Should Potential Fluctuate?

[The Teacher]

I feel like players like Peyton Hillis may have started with C or B potential. However, in the current scheme he is playing I have no doubt he could be a Top-Tier RB in terms of production and importance to his team. He is a Pro Bowl player, yet some guys like (Dez Bryant) Darren McFadden may have had A potential to start as rookies but they have yet to prove themselves.

I for one think Potential might be one of those ratings that should fluctuate year to year based on how well a player does. If you draft a player with A potential to start but then he gets injured every year or simply doesn't produce that potential should decrease (if only temporarily).

I know there are a lot of people that hate one way or the other, but I feel that a dynamic Potential Rating would help fix a lot of these issues.

[TomBrady]

Agreed. Same thing with JaMarcus Russell. Ha was an obvious "A" in potential when he got drafted. But eventually turned in to an "C"/"D".

[s38s38s]

Co-sign, would make it even more worth drafting those diamonds in the rough, who have competent skill sets but need time to produce. As a Panther fan Smitty was drafted as a special teamer and look at what his career has turned into. He's only one of the best receivers in the league top 10, IMO but probably top 15 for others either way staying at "B,C,D" potentiel doesn't get you there. Would definitely like to see room for growth instead of a predetermined ceiling.

[Rambo1986]

There should be some kind of expectancy for keeping the Potential so it doesn't fluctuate. Yeah, JaMarcus Russell was drafted an "A" but what would his expectations be to remain an A and not drift down to a B? Does he need to throw 16 touchdowns in one year? Does he need to pass for atleast 2,500 yards his rookie season - or does must he remain on the bench for 1 year and learn. Not every Quarterback is the same. Look at Carson Palmer, he came out of college an "A" Potential - but had he not sat on the bench and learned the NFL Game, would he had be better? Not everyone starts out strong.

Even for non-Quarterbacks, such as Mike Williams (Seahawks) and Cedric Benson (Bengals) - both came out of college with "A" Potential, drafted in the 1st round - but didn't reach their expectancy and drifted down in Overall. Now, on new teams and a few years later they're booming.

Down to the point - Expectancy of a player should fluctuate the Potential and Overall rating. What is expected of that player for being that "A" Potential.

[adembroski]

Deh...

That defeats the purpose of potential. Potential indicates how good the guy is capable of being. Period. If it changes, then it's not potential. In fact, if it does change, it's meaningless. They might as well drop it. Argue for that, I might get behind you, but if potential is to remain, there's no sense in making it fluid.

As for the JaMarcus Russel argument... Russell NEVER WAS AN "A", we just thought he was.

Well, some people thought he was. I'm not too humble to say I knew the guy was a bust before he was drafted. You can't play in the NFL if you can't hit the broad side of a barn.

[TomBrady]

Quote:

As for the JaMarcus Russel argument... Russell NEVER WAS AN "A", we just thought he was.

I have to disagree. If he had got a good coach, and an experienced backup quarterback to teach him how to be an NFL QB, then he would have probably become great.

[kpkpkp]

I think they do change potential when they do roster updates on XboxLive and PSnetwork. So essentially, potential does fluctuate.

I know thats not what you mean though; I know you mean once you have started an Off-Line Franchise. And I pretty much agree. Some rookies though are back-ups and dont play much their first year, which could lead to some quirky stats. Then those quirky stats could affect progression/regression in a quirky way...

[rooney8]

I have no problem with changing potential. Everything with rookies should be percieved ratings and then become more real after playing time.