Weight and Height Should Factor DIRECTLY Into OVR Ratings

[J Masta J]

Why is Larry Fitzgerald so good? Is it because of his amazing ball skills or his soft-as-a-baby's-bottom hands? Well, to an extent yes. But make no butts (puns ftw) about it: if Fitzgerald did not possess his imposing 6'3 217lb frame, he would not be the same caliber of wide-receiver.

When teams evaluate how "good" a player is, they look at more than their forty time and their number of bench presses and their broad jump: they pay a heckuva lot of attention to their size. And they definitely should. Different sized players fit in better at different positions. Why do you think Colt McCoy is being given so much crap right now? Why is Brandon Jacobs, at 6'4, such an anomaly for a running back? Why are almost the starting LT's in the league taller than 6'3? It's because their physical dimensions are explicitly connected to how well they can play their position.

The point I'm trying to get at is this: Height and weight are physical characteristics that are just as relevant to a player's ability to play his position as speed, strength, and the like. Yet this reality is not reflected whatsoever in Madden's current rating system. I could go into player editor, and bring Fitzgerald's height down to 5'5, and his rating wouldn't budge. Likewise, I could take 5'9 speedster Steve Smith and bump his height up five inches, making him an absolute terror of a deep threat, yet his rating would receive no positive boost. This needs to change.

An obvious ramification of this change would be an improvement to how the AI values players. If you had the option to chose between two WR's with equal abilities, yet one is 6'2 and the other is 5'10, which would you pick? The taller guy without a doubt. But the CPU wouldn't have clue.

The fix, I think is simple. Have some sort of formula for each position that will effect OVR ratings based on height and possibly weight. The effects would obviously not be very drastic. After all, a 5'9 guy like Steve Smith is still a dominant force, and should not receive a significant knock if he's still capable of tearing it up. But still, a subtle change to reflect the positional value of certain heights/weights is needed.

What are your thoughts?

[gabs485]

Not really...

[marktg30]

If you go all or nothing with a player's physical size it will really warp the perspective of looking for TALENT. Some players may be big but they certainly aren't better than others because of that.

I do believe however, that making a player's size and strength affect his momentum on the field is a must.

[KBLover]

Height and weight should impact play on the field, not the useless OVR rating.

The OVR should die, and STR should be rated on a scale typical for their position. For example, a WR shouldn't be able to get as high a STR as even a weak DT.

Either that or make STR "relative" to position. A WR with 100 STR is not the same as a DT with 100 STR (the strongest WR in the game is not going to be as strong as the strongest DT in the game).

They can have weight influence that as well, either by modifying the rating (low weight lowers STR, so a player that would have had 100 STR now has 80 because he weighs only 240 LBs) or by making that part of the relative scale (a DT with 100 STR and 300 lbs is going to be stronger then a DT with 100 STR and 250 lbs)

Could do this as well for anything else weight would impact, like hit power, blocking, or trucking.

[nuckles2k2]

Height and weight should only factor into the overall if they allow you to set up what system your team runs and what personnel you're looking for.

If I'm using an offensive system that calls for speedy receivers that can stretch the field and put pressure on the safeties, then smaller guys with speed would have a pretty good overall. But if I'm looking for taller receivers that can win a lot of jump ball situations and also go over the middle and take some punishment...then taller (and maybe a bit slower) receivers would have the ratings advantage over a guy like Fraction Jackson.

It should all be based on scheme and system, so that way one man's trash can be another man's treasure. And if that's the case then height and weight would come into play.

(NFL Head Coach '09 anyone?)

[J Masta J]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

Height and weight should impact play on the field, not the useless OVR rating. The OVR should die, and STR should be rated on a scale typical for their position. For example, a WR shouldn't be able to get as high a STR as even a weak DT. Either that or make STR "relative" to position. A WR with 100 STR is not the same as a DT with 100 STR (the strongest WR in the game is not going to be as strong as the strongest DT in the game). They can have weight influence that as well, either by modifying the rating (low weight lowers STR, so a player that would have had 100 STR now has 80 because he weighs only 240 LBs) or by making that part of the relative scale (a DT with 100 STR and 300 lbs is going to be stronger then a DT with 100 STR and 250 lbs) Could do this as well for anything else weight would impact, like hit power, blocking, or trucking.

OVR is directly tied to how the AI values a given player. I'm not arguing for this, but it is, and always has been, a fact. If OVR isn't going anywhere, than I think this makes sense. A tall WR should have more value than a shorter one, everything else being held equal. More value=higher OVR.

[cletusdog]

Maurice Jones Drew says no

[mvb34]

[quote=J Masta J;2040856016]OVR is directly tied to how the AI values a given player. I'm not arguing for this, but it is, and always has been, a fact. If OVR isn't going anywhere, than I think this makes sense. A tall WR should have more value than a shorter one, everything else being held equal. More value=higher OVR.[/quote]


Carolina's Steve Smith will say otherwise..