Possible Improvement to Potential Rating

[mlengel25]

I saw this in a different thread far down the page list and i didn't think it got enough credit. I think it's a sick idea, and want it implemented in Madden 2011. Just wanted to post it never know who might see it.

"I like the potential rating with a little modification. What I think they should do is still give out the ratings but just don't make it an automatic that a player with A potential will improve to a 90+ player or a player with B potential can never become a 98. The way it should done is to have the player with A potential have a better chance of improving to 90+ and a B a lesser chance, etc. For instance, an A potential player has a 80% chance of improving to 95+, B potential a 70% chance, and so on until you get to say an F potential guy who maybe only has a 5 or 10% chance of getting to a 95+. On the flip side, an A potential player could have an 20% chance of never reaching his full potential of 95+ and may never improve much if at all past his rookie ratings. This is the best way to have gems and busts. Even real NFL scouts never know the real potential of a real player or whether that player can reach his full potential. My idea would better simulate that.

The problem with my idea above is video game freaks can't see past their linear line of thinking. It's either black or white for most. If they draft an A potential player that only improves from a 75 rating to a 80 rating they will cry foul that the potential rating is broken. Hopefully EA has more common sense than that."

[kyle19]

My idea from another thread.

IMO Madden needs to make improvable att (AWR, Route Running, Blocking, Man/Zone cov) much more important. And physical att (STR, SPD, ACC, AGL, THR PWR) that are harder to improve less important.

This would make players that come out of the draft/ veterans that havn't played alot of games with good improvable att able to contribute sooner. They may have a lower ceiling but you don't worry to much about playing them early.

Players with good physical att but poor improvable att would be players that you would want to keep on the bench to improve for a while. If these players play and do poorly they don't improve. If they play well they improve more.

This naturally takes care of progression. A highly drafted player with great football skills but only average/ above average physical skills (B. Robiskie) is a guy you feel comfertable starting right away, and can become a high level player but not a superstar (R. Moss type)

A highly drafted player with great physical skills but suspect football skills (P. White) needs to be put in good situations to succeed and improve or protected on the bench to learn. If thrown to the wolfs and not producing the player stays the same or regresses.

Look at R. Leaf vs. P. Manning. Leaf had all the physical tools but was lacking mentally, Manning had the physical tools as well byt was more mentally tough. When faced with adversity Leaf collapsed and Manning improved and held in long enough for the rest of his team to improve around him and let him blossem.

[ACardAttack]

What I would like to see is not only does no one see anyone's potential, but have rookies drafted come in with their ratings unknown and as they play out in pre season and the season you begin to start see their worth and value. Stats and part potential should be taken into account, but like I said, no one's potential should be known.

[reyes the roof]

With the current system, having a player with "A" potential doesn't guarantee he will be a 95+ star. As a test I started a franchise with the Lions and got rid of pretty much everyone but Stafford and surrounded him with guys rated in the 50s to make sure he put up bad numbers. He still had big gains in progression his first few years but he topped out at 91 for one season and began to regress at age 26 and was down to an 87

[mlengel25]

haha yeah but putting up horrible numbers surrounded by 50's and still progressing to a 91 isn't right in my mind. I think it should be a mix of potential vs performance with my original statement to include busts.

[reyes the roof]

Quote: Originally Posted by mlengel25

haha yeah but putting up horrible numbers surrounded by 50's and still progressing to a 91 isn't right in my mind. I think it should be a mix of potential vs performance with my original statement to include busts.

His numbers really weren't THAT horrible, his first two years I'm pretty sure he threw more TDs than INTs which was remarkable considering how bad I made the team, and those were the two years he progressed the most. Year three is when he began to put up bad numbers and the progression reflected it

[sois]

Quote: Originally Posted by ACardAttack

What I would like to see is not only does no one see anyone's potential, but have rookies drafted come in with their ratings unknown and as they play out in pre season and the season you begin to start see their worth and value. Stats and part potential should be taken into account, but like I said, no one's potential should be known.

This is what I want too.
Great post.

[johnverse]

see i disagree about hiding potential. in sports, whether you are coaching, managing, or a player, you can tell what players will continue to improve (progress) and which ones are pretty much already playing as well as they ever will (even if its no better than average). i like the idea of your own team showing potential, but maybe they could have that potential rating show up after 3 years on the squad.

one thing that should be patched, if possible, is the ability to sort other teams' players by potential. although the potential rating remains "??", it still sorts from A-F, which is stupid.

it's good to hear that just because a player has A potential, he may not necessarily reach their full rating.