Brrexkl wrote:
Pernbronze wrote:
Adding a learning stat in this situation might be nice too. For example players with high learning will be able to learn beyond their would be cap up to their coaches limits. For example a player with 100 learning would be able to learn all the way up to their coaches limit vs a player with say 50 would only be able to learn up to half their coaches limit in the stat.
So a player with a coach with 90 in the stat and their normal max would be 30 (not uncommon for late round players) would be for 100 learning 90 in the stat 50 learning would reach 45. A player with 33 or less would only reach their 30 limit. Players with 0 learning would be unable to receive extra growth from coaches and would basically act as they do now and perhaps grow to potential a little slower than players with high learning.
You could perhaps do an average of the coaches to do their stat or as mentioned above remove the in game bonus for position coaches and leave that to head coach and coordinators and position coach determines growth (or at least a significant portion of it).
This would make the game a lot more realistic and engaging as you have a little more control over your team. You hear it on all levels of the sport that this or that team can take a chance on a player lacking because they have a coach who can teach it. Think the QB guru coaches or the Seahawks offensive line coach who has a lot of press lately for turning bad lineman into solid players.
We have the combination of Discipline and Intelligence. I mean, isn't that really the two major factors in learning and developing? Being able to take in the information, and getting down to the business of doing so?
Seems like we have the 2 Key Attributes to Development already... they just aren't being used for it.
You certainly could do it that way. It depends on how specific you'd like to be with skills.
Although thinking on skills that we have we have static physical/mental skills now and also changeable talent skills. Seems reasonable for being specific and depth that one could make a type of skills that relates strictly to coaching as well. Perhaps even have the players grow in 3-4 4-3 nickle etc independently growing by the coaches they are under and the plays they run as well as a learning from coaches skill. So more a compatibility and growth skill group. For example a 4-3 player learns and plays better from a coach who teaches 4-3 etc and a bonus to that play type. A player could start with a set ability in that type of system and it grows with the coaches they play under. So a player who grew in 4-3 systems would not be as good at a 3-4 system late in his career as a player who grew in the 3-4.
This would add a huge dynamic to what coaches are hired from head coach to position coach to get the bonus to the plays and players. It would also give an interesting twist to free agents signed and be more realistic. It would give more depth to the game and make it more engaging I think.
I'd love to see the coaches and players more intertwined and a more observable impact between the two.
This could also be used to implement coach growth. As position coaches they can learn the plays of their OC/DC over time. Here is the kicker it could be used to curb the single type of play calling trait in this way. You could put a limit that a coaches growth is tied to the number of plays in the playbook. So if owners call just one play all the time you can take it out on the coaches, and their skills drop. An owner with a full playbook will have his coaches grow as well as his bonus to plays. This means one play playbooks will get weaker to usability by playoffs.
Last edited at 4/16/2017 4:03 am
