Old Madden Ratings Site Reborn Under New Management

[menglish20]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

i've played Madden for some time and i happened to like the ratings Madden 2003. ratings were much better and elite players ONLY were in the 90s. best part? 80 rated players were no slouch. the biggest thing? people DID NOT progress too quickly and an 80 rating was considered VERY SOLID. haven't we learned from the examples of players like Michael Bennett and Reggie Bush? what about Roy Williams? (the safety) all these guys were grossly overrated based of one year after the ratings ballooned out of control. why is this important? because when one-year wonders have a pedestrian the year after, or a pedestrian couple of years....you're reducing them from 83 to a 78. not from a 90--that just looks bad. funny thing? i'm an eagles fan too...here's the system. highest rating? 96. 97+ are reserved for the best to ever put on the uniform (rice, payton, marino, montana, ect..). elite players are 90+. average NFL starter? 70-74. 75-79 is for "above average" 80-84? this is for guys considered GOOD. 85-89 is for VERY GOOD, guys on the "cusp" of elite or veterans with 3 straight years at a high level of play. 65-69 is for solid bench contributors. 60-64 is your average bench player. rookies are unproven commodities. they simply won't be overrated until we see what they can do. 1st round picks? 65-70. 2nd round picks? 60-64. third round picks? 50-59. after the third round? 40-49. how do these ratings help? it helps players not be TOO GOOD. we've all seen what player ratings that are too high do to the game. they HURT it. it gives us a game where too many passes are caught, completed, intercepted and players are too fast, impossible to tackle and other manner of foolishness. so here's the eagles: Cole - 90. a good end, no doubt. but there are 5 or 6 guys better than he is. still elite tho... Djack - 87. you're seeing he's not a 90 and you're about to die, right? good receiver no question. he's also not one-dimensional as people think--great route runner with GREAT hands. the issue? last year was his FIRST 1,000 yard season (he had 912 his first year i believe). giving any player with one thousand yard season a 90 is just crazy. i'd normally have said 85 (a great rating BTW) but intangibles like making the pro-bowl as a PR and WR were BIG. he can get those three points with another season like last year tho. that'll provide a good 3 year window. 900 yards as a rookie (which is excellent) 1100 yards as 2nd year player (again, really good) and he gets his 90 if he maintains his status quo as one of the league's most dangerous receivers. Tapp - 63. 7 sacks his first year and has gone down in sacks every year since...this was in seattle. a lower-level bench contributor. Rocca - 70. any eagles fan knows this guy is average at BEST. Avant - 67. a high level bench contributor. 41catches-583yds-3tds..good slot guy with good hands. Mccoy - 72. an 80? how? 637 yds and 4tds as a rookie? he started a great deal too.when i think 80 i think of guys like darren sproles. proven commodities. jamal jackson. 77 (coming off injury: woulda been an 81). yeah you're right...he's behind peters and herremans. good, solid lineman...not the best on the team tho. FAR from it. jeremy maclin. 73. - 55 catches, 762 yards, 4 tds. solid rookie year. now a starter...can be as good as he wants to. but since there are updates. we won't upgrade him until he deserves it. nate allen - 60. 2nd round pick. a rookie...it makes no sense to rate rookies high for no reason. just my 2 cents.

i love this post. Now if you just applied this logic to every team, I think you'd have a lot more realistic experience.

[DCEBB2001]

OK, guys, most of the Training Camp ratings are up and ready to for all of the players currently on teams. If I do not presently have a Training Camp Rating (T), then they are given a status of NTR for "No Training Camp Rating". Also, check out the Packers here so you can have an idea on how the new individual attributes affect player ratings. Let me know what you think of them. The deeper the analysis, the better. Here is the link:

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/vi...=pos&order=ASC

[DCEBB2001]

I also have the Steelers to give you an idea.

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/vi...?team=Steelers

[at23steelers]

Wow! Steelers got some fast players, considering 90 is elite. More than a few players on the verge of elite speed and have elite speed. Wallace (95) Ike Taylor (92) Mendenhall (89) Polamalu (89). I think Mendenhall has 89 speed even with Madden's over inflation of ratings. Everything looks universal, which is key. It doesn't depend on position like it does in Madden. Good job DCEBB, and have fun doing the other 30 teams too. There's nothing really negative I could mention in which I saw, so no cons from me.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by at23steelers

Wow! Steelers got some fast players, considering 90 is elite. More than a few players on the verge of elite speed and have elite speed. Wallace (95) Ike Taylor (92) Mendenhall (89) Polamalu (89). I think Mendenhall has 89 speed even with Madden's over inflation of ratings. Everything looks universal, which is key. It doesn't depend on position like it does in Madden. Good job DCEBB, and have fun doing the other 30 teams too. There's nothing really negative I could mention in which I saw, so no cons from me.

Thanks man! I have updated GB, AZ, and ATL thus far with the basic Raw attibutes (STR, AGI, SPD, ACC, JMP). Once again, you can check them out here:

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/vi...team=Cardinals

I would love to hear from the guys who have followed the thread to see if they like the attributes so far. Take note with different positions and tell me what you think now that they are universal. Do you think it works? Do you prefer the old system where players are rated by position better? Please let me know so I know whether to continue this way or not. The more feedback, the better! Thanks in advance to those who reply!

[anechoic]

Hey, I just started following this thread and I do appreciate you keeping EA in check as far as player ratings go. But I've been checking out the ratings, and they don't seem very universal so far. I'm a Packer fan so I've been checking out mostly Green Bay's player ratings, and there are a number that seem off. But I'm going to set those aside to comment on the larger issue here.

A lot of people want the ratings to be more dispersed - have a greater gap between the best and worst players. It sounds like a great idea, but I'm not really convinced that it is. It sort of starts to eliminate "competition." For instance, in Denver, Tim Tebow and Brady Quinn are in competition for the backup quarterback spot. In Madden 11, the two players are pretty much interchangeable so it's mostly personal preference. But if the ratings are stretched, perhaps Quinn would become a 70 and Tebow would drop to a 67 or something. Now, you'd be much more compelled to start Quinn over Tebow. And the truth about the NFL is that the competition is much closer than it is in college football. Even in the NFL, it's not too difficult for someone like Aaron Rodgers to scramble away from defensive ends but if the ratings varied more, that speed difference would show even more, which would make Rodgers look even slower. And when it comes to the discussion of "which player is better," almost no one can agree (like people constantly argue over whether Drew Brees or Peyton Manning is a better quarterback) so it's probably better to have the ratings closer in that case to show how close their skills really are.

Ok, I'm really not sure if all of that was coherent, but I thought I should get some of my opinions out here. Don't know if any of this helps at all.

[iAM-IncReDiBLe-]

I'm a Falcons fan an imo CB Robinson is way to high. He constantly getting burnt by WRs and Matt Ryans should be about an 87. Turner speed is to low an hes much better then an 85ovr. He may have been injured last year but he still had a great average per rush and was putting up great numbers. DE Anderson is thrash an should be a 71 at best. ILB Lofton being a 74ovr is really bad. Hes the best player on our defense and should be about an 88ovr. I seen you said you only edited raw attributes so if your not done yet then disregard what I just posted lol.

[VikesRule]

I apologize if this has been discussed already, but I was wondering what you do for player ratings that don't really affect certain positions. For instance, how do you determine what a QB's catch rating or a WR's tackling rating is? Do you just give them all a standard value (I think in the last gen games the "default" value for ratings was 40 or something like that) or do you vary them, or is there some way you come up with different ratings?