|
Great White -> RE: What is Your Guys' Opinions About The 'Chemistry' (sp?) as a Performance Number/Rating, For Each (11/22/2006 3:58:33 PM)
|
Tbird,
So you think there is enough Performance Numbers/Ratings, already? If so, I understand there is a lot; however, I think EAS has the 'Composure' Performance Numbers/Rating, The FB Gaming Industry maybe already headed the direction of additional Performance Numbers/Ratings like Composure and Chemistry. As posted in the [quoted] text and in other past threads, I am a believer that MF (I should type that this is a Industry standard) makes it too easy by having Performance Numbers/Ratings for things like the ability to Breaking Tackles. I believe there should only be basic 12-basic athletic, inelligance and discipline measurements for Performance Numbers/Ratings (including Years of Play), as posted in the [quoted] text, and then purchaser has to know or figure-out how put them (for the most abilities Years of Played would not play a role) together to get things like how the player can Break Tackles.
I guess I am in a tiny on 12-basic athletic, inelligance and discipline measurements for Performance Numbers/Ratings (including Years of Play), as posted in the [quoted] text.
When you think about it, before the player is drafted The NFL does a Combine and CFB Programs do Scouting Days (I know we all know that)* and things like 'Breaking Tackles' cannot be nailed down, the franchises guess by putting their (much larger) basic measurements together, for draft day. After draft day and beyond it is not like anyone ever gets a basic measurement for things like breaking tackles, it is not measureable ability. Observation is just not as reliable. Putting game stats to it does not make it ability measure able, creating or using a device or test (outside the playing field) to measure how well something is achieved is making a ability measure able. Maybe, we all can agree on that and probably already knew that.
*-Not all CFB Programs' Players go through The NFL Combine or their Programs' Scouting Days.
As I was typing the above, somethings just came to me, opponents to the 12-basic athletic, inelligance and discipline measurements for Performance Numbers/Ratings would post that:
1st. How can 'Composure' and 'Chemistry' be two of The 12-basic athletic, inelligance and discipline measurements for Performance Numbers/Ratings (including Years of Play), if they cannot be measured through created or used devices or tests (outside the playing field) to measure how well something is achieved is making a ability measure able?
I would agree, but state that 'Composure' and 'Chemistry' is a huge part of FB, thus it has to be in the games. Created the similar way The FB Gaming Industry creates 'Breaking Tackles' Performance Numbers/Rating and allows it to be flexible. Flexible according to previously posted determinates or others we go over.
2. If we where to make 'Composure' and 'Chemistry' measureable through The 12-basic athletic, Then why not use the 'Intelligence' and 'Discipline' measurements of the now 10-basic athletic, and create a flexible average.
Even some smart and discipline players have do not always have enough of it to stay out of trouble; however, it does not show up in their play**, are disruptive to their teams (IE. earlier WR Terrel Owens, and a lot more evident <sp?> in the lower levels of FootBall). Heck, Real FootBall is some of their's survival device or whole life (which is sad and probably well known, by now). I want the the 'Composure' and 'Chemistry' Performance Numbers/Ratings to be as realistic as possible.
**-Until it gets to the extreme of ***stop listening to Franchises and their coaches and Players*** and/or not practicing and/or getting in trouble with the law. (IE. Later San Francisco/Philadelphia Terrel Owens*** and a lot more evident <sp?> in the lower levels of FootBall)
3. (something else I had thought of, just now cannot think of it now)
|
|
|
|
