Recruiting 6-7 years into a franchise

[jbrew2411]

There are to many players at the top skill positions and positions like fb are viewed as a thing of the past. Look at kids in real life that come out of high school and see how many true fb you see. What I do is move a rb to fb that would not get any playing time and problem solved. But for teams to stack up on top players at 1 position happens like USC has 3 5* qb's on the roster right now. If you win then you can get anyone you want on this game. Even if they have no interest. I'm in year 4 of my dynasty with UGA and needed te's bad but the only guys that wanted to come to my school were 3* or lower. So I targeted 2 5* guys who had no interest and after week 2 I was in the top 5 and by week 8 I had landed one of them. Even if you have no one with interest you can land them. Its all in how well you do and offer in week 1.

[kestrel]

Piggybacking this, especially with regard to FBs; I needed a FB, and I never have any interested in me. I always pass to my FB, use them in goalline situations, and sometimes use them in short yardage situations, so I would think that some would be interested in me, but never. So, I tried to increase my chances a little by creating some from Florida (I use UF). I get to the ratings screen, and with each skill rating set at the default 78, FBs have an ovr of 99. I tweaked things around a bit and brought it down to a 90; I just created the one because I don't *want* too many highly rated FBs in the game, but I don't want to "short-change" all the guys I create, either.

Florida State is #1 on his list, but I'm a close second.

[jdrhammer]

Quote: Originally Posted by jbrew2411

There are to many players at the top skill positions and positions like fb are viewed as a thing of the past. Look at kids in real life that come out of high school and see how many true fb you see. What I do is move a rb to fb that would not get any playing time and problem solved. But for teams to stack up on top players at 1 position happens like USC has 3 5* qb's on the roster right now. If you win then you can get anyone you want on this game. Even if they have no interest. I'm in year 4 of my dynasty with UGA and needed te's bad but the only guys that wanted to come to my school were 3* or lower. So I targeted 2 5* guys who had no interest and after week 2 I was in the top 5 and by week 8 I had landed one of them. Even if you have no one with interest you can land them. Its all in how well you do and offer in week 1.

I agree with what you're saying. That's why there should just be some decent ones and teams that require FB's on the roster breakdown should only be required to carry 1.

[EricM]

Quote: Originally Posted by kestrel

Piggybacking this, especially with regard to FBs; I needed a FB, and I never have any interested in me. I always pass to my FB, use them in goalline situations, and sometimes use them in short yardage situations, so I would think that some would be interested in me, but never. So, I tried to increase my chances a little by creating some from Florida (I use UF).

Are your coaching settings at default? No matter how you play the games, that still matters to prospects. I always seem to see the same 4 or 5 schools at the top of the list for FBs and TEs, so I assume it has something to do with their playbook and coach sliders.

Quote:

I get to the ratings screen, and with each skill rating set at the default 78, FBs have an ovr of 99.

This is part of the problem in this game. Without touching a thing, you have a 5* FB prospect. Rivals or Scout would rate this back (if they even rated him) who runs a 4.8 40 and has average hands a 2*, maybe. The designers got it right that there aren't a lot of blue chip FBs in reality every year, but they don't seem to realize that there are a ton of backs every year whose measurable ratings would make them 5* prospects if they were created in this game. They just aren't rated that highly by recruiting services because they're not elite backs.

They need to revamp how OVR is calculated for FBs. Then maybe you could also switch a big, slow HB (you know, like happens on tons of real teams) without having his speed drop through the floor just to keep his OVR down.

Or they could just ignore reality and put more 4* and 5* prospects in the game who would be a solid 75-80 OVR as freshmen. Some more kickers and punters would be nice too.

[jdrhammer]

Quote: Originally Posted by EricM

Are your coaching settings at default? No matter how you play the games, that still matters to prospects. I always seem to see the same 4 or 5 schools at the top of the list for FBs and TEs, so I assume it has something to do with their playbook and coach sliders. This is part of the problem in this game. Without touching a thing, you have a 5* FB prospect. Rivals or Scout would rate this back (if they even rated him) who runs a 4.8 40 and has average hands a 2*, maybe. The designers got it right that there aren't a lot of blue chip FBs in reality every year, but they don't seem to realize that there are a ton of backs every year whose measurable ratings would make them 5* prospects if they were created in this game. They just aren't rated that highly by recruiting services because they're not elite backs. They need to revamp how OVR is calculated for FBs. Then maybe you could also switch a big, slow HB (you know, like happens on tons of real teams) without having his speed drop through the floor just to keep his OVR down. Or they could just ignore reality and put more 4* and 5* prospects in the game who would be a solid 75-80 OVR as freshmen. Some more kickers and punters would be nice too.

True. Forgot about the P and K's. We definitely need more of them. Like the FB's, they don't have to be 5* but there should be several more 3* and decent 2*.

[PlayaHataSupreme]

Quote: Originally Posted by jdrhammer

True. Forgot about the P and K's. We definitely need more of them. Like the FB's, they don't have to be 5* but there should be several more 3* and decent 2*.

Last year they seemed to rate 80% of the kickers below 70. Even Colt David, LSU K, was a 51 overall........ the generated kickers/punters last year seemed to be consistent with the kickers on the default roster.

Now they've seemed to even out kickers in the default roster so there are many more guys in the mid-upper 70s, but I wanna say, maybe they forgot to carry this over into the generated recruits. I don't think I've seen more than 10 kickers/punters combined that was 2* or higher in a year in the game.

[Heisman316]

Certainly, EA please fix the Recruiting Generator for 2010. Maybe Recruiting could be the focus of the game next year, and put Lloyd Carr on the cover.

1. That way there aren't as many 4 start WR's, there are WAYYYY too many,

2. Make FB's better, especially in Speed and Catching,

3. Make Location the Biggest factor,

4. Make recruitis have knowledge of what depth each team has at a position.

5. Also add back the feature to get players suspended in Next-Gen

6. Make recruits that have a low intrerst in Academic Prestige have a chance to be academically ineligable

7. Lower the numbers of 1star K's and P's, make more 2 and 3 star

[CNLJ1981]

I agree a lot with what you guys are saying. However, I did luck out and was able to sign a 5 star Kicker. He was the # 1 overall recruit in the nation and is rated an 87 as a FRESHMAN! I also signed a 3 star Kicker and Punter the same year. They are both rated at 65 OVR. Has anyone else seen a Kicker like this? The 87 OVR blew me away...