Had Just About Enough of Potential Ratings

[RaiderKtulu]

Quote: Originally Posted by smittymac

And stats shouldn't be factor.

The best option is almost entirely random. That's the closest you're going to get to mimicking the NFL.

Look at a guy like Randy Moss. Bunch of good years with the Vikings, then pure CRAP in Oakland...then breaks records with the Patriots. How the heck do you represent that in any type of progression system that isn't hugely random?

Look at some RBs that ride the bench for 2 or 3 seasons, then the starter gets traded and they have a breakout season when they finally start. Again, how would you represent that in Madden? You'd have to have progression while the guy isn't even playing. And why not? Maybe the team traded the starter because they saw that this guy was possibly better.

Instead of worrying about potential ratings, progression is somewhat randomized and players have a consistency rating that affects it more. A player with a lower consistency rating might bounce around from year to year, while a guy with a higher consistency rating would hit a peak and stay there longer. There's players that come into the league and dominate almost immediately... and there's guys that are unknown for years.

Also, you could have a "value" rating tied into the stats that would affect player contract requests and trade interest/value, without changing physical ratings. That would help represent "system players" and the overhyped aspect of some players, and maybe help shut up the "I can run for 2500 yards with my 68OVR RB" guys.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by smittymac

And stats shouldn't be factor.

To a point, I agree with you.

But without decent stats, you won't be playing and won't be progressing.

[shigogouhou]

Quote: Originally Posted by Argooos

Here's the problem though: If you turn Stafford into a statistical monster he WILL become 90+. The only reason you can't do this with Thigpen is because the developers decided that he'll never be a superstar.

His physical abilities only carry him so far. I don't have the equations that generate overall ability from individual abilities so I don't know what exactly is "holding him back", but suffice to say that Thigpen et al. can only throw so far, can only run so fast, can only learn, comprehend & put to use so much football information, and if he turns into an A potential then so must every other QB with C & B potential, and that breaks the game.

Face facts. If stats matter for potential increases, they also matter for potential decreases and at that point you penalize the player that isn't very good at something by making them tangibly worse at it. Just because you aren't a good passer doesn't mean Manning's skills are going to diminish down to Sorgi levels, and if they do your passing attack will get even WORSE, and then his skills will drop...

In that situation, what stops you from taking a player on the last year of his contract & deliberately making him have a bad year so his abilities drop and you can resign him for a cheaper contract, only to "play for real" once he's signed & boost him right back up?

[DonkeyJote]

The problem with performance-based progression is that it is not realistic at all. Look at Troy Aikman's stats. If we had a performance based system, he would not be progressing very quickly. And we could never have a situation like Tom Brady or Mass Hasselbeck, where they were on the sidelines and improved before they got their oppurtunity to play. So it makes that late round pick that doesn't get playtime worthless. Because he won't improve because he doesn't get fieldtime, but you're not going to put him in if he doesn't improve first.

Also, if that RB gets 2000 yards, is he going to improve in the next season? Probably not. In fact, he'll probably take a step back. That 2000 yd season will likely be the best he'll ever do, so why should his rating go up?

Ratings, and their progression, are supposed to represent out virtual players improvement going into the next season. Do players become better because they have good seasons, or do they have good seasons because they have become better players? It is clearly the 2nd option. Well, a performance based progression system makes them good players, AFTER they've had a good season.

[DonkeyJote]

My solution is to keep the potential system, hide the potential ratings, but don't hard cap the potential ratings, and allow the to change. And so instead of that great season giving you huge progression, what it can do is raise your potential. Because in football, if a guy has a great season, he isn't going to become a better player, but the perception of how good he can be will change. And that perception of how good he can be is called potential.

[PrettyT11]

Quote: Originally Posted by ZoneKIller

I didn't bring up where he was drafted because HE SHOULDN"T EVEN HAVE A POTENTIAL RATING. So what if he was drafted high?That means he should have a high potential grade? Are you serious? So Ryan Leaf? YOu think he should have gotten a Potential of an A?

Again there you go hand picking examples. Everybody wants to throw Ryan Leaf's name out there without actually looking at what hapened to him. Yes Ryan Leaf did have very high talent and potential. It wasn't a lack of physical skills that kept him from being a good to great QB. It was all his mental skills or lack there of. He all of a sudden couldn't throw the ball 50 yards anymore, he didn't get weaker, or any of that other foolishness. He didn't succeed in the NFL because he didn't know how to use his talents properly and along with the mental issues he had.

There is a reason why players are drafted in the first round and players are drafted in the sixth round. Guess what that is?? That's right it potential. Everybody and thier momma knew Calvin Johnson and Adrian Peterson had the physical talents and potential to be great stars in the NFL and guess what they have. Reggie Ball didn't have that potential to be an NFL QB and guess what he is not.

So yes where a player is drafted makes a huge difference. Anybody can call out some late round pick who became a star but if you look at all the guys drafted around them they suck. There always a guy or two that exceeds the odds but FAR more times than not that sixth round guy doesn't stay around very long if he stays around at all.

To help you understand the point then I will do you one better. You can make a top 10,15, 20 or whatever list for any position in football or basketball or whatever and I promise you that the vast majority of those guys will be early draft picks.

Just for kicks let's use the WR position as an example. Most if not all people will say the top WR's in the league today are Fitz, Andre Johnson, Moss, Calvin Johnson, Steve Smith, Reggie Wayne, Roddy White, Greg Jennings, T.O, and Boldin. Out of those 10 players SIX of them was drafted in the first round, 2 in the second round, and the other two in the third round. The two that was drafted in the third round came from small schools and where not really known out of college but thier skills still got them drafted in the first day. See the point??

[Mr. Franchise]

The overall rating should be based more on value. We see it all the time. Michael Turner goes from being a back-up in SD, to the NFL's leading rusher. It's not really about attributes, it's just that people wanna be rewarded for having a breakout season with someone. Like with Matt Cassel. He shouldn't be an 83, but after his breakout season his value shot up and that's why the Patriots were able t trade him for so much. I would just rather there not be a pre=determened potential rating, and instead have potential based on performance.

[smittymac]

Another thing, on top of not knowing potential, a 60 OVR rated player with A potential shouldn't progress untill you play him.
Because players don't get better by sitting on the bench, they getteing better each down they play, and since practice mode is worthless let them progress with their hidden Potential based on how many game reps they get.