Potential NEEDS to be Hidden

[stux]

Make it an option to see it or not.

I like it you don't.

Why not make us both happy?

[Matt Diesel]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

IMO, Ratings = skills the players have. Performance = what the players do with those ratings which could be governed by things outside of that player's control (good WR with a bad QB or in a run-first offense, QB with skills but with no run game and a bad O-Line, etc). Does a good WR lack skills because he's in an offense that doesn't throw much and when they do, it's from a bad QB that can only handle short passes? Why should the WR's skills drop because his team and their scheme don't let him shine to his fullest?

Yes, good point. I had not thought of it that way. I just think there needs to be something different in regards to how players are rated. Im just not sure how to grasp it.

I say give us an option to hide all ratings for all players or turn it on. Its the easiest way to go. Id rather play without ratings and use how they play on the field and possibly some historical statistics (college/pro) to make my own assessment of the player.

Think about it. Do you really need to know Tom Brady's ratings? Or Chris Johnson, for example. We know exactly what they are good at. With that info , you'd be able to compare your rookies to your own team coupled with some historical data and real measurable data like combine data.

Do you take the guy who aced his pro day but didnt produce crazy numbers is college? Or do you take the college all-star who had pedestrian pro-day numbers? Look at that. A game within the game. Fun.

[splff3000]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

IMO, Ratings = skills the players have. Performance = what the players do with those ratings which could be governed by things outside of that player's control (good WR with a bad QB or in a run-first offense, QB with skills but with no run game and a bad O-Line, etc). Does a good WR lack skills because he's in an offense that doesn't throw much and when they do, it's from a bad QB that can only handle short passes? Why should the WR's skills drop because his team and their scheme don't let him shine to his fullest?

This is the way I have always viewed ratings as well. You're ratings aren't high because you play well. You play well because you're ratings are high. What I mean by that is the ratings determine the players ability in the game. For example, if you have a young RB with a very low spin move rating, even if you go a whole season without trying to do a spin move, his spin move rating will probably go up, making it a little easier to do a spin move the next season. If it was the other way around the spin move rating would stay the same because you didn't try one spin move all year.

I'm sure this is the way it is other wise you'd be able to progress all the way to 99 all the time because, if your ratings increased based on your performance, as you perform and your ratings increased, it'd be easier for you to perform better. For example, if you rushed for 2000 yds and your ratings increased well then the next season it should be easier to rush for 2000 yds, so maybe you could do 2500 yds. and so on and so on.

This argument has gone on for years. It's a classic, which came first the chicken or the egg debate. Does player ratings determine player performance or does player performance determine player ratings? You'd think by now, some dev would have squashed all of this by now by saying which is right, but we're still here, years later, debating this same thing lol.

I actually like Mr. Franchise's idea of hiding ratings and just have a performance rating. I think that would end all of this debating back and forth about ratings and performance.

[splff3000]

Quote: Originally Posted by Matt Diesel

Yes, good point. I had not thought of it that way. I just think there needs to be something different in regards to how players are rated. Im just not sure how to grasp it. I say give us an option to hide all ratings for all players or turn it on. Its the easiest way to go. Id rather play without ratings and use how they play on the field and possibly some historical statistics (college/pro) to make my own assessment of the player. Think about it. Do you really need to know Tom Brady's ratings? Or Chris Johnson, for example. We know exactly what they are good at. With that info , you'd be able to compare your rookies to your own team coupled with some historical data and real measurable data like combine data. Do you take the guy who aced his pro day but didnt produce crazy numbers is college? Or do you take the college all-star who had pedestrian pro-day numbers? Look at that. A game within the game. Fun.

You should check out this thread:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ff-season.html

[marktg30]

Quote: Originally Posted by Valdarez

Agree 100%. Then again, I don't want ANY of the numbers to be viewable, including potential.

This is my wish as well. Even if there were an option to make them visible or invisible would be a nice change.

Considering since it is all based on computer programming and the 'numbers' are a necessary part of the equation for making the game in the first place.

I hate to say this (and I know other people don't want to hear it) BUT...

By making the ratings invisible, progression based on production would have A LOT of reason to exist. Granted, you wouldn't see their OVR # but if you have a rookie RB run for 1800 yards and keep those numbers going year after year, it would most certainly make him more valuable to your team and definitely make him -

1. Demand more money/new contract ... and
2. Create a demand for him in free agency or trade - therefore, making his OVR value greater. (exo facto, if you will)

[Bootzilla]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

IMO, Ratings = skills the players have. Performance = what the players do with those ratings which could be governed by things outside of that player's control (good WR with a bad QB or in a run-first offense, QB with skills but with no run game and a bad O-Line, etc). Does a good WR lack skills because he's in an offense that doesn't throw much and when they do, it's from a bad QB that can only handle short passes? Why should the WR's skills drop because his team and their scheme don't let him shine to his fullest?

This^

In terms of the draft process, football is so situational and specific to what your scheme is, certain players should have greater or lesser value based upon what you do. I would love to see evaluations based accordingly.

For instance: QB: Not the strongest arm but, very accurate. Quick release. Decent mobility= West coast QB.

WR: Not a burner but, gets in and out of breaks quickly. Good hands. Good RAC ability. = Slot receiver.

CB: Lacks top end speed. Physical around the line of scrimmage. Good ball skills. willing tackler. = Cover 2 corner. Possible move to safety.

[splff3000]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bootzilla

This^ In terms of the draft process, football is so situational and specific to what your scheme is, certain players should have greater or lesser value based upon what you do. I would love to see evaluations based accordingly. For instance: QB: Not the strongest arm but, very accurate. Quick release. Decent mobility= West coast QB. WR: Not a burner but, gets in and out of breaks quickly. Good hands. Good RAC ability. = Slot receiver. CB: Lacks top end speed. Physical around the line of scrimmage. Good ball skills. willing tackler. = Cover 2 corner. Possible move to safety.

A few more examples of this are:

QB: 99 thr power, 60 thr Acc, - rest of the league = 70 OVR, Raiders = 99 OVR

WR: 95 speed, 60 hands - rest of the league = 75 OVR, Raiders = 96 OVR

[Bootzilla]

Quote: Originally Posted by splff3000

A few more examples of this are: QB: 99 thr power, 60 thr Acc, - rest of the league = 70 OVR, Raiders = 99 OVR WR: 95 speed, 60 hands - rest of the league = 75 OVR, Raiders = 96 OVR

Funny. Sad. True.