Bama defensive ratings, any advice?

[smoove7]

My team is BAMA but even I am smart enough to know that there is no way their D should be a 99 so for my offline dynasty I am going to redo the ratings for the D.

For the people who mess with ratings, are their certain websites or stats you look at to determine ratings for a player? I could guess but I want to kind of make it realistic. Some of the defensive starters this year for Bama I believe are rated to highly but there is not much significant playing time to go off of from last year.

[tommycoa]

Check out my teambuilder version. tcoaker is the gamertag. make sure you choose the one oe with 2011 in the tab.

[dkrause1971]

Quote: Originally Posted by smoove7

My team is BAMA but even I am smart enough to know that there is no way their D should be a 99 so for my offline dynasty I am going to redo the ratings for the D. For the people who mess with ratings, are their certain websites or stats you look at to determine ratings for a player? I could guess but I want to kind of make it realistic. Some of the defensive starters this year for Bama I believe are rated to highly but there is not much significant playing time to go off of from last year.

Collegefootballnews.com is a great site for some information on the teams. If its not on the main page. Use the search- maybe try alabama 2010 preview in the search.

[bigbisont]

Quote: Originally Posted by smoove7

For the people who mess with ratings, are their certain websites or stats you look at to determine ratings for a player? I could guess but I want to kind of make it realistic.

I said basically this in a bama rating bashing thread:

If someone wants to re-rate them, thats cool, but who is to say their pyschic powers are any better than yours? Just because someone else posts it online doesnt validate their opinion or mean they are all-knowing. Things WILL change as the season progresses. Anyone claiming "their opinion is the more realistic opinion" before any games get played is just as bad (or good?) as EA. Its all educated guesses regardless who posts it.

You are a fan. you saw them play. Im sure you followed the spring practices and you know the talent level they were stuck behind on the depth chart last year. Go with your gut and rate them appropriately.

[mh3c]

Quote: Originally Posted by smoove7

My team is BAMA but even I am smart enough to know that there is no way their D should be a 99 so for my offline dynasty I am going to redo the ratings for the D. For the people who mess with ratings, are their certain websites or stats you look at to determine ratings for a player? I could guess but I want to kind of make it realistic. Some of the defensive starters this year for Bama I believe are rated to highly but there is not much significant playing time to go off of from last year.

What? An SEC fan with a foot on reality? No way! Don't let that get out or you might be banned from rooting for the SEC!

[jeremym480]

As a Bama fan, who plans to run an Offline Dynasty with them, I'm going to lower most everyone (on defense) 3-5 points maybe more. The only exceptions are Mark Barron, Marcell Dareus and Dont'a Hightower. I'll leave them where they're at

[smoove7]

Quote: Originally Posted by bigbisont

I said basically this in a bama rating bashing thread: If someone wants to re-rate them, thats cool, but who is to say their pyschic powers are any better than yours? Just because someone else posts it online doesnt validate their opinion or mean they are all-knowing. Things WILL change as the season progresses. Anyone claiming "their opinion is the more realistic opinion" before any games get played is just as bad (or good?) as EA. Its all educated guesses regardless who posts it. You are a fan. you saw them play. Im sure you followed the spring practices and you know the talent level they were stuck behind on the depth chart last year. Go with your gut and rate them appropriately.

Well you do have a good point with what you say but my only debate is for example Kirkpatrick, he is an all american prospect but there has not been significant on field playing time to prove that talent level that he has. I think he is a 95 overall, 96 on speed and 95 on agility using default rosters.

He played in 12 games last year and had 8 tackles and 0 ints:

http://www.rolltide.com/auto_pdf/p_h...09-final-stats

So yes he could be an all american but going off last years production, there is nothing there that proves to me he is one of the greatest db's in the country. (although he is going to be.) Psychic powers should not play a roll in determining ratings, on field production should.

[bigbisont]

Quote: Originally Posted by smoove7

He played in 12 games last year and had 8 tackles and 0 ints: http://www.rolltide.com/auto_pdf/p_h...09-final-stats So yes he could be an all american but going off last years production, there is nothing there that proves to me he is one of the greatest db's in the country. (although he is going to be.) Psychic powers should not play a roll in determining ratings, on field production should.

And his 12 games played were while battling nagging injuries and almost exclusively on special teams! His tackles from the punt coverage team are not an indication of his coverage skills. Look, im not saying he deserves his 95 rating. im just saying that when people say a guy cant have a high rating because of lack of on the field history, its crap! Breakout players happen every year. EA just gambled the bama guys break out.

Look at the RBs from Pitt, VA Tech, and Oregon. Some werent even IN the game last year, but if EA had rated them highly enough to predict what would become their real life on the field production, preseason roster downloaders would have raised hell because there were 'overrated' with no history to base it on.

Make no mistake. In deciding if a player is good, too good, or underrated before a game ever gets played, it is 100%, undeniably and unmistakably trying to excercise your "pyschic powers". But the unforeseeable is what makes it fun.