Madden NFL 16 CFM Impressions Part 2 - Scouting and Drafting (MyMaddenPad)

[DeuceDouglas]

Quote: Originally Posted by Primo80

I like what ur saying. And about knowing a rookie's value immediately: should you see his attributes before the season or even the end of the season? I wish the risk of a draft pick carried through final cuts in some way.

I'm kind of torn on that. On one hand, I really like the idea of seeing what you drafted immediately because I feel like it adds to the draft presentation but I understand why people wouldn't like it simply because it's pretty easy to gage what a player is just on his overall. And that's what I was kind of getting at. If you shake things up and make it so that a 65 first round pick could still turn into a superstar based on his potential (which would absolutely have to be hidden) or a player rated 80 overall could have low or medium potential and never really become more or less than that 80, then I don't see any problem with seeing his attributes because you're still not sure of what you're getting.

But with that being said, I did like the way I think it was M11 or M12 did it where you didn't know any of their ratings until the season actually started and through preseason all you got was progressively more letter grades on their attributes. It was still flawed in a sense but it added a little bit to preseason as well as undrafted free agents and such.

[DeuceDouglas]

Quote: Originally Posted by jfsolo

I'm hoping in some years some positions have no players who grade out as a true value 1st round pick, but they are projected as a first rounder because they are the best of a poor crop, and thus are likely to be taken in the first round anyway. I agree 100% about the need for more variation in the projection/OV/development mix of players.

Agreed. I wouldn't mind even having a "draft depth" grade for each draft class that tells you overall how strong a draft is and then on top of that have it for each postion as well. Maybe the QB class is 'Very Weak' while the TE class is 'Once In A Decade' and the RB is just 'Strong' or 'Average' just to give some additional insight on the overall value at each position going into the draft.

[SolidSquid]

Quote: Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas

I'm kind of torn on that. On one hand, I really like the idea of seeing what you drafted immediately because I feel like it adds to the draft presentation but I understand why people wouldn't like it simply because it's pretty easy to gage what a player is just on his overall. And that's what I was kind of getting at. If you shake things up and make it so that a 65 first round pick could still turn into a superstar based on his potential (which would absolutely have to be hidden) or a player rated 80 overall could have low or medium potential and never really become more or less than that 80, then I don't see any problem with seeing his attributes because you're still not sure of what you're getting. But with that being said, I did like the way I think it was M11 or M12 did it where you didn't know any of their ratings until the season actually started and through preseason all you got was progressively more letter grades on their attributes. It was still flawed in a sense but it added a little bit to preseason as well as undrafted free agents and such.

I agree with all of this especially slowly unveiling true ratings during the preseason and Id even extend it to the first couple games of the regular season. When the Raiders took Jamarcus they didn't immediatly know he was a bust and start planning for a new qb, likewise the Pats didn't draft Brady and say let's start this guy immediately.

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas

Just in the spirit of debate but doesn't that kind of eliminate the purpose or need, I should say, of the actual in-game projections? If a player grades out as a first round pick, why would he ever be projected to go in the fifth round? I was just thinking about something like this. I think one problem with the draft is that Madden's idea of a sleeper always seems to be a very high rated player with Superstar development. Same goes for a bust, it's always a guy with a high projection but low rating and development. I think there needs to be a greater array and mixture of ratings vs. development distribution. And what I mean by that is: High projected guys with lower overalls but great DEV Low projected players with low overalls but great DEV Low projected players with great OVR but bad DEV High projected players with high overalls but poor DEV And so on. It seems like more often than not, the guys with the high overalls are the ones that develop the best. And I've seen it mentioned in here before about how people don't like the fact that all the attributes are shown as soon as a player is drafted because you basically know what you've got and whether or not to give up on a player immediately. And I think the problem with that is that there isn't a good variance of players in terms of overalls and potential.

It needs to happen more often but, I have a player on my CFM team that was a later round projection that came in rated 67 but, has Super Star development.

So they do have some of those in M15


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by SolidSquid

I agree with all of this especially slowly unveiling true ratings during the preseason and Id even extend it to the first couple games of the regular season. When the Raiders took Jamarcus they didn't immediatly know he was a bust and start planning for a new qb, likewise the Pats didn't draft Brady and say let's start this guy immediately.

I'd rather see that done different, a drag on XP earned due to lack of focus, opportunities to correct negative traits with the right coaching and supporting cast, etc. The inability to cover all the potential negatives with the right combination of coaching traits making you pick and choose your challenges.

Simply hiding stuff doesn't do much for me, I want mechanics behind it.

Problem with that though is it quickly hits a line the NFL probably doesn't want to cross in video games... can see the roster updates now 'xyz player updated to be more likely to gain the Distraction trait after a bad game, lowered work ethic of abc'.

[Big FN Deal]

My issue with any of the aforementioned stuff is it's still more of the same surface alters vs core fixes. I don't think any can argue putting any and all actual ratings under the hood and hidden, for all players is the most realistic. I think they must start from that premise in order to build whatever systems from there. I'm all for coaching staffs and adding true scouts, which provide their unique perception on players, which Users can consider but please do away with any exact actual ratings.

Nothing in-game should be definitively revealing to the User what players are bust, gems, superstars, etc, one persons trash is another's treasure. All that said, I don't begrudge anyone that doesn't agree, I just would love the option to play that way, it would really add that personal element to every User controlled team, not to mention CPU teams as well, since they would be filling rosters based on things other than actual ratings as well.

[DeuceDouglas]

Quote: Originally Posted by SolidSquid

I agree with all of this especially slowly unveiling true ratings during the preseason and Id even extend it to the first couple games of the regular season. When the Raiders took Jamarcus they didn't immediatly know he was a bust and start planning for a new qb, likewise the Pats didn't draft Brady and say let's start this guy immediately.

Exactly. You could even just go with vague letter grades just so you have some kind of knowledge of a player. And I'd honestly be okay with just using vague letter grades for all player attributes but that's a whole other discussion.

And with your JaMarcus/Brady example I think that's a good one. Let's just say for the sake of argument they both came in at a 65 overall. Russell was projected high, Brady wasn't. The major difference being development (and coaching but, again, a whole other discussion). But before I get into a huge long post about the intricacies of the system and how it could work, that's the variance that is needed. A counter-point could be someone like Alex Smith. For the sake of the argument, let's just say he came in as a 65 overall as well. Difference being maybe his DEV or POT was 'Good' as opposed to Russell's 'Bad'. So while you have two guys, both taken and projected in virtually the same spot that have the same overall, you get two wildly different outcomes. One is a bonafide bust while the other actually turned into a solid starter. If things like that had a greater possibility of taking place then I think it wouldn't cause such a knee-jerk reaction to just dump a guy that you take high with a lower overall.

Quote: Originally Posted by charter04

It needs to happen more often but, I have a player on my CFM team that was a later round projection that came in rated 67 but, has Super Star development. So they do have some of those in M15

That's good to know and I think there are definitely more players like that then there are the other way around. I wouldn't mind seeing a lot more guys that maybe come into the league with maybe a bit higher than average overall but are more "flash in the pan" type guys that maintain that overall for a couple years and then just fizzle out.

[Madwolf]

Quote: Originally Posted by N51_rob

Like everything there is an easy way to do it. Some choose that then complain it's too easy. Other don't. I managed to never use this method and still turned over my defense in just 3 drafts. People also loved the TE Corner or Deep out on 3rd and long. We'll see if that's fixed this week. To each their own.

True, I hope they've got those routes guard able now. The TE corner has been broken for as far back as I can remember now.