100% prefer the NBA version you're describing. I'd definitely like to see more meaningful differences in ratings. It's silly to have a system in which most of the numbers just mean "BAD PLAYER- DO NOT START". It would be more interesting to see a system in which average guys were about 50 OVR and acceptable starters were maybe 60 OVR. Some reasons why, all connected to things we see on Sunday:
- Some players are big match-up headaches. Great defensive linemen need to be double-teamed or chipped on almost every play. Awesome receivers need to be double covered. A system that makes a typical starter 85 OVR and a superstar 95 OVR has a harder time with this.
- Some players improve *drastically* in their first few years. Maybe a QB comes into the NFL and isn't ready to play, period. He'll throw picks, get slammed to the turf a lot, and stare down receivers. After a few training camps and some mentoring, he gains 40 points of AWR and a few other ratings boosts that make him worth putting on the field.
- Teams are often desperate for specialists to fill certain roles. Big run-stopping DTs or fast pass-rushing LBs are necessary. Simply having a certain skill set and/or body type and being decent earns these guys roster spots as situational players. They don't need to be starter-quality to have value.
I'd really love to see a Madden game that emphasized smart substitutions, good role-players, and long-term player development. A greater spread of abilities would open up some space to make that a reality.
03-31-2010, 02:08 AM
