Player Potential

[CRMosier_LM]

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

Bogues always had the potential to make it in the NBA. Not everybody does. Do you understand what potential means? It seems like you don't because you only say someone has the potential, if they actually accomplish it. Potential is simply expressing a possibility. Bougues, as a 5'3 135 pound player had the potential, just like a 5-9 175 pound player at the YMCA has the potential. Is it likely? No. But potential isn't something you can only speak for in hindsight, which is what you are doing. Potential changes based on variables. Twins with identical genetics can turn out very different based on how those variables. Put a twin in one area of the country with a trainer, and he could grow into a 6'1 220 pound athlete that runs a 4.5. Put the other kid in another part of the country, and he could turn into a 6'1 300 pound obese person. The variables in everything they did to their shells made the difference. Even a person without the genetic makeup that would make it likely to perform an athletic feat (such as making it to the NBA) can make it to the NBA. That proves the possibility (or potential) of anyone being able to accomplish it. Will they? That is irrelevant. How so? How is my system doing away with intangibles. My system would add the intangibles. The system I'm against has no intangibles, a stats based progression system with unlimited potential. That has absolutely no intangibles involved. And how does my system do away with individual growth? I'm not arguing for a stat based system with unlimited potential. I was agreeing with the poster that was vouching for a soft cap based potential. What you are advocating is a player with C potential, never, ever, ever, no matter what, being able to progress at the rate that someone with A potential would. The only way that would even be physically possible is if growth was ONLY determined by physical attributes. It would be impossible for a player to simply grow because he got with the right coach and the right system, and those variables sparked the rate of growth in them. There are things you can't measure with a timer or with numbers that contribute to people getting better. It isn't magic. It isn't some pre-determined destiny called "potential" that you seem to think it is. It's something intangible. Some players just have better hands than others (better at catching the ball) no matter how much they work at it. Some are just naturally better at it. This is absolutely laughable. There is no such thing as "naturally" better at catching a football. There isn't a gene that makes one person more gifted at it than the next person. There are things like hand size that can greatly affect the ability, one way or the other. But repetition, practice, and getting comfortable in technique is what makes someone a "natural pass catcher". The phrase "natural" only denotes how effortless it looks. It doesn't literally mean, this person was born with "potential" to be better at catching than the numder 5 wideout on his team. Some players get nervous on a big stage. Some lose concentration. That can improve with time in the league, but it isn't something determined at birth. That is ridiculous. Some O-Lineman struggle at pass blocking, or run blocking, no matter how much they work at it. And those are all based on variables and scheme. There are players who sucked under the coaching of one staff, but excelled in other staffs and cities. It wasn't because of some "natural born potential". It was that player finding a way to put their natural talent and coaching together.There is no gene for pass blocking. And a stats based progression system with unlimited potential in no way provides this. Only a system that tries to simulate this in a realistic fashion. Which is what I'm advocating. I have not vouched for unlimited potential. But I have also not vouched for the kind of potential you are vouching for (the kind currently implemented in the games). Potential matters, only because it allows people to make reasonable GUESSES based on physical attributes to how someone will grow and perform. So with that, yes there should be potential in the game. But it should be a soft system, where someone that doesn't have the perceived potential as someone else can progress with non-physical ratings (like awareness, route running, tackling, etc) at a rate where they can be ranked with the best players in the game. Potential is only an indicator of what a player could "potentially" do based on what we can tangibly see or feel or touch. But it shouldn't mean player B should remain at a D level in awareness for the rest of his career, even though he is excelling on the field. That system is flawed, and not inclusive.

So you are saying that as far as potential, each and everyone of us reading this thread could have been a Super Bowl Champion QB and HOF player?!? I can train everyday and max out at a 4.6 in the forty yard dash. I can train everyday and throw a perfect pass. There are some things left that I cant do no matter how hard i try. i see no problem with potential, not everyone has the ability to be the best no katter what your parents tell you. Im in tue real. world everyday and i can tell you flat out anyone that thinks potential for any person (nfl player or not) is sadly mistaken. I dont thin the issue is the potential rating but the overall rating. Overall needs to go because all it is, is a value basically. How much does the game value this player vs that player. You can give me an 95 overall wr with 95 speed and 60 release and he wont do much in my offense, he will have very little value to me. you give me a 70 overall receicer with 88 speed and 90 release and he will have pro bowl numbers every year, but does that mean that he should go through the roof ratings wise? No but his value to me far exceeds the perceived value is cpu.

[DorianDonP]

Quote: Originally Posted by CRMosier_LM

So you are saying that as far as potential, each and everyone of us reading this thread could have been a Super Bowl Champion QB and HOF player?!?

Sure you had the potential. Is it likely to do that? Extremely unlikey given how many people play football and how many of them become professionals and became a super bowl winning QB and HOF.

Not even Dan Marino, who had all of the potential in the world, became a super bowl winning QB.

Regarding the rest of your post, I never said it had to do with how "hard you tried,". I said variables influences the likelihood.


You can give me an 95 overall wr with 95 speed and 60 release and he wont do much in my offense, he will have very little value to me. you give me a 70 overall receicer with 88 speed and 90 release and he will have pro bowl numbers every year, but does that mean that he should go through the roof ratings wise? No but his value to me far exceeds the perceived value is cpu.

That's a pretty shortsighted way of looking at this issue, because you could use that 70 overall receiver and send him to 5 pro bowls, breaking numerous records in the process. Then you release him, and none of the computer teams sign him because he is a 70 overall player.

But if that's the kind of franchise you like, then more power to you.

*shrugs*

[DorianDonP]

I remember in my franchise with Madden 11, I had a 71 rated DE. I broke the sack record with him. I think I had 24 sacks in a season with him. I ended up letting him go in free agency. When the season was over, I went to look up his stats to see how he did with his new team, and realized he was still a free agent.

That's hard potential. Not even his awareness kicked up to reflect how dominant he had been?

[ghettoqball]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

I can understand why you would want this. Makes it easier to decide who to keep and who not to. Also it pretty much guarantees that starters will not regress, but prob progress. But I want more realism, and this is highly unrealistic.

How is that highly unrealistic? It would be more realistic than the current system. GMs don't draft a player and then say "Sweet, he has an A for potential!" They have to wait and see how that player turns out. With the potential system right now, you could draft someone in the first round, see he has a D potential, and cut him right away. That would not happen in real life. In real life, you don't know how good a player is going to be, sometimes for a few years. A system where you make your cuts based on whether a player is progressing or not is far more realistic than having a letter based potential system where you already know if your player is going to be good or not.

I think potential should be hidden, either permanently, or at least for the first year or two of a player's career. I also think it would be pretty cool if we could start a franchise with random potential, at least for real life rookies.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

Bogues always had the potential to make it in the NBA. Not everybody does. Do you understand what potential means? It seems like you don't because you only say someone has the potential, if they actually accomplish it. Potential is simply expressing a possibility.

And not everybody has the potential to be good enough to make it in the NBA or NFL. If someone accomplishes something, then it's obvious they had the potential to accomplish it.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

Bougues, as a 5'3 135 pound player had the potential, just like a 5-9 175 pound player at the YMCA has the potential. Is it likely? No. But potential isn't something you can only speak for in hindsight, which is what you are doing.

I'm not just speaking in Hindsight. Not ALL 5-9 175 players at the Y have the potential to make it in the NBA. Many don't because they are just not good enough and never will be. It's just obvious that Bogues was good enough since he actually did. What's so hard to understand about that? Jim Schwartz at the Y may not have the potential to make it in the NBA no matter how hard he works at it. He will just never be good enough. Not everybody can do everything. Not everybody has the potential to do everything. That's just not how life works. I'm not at all confused.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

Potential changes based on variables. Twins with identical genetics can turn out very different based on how those variables. Put a twin in one area of the country with a trainer, and he could grow into a 6'1 220 pound athlete that runs a 4.5. Put the other kid in another part of the country, and he could turn into a 6'1 300 pound obese person.

And you can put that one twin with the best trainer in the world and they may never break 5.5 in the 40. They may never break 6.0. They just are not able to. Not just anybody can run a 4.4 40. Environment does not = potential.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

The variables in everything they did to their shells made the difference.

If one did it, then they ALWAYS had the potential to do it. Environment didn't change their personal potential, it just helped them get closer to their potential. Environment has nothing to do with potential, just the ability to get closer to your potential.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

Even a person without the genetic makeup that would make it likely to perform an athletic feat (such as making it to the NBA) can make it to the NBA. That proves the possibility (or potential) of anyone being able to accomplish it.

FALSE. If someone doesn't have the genetic makeup/potential to make it in the NBA then they won't make it in the NBA. It's not unlikely, they won't because they are not good enough. Many people just don't posses the ability to make it in the NBA. And you saying it, doesn't make it true or prove anything.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

Will they? That is irrelevant.

Can they IS relevant. If they are NOT good enough, they won't. No matter how much work they put into it.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

I'm not arguing for a stat based system with unlimited potential. I was agreeing with the poster that was vouching for a soft cap based potential.

A soft based potential is by definition NOT HAVING potential. Someone's personal potential doesn't move. The only thing that moves is someone ability and how close they get to their potential.

Soft potential just doesn't even make sense.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

What you are advocating is a player with C potential, never, ever, ever, no matter what, being able to progress at the rate that someone with A potential would.

Because this is what happens in real life. I want a progression system that simulates realism.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

The only way that would even be physically possible is if growth was ONLY determined by physical attributes. It would be impossible for a player to simply grow because he got with the right coach and the right system, and those variables sparked the rate of growth in them.

The right coach in the right system ONLY HELPS THEM GET THEIR ABILITIES CLOSER TO THEIR POTENTIAL. It doesn't increase their potential. It may increase their perceived potential, but not their actual potential. You are confusing potential with the tools to help someone abilities get closer to their potential.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

There are things you can't measure with a timer or with numbers that contribute to people getting better. It isn't magic. It isn't some pre-determined destiny called "potential" that you seem to think it is. It's something intangible.

Everybody has limits. Just because it's hard to measure doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's not pre-determined destiny. It's how good can someone be at something. You may not be able to make it in the NFL or NBA, just because you are not good enough. You don't have the potential to be an NBA or NFL athlete.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

This is absolutely laughable. There is no such thing as "naturally" better at catching a football. There isn't a gene that makes one person more gifted at it than the next person. There are things like hand size that can greatly affect the ability, one way or the other. But repetition, practice, and getting comfortable in technique is what makes someone a "natural pass catcher".

Yes there is such a thing as natural ability. Some people have much better hand/eye coordination. Some people have better quicker muscle twitch. These things can only be worked on so much. Everybody has a potential. Some athletes are just better at catching footballs than others no matter how much they work at it. Working at it just helps you get closer to your potential.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

The phrase "natural" only denotes how effortless it looks. It doesn't literally mean, this person was born with "potential" to be better at catching than the numder 5 wideout on his team.

Oh yes it does. That #5 WR can work much harder than that #1 WR and still not run better routes, still drop more passes and just not be as good. That's potential.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

Some players get nervous on a big stage. Some lose concentration. That can improve with time in the league, but it isn't something determined at birth. That is ridiculous.

Abilities are genetic. Not all ability is stage fright or concentration. And even some of that is part of ones psyche. Which can be partly determined at birth and environment.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

Some O-Lineman struggle at pass blocking, or run blocking, no matter how much they work at it. And those are all based on variables and scheme. There are players who sucked under the coaching of one staff, but excelled in other staffs and cities. It wasn't because of some "natural born potential". It was that player finding a way to put their natural talent and coaching together.There is no gene for pass blocking.

Most of it is based on ability. Things like scheme only and coaching are only tools to help someone get closer to their potential. Some players are bad at run blocking no matter what scheme is run or what coach they have. Some don't even make it on NFL rosters because they are not good enough.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

I have not vouched for unlimited potential. But I have also not vouched for the kind of potential you are vouching for (the kind currently implemented in the games).

Well, potential is limited or doesn't exist. One or the other.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

Potential matters, only because it allows people to make reasonable GUESSES based on physical attributes to how someone will grow and perform.

Potential isn't just physical. It's skills and knowledge as well. Someone can have difficulty grasping something or not grasp it at all. They can grasp/understand while having it explained to them, but can't retain it, need it to always be re-explained to them. It's not just physical.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

So with that, yes there should be potential in the game. But it should be a soft system, where someone that doesn't have the perceived potential as someone else can progress with non-physical ratings (like awareness, route running, tackling, etc) at a rate where they can be ranked with the best players in the game.

But this isn't realistic. It's not what happens in the real world. Soft potential doesn't exist. You're confusing perceived potential with actual potential. A person can progress with non physical ratings, but each person has a max on how good they can be at those non physical ratings. Just like people can progress at physical ratings, but they have a potential max here as well. It's just that people can reach there physical max faster then they reach there non physical max.

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

Potential is only an indicator of what a player could "potentially" do based on what we can tangibly see or feel or touch. But it shouldn't mean player B should remain at a D level in awareness for the rest of his career, even though he is excelling on the field. That system is flawed, and not inclusive.

If player at level D is excelling on the field, then you are on the wrong skill setting/using the wrong sliders or the game is flawed. The game should not have someone producing better than their ratings say they should. The game is flawed for allowing excellence from a "D" potential player, not the system. You have things backwards.

Production does not derive ratings or potential. People don't get better because they produce more. They're maximum ability doesn't increase because they produce more.

People get better at something, getting closer to their potential, and then their production goes up. As people get closer to their potential, their abilities increase less.

You have everything backwards.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by ghettoqball

How is that highly unrealistic? It would be more realistic than the current system.

How do you figure that no potential is MORE realistic. In real life, people have a potential.

Quote: Originally Posted by ghettoqball

GMs don't draft a player and then say "Sweet, he has an A for potential!" They have to wait and see how that player turns out. With the potential system right now, you could draft someone in the first round, see he has a D potential, and cut him right away.

That means you enhance the current potential/progression. You don't bag it for something that is even more unrealistic, like unlimited potential, stats based. Fix it, don't break it more.

Quote: Originally Posted by ghettoqball

That would not happen in real life. In real life, you don't know how good a player is going to be, sometimes for a few years. A system where you make your cuts based on whether a player is progressing or not is far more realistic than having a letter based potential system where you already know if your player is going to be good or not.

In real life, all players don't have unlimited potential. In real life, players don't get better because they produce. In real life, players produce more because they got better. In real life, evaluators try to evaluate a persons potential. That does not exist w/o some indication of potential in the game. That's why I'm advocating a perceived potential value that the game would use to determine how good you or it thinks a player CAN BE, while hiding the true actual potential. Which is hey, like it is in real life. You know, "real life" like you state in your post. An unlimited potential, stats based progression system is unrealistic because that's not what happens in real life.

Quote: Originally Posted by ghettoqball

I think potential should be hidden, either permanently, or at least for the first year or two of a player's career. I also think it would be pretty cool if we could start a franchise with random potential, at least for real life rookies.

Actual potential should be hidden. We should be shown a perceived potential with accuracy based on how good our GM's Scouts and Coaches are at evaluating talent. And I agree, that the perceived potential should become more accurate the longer a player is on your team and in the NFL. I also think actual overall and individual ratings should be hidden, with us being shown perceived values. And these perceived values should also become more accurate the longer a player is in the league.

I would also go with the random potential settings as an OPTION.

We may be coming together on the hidden actual values.

[Argooos]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

A soft based potential is by definition NOT HAVING potential. Someone's personal potential doesn't move. The only thing that moves is someone ability and how close they get to their potential. Soft potential just doesn't even make sense.

This is exactly why I made the point that potential is just a word the developers chose for a ratings cap. Soft potential doesn't make any sense if you are thinking of real-world potential. A soft ratings cap makes perfect sense.
I'm not going to try to respond to the rest of what you've written, as I don't see any point. You have a lot of preconceived notions about potential that you're not going to change, and you seem set on applying your notions about real-life potential to Madden potential.
You also seem to think that the only alternative to a hard ratings cap is unlimited progression based entirely on stats, despite the fact that I don't think anyone is actually arguing for such a thing.

[elijah53johnston]

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE POTENTIAL GUIDE LOL