Player ratings take the coaching out of the game...

[Bremser_Rules]

I believe they need to eliminate the specific number ratings for players and give letter grades that are more general and subjective, why you wonder, here is my reason. If you have two quarterbacks one who is rated ovr as a 95 and the other rated as a 90 who are you going to start? What if the first quarterback was rated A+ and the second quarterback was rated A+ who are going to start? I don't know about you but I would want a comprehensive spring practice to see who really is my number one quarterback. If a player was rated 90-99 as A+ and 80-89 A- 70-79 B+, etc etc, then you could really have a fun time finding the right players to play. But you would need and interactive spring and weekly practice report to really get the feel for your team and players. Just my

[trobinson97]

That actually sounds like an awesome idea. I'd love to see that in the next gen games. I've been wanting a meaningful practice option for a long while now.

[necrobeast]

I also think that ratings should not be absolute...you're perception of a player's abilities should be determined by the skill experience of your coaching/scouting staff.

Perhaps your offensive coordinator has never done a good job of scouting/grading Tight Ends....therefore your perception of how good the player actually is would be wildly skewed. It's been awhile since I played, but I believe this is how player ratings worked in Front Office Football.

[Bremser_Rules]

Quote: Originally Posted by necrobeast

I also think that ratings should not be absolute...you're perception of a player's abilities should be determined by the skill experience of your coaching/scouting staff. Perhaps your offensive coordinator has never done a good job of scouting/grading Tight Ends....therefore your perception of how good the player actually is would be wildly skewed. It's been awhile since I played, but I believe this is how player ratings worked in Front Office Football.

That hits on what I am trying to say. I don't want the CPU to tell me my quarterback has an overall rating of 95 or 88 or whatever. I want to decide what my quarterback rating is. I want to be able to label him an A+ and I want to decide if he is a scrambler, or if he is a pocket passer. By making the initial ratings of the recruits more general and subjective this, I believe, would require you (head coach) to make these kinds of decisions. It just is too easy to set my depth chart since I have such detailed rating information.

Heck I think it would be fun to do a bad job of rating my players and to have to adjust my lineup to make up for my bad job. Hopefully the next gen will give us more choices and options for this. But to restate my initial position, I believe the exact player ratings really do sap some fun from this series.

[necrobeast]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bremser_Rules

That hits on what I am trying to say. I don't want the CPU to tell me my quarterback has an overall rating of 95 or 88 or whatever. I want to decide what my quarterback rating is. I want to be able to label him an A+ and I want to decide if he is a scrambler, or if he is a pocket passer. By making the initial ratings of the recruits more general and subjective this, I believe, would require you (head coach) to make these kinds of decisions. It just is too easy to set my depth chart since I have such detailed rating information. Heck I think it would be fun to do a bad job of rating my players and to have to adjust my lineup to make up for my bad job. Hopefully the next gen will give us more choices and options for this. But to restate my initial position, I believe the exact player ratings really do sap some fun from this series.

I actually think that overall player ratings should be out the window. If I don't care about having a scrambling QB, I simply worry about just accuracy and pass strength, with a preference to accuracy. How "good" they are is pretty subjective.

If your idea of a good tight end is a big run blocker, a 95 ranked Shannon Sharpe wanna-be isn't going to be worth as much to you....and I don't necessarily think that the same ratings should apply to, for example, all recievers. You probably want a different set of physical attributes and skills in your starting split-end versus your slot guy.

Being able to set your own criteria would be nice, what to place emphasis on...but this might be a little to in-depth for an EA game....

[CM Hooe]

If EA were to get rid of the OVR rating, they'd probably have to put in more "intangible ratings" that apply to specific positions in place of the generic "awareness" rating: e.g. "read coverage" for QBs, "coverage skills" for DBs, "field vision" for other skill positions like LB, RB, and possibly receiver.

I'm all for the idea though. In fact, I'm all for hiding the ratings altogether, or at least having that option in Dynasty Mode.

[necrobeast]

I also think the game needs to be more vague when recruiting Athletes. What's the point if you see arm strength and pass accuracy listed on a scouting report?

Just curious, anyone here ever play the college edition of Front Office Football?

[PodSquad]

Quote: Originally Posted by necrobeast

I also think the game needs to be more vague when recruiting Athletes. What's the point if you see arm strength and pass accuracy listed on a scouting report? Just curious, anyone here ever play the college edition of Front Office Football?

Arm strenght and accuracy come from actually watching the player play, which you cannot currently do in the game. That should stay.