Dean-Atlanta wrote:I TE I suggested is NOT a "super player" it is still a total 682 TE but it is more of a pass catcher and less of a blocker, hence the lower ST and re-allocating some of those points to SP and/or AC and/or HA and creating a TE that is more of a receiver staying within our ratings model.
Actually, if we create a TE with 80 SP 88 AC 88 AG 92 HA as one off players, those ratings are not in our current TEs ratings model. Those ratings are above the MAX in our current ratings model. We could create a TE with 99 SP 99 AC 99 AG 70 ST 99 HA 76 EN 70 IN 70 DI and that player would be a 682 as well. I know that is an extreme example, but the point is if we are going to starting creating players with Super Ratings (above MAX), do we start doing it for every position at some point?
Also, I reject so called "nerfing" ratings as well. However, out definition of this "nerfing" you speak of is apparently different.
What you call "nerfing", I call "lower the floor". Our current floor for a lot of positions is pretty high. This is why some positions, especially TEs and Ss, seem far less attractive than WRs and CBs. A top floor S should look similar to a bottom floor CB and the same between a TE and WR.
For the above reason, this is why I do advocate for continued widening of the spread between Top Floor Players and Bottom Floor Players. Not all players need to live on the Top Floor nor do they all need to live on the bottom floor. Your "nerfing" accusations come across as you prefer all players on the Top Floor and any deviation from that is bad.