GWsFBAStartOct292006 -> RE: Create Player/team (11/3/2006 2:30:40 AM)
|
I agree (too a point) with everyone who has posted so far, about Players' Overall Ratings (at times it is too Not Realistic to Even FootBall Gaming, Let Alone The Real FootBall Leagues, and Makes Talent Evaluation Too Easy, Definitely Dumb Down FootBall Gaming and Tendencies is A Lot Better Way Of Doing Player Evaluation). If it is not listed, then I disagree. I also agree (100%) with: quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamtheatervt I don't like the overall rating because life doesn't come with an overall rating. I'll use salsa as a metaphor...people who don't have a propensity for "hot foods" might prefer a Pineapple/mango salsa; whereas I prefer very hot salsa and buy salsa at genuine Mexican tiendas where they make it hot and genuine. Someone might say a mango salsa would be a 84 and the hot salsa a 76; but someone looking for hot salsa will buy the hot salsa even if it has a "lower" rating. The pineapple/mango people might be a coach who likes to use a pass happy offense, the hot salsa people would be "five-yards and a cloud of dust" team. A player that fits one system might not work well in another. You can't put a square peg in a round hole. The solution, I strongly recommend for all reasons previously given, is to use a combination of the two. A Overall Player Rating is a must, for comparing players that fit into the same catagory (Fast, Quick, Agile, Weak, Intelligent, Disciplined and Composed TE with Hands-not just TE with Hands or Receiving TE). How Fast? How Quick? How Agile? How Weak? How Intelligent? How Disciplined? How Composed? How Good is The TE's Hands? TEs that are run blockers have the same 6-performance catagories available for fast reference, but lower performance number for Hands, Quick and Smart catagories. Then of course keep the (let us agree) 10-Performance Catagories- which together for any position for The FootBall Players or Coaches or GMS or Owners or ETC, are the more complete reference for Players or Coaches or GMS or Owners or ETC to quality. For me, I would like for the performance numbers be replaced with a range of performance numbers, that the performance numbers fit into. Either way they could be used for comparisons, just depends upon the participant; however, I agree with Brockleigh and always recommend the non-ridiculous method, for success and let go of BS whining and/or cheating. Now, it would make it a lot easier if the labels (Receiving TE) were still used, as a first-level organizer. Okay, I know a lot of you are going to think this is asking too much; however, it would be best to include the ability for each participant to select which positions are in which ranking for need and the 6-categories for each position. Allow each participant include clips (filmed plays the player was involved in) that show his positives-described in his label-ie Receiving TE. Of course, there is a FBP '98 Draft Utility that allows a participant to create a Draft Priority List, out of all available Draftees. Of course, being a FBP '98 Utility it hides none of their performance numbers, let alone overall number.
|
|
|
|