My Thoughts on Player Potential

[St. Francisco]

Let me begin by saying that I like the addition of potential to players. It's a good indicator of how much you can expect out of an individual, but it could be soooooo much more. Right now, the feature is too straight-forward, but I have an idea on how to make it dynamic, and much more fun.

Potential is defined as "capable of being or becoming". So in Madden terms, potential should be a measure of how much that player could progress, or how much he could fall off next season. Right now, it's not really used like that. For instance, Peyton Manning has A potential...why? He's not going to progress much further than he is. Other players past their prime also carry A and B potentials, when it's well known that these players should be regressing due to their age. I think a re-working of the definitions of each potential grade is in order.

Another major factor that I think would significantly add to the fun is season stats. Stats should not only determine how well a player progresses, but what his potential becomes next season. With this in mind, this is my proposal for the new potential grades:

High Potential (A Potential) - A player with high potential will be relatively young more times than not, and should be fairly rare in the game. The high potential grade will signify that the player has a high chance of progressing rapidly with excellent or good season stats, or moderately with average season stats. High potential could be assigned to a young QB waiting in the wings, who will develop with age. However, too many years in a row of sitting on the bench and doing nothing should impact his potential, and potentially bring it down to above average. Likewise, players with high potential who perform poorly over multiple starts will see limited progression at first, and over time could see their potential brought down to above average.

Above Average Potential (B Potential) - This is where most highly-drafted rookies will fall, as well as most young players in the game. Players will progress moderately with good season stats, but little to not at all with below-average season stats. A backup player with above average potential will see small yet steady progression through his younger years. A player who performs poorly for two or more seasons could see his potential knocked back to average. Likewise, a player who performs lights out consistently could become high potential.

Average Potential (C Potential) - The majority of the league will fall here. Players with average potential won't see much progression, but also won't see much regression. This is a perfect potential grade for highly-rated starters across the league, as well as backups or journeymen who seem to have become as good as they're ever going to be. Above average season stats would allow the player to progress very little each season, average season stats would keep him the same, and below average season stats would see the player regress very little each season. Excellent and consistent season stats could move the player up to above average potential, but poor and consistent season stats could move the player down to below average potential.

Below Average Potential (D Potential) - Late round long shots in the draft, or players who are coming up on the old age are two examples of players who would fall in this category. Players with below average potential will see steady regression each season unless they play lights out, in which case they will see no progression or regression, or could be moved up to average potential. Players who have poor season stats will see their regress quicker.

Poor Potential (F Potential) - The ultimate project, or players past their prime. Players with poor potential will see rapid regression through the years. Even with excellent season stats, they may still regress a few points each season. It would take consistent results to move them up to below average potential. Aging players would not be able to move up a potential grade, and instead will only be able to slow down the regression by performing well each season. A player who performs average or poorly will see dramatic regression each season.

As you can see, this new potential system would rely heavily on age and season stats, so there's a lot of room for error if it isn't implemented into the game properly. Perhaps a system that measures the player against the league's average stats at the position as it relates to the amount of games that the players either starts or plays in, and a system to determine what age is appropriate to begin downgrading a player's potential at each position are needed. Still, it would allow for a fun experience in the game. Imagine your 5th round pick coming in with average potential...he gets some good playing time, and moves up to above average. Now he's a starter, and by year four of his career he has high potential, and is rapidly becoming a star in the league.

In closing, potential should not be a measure of how good a player is. It should be a measure of how much a player would either progress or regress in any given season. Potential should be dynamic, not set in stone.

[Broncos86]

You're taking the NHL series approach to potential. It's two different ways of saying the same thing. What you're describing is how NHL's potential currently works.

Madden's potential states what the maximum rating a player can achieve, relatively.

NHL's potential states how much a player is currently capable of progressing.

The difference between the two is that Madden is telling you what a player can ever achieve. NHL's does not, because even though a 21 star might have an A potential, you don't know what his potential will do in the future. Some players may stay at "A" for a while, others taper off quickly.

Thus, Peyton Manning is an A potential, and he's realized that potential with his 90's rating. Two different ways to look at it.

[St. Francisco]

Quote: Originally Posted by Broncos86

You're taking the NHL series approach to potential. It's two different ways of saying the same thing. What you're describing is how NHL's potential currently works. Madden's potential states what the maximum rating a player can achieve, relatively. NHL's potential states how much a player is currently capable of progressing. The difference between the two is that Madden is telling you what a player can ever achieve. NHL's does not, because even though a 21 star might have an A potential, you don't know what his potential will do in the future. Some players may stay at "A" for a while, others taper off quickly. Thus, Peyton Manning is an A potential, and he's realized that potential with his 90's rating. Two different ways to look at it.

I'm aware of how the game views potential, I just thinks it's a bad idea, and in need of re-working similar to NHL or MLB the show.

[Broncos86]

Quote: Originally Posted by St. Francisco

I'm aware of how the game views potential, I just thinks it's a bad idea, and in need of re-working similar to NHL or MLB the show.

Mmm, I disagree. But really, I think it's a matter of taste. I don't see potential as fundamentally flawed. NHL vs Madden is about how much of the "curtain" you want pulled back. I don't mind the curtain being pulled back completely for potential.

[torrey]

It seems like it would make more sense to change the label from "Potential" to "Work Ethic". How hard a player works plays a HUGE part in them getting better. It would also make more sense when you have a 30 yr old player who currently has an "A" in "potential" to have an "A" in work ethic. A 30 yr old player is not going to get that much better, but at least with the work ethic label you know you are getting a player that works hard, therefore, their decline will be slower (i.e. Jerry Rice). What do you all think about that????

[Broncos86]

Quote: Originally Posted by torrey

It seems like it would make more sense to change the label from "Potential" to "Work Ethic". How hard a player works plays a HUGE part in them getting better. It would also make more sense when you have a 30 yr old player who currently has an "A" in "potential" to have an "A" in work ethic. A 30 yr old player is not going to get that much better, but at least with the work ethic label you know you are getting a player that works hard, therefore, their decline will be slower (i.e. Jerry Rice). What do you all think about that????

That doesn't make sense. Some people just have natural talent. Potential is about what you're capable of accomplishing. Even piles of hard work can't make you the absolute best in the world. It takes talent as well.

[Franchise408]

I got no problem with the way potential works now. As I understand it, an A potential player will become a 90+, a B player an 80+, C player 70+, and so on. If a player is already in that range (ie Braylon Edwards, 84 overall with B potential) that means they will stay there and not go drastically up or down. A 90 player with B potential willhit a decline. A 90 A potential guy, like has been said, means he reached his potential and remain a 90's guy.

The only thing that id change is how automatic it is. I understand why a good season shouldn't necessarily increase their rating / potential. Alex Smith is a 77 and I currently lead the NFL in passing yardage with him. In NFL 2K5 I was a 2 time rushing champion with a 65 rated running back.

What id like to see is potential linked to coaching. Make coaching matter. Coaches will have a development rating, and better developmental coaches will get the most out of their players potential. They will grow and capitalize on high potential. That's how id like to see it.

Cuz as it is now, what coach I have means nothing in franchise.

[Jags4Lyfe]

I think Jimmy Claussen should at least be a B potential