Madden NFL 13 Team Ratings from E3 Build

[vonwaller]

Quote: Originally Posted by KleShreen

Not sure how the Lions are a 77 when comparing them to the Bears (78), Jets (79), Panthers (76) and Redskins (78). I'm pretty confident in saying if those teams are where they are ranked, the Lions should easily be an 80, with the Saints being in the low 80's.

This. Don't give a hoot about this, they seem to have the rankings off on several teams. Those few teams in the mid 80s are definitely not that far ahead of the rest. Needs to be more teams in the 80s. You compare two teams and how they did in the 11/12 season and the team ratings just don't hold up. Try again, EA.

[Fonrolalexexnay]

Bucs at 69 overall with all their new signings???

[Melo_man28]

Quote: Originally Posted by chronoxiong

These ratings are lower than the team ratings in NCAA Football 13. What the hell? Lol...I don't get it. The 49ers should be higher than 81 by the way. Should be near mid 80's just like the Patriots and Steelers.

lol the thing is though in ncaa WAY to many teams are rated in the 90's where madden is rated way to low..

[sheaday30]

Quote: Originally Posted by balcobomber25

As a fan you would give them that grade which is expected because you have a biased opinion we all do when it comes to our teams. As a Patriots fan I have no biased against or for the Panthers, I can look at it objectively and see they are a team in transition, they have a lot of young talent but they are still a few years away from being a contender. I would say a rating in the 70-75 range is more than generous.

Def not. If I was being overly biased like some of these people I would say 85+. They don't deserve worse than the skins as they beat them and are just better and they had no original starting LB's last year and 1 original starting DL/DE. That being said if they had those players they would have played a lot better and EA would have been more generous. I think a 79 is more than fair. I'm not asking for and mid 80's even

[87Birdman]

Quote: Originally Posted by sheaday30

Def not. If I was being overly biased like some of these people I would say 85+. They don't deserve worse than the skins as they beat them and are just better and they had no original starting LB's last year and 1 original starting DL/DE. That being said if they had those players they would have played a lot better and EA would have been more generous. I think a 79 is more than fair. I'm not asking for and mid 80's even

The only problem I see with your logic is basing it off of the Redskins. After looking at the ratings the NFC East is overrated like always. Take a look around at some of the other teams and I would say the Panthers should be in the lower to mid 70s. But then the logic of well they beat the redskins so they should be better couldn't you make it like... O lets say the Panthers lost to the vikings so they should be worse?

But overall I just hope this means that the ratings are more stretched out and not everyone and their mother is at 90+ overall and you can't tell the difference between the good and the bad.

[sheaday30]

Quote: Originally Posted by 87Birdman

The only problem I see with your logic is basing it off of the Redskins. After looking at the ratings the NFC East is overrated like always. Take a look around at some of the other teams and I would say the Panthers should be in the lower to mid 70s. But then the logic of well they beat the redskins so they should be better couldn't you make it like... O lets say the Panthers lost to the vikings so they should be worse? But overall I just hope this means that the ratings are more stretched out and not everyone and their mother is at 90+ overall and you can't tell the difference between the good and the bad.

I honestly think the Vikings should be 1-2 points better than the Panthers or equal whatever the rating. I don't care about the numbers I'm talking relative numbers. I mean the panthers were the team with the most injuries last year if I recall correctly (at one point they def were) but the ratings don't take this into account. They probably gave the injured players like Jon Beason a few point decreases in OVR just because they were hurt, but probably not Peyton Manning... Beason was a 96 overall last year.

[Errors Occurred]

Quote: Originally Posted by savoie2006

One game does not make a team or a player, otherwise the ratings would really be jacked up. The Ravens are an 80 overall because their offense sucks.

lol what? Ravens 23 PPG....Steelers 20 PPG...Care to fix that post

[sheaday30]

Quote: Originally Posted by Errors Occurred

lol what? Ravens 23 PPG....Steelers 20 PPG...Care to fix that post

Depends on the teams they played also