 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by adembroski |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you ask 15 scouts to rate an NFL player using any ratings system, you'll get 15 different answers. I don't think Kane or Donny do a bad job with ratings given the constraints they have.
Not only that, one of the reasons the ratings system seems off at times is because too many attributes are wrapped up in a single number. It's easy to rate a Rodgers who's plain great at everything, but for a guy like Garoppolo, you can't just say strong arm and leave it at that. He can't heave it 60 yards on a line like Rodgers can, he can't toss it over the moon like Rodgers can, but he can thread the needle in the short area like nobody else. Splitting THP into Range and Velocity would make it easier to rate players because you don't have to figure out where guys like Garoppolo fit on that combined scale.
It gets worse as you look at other positions. MCV... ok, what about a guy who's fantastic at trail technique, but can't stack tech to save his life? ZCV... some guys are fantastic playing deep third, but get lost when asked to play inside hook curl.
Some attributes don't even get represented, and others are confusing. Are you aware that Impact Blocking actually means a ton for linebackers? It's basically the stack-and-shed attribute. How do you represent a guy's ability to navigate trash, some pass blockers have fantastic technique but a weak punch. Sticking with the team I know, Deforest Buckner is one of the most disruptive inside forces in the NFL, but he can't get sacks... because his technique fails him AFTER he's won, and he can't get square to the QB. So he can beat the block, but he can't finish... no way to represent that in Madden.
So, yes, I'd much rather have to trust Kane to use these attributes than not have them. I think it makes his job easier. He doesn't have figure out the precise way to compromise between two extremes that are represented by the same attribute.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Brother, i hear you...but in order to have what your asking for, the engine would have to change and literally more attention would have to be paid to individual players on a scale that mimicks what the roster makers in the MLB show are doing. Its tedious and really is more work than I believe EA team is prepared to do. As it is now, it is what it is. We get a numerical value that is tied to a rating that may or may not be of any use. My biggest issue sometime is...what is the real difference between a 91 and 93 ACC athlete. Nothing. Its ludacris unless you manipulate the parity a whole lot. Now...separate that value by 5 points increments...that would certainly make a difference. 80, 85, 90, 95 ect...just some things I think about fellas. I may be wrong and the masses might be elsewhere. Either way, we all know there is something wrong with "status quo"...we all agree something else needs to happen and its about 10 years to old.