Why not get rid of potential?

[Redwolf]

A different take, but something to mull over:

Regardless of one's feelings over whether people have set potential ability levels or indeed, dynamic ones...from a programing standpoint, when considering maintaining league talent level integrity over the long run, it is much easier and effectively maintained utilizing player potential ratings rather than performance based ratings (which has too much potential to skew talent levels unrealistically or detrimentally to the long term health of the league).

[BezO]

I had to rethink my stance. I was about to say that potential is this stagnant guess that's either met, not met or exceeded. A scout observes, makes a guess and is either right or wrong. But that's only one side. That's external. That's someone from the outside looking in.

There's another side. Most NFL players CAN be great. Almost all of them have A potential. We all do in our fields of choice. It's more about how dedicated a player is and luck regarding what system & coach a player is under. I think that's been proven many times over. Some less talented players end up being great (Walter Payton) and some of the most talented end up not so great (Jeff George).

With that said, EA is obviously going by that external type. And that's what I feel is unnecessary. A scout is only looking at size, learning curves & skills and making a guess. But that's what the ratings are for. We don't need a virtual scout to tell us a big, strong, fast, elusive RB has a lot of potential.

Maybe I'd feel better about coachability and/or dedication ratings. Then tie learnable ratings to that, coaches & systems. For example, a coachable/dedicated scat back with good hands on a passing team with an inspiring coach will excel. A not so coachable bruiser on that same team may not improve much.

[jyoung]

Quote: Originally Posted by Redwolf

A different take, but something to mull over: Regardless of one's feelings over whether people have set potential ability levels or indeed, dynamic ones...from a programing standpoint, when considering maintaining league talent level integrity over the long run, it is much easier and effectively maintained utilizing player potential ratings rather than performance based ratings (which has too much potential to skew talent levels unrealistically or detrimentally to the long term health of the league).

Madden has major long-term progression issues even with its potential system.

By only year 2 of an online franchises, about half of the 32 teams are full of players with only 80-99 overall ratings. By year 3, pretty much all teams are maxed with 80-99 overall players.

Some of Madden's progression decisions also defy all logic. I was in an online franchise with the Lions, and Suh (A potential) had something like 15 sacks and 5 forced fumbles.

Then the end of the season progression comes, and Suh regressed like 5 overall points lol

[PantherBeast_OS]

I agree with the OP. I think they need to get rid of the ABCD potential ratings. Having that caps the players from progressing to only a certain point. Say I have a guy that is a c potential and he is a QB and his overall is a 65. If he comes out 3 straight seasons and throws 35 TDs each season and about 4000 Yards. But he can only progress to about maybe around 75 because his potential rating is only a c rating. That is why potential rating needs to go. I was much more happy when it was not in madden. Madden overall was king before potential came onto the scene. Hopefully it gets taken out.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by Legend Killer

I agree with the OP. I think they need to get rid of the ABCD potential ratings. Having that caps the players from progressing to only a certain point. Say I have a guy that is a c potential and he is a QB and his overall is a 65. If he comes out 3 straight seasons and throws 35 TDs each season and about 4000 Yards. But he can only progress to about maybe around 75 because his potential rating is only a c rating. That is why potential rating needs to go. I was much more happy when it was not in madden. Madden overall was king before potential came onto the scene. Hopefully it gets taken out.

I don't understand why people keep using what a player can statistically accomplish within their ratings or OVR as an example of why Potential should be changed or removed. I completely agree that Potential, the way it is currently done in Madden, needs to change or be removed but not because it prevents players from progressing or regressing based on stats.

IMO, that fact that a 65 OVR QB, with presumably mediocre to poor QB skill ratings could still perform at a high level at QB in Madden, is in and of itself a problem.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

Maybe I'd feel better about coachability and/or dedication ratings. Then tie learnable ratings to that, coaches & systems. For example, a coachable/dedicated scat back with good hands on a passing team with an inspiring coach will excel. A not so coachable bruiser on that same team may not improve much.

So, basically, coachability/learning, work ethic/dedication, and the position coach/head coach would become the "new potential"?

Sounds interesting - especially if it's per attribute (and coaches have ratings for teaching each attribute).

[gjneff]

All you who say that no cap/stats based progression means that everyone will be 99; do all your players have the best stats in the league to become 99s? Can every player on your team lead the league in their category? If so it is you who has the game too easy. And someone who out plays their rating so to speak; that happens all the time. Everyone can name someone who is considered an overachiever. Basically, stats based as a foundation, not sole basis, will even things out across the league. You do it on a curve, those that produce the best will be rated/viewed/valued as the best. Not every player can be the best. Coaching, offense, teammates will affect all of these things, they do IRL also. Look at Welker, on any other team he is nowhere near what he is now, but he is judged by what he has produced where he is.

A hard cap is ridiculous. No matter what a 1 year player that reached his cap can't better. He can play many more seasons and he is not going to learn one thing. I guarantee every player learns at least one thing they didn't know the year before.

[Broncos86]

Ratings in general are subjective. The potential rating is no different. That being said, I like the concept of potential. Perhaps, though, it should be treated in the same manner as traits. Something that would be evaluated after each season in case the player has a break out year.

I think the NHL series does a better job with potential.