Play Recognition vs Speed

[Illustrator76]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

OK I see with the Boom/Bust idea. So essentially, let's just take Harris. A boom potential and F Bust potential would mean you have to monitor the player very carefully. He's not a sure thing to progress. You would need to motivate the player into programs. Or if we take the HB from Washington I mentioned in the last post. A boom potential, however, he might have F Bust potential due to medical red flags. Low Injury rating. Maybe with a player like this. Very limited snaps, get him into training and rehab programs in the offseason. I like the idea of nothing is guaranteed, which in real life, that's exactly how it is. There may be high probabilities that someone is going to succeed. There are no guarantees though. Combine this with the scouting idea and I think it makes things a lot more interesting and risky.

Yes. That exactly what I am saying sir. That's why the F bust potential grade is so critical. On top of the fact that those guys could maybe get a few less points to spend for progression in OTA's so that they don't progress at the same rate of a guy with B bust potential. Even then, if said player has a bad "next season" or whatever, they can regress a little bit (and quicker than guys with B bust potential) and maybe get NO points to spend in OTA's.

It would be exactly like you were stating, with NOTHING being certain or guaranteed.

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by Illustrator76

I can totally understand that, but how would you govern how good or bad a player could ultimately be? What are your thoughts?

Hmmmm good question. I guess you'd have to use potential. Here is my thought though. If players can only see a significant progression based on your team success and how you spend your points then I think that's kinda fair. NBA 2k12 has this. So if your team fulfills certain expectations you earn points to spend on player development. You can spread that out however you want, but rest assured, not everyone is going to get "upgraded." You will have to choose what parts of your team you want upgraded. For instance, let's say I earn 300 points and I want to improve my QB's Accuracy, two of my WR's Hands, another WR's route running, my HB's carrying. Well let's also say passing accuracy camp is 100 points for a 5 point upgrade on all three accuracy ratings; 200 points for 10 point jump. If you are going to spend all of that money on your QB then you better hope the other guys stay the same if they are decent/good.

What I would like for this to do too is make sure that each team always has weaknesses. And going back to the original post another reason this stuff needs to be more in depth and have some user input, just based on three years of online franchise experience, once guys drop in speed, people get rid of them. So you have marquee names sitting in FA that are kinda young and nobody wants them on their team because they lack speed. They must make other things matter more. The ideas are not as clear as I want them right now, I'm throwing some fliers out though.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Illustrator76

I also quickly wanted to state that with my "system" every player should have an A boom potential, so that theoretically a "star" can come from any round in the draft. The key to their development would be their on-field performance along with their "bust potential" grade. While I am at it, I feel "uncontrollable regression" needs to be totally redone and based off of the player's position. As it stands in Madden right now, once a player hits 30, that's pretty much it, they will begin regressing (except for a select few players). What I would like to see is QB's & WR's being able to hold their ratings well into their mid 30's, RB's begin regressing once they hit 29-30, etc... Of course there can be exceptions to these "rules", but there should not be very many at all.

I think the one single grade to rule them all needs to go. Each and every skill should have a certain potential/growth rate based on individual tendencies, position, and age. These ratings would change/shift based on things like injury, training camp (the "he's not going to passing camp" reminds me of the training camp time allocations in FBPro 98), and performance over time (scouts changing their opinion based on seeing him in games - but not just a few games or one big/bad game, etc).

I completely agree with some sort of career arc system and with position being a large factor. Certain skills should be harder/easier for young players to sustain/grow and vice versa.

The boom/bust grade sounds interesting - seems like you're saying to put development on a range as a base then modify it based on other factors. Or maybe have a wide "fog of war" for ratings unless you have really great scouts - then it's just a narrow one. That said, I think, again, over time, uncertainty narrows on a player. Eventually, he is just what he is and it will take "real" growth to elevate him, not just everyone selling him short and being proven wrong.

I don't know about everyone being able to basically be the perfect player. Some guys just don't have it. They shouldn't get that high a projection from the start, but should have to work to increase/prove their upside, a lot like how a player in OOTP can increase his potential, even if he started off weaker in that area. Not all players come in as potential Babe Ruth-in-the-making.

A star could come from anywhere in the draft if the team is good at developing him, find places for him to succeed - creating areas of high strength that let him perform, or if simply scouts were wrong on him and were bearish on him on the start.

[Illustrator76]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

...I don't know about everyone being able to basically be the perfect player. Some guys just don't have it. They shouldn't get that high a projection from the start, but should have to work to increase/prove their upside, a lot like how a player in OOTP can increase his potential, even if he started off weaker in that area. Not all players come in as potential Babe Ruth-in-the-making. A star could come from anywhere in the draft if the team is good at developing him, find places for him to succeed - creating areas of high strength that let him perform, or if simply scouts were wrong on him and were bearish on him on the start.

I agree with you, but how do you determine how far a player can go (and how quickly) without some sort of potential rating? I am simply looking at the "bust potential" rating as a modifier and an indicator that this player is going to have to work very hard and perform well consistently in order to possibly reach his full potential. I just don't like the fact of any player being "handicapped" by having a low ceiling from the get-go with no chance of improving simply because he wasn't thought of as having Babe Ruth-like potential. We have no idea when teams draft players how high their ceiling really is, and to most teams, they even feel that their 7th round picks have very good potential and that those players may simply be raw and need more development time. That's what I was looking at the dual potentials for. A "safe" pick like an Andrew Luck has the A boom, and B bust potentials, while a guy like Marquis Colston would have an A boom and F bust potential. I used Colston as an example because he was a 7th round pick, who was thought to not have a very high ceiling, but in reality he did, he just had a higher bust potential because of his perceived skills and the round he was drafted in. I guess I just keep looking at the fact that you NEVER really know how good a player can be, so give them all the highest ceiling, but make it so that certain players have a much tougher time and less of a possibility of reaching it, just like with LB's Chris Polk injury example a few posts ago.

I am also thinking that players taken in later rounds of the draft are going to have much lower initial ratings than players drafted in earlier rounds, so that would make it even harder to upgrade their stats or "progress" those guys to All-Pro levels as well. Most of those types of players are going to perform fairly poorly on the field anyway, which would in turn severely inhibit their ability to earn points to be used towards their progression.

@KBLover, I do like your idea of potentials for each player skill rating, but unfortunately, I highly doubt EA would put that kind of work into each and every player along with the actual ratings themselves. I also like LB's idea of doing progression similar to how NBA 2K does as well.

I know my idea may not be perfect, but I just wanted to throw something deeper than what Madden currently has out there, and I think it has "potential", lol. Sorry, had to do that. Now, I actually FEEL like Mel Kiper Jr. with all of my boom and bust talk, lol.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Illustrator76

I agree with you, but how do you determine how far a player can go (and how quickly) without some sort of potential rating? I am simply looking at the "bust potential" rating as a modifier and an indicator that this player is going to have to work very hard and perform well consistently in order to possibly reach his full potential. I just don't like the fact of any player being "handicapped" by having a low ceiling from the get-go with no chance of improving simply because he wasn't thought of as having Babe Ruth-like potential.

You have potential but it's mutable. Just like in OOTP - every player has a potential in each of the major skill areas. A low round player isn't going to have high potential.

However, over time, that potential can increase. Here's an example.
http://www.febl.org/Reports/news/htm...ayer_6899.html

That player was taken in the 7th round of an 8 round draft - looked average at best, but now that player is going to vie for a starting job come spring training.

Factors influencing player growth, both actual and potential ability:

-Health
-Some aspect of his ability (if he is good at not striking out but weaker elsewhere, the not striking out might help him perform "better than he should" increasing performance gains)
-Performance
-Coaching/Mananger
-Personality (Work Ethic, Intelligence of himself and teammates, leadership of teammates)
-Growth rate (chance of a player improving over time - this is the most random, but it can cause a lower kid to blossom while a top kid might never grow into his ability or be a late bloomer)

And of course scouts give you their opinion of all this, with their own "weighting" (some favor tools/potential, some favor ability/actual ratings, some are better at prospects, some are better at more experienced players).

I agree with there being some concept of a potential rating. I just think EA screws up the most because it's not mutable. Having it be a fixed thing and known without any fuzziness is the biggest issue.

I like your bust idea as it is similar to growth rate or it pulls on it just like potential does and can cause volatility, which is awesome.

Now, I know EA probably won't go this route because it's too different/too hard/casual players won't understand/whatever else, but it's a system that's been in use for quite some time...by a game that's almost a one-man army in development.

[Illustrator76]

^ That's good stuff right there KB. I think we are on to something here, all we have to do is march right down to EA and make it happen. Where you want to meet up?

On another note, I was thinking about something else based on the title of this thread: Play Recognition vs. Speed. EA needs to start including a C.O.D., better known as "Change Of Direction" rating for players as well. This rating could make a huge difference in how quickly or slowly the animation for a player abruptly changing directions plays out. This could in turn significantly impact whether (a defender for example) is able to make an adjustment and move quickly to make or a play on the ball, or get there a split second too late. Having good C.O.D. is a huge deal in the NFL, as I have seen some scouts look at a prospect and say: Good speed? Check. Good agility? Check. Good leaping ability? Check. Average C.O.D? Too bad, probably a 2nd or 3rd day prospect. If you couple this C.O.D. rating with the Play Recognition rating, now you have a player that can be very effective at making plays on the ball without having to be a speed burner as well (unless he is chasing someone in the open field).

I'd also like to see a rating like this effect how quickly Cornerbacks are able to flip their hips and get out of their backpedal. This is also a huge deal, as corners with tight hips are going to have more trouble covering receivers than corners with looser hips, and this is something that needs to be reflected in Madden as well. When EA can start adding deeper, more meaningful and more effective ratings like these, then the importance of speed and only speed when playing Madden should start to diminish greatly...which is something I'd definitely like to see.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Illustrator76

^ That's good stuff right there KB. I think we are on to something here, all we have to do is march right down to EA and make it happen. Where you want to meet up?

Heheh yeah. Too bad we can't buy enough shares of EA stock to have 51% control Then we could vote people out at the shareholders meetings if they don't give us the Madden we want that year LOL

Or we don't have the money to just make our own game

Quote: Originally Posted by Illustrator76

On another note, I was thinking about something else based on the title of this thread: Play Recognition vs. Speed. EA needs to start including a C.O.D., better known as "Change Of Direction" rating for players as well. This rating could make a huge difference in how quickly or slowly the animation for a player abruptly changing directions plays out. This could in turn significantly impact whether (a defender for example) is able to make an adjustment and move quickly to make or a play on the ball, or get there a split second too late. Having good C.O.D. is a huge deal in the NFL, as I have seen some scouts look at a prospects and say: Good speed? Check. Good agility? Check. Good leaping ability? Check. Average C.O.D? Too bad, probably a 2nd or 3rd day prospect. If you couple this C.O.D. rating with the Play Recognition rating, now you have a player that can be very effective at making plays on the ball without having to be a speed burner as well (unless he is chasing someone in the open field). I'd also like to see a rating like this effect how quickly Cornerbacks are able to flip their hips and get out of their backpedal. This is also a huge deal, as corners with tight hips are going to have more trouble covering receivers than corners with looser hips, and this is something that needs to be reflected in Madden as well. When EA can start adding deeper, more meaningful and more effective ratings like these, then the importance of speed and only speed when playing Madden should start to diminish greatly.

A COD would be good - could directly "counter" RTE in assisting MCV effectiveness as well as what you stated, which I think is sweet.

But, we should have that - it's called AGIlity and ACCeleration.

Sadly, though, it doesn't seem to make enough impact. AGI/ACC could cover all of that. PRC tells the player 'oh I better go this way', then momentum and his AGI determine how efficiently his body performs the movement and ACC determines how fast he gets back up to the needed speed and of course SPD determines his top speed.

Lowish AGI could make the player "stiff" in transition movements. Lowish ACC with good AGI would have the player make the actual transition quickly, but he lacks the explosiveness to get back to "playing speed" quickly enough. High in both has the player making efficient transitions without losing much, if any, effective speed, giving him an advantage over those who might have more raw speed, but less ability in changing directions.

That's the frustrating thing for me. The ratings are there. The game just needs to spread them out so there's some tiers of ability and make them more impacting on the field.

Guess I still have that FBPro98 in me. AGI/ACC were big in that game for these reasons. Didn't play out graphically very nicely (low ACC was the player delaying after a change of direction while AGI was how much the player stopped moving during the "animation" to change directions), but you felt the impacts.

[Illustrator76]

^ Yeah, I agree, but the only thing is that I think agility is separate from change of direction. For example Willie Roaf was sometimes known as "The Dancing Bear" because he had good agility for a man his size, but I bet his C.O.D. wasn't very good at all. A Running Back being able to react and somehow stay on his feet while he is going to the ground doesn't necessarily mean that he has good C.O.D. ability. He could simply be a powerful North-South runner who is also quick and agile on his feet, but not great at changing directions East & West. I would like for the "change of direction" rating to stand for just that, and then let the agility and acceleration take care of everything else.

Either way, this is probably all wishful thinking, as I don't expect to see anything even close to this stuff implemented in Madden anytime soon.