How about a REAL Connected Careers Mode

[californ14]

Sometimes the system helps, which I believe is what the schemes are trying to simulate to a degree....When Shanahan was the Coach in Denver, you could almost plug any RB into his system and he would be great....Even in Washington I believe they have a solid ground game, no?

I believe the Patriots scheme is QB friendly and you could plug a number of QB's who are not considered Brady caliber where they are playing now, and they would increase in stats....

Some systems are just better in certain areas and can produce effective players....On the college level for example, I'll use the Wisconsin Badgers, as they are my team; as an NFL coach I would draft any one of their offensive linemen, as they produce some awesome talent there, consistently for decades now; but I wouldn't look to draft a RB from Wisconsin regardless of how good they appeared....The Wisc RB's do not seem to produce in the NFL....The Wisc system is OL players....

[Arrow218]

I honestly hate FBGratings. You give players all higher zone coverage by default, and blocking footwork is always higher than blocking strength. Speed is ridiculous, Donald Brown has 87 speed? He is extremely fast in open space. I like Madden's rating better, and I'm not a fan if Donny Moore.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by steamboat

And as far just hiding potential. I agree that it would be better to hide overall/potential. However, won't we know immediately as soon as we draft Tom Brady that Tom Brady is a star quarterback? I want to be able to make the mistake of starting the wrong guy until an injury (a la bledsoe). And also the ability to pump up a guys attractiveness to other teams by him having a breakout game that actually is not indicative of his skillset (a la A.J. Feeley). How can this be accomplished without at least hiding the skill set/intangibles?

I think it all should be pretty fuzzy, though some aspects are clearer than others. Physical ability probably sharpens up the most in terms of where the kid is now. Technique is less so and the intangibles, including potential, are educated guesses at best. A WR scout that favors speed and big play ability might grade a 4.3 40 kid as a "can't miss", nevermind he can't run a sharp cut. He might learn that "later".

But what you'd see on his "report card" is something like:
(Actual/Potential)
Speed: 96/97
Accel: 91/94
Agility 88/91
Strength: 37/53
Release: 45/81
Routes: 51/80
Hands: 60/84
Awareness: 50/75
Intelligence: 75/85
Work Ethic: 65/75

Then the scout could give his assessment, based on what he likes in a player/position. Let's say this scout loves deep threat WR. He could gush over this kid like, "This is a can't miss kid that will stretch the field and cause corners to have nightmares all week about facing him on Sunday. He will only get better as he learns the finer points of the game, allowing him to be our QB's #1 target for years in any situation."

Okay. So now we get to the fuzziness part. First scout abilities:

Scout Physical Tools: A
Scout Physical Potential: B+
Scout Football Technique: D
Scout Technique Potential: C
Scout Personality: C
Position Preference:
QB: Decision Making, Mobility
HB: Burst, Vision
FB: Pass Blocking, Awareness
WR: Speed, Quickness
TE: Receiving, Quickness
OL: Pass Blocking
DT: Run Stopping, Strength
DE: Strength, Size
LB: Hard hitting, Quickness
CB: Physicality
S: Hard hitting, Tackling

With these abilities, there's a good chance he's close on the physical aspects of this WR. He's probably at least highly above average in speed and also plays fast with quickness and an explosive first 10 yards. He rates WR highly that have speed and is good at judging physical skills.

The rest...not so much. That football technique grade could mean this kid is being greatly overrated (or underrated) in that aspect of the game, either in his current ability, potential, or both. Maybe this kid actually DOES have good hands or route running, but this scout is holding a few games where he played with injury against him in his draft grade and didn't really show out in the WR drills at the combine.

This scout might be significantly off-target in evaluating personality and intangibles, which is already difficult to scout correctly. He might not be as hard a worker, or is just guessing based on other abilities (he's fast so he had to work hard to maintain that speed, so I'll give him high work ethic).

Which brings me to the next possibility: Scouting Difficulty

Some abilities are easier to scout than others. The longer a player plays, the more read you get on him as well. So those extremely hard to pin down attributes, like work ethic, leadership, intelligence, etc, are pretty difficult to get right on draft day, but would have a big impact on development of this player going forward. Meanwhile physical abilities are easier (but not necessarily "easy") to get a handle on. Now for that scout above, physical will be easy. He's great at judging a player in that regard. The rest, he may well be wildly inaccurate, leading to a bad pick.

So you take this kid and you see those same ratings on your roster. Over time, the ratings will start to shift as you more look at him during practice, film study, games, etc.

6 weeks go by and now you see this:
Speed: 96/97
Accel: 83/94
Agility 81/85
Strength: 31/43
Release: 55/71
Routes: 41/60
Hands: 70/74
Awareness: 30/65
Intelligence: 55/80
Work Ethic: 80/95

Some significant differences, but, again, your scout is coloring this with his eyes. Is this kid likely to actually have that bad an AWR? Maybe not, but if the scout keeps reporting this low a number - maybe you change scouts to get a second opinion, etc. Same for the other ratings.

But you still don't know where exactly he is in either aspect and that's with potential shown. Then you throw in aspects like injury, opportunities (or lack of), production gains (or hindrance) due to scheme or teammates, career development (age-related changes), and who knows what might happen (and what your scout reports) at this early stage of his career. Maybe after a full season, the read gets better on him...or maybe not - depends on the scout and the attribute.

Then let's say he has 10 games where you make him a starter because you're 2-4, 28th in passing offense, and looking to make a change. He has 10 great games (rest of the season) and now he's graded, largely due to his sudden increase in production:

Speed: 96/98
Accel: 90/97
Agility 81/96
Strength: 31/48
Release: 75/91
Routes: 65/70
Hands: 80/84
Awareness: 60/70
Intelligence: 75/80
Work Ethic: 90/95

Now he's looking like he's becoming that complete target the scout spoke of. However, you STILL don't know if that's exactly right, or close, or will be right eventually but is jumping the gun because of the late run, etc.

If you don't believe in this kid - his trade value would be high going into the offseason, especially if he had any solid playoff performance. But if you think it's largely because of your scheme and your QB gave him 12 targets a game - you could make the trade and get solid value.

[steamboat]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

I think it all should be pretty fuzzy, though some aspects are clearer than others. Physical ability probably sharpens up the most in terms of where the kid is now. Technique is less so and the intangibles, including potential, are educated guesses at best. A WR scout that favors speed and big play ability might grade a 4.3 40 kid as a "can't miss", nevermind he can't run a sharp cut. He might learn that "later". But what you'd see on his "report card" is something like: (Actual/Potential) Speed: 96/97 Accel: 91/94 Agility 88/91 Strength: 37/53 Release: 45/81 Routes: 51/80 Hands: 60/84 Awareness: 50/75 Intelligence: 75/85 Work Ethic: 65/75 Then the scout could give his assessment, based on what he likes in a player/position. Let's say this scout loves deep threat WR. He could gush over this kid like, "This is a can't miss kid that will stretch the field and cause corners to have nightmares all week about facing him on Sunday. He will only get better as he learns the finer points of the game, allowing him to be our QB's #1 target for years in any situation." Okay. So now we get to the fuzziness part. First scout abilities: Scout Physical Tools: A Scout Physical Potential: B+ Scout Football Technique: D Scout Technique Potential: C Scout Personality: C Position Preference: QB: Decision Making, Mobility HB: Burst, Vision FB: Pass Blocking, Awareness WR: Speed, Quickness TE: Receiving, Quickness OL: Pass Blocking DT: Run Stopping, Strength DE: Strength, Size LB: Hard hitting, Quickness CB: Physicality S: Hard hitting, Tackling With these abilities, there's a good chance he's close on the physical aspects of this WR. He's probably at least highly above average in speed and also plays fast with quickness and an explosive first 10 yards. He rates WR highly that have speed and is good at judging physical skills. The rest...not so much. That football technique grade could mean this kid is being greatly overrated (or underrated) in that aspect of the game, either in his current ability, potential, or both. Maybe this kid actually DOES have good hands or route running, but this scout is holding a few games where he played with injury against him in his draft grade and didn't really show out in the WR drills at the combine. This scout might be significantly off-target in evaluating personality and intangibles, which is already difficult to scout correctly. He might not be as hard a worker, or is just guessing based on other abilities (he's fast so he had to work hard to maintain that speed, so I'll give him high work ethic). Which brings me to the next possibility: Scouting Difficulty Some abilities are easier to scout than others. The longer a player plays, the more read you get on him as well. So those extremely hard to pin down attributes, like work ethic, leadership, intelligence, etc, are pretty difficult to get right on draft day, but would have a big impact on development of this player going forward. Meanwhile physical abilities are easier (but not necessarily "easy") to get a handle on. Now for that scout above, physical will be easy. He's great at judging a player in that regard. The rest, he may well be wildly inaccurate, leading to a bad pick. So you take this kid and you see those same ratings on your roster. Over time, the ratings will start to shift as you more look at him during practice, film study, games, etc. 6 weeks go by and now you see this: Speed: 96/97 Accel: 83/94 Agility 81/85 Strength: 31/43 Release: 55/71 Routes: 41/60 Hands: 70/74 Awareness: 30/65 Intelligence: 55/80 Work Ethic: 80/95 Some significant differences, but, again, your scout is coloring this with his eyes. Is this kid likely to actually have that bad an AWR? Maybe not, but if the scout keeps reporting this low a number - maybe you change scouts to get a second opinion, etc. Same for the other ratings. But you still don't know where exactly he is in either aspect and that's with potential shown. Then you throw in aspects like injury, opportunities (or lack of), production gains (or hindrance) due to scheme or teammates, career development (age-related changes), and who knows what might happen (and what your scout reports) at this early stage of his career. Maybe after a full season, the read gets better on him...or maybe not - depends on the scout and the attribute. Then let's say he has 10 games where you make him a starter because you're 2-4, 28th in passing offense, and looking to make a change. He has 10 great games (rest of the season) and now he's graded, largely due to his sudden increase in production: Speed: 96/98 Accel: 90/97 Agility 81/96 Strength: 31/48 Release: 75/91 Routes: 65/70 Hands: 80/84 Awareness: 60/70 Intelligence: 75/80 Work Ethic: 90/95 Now he's looking like he's becoming that complete target the scout spoke of. However, you STILL don't know if that's exactly right, or close, or will be right eventually but is jumping the gun because of the late run, etc. If you don't believe in this kid - his trade value would be high going into the offseason, especially if he had any solid playoff performance. But if you think it's largely because of your scheme and your QB gave him 12 targets a game - you could make the trade and get solid value.

This is what I'm asking for. Fuzzy ratings. I'm not asking to literally not see a numerical value. I'm asking for not being able to see an exact, accurate value. This is exactly what I would like to see. I'm even fine with potential being shown, as long as its not a perfectly accurate number. As long as that number only gets better with usage in practice and in games.

What I was saying, was that I had never seen anyone talk about this type of thing (at least of those repping FBG ratings *which I like alot*)

[TMJOHNS18]

Want a true connect careers? When the next gen systems come out, assuming the new Xbox has a larger capacity disk, just put NCAA and Madden on the same disc. That way, you actually get a somewhat complete game for the price.

Realistically, I highly doubt NCAA would ever rate their players based on a Madden scale. Even though both games share the same features (Madden's "new" passing feature being from NCAA), I highly doubt the guys working on NCAA would want to release a game were half the players in it were terrible, and I highly doubt people who only purchase NCAA would be happy that their favorite college team is truthfully represented and not just have everyone and the walk on long snapper be rated 80 ovr.

Plus, the way Madden ratings would have to totally redone. In order rate players who will never be good enough to be in the NFL (say under 55 ovr players), they would be completely trash in NCAA if it there were rated that way.

[steamboat]

Quote: Originally Posted by TMJOHNS18

Want a true connect careers? When the next gen systems come out, assuming the new Xbox has a larger capacity disk, just put NCAA and Madden on the same disc. That way, you actually get a somewhat complete game for the price. Realistically, I highly doubt NCAA would ever rate their players based on a Madden scale. Even though both games share the same features (Madden's "new" passing feature being from NCAA), I highly doubt the guys working on NCAA would want to release a game were half the players in it were terrible, and I highly doubt people who only purchase NCAA would be happy that their favorite college team is truthfully represented and not just have everyone and the walk on long snapper be rated 80 ovr. Plus, the way Madden ratings would have to totally redone. In order rate players who will never be good enough to be in the NFL (say under 55 ovr players), they would be completely trash in NCAA if it there were rated that way.

Except they wouldn't. They would play like trash against a first round NFL prospect...sure...but against the average college player they would play well. If every player was rated a 40, 40 would act like 100. Don't get too attached to numbers.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by steamboat

Except they wouldn't. They would play like trash against a first round NFL prospect...sure...but against the average college player they would play well. If every player was rated a 40, 40 would act like 100. Don't get too attached to numbers.

Correct. It is all a matter of perspective relative to your present competition. If a 55 in NCAA is now an "average" but draftable player, yes he will get smoked in the NFL his first few seasons unless his potential and rate of improvement is great. However, in comparison to the "average" NCAA player who is rated closer to 40, he would be dominant. Look at how many players have such great production in the college ranks but yet never make an NFL team. Is it because they weren't productive enough? Doubt it. It is most likely to them not having the physical upside to produce against NFL talent that is much more top-heavy.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Arrow218

I honestly hate FBGratings. You give players all higher zone coverage by default, and blocking footwork is always higher than blocking strength. Speed is ridiculous, Donald Brown has 87 speed? He is extremely fast in open space. I like Madden's rating better, and I'm not a fan if Donny Moore.

Nothing is "by default" in FBG ratings. It is all a product of scouting grades and evaluations. Not all players have higher ZCV than MCV skills. ZCV is, however, a far easier trait to master at the NFL level. Aside from a guy like Revis, the days of the shutdown corner are long gone. LBs will be far better in ZCV than MCV, according to the data.

Look at the top 8 CBs in the FBG system. Not ONE of them has a higher ZCV than a MCV rating, so your first assumption is completely false.

Speed being "ridiculous" as you put it, is purely relative. I consider having well over 40% of all players in Madden with a SPD over 80 to be "ridiculous", especially when the data shows that this is not the case. When the population of all players to be draft-eligible is normalized to an average speed grade of 70, you find that less than 30% of current players should only be rated that high...and these are the best of the best who are presently on NFL rosters.

What FBG Ratings has done is normalized all of the population data to "average" benchmarks for each attribute, regardless of position. This normalization is based on all players and projects a true attribute value based on said population statistics. This makes having a 90+ rating more rare, especially in the physical abilities, and allows for more variation in the ratings spread.

The data shows that Donald Brown is a very good RB. He is above the average physical benchmarks for SPD, ACC, AGI, and JMP. In fact, he surpasses all of the "average" benchmarks for the physical ratings of any other position both defensively and offensively. That makes him stand out on game day. However, the data suggests that although he is clearly above the physical skill-set of an average player, he is not in the top 10% of all players and is not worthy of any physical attribute over 90, albeit his SPD of 87 and ACC of 88 are nearly as close as you can get to being elite without actually earning that designation.