Someone explain this potential thing to me

[fringeelement]

The real problem with progression is that too many people pay too much attention to OVR Rating. If "the law firm" ran for such great numbers as and 82 OVR, why do you need his rating to go up? He's already capable of being a top 5 RB. Jusdge him by his production, not some intangible number assigned to him by a programmer.

If your CB had 10 picks one season, PLAY HIM! Who cares what the other guys rating is? Tamme never got on the field to show what he could do because Clark PRODUCED. Same should be the case with Dowling in your Pats chise. When his oppurtunity comes, hopefully he'll produce. His rating IS his potential. Until you put him in the game and he performs accordingly, it's just a number. Does Bill Belichick have a ratings chart to help him decide who to play and who to sit? No. It's based off the way a guy performs. Plain and simple.

[raggBAGG]

Quote: Originally Posted by fringeelement

The real problem with progression is that too many people pay too much attention to OVR Rating. If "the law firm" ran for such great numbers as and 82 OVR, why do you need his rating to go up? He's already capable of being a top 5 RB. Jusdge him by his production, not some intangible number assigned to him by a programmer. If your CB had 10 picks one season, PLAY HIM! Who cares what the other guys rating is? Tamme never got on the field to show what he could do because Clark PRODUCED. Same should be the case with Dowling in your Pats chise. When his oppurtunity comes, hopefully he'll produce. His rating IS his potential. Until you put him in the game and he performs accordingly, it's just a number. Does Bill Belichick have a ratings chart to help him decide who to play and who to sit? No. It's based off the way a guy performs. Plain and simple.

Exactly! Perfect explanation. That's exactly how I play, I was just saying I can see were he's coming from.

[gjneff]

A couple points:
1. They created the game with playing time and stats being part of progression. They talked about it in an interview saying stats would be compared to other players around the same age.
2. If good stats can't progress you because of your cap, then players with good potential should progress regardless of playing time or stats. Instead a young player will drop because they aren't playing or getting good stats. I have a young corner with A potential that is a back up. He dropped after his 3rd season because he didn't get enough stats. Not only that, he loses speed which is something you can't ever gain.
3. This game it is impossible for a low rated player to ever become elite. Especially because there is very little progression after 2 years. The NFL is littered with players who were undrafted or nobodies that got better and become HOFers. This can't happen in this game. In this game there is no Brady, Rodgers, James Harrison, Antonio Gates, and the list goes on.
4. The overall rating is the "perception" of a player. IRL, a player getting big stats is going to be perceived as a top player. Think Welker. If you are going to have the rating it should improve with good stats.

I prefer no ratings. There is a disconnect between the rating system and progression. If it is going to show ratings then I want to see them go up when a players plays well on the field.

[pendo]

Potential caps are stupid, look at Wes Welker. I would hardly say he is the prototype receiver. He doesn't have the amazing physical tools. But look at him, top 10 WR in the league. Drew Bree's is another example. The nfl is full of these anomalies. It is also full of busts who EA rate as "A" potential players, i.e. Jamarcus Russell.

They need to have a form rating to determine a players ability, not just stats and definitely not this completely cheap system they employ now.

[ABR173rd]

Quote: Originally Posted by raggBAGG

Here's what I don't like about potential: I play as the Pats and have had my CB depth as: McCourty (A pot low 80s) Bodden (B pot 80) Arrington (C pot low 70s) Butler (B pot low 70s?) Dowling (A pot low 70s) I had Dowling sitting because I (for really no reason) let rookies sit when I have seasoned vets ahead of them. Bodden went on to win the Defensive back of the year award with 10 picks. McCourty had 1, Dowling never saw the field. And overall, Butler and Arrington outplayed McCourty as far as coverage (McCourty got burned a lot). The following season comes around and McCourty progresses to a 90, Dowling jumps like 9 points to a 80 and every one else stayed the same. So now I feel forced to bump Dowling up on the depth chart, even though the guys ahead of him played fantastic. Currently a 2nd year player in my franchise who never saw the field is the same rating as another guy on my team who just won the Dback of the year award. I don't really care because I don't play the game through ratings. I cut high rated guys and play low rated guys based on how I feel controlling them or how they are doing as a computer. I'm just saying I can see where the OP is coming from and how ridiculous it can seem. Oh and "sitting and watching" progression? Mallet (A pot) sat behind Brady and didnt get a single bump. I'm guessing someone here is now going to tell me Mallettswhat work ethic stopped his progression now, right?

They are rookies!!!! A rookie has way more room to grow than a veteran.....rookies are going to progress some what even while sitting on the bench. Just as in real life they are young with untapped potential. I don't understand why this concept is so hard to grasp.




Sent from my iPad using The power of knowledge!!!!

[raggBAGG]

Quote: Originally Posted by ABR173rd

They are rookies!!!! A rookie has way more room to grow than a veteran.....rookies are going to progress some what even while sitting on the bench. Just as in real life they are young with untapped potential. I don't understand why this concept is so hard to grasp. Sent from my iPad using The power of knowledge!!!!

Some? He instantly became the second best CB on my team.

[Richieh]

Quote: Originally Posted by raggBAGG

Some? He instantly became the second best CB on my team.

Instantly? It took the whole off-season.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by il blood il

last yr is the perfect example of this...dallas clark gets hurt, tamme comes in for him, has a great year...in madden he was rated high 60s low 70s i dont remember...now this yr he is rated low 80s... the colts had no idea how good tamme could have been if dallas clark did not get hurt, so my point is..in madden if THE EXACT SAME SITUATION HAPPENED, the following year, tamme would have gone up maybe 1 or 2 points...thats all..... get my drift?

Not sure what your point is. The game can not mimic life exactly as it happens. The game can't see the future. Just because Tamme, in real life, had a higher potential than expected, doesn't mean that the game should have limitless potential for everyone. If we want the game to act in a realistic manner, each player would have a max potential in each rating category, along with a perceived potential in each rating category with a max potential and perceived potential for overall. Then you would have your Tamme expamples. The guy that your staff thought of as a D or C potential could end up being an B potential after your staff sees him getting more playing time. After more playing time, his perceived potential would get closer to his actual potential, which is EXACTLY what happened in your real life Tamme example.