[canes21]

I would personally like a system where a 99 is basically unachievable. A 99 overall player has no weaknesses in their game and no one will ever be better than them. I'd prefer a system where we have a bell curve and being in the 50 or 60s is average.

1st ballot hall of fame players may only be 86 overall. A system where if you see an entire OL in the 70s, you know they're a solid unit. An OL with two 80+ players is elite and those guys are likely going to the hall. I'd like to see a WR rated 76 and know he can be a big difference maker in the game. I'd also like to see a 54 overall player and they actually have a place on almost every team.

I want a system where guys have weaknesses like in real life. I want a system where player rating differences shine more than anything else. A great cover backer may have coverage ratings in the 70s, but his tackling is a 60. Too many guys now, even with the more spread out system, are still too well rounded. Players have roles in the league, give me ratings that really tell the story of what a player can and cannot do. Stop making Lamar Jackson a 95 by inflating all of his ratings. He has weaknesses. Stop giving LBs high coverage ratings to raise their OVRs. A lot of backers struggle in coverage. Give me real true to life ratings where guys have strengths and weaknesses.