better through hard work and good coaching.

Sure he was that good, but no one knew he was that good and would have been rated low if he was in the game...like a post above yours who agreed with me there should be ones hidden and really rare as hell that outperform what you expect...even the coaches didnt see it at first and the other 31 teams that passed on him until the pats picked him up in the 6th round(was it sixth?) There are players who well out perform what is expected of them (ratings) and put up numbers like Brady did his first year

[mmorg]

Quote: Originally Posted by ACardAttack

Sure he was that good, but no one knew he was that good and would have been rated low if he was in the game...like a post above yours who agreed with me there should be ones hidden and really rare as hell that outperform what you expect...even the coaches didnt see it at first and the other 31 teams that passed on him until the pats picked him up in the 6th round(was it sixth?) There are players who well out perform what is expected of them (ratings) and put up numbers like Brady did his first year

Yeah that's because people underrated him. In the game those are people's real physical stats. If you want a system like this in place they need to introduce a mechanic like NFL Head Coach where the ratings you see for players are based upon your GM's evaluation of that player. The way Madden is set up right now is that the ratings a player has are definite.

I have been saying for a while that they need to introduce some type of scout mechanic for the game where all the ratings of every player are based upon how good your scout is. The better the scout the more accurate the ratings are. This will also allow for the 60 OVR Tom Brady to step in and become a 92 OVR the next season. The reason for this is because the scout underrates him and then bases his ratings upon his performance of the previous season. But under the hood his ratings haven't actually changed, just the scout's evaluation of the player has.

Do you understand what I am saying?

[PrettyT11]

Quote: Originally Posted by mmorg

Progression should not be performance based. Your Tom Brady example is dumb here is why. Tom Brady wasn't even in Madden that year but that doesn't matter. In real life he was able to step in right away and be productive because he was already that good. It's not like he got into his first NFL game and could only throw the ball 20 MPH and could only his short passed with any reliability in real life because he never played in the NFL before. Coming into the game he already had an above average level of physical attributes that allowed him to become what he is today. This is why performance based progression doesn't make any sense. A 60 OVR QB shouldn't be able to put up huge numbers in the first place because he doesn't have the physical set of skills to be able to to. Players in real life don't get better by putting up huge numbers, players in real life get better through hard work and good coaching.

So then what should it be based on?? I'm sorry but this post is very flawed.

The Tom Brady example is a good one. First he was in Madden that year as a backup QB. If I remember correctly he was listed as the third string QB and his rating was low. So in your argument there is no way he should have been able to come in a perform like he did. He is not the only example you could use. His former teamate Cassell is another perfect example. His rating last year was pretty low. So according to you he shouldn't have been able to come in a play like he did cause his rating was low. Nobody knew if he had the skills or not to get the job done. He hadn't started a game since high school. Terrell Davis is another perfect example. He was a six round draft pick. Nobody expected him to come in a do the things he did. He also was rated very low to start with. There a tons of examples you can use to fit this mold.

Progession should be performance based for the most part. In real life how do you tell if a players has improved?? You tell by his performace on the field. Roddy White improved in a lot of areas over the past couple of years and it showed in his performance and he put up big numbers. You don't improve and your numbers go down. That shows regression not progression.