Single-Team Franchise Owners

[Kaiser Wilhelm]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

I don't know if every player has B or higher potential. If they did, why do some guys not make it or develop much beyond average? Potential shouldn't change unless it's originally scouted wrong and/or the scout has a new idea on it, or through *consistent* over/underachieving over a season at minimum, or in the case of repeated and/or severe injuries. IRL Foster never was a "D" player. Just like Brady never was a "D" player IRL. That's the problem - IRL, there's scouting errors. In Madden - what errors? Potential being hidden would add challenge, but I'd rather know what the scout thinks - just have the possibility of the estimate being off, or even way off, depending on the scout and other circumstances. To me, the problem isn't that you should have a reason to deal with a D potential player - it's the fact you know without a doubt he's nothing more than the 50th man on the roster, at best. If your scouts say "D" and you cut him, and someone takes him and runs with him because he's really an "A" - THAT would be the Brady situation. Not a D QB throwing for 5000 yds a year then suddenly, he's Brady.

YES.

Quote:

Or perhaps, why give us a players full out ratings? Like when you are scouting a player, it gives a ? for some ratings and such, meaning you never really know his full OVR until you use that last scouting day. But if we want to be realistic here, why not make it so scouts give a player a rating, but it could be off by 5 or something. So the better the scout you have, the smaller the window. In real life, they can't see that Vick has a 86 speed rating or something. So why not give us something like a Vick speed rating of 83(+/- 4) So it could either be a 79-87, you won't know. And I suppose that the more you play with a player, the smaller the window will become. So playing with a player for a year or two will get the window smaller and smaller so it just is a +/- of 3. This would help with the whole potential thing. Rookies coming in could have large windows, and by playing with them or keeping them on your roster it will make it so you can eventually find out their true rating. If you draft a QB, it may say that his THP is a 74(+/- 15) along with some other stats. He could be a diamond in the rough and end up with a 89 THP that you took a chance on, or he could be a complete dud with a 59 THP. This rookie could look like he is a 56 OVR player at first, but if all his important attributes are at the top of their windows, then he may become a 82 OVR player that can then progress to a 90 or something. As for showing potential or hiding it, I would not be sure. A high potential could signal to the user that the player's ratings will be at the top of their windows, while a low potential may be at the lower part of it. Or you could just hide it outright. I don't know, just an idea. If there is anything wrong with it, just say something.

YES. Its like you read my mind or something.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by untrugby

thats the difference between potential and reality. there are a few C players in the NFL. Career special teamers and such but they usually dont stay in the NFL long because teams only spend time on guys with the physical potential to be good.

Except being average in the NFL goes beyond physical ability. Let alone being good or better.

So if potential only reflected physical ability - it's already missing half the equation.

So instead of giving everyone B potential - and then everyone becoming NFL regular quality - guys with lower potential could develop physical skills but be slow on stuff like AWR or PRC or BSH - i.e. the ability to use their physical gifts to actually play football, not just be "track stars" or "workout warriors".

To me, the problem is that C is crap, when C should be AVERAGE. Of course, part of that is the skewed-to-high-numbers ratings scale where 85 is average.

Quote: Originally Posted by Calipup

But if we want to be realistic here, why not make it so scouts give a player a rating, but it could be off by 5 or something. So the better the scout you have, the smaller the window.

Exactly.

Throw in scouts that have different "specialities" (some guys are good at evaluating QBs, etc) and let playing time narrow the window for everyone (They probably know more about Vick's speed than Luck's or even Ponder's, and everyone knows what CJ or AP can do, but McCoy is still surprising people with what he can do), and I think that's a very good solution.

[rootofalleli]

Three progression and scouting issues bug me:

1) Age is too important for progression. Stories like Tom Brady's and Arian Foster's are actually pretty well-represented in Madden. Late round gems and quality UDFAs exist. But what about Laurent Robinson? Fred Jackson? Brandon Lloyd? Aaron Maybin? Mike Vick?

Players who enter the NFL a bit late from other leagues (CFL, Arena, etc) tend not to progress in Madden. Guys who take 4 or 5 years in real life to start producing are not represented at all. Guys who drop off for a few years or spend some time locked up are pretty much done in this game. After 2-4 years in the league, Madden progression is pretty much over. But there should be multiple progression paths, just like in real life.

Also, an unrelated age issue is the ridiculous retirement age in Madden - guys often stay in the league 5 or more years longer than they should in this game, so there are way too many talented vets hanging around.

2) Coaches and schemes hardly matter in Madden. Again, look at Brandon Lloyd. This guy wants to be where Josh McDaniels is, since that always boosts his production. Plenty of coaches have players who excel in their scheme and flopped in other ones, or who just aren't motivated by other coaches. But never in Madden!

Technique and conditioning ratings should be based on X from the player + Y from the coach/coordinator, and Y should be a much bigger number than the trivial bonuses in the game now. Some players might deserve a high value of X because they're great in any scheme. But that should be rarer than it is.

3) There is way too much certainty in Madden. I absolutely agree that we should not see potential, and we shouldn't even see definite ratings. I'd be much happier with just a few letter grades per player based on scouting. And scouting should extend to your own team and other teams.

For example, I'd be happy seeing for my 3rd-year CB something like "Athleticism: B+, Technique: B, Effort: A." And I'd be happiest if those last two grades depended on coach/scheme AND had some potential for error that diminished over time. For your own team, practice should bring increased certainty, but for other teams, only game time would tell you much about a player.

This last issue would probably take the most work and the most testing, but the other stuff would probably be a lot easier to do. Instead of giving everyone the same progression curve, give the game 3 or 4 different models, with the current model perhaps as the most common. And it should be relatively simple to expand the role of coaches by diminishing player abilities and adding to the bonuses coaches give.

[rootofalleli]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

Except being average in the NFL goes beyond physical ability. Let alone being good or better. So if potential only reflected physical ability - it's already missing half the equation. So instead of giving everyone B potential - and then everyone becoming NFL regular quality - guys with lower potential could develop physical skills but be slow on stuff like AWR or PRC or BSH - i.e. the ability to use their physical gifts to actually play football, not just be "track stars" or "workout warriors". To me, the problem is that C is crap, when C should be AVERAGE. Of course, part of that is the skewed-to-high-numbers ratings scale where 85 is average.

I think this connects to the issue of veterans hanging around forever. I get frustrated in franchise sometimes because I go into drafts with no needs. It's easy to keep FAs and progression can stay flat forever. It takes way too long for guys to lose a step, and certain positions (OL especially) just don't retire at a realistic age.

ETA: And this is why we can cut C or D players the moment we draft them. What use is a 75 OVR backup when you can grab a higher-rated guy for the veteran minimum?

[Kaiser Wilhelm]

Quote: Originally Posted by rootofalleli

I think this connects to the issue of veterans hanging around forever. I get frustrated in franchise sometimes because I go into drafts with no needs. It's easy to keep FAs and progression can stay flat forever. It takes way too long for guys to lose a step, and certain positions (OL especially) just don't retire at a realistic age. ETA: And this is why we can cut C or D players the moment we draft them. What use is a 75 OVR backup when you can grab a higher-rated guy for the veteran minimum?

Please play with the Bills for a season and come back with that analysis. Fred Jackson goes down by a minimum of 3 points every year and SJ spiller is a star in no time.

Take a look at Buffalos line. I have yet to play a season where my line progressed, including Andy Levitre who has A potential and is only 5 years pro if that. He usually regresses 2 or three points.

According to Madden Leodis McKelvin will be gone in 2 years despite his B potential.

These are guys in their mid 20s that just start falling off the face of the Earth more often than not.

[PacMan3000]

Great thread.

Here's my question for single team players--are you noticing any glitches in the game that prevent you from advancing further in your franchise?

I feel like I hear these horror stories that the Seahawks (just an example) are in salary cap hell, and because you only control your team, you can't do anything to fix it. So the game is just in eternal limbo, thus breaking franchise mode.

Can anyone confirm if that, or any other situations similar to that, have happened to them?

[Calipup]

Quote: Originally Posted by PacMan3000

Great thread. Here's my question for single team players--are you noticing any glitches in the game that prevent you from advancing further in your franchise? I feel like I hear these horror stories that the Seahawks (just an example) are in salary cap hell, and because you only control your team, you can't do anything to fix it. So the game is just in eternal limbo, thus breaking franchise mode. Can anyone confirm if that, or any other situations similar to that, have happened to them?

It has never happened to me, but I have seen many threads where they have to add a player to a team so they meet the roster requirements.

[PacMan3000]

Quote: Originally Posted by Calipup

It has never happened to me, but I have seen many threads where they have to add a player to a team so they meet the roster requirements.

Interesting. How many seasons have you played?