I didnt know that but I disagree with it because it doesnt make any sense. Veteran players should never demand more money than younger in their prime players especially now when you can get a young 22 year old rookie under a cheap four year rookie contract due to the 2011 CBA. Look at James Harrison...while he's expected to sign with the Bengals this week, I highly doubt that he'll get even half of what PIT was offering him after they asked him to take a paycut.
I can see elite veterans like Brady, Manning, etc. mainly because they play the most important position and are consistent year in and year out. Look at Randy Moss, I have him rated 80, hes old, far past his prime and not worth $2.5m yet thats what he wants in FA during the 2013 off-season.
To me, contract demands should be based on overall rating, position and age/years pro. To me, thats fair. What happens if you have a backup with a higher production rating than the starter in front of him and the backup wants more money yet isnt rated as high as the starter? To me, thats a flaw. Very rarely do you see a backup getting paid more money than the starter in front of him.
I dont know how anyone else plays but I prefer my depth chart in order of the overall ratings. In other words, my 5th WR is the 5th highest rated WR on my team. I never ever have a lower rated player starting ahead of a higher rated player because if thats the case, then their ratings should be flipped.
I get the idea that players know what they're are worth but then again, see James Harrison.
I'll have to try this and see what happens. I have every penalty at 100 except for holding, face mask and roughing the passer which are at 50 because anything higher and they get called all the time to an absurd amount. I can see them being called a few times on one possession. It's nuts.
 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by CM Hooe |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philosophical question - why is the OVR rating in the front end "more correct" than the options presented in CCM? The OVR rating is merely a generic weighted average of all possible skills a given player at a given position can have. Scheme-specific OVR ratings are also just weighted averages, but they allow teams to value different attribute groups more highly; a Zone Coverage CB will value the ZCV rating more highly in the OVR rating calculation than the frontend OVR rating, for example. Why shouldn't CPU teams evaluate players differently depending on what sort of team they wish to build?
Example: I wouldn't want to use DeMarcus Ware as a 4-3 Will in a Cover 2 scheme, for example, regardless of his elite frontend OVR rating; all his great skills are in pass rushing, and his coverage skills are poor (MCV / ZCV in the 40s). The scheme-specific OVR rating accounts for this and produces a separate weighted average more appropriate for teams building a 4-3 defense. I don't see how this "screws everything up"; it in-fact helps me build my team more appropriately for what I want to do.
(Yes, ideally the game would let me convert Ware to a 4-3 DE from a 3-4 OLB. That's not an available option in the game. It absolutely should be. For now, let's acknowledge the limits of the system and work within them.)
As to your example: the default settings for the Rams have them valuing Big Mauler OL along the entire offensive line. Cook is a Big Mauler C (if I recall correctly; I had him in my Redskins CCM), and as such he fits what the CPU Rams want to do, thus why they sign him. It's what they value. Having played with the Redskins, Cook gets an OVR boost with the scheme setting set to Big Mauler because his Size rating balloons under that setting, as previously explained.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
The main reason why the overall ratings on the menus should at the very least match in-game is because it screws up too much with the CPU and makes them do stuff that makes no sense whatsoever. Since you cant edit CPU schemes and even if you try using the retire character option and switch to another team, it all gets reset back to the defaults so there's no workaround whatsoever and trust me, I have tried finding one.
Its amazing how for example, Tannehill drops in rating on the menus and usually gets replaced in the off-season despite the fact that if anything, his overall rating should increase considering the fact that his OC was his college HC, they run the same offense and he was drafted by the Dolphins because of this. That right there shows that schemes is flawed badly. Also, how kickers and punters have anything to do with schemes whatsoever is also a flaw. Kickers and punters are interchangable and anyone who knows football knows this.
For my team (49ers), TE Vernon Davis drops to 90 (or lower) from is in-game rating of 95. He's listed as a vertical threat. The default TE scheme is set as vertical threat yet he declines? Seriously, how does that make any sense whatsoever? If anything, his overall rating should increase because his scheme style matches what the team is listed as at TE.
As for the Rams, I get that they sign those two players because they fit the scheme but at the same time, its fake and unrealistic because after all, they already have players at that position plus Waters is retired and was on the Patriots reserved list for 2012. Here's the main problem, check in-game of their overall ratings...the backups will be rated higher than the starters because of this problem.
I have stopped checking other team's depth charts in-game because it aggravates and frustrates me to no end. And not being able to fix it myself doesnt help matters. Seriously, if you check in-game, you'll be surprised to see how many backups (and worse) are starters when the actual players who should be starters are backups.
As for your Cowboys example with Ware...I agree because he's a pass rusher. The OLB's in a 3-4 basically replace the DE's in a 4-3 base. In a 4-3, its the DE's that are the pass rushers where as in a 3-4, its the two OLB's. Ware shouldnt be dropping into coverage in the 3-4 or 4-3. Neither should Aldon Smith. If you were to switch them to DE outside of CCM, Smith goes to 99 and Ware probably does the same because of their attributes and strengths and while I get that the scheme setup is trying to emulate that, it fails miserably in doing so because again, it turns backups into starters and starters into backups.
There's a reason why playing PLAY NOW is actually a better challenge and better game than inside CCM. That reason is because schemes doesnt exist. Its all based on the overall ratings of the players which is what it should be. After all, thats why starters are starters and backups are backups. No backup should be rated higher than a starter in game unless its because of an injury and the injured player's attributes and overall rating decline...
(I know Madden doesnt do this but 2K5 did and was actually based on the type of injury - Owens had a leg injury once and while his catching stayed the same, his route running, speed and agility attributes decreased to reflect the actual injury...this is the lone exception in my opinion)
...in the end, the overall ratings not matching up screws up a lot of things in CCM and causes a lot of problems which is why I hate the scheme setup. I understand what their objective was but they didnt accomplish it and caused a lot of problems in the process. Everyone can look at it their own way and build their team based on it if they want but here's a question -
If you sign a FA who's 85 because he fits your scheme but in-game, he's 80 for example and you have a player who's rated higher than him in-game, why would you have the lower rated player higher on your depth chart when in-game, he's obviously and clearly not the better player?
I want it just so I can use it to eliminate the problems.
Fair enough.