I'm not suggesting that player abilities don't change, rather don't make it visible.

Since the direction of movement is one-way only, a 90 default-rated player with -1 to future is considered half the value of a 90-rated player with +1 fut.

Seems to me that this level of clairvoyance is not only unrealistic, but it instantly creates second-class players.


-Alternative suggestion: make "max" values hidden.

So long as we get an indication (arrow pointing up, up to the side, horizontally, down to the side or down), I'm fine with removing the future aspect. I just need an indication on how much my player boomed in TC.

Why?

The goal here is to evaluate players on what they can do now, not where they'll be in the future. If you're looking at 2 similarly aged players with more or less the same skillset, under the current system you'll be inclined to play the one that's improving over the one who isn't. By removing clairvoyance you'll play either of them.

How many times have you considered a player signing only to spot that their rating is in decline and then back out? I know I have.

Adding more mystery to player development means paying closer attention to achieve success, while giving current undesirables a far greater chance of getting a start.

I completely disagree. Obviously, part of my 53 man squad is here because of what they can do right now and yes, I do have some busts in my team too because of how they perform.

I do, however, also pick up young, upward trending players to "groom" and give some playing time here and there in the hopes of making decent backups/rotationals in the longer run. It's absolutely vital, imo, to have some sort of indication telling me if this guy is going to make it or not. We can't see our guys in training and there's no indication as to how their stats are changing, other than if you save all your players in a spreadsheet and manually go through them to see how they're progressing or regressing.

No thank you to a whole lot of manual labor. I'm all for obscuring having a "set potential max" like we do now, though.

https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/forums/1/1339?page=1#8155

beta tried something similar a couple of years ago

Overall is on the player page, progress tab. If you mouse-over the trend line, it tells you overall rating at any given point in time. For example, I can see that a 6th year who's gone -14 is now only trending downward at -.4 a season, so he will be usable a couple more seasons before he hits his age/speed wall.

I know ... that doesn't help with specific attributes.

Yeah I know. That bit was related to how he wants to remove future ratings and only have a current rating. If you remove all our ability to see where a player is going, it'll become a "who spends most time organizing in spreadsheets" competition, instead of playcalling, etc.

I think there should be more an 'eye of the beholder' view to each player. This is partially covered with the edit player weights.

I would propose each coach acting as a scout also. Each position coach would be able to give their view on players in the position they coach. Co-ordinaters would give their views on either Offensive or Defensive players only and the Head Coach would give his views on every player in the squad (or draft class).

This gives three independent reviews on all players based on what those coaches see as the skills they look for and gives them (the coach) more importance in the game.

Over years you would have coaches that you trust and others that you don't.

I also think that a player should develop differently if he fits the scheme of his coaches. For instance a player who plays DT in a 3-4 base is drafted by a team playing 4-3 base. This should slow his initial development but he would get a boom in year two or three as he adjusts to the new style.

Some players that bust under certain teams/coaches/set ups should/could flourish elsewhere. Occasionally, there should be a player that suddenly 'gets it' and makes a big jump after doing nothing or even going backwards.

Injuries should also have an effect on max potential, especially long injuries in early years.

Obviously, these situations should be outliers as the current system works fine.

I'd push TheAdmiral's suggestion a little further and add a scouting system. Each coach is allocated X number of players to scout. Scouting results would shed light on the accuracy of the future rating. I don't think it should be based entirely on your coaches' opinions; use your player weights as the coachs' go-by

Just to clarify though: I do not like the idea of eliminating the future ratings.