Madden NFL 16 News Post

Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

11:28 AM - July 2, 2015 by RaychelSnr

Donny Moore, aka the ‘Madden Ratings Czar’, is leaving Electronic Arts as he will be “pursuing other interests.”

In an official statement on Twitter, Moore said, “After much thought & consideration, I have chosen to step away from @EASports & announce my retirement as the Madden Ratings Czar as I have opted to pursue other interests. I am especially grateful of the opportunity to rate players for some of the greatest fans in video games today. After 16 years, it is finally time to hang up the czar's mouse pad! #Czartirement"

For Moore, this ends a long tenure as the guy running the ratings and updates for Madden. Moore’s tenure spanned 16 years at EA Tiburon, which means he was easily one of the most tenured at that studio. There is no word yet on who will be replacing Moore, but we do expect an announcement soon.

The ratings position occupied by Moore has been a staple of Madden’s internet presence for years. Moore’s ratings oftentimes drew criticism, but the weekly ratings updates were always hugely anticipated by fans, despite what ire they may have drawn.

The ratings this year will likely still come in the same pacing as previous years, and it will be interesting to see if any differences in how much players move up and down the scale happens without Moore at the helm. We’ll certainly be watching it going forward!

Game: Madden NFL 16Reader Score: 7/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 24 - View All

Madden NFL 16 Videos

Member Comments

# 481 RogueHominid @ 12/28/15 01:31 PM

Somehow I missed pages 59-60 or so. While I love the idea of making Madden better, I also totally agree with the argument that it might not be genteel to have an open forum discussion on one man's qualifications to do his job. Since I went on record in support of a ratings overhaul, I need to go on record and agree with those who have suggested PM as the best place for such dialogue.

# 482 jfsolo @ 12/28/15 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gman 18


	Those are some very good questions. When it comes to special teams, I think that part of the game is just flat out broken. It hasn't really been focused/worked on in years, and it is most likely entirely ratings dependent ( mainly speed and agility for returner, run block for blockers, pursuit, speed, and possibly block shed for kickoff team, as opposed to any actual technique/scheme used on special teams in the NFL. First off, we need a COMPLETE special teams depth chart. That way, we won't have to manually make special teams substitutions every game. We should be able to set specific blockers, the entire kickoff team, gunners on our punt team, etc. I liked what NFL 2k5 did in terms of letting us make substitutions based on specific plays of the playbook in the Franchise MENU. If madden implemented that, making subs would no longer be a hassle like it currently is. 2k5 even gave us the option to completely set our special teams, through the playbook menu. Implementing something like that into madden would make A LOT of people happy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Co-Sign this 1000%

# 483 NateDogPack12 @ 12/28/15 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SECElit3


	I'm sorry... Tell me again what you've done, if anything for the community, or this forum. Because I'll tell you that Dan has done more on behalf of this community, than you could ever dream to. Yeah... I'll stop right there, and you should too. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Way to create an artificial dick measuring contest when Dan was never personally insulted or challenged. What you quoted was a way of poking fun at the fact HE personally bragged about his own qualifications and did so at the expense of criticizing a developer personally. I'm not afraid to criticize EA, and do so often, but the whole point was that there's a line which should not be crossed.

There's a point those criticizing Dan are trying to make. You have obviously missed it. Stop making things personal.

# 484 Phobia @ 12/28/15 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SECElit3


	I'm sorry... Tell me again what you've done, if anything for the community, or this forum. Because I'll tell you that Dan has done more on behalf of this community, than you could ever dream to. Yeah... I'll stop right there, and you should too. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'll leave you and Dan to talking about yourselves, oh wait "credentials" lol. I guess without seeing mine, you will never know.

Good talk SEC!

Sent from da lil phone.

# 485 PVarck31 @ 12/28/15 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SECElit3


	I'm sorry... Tell me again what you've done, if anything for the community, or this forum. Because I'll tell you that Dan has done more on behalf of this community, than you could ever dream to. Yeah... I'll stop right there, and you should too. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This post is not needed and borderlines a person attack. So you need to stop as well.

# 486 Phobia @ 12/28/15 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SECElit3


	I'm afraid contrary to belief, Phobia's spoiler post was a personal attack as well, and very unnecessary. There was nothing wrong with Dan's original set of questions, or with him providing credibility to his qualifications. They were having a discussion and several joined the conversation, basing their own perspectives, as reason to criticize him. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ok lets call a spade a spade. Dan, you, and who ever can hide behind the notion he was "seeing where he got his start", yet everyone can see Dan was sizing him up. He wants his position on ratings, Kane has that position, and he insults him by asking for his "credentials" to do his job. If that is not the most unprofessional and down right disrespectful thing I've seen as of late.

Plus lets get into the "credentials" aspect since you so threw it out, so if my credentials were up to par then I can make these type of comments to devs? What do these "community sacrifices" earn me? I represented OS as a EA GameChanger for Fight Night, I helped The Sim Standard, I've run countless leagues on OS, and been what I'd consider a productive member. I'll admit, I'm not the best with holding my tongue and I need to work on that because I value my time here, not value based on the "contributions" but value because all my buddies from here. I've been what I hope most view me as, wanted around here.

I've seen Dan called out numerous times and it always goes back to the same angle, how he comes across. Once he addresses that, maybe we won't have this discussion. So to wrap it up, yes I made a jab, but in my defense I'm not the only one to view his post that way.

# 487 roadman @ 12/28/15 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Millennium


	So much absolutely disrespect for fellow posters and devs thrown around in here. I'm truly sickened that some of you trot around this community as long time users and expect yourselves to be treated like idols, then when a dev comes in here you fire back with undertones of "Better than thou". This close to banning the entire lot of you, so tread lightly. Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Actually, Millennium has spoken twice and now Pvark. I would have thought that after the above quote from Millennium, some people would have taken notice. As the above is noted and quoted from Millennium, the questioning by Dan was not appreciated and frowned upon by the OS Mods, Administrator and several other posters. That message is clear and nobody should have questioned it.

Since the above quote from Millennium, Dan has played nice and I would think others would follow suit.

And as far as contributions go, I don't measure the quality of a poster by their contributions only. I also measure attitudes attached to those contributions.

# 488 Phobia @ 12/28/15 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadman


	Actually, Millennium has spoken twice and now Pvark. I would have thought that after the above quote from Millennium, some people would have taken notice. As the above is noted and quoted from Millennium, the questioning by Dan was not appreciated and frowned upon by the OS Mods, Administrator and several other posters. That message is clear and nobody should have questioned it. Since the above quote from Millennium, Dan has played nice and I would think others would follow suit. And as far as contributions go, I don't measure the quality of a poster by their contributions only. I also measure attitudes attached to those contributions.

Since Mill has addressed it, I will bow out. I must of missed that part....my mistake guys/mods.

Edit: You can PM me SEC if you want to continue this discussion.

# 489 Phobia @ 12/28/15 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SECElit3


	My ask is that we return to making this thread a ratings discussion and not a "Dan" discussion. I am stepping out. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Mutually agreed

# 490 N51_rob @ 12/28/15 09:25 PM

This thread is on its last legs. Way easier to just close it. Consider this the final warning for everyone. This community is suppose to be better than this.

# 491 charter04 @ 12/28/15 10:12 PM

I think it comes down to personal preference. Some lean more toward the current ratings system. It's largely based on ratings being adjusted based on stats/production.

The other system would be one largely based on scouting data that's separate from production.

I prefer the second method.

I understand why people like the first method. It keeps guys in a certain order based on the production of the season.

I just think the product is better if you rate players as they are based on scouts opinions. Clearly those opinions are not 100%. They miss sometimes. I trust their opinion more than stats or the casual fan eye test though.

So what ever EA decides to do I personally hope they go with a guy like Dan or at very least go the scouting data route.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

# 492 ggsimmonds @ 12/28/15 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	I think it comes down to personal preference. Some lean more toward the current ratings system. It's largely based on ratings being adjusted based on stats/production. The other system would be one largely based on scouting data that's separate from production. I prefer the second method. I understand why people like the first method. It keeps guys in a certain order based on the production of the season. I just think the product is better if you rate players as they are based on scouts opinions. Clearly those opinions are not 100%. They miss sometimes. I trust their opinion more than stats or the casual fan eye test though. So what ever EA decides to do I personally hope they go with a guy like Dan or at very least go the scouting data route. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree with strictly using scouting data for two reasons.

1. Madden is not a scouting tool. It is a video game where the goal is to replicate real life results. Because of this production should have a larger influence on ratings than what a player may potentially be able to do.

2. More importantly, Madden is not deep or complex enough to utilize scouting data. The AI is not advanced enough either. In switching to scouting data I fear that there would be many issues. The use of scouting data would require much of the game to be rebuilt. E.g. scouting is largely focused on technique yet technique is completely absent from the game currently.

But mostly though I feel as if there is a false dichotomy present. All sources should be utilized. Why must we choose scouting over production? Use both.

# 493 DCEBB2001 @ 12/29/15 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggsimmonds


	I disagree with strictly using scouting data for two reasons. 1. Madden is not a scouting tool. It is a video game where the goal is to replicate real life results. Because of this production should have a larger influence on ratings than what a player may potentially be able to do. 2. More importantly, Madden is not deep or complex enough to utilize scouting data. The AI is not advanced enough either. In switching to scouting data I fear that there would be many issues. The use of scouting data would require much of the game to be rebuilt. E.g. scouting is largely focused on technique yet technique is completely absent from the game currently. But mostly though I feel as if there is a false dichotomy present. All sources should be utilized. Why must we choose scouting over production? Use both.

I would like to say a few things based upon your points above:

You are correct in saying that Madden is not a scouting tool. However, Madden uses attributes and a scale for them. Scouts do the same thing. They attempt to quantify qualifiable information. Madden does the same thing. They attempt to give value to what is seen. If the goal is to replicate real life results, then why do they have ratings for attributes at all? Why not just have a YDS rating or a REC rating?

What production stat tells us how fast a player is or how tough he is? Name one that measures a player's stamina. Madden already has a framework built (albeit not perfect) that can harness scouting information. All that needs to be done is a proper application of it based on quality data. Sure, that would require matching animations (a complete overhaul, IMO), but it can be done. Will it? Who knows. All I know is that I don't expect anything soon...likely too much old code stacked up.

That being said, production is the product of a multitude of things happening on any given play, seemingly infinite at that. I use the "Open Receiver" example whereas a WR gets open every play because he is so fast, agile, and technically sound that he is merely uncoverable. However, if the QB never gets to the top of his drop before being planted on the turf, that WR will never "produce". According to the production line, a WR in that offense would be TERRIBLE. The fact of the matter is, that WR is not a worse player because of his lack of production. Take that same player and place him on a competent team with a decent line and maybe his production rises as he is finally getting the ball. Is he now better because of it, or is he the same player he was, just under different circumstances?

Production is very circumstantial. How many of you had Brandon Marshall in your top 5 WRs in the league before this season? I can tell you that I caught a bit of heat on these very forums for people mocking the fact that he was rated as a top 5 WR according to the FBG Ratings. The guy set a career high in TDs and may set one in receptions; placing him likely among the top WRs in the game right now, I will add. The point is that few expected him to produce up to the level at which the scouts knew he could play at. Did he magically get better because of having Fitzpatrick throw it to him, or have the OL that the Jets have? I would posit that he is the same player that the scouts slated him to be when the year started.

The bottom line is that we need to rate the players based upon their POTENTIAL attribute values in EQUAL situations to see how they really differentiate from one to another.

Production follows talent, not the other way around.

# 494 roadman @ 12/29/15 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I would like to say a few things based upon your points above: You are correct in saying that Madden is not a scouting tool. However, Madden uses attributes and a scale for them. Scouts do the same thing. They attempt to quantify qualifiable information. Madden does the same thing. They attempt to give value to what is seen. If the goal is to replicate real life results, then why do they have ratings for attributes at all? Why not just have a YDS rating or a REC rating? What production stat tells us how fast a player is or how tough he is? Name one that measures a player's stamina. Madden already has a framework built (albeit not perfect) that can harness scouting information. All that needs to be done is a proper application of it based on quality data. Sure, that would require matching animations (a complete overhaul, IMO), but it can be done. Will it? Who knows. All I know is that I don't expect anything soon...likely too much old code stacked up. That being said, production is the product of a multitude of things happening on any given play, seemingly infinite at that. I use the "Open Receiver" example whereas a WR gets open every play because he is so fast, agile, and technically sound that he is merely uncoverable. However, if the QB never gets to the top of his drop before being planted on the turf, that WR will never "produce". According to the production line, a WR in that offense would be TERRIBLE. The fact of the matter is, that WR is not a worse player because of his lack of production. Take that same player and place him on a competent team with a decent line and maybe his production rises as he is finally getting the ball. Is he now better because of it, or is he the same player he was, just under different circumstances? Production is very circumstantial. How many of you had Brandon Marshall in your top 5 WRs in the league before this season? I can tell you that I caught a bit of heat on these very forums for people mocking the fact that he was rated as a top 5 WR according to the FBG Ratings. The guy set a career high in TDs and may set one in receptions; placing him likely among the top WRs in the game right now, I will add. The point is that few expected him to produce up to the level at which the scouts knew he could play at. Did he magically get better because of having Fitzpatrick throw it to him, or have the OL that the Jets have? I would posit that he is the same player that the scouts slated him to be when the year started. The bottom line is that we need to rate the players based upon their POTENTIAL attribute values in EQUAL situations to see how they really differentiate from one to another. Production follows talent, not the other way around.

Dan, isn't scouting circumstantial as well though. It was already stated by Charter that scouting isn't always 100%.

You bring up WR's and something close and dear to our hearts. Look at the Packer WR's, no separation, Cobb, Jones and Adams. Adams played well as a rookie, McCarthy was praising him in TR camp, and kerflewy. Cobb strikes it rich in the off-season based on past performance and he isn't playing up to his normal standards, injuries or not. Jones, we all know he has regressed.

I would love to see Adams and Cobb take ratings hits for the lack of production they've had during the year. I am the type of person that doesn't care what Jerry Rice, Randy Moss and Sterling Sharpe did 20 years earlier and compare them with Cobb and Adams.

# 495 charter04 @ 12/29/15 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggsimmonds


	I disagree with strictly using scouting data for two reasons. 1. Madden is not a scouting tool. It is a video game where the goal is to replicate real life results. Because of this production should have a larger influence on ratings than what a player may potentially be able to do. 2. More importantly, Madden is not deep or complex enough to utilize scouting data. The AI is not advanced enough either. In switching to scouting data I fear that there would be many issues. The use of scouting data would require much of the game to be rebuilt. E.g. scouting is largely focused on technique yet technique is completely absent from the game currently. But mostly though I feel as if there is a false dichotomy present. All sources should be utilized. Why must we choose scouting over production? Use both.

Here is why I don't like the big focus of production driving ratings. It becomes a little like chasing your own tail. I just don't like the overreaction feel of weekly updates based on stats personally.

It reminds me of one of my favorite games of all time, Tecmo Super Bowl. The best CB in the game was a guy on Tampa Bay named Wayne Haddix. If you know who he is then you either remember him from the game or you were a Bucs fan in 1990. Lol He had a lot of ints that's year. Was he the most talented CB in the NFL in 1990? No. He was rated in Tecmo SB the equivalent to a 99 overall. All 7 of his ints came that year.

If we want a true sim football game I want sim ratings. IMHO ratings largely based on stats are more arcade than sim. Just my opinion though.

From my experience using FBG ratings in madden 25, 15, and 16 they do a much better job replicating real life even stats wise then some assume.

People complain about how crazy accurate the CPU QB's are on default sliders or how the defense catches ints too easy or how any WR seems to be able to spec catch too much.

FBG rosters gives the desired result that is closer to real life than EA's stock rosters. I've played with them a lot. I've played with EA's a lot. FBG gives more realistic results.

And that's in an engine that should be 100% geared toward its own rosters. But, most QB's are deadly accurate because their ratings are too high.

What ever the case something needs to change. Either the engine or rosters do no replicate real NFL football as it should. The devs say they want a sim FB game so everything must be considered.

Again just my opinions

# 496 charter04 @ 12/29/15 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadman


	Dan, isn't scouting circumstantial as well though. It was already stated by Charter that scouting isn't always 100%. You bring up WR's and something close and dear to our hearts. Look at the Packer WR's, no separation, Cobb, Jones and Adams. Adams played well as a rookie, McCarthy was praising him in TR camp, and kerflewy. Cobb strikes it rich in the off-season based on past performance and he isn't playing up to his normal standards, injuries or not. Jones, we all know he has regressed. I would love to see Adams and Cobb take ratings hits for the lack of production they've had during the year. I am the type of person that doesn't care what Jerry Rice, Randy Moss and Sterling Sharpe did 20 years earlier and compare them with Cobb and Adams.

Yes I said it's not 100%. Nothing is. But, I would still take a trained eye that's misses to be much closer to 100% than a non trained eye.

Non trained eyes are reactionary like most of us. A trained eye see's it as potential. They see a player as he his. They mess up too but, some of their mess ups were not the player ability but, all the other things. His own laziness or the wrong offense or any number of things.

I just like the idea of attempting something that could be revolutionary instead of just settling for how it's always been.

Sorry for the long reply. Lol

# 497 DCEBB2001 @ 12/29/15 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadman


	Dan, isn't scouting circumstantial as well though. It was already stated by Charter that scouting isn't always 100%. You bring up WR's and something close and dear to our hearts. Look at the Packer WR's, no separation, Cobb, Jones and Adams. Adams played well as a rookie, McCarthy was praising him in TR camp, and kerflewy. Cobb strikes it rich in the off-season based on past performance and he isn't playing up to his normal standards, injuries or not. Jones, we all know he has regressed. I would love to see Adams and Cobb take ratings hits for the lack of production they've had during the year. I am the type of person that doesn't care what Jerry Rice, Randy Moss and Sterling Sharpe did 20 years earlier and compare them with Cobb and Adams.

The set of circumstances are different. As a WR, your production value is largely based not only on your own skills, but the skills of other players (QB, OL, DB, etc). Scouting data takes only into account the individual abilities of the player. Can he run good routes? Can he catch while under duress? Does he have solid, mundane, use of his hands? In this way, the player himself dictates his grades. The success of other players does not matter.

Ask yourself which is more likely for the WR scenario: will the number of catches a player makes likely result in him being a better route runner OR will the quality of the player's route running more likely affect his ability to catch passes?

# 498 Ueauvan @ 12/29/15 02:16 AM

Dan, i understand what you mean, a part of me immediately thought of Pavlov, i.e. wr runs good routes gets catches, repeats action for more positive outcomes

# 499 khaliib @ 12/29/15 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	Here is why I don't like the big focus of production driving ratings. It becomes a little like chasing your own tail. I just don't like the overreaction feel of weekly updates based on stats personally. It reminds me of one of my favorite games of all time, Tecmo Super Bowl. The best CB in the game was a guy on Tampa Bay named Wayne Haddix. If you know who he is then you either remember him from the game or you were a Bucs fan in 1990. Lol He had a lot of ints that's year. Was he the most talented CB in the NFL in 1990? No. He was rated in Tecmo SB the equivalent to a 99 overall. All 7 of his ints came that year. If we want a true sim football game I want sim ratings. IMHO ratings largely based on stats are more arcade than sim. Just my opinion though. From my experience using FBG ratings in madden 25, 15, and 16 they do a much better job replicating real life even stats wise then some assume. People complain about how crazy accurate the CPU QB's are on default sliders or how the defense catches ints too easy or how any WR seems to be able to spec catch too much. FBG rosters gives the desired result that is closer to real life than EA's stock rosters. I've played with them a lot. I've played with EA's a lot. FBG gives more realistic results. And that's in an engine that should be 100% geared toward its own rosters. But, most QB's are deadly accurate because their ratings are too high. What ever the case something needs to change. Either the engine or rosters do no replicate real NFL football as it should. The devs say they want a sim FB game so everything must be considered. Again just my opinions

But in doing this, you just took away the ability for each gamer to experience a "dynamic" CFM and removed the ability for each to have a life on it's own.

Because the focus of the player ratings is utilizing exact data (per say), there can be "no" deviation, otherwise, we're back to what we have now.

If ratings can't deviate away from their source being so hard data driven, then CFM becomes nothing more than "Play Now" games tethered together.

Because player "Back Stories" cause deviation to the ratings, this element must be stripped away due them being of a fantasy nature that's not in line to the real life happenings of players.

How can players be dynamic through out the course of a game?
- Hot or Cold moments

The Draft becomes useless as gamers will know who the best players are for that draft. (remember no Back Stories because they cause deviation)
- this just killed online leagues also with the data revealing who to take.

How are coach's rated, which affects AI gameplay?
- the only thing that seems logical is their records, which is performance driven.

How is player Stamina determined, as well as, how much weight is applied towards altering a players ratings?

Coach's decide what plays will be called, what players will play, yet all the focus seems to be just on the players.

Just curious how some aspects not talked about will fit into the grand scheme of things?

# 500 ggsimmonds @ 12/29/15 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I would like to say a few things based upon your points above: You are correct in saying that Madden is not a scouting tool. However, Madden uses attributes and a scale for them. Scouts do the same thing. They attempt to quantify qualifiable information. Madden does the same thing. They attempt to give value to what is seen. If the goal is to replicate real life results, then why do they have ratings for attributes at all? Why not just have a YDS rating or a REC rating?

Because a yards rating or a reception rating is far too basic. By using the component attributes it allows for more depth in the game. I don't argue in favor of 100% production.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	What production stat tells us how fast a player is or how tough he is? Name one that measures a player's stamina. Madden already has a framework built (albeit not perfect) that can harness scouting information. All that needs to be done is a proper application of it based on quality data. Sure, that would require matching animations (a complete overhaul, IMO), but it can be done. Will it? Who knows. All I know is that I don't expect anything soon...likely too much old code stacked up.

You are correct that no production stat tells us how fast a player is. Indeed you could go further and say using only production would make it impossible to rate rookies! But as I said, I'm not in favor of 100% production. Madden currently uses 40 times for speed (to varying levels it would seem). However the FBG advocates are not pushing for the status quo, they want more reliance on scouting than is already present.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	That being said, production is the product of a multitude of things happening on any given play, seemingly infinite at that. I use the "Open Receiver" example whereas a WR gets open every play because he is so fast, agile, and technically sound that he is merely uncoverable. However, if the QB never gets to the top of his drop before being planted on the turf, that WR will never "produce". According to the production line, a WR in that offense would be TERRIBLE. The fact of the matter is, that WR is not a worse player because of his lack of production. Take that same player and place him on a competent team with a decent line and maybe his production rises as he is finally getting the ball. Is he now better because of it, or is he the same player he was, just under different circumstances? Production is very circumstantial. How many of you had Brandon Marshall in your top 5 WRs in the league before this season? I can tell you that I caught a bit of heat on these very forums for people mocking the fact that he was rated as a top 5 WR according to the FBG Ratings. The guy set a career high in TDs and may set one in receptions; placing him likely among the top WRs in the game right now, I will add. The point is that few expected him to produce up to the level at which the scouts knew he could play at. Did he magically get better because of having Fitzpatrick throw it to him, or have the OL that the Jets have? I would posit that he is the same player that the scouts slated him to be when the year started.

Quite right about the multitude of variables and it actually points to why I am weary about going full on scouting data. I don't have confidence in Madden to be able to adequately factor in all those variables. Take for example something that scouts grade QBs on: composure. I don't think Madden can properly model that in the game.

However at least in this context production =/= stats. You disapprove of the use of PFF in rating Madden players so this is where we will disagree, but if a WR gets open and the QB fails to get him the ball it will still look upon the WR favorably.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	The bottom line is that we need to rate the players based upon their POTENTIAL attribute values in EQUAL situations to see how they really differentiate from one to another. Production follows talent, not the other way around.

I'm not opposed to using scouting data, I just think the argument is all wrong. There should not be a scouting vs production debate. Use them both, but when there is divergence (e.g. scouts say a young player should be performing well but his production lacks) more often than that production should trump what the scouts say. To throw this out there I think we absolutely need something of a "ball locating" attribute for CBs, so that would be something that falls under the scout umbrella.
What I don't want is to use scouts and then cover my ears to everything else.

What the conversation should really be about is the system. Currently there does not seem to be much of one. Right now how EA rates players it seems like he can watch a game on Sunday and write down notes in his tablet based on what he sees, but if he were to watch the same game on Tuesday when he is in a different mood the notes could be very different.

In contrast take your FBG ratings. You will never publicly reveal your methodology because with that, I could take the same input source (scouts in your case), and create an identical roster set. This is what EA needs.

We only differ in what should be the source of data. Your position is scouting data.
Mine is a combination of scouting data and advanced metrics like PFF.

« Previous 1 2…19 20 21 22 23 242526 27 Next »

More Links

Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA