 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by TimLawNYC |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One problem I see, though, is that EA still doesn't really know what players are good in which schemes. A good example is the way they treat 3-4 defenses vs. 4-3 defenses in this game. It's tough to run a successful and realistic 3-4 defense in this video game because EA does not account for the specialized type of defensive tackle that makes a 3-4 truly work. Instead, the lines play just the same as they do in a 4-3, with no effort from the NT to clog up 2 offensive linemen--which is the whole point of running a 3-4. Another example is the way the game currently has little to no real distinction between the "Air Raid" and "Spread" playbooks and schemes, while in real life there are important differences (such as the offensive linemen in the Air Raid lining up with bigger gaps between them to widen the offensive line as a whole).
As far as player development, I don't think it should be in the player's hands. I would, however, like to see a player's development be influenced by his performance on the field. If I have a freshman RB who tears it up one year and rushes for 1600 yards, that should be reflected in a big offseason ratings bump. Conversely, redshirted players who never see game action do not get as much experience and should not grow quite as much that offseason.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
I definitely agree with you about the 3-4 not playing like a true 3-4 due to the games limitations. That would in a dream world be addressed first so that size/strength really mattered. That is more on the gameplay side of things and something I really would like to see fixed. I think they could still grade players overall in schemes according to how good they SHOULD be, regardless if the games limitations allows them to play like that.
On the topic of player development, I have to say I disagree with your line of thinking. To me, the reason a player has a great season is because he IS good already (or perhaps is just in an ideal system for his skillset, which goes back to the first point).
If you have a freshman that rushes for 1600 yards, to me he should only be able to do that BECAUSE he is a good player. He doesn't rush for 1600 yards and THEN become a good player the next season. This has a lot to do with guys playing to their ratings in this game though, because sometimes if a guy has 99 speed and not much else, he can be better than a 99 Overall guy who is slow.
You are saying having a good season causes you to be better. I say already being good causes you to have a good season. That would be like saying Johnny Manziel is going be WAY better next season than he was this season since he had a good year this year. To me he was good already. I agree with your point about playing time though, the more playing time and experience a guy gets should definitely progress him faster than a guy riding the pine.
If it was my choice, I would have both a potential, and a work ethic rating for each player. Potential would be based on his athletic, physical abilities, and rated by how good a guy could POSSIBLY become. Work ethic would determine how quickly a player would reach his potential.
You got a guy who has a 50 work ethic rating but 99 potential (say a 6'4, 220 lb. receiver with 99 speed and 98 Jump)? Going to be a frustrating guy because he never will progress his skills much even though the raw athletic ability is there.
Or you could have a guy with 80 Potential (5'11 180 lb. receiver with 85 Speed and 80 Jump) and 99 work ethic. This guy is never going to become a superstar because he doesn't have the size or athletic ability, but he will be a guy who develops to his potential very fast because he works so hard.