Quote:
Originally Posted by RchW
Those are just words. People who analyze and predict things always have an out when they describe young players. Words like ceiling and floor are hedges that can be used to justify a wrong call or no call on a player after the fact. Anyone who actually claims to know the floor and ceiling limits of a specific player before the fact is full of undigested cow feed.  
Most prospects don't realize their potential. Very few prospects exceed it. More non-prospects exceed their potential for obvious reasons and the majority of all future players fail to do anything at all. I'd challenge anyone to show me correct predictions outside of pure chance of players that developed to their "floor".
I think an additional set of negative potential ratings to make a "floor" rating (a series of 1's or 2's or 20's ??) would cause number bloat and just be another advantage for human players over the AI if it was accurate. Most of us already know that given two similar prospects that the HS one is likely a higher risk/reward investment vs the college guy. I don't think we need such additional detail to assess current need vs calculated risk when choosing prospects. I'm considering turning off potential ratings and relying on the overall potential, scouting reports and stats to parse the value of players. Less is often more in this game. YMMV |
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I think a more detailed written scout reports is what's missing from this game. The mechanics are already there IMO