If there was an option to hide ratings would you be interested at all?

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

I like the basic idea, but you should know more about a college player than combine stats. Teams have maybe 4 years of tape on college players. That does mean something. I still think that scouts, coaches should have an opinion on a college players abilities. How accurate that opinion is would depend on how good your coaches, scouts are at evaluating talent.

Teams have four years of tape of players competing against other college players; most of those players won't even play in the NFL. A dominate Dlineman was dominate in college, not in the NFL. No one knows if a player's abilities will translate to the NFL. Scouts and coaching staffs should have opinions.

Here is an idea to emulate that aspect: when a player is coming out of college all their ratings would be visible, but those ratings wouldn't always be accurate. The accuracy would depend on the quality of your scouts and GM. You would have a DE that would have, let's say, a Finesse move rating of 90, and a power move rating of 80; once they are drafted, the actual ratings would be locked. The ratings would become revealed once the players gets enough playing time.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by LiquorLogic

Teams have four years of tape of players competing against other college players; most of those players won't even play in the NFL. A dominate Dlineman was dominate in college, not in the NFL. No one knows if a player's abilities will translate to the NFL. Scouts and coaching staffs should have opinions. How about this idea to emulate that aspect: when a player is coming out of college all their ratings would be visible, but those ratings wouldn't always be accurate. The accuracy would depend on the quality of you're scouts and GM. You would have a DE that would have, let's say, a Finesse move rating of 90, and a power move rating of 80; once they are drafted, the actual ratings would be locked. The ratings would become revealed once the players gets enough playing time.

I love that. That goes along with my perceived vs actual ratings. That's pretty much what I've been saying. I like it a lot.

[BezO]

Quote: Originally Posted by LiquorLogic

There are no ratings in real life. Ratings are are based on a players performance and are used to mimic that in the video game. Here's is an example of how hiding ratings would make Madden better, or more realistic: let's say a team picks up a productive corner, but the system this corner played in required him to play zone coverage a majority of the time. Assuming that he hasn't played on a team that required him to play a ton of man coverage, if you're going to ask him to do that, how would you know that he would be cut out for it ? The answer is you wouldn't ? He may be able to thrive on a defense that plays a lot of man, or he may get undressed. Hiding ratings would open up many situations like this. There's no way for a coaching staff, whose defense plays a lot of man, to anticipate how this particular player will pan out.

There are ratings in real life. We know who's faster, stronger, has better accuracy, can cover, ect.

Zone teams play SOME man. You can't zone every formation/down/distance. You judge from that. CBs are usually on zone teams because they don't cover that well. Their cover skills are not a secret. He has a man coverage rating for his original team. When he gets to the new team and plays more man, he will either improve or get exposed. The ratings only need be dynamic in this case, not hidden.

Quote: Originally Posted by LiquorLogic

Potential is not always known. The draft is based on what scouts and coaches think a player's potential is. If potential was always known, Brady would've been picked number one overall, not in the sixth round. Joe Montana would have been picked early in the first round, not in the mid rounds. Farve would have been a first round draft pick and, more than likely, would have played a lot longer in Atlanta than he did.

I think you're misunderstanding what potential is. Potential is perceived. Potenial is a guess based on known attributes. What's unknown is if a player can reach, exceed or fall short of his full potential.

Quote: Originally Posted by LiquorLogic

Also, RB is probably the easiest position to project in the NFL. If a player has speed, agility and good vision, more than likely, he'll be effective in the NFL. The evaluation process isn't that easy regarding other positions.

Agreed.

Quote: Originally Posted by LiquorLogic

Kevin Kolb, he performed well against the Saints, who aren't really known for their defense, and the Chiefs who are terrible. How is his awareness ? We haven't seen him against a stellar defense, or a division opponent who will see him twice a year. How is his arm strength ? Will the Eagles stretch the defense without McNabb's cannon ? How is his toughness, does he get rattled easily ? We won't know any of this until he plays more games. The way Madden's ratings are shown, we'd know everything beforehand.

I agree, we don't know for sure what he can do because we as fans haven't seen it. But his coaches have a good idea. That's why he was the back up. It's also why they're turning the team over to him.

You don't think Eagles coaches know how strong his arm is? How accurate he is? His awareness? These attributes are just dynamic. With more practice & play time, he will improve and meet the challenge or fold under the pressure. But right now, his coaches have an excellent idea what he can do.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

I agree, we don't know for sure what he can do because we as fans haven't seen it. But his coaches have a good idea. That's why he was the back up. It's also why they're turning the team over to him. You don't think Eagles coaches know how strong his arm is? How accurate he is? His awareness? These attributes are just dynamic. With more practice & play time, he will improve and meet the challenge or fold under the pressure. But right now, his coaches have an excellent idea what he can do.

If coaches always knew so much about backups, then every backup would be successful. Since coaches know so much about them. So why do players fail in the NFL when going from a backup role to a starter? And why do some players fail when they move from one team to another?

There are plenty examples of coaches making bad decisions on players. IE. Not evaluating them correctly. So, I would strongly disagree with your assessment that coaches know everything there is to know about a player. The coaches, scouts have a perceived view of players. If you want realism, then that is what we should get in the game. A players ratings should be perceived and not actual. The accuracy of the perceived should depend on a lot of factors. Coaches, scouts, GM's ability to evaluate talent, how long the player has been with your team, how long the player has been in the league, how long the player has been in a certain system, probably a bunch of other things.

But ratings are not going to be as accurate as you indicate, except for the physical attributes. And letter grades is probably more realistic than number grades.

[BezO]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

If coaches always knew so much about backups, then every backup would be successful. Since coaches know so much about them. So why do players fail in the NFL when going from a backup role to a starter? And why do some players fail when they move from one team to another?

Back ups are not starters. Coaches know he's not as good as who they have starting. They'd fail as a starter because they weren't good enough. Some back ups are starters in waiting, some are good enough for the spot duty required of them. Coaches know this.

As for moving to another team, there are other factors. Coaching, system, teammates...

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

There are plenty examples of coaches making bad decisions on players. IE. Not evaluating them correctly. So, I would strongly disagree with your assessment that coaches know everything there is to know about a player. The coaches, scouts have a perceived view of players. If you want realism, then that is what we should get in the game. A players ratings should be perceived and not actual. The accuracy of the perceived should depend on a lot of factors. Coaches, scouts, GM's ability to evaluate talent, how long the player has been with your team, how long the player has been in the league, how long the player has been in a certain system, probably a bunch of other things.

Yes, sometimes coaches make bad decisions, but it's usually with rookies. I'm all for hiding some of their ratings. But players that have been in the NFL are known. Skills are just dynamic. Players improve. They regress. They fold under pressure. Their skill set doesn't match well with a system.

I don't think I disagree with you fully. The ratings are already perceived though, that's why they're dynamic.

We may be saying the same thing, differently. Favre wasn't a great QB when he was with Atlanta. It wasn't a secret. He sucked. He sucked when he first got to GB. But he had a coach that had patience and maybe a skill that his former coach didn't have. Favre improved. The Atlanta coach wasn't wrong at the time.

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

But ratings are not going to be as accurate as you indicate, except for the physical attributes. And letter grades is probably more realistic than number grades.

Letter for the physical or mental attributes?

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

Zone teams play SOME man. You can't zone every formation/down/distance. You judge from that. CBs are usually on zone teams because they don't cover that well. Their cover skills are not a secret. He has a man coverage rating for his original team. When he gets to the new team and plays more man, he will either improve or get exposed. The ratings only need be dynamic in this case, not hidden.

Zone teams play some man, but the the corners will still have help over the top or underneath. It isn't wise to put a cover 2 corner, who hasn't played much man in the NFL, on a team that plays a lot of man and puts their corners on islands more frequently. What about a 4-3 DE, that's been a 4-3 DE his whole career, switching to OLB in a 3-4 ? How will a coach be able to tell whether he'll be able play in space and drop into coverage ? How realistic is it to be able to look at the DE and see that his coverage ratings are actually pretty good, and he'll be a perfect fit for the 3-4 ? A man or zone coverage rating,for a DE, is almost as useless the throwing power rating for a WR. If a WR has a weak arm, would you care ? If DE can't cover man to man, again do you really care ? WRs normally don't throw, and DEs normally don't drop back into coverage, so there's no tape for a scout to evaluate.

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

I think you're misunderstanding what potential is. Potential is perceived. Potenial is a guess based on known attributes. What's unknown is if a player can reach, exceed or fall short of his full potential.

Potential, in reality, is perceived. The potential rating, in Madden, isn't really a "potential" rating. It's an overall rating cap or limit. We don't know if a player will max out his overall rating, but we know what that max is; if you have a player that has a low potential rating, you know that you're going to cut him before he even plays a snap. In reality, it usually takes a couple of years to find that out. Having an overall cap is fine, it just needs to be invisible.

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

I agree, we don't know for sure what he can do because we as fans haven't seen it. But his coaches have a good idea. That's why he was the back up. It's also why they're turning the team over to him. You don't think Eagles coaches know how strong his arm is? How accurate he is? His awareness? These attributes are just dynamic. With more practice & play time, he will improve and meet the challenge or fold under the pressure. But right now, his coaches have an excellent idea what he can do.

They may know how strong his arm is, but they don't know how accurate he'll be when the bullets are real against stellar defenses. When players get rattled accuracy and awareness suffers. Does Kolb get rattled easily? We'll find out when the season starts; that's why they play the games.
Kolb could be trash for all we know; scouts and coaches could be wrong. The ratings in the game are never wrong; they're essentially facts. In real life, perceptions only become facts when followed by production. Hiding ratings is a great way to emulate that in a game.

[DoubleIt5]

I didn't read through the entire thread, so I apologize if this has been brought up. My proposal for a new system, for those choosing to leave ratings on would be ranges. The quality of your coaching staff and scouts would impact the range, the Packers may rate a guys speed 82-90 and the Raiders rate it is 90-92 (since thats all they look at). The longer a player is with your team the more focused in that range becomes.

Another addition would be fluctuating game by game ratings, good players have bad games, bad players have good games, the range helps that. To clarify, a player would have an actual range (hidden or shown, the option is there) say 86-91 trucking, but his coaches have his range at 82-92.

As to everyone saying no to the option, I am confused. As others have stated, what we are asking for is more than just an option to hide ratings, it involves a new system. But just the option to hide ratings would be a good start in my mind. Options allow the individual consumer to tailor a game made for the masses to themselves. And it makes perfect sense for EA to do it as they clearly try to cater to everyone. Just add more options.

If 2012 is truly the year of the franchise, and not another year of hype, I see no reason they can't include much of what we ask for. After all, much of this stuff is recycled year after year, and we are a loud detail oriented bunch here at OS. There are suggestions here most Madden players wouldn't think about, but would appreciate.

[rooney8]

I just wrote my first blog on this. Pretty much just made the points in this thread but hopefully gets some more support for the idea.