Home
Feature Article
Charting the Change in Rookie Ratings in Madden

Another NFL Draft is behind us, and naturally, the talk among gamers has turned to the Madden ratings of this year’s top rookies. But before we look forward, let’s take a look back to rookies in the time of bench press drills and lead blocking controls – Madden 07.

We all know that Madden doesn’t rate players on the same scale anymore. Five years ago, a rookie at 71 OVR would be a scrub with no future. Now, that same player would be worth keeping and grooming as a future starter. But just how much have rookie ratings changed between Madden 07 and Madden 12? The numbers have gone down, but have rookies taken a harder hit than everyone else? In this article, I compare the player ratings for each first round draft pick in Madden 07 and Madden 12 before any roster updates were applied to get a sense of how the Madden team’s view of rookies has changed over the past five years.

Looking up and down the list of first round draft picks in each game, it’s clear that overall ratings have gone down. But on average, how much have they gone down? And where does each rookie stand compared to other players at their position?

The average rating for rookie first rounders in Madden 07 was 81.44. In Madden 12, that number dropped to 76.44. In Madden 07, the average first rounder was the 40th best player at their position. In Madden 12, the average first rounder was the 42nd best player at their position – an insignificant change that could be due only to the types of players appearing the first round. So, this quick little data exercise suggests that even though rookie ratings at the top end of dropped, the best rookies still fall into approximately the same place in Madden’s ratings hierarchy.

Here’s a histogram of the overall ratings for first round rookies in each game:

Now, let’s take a look at some specific players. The top-rated rookie running back in Madden 07 was Reggie Bush at 87 OVR. In Madden 12, it’s Mark Ingram at 79 OVR. Even at 87 OVR, though, Bush was only the 25th best HB in the game, sandwiched between Thomas Jones and Julio Jones and one point behind the Saints’ starter, Deuce McAllister. Madden 07’s worst rookie halfback, Wali Lundy, came in at 72 overall. In Madden 12, that 72 OVR would have placed him in a tie for the third best rookie HB with second round pick Mikel Leshoure. Some guy named “Maurice Drew-Jones” was rated a little better than Lundy in Madden 07 but one point behind P.J. Daniels, who never touched the ball in the NFL. Isn’t hindsight fun?

Vernon Davis, at 86 OVR and with 92 speed as a rookie, was a stud playmaker from day one. Fourteen tight ends were better, but none were faster. Interestingly, though, five rookie tight ends were rated at least 80 overall.

That classic Madden trick of playing pass-rushing outside linebackers works in Madden 07, too. Manny Lawson is an 84 at defensive end, making him one of the top rookies in the game, and an unbelievable talent if he appeared in Madden 12 with those ratings.

Vince Young was Madden 07’s top rookie QB at 82 OVR. He also featured 89 speed and 91 acceleration, making him one of the most dynamic Madden weapons since Michael Vick 04. Compare young to Cam Newton, who began Madden 12 at 77 OVR, with 83 speed and 94 acceleration. Young and Newton also featured extremely low awareness ratings, at 56 and 49, respectively. Young’s awareness came in a full 20 points lower than Matt Leinart’s. Does that mean Leinart is more aware of his disappointing career than Young is of his?

OS readers, what do you think of the way that Madden rates rookies? Are rookies too good compared to veteran players? Not good enough? Should the rookie rating system change?


Madden NFL 12 Videos
Member Comments
# 1 TheShizNo1 @ 05/31/12 12:58 PM
Madden 07's roster was awesome. I'd do a fantasy draft and get the players you mentioned (Bush, Young, and Davis). That's definitely one of the things Madden does a better job at now. Now you have to actually invest time into your rookies to see growth which is much more realistic.
 
# 2 msdm27 @ 05/31/12 01:42 PM
Very interesting read.

I think Madden 12 rookie ratings were, for the most part, really good. You could find a wide variety of prospects.... Immediate impact, average players, developmental, busts, hidden gems.... And even the potentials (without getting into whether this feature works properly or not) seemed to be well distributed among the available players in each rookie class.

The one gripe I have with M12 rookie ratings is I think there are a bit too many 80+ rated players in each draft, I know it always happens that teams find diamonds in the rough in the 3rd, 4th or 5th round, but I feel like I'd personally like it more if these "diamonds" were found in the form of A potential with around 74-79 rating... Players that, given the chance to play, would make a difference; but not just obvious starters from day 1 who were drafted in the 5th round.

I'm not saying remove 80+ rated players alltogether, but just reduce the amount we find in draft classes. Other than that, my only issue with draft classes is the ULTRA-BAD system they use to determine height/weight of rookies by position.... lots of midgets playing football in madden generated draft classes world.

DANG! I just realized the article is referring to the current incoming draft class for that year's game IE: 2011 rookie class (Cam, Miller...) :P Sorry for mumbling, but those were my thoughts on Madden rookie ratings.
 
# 3 Dj_MyTime @ 05/31/12 01:44 PM
I like the drop in overalls, but IMO the ovr rating is irrelevant. It's a place-holder fro the CPU depth chart.

Example Wes Welker is the highest rated Patriots receiver, their playbook is designed to have the no. 2 WR (Wes Welker) in the slot by DEFAULT (no manual/formation subs); but, because of the way things work currently he would line up at no. 1 without user adjustments and in any game vs the CPU you get a less realistic experience from an X's and O's stand-point as far as where he'd normally line up.

IMO the rookies 'positional stats' are too high and leave little room for improvement/progression. See Below...

1 Andrew Luck QB Colts
ovr 85 spd 82 agi 84 inj 98 awr 62 tpw 92 tas 93 tam 92 tad 75

2 Robert Griffin III QB Redskins
ovr 83 spd 93 agi 96 inj 85 awr 55 tpw 96 tas 82 tam 86 tad 88

Those are their ratings coming out. I'm not saying they won't have great careers but Luck is better/as good as guys like Manning, Brees, Brady, Rodgers accuracy wise right out the box. I'm not saying he isn't an accurate QB but 93 SAC, and 92 MAC as a rookie, he may as well not even progress.

I'd think low to mid 80's, since he likely has 'A' potential he will progress quickly and reach the 90's in accuracy but having them that high from the beginning is a bit much IMO. Griffin's aren't as high but he's already on par with Matt Schaub's accuracy if memory serves, and he's a pro-bowler.

I understand these are supposed to be once in a generation type players, BUT they still have to play first, I'd be much more in agreement with under-rating players coming out, then adjusting once they play in the NFL.
 
# 4 chi_hawks @ 05/31/12 02:25 PM
Nice job here Bo. I have always wondered about this.

I think it was Madden 09 or Madden 10 where I imported draft classes from NCAA and Tim Tebow was an 88 overall (with like 91 speed) and Malcom Jenkins from OSU was a 93 overall. Both got like 75 million dollar contracts.
 
# 5 khaliib @ 05/31/12 02:45 PM
These high ratings in many ways defeat the DPP aspect and limit the drafting/gameplay experience because there is really only about a 30 pt window that separate players.

For some reason, much of the lower end of the 12-99 (or 12-55) scale has a negative perception attached to it without a really good reason other than it would "Look" strange having an 30 OVR rated player on a roster.

Thus, certain type of player's are negated because of this perception...

-->3rd down RB's have no business being rated high when they are in for only one play of a series.
-->Yes, they possess a certain skill that would benefit an Offense, but to rate them so high just to be in-line with a perception makes no sense and in my mind, under utilize part of the building aspect of the game (whether Team or Player).

-->Special Team Specialist
-->What's wrong with a 30 OVR rated WR/RB/DB who lacks the skillset for a specific position, but will avg 25+ yrds on KO or avg 15 yrds on PR?
-->As it stands, this guy must occupy a specific postition, thus be at least rated 55+ OVR rated at that position eventhough he's mainly just a Special Teams guy.

As stated, the OVR currently is just a Depth Chart designator and some other hidden things (in past releases, it decided the pecking order of who got the ball thrown to them), eventhough it's supposed to be a "Value" designator.

The other major thing is that how the ratings are weighted in the OVR.
Just because a player has certain Physical Measurements doesn't mean his OVR should increase as those measurements increase.

-->Raiders are a perfect example of how "Fast" players doesn't mean they will translate into good players, thus, good team.

So the weight of Physical Measurements in the OVR calculation needs to be minimized greatly.

Thank God they give us an editor (although very time consuming) to edit our own rosters, as I like to utilize more of the lower end of the 12-99 scale.

And yes I know that many of the player ratings actually mean/have little on-field gameplay impact, but that's an discussion not getting into again.
 
# 6 Heroiczero13 @ 05/31/12 03:06 PM
I'm glad that on average the rookie ratings are lower now, it makes things a bit more realistic for me. They may have been supreme college talents but they still have to earn there way in the league.
 
# 7 Hova57 @ 05/31/12 03:56 PM
for me the biggest issue is the actually progression, especially in OF's i feel like the potentials limit rookie progress. Stats and playing time doesn't matter. were in year six in our OF and my rookies from 2011 season all are starting to regress regardless of how well or not they did during previous seasons. I think that should change too. i don't want a team full of 99 ovr , but the specific skillset for each position should regulate how good that player is, not a potential or ovr. this also trickles down to created players drafted too.
 
# 8 PGaither84 @ 05/31/12 05:36 PM
A lot of those rookie ratting in Madden 07 were pretty spot on. Davis is a Beast, Manny Lawson was only a tiny bit over rated. He flat lined at about an 80-82 OVR as a 49er. We have seen what Reggie and others have done. I'd like to see where those same rookies OVR ratings are now in Madden 12.
 
# 9 Vaporub83 @ 05/31/12 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dj_MyTime
I like the drop in overalls, but IMO the ovr rating is irrelevant. It's a place-holder fro the CPU depth chart.

Example Wes Welker is the highest rated Patriots receiver, their playbook is designed to have the no. 2 WR (Wes Welker) in the slot by DEFAULT (no manual/formation subs); but, because of the way things work currently he would line up at no. 1 without user adjustments and in any game vs the CPU you get a less realistic experience from an X's and O's stand-point as far as where he'd normally line up.

IMO the rookies 'positional stats' are too high and leave little room for improvement/progression. See Below...

1 Andrew Luck QB Colts
ovr 85 spd 82 agi 84 inj 98 awr 62 tpw 92 tas 93 tam 92 tad 75

2 Robert Griffin III QB Redskins
ovr 83 spd 93 agi 96 inj 85 awr 55 tpw 96 tas 82 tam 86 tad 88

Those are their ratings coming out. I'm not saying they won't have great careers but Luck is better/as good as guys like Manning, Brees, Brady, Rodgers accuracy wise right out the box. I'm not saying he isn't an accurate QB but 93 SAC, and 92 MAC as a rookie, he may as well not even progress.

I'd think low to mid 80's, since he likely has 'A' potential he will progress quickly and reach the 90's in accuracy but having them that high from the beginning is a bit much IMO. Griffin's aren't as high but he's already on par with Matt Schaub's accuracy if memory serves, and he's a pro-bowler.

I understand these are supposed to be once in a generation type players, BUT they still have to play first, I'd be much more in agreement with under-rating players coming out, then adjusting once they play in the NFL.
Realistically there isn't a way to fix that. Bottom line if you are a rookie or a veteran physical attributes should be on a standard scale. Accuracy is a physical thing that shouldn't change just because you are in the NFL
 
# 10 jeremym480 @ 05/31/12 07:47 PM
Hopefully, the ratings in Madden 13 continue the current trend, but my guess is Luck and RG III come in rated as top 10-12 QB's before taking a snap. Same thing with my boy Trent Richardson.
 
# 11 TheShizNo1 @ 05/31/12 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PGaither84
A lot of those rookie ratting in Madden 07 were pretty spot on. Davis is a Beast, Manny Lawson was only a tiny bit over rated. He flat lined at about an 80-82 OVR as a 49er. We have seen what Reggie and others have done. I'd like to see where those same rookies OVR ratings are now in Madden 12.
No sit. Manny Lawson could stay how he is b/c there was nothing in those games to define pass rushers the way there is now. Davis was considered a bust a long time before he broke out. They also had Laurence(?) Maroney(?) at like 86. Is he even in the league still? Like you said, Bush was rated as the man in that backfield.
 
# 12 Dj_MyTime @ 05/31/12 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaporub83
Realistically there isn't a way to fix that. Bottom line if you are a rookie or a veteran physical attributes should be on a standard scale. Accuracy is a physical thing that shouldn't change just because you are in the NFL
But it does change...it goes up, which adds to OLF/Offline Franchise immersion. At a stand still I'd imagine Luck may be as accurate as the players I mentioned. But it's a different story when the bullets fly and that's what we're yet to see.

80-85 allows him to make all the throws, but doesn't put him at elite status out of the box. Now if he hits the ground running move him up, but there have been too many busts to say he and Griffin will do it for sure.
 
# 13 DeuceDouglas @ 06/01/12 12:37 AM
I'd like to see Rookies across the board have lower ratings. I think M12 did a good job with it. I don't think anybody should be entering the league at much higher than an 80. I think they should change how potential works as well and let them progress or digress based on age and production.
 
# 14 PGaither84 @ 06/01/12 12:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShizNo1
No sit. Manny Lawson could stay how he is b/c there was nothing in those games to define pass rushers the way there is now. Davis was considered a bust a long time before he broke out. They also had Laurence(?) Maroney(?) at like 86. Is he even in the league still? Like you said, Bush was rated as the man in that backfield.
Who thought Davis was a bust? people who didn't watch the 49ers?

He was hurt most his rookie season, and Singletary straighted his attitude out in year 3... so after his 2nd year in the NFL people were calling him a bust. Talk about knee jerk.

Also, Maroney had a very nice rookie season behind Correy Dillon... and then he stagnated.

As I said, I would love to see where those high rated rookie are now and how different their ratings are today. Some up, some down, many about the same I think. Just my guess.
 
# 15 DeuceDouglas @ 06/01/12 01:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PGaither84
He was hurt most his rookie season, and Singletary straighted his attitude out in year 3... so after his 2nd year in the NFL people were calling him a bust. Talk about knee jerk.
That's the way it works. You come out as the sixth overall pick and put up three very average seasons heading into the highest paid years of your contract and it's going to garner that kind of reaction. Obviously, it didn't turn out to be that way but at the time I'm sure there were plenty of people feeling like it was a bust at that time.
 
# 16 gjneff @ 06/01/12 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas
I'd like to see Rookies across the board have lower ratings. I think M12 did a good job with it. I don't think anybody should be entering the league at much higher than an 80. I think they should change how potential works as well and let them progress or digress based on age and production.
Why can't a rookie come in and be good? Suh was THE most dominating interior lineman his rookie year. They should be rated as what they feel their skills are. If that means they come in as one of the best in the game then so be it.

Also, physically and skill wise, top rookies aren't much if any worse than vets. It is the mental ratings that need to have the most difference. Luck for example probably won't get much more accurate after being in the league, but he will learn his offense and where to go with the ball better.
 
# 17 gjneff @ 06/01/12 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas
That's the way it works. You come out as the sixth overall pick and put up three very average seasons heading into the highest paid years of your contract and it's going to garner that kind of reaction. Obviously, it didn't turn out to be that way but at the time I'm sure there were plenty of people feeling like it was a bust at that time.
He had 52 catches in 14 games his 2nd season. How is that a bust for a TE? In 2010 he had 56 catches in 16 games, nobody called him a bust then.
 
# 18 DeuceDouglas @ 06/01/12 02:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gjneff
Why can't a rookie come in and be good? Suh was THE most dominating interior lineman his rookie year. They should be rated as what they feel their skills are. If that means they come in as one of the best in the game then so be it.

Also, physically and skill wise, top rookies aren't much if any worse than vets. It is the mental ratings that need to have the most difference. Luck for example probably won't get much more accurate after being in the league, but he will learn his offense and where to go with the ball better.
I didn't say they can't come in and be good but at this point we don't know anything about who's going to be good or bad. For every Ndamukong Suh there's probably ten plus Ryan Sims out there. Rookies, especially QB's, are generally going to struggle a bit. Luck as highly touted as he is, is more than likely going to throw a bunch of picks this year, as is Griffin. I'm not saying you give Griffin 60 for speed just because he's a rookie but AWR and even pass accuracy should be tapered a bit to compensate for him being a rookie.
 
# 19 DeuceDouglas @ 06/01/12 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gjneff
He had 52 catches in 14 games his 2nd season. How is that a bust for a TE? In 2010 he had 56 catches in 16 games, nobody called him a bust then.
Because he followed that up with a whopping 31 catches in his third season. And in 2010 he was coming of a season where he caught 13 TD's and went to the Pro Bowl. Then in 2011 he had almost twice the amount of yards with those 56 catches than he did with the 52 catches in his second season.
 
# 20 KBLover @ 06/01/12 03:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas
I'm not saying you give Griffin 60 for speed just because he's a rookie but AWR and even pass accuracy should be tapered a bit to compensate for him being a rookie.
AWR is a mental rating - so that makes a lot of sense to have it lower to start.

Accuracy - maybe somewhat, but AWR should take care of the INTs he throws (bad decisions/telegraph throws). S/M/DAC should be completion percentage/place ball on the spot. Whether or not that spot is a good one should be based on AWR, imo. To me, it shouldn't be "because he's a rookie", but does he have the skill to place the ball on a spot vs the speed of the NFL game.

Also, consistency could be 1-2 star, DPP might start off lower (especially Sense Pressure until/unless he has a grasp of dealing with an NFL pass rush). Could also use Force Passes to account for the INTs too.

But I agree with those who think it should be mental and technique ratings (AWR, PRC, Coverages, Traits, etc) but whatever it does to OVR should be irrelevant. OVR doesn't matter to how the players play - it shouldn't be a factor in the ratings (don't just lower/increase something so the OVR stacks up a certain way, for example, don't give someone a 15 AWR just to "keep his OVR from being too high").
 

« Previous12Next »

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.