setherick wrote:
Boomtower wrote:
I've been grappling with just how important speed is. While definitely not overrated, I think there are other variables at play. I feel like this goes for other ratings as well. Like, if you have a team filled to the brim with highly rated players, you'll definitely be competitive, but perhaps not enough to be the top dawg.
There are other variables at play. Basically this thread boils down to the old football adage that speed covers up a lot of faults. On offense, your running back that likes to fumble but also rips off long runs is as valuable as your plodder that never fumbles. On defense, your linebacker who has trouble tackling, but can run a defender down in space is as valuable as your plodder that tackles every time. It all depends on the system and the gameplan.
I definitely agree to an extent. Game planning and the system put in place has a huge factor, and I do think those plodders can at times be effective. I'm still having a hard time trusting those highly rated players with slow speed. I cut an 80 rated FB once because even though he had 80's and 90's for ratings in almost every category, he literally had 5 out of 100 speed. He typically averaged 1.0 yards a rush and half the time was stopped behind the line of scrimmage. I replaced him with a speedy FB rated at 65 and he runs a whole lot better.
I think a player can have great ratings but they really don't matter if the defense can flood over to him in no time because he can't make it three yards before defenders are escaping their blockers.
I would potentially take a player with high ratings but only as long as they have at least 50 speed.
