Good Article on Overrating Rookies

[tiloj]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

Essentially this post is stating that Dalton and Cam were nothing special but just a product of the current NFL environment for rookies and we should expect to see more rookies shine like this going forward.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, but of course no rational person would believe that.

What I said, was that we are in an age that cushions the experience because management has learned - which is to be expected. In the past players such as David Carr essentially came out of Houston with post traumatic stress because they took 50 sacks per year. Coaches simply won't allow that any longer - they pull the QB or protect them via a line and other skill positions.

As a result rookies with great potential - like a Cam Newton - are in a greater position to succeed. That does not mean they will, but indicates they are more likely to get a fair opportunity. It certainly does not mean that Blaine Gabbert can be transformed into Aaron Rodgers because coaching and management have improved. Great players will be great, and you aren't going to teach greatness.

That being said, regarding ratings my comments have been with an eye towards the current rather imperfect system. I would love to see ratings come down across the board. If you aren't a first ballot hall of famer in your prime, you shouldn't be anywhere near the upper 90s.

[BezO]

What I think should be done for rookies is this...

Give them the physical ratings they deserve. Shouldn't be too much arguement there. We know how fast, strong, etc players are.

What we don't know is how those assets will transfer to the NFL. So keep the learned skills moderate... awareness, route running, vision, coverage, etc.

And update rookies weekly. Sure, a rookie may ball out week one and fizzle in week 2, but that's all we'll have to go on until then. Consider the opposition and average the ratings/performance weekly to provide the most accurate & up to date ratings for rookies. This way, every week you can account for his entire "career".

And I too think overall ratings should be removed. Only EA knows what they mean. To know what makes a CB, for example, a 90, you still have to look at his coverage, speed, agility, hands, awareness, etc any way. Until then, the 90 overall rating could mean anything. And I'd need video proof that individual ratings are not minipulated to reach overall ratings.

[Guru03]

Rookies should be rated on their abilities,skills,and talent and not based on when they were drafted. Also, awareness should not be made lower than usual for rookies for 1 player to keep from the player having a higher rating. I think that rookies should be rated at the max 85 at first and then up to 89 at the end of the season if they deserve it. Scouting reports and college performance/stats is how I would rate rookies.

[BestServedCold]

Quote: Originally Posted by tiloj

Eh, honestly in the last few years offensive rookies have accelerated their learning curve substantially. Rookie quarterbacks, wide receivers, and linemen have improved their play via coaching techniques by leaps and bounds over the past 5-10 years. Simply put, coaches have figured out how to harness potential and physical ability far better than they did only a decade ago. A player like Andy Dalton or Cam Newton might have flopped in 1990, but today? They are stars in the making. This coupled with rules changes that ease these rookies into the game, and you are seeing monster seasons more often than ever from young players. It is a different world, and that makes this article less accurate by the day.

What's really happening is instead of forcing a rookie to try and learn the whole playbook from the get go, teams are using the Walsh method and having rookies only learn a smaller part of the offense (another side-effect of the lockout). This prevents them from becoming overwhelmed and allows them to learn a few plays very well. Then, in year 2, their role is expanded and they're expected to learn more of the playbook.

Rookies are the same. They have the same potential and the same ability. The only thing that has changed is how coaches use them.

[DUDERMAN]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

I didn't have Madden at launch... what were Aldon Smith's initial ratings? He is an 88 OVR now with 97 Block Shedding and 99 Power moves now. Is that okay?

To me, this is absolutley NOT ok. He's just a rookie and yet he already has ratings that can not be improved anymore? So he is already as good as he'll ever be at rushing the passer with a power move?

Also when they make the changes for rookies at the end of a season, it is to represent how they finished the season and how they played throughout. This is fine if you are playing online or "play now", but if you want to start a new franchise, the "good" rookies are already in year 2 mode.

As others have already stated, the entire rating system needs an adjustment but in terms of rookies, I believe they should be lower than they currently are going into a new game.

[edit] BTW, Aldon smith at launch was 76 OVR, 96 PMV, 85 BSR. I don't think those ratings would have been bad to have him finish the season with. Maybe up his awareness so he hits 80. Personally I don't think any player should even be sniffing a 90 until they have multiple good seasons. How many one year wonders have we seen in Madden that remain 90+ every year?

[msdm27]

First of all, while I don't fully agree with the way madden rates rookies, or players in general, I do believe it's quite easy to pass judgement after the facts. It's really easy to bash by saying players should be rated based on attributes and not on where they were drafted, but... then you'd have to wait one season to actually rate them.

The only way to have a starting rating is based off where the rookies were drafted; if a player is drafted #10 and he wasn't being mocked there, he has to be rated as such, or what, are u (a fan) or Donny Moore gonna claim to know more than the people that actually draft?

On the other hand, I think people forget sometimes how offline franchise works... well, it is OFFLINE! Until we have a real dynamic rating development system (weekly, or every 3-4 weeks) there will be no gradual increment to ratings. The franchise is not gonna update itself with real life results.

Bottomline, if we're gonna be stuck with the same system, my short-term solution would be... ok, give rookies their ratings based on whatever u base them, but... leave potential blank or "?" until season 2 or even 3rd season, and then we could discover a player's real talent. That way the potential would be somehow affected by performance.

Thanks for reading!

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by DUDERMAN

[edit] BTW, Aldon smith at launch was 76 OVR, 96 PMV, 85 BSR. I don't think those ratings would have been bad to have him finish the season with. Maybe up his awareness so he hits 80. Personally I don't think any player should even be sniffing a 90 until they have multiple good seasons. How many one year wonders have we seen in Madden that remain 90+ every year?

Why does OVR matter?

Plus this article just took some basic stats and assigned them an OVR or...what?

Again, who cares. If Eli and Jamarcus Russell are both 61 - they better be for very different reasons...because these were very different QBs.

Why is "Alex Smith having a 75 or higher criminal"? Seriously, what's the point of a comment like that. Oh no, he has a 78 OVR - Criminal! The real question is: Does Alex Smith's skill ratings match up to his performance and play on the field. This year showed him as an accurate passer dealing with a craptastic bunch of WR and only one real threat (Vernon Davis).

Which is another issue with this article. What scheme were these guys in? What were their teammates like? Did the scheme not fit the skills? Why is what people said about Mario Williams relevant? Who cares if people said it was a mistake. Did he suddenly "flip the switch" or did the Texans figure out how to exploit his talent as a Demarcus Ware type OLB instead of a 4-3 DE?

And then in M12 (and hopefully M13) what about roles and traits? No mention of those in this article. Yet they impact on field performance. Perhaps rookies should have good physical skills, weaker AWR and fragile DPP (if he gets rattled, he plummets while a vet can still compete). Rookies start with 1-star consistency and DPP could skew them to be more cold if they suffer adversity, etc. So many ways now to impact players than just straight ratings and let alone the useless OVR.

I mean, taking on field performance and comparing it to the one rating that means NOTHING to on field performance? Is that supposed to mean something?

"Players who've never played a down of NFL football should never come into the game rated higher than even low-level NFL starters."

Yet he rates Von Miller as an 85...and he considers 70 average, so 60s would be below average...yeah.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by rgiles36

OVR is not the end-all, but it's not completely useless either although I'm not suggesting that's what you implied

Unless OVR actually impacts a player's play on the field, it's useless.

I have to look deeper to see if that 80 CB is worth anything, so...why do I need to know he's an 80?

Heck, I might not be looking at him to actually play corner - but I see he has a 99 KR rating and 95+ SPD/ACC/AGI. Again, why does his OVR matter? He's a killer kick return no matter what his OVR is.

Even in HC 09 - I never cared what the OVR was - I looked as his PRO and his skills and my system.

I guess I don't see the point when you have to look deeper anyway.