New gr18 'Roster Rating' Franchise file

[Cards77]

I had a question about the rating system you used.

I'm new to 2k5 so I don't really understand what all the ratings do but I'm wondering why there is such a gap between how Puja and FNG rated their roster, to how you did.

I didn't look at everyone, but for instance you have Julius Jones and Mo Morris as like 77 and 75 OVR respectively. For one Morris is probably going to the starter, for two these guys are good, but not elite backs, shouldn't they be rated 80+?

You also have Seneca Wallace's arm strength at about 77, same with Hasselbeck. Wallace has a cannon straight up and Hasselbeck is no slouch either though he doesn't have the arm that Seneca does.

In puja's file, everyone is rated much higher, starters are usually 80+, guys with cannon arms are 90+ throw strength, some of the best players are rated over 100 in a category if they are the very best at it etc

Again these may be poor examples but they are the only ones I really studied.

I'm just curious as to why there is such a gap and how does this effect gameplay? I just don't see why a starter is rated in the 70s OVR and a quality backup is 60 or so OVR.

My problem may be that I"m used to the madden type system where the best guys are in the 90s OVR, starters generally in the 80s and quality backups 70s.

Any thoughts on this and which people think is more realistic?

thanks.

[dophin26]

A lot of times the ratings are just relative to each other. Higher offensive ratings are offset by higher defensive ratings. Unless there is a dramatic lowering in ratings overall or a huge gap between the O and D, it should still play well. Surprisingly, I've found the ratings are pretty darn close to each other.

I was just thinking about this today as I was play-testing a roster. I have many of my RBs rated much slower than the CBs and many safeties, in some cases 15-18 points slower. Shortly after pondering this, my cpu opponent (Oilers' Butch Woolfolk) busted a 74 yard run for a TD on me. I had plenty of time to use my speed burst, but I couldn't quite catch up to him. While this doesn't serve as "proof" of anything, it does mean that those lower rated guys can still get the job done.

[gr18]

Quote: Originally Posted by puja21

this file is excellent

Thanks,I really appreciate that coming from you.

[gr18]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cards77

I had a question about the rating system you used. I'm new to 2k5 so I don't really understand what all the ratings do but I'm wondering why there is such a gap between how Puja and FNG rated their roster, to how you did. I didn't look at everyone, but for instance you have Julius Jones and Mo Morris as like 77 and 75 OVR respectively. For one Morris is probably going to the starter, for two these guys are good, but not elite backs, shouldn't they be rated 80+? You also have Seneca Wallace's arm strength at about 77, same with Hasselbeck. Wallace has a cannon straight up and Hasselbeck is no slouch either though he doesn't have the arm that Seneca does. In puja's file, everyone is rated much higher, starters are usually 80+, guys with cannon arms are 90+ throw strength, some of the best players are rated over 100 in a category if they are the very best at it etc Again these may be poor examples but they are the only ones I really studied. I'm just curious as to why there is such a gap and how does this effect gameplay? I just don't see why a starter is rated in the 70s OVR and a quality backup is 60 or so OVR. My problem may be that I"m used to the madden type system where the best guys are in the 90s OVR, starters generally in the 80s and quality backups 70s. Any thoughts on this and which people think is more realistic? thanks.

Rating a starter in the 70's more represents a weakness which Madden doesn't do when an average starter is 85.A player in the 70's and even the 60's can certainly be effective in this game.That's why I made sure every player was over 60.

As for the Seahawks,I have Morris and Jones in the upper 70's simply because they are considered 2nd tier backs who would be back-ups on most teams and in fact were for their respective teams last year.This is considered a weak position for the 'Hawks 'till proven otherwise.

Just checked my file and I saw Hasselbeck at 85 for arm strength which gives him a slightly above average arm while Seneca Wallace was only at 74,weak arm.Hasselbeck's thing is good accuracy and reading coverages while Seneca's is pretty good accuracy and of course,his speed.I wouldn't want him as a starter but he's a good backup.

[Cards77]

Quote: Originally Posted by gr18

Rating a starter in the 70's more represents a weakness which Madden doesn't do when an average starter is 85.A player in the 70's and even the 60's can certainly be effective in this game.That's why I made sure every player was over 60. As for the Seahawks,I have Morris and Jones in the upper 70's simply because they are considered 2nd tier backs who would be back-ups on most teams and in fact were for their respective teams last year.This is considered a weak position for the 'Hawks 'till proven otherwise. Just checked my file and I saw Hasselbeck at 85 for arm strength which gives him a slightly above average arm while Seneca Wallace was only at 74,weak arm.Hasselbeck's thing is good accuracy and reading coverages while Seneca's is pretty good accuracy and of course,his speed.I wouldn't want him as a starter but he's a good backup.

OK well for one thing you have his speed rated waaay low. He's a sub 4.4 guy. I haven't looked at many others, but there doesn't seem to be much going into these ratings, mainly you're ideas about what you think they should be.

There is such a thing as having a very good 2nd string player that could be a starter given a chance. Which is exactly what Mo Morris is. Ryan Grant was a free agent and about 4th on the depth chart last year so by that logic he should be rated a 60 or so despite being one of the top backs later in the year.

To be realistic, your ratings need to represent the player's abilities, not their position on the depth chart.

Seneca would be a starting WR on some teams, and a starting QB on many other teams. Experts have said as much it's not coming from me. He by no means has a weak arm, and his arm is much stronger than Hasselbeck's and that's saying something.

On the flip side many people rate Favre super-high. While he has a huge arm and he's extremely accurate even on deep passes he's notoriously made poor decisions...every single year. Things like this should be addressed IMO and just because a player is a multi-year starter or even a HOF player doesn't always warrant high ability scores in some areas.

There is plenty of scout material to back those things up.

That's called depicting reality as much as possible.

In the NFL, every single player is very close in physical ability, and a select few stand out even among their peers. Everyone can run, even the 300+ lb DTs. There is very little separating an undrafted free agent from even a 3rd round pick, as evidenced by the numerous UFA that make rosters every year, and high draft picks are cut. Or a 3rd or 4th WR from the 2nd WR in terms of physical ability.

Depth is a huge aspect of professional football and having quality backups can make or break a season.

The ratings need to reflect this.

Especially since more and more teams are going to a pass rushing rotation with 3 or even 4 top shelf pass rushing DEs. Or stockpiling 3 top shelf CBs now that the passing game has emerged more with the recent rule changes.

The ratings need to reflect this.

I don't want to sound like a jerk and turn this into a debate about players.

I appreciate the hard work you've put into this, I used to do them for Madden all the time.

I simply don't want to go through and custom edit every player because you gave many of them a completely arbitrary rating.

[gobucks]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cards77

OK well for one thing you have his speed rated waaay low. He's a sub 4.4 guy. I haven't looked at many others, but there doesn't seem to be much going into these ratings, mainly you're ideas about what you think they should be. There is such a thing as having a very good 2nd string player that could be a starter given a chance. Which is exactly what Mo Morris is. Ryan Grant was a free agent and about 4th on the depth chart last year so by that logic he should be rated a 60 or so despite being one of the top backs later in the year. To be realistic, your ratings need to represent the player's abilities, not their position on the depth chart. Seneca would be a starting WR on some teams, and a starting QB on many other teams. Experts have said as much it's not coming from me. He by no means has a weak arm, and his arm is much stronger than Hasselbeck's and that's saying something. On the flip side many people rate Favre super-high. While he has a huge arm and he's extremely accurate even on deep passes he's notoriously made poor decisions...every single year. Things like this should be addressed IMO and just because a player is a multi-year starter or even a HOF player doesn't always warrant high ability scores in some areas. There is plenty of scout material to back those things up. That's called depicting reality as much as possible. In the NFL, every single player is very close in physical ability, and a select few stand out even among their peers. Everyone can run, even the 300+ lb DTs. There is very little separating an undrafted free agent from even a 3rd round pick, as evidenced by the numerous UFA that make rosters every year, and high draft picks are cut. Or a 3rd or 4th WR from the 2nd WR in terms of physical ability. Depth is a huge aspect of professional football and having quality backups can make or break a season. The ratings need to reflect this. Especially since more and more teams are going to a pass rushing rotation with 3 or even 4 top shelf pass rushing DEs. Or stockpiling 3 top shelf CBs now that the passing game has emerged more with the recent rule changes. The ratings need to reflect this. I don't want to sound like a jerk and turn this into a debate about players. I appreciate the hard work you've put into this, I used to do them for Madden all the time. I simply don't want to go through and custom edit every player because you gave many of them a completely arbitrary rating.

Wow sounds like you should put out a roster file. No pun intended here but it seems you have a very strong opinion on rating references. Thats what great about this game and the editor..you can customize it as you see fit and build off anothers file as long as you give the originator credit if you release it. I personally use and honor another guys countless hours of hard work and thought into his file. You will always deal with the creators bias and ratings system bias..but I can certainly live with that especially if I am gonna "free-load" them.

[gr18]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cards77

OK well for one thing you have his speed rated waaay low. He's a sub 4.4 guy. I haven't looked at many others, but there doesn't seem to be much going into these ratings, mainly you're ideas about what you think they should be. There is such a thing as having a very good 2nd string player that could be a starter given a chance. Which is exactly what Mo Morris is. Ryan Grant was a free agent and about 4th on the depth chart last year so by that logic he should be rated a 60 or so despite being one of the top backs later in the year. To be realistic, your ratings need to represent the player's abilities, not their position on the depth chart. Seneca would be a starting WR on some teams, and a starting QB on many other teams. Experts have said as much it's not coming from me. He by no means has a weak arm, and his arm is much stronger than Hasselbeck's and that's saying something. On the flip side many people rate Favre super-high. While he has a huge arm and he's extremely accurate even on deep passes he's notoriously made poor decisions...every single year. Things like this should be addressed IMO and just because a player is a multi-year starter or even a HOF player doesn't always warrant high ability scores in some areas. There is plenty of scout material to back those things up. That's called depicting reality as much as possible. In the NFL, every single player is very close in physical ability, and a select few stand out even among their peers. Everyone can run, even the 300+ lb DTs. There is very little separating an undrafted free agent from even a 3rd round pick, as evidenced by the numerous UFA that make rosters every year, and high draft picks are cut. Or a 3rd or 4th WR from the 2nd WR in terms of physical ability. Depth is a huge aspect of professional football and having quality backups can make or break a season. The ratings need to reflect this. Especially since more and more teams are going to a pass rushing rotation with 3 or even 4 top shelf pass rushing DEs. Or stockpiling 3 top shelf CBs now that the passing game has emerged more with the recent rule changes. The ratings need to reflect this. I don't want to sound like a jerk and turn this into a debate about players. I appreciate the hard work you've put into this, I used to do them for Madden all the time. I simply don't want to go through and custom edit every player because you gave many of them a completely arbitrary rating.

As far as speed ratings go,every player(larger o-linemen and defensive tackles) was bumped up to at least a 50+ if they were below that.There could be a few descrepencies but I don't see why you feel the need to discredit everything because I offended you by having a Seahawks player too low in your opinion.

Apparently you haven't played this game much and aren't listening to us when we say that a player can be a 70-something and still be a quality player,just not a star player.Morris has done nothing to prove he'll pull a Ryan Grant.Jones is pretty much an outcast with something to prove.You can run with a 78 back in this game.

I just looked up Seneca Wallace's ratings for Madden '09 and he is actually rated a couple points lower in both arm strength and accuracy than Charlie Frye.I probably have his arm strength slightly low but have him rated a couple points above Frye in accuracy.I didn't refer to Madden ratings once while doing these.

I think you should put a roster file out yourself but then maybe we can pick that one apart.

Logic would say that NO roster file is going to please everyone.Please adjust one yourself or if you don't have the time,play Madden.There you can be happy that every player will play pretty much exactly the same way(according to the skill level you're playing against).Ratings mean nothing in that game since they find the need to stroke all the players egos by giving them 85+.

[Mauler34]

Not trying to beat the dead horse, but just to go along with what others have said, no roster file is perfect, but of all the ones I've downloaded - for the 2008 season and previous ones - this one is one of the most balanced ones I've seen/played. I see what you are trying to say Cards77 and I agree with you for the most part, but I think this roster is about as close to perfect as you're going to get for this coming season.

I myself am a Seahawks fan and I didn't feel like the ratings were arbitrary, though of course I did do a couple of my own changes to the file, bumping a couple players' ratings up/down slightly, creating a couple here and there, and doing roster moves for a couple teams that have happened since the roster was made. In less than a half hour though, I felt like I had a roster that was reasonably accurate and balanced, which is a LOT faster than it took me with some files for previous seasons.

So I guess what I'm trying to get at is that, while no roster file is perfect, this one is pretty damn good, so if you really feel that it is inaccurate, perhaps it would be beneficial to try one of the other ones. No offense to the other roster makers, but I think this one is about as good as any I've ever used, and thats saying a lot, considering I've downloaded multiple rosters for each season since 2004. Again, nice job gr18.