Players Who Got the Shaft

[fins4o8]

Quote: Originally Posted by jweaks

does he play well?

sadly, I never get pass TC. I always end up re-doing my draft and pick a defensive player in the 2nd rd instead. I figured it wasn't worth giving up the drafts pick i did to get him.

I play the Miami Dolphins and I have been trying to get the draft where Da Raiders traded for my 1st overall & Ravens then trading for me 4th. I have been reloading from a previous save that was before the draft and I have yet been able to replicate it again.

I traded down with the raiders (for their 4th, 1st/2nd 09), then trading down with the Ravens (for their 8th, 58th & 1st 09). I raped them good. With the 8th pick, I was still able to get LT Jake Long.

That draft was one of the weirdest draft I ever seen. Flacco was drafted before Matt Ryan & McFadden went 1st overall. Ryan usually goes top 5 & McFadden goes top 18but I have seen him go as low as 20 -25 from all my restarts.

One thing I have found out by reloading & restarting so much is if I used a previous saved then the draft will go usually the same way before but if I restart a new career, the draft will go differently.

I know I'm cheating a bit by trying to get Raiders to trade for the 1st overall but the temptation is too hard to resist especially after seeing it happen once.

Sorry for getting OT here.

[capnwillie]

As yet I've only played as the Cowboys. For the most part, they are pretty close to the real Cowboys (when they're healthy and playing well) but Marion Barber really seems to have gotten the shaft. Considering he's one of the hardest RBs to tackle in the NFL and has great stats for yardage after contact, he folds like a house of cards after being hit by one defender on this game. That has made for some rather frustrating 3rd and short attempts.

[jweaks]

I changed my QB philosophy from Field General to Strong Arm-Tools just to see. Surprise, surprise, Flacco went from 50/60 OVR/POT to 80/90. That's weird. Philosophy should not change their skills only how they fit in with your system, but apparently it can change their skills too.

[Josh_Looman]

Quote: Originally Posted by jweaks

I changed my QB philosophy from Field General to Strong Arm-Tools just to see. Surprise, surprise, Flacco went from 50/60 OVR/POT to 80/90. That's weird. Philosophy should not change their skills only how they fit in with your system, but apparently it can change their skills too.

It doesn't change their skills. It changes their overall based on different weightings of their skills. Since Flacco has a cannon, it puts more of an emphasis on that.

[jweaks]

I mean "skills" as far as how he plays. I'm calling the same plays, same offense but now he plays better. He played like a 50/60 when he was a 50/60. Now he plays like an 80. That shouldn't be the case if the only thing that changed was philosophy. Or should it? A 30 point swing seems a bit much. Is the idea that the new philosophy frees him to play toward those skills? And when I had him as "Field General" he was trying to play differently in some way?

Great game.

[Guggy107]

jweaks - as much as i'd love to disagree with you on this, i've experienced similar results with felix jones. i wont post any specific numbers, but he is much higher rated as a recieving hb than a power hb, and ive noticed that he consistently plays better when my philosophy is recieving.

this really shouldnt be the case though, since none of the players physical or skill attributes change when you change thier philosophy. maybe i can chalk it up to coincidence, but its harder to do that with you saying this about flacco.

...weird

[jweaks]

Regardless of what the skills "numbers" say they play better under one philosophy than another even if nothing else changes. Many players given playtime and some success on the field get better right? ...moving toward their potential. Well, if he is a 50/60 OVR/POT then he still he isn't a very good player even if he improves. However, if he is an 80/90, then he IS better when he improves. There is SOMETHING in the code that makes them better, moving towards their potential... the higher the potential the better they can get. I realize Josh is a Designer and he knows better than me, but there must be something to this... a player moving toward a potential of 90 is better than a player moving toward a potential of 60, even if it's the SAME player under different philosophies with the SAME "skill numbers."

[moneal2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by jweaks

Regardless of what the skills "numbers" say they play better under one philosophy than another even if nothing else changes. Many players given playtime and some success on the field get better right? ...moving toward their potential. Well, if he is a 50/60 OVR/POT then he still he isn't a very good player even if he improves. However, if he is an 80/90, then he IS better when he improves. There is SOMETHING in the code that makes them better, moving towards their potential... the higher the potential the better they can get. I realize Josh is a Designer and he knows better than me, but there must be something to this... a player moving toward a potential of 90 is better than a player moving toward a potential of 60, even if it's the SAME player under different philosophies with the SAME "skill numbers."

The only problem with that is that his potential at his skills does not change so his skills keep improving toward that potential. He would play the same under any system as long as the plays were geared toward his strengths; like inside runs for a power runner even if you have speed back philosophy. He should still play at the same level if the philosophy changed but plays were the same. Some people are seeing that that is not the case. The engine may be taking overall grade into account when it should only take skill grades into account. I myself have not seen this since my system and philosophies are usually quite similar.