Had Just About Enough of Potential Ratings

[shigogouhou]

Improvement to the coaching system (which is obvious; compare HC09's robust position coach network vs. Madden 10's coach & 3 coordinators) would work.

Tying performance to abilities would not. Some abilities you can develop and some you can't, and a 5'4" HB with 50 speed & 0 trucking/elusiveness isn't going to become a 99 OVR no matter how many times you turn & hand the ball to him per season.

To cite the Thigpen example, the point of using him as your QB should be to turn him into a statistical monster to win games & have fun with the game in general; it shouldn't be to turn him into a statistical monster solely to turn him into a genetic freak that's as entirely meaningless as it is gamebreaking (if you can develop the stats needed to turn a mid-70s QB into a 90+ OVR QB, how spectacular will your stats be the next season when he's 90+ OVR and all his WRs gained dramatically as well due to the passing game's success a year prior?).

[Argooos]

Quote: Originally Posted by shigogouhou

To cite the Thigpen example, the point of using him as your QB should be to turn him into a statistical monster to win games & have fun with the game in general; it shouldn't be to turn him into a statistical monster solely to turn him into a genetic freak that's as entirely meaningless as it is gamebreaking (if you can develop the stats needed to turn a mid-70s QB into a 90+ OVR QB, how spectacular will your stats be the next season when he's 90+ OVR and all his WRs gained dramatically as well due to the passing game's success a year prior?).

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.

[JEM]

There should be a dynamic potential rating meaning that a players potential will always be changing depending on how he plays over the course of a season. If a player plays well then his " potential " will rise allowing for rating increases but if he struggles then the opposite. No longer would a player be a slave to a static rating but be allowed to improve / get worse based on what he is doing at that point in time.

Example - So and So starts out with D potential as a QB.

After 3 games this player has 620 Yards , 4 TDs , 1 INT , 0 Fumbles.

Players potential rises to a C allowing for growth.

Next 3 games this player has 400 Yards , 1 TD , 5 INTs , 2 Fumbles with both being lost.

Players potential drops back down to a D.

Over the next 10 games this player turns his season around and finishes with 3300 Yards , 24 TDs , 14 INTs , 5 Fumbles with 3 being lost.

At the start of the next season this players potential is now a B.

Ratings in skills would play a factor aswell.. A QB with decent stats would have a higher chance than a QB that is rated low in each important category. So you wouldnt be seeing every player become an A potential but you would see players rated as A for potential drop down to C and even D due to performing badly.

Rookies and 3 year or less players ratings and potential would fluctuate more often than established players so if a rookie or young player plays well his potential could jump up to an A but fall back down to a D in no time ( kinda like " Man that kid shows flashes of greatness " ).

It would take a whole lot of crappy play ( and Age ) to drop a guy like Peyton Manning down from A to B so you wouldnt be seeing the top guys drop off the map after a few bad games or even a fluke horrible season.

/Bing.. You are now free to move about the cabin.

[maddenps2]

Dynamic potential makes no sense as it defeats the point of having a potential rating. It's funny how people point out how some player in nfl history who was thought to be a zero ended up to be a pro bowl player, you use this as an arguement, well guess what for every zero who becomes a hero there are a hundred zeros that stay zeros.

[JEM]

Quote: Originally Posted by maddenps2

Dynamic potential makes no sense as it defeats the point of having a potential rating. It's funny how people point out how some player in nfl history who was thought to be a zero ended up to be a pro bowl player, you use this as an arguement, well guess what for every zero who becomes a hero there are a hundred zeros that stay zeros.

Not really. They are labeled as having " potential " coming in to the league but actually living up to it requires production. Thats why guys become starters and others are out of the league over the course of a few seasons.

What do you think Jamarcus Russells potential was coming out of College? Most scouts would say an A ( I didnt think he would do that well myself ).. What do you think he is now? Certainly not an A anymore.

[maddenps2]

Quote: Originally Posted by JEM

Not really. They are labeled as having " potential " coming in to the league but actually living up to it requires production. Thats why guys become starters and others are out of the league over the course of a few seasons. What do you think Jamarcus Russells potential was coming out of College? Most scouts would say an A ( I didnt think he would do that well myself ).. What do you think he is now? Certainly not an A anymore.

He has the same potential that he did when he came into the league. Potential and success are 2 different things. Potential isn't a guarantee your going to be good. Players will less skill succeed, they do this because they work with what they have they don't suddenly gain speed agility and quickness. I can play madden right now on ps2 with the old none potential system, pick a horrible wr who is fast and weak hands, as long as I throw him the ball over and over and score touchdowns he will come a superstar, get faster, increase his catch, that's not realistic. Do real wrs suddenly get faster and their hands suddently become better than they have been there entire football career?

[JohnnyNutman]

i do think the potential system is out of whack for real life players. it works for created players since they are fictional, but u cant measure a real life players potential like that. if u could then NFL teams would never have draft busts. tom brady didnt have a great pre-draft rating (in real life - according to scouts & analysts) & his potential wouldve been crap (in the current maddens system).

that been said, it still works fine for the fictional draft prospects.

Quote: Originally Posted by Lucicren

Although that would be better than we have now, don't you agree that if you take a Runningback and rush for 2,000 yards in a season you shouldn't be capped at an Overall of 79?

no, i dont think u should base it off stats. ever heard of "system players". take matt cassell for example. he played well in the pats system last year - putting up brady like numbers, but u wouldnt rate him that high. EA didnt and thats why his ovr is lower now he's on the chiefs. he hasnt played that well for the chiefs so far & had justified his lower rating.

if u could get 2000 yards with that player with his ovr at 79, then u could probably do it again. just cos u put up big numbers doesnt mean u get better - take into account great OL play as well as coaching schemes.

[Cheese23]

So with these potential ratings from what I understand:

A - very high ceiling to become great
B - max out in the 80s
C - Average 70's max
D - .....

Am I right? I'm just trying to get this.

How do they progress in a franchise? More so based on yds or catches or tds or comp %?