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

[debauchlord]

Quote: Originally Posted by rooney8

Fair point bro. As for what hidden ratings would do well there are 10+ things mentioned in this thread already but mainly it would make you judge a player from how he plays not from what a numbers says. So more realism basically.

How can I judge a player by "how he plays" if i am the one playing him? I've had 60 rated receivers throw up monster games and 85 guys drop passes. If a guy pisses me off enough, regardless of rating, I get rid of him. If he does good, regardless of rating, I keep him. So I don't really know the mechanics of what you are talking about. Not trying to be a scrooge, just trying to see the ultimate benefit of hidden ratings.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by debauchlord

How can I judge a player by "how he plays" if i am the one playing him?

You control all 55 guys on your team, and 11 of them all at one time? Man you are godlike.

Quote: Originally Posted by debauchlord

I've had 60 rated receivers throw up monster games

If you can put up monster games with a below average player, then the game is broken and needs to be fixed. This shouldn't happen.

[vaderdog]

I voted for yes, I'd try it out, but I don't need it. Reason being is that I personally do not have the time to "try out" fifty different rookies prior to a draft. I also would not have the time to go to practices to evaluate an 80 man roster prior to a season to see who makes the cut.

In all fairness, an option for hidden ratings would be great for those who want it, but it would be a drastic change from the new mantra "Simpler, Quicker, Deeper."

A solution that I feel would be an improvement to the current system and allows some variety in what a rating means would be along the lines of what FIFA calls form. Depending upon a player's recent play, their rating will fluctuate up and down. In addition, a constant progression / regression system would compliment the form fluctuation nicely.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by vaderdog

I voted for yes, I'd try it out, but I don't need it. Reason being is that I personally do not have the time to "try out" fifty different rookies prior to a draft. I also would not have the time to go to practices to evaluate an 80 man roster prior to a season to see who makes the cut.

This is where coaches, scouts, opinions would come into play. They do the evaluating of the rookies, and give reports on players during pre-season, etc.

[LiquorLogic]

I would definitely use this, but I'd like to add to this idea. All players coming out of college are essentially unknowns.The only things that we can really be sure of are their combine stats. Just because they were productive in college doesn't mean they'll be productive in the NFL. Just because a player ran away from everyone in college, doesn't mean he'll run away from everyone in the NFL. Just because a player can lift the whole weight room doesn't mean he'll man handle players in the NFL.

In franchise, when rookies come into the league, all of their ratings would be hidden. The only thing visible would be where they were drafted, and their combine stats. As they play more games, and start to perform, ratings would be unlocked. Players that are known superstars, like Peyton Manning, Chris Johnson, Farve, and Brees would have all of their ratings unlocked.

The overall rating should also be replaced with an effectiveness rating. Certain players who are young, might be performing well, but they could be one year wonders. They would have an effectiveness rating that could be in the high nineties, but many, maybe all of their ratings in some cases, would be hidden.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by LiquorLogic

I would definitely use this, but I'd like to add to this idea. All players coming out of college are essentially unknowns.The only things that we can really be sure of are their combine stats. Just because they were productive in college doesn't mean they'll be productive in the NFL. Just because a player ran away from everyone in college, doesn't mean he'll run away from everyone in the NFL. Just because a player can lift the whole weight room doesn't mean he'll man handle players in the NFL. In franchise, when rookies come into the league, all of their ratings would be hidden. The only thing visible would be where they were drafted, and their combine stats. As they play more games, and start to perform, ratings would be unlocked. Players that are known superstars, like Peyton Manning, Chris Johnson, Farve, and Brees would have all of their ratings unlocked. The overall rating should also be replaced with an effectiveness rating. Certain players who are young, might be performing well, but they could be one year wonders. They would have an effectiveness rating that could be in the high nineties, but many, maybe all of their ratings in some cases, would be hidden.

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.

[BezO]

I'm still confused. Can someone explain to me how hiding ratings makes Madden better / more realistic? All I can think about is that, IRL, ratings are not hidden from coaches or other players, except for maybe rookies. Even with rookies, physical ability ratings are known. What coaches don't know about a rookie is how he would apply those ratings... awareness, technique, coachability.

I think someone also mentioned potential being hidden. Again, why? Potential is always known. What we don't know is if a player will reach his potential. Remember, potential is largely based on physical attributes... size, speed, strength, ect. A bigger, stronger, faster, more elusive RB has more potential. The only question is will he maximize these attributes.

I think folks are mistaking ratings with improvement/regression. And in the case of potential, mistaking fulfilling/exceding it.

Seriously, can someone give me a real life example of not knowing a player's ratings? Pick a player and tell us what we don't know about him and how that would apply to this hidden ratings option.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

Seriously, can someone give me a real life example of not knowing a player's ratings? Pick a player and tell us what we don't know about him and how that would apply to this hidden ratings option.

Scouts, teams have a pretty good idea about the tangibles, but what about the intangibles? You don't know how well a college player will pick up the pro game. Some of these (actual) ratings, like awareness, run/pass block, play recognition, etc should be hidden. Scouts, coaches, GM's have some idea, but it's not an exact science. So we should really get a perceived rating value from the scouts, GM, coaches on that college player. There needs to be something other than raw physical numbers to go by when drafting. In real life, your GM, and scouts have a perception of each college players intangibles. They have 4 years of game film. And yet, many times there perception of a player is way off/bust. That's why actual ratings should be hidden, except for the raw physical attributes.

You want a real live example: In real life, what's Tebow's accuracy going to be?