Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

[reyes the roof]

Quote: Originally Posted by British Bronco

Just out of curiosity - and this goes out to Team Builder too - under your proposed performance based progression system how do you intend to increase the skills of each of your offensive linemen?

You could make that argument for defensive tackles too, they don't typically put up big numbers, they mainly take up space and allow other guys to make plays. Same thing for a cornerback, more interceptions don't always equal a better cornerback, if nobody throws a single pass to the Raiders CB all season and he gets no picks, with this system he should regress

[roolz]

Quote: Originally Posted by Glorious Arc

Cute I responded to your thought process about real life players not having a ceiling and then you go off like that. Madden is an NFL simulation. Simulation is defined as... Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or process. The act of simulating something generally entails representing certain key characteristics or behaviors of a selected physical or abstract system. We have flight simulations, combat simulations, ect ect that reflect exactly what happens IRL. Madden is not an exception if it wants to be known as an NFL simulation then it needs to step up to the plate. Otherwise, it will just be a video game of magical players in the NFL growing out of no where. Currently, madden claims it is an NFL simulation but obviously it is not. They need to get their stuff straight about how they want to represent their product. Now, read and respond in a civil manner instead of acting like a child....simple right?

Simulation? I thought Madden was a GAME?

Im looking at the box right now, there is no mention of a simulation..... as far as I am aware, it is a game - a SIMULATION would not have human input as far as 'playing games'... simulation's are run via a database program, using the relevant statistics to produce an outcome.... now as far as I am aware, I can control what happens on the field (to an extent) whilst playing my Madden GAME, me playing automatically overrides whatever a simulation can produce as the computer cannot factor in my input.... so we are back to talking about a game.

So lets go back to the question you are avoiding.... as a computer game, the progression of players should be based on a risk/reward factor which is generated in game, NOT because a developer has said 'Player A is rated at A potential and this is how he will turn out, no. matter, what.'

[tooldude79]

Quote: Originally Posted by Spartan_1

Jip4 Please just stop. You are obviously discussing with kids. They are never going to get it.

what we're arguing in this thread is strictly each person's opinion on the matter, not fact...im sorry if you're incapable of understanding that concept

[Madden Head]

Quote: Originally Posted by Glorious Arc

We are saying that players do not just keep progressing IRL. Like I said before if you allow even the non-physical skills to keep progressing just because your player is able to put up numbers then you are going to make a system where HOFers exist but IRL they would never turn out like that. I know I have bad hands and I dont have the best awareness. But if I have Manning or Brady throwing the ball to me I could probably catch 40-60 passes a year. Under your system, I could develop hands and awareness like Jerry Rice just because I was catching 40-60 passes. How realistic is that?(again if I had the potential to get better hands/awareness IRL I would need a good coach and bust my butt every day to improve my skills) I would then see a probability that I could produce better numbers on the field in the same situation as I did the year before when I had worse stats.

Again I have to sight Wess Welker here. It wasn't until he caught over 110 catches his last two seasons that EA saw Wess as a 90+ WR. He was a great Receiver that was hard to cover, and like I said in my last post, production is the part of progression that a player needs to use to "prove" how good they are and not be a the single reason people progress, however, production also shouldn't be ignored. If I take a C or B rated Wess Welker from the Dolphins and throw him the ball over 110 times and he catches most of them, shouldn't that be evidence that he is the real deal?

This is the real trick here. If I create myself, an I give myself 40 in hands [i'm not too bad at catching but I would hardly put myself on an NFL level] I shouldn't be able to catch 110+ passes in game even with Tom Brady. I should drop or get the ball knocked out more often. I also should have F potential. SO as the season goes on, even with the Patriots Coaching staff and what not I am not going to be able to greatly improve my bad [NFL standard] hands. Wess Welker though who as a Dolphin should have a C or B potential rating should be able to improve his hands via potential to a point where he is a reliable receiver. From there, field production should count.

I don't think any one single system is right because how good would Wess Welker be if he were put on the Seahawks like Dieon Branch, former Superbowl MVP nad one of the better pre-Randy Moss/Wes Welker recievers the Patriots had? Branch was solid in Seattle, but it was proven that Brady made Branch look better.

Great players make other great players look better. Montana had Dwight Clark and Freddy Solomon and won two Superbowls with them and they led the league in receptions with Montana. they were very good, but when SF got Jerry Rice, people outside of SF don't even remember Freddy Solomon and Clark outside of Clark's big catch. Also look at Marino's "Marks Brothers" Mark Duper and Mark Clayton. Marino and the "Marks Brothers" were a great tandom, and now years later people say Marino never had great receivers. Which is it then? Those same people say that it was Marino who made "the Marks Brothers" look good. Lastly, Brady is amazing. Moss is amazing. Brady + Moss = 18 and 1 and the NFL record for TD passes and TD catches. [The Patriots D lost that Superbowl agaisnt the Giants. Two droped picks, allowed NY to convert a 4th and 1, David Tyree on 3rd and long, and maned their #2 CB 1v1 on Burress?!? Brady threw 2 TDs and 0 INTs and took the lead by 4 with less than 3min left in the game. He did his job.]

Quote:

But if I have Manning or Brady throwing the ball to me I could probably catch 40-60 passes a year. Under your system, I could develop hands and awareness like Jerry Rice just because I was catching 40-60 passes.

This is the primary flaw in your counter argument. You assume that if you were on the Patriots you would catch 40-60 passes when in real life Vernon Davis, who I would imagine is a better athlete than you [just guessing I don't know you] has gotten all of 30 catches per year in real life and is a 72 in Madden, and a lot of the 72 rating comes from his beastly physical skills. Also, 40-60 catches are hardly enough to progress that much even over years of progression. If you started at like say [pulls 70 out of thin air] 70 catch. you then really caught 40-60 catches a year and you go up, say 4 points a year [which I think would be high for only 40-60 catches] it woudl take you how long to get to "Jerry Rice" ratings?

70-74
74-78
78-82
82-86
86-90
90-94
94-98

So you now play in the NFL for 6 years and put up around 60 catches a season each year, you wou;d be concidered one of the more reliable receivers in the league. Oh, and you would age... so when I say that production should only be about 1/4 of the progression factor, I highly doubt you would be progessing +4 each season with out your potential caping at some point and your age forcing you to cap, and your age to even force you to regress. Players that still play at a solid level even when they are old keep their OVR in Madden. Junior Seau was still a low 80's player as a Patriot because he played at that level. He produced at that level. His age kept him from progressing, becasue progression is supposed to show how a player matures. An old/agin player shouldn't progress, but thier stats and performance should slow thier regression. I hate to beat it over your skull becasue I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but I am saying production should play only a role not the role in progression/regression. Don't clump me in with those who do think that it should only be production.

Quote:

Under your system

Under my system? my system? From what I wrote I don't see how "my system" would allow that, because under "my system" would not check only your 40-60 catches but other factors to cap and prevent you from having a 98 catch rating. Is that hard to understand?

And before you reply, let me also say that if you catch 40-60 passes and improve from a "70" to an "86" you SHOULD be catching more than 40-60 passes. If you are that reliable, wouldn't Tom want to throw you the ball more? Working with the WR coach and with the team and practicing hard like Jerry rice and Emmit Smith and others [ie "my system" of using coachign and wekly/offseason prep/potential to represent how hard you work/are worked] you should improve. Instead You are at home on your computer or where ever instead of workign hard and playing hard for the Patriots.

Isn't this how some guy can go from bagging groceries and then work hard in the AFL and then even harder and become a great NFL QB? He bagged groceries. Common! Are you tellign me he was a 95 NFL QB a t the grocery store? If so ,how many other NFL quality players are not living up to their postential [- cough - LeBron James -cough - Allen Iverson - cough -]. Wait those guys paly Basketball they should be low rated NFL players with high potential because they are athletes.

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madden Head

This is the problem with progression. It's all a matter of opinion. It's subjective. I would say that Matt Cassel did start the season as a "70." You can't tell me that he played "like an 85" in week 1 after Brady went down. Cassel got better week after week, and he got better pretty quickly. One honest question is if NE is or isn't cheating, but that is another topic I don't want to talk about here. Steve Young is a better question/example for progression. Some want to say that Young was already a 90+ player all along. I would argue that if that were the case, why did he play so poorly for so long in the begining. It wasn't until "the run" against the Vikings that 49ers fans really started to believe in Young. The same is true for Wess Welker. You can't possibly tell me that Wess entered the leauge as a 93, or what ever he is, WR. He was undrafted, cut by the Chargers and traded by the Dolphins. Now, to be fair, when Bill was asked why he traded for Welker, Bill said "When we played the Dolphins we couldn't cover him, not even with two guys. I figured if we couldn't beat him we had better try and et him." Now this isn't the exact quote but the best I remember it from a post game interview on ESPN. I would say that there is a combination of legit progression combined with perception of how well they play. On the flip side, some players just fit a system and can excell in that system well beyond thier true abilities. If Ruben Droughns [spelling] can run for over 1,000 yards as a Bronco doesn't make him a good back, it was a case of a great Broncos line and system. Was he a 90-ish player, or was he a 70/80-ish player playing above his true skill level? I would say the latter. This all was talked about months and months ago in a very good thread and the general idea was that we should have a system similar to wht we have right now. Potential and production should both play a factor. However, in my opinion, we should also have to look at our coaching staff and have to do a true weekly prep in franchise mode. How good your coaching staff is should alter how well all your players progress/regress in a big way. There is a reason that Ray Lewis is a gret linebacker and so is Patrick Willis. that reason: Mike Singletary. Singletary took great raw talent and helped mold it into great NFL hall of fame talent. Who helped shape Singletary? Buddy Ryan, who's two sons Rex and Rob Ryan are also very good defensive coaches. If you have bad coaches on your roster, your players shouldn't improve very well. If you have great coaches they should improve to the best of their ability. Right now in Madden you can't honestly sit a rookie QB and have/expect him to progress. You need to put him out there. In real life though many people talk about how rarely do Rookie QBs start and do well. This is why Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, and Big Ben have been such big stories. They are the exception not the rule. Where would Rich Gannon and Steve Young and Matt Cassel be in Madden with a production based only system? This is why potential is important as well. In summery, Progression should have 4 equal parts. Coaching staff, weekly/off season preperation set by the user/computer, potential to set the cap/range, and production. This is also why we need to see the return of the "playing time" stat. When player gets playing time [games played/started, what ever] they get a chance to prove how good they are.

I think as far as the steve young situation goes neither situation you describe really works. Steve didn't enter the league as a 90 overall but he was that good by the 91 season when he started 10 games and put up decent numbers. This is because he came into the league as a decent rated player (probably low 70s) and was coached from there.

He was probably around a mid 70s by his second season where he played poorly on a very weak team. The next year 4 years with talent around him in san francisco he started 10 games and won 7 of them and really actually played decent (completed 59.6 percent of passes, 23 TDs, 8 INTs, and 2687 yards) considering that over 4 years he started just over half a season worth of games and played spot work other than that and was never really given a great chance. Considering the talent around him he played as could be expected from a guy progressing through the low to mid 80s. By 91 when he started 10 games he was probably around a low 90s.

As he got his chance and adjusted to actually being the starter he gained probably a couple points awareness as well as a little in his coverage reading ability as he adjusted to making those plays game after game but really after the first year or so as a starter he didn't progress that much. He had up years and down years but he had, through practicing, already nearly reached his potential.

As far as wes welker, he may be rated a 93 overall in madden but that is because he is overrated. He has great elusiveness, agility, and acceleration allowing him to be dangerous after the catch although he really isn't much of a home run threat due to unimpressive speed. He is really nothing as a downfield reciever and really other than quick dumpoffs, screens, and very simple routes he isn't anything special. I would call him around a 85 overall. Also, yes, he has improved since he came into the league but not because of his preformance but rather because of practicing and coaching.

[red butler]

Quote: Originally Posted by roolz

Simulation? I thought Madden was a GAME? Im looking at the box right now, there is no mention of a simulation..... as far as I am aware, it is a game - a SIMULATION would not have human input as far as 'playing games'... simulation's are run via a database program, using the relevant statistics to produce an outcome.... now as far as I am aware, I can control what happens on the field (to an extent) whilst playing my Madden GAME, me playing automatically overrides whatever a simulation can produce as the computer cannot factor in my input.... so we are back to talking about a game. So lets go back to the question you are avoiding.... as a computer game, the progression of players should be based on a risk/reward factor which is generated in game, NOT because a developer has said 'Player A is rated at A potential and this is how he will turn out, no. matter, what.'

You're using a very narrow definition of the word simulation. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the word "simulation" has been around far longer than databases have even existed. I simulate things all the time that don't even involve a computer. So, just because I have input into the game does not mean that I don't want it to be realistic. I don't want to be able to throw slant passes all day using Rex Grossman to make him more accurate... so that he can later throw deep outs perfectly. I don't want to be able to run Peyton Hillis behind a great offensive line... so that he becomes Barry Sanders. Lastly, a lot of players won't live up to their full potential, so they are not going to be how you put it "'Player A is rated at A potential and this is how he will turn out, no. matter, what".

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madden Head

Again I have to sight Wess Welker here. It wasn't until he caught over 110 catches his last two seasons that EA saw Wess as a 90+ WR. He was a great Receiver that was hard to cover, and like I said in my last post, production is the part of progression that a player needs to use to "prove" how good they are and not be a the single reason people progress, however, production also shouldn't be ignored. If I take a C or B rated Wess Welker from the Dolphins and throw him the ball over 110 times and he catches most of them, shouldn't that be evidence that he is the real deal? This is the real trick here. If I create myself, an I give myself 40 in hands [i'm not too bad at catching but I would hardly put myself on an NFL level] I shouldn't be able to catch 110+ passes in game even with Tom Brady. I should drop or get the ball knocked out more often. I also should have F potential. SO as the season goes on, even with the Patriots Coaching staff and what not I am not going to be able to greatly improve my bad [NFL standard] hands. Wess Welker though who as a Dolphin should have a C or B potential rating should be able to improve his hands via potential to a point where he is a reliable receiver. From there, field production should count.

The player is playing at the ability of the ratings he currently has. You already know how much of the real deal a player is by looking at their ratings. Their is nothing to prove.

[roolz]

Quote: Originally Posted by red butler

You're using a very narrow definition of the word simulation. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the word "simulation" has been around far longer than databases have even existed. I simulate things all the time that don't even involve a computer. So, just because I have input into the game does not mean that I don't want it to be realistic. I don't want to be able to throw slant passes all day using Rex Grossman to make him more accurate... so that he can later throw deep outs perfectly. I don't want to be able to run Peyton Hillis behind a great offensive line... so that he becomes Barry Sanders. Lastly, a lot of players won't live up to their full potential, so they are not going to be how you put it "'Player A is rated at A potential and this is how he will turn out, no. matter, what".

True I did not take into account any other simulations, but I am talking about Madden and its context of being a computer game.

Im also not saying that taking advantage of money plays should equal good progression. Lets get one thing straight, I agree that the Madden ratings are not nearly clear enough or even wide enough to cover all aspects. And that the gameplay is highly flawed and that to enjoy it, you really have to force a game out of it, rather than let it flow to you.

But in an ideal world, with a good football game that reflects football on the field... a ratings engine that understands that completing 5 yard passes does not mean that a 70 yard bomb is going to be successful... then progression based on performance would work wonders.

Currently I agree to an extent you could mis manage a player to make him better... but even so, thats still a users choice as its a GAME. To say, no, he is not rated 'A' so he wont progress more than say '70 OVR' is wrong.

Scrap all the real life aspects of this discussion, as we are talking about a game, that OK plays a real sport but in all honesty is far off being a proper represntation on and off the field, so the GAME aspect should come into play, rather than my franchise future being all but decided before I put the game CD into my console.