Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - NFC North

[XNowOrNever85X]

Quote: Originally Posted by SmashMan

I'm still confused as to how a thread on NFC North team ratings turned into Packers vs. Eagles.

I think we're all thinkin that lol

[MrMosinNagant]

Quote: Originally Posted by XNowOrNever85X

I think we're all thinkin that lol

Yeah me too, I mean i just made a comment then every packer fan came out of the wood work with they're "biased" opinion.

[RememberMe12]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrMosinNagant

Yeah me too, I mean i just made a comment then every packer fan came out of the wood work with they're "biased" opinion.

and yours isnt? I mean, the Packers did beat you twice in Philly.

[MrMosinNagant]

Quote: Originally Posted by RememberMe12

and yours isnt? I mean, the Packers did beat you twice in Philly.

The thing is people are saying they are way better than the Eagles, I prove that they aren't but yet they still say it, the Packers didn't beat the Eagles by that much both games. The Eagles should be rated higher than 86 atleast a 89 or 90.

[Bellsprout]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrMosinNagant

Oh of course its to small of a sample size but its what we have to go on when the two teams competed against each other...

What?

So when comparing the QB's, we can only use the stats from the two games we played against each other.

But when comparing teams the fact that we beat you guys twice in your stadium means nothing?

How does that make sense?

This thread is ridiculous. I'm out.

[MrMosinNagant]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dayman

What? So when comparing the QB's, we can only use the stats from the two games we played against each other. But when comparing teams the fact that we beat you guys twice in your stadium means nothing? How does that make sense? This thread is ridiculous. I'm out.

well hell why not compare them when they played each other? If the pack was so much better than the Eagles they should of blown them out!

[JaySmooov]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrMosinNagant

well hell why not compare them when they played each other? If the pack was so much better than the Eagles they should of blown them out!

I'm a Bears fan, live in Chicago, and I can tell you Rodgers is better than Vick in SOME ways. Obviously, Vick is a better athlete and playmaker with his feet, and is more dangerous. Rodgers is obviously more accurate. But Vick is accurate as well, and Rodgers can make plays with his feet when the opportunity presents itself. That's what makes them close, and in that situation I'd rather have Vick because he's a homerun threat. You can't really drop everyone in coverage because he (and LeSean McCoy - I believe he was a Pro Bowler on the Eagles too ) can kill you with their speed all game. And if you blitz, the possiblilty of a deep pass to Jackson/Maclin is there.

What truly seperates Rodgers from Vick is the fact that Vick tends to tire himself out over the course of the season, causing himself to sort of fade late. Rodgers numbers are inflated because they basically use a spread philosphy, which goes away from the traditional run-the-ball mentality in the NFC North. The Packers can't really run the ball consistently, they proved that last year (Note I said consistently) so they basically use a pass-heavy offense.

Also, let's put this to rest - if Chicago wasn't so stubborn (Seriously, they lost because Chicago ran a vanilla offense for whatever reason) they could have easily won. The Bears shut them down running the ball and Matt Forte couldn't be stopped. So, yes they should be the best rated team in the NFC North, but not the game. They don't even have a rushing attack. Ryan Grant better be an 82 at BEST. Starks should be around 72-74, had a nice run in the playoffs but dissappeared eventually.

[zdmetal]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrMosinNagant

Yeah me too, I mean i just made a comment then every packer fan came out of the wood work with they're "biased" opinion.

Here ya go genius, that's how it happened.

Quote: Originally Posted by MrMosinNagant

No way GB is a 92, the Eagles got more threats than they have and they're only ranked 86 I think. Boosting they're rating because they went to the superbowl is joke. They aren't going back to the superbowl this year.