Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - NFC North

[QJB1022]

lions are going to be a beast

[authentic]

Quote: Originally Posted by roadman

Alright, sounds good, at least know we know you were generalizing and not being specific. To me, those aren't fans of the team and glad I don't know anyone like that. Every sports team has casual fans or bandwagon fans, it's not just Packer fans. Especially, teams that win it all.

Yeah, I have my favorite players that I follow but I don't consider myself a huge fan of the team he's on. Why I hate so many people that like the Heat now, because of LeBron, and being a 20+ year Bulls fan. Turns out the refs sided with the Heat as well
I actually think the NFC North will be very competitive, we'll see when it all starts.

[ibigmike]

so glad the lions arent last.! but we should be a lil closer to the bears lol they aren't that good but hey it could be worse we could be the vikings lol

[Lancelot205]

Just wanted to stop in and voice in on the debate about the packers being 92 while the Eagles are just 86 (likely slightly higher once the roster update hits due to new aquisitions)

So, Eagles have better receivers?

Maclin (leading receiver) verse Jennings (leading receiver)

70 Catches 964 Yards 10 TDs Vs. 76 Catches 1,265 Yards 12 TDS

Jennings had more catches, a lot more yards, and more TD's. Jennings was better than Maclin Last year. Higher rating justified.

Jackson vs Driver

47 -1,056 - 6 vs 51 - 565 - 4

Driver had more catches, but Jackson was much more exsplosive. Driver is much older. Jackson should clearly be rated higher, and he likely is.

Wait, that's it then right? Wrong, last I checked the Packers have the deepest WR core in the NFL.

Avant verse Jones

51 - 573 - 1 vs 50 - 679 - 5

Avant had one more catch, but Jones was more productive with his catches. Jones is better than Avant. Not sure anyone in the NFL would say otherwise.

Cooper verse Nelson

7 -116 - 1 vs 45 - 582 - 2

Nelson is superior by a long shot. Packer fans argue he is better than Jones on their own roster. That's pure 1 through 4 depth like no other team has in the NFL. Truly, the packers have the best receiving core in the NFL.

Rodgers verse Vick

65.7% completion percentage - 3922 passing yards - 8.3 average - 248.6 ypg - 28 TD - 11 int - 31 sacks - 356 yards rushing - 5.6 ypc.

62.6% - 3018 - 8.1 - 234 - 21 - 6 - 34 sacks - 676 - 6.8

So as a pure passer, rodgers numbers were better across the board except for interceptions, where he had 5 more. However, rodgers also threw the ball significantly more than Vick. Rodgers completed a higher percentage of balls, threw for more yards, had a higher completion average, more yards per game, more TD's. Rodgers was simply the superior passer last season, and as such should be rated higher than Vick.

Vick had 320 more yards rushing than Rodgers, and a higher average. That being said, combine the yards totals and rodters is at 4,200+ total for the year where Vick hasn't cracked 3,900, which is what Rodgers had in just passing yards.

Vick had 9 rushing TD's to Rodgers 4, but combined Rodgers produced 32 TD's while Vick produced 30. Very tight, but a slight edge to Rodgers.

Now, who was truly better last year? Statistically it was Rodgers, especially as a pure passer even though Vick was very good. Who is better overall? Is that a real question? Last year was the first GOOD year for Vick in terms of passing in his entire career. Rodgers has put up these sort of numbers 3 years in a row. Vick has a lot to prove this year. Was it truly a one year wonder? Regardless, ROdgers edged him out as a passer last year and that was Vick's best year as a QB.

So, yes, Rodgers is overall better than Vick.

OL - Really hard to compare. Both are pretty good in areas. Packers have two legit Pro Bowl players (as of last year) in Clifton and Sitton, and the center Wells is close. The eaglies OL has their own talent, so it's sort of a wash. Though, with Vicks 34 sacks despite him running a lot, it would suggest the packers did better with pass protection. Especially considering Rodgers threw it a lot more.

McCoy verse Jackson

Not even close. No point in listing stats - McCoy was vastly superior to anything we had last year. Is he better than Grant? Debatable, but McCoy is a much bigger passing threat than any RB we have, and a much faster RB than any RB we have., We use WR"s and TE's way more than the Eagles do, becaue McCoy is practically another WR. Advantage to the Eagles. I am sure the ratings will show this.

Celek Verse Finley and Quarless

42 - 511 - 4 vs 21 - 301 - 1 and 21 - 238 - 1

Celek had a better year than both the packers TE's. However, Neither TE played the entire season as the starter. Finley had more catches and yards per game than Celek. Convential wisdom suggests that Finely is a vastly superior TE in terms of catching because that stat line isn't even close.

Oh, and the fact we have a second pass catching option at TE while the Eagles don't is further proof the packers have more depth, and thus deserve an overall higher rating at the position.

Defense:

Packers were the 5th best defense in the NFL. Eagels were 12th.

It's not even close. Even in adding a stud CB and a decent CB, that really only puts you at GB's already great CB level. Woodson is still great, and Williams was an absolute stud last year. I'll take sam shields stats over cromarties last year. Pretty much a wash.

The packers have the best saftey, and the better LB's and the the better DL. Overall, the packers defense is simply better, and it showed last year despite all the IR guys.

SO, the eagles are lower rated than the packers? Yup - because the packers were statistically superior in almost every facet of playing in the NFL. Oh, and they won this thing call the super bowl while playing every playoff game on the road. They also beat the eagles twice at their place. Statistically and in the final result, packers had a better 2010 than the eagles, and should be higher rated heading into this season