[michiganfan8620]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Completely disagree here. Rookies should have those ratings warranted when they EARN THEM. NOT before their first season starts! They haven't even entered camp yet (except for the Bills)! I would prefer, in CFM, to have REALISTIC physical attributes and then build on them with XP going to honing the skills...you know...LIKE IN REAL LIFE. From this day forward, for every season accrued, these players will get slower, less agile, less twitchy, and even less strong as their bodies deteriorate over time. What is it that keeps the good ones in the game? THEIR TECHNICAL SKILLS! They learn to amass so much knowledge and technique, that they can overcome their physical regression with better technique and training. Do you think Jerry Rice was productive in Oakland because he still ran a 4.58? He was productive because he was easily the smartest, most experienced player on the field who could turn blanket coverage by a corner's raw ability into a 5 yard deficit by running a route at 99% accuracy. But instead, we can increase speed, agility, yada, yada, yada. The data I have shows that teams grade rookies very low and after, and ONLY after they prove their worth, do their grades go up. NOT before they even play one competitive snap against the best in the world! EA's logic is BACKWARD. Rate them as they are NOW, not what you "think" they "may" be in the future. Nobody has a crystal ball and that is why we get draft busts. Let these guys prove it first!

The problem is, CFM would likely be broken then. Rookies would be at a massive disadvantage, as none of them would likely develop properly compared to the other young players who have played a year. Then we'd have people complaining about that. It's a lose-lose situation.