Madden NFL 13 Team Ratings from E3 Build

[87Birdman]

Quote: Originally Posted by PioneerRaptor

Okay, there needs to be some obvious logic checks, because it seems everyone is just completely flustered. First, don't compare these ratings to what they were last year. It is very obvious that the ratings went down across the board. Which is actually a good thing, that means there aren't too many players that are 90+. They are have expanded how they use their ratings which can only be good for us. Second, the overalls are based on TALENT not PRODUCTION. The Eagles do have a lot of talent, they didn't produce. Talent isn't the biggest key to winning, it's called coaching and chemistry. However, since ratings are based on talent, it is easy to see how the Eagles are rated high. It also explains why the Bronco's who did PRODUCE a lot better than the Eagles but have less talent are rated lower. So yes, last year the Bronco's played as a better team, regardless of talent level. Third, these overalls are not even final. There are still just under 3 months until the game comes out and ratings can change. Though, I do hope they continue to use this expanded scale, only VERY exceptional players should make it over 90.

That bolded part is one of the biggest reason I have a problem with the current ratings. Because Chemestry and coaching aren't calculated in and isn't represented in the game in any way. Eagles gathered big name players yes, but not exactly ones I would say that fit their scheme. But there isn't a ratings hit for it. I would love to see a chemestry rating involved so you can't go grab big name players that don't fit your scheme and see them regress or not gel and play poorly.

But I can't wait till they start releasing the rosters so we can see how they are rated, and I hope individual ratings matter this year more. Or other wise every DE on a user team will be a power rush end because finese never mattered lol.

[I.B.Foolin]

Quote: Originally Posted by jhols1nger

Yeah, an 8-8 team should have the same overall as the defending Superbowl champions...

The Giants were 9-7 with a good playoff run just cuz they got a ring shouldnt make them yoked up. They did lose to SEA WAS 2x

[TheBleedingRed21]

Cracks me up people complaining about ratings and records. Since when does your record of the previous season judge how good of a football team you are? Giants 9-7 (by your guys complaints) would be mediocre, but wait.. they won the Superbowl?

[Bulls321974]

Eagles 84? 80 or 79 would have been more appropriate. Btw: I'm no Eagles *****...

[I.B.Foolin]

Quote: Originally Posted by 87Birdman

That bolded part is one of the biggest reason I have a problem with the current ratings. Because Chemestry and coaching aren't calculated in and isn't represented in the game in any way. Eagles gathered big name players yes, but not exactly ones I would say that fit their scheme. But there isn't a ratings hit for it. I would love to see a chemestry rating involved so you can't go grab big name players that don't fit your scheme and see them regress or not gel and play poorly. But I can't wait till they start releasing the rosters so we can see how they are rated, and I hope individual ratings matter this year more. Or other wise every DE on a user team will be a power rush end because finese never mattered lol.

They do have dynamic player ratings for team scheme this yr but chemistry is ultimately consistency. Which each ind player had rated on a 5 star system last yr. There would be no exact way to do that especially with offseason moves and retirement. Almost all acquistions come with positive anticipation

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Quote: Originally Posted by SuckaRepellent

Is this really a question when we bashed their brains in last year?? Our offense was garbo but that defense was top 5 in the league. Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

Yes, beating a team when everybody is injured a year ago before they added a new coaching staff, upgraded at many positions, and got their players back from injury is definitely a good argument to have a higher overall.

[spartyon6686]

Redskins higher than Lions???

[sketchy1]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big_Mig_11

they are rated lower than I anticipated. Same with my 9ers.

ratings def lower across board, but how on earth can you make a comment like that? you realize the 9ers are ranked behind only FOUR teams right? until they have a better QB, i think that's about as good as they can get.