Lets mix PROGRESSION and RPG???

[FOREST007]

There has always been the debate on whether progression should be based on potential or production, and i personally think it should be based on production. but i know both ways has it's pros and cons. But i think EA should adjust to the way we play and base progression off the season.

This will be hard to explain, but I'll try my best:

Defense:

CBs -- Man Coverage / Zone Coverage

I believe it was 05 or 06 when they kept stats about how many times the QB threw the ball to the receiver you were guarding in man coverage, and i know madden is counting how many plays a player is on the field.

So if madden could keep track of the number of man coverage plays VS number of times the QB threw it to that receiver (and look at things like INTs/deflections VS Catches/Yards)...it could give a more realistic meaning to a shut down corner and give a better man coverage boost in the off season. im not sayin make a 80 MCV guy a 98 if he has a good season, but a reasonable boost.

and vice versa for zone

(example: Darrelle Revis -- he didnt give up a lot of catches all season (shut down some of the best WRs), and is labeled by sports analysts as "the Best Coverage Corner"

Thats just one position on Defense

Offense

Quarter Backs

This year Madden implemented automatic drop back steps to stop cheesing (i think), but what about offline franchise players? With all factors the same, the QB is the most important position on offense (ie. Vikings with Tavaris Jackson vs Vikings with Brett Favre). So, again, Madden should keep track of the plays called throughout the season

Accuracy (short, mid, deep) -- Look at how many passes are thrown to receivers in the short, mid, or deep parts of the field. And easily do # completed / # attempted.

Example: assume QB throws 600 passes

short (0-5 yds)-- 220/300 74%
mid (6-15 yds)-- 60/200 30%
deep (15+ yds)-- 40/100 40%
(YAC not included)

So the QB has an excellent season on short passes, his short accuracy should increase a good amount. He has a terrible time throwing between the coverage and should lose a good amount of mid accuracy. He also had an average time going deep so he should probably stay the same there.

Potential

Based on the season, the potential of the player should determine the increase/decrease in ratings. Example: assuming its a rookie

A potential -- great season -- up to 7 points in various categories
A potential -- good season -- up to 5 points...
A potential -- So-So season -- up to 3 points...
A potential -- bad season -- 1 or 2 points, maybe just for awareness
A potential -- sits season -- 1 or 2 points in positional categories

Of course, there are players with F potential. So for the sake of time, lets just say their great season starts with 3 points.

(note: i think players should be able to surpass their expected potential, their are many players who has the potential to be great...and there are players that can make other players great)

I'm aware plenty of other things should be taken into account, but this is just preliminary ideas lol...

I would like to hear your good/bad feedback on this idea. EA wants our help making the game, so lets bounce ideas off each other

[fahrenheit]

Honestly I believe coaching should play the biggest part of progression, if you look at good teams with great players its no coincidence that they have great coaches.

I think that EA needs to once again look at how Head Coach and see how they handled coach's. Not only where there positional coaches but they actually mattered when affecting player progression, and head coaches had much greater power, a great one could turn a team around and a terrible coach could ruin a team.

[kcarr]

The problem with that is throwing short passes successfully does not cause a player to become better at throwing short passes. Especially those few short passes thrown during a game. The most passes any player threw this season was just over 36 per game. They probably throw more than that every day in practice. That is where a majority of the development should come from. Also, what does the end result really have to do with any development in the area. Realistically a player is going to learn as much or more from failed attempts than from successes.

[BTG]

While I like the idea of a "Potential" rating, I do not like the way EA implemented it (which is typical for EA, lol). The fact that a player's potential is concrete, regardless of what happens, is absolutely ridiculous. NO ONE really knows how good a player can be if he really works at it and lands in the right situation.

For instance, through 11 games with the Seachickens in my second season Justin Forsett has 970-some yards. He's going to end up with about 12-1300 for the season. His rating right now is a 79. What's his rating going to be when I check the progression in the offseason? Uhhhhhh......79. His "Potential" rating is a C, which means no matter what he does, be it 1300 yards, 2100 yards, 3600 yards, etc., HE WILL NOT PROGRESS ANY HIGHER THAN A 79 OVERALL. PERIOD.

There should be some play in the "Potential," IMO. If a player has C potential, but has maxed out his ratings at that potential and still has a good season, it should bump up the "Potential" rating one letter grade.

[Jump]

You play well because you are a good player. You do not become a better player because you play well.

[BTG]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jump

You play well because you are a good player. You do not become a better player because you play well.

That is absolutely not true. Playing well over a period of time (be it a season or just a few games) positively impacts a player's confidence, which makes them a better player.

My whole point, however, is that the ratings system is used to judge how good a player is. If a player continues having good seasons, then he's obviously a pretty decent player and he shouldn't be stuck at 79 because of some arbitrary "Potential" rating assigned by some dude in an office.

[pointNumberOne]

I think I'm one of the few people who love the progression exactly the way it is. Stats don't make a player better, but a better player has the potential to put up better stats.

If my 79 ovr RB is getting 2000 yds / season, I must have an amazing system around him, which is letting me get the maximum possible benefit from his abilities. 2000yds one season doesn't make him any better the next, that's a result of his base skills/attributes and the system around him.

The only change I'd like to see is this: Don't show us the potential. Not when scouting, not when drafting, not when they're on my team... not ever. That's why players hang around on a roster a year or two, maybe three, and get cut if they don't progress.

[BTG]

Ok, I'm not getting my point across the way I want to. Think of it like this, had this "Potential" rating been in Madden 2002, Tom Brady would never have been an elite QB on the game. If it was in Madden '95, Terrell Davis never would have been an elite player. Terrell Owens, Marques Colston, etc. would never have been elite players. Brett Favre and Joe Montana would have maxed out at 89 overall. The list goes on and on and on.

One of my favorite things about playing Madden has always been to get a low-rated QB, be it a Colt Brennan, Troy Smith, or Josh Heupel back in the day, and build them up slowly over several years. It aggravates me that no matter what I do a player without A potential will never be elite. Like I said, I'd like to see the "Potential" rating change a bit if a player is maxed out and still has great years. If I have three great seasons and built up Brennan into an 89 overall with B potential, and then I have a season with a 100-plus QB rating and a 3 to 1 TD/INT ratio, bump it to a B+.