 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by JoshC1977 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, you said this well....archetypes help to define the best fits (it's really more of a roster construction tool than a gameplay tool).
The concern I have (and we won't know till full ratings are released) is that historically, too many players have been too good at too many things. Madden rosters do a reasonable job of differentiating player strengths; but struggle in reflecting player weaknesses.
Looking at launch ratings from last year, take a look at LeGarette Blount: 94 Stiff Arm, 97 trucking....beautiful. The problem, 84 Juke and 83 spin. Those juke and spin move ratings are so high that he's going to use them far too often; the more he uses them in lieu of trucking or barreling through guys, the less he feels like a power back. Many other backs have similar issues (Lacy, Hill, Hyde, etc). Drop those into the 60s (for example) and those stiff arm/trucking traits really begin to shine through. But...this drops the overall and I think that basically, these "secondary ratings" were juiced a bit much to get the overalls in-sync. This is prevalent across the board, but RB is a really good position to see the issues.
This is where I am hopeful that the archetype system will shine. A more properly rated Blount (with depressed SPM/JKM ratigns) may only be a 70 overall baseline. But...ideally, his powerback skills reflect an overall of an 80ish in a power scheme. BUT....to get there, the baseline roster has to be built to accommodate that....and this to me is what is going to make or break the game.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Agree I think they should have a far greater differential in player ratings and use more of the 1-99 scale rather than what it feels like using only 70-99