Madden 2006. huh?

[jpinard]

I'm not sure, but this seems like a band-aid to the game's underlying problems already inherent in the game. Creative? Yes, I do think it's a creative idea... not saying it's any good... but it is different.

I sure would like to see them put an effort into having the game sim-out real stats. It'd be nice if EA took the lead on making a more sim-realistic engine. One where you get real stats. To me the QB awareness seems like the one-trick pony EA adds to a game each year to sell their next version.

And just because I don't like EA or their tactics, doesn't mean I don't want to see them better their products for everyone. Should be itneresting to see what else is "on the plate". I think realism and stats should be of #1 importance, but maybe that's a fantasy that will never happen :?

Madden 2006's overhaul comes in response to the franchise's typically pass-heavy offense. Using the game's awareness ratings for quarterbacks, players will now have a conical field of vision with which to air it out. A player with a high rating, such as NFL MVP Peyton Manning, will be able to see much more of the field than say, a third-stringer on the San Francisco 49ers.

EA hopes this will balance out an offense which typically passes nearly 80% of the time, and put the pigskin back where it belongs a bit more: in the hands of running backs.

[Mattc0m]

Honestly, it needs a good "Simulation" mode and a good "Arcade" mode. Arcade mode is about where ti is now, whereas Simulation does take into effect field of vision and perhaps a few other things.

I forget if Madden actually has this Simulation/Arcade option (I know many sports games do), but I really want to see more of it, and bigger differences (and more obivous) between the two.

[jpinard]

I totaly agree with you Matt. The way IGN talks abut the mode, it sounds like more advanced gamepad skillz will be needed. Adn I wish they'd streamline gamepad setups for us old folks (who still like to actually play each game)

[BaconTastesGood]

The first thing the game needs is a basic tutorial on reading defenses. It would be nice if after each play you could see a typical breakdown on what the optimal way to handle it might have been. While this initially sounds hard, it actually could be done pretty simply since most coaches have a mental expert system anyway.


if defense.blitzing():
if hot_receiver.open():
qb.pass( hot_receiver )
else:
if outlet_receiver.open():
qb.pass( second_receiver )
else:
if some_convoluted_scramble_equation():
qb.scramble()
qb.set_state( scramble )
else:
qb.slide()

etc. etc. Most base formations can be explained in a couple ways, it would be at most maybe 5-10 minutes of voice over. There are maybe a half-dozen key alignments/reads a QB has to make pre-snap, and those are the hard ones. Leave the post-snap modifications as text to make it palatable.

A time slider would be a BIG help as well, since I still think that the biggest problem for most newbies is the speed of the game. Slow it down and they can slowly speed it up as they get better, but if instead the different modes just nerf/boost players, any skill you gain as a Rookie doesn't really carry over to a Pro.

[jpinard]

A time slider would be a BIG help as well, since I still think that the biggest problem for most newbies is the speed of the game. Slow it down and they can slowly speed it up as they get better, but if instead the different modes just nerf/boost players, any skill you gain as a Rookie doesn't really carry over to a Pro.

Very much agree. "Time to pass" as it currently stands leaves little room for "strategy". It's 1-2 pass! You can't really check each receiver since you can't see some of them (unless you're in Moon telescope mode), and of course never have time. In past Madden games the 90% of my completions were screens. The other 10% were hitting any button and hoping whoever it got thrown to, caught it.

[MattKeil]

I'm trying to think of a way they can implement this "cone of vison" thing without screwing up the two player mode for people in the same room (as opposed to online), but I'm drawing a blank.

[jpinard]

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/maddennfl2006/screens.html?page=1

http://sportsmedia.ign.com/sports/image/article/604/604010/madden-nfl-2006-season-preview-

[BaconTastesGood]

Very much agree. "Time to pass" as it currently stands leaves little room for "strategy". It's 1-2 pass!

Well, that's how it is in the NFL as well, except it's 1-2-3 pass (unless you play for the Cleveland Browns, at which point it's "Hike *THUD*".


You can't really check each receiver since you can't see some of them (unless you're in Moon telescope mode), and of course never have time.

You know, the one thing I really like about Madden DS is that X's O's view. You can play the entire game that way with a much better idea of what's going on in the game than the 3D view.

However, I have NO IDEA why they don't have visible pass routes anymore...WTF?!


In past Madden games the 90% of my completions were screens. The other 10% were hitting any button and hoping whoever it got thrown to, caught it.

I do a presnap read and hope that's my good receiver, and if it works, great, if not, I'm screwed. For example, if I have twins left and I see two corners lining over them, and the inside receiver is going to be running an out, I know that I'm screwed if his corner squats on the route. But if that corner blitzes, I'm golden.

I then try to look at the wide receiver, and if I know he's going to run a hitch, then my quick presnap logic is:

- key the inside corner, if he blitzes throw to the inside receiver
- if he doesn't blitz, throw to the outside receiver if his corner is giving him enough cushion that I can get the hitch to him
- if the inside corner squats and the outside corner presses...I'm screwed, dump it to a fullback.
- if ANYTHING ELSE happens that I didn't take into account...I'm screwed. For example, inside corner blitzes, OLB runs over to cover the slant, leaving a hole in the middle for some receiver whose route I have no freaking idea about (usually a TE doing a drag or maybe an RB releasing into the middle). There are just too many scenarios like that.

However, one of the best feelings is making a presnap read, seeing your two main options, and having things unfold exactly like you expect, and you feel like Peyton Manning.

[Major Malphunktion]

This might not matter since I'm an ESPN player but here is my golden rule of passing.

Pick formation- since I'm usually the Pats I try to pick pass plays that I've seen in real life, I'll use a 4 wide crossing pattern for an example.

First thing to do is look at the matchup. If D. Branch is lined up against a LB/SS or a nickle CB, you bet your butt he has just become my primary choice. If he has thier #1 CB on him, he is nocked down to 'prolly not at all'.
Always keep an eye on your dump it off guy...sometimes this is you chance for the biggest gain. In big passing downs- 3 and 10 or whatever- I substitute my HB for the one who has the best 'hands' in Pats world that is K. Faulk. Now my 4 wide just really turned into 5 wide.
I never worry about the Blitz. Sacks happen, unless the nose tackle is coming my way I basicly ignore it.
TE up the middle can be brutal.
Never call the same play twice in a row, unless you are in no huddle- if the D shifts then audible. Never call the same trck play more than once a game. It will get picked off, or be a loss. I have designed a HB option where Brady goes out for a pass that works 50% of the time...but I did loose Brady for the season once...Bang CRASH..OWOWOWOWOW.

Another thing I do is motion all the time. freaks out the PC, and against humans they usually overcompinsate for the shift, leaving the weak side underdefended. Works great with across the middle patterns.
When learning play like Bledsoe. Figure out before snap who your two targets are going to be. concentrate on them, if the throw isn't there dump it off, scramble or throw it away. The key is no turnovers not completions on every down.
I amonly playing in 1st person mode now , which does ahave a bullet time feature, but I'll tell you, seeing WR's over the fat bastards on the O and D line is hard.

Personally I've stayed away from Madden , well, cuz I don't want to listen to Madden and his snot bubblles any longer.

[Matt Perkins]

I'm so happy Madden is making the pass heavy game better by making it harder instead of making the running game better.

Maybe there was a reason passing was most of the game...that reason was probably because the running game in madden was horrible. One touch and you're down. ugh.


I don't think I'm going to buy Madden 2006 this year...maybe the xbox360 version will be better. Stupid, stupid EA. I miss ESPN nfl2k6 already.

[Slo]

I'm hoping for more drastic changes in the "next-gen" Madden, but I'm excited about the cone of vision passing system. Sure, there are fundemental problems with the engine, but that's for another thread.

Cone of vision adds skill to the passing game, and adds another layer of depth and deception to the game. IMO, passing was too easy before, and was easily abused. Now, experienced players will be able to play better defense by manually defending the QB's cone of vision with a safety, and experienced QBs can quite literally look off the safety and come back over the top of him. Play action may actually work! My only concern is that the system may not work well if EA does not correct the overpowering pass rush from last year. Too often did I find online players would play bump and run, split the DLlinemen, bring the safeties to the line and blitz the linebackers *every* single down regardless of down or distance. It was difficult to even get your QB's feet set and throw a slant pattern before the rush got to him. If I also have to mess with my cone of vision before throwing the ball....


Maybe there was a reason passing was most of the game...that reason was probably because the running game in madden was horrible. One touch and you're down. ugh.

To be blunt, you're just not good enough at the running game. If you're used to ESPN's Y, Y, Y, Y, Y, Y ,Y running game, I could see where you're coming from. Madden's running game actually requires skill. In my last online Madden league I amassed 2400 rushing yards in 14 recorded games on All Pro skill level with the Vikings. Yet I was just 3rd in the league in yards per game and 5th in yards per carry. I'm not saying it couldn't be improved, but running is very possible in Madden, if you know what you're doing.

[BaconTastesGood]

I'm not saying it couldn't be improved, but running is very possible in Madden, if you know what you're doing.

There's "knowing what you're doing" and there's "exploiting failures in the game simulation". Every good rusher (and player, in general), does just that. Which is why as a football fan the game is, overall, very frustrating. You get beat by people that don't know football, but DO know Madden.

[Slo]

Yeah, that's true. I've given up on playing random net games, because the cheese gets old quickly. Generally the people I play with don't blatantly exploit the engine, at least not nearly as much as some random Optimatch. Nothing nearly as disgusting what was going on in G4's "Madden Challenge". :lol: For the most part, we try to play simulation games, as much as can be done from behind a controller.

As for what's considered as "exploiting the simulation", well, that's a whole other can of worms. At GAF we've had religious wars over what plays should be banned from league play, what routes are too hard for the AI to cover, etc. I'm not sure where you'd draw the line in exploiting the game engine and what's considered fair play. If your linebackers can't cover Tony Gonzo, is it cheese to throw to him every play? Real NFL teams have no problem exploiting bad matchups: see Randy Moss. Is it cheese to throw to corner routes, since the AI can't seem to cover that route well? Is it cheese to play bump and run every play? To blitz every play? The Eagles sure don't have much problem with doing that every Sunday.

I guess the point of all my rambling is that I agree that Madden isn't the end-all, be-all of football simulations and the engine can be easily abused, but it's a slippery slope when you start trying to plug all of the holes. When you start removing the things that "work", you're left with only things that don't work, and that's no fun for anyone. I imagine designing football AI that lets you succeed and still be satisfied with your success is much the same as writing AI that's convincing but doesn't auto-snipe you from across the map.

[BaconTastesGood]

If your linebackers can't cover Tony Gonzo, is it cheese to throw to him every play?

It's cheese if there's a real life balancing element that doesn't come into play. A receiver that gets 18 catches for 230 yards is going to be WORN OUT and possibly get hurt from taking that many hits. If Madden doesn't model that well, then you have your money player and you can just abuse the crap out of him. That's cheese.

Likewise, if the blitz is GUARANTEED to work and you have NO counter to it in your playbook, then that's cheese as well. If the blitz can be exploited, e.g. a hot route or a dump, then it's fair game. But in Madden 2003 Warren Sapp was unfreaking stoppable, and same goes for Ray Lewis. There were times that Sapp would beat the ball to the quarterback on a shotgun snap, and there was nothing I could do to stop him if I had a mediocre OL. It had modeled him as the ultimate pass rusher. While he was good, he wasn't THAT good.

Another major problem is that many players were really bad at things they should have been good at, and really good at things that they're often. Look at a typical NFL play and you'll see a bunch of defenders jogging it, dogging it, turned around, lying on the ground, but in Madden every defender swarms to the ball with unerring accuracy and almost never miss tackles. Until you find an exploit, and then they ALWAYS miss exploits =)


Is it cheese to play bump and run every play?

If you have the corners to do it, then by all means go for it -- but if I have good WRs that are physical and they beat the bump and run, that had better be a long pass play since that's the problem with bump and run.

[Mark Asher]

Making something harder by limiting vision just sounds like it will frustrate players. I know I'd find it frustrating. I trust this will be an option that can be turned off.

[Slo]

From the previews I've read, the option is on by default and can be turned off. On higher difficulty levels, they actually prevent you from throwing to receivers outside of you cone. :-\

[VegasRobb]

I'll wait and see how it works because it could be the next step up in improving gameplay. It certainly wasn't adding in all the defensive audibles.

[Bub, Andrew]

Making something harder by limiting vision just sounds like it will frustrate players. I know I'd find it frustrating. I trust this will be an option that can be turned off.

The Madden team has a hard row to hoe (like any developer with a fanbase). Do they improve the game so it's harder for the wicked tournament players? Have you seen them, btw? They don't play football. They play this weird Madden game I've never seen before. It looks like Madden but they play it like robots. They're the Rams of a few years ago! No joy. Just efficiency.

Or do they make a better game for football fans and newbies? Personally I think they need extensive tutorials on playcalling - better physics and animation (Sega killed them in this regard) and they need to kill the guy who picks the music.

Jim! Get off the treadmill and make this stuff happen. Remember, I was right about damn clinching!

[Brian Koontz]

It's cheese if there's a real life balancing element that doesn't come into play. A receiver that gets 18 catches for 230 yards is going to be WORN OUT and possibly get hurt from taking that many hits. If Madden doesn't model that well, then you have your money player and you can just abuse the crap out of him. That's cheese.

Look at a typical NFL play and you'll see a bunch of defenders jogging it, dogging it, turned around, lying on the ground, but in Madden every defender swarms to the ball with unerring accuracy and almost never miss tackles.

I like both of these points, and especially the second one. How about incorporating the idea of degree of effort into the game. Players close to the play would tend to give larger effort while players seemingly highly unlikely to be in the effective play would conserve energy. Acceleration and strength output like tackling or attempting to break a tackle would take the most energy.

How do current games like Madden 2006 model energy loss and gain?

[William Abner]

On paper, vision passing the the best idea EA has had for Madden in a decade. You can disable it, so those that find it too hard can go back to the old method, but I love this idea. There has to be a way to separate the Donovan McNabbs from the Akili Smiths and there has to be a way to make throwing on the run a far more dicey proposition and this sounds like a big step in doing that. In every edition of Madden that I have ever played, going back to the mid 90s, QB Accuracy has been a complete and utter joke. If this helps solve the problem I am all for it.

Based on what I read, if a QB tries to throw a pass outside of his vision then the pass accuracy declines considerably; it's not literally limiting the vision of the player holding a gamepad, but rather limiting the accuracy of the QB when he throws outside of the "cone". For the first time in the history of videogame football, a human controlled QB's "Awareness" will (hopefully) actually matter --and that is LONG overdue. The more emphasis EA places on player ratings over sheer twitch-gamer skill I think is a huge move in the right direction. Well, for gamers like me anyway. Of course it could blow up in EA's face if it's not carefully implemented but I sure like what I hear so far.

Another point lost in the shuffle is the fact that DBs will no longer read a run play at the snap of the ball. This is another tweak that will be a first for football games and one that could greatly impact the effectiveness of running when facing a man to man defense. I hope the same is true for DBs; I am so sick of seeing a safety with his back to the QB break on a pass as soon as the QB throws it as if he literally had eyes in the back of his head. I hope the days of 4 DBs converging on a WR 30 yards downfield is over.

Madden IMO has been treading water since the 2001 version, throwing smallish features at us like the Hit Stick and formation audibles instead of really trying to fix its gameplay issues. If EA keesp trying new things like this on a yearly basis (maybe they'll focus on the running game next year and do something with HB awareness?) then maybe this exclusive license deal won't be as bad as we all think. Maybe it will allow EA more time to plan rather than fighting Take Two out the door?

NCAA 2006 needs the vision passing too..maybe more than Madden, but I guess that's a story for another version.

[VegasRobb]

William,

The thing is that you need 4 DBs converging on the ball to have any real chance of stopping cheese. Plus, it's not as if those 4 DBs will actually stop the receiver from coming down with the ball.

[William Abner]

William,

The thing is that you need 4 DBs converging on the ball to have any real chance of stopping cheese. Plus, it's not as if those 4 DBs will actually stop the receiver from coming down with the ball.

You're preaching to the chior believe me. My hope is that if a QB tries to throw outside of his "cone" that the ball will more often than not be uncatchable -- overthrown or underthrown -- rather than:

A) Dropped
B) Swatted away by Super Leaping DB

This has been a sticking point with me about Madden (and NCAA) for years. QBs are way, way too accurate on medium to deep passes. The majority of incompletions should hit the ground before they hit a defender. I'd like to noticeably see a difference in the accuracy of Culpepper over say, AJ Feeley, and by the sounds of it this Vision thing might be a first step in doing that. I hope so, anyway.

[Slo]

I like both of these points, and especially the second one. How about incorporating the idea of degree of effort into the game. Players close to the play would tend to give larger effort while players seemingly highly unlikely to be in the effective play would conserve energy. Acceleration and strength output like tackling or attempting to break a tackle would take the most energy.

But here's the thing: People, like me, take their online leagues pretty seriously and want to win or lose based on their skill level and their play calling, not because of a randomly generated holding call or because Randy Moss needs a diaper change and decided to walk off the field in the 2nd quarter. You rarely see ANY subjective penalties called in online games, only irrefutable stuff like offsides and kicking the ball out of bounds. No facemask, rarely any pass interference, and rarely any holding. This is unfortunate and takes away from the simulation, but it's better than the alternative.

Edit: Just to clarify my point, I think fatigue is a great idea because it can be managed. As was stated earlier this thread, if a WR catches 20 balls in a game, he should have to leave the field in a ShopVac. What I don't like is having randomly generated events determine the output of the game.



How do current games like Madden 2006 model energy loss and gain?

Horribly. There is a bug where if you repeatedly used formation shifts at the line, the defense would fatigue to the point that they moved in slow motion by the time the ball was actually snapped. You could literally run around the defense like they were standing still. This may have been fixed in the PC version, but since you can't patch console games I'm not sure it was ever addressed. :(

[BaconTastesGood]

What I don't like is having randomly generated events determine the output of the game.

This brings up an interesting point. I'm working on a Web based football game (management/coaching style, not twitch/arcade mode), and one of the issues is modeling unpredictable events.

On the one hand, it seems that part of the art of NFL management is dealing with unpredictable events and problematic players, even if talented. Andy Reid had to make a calculated decision to bring in Terrell Owens, which didn't pay off and which may not pay off now that he's threatening a hold out. On the flip side, Belichick gambled successfully by bringing in Corey Dillon.

In a game environment, randomness tends to irritate players since they feel things are out of their control, but at the same time managing probability is an aspect of game play as well that a lot of players enjoy (e.g. war games or RPGs, where nothing is preordained and you're just tweaking stuff trying to stack odds in your favor, which is what I want from my own game).

[Ben]

BaconTastesGood- Didn't pay off? Wait, let me check... Yeah, the Eagles went to the goddamn Super Bowl. I know sports fans love championships, but that's getting absurd. Suddenly a team adds a player, wins it's conference, and loses a close Super Bowl and adding Terrell Owens DIDN'T PAY OFF?

The addition of Owens was a huge success, he had a very good year individually and the Eagles had a very good year as a team.

[BaconTastesGood]

BaconTastesGood- Didn't pay off? Wait, let me check... Yeah, the Eagles went to the goddamn Super Bowl.

Maybe you missed the part where they didn't have him through the playoffs and got over the conference championship hump WITHOUT HIM.

[dannimal]

Yeah, the Eagles went to 3 straight NFC Title games w/o T.O., then picked him up and went to the Super Bowl even though he wasn't around for the entire playoffs.

Did T.O. have a great year? Of course. Did having him really impact the Eagles? *shrug* We obviously can't know what would have happened w/o T.O., but with as bad as the NFC was last year, it's not unreasonable to think the Eagles would have made the Super Bowl w/o T.O.

Now his whiny bitch ass is demanding a new deal. Yay.

[Ben]

But DIDN'T PAY OFF? I can completely understand the argument that he wasn't extra-super vital. He wouldn't have gotten my MVP vote.

But didn't pay off? What would he need to have done to pay off? He delivered a pro-bowl caliber season. Without T.O., the Eagles might still have been able to win the weak NFC, but he certainly helped. He paid off.

Bacon, what would he need to have done to have paid off?

Also, dan, do you call an owner a whiny bitch when he cuts a guy? Non-guaranteed contracts cut both ways.

[BaconTastesGood]

But didn't pay off? What would he need to have done to pay off?

If he had been the difference maker to get them over the hump, then he would have paid off. But he didn't -- they won pretty much as handily last year as they did the previous years and scored about the same number of points. Sure, their passing numbers were up, but a good chunk of that was Westbrook as well (and stil, in the end, it's the points that matter, not how you got them).

2004 - 386 points scored
2003 - 272 points scored
2002 - 415 points scored
2001 - 343 points scored

So basically they accomplished the same things without him in the lineup that they did with him in the lineup, just with a bit less effort. The driving impetus for that team is Andy Reid -- he keeps that team competitive no matter who is playing (look at how well they did with Koy Detmer/AJ Feeley starting for an injured McNabb). He has rotated out almost his entire defense over five seasons, changes starting RB almost every year, and somehow gets it done with the most pedestrian set of receivers (prior to TO) in the league (okay, Atlanta and Baltimore have a worse set of receivers, but not by much).


Bacon, what would he need to have done to have paid off?

If he had been the pivotal difference maker to getting them over the hump then I would think it would have paid off. If he had contributed to more than one season, then he still would have paid off. But instead he came in, put up some stats, got injured, and now wants more money ONE YEAR after signing a deal.


Also, dan, do you call an owner a whiny bitch when he cuts a guy? Non-guaranteed contracts cut both ways.

I'm curious if you have to repay a signing bonus if you hold out. That would only make sense, i.e. it's a bonus to sign with the expectation you play out your contract. If you retire suddenly you're asked to return the money (cf. Sanders and Williams).

[Robert Sharp]

I'm curious if you have to repay a signing bonus if you hold out. That would only make sense, i.e. it's a bonus to sign with the expectation you play out your contract. If you retire suddenly you're asked to return the money (cf. Sanders and Williams).

A lot depends on contract clauses, but the bonus counts against the cap either way, so the team doesn't gain much. Besides, those bonuses are for the length of the contract, even though you get them upfront. So I'm not sure how you would determine how much money to give back. Is it 1/7th, in a 7 year deal, or is it less since training camp isn't a full season?

[Ben]

Bacon- So it's pretty much impossible for a player to go to a good team and pay off?

Also, come on, total team points? What a bizarre standard. Owens finished third in the league in receiving touchdowns. What did you expect from him if being one of the 5 best players at his position is "not paying off."

McNabb set a career high in every important QB measure. Every single one. He doubled his TDs from last season. A great deal of that can be attributed to Owens. Owens paid off in a big way. It was unfortunate that he got hurt, but injuries happen.

[Bub, Andrew]

Look, I hate Owens as much as anyone. More maybe. But it's idiotic to downplay his performance last year. And people haven't even mentioned his superhuman Super Bowl showing. Give the guy some credit, he's the best receiver in the league.

[Matt Perkins]

The best receiver in the league? I think that's over stating it. I'd take Torry Holt or Marvin Harrison over him any day. Why? Because he's not a team player all the time. I'd much rather have someone who is going to play with my team than against. And he's his numbers on the field are good, not best ever good. Especially with all the crap you have to deal with to have him on your team. Sure, he's not Randy Moss bad, but this whole contract thing is plain silly.

[Bub, Andrew]

I'm talking about numbers, not intangibles. I agree completely re: intangibles - there, imo, he's just a couple steps better than Randy Moss because Terrell doesn't sit plays out. He's an arrogant distraction but the guy plays 100% all the time. And the contract thing has nothing to do with whether or not he was worth getting last season - which is what this scuffle is about.

[Ben]

wzrd- I don't know what "play against my team" precisely means, but Owens doesn't take plays off. He blocks on running plays, he goes over the middle, etc.

He does many stupid things, but he confines that shit to when the clock isn't running. It's going overboard to go from "Skip Bayless hates him" to "Not a team player."

The contract thing is irrelevant to his play on the field. And while best receiver is a bit much(Harrison and Moss are both superior, IMO), even granting you Holt that leaves him 4th in the league. Who else do you want to put above him? Can you find 7 more guys to push him out of the top 10?

Is there a way trading Brandon Whiting and 5th rounder for a top 10 at his position player "didn't pay off"?

[dannimal]

Ben, it's not like T.O. woke up recently and found out that players could get cut willy nilly because contracts aren't guaranteed. He knew how the system worked when he signed his deal. If he wanted to be able to hold the relative power that of the owner, he should be playing on a series of 1-year deals, where he can go to whoever will pay him what he feels he's worth.

Also, players and their agents have gamed the system to the point where people throw out comments like you did. When a player signs a long contract, it's almost implicit that the latter years of the deal don't really count. TMQ/Gregg Easterbrook has gone into this at length, and far more eloquently than I could. Here's an article from 2002 that explains the process Click (http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/5726669)

The contract thing isn't irrelevant to his play on the field. This concept is discussed in far greater detail in baseball, where it's easier to "assign" value to a player, and thus figure out how much value is returned on money paid to a player (Bill James, and his creation of "Win Shares", as well as Baseball Prospectus's WARP3, VORP, and mLVR all do an excellent job of this). It hasn't been done in football, in part because it's much harder and in part because the depth of statistical analysis in football isn't close to that of baseball yet. But the general idea still stands. It's entirely possible to overpay for production, even with the best players (see also: Rodriguez, Alex).

Hyoptheticals (I've done some skimming of stats, but not real in-depth scouring):

- T.O. had 14 TDs, 3rd in the NFL. Yes, he only played 15 games, but and TDs he caught in those two games had he played would have been irrelevant. It didn't matter if Philly won or lost those games.

Compare T.O.'s salary to that of some of the players around him on the TD reception leaderboard:

Muhasin Muhammed (sp): ~6.5mil last year, ~5-6 mil this coming year.
Javon Walker: ~1.5mil/year
Antonio Gates: < 1mil
Randy Moss: ~7mil/year
Joe Horn: ~5mil
Torry Holt: ~6mil/yr
Terrell Owens: ~7mil/yr

It's hard to find year-by-year breakdowns of the multi-year deals, I got the info above from RotoWire.com, trying to guesstimate yearly salary as best I could. Marvin Harrison's deal is by far the biggest, but I couldn't tell you how much so (I would guess at least $9mil/yr). REggie Wayne and Drew Bennett don't have contract info/total listed, but you can be pretty sure that neither player is getting more than T.O, and probably substantially less. You start to get into "notably fewer" TDs with the next batch of players (9 TDs compared to T.O.'s 14), but you also get notably lower salaries.

Not only is T.O. not underpaid in relation to his peers, but he's near the top currently. The problem is that after he signed HIS deal (putting him near the top), other top WRs re-signed, re-negotiated, or changed teams for as much or more, hurting T.O.'s feelings. His teammate, Brian Westbrook scored 9 TDs (3 rush/6 Rec) and signed for 2005 at 1.5 mil. A far better deal than T.O., for the Eagles.

The claim that T.O. isn't in the top 10 is posturing by his new agent, Drew Rosenhaus, and probably based on the structure of the deal, which might not be as front loaded as other deals. Similarly, the claim that T.O. had no leverage when he signed the deal before the '04 season is laughable. He had so little leverage, he could hand-pick the team he went to.

As for his antics, at least twice during the year, cameras caught T.O. shouting at McNabb. Obviously, we don't know what was said, but looking at the footage it's pretty clear it wasn't "Hey man, you're doin' great!".

T.O. was brought in to get the Eagles to win a Super Bowl. It didn't happen. He didn't even have huge impact in them getting to the Super Bowl. Scoring a lot of TDs is great, but ask Muhammed and Moss how great it is to watch the playoffs on TV. Is he a great WR? Yes. Is he paid well? Yes. Did he "pay off"? You could argue either side, depending on what you mean by "pay off". If the Red Sox had lost game 4 to the Yankees, bringing in Curt Schilling to be the Yankee Killer wouldn't have paid off. Bringing in T.O. because he's supposed to be what gets you to the promised land doesn't pay off if you don't get there. It doesn't matter if you have the 3rd best WR in the league, if having the 10th best instead would have gotten you to the same end result (and it almost certainly would have).

[Ben]

danimal- Of course not. He and the owner knew how the system worked. And it's working. I'm quite familar with the financial side of sports.

I don't see how anyone could be upset at Owens. He's doing what he can within the confines the league has allowed to make the most of his situation.

Anyway, yes, you could say that because the Eagles didn't win the Super Bowl the Eagles would've been just as well off with William Perry at split end. You could say that, but you'd be a goddamn moron to do so. At that point, you've essentially given up on any sort of intellectual analysis of the situation. The team that won the championship did everything right, every other team did everything wrong. You can argue either side of any issue, but attempting to argue that the Owens acquisition was a failure is like arguing that the world is flat.

Schilling and Owens had excellent individual years. They both were acquired for players of significantly lower performance. Had the Red Sox lost, the Schilling trade would still have been a "winning trade." No one is brought in to win the division or beat the Yankees. Every player is brought in for the exact same purpose: Improve the team. Would the Eagles have been better off with Whiting and a 5th rounder?

And the "contract thing" is entirely irrelevant. You are discussing whether he was overpaid for his performance(and as your chart shows, he was not.). That wasn't the contract thing. The "contract thing" was his recent threats of holding out. There's no way that could be relevant, it occured 3 months after the Super Bowl.

[Matt Perkins]

I'm not upset at Owens, but as I said in my original post, if I had my pick, he wouldn't be on the top 5. Nor Randy Moss. I don't see Owens as bad as Moss because for all of last season he came and played and did great without a bunch of crap during or after games (I don't care about the endzone celebrations at all).

What I do have a problem with are things he's saying now. He's essentially called McNabb weak, he's crying on shows because it's so hard he didn't get to get the contract he wanted, and he's going on and on about needing a new contract to play and half-threatening to sit out if doesn't get it.

What makes the whole contract thing relevant is next year. Will he going to spring training? Mini camps? Preseason? As a coach, it wouldn't be something I'd want to worry about. As a player on his team, especially on the offense, it would be frustrating at best. It's unneeded distractions.

Oh, and it's not like he hasn't done this sort of thing before...