Madden NFL 12 Player Ratings - Green Bay Packers and Minnesota Vikings

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by kunner

Your quoting what you say as truth, when it reality it is your opinion. If someone's opinion is that your ratings are wrong and Madden's are right, its their opinion. You cant argue someone's opinion. My opinion is that you have people rated lower than they should be, while your opinion is that Madden has them rated higher than they should be. Doesnt make either one of us right. I dont play with the set ratings, i tweak them to how i feel they best represent on the field. Judging by the preseason game i watched tonight, Graham Harrell and Matt Flynn should have insane accuracy and play recognition ratings, if you go by how they last played in games. This whole thread is opinion, so im not right, your not right, nobody is right when it comes to the ratings.

I was not referring to the OVR ratings. I was referring to the whole SPD vs. Technique issue. I agree that OVR ratings are WIDELY speculative and open to opinion. If they weren't, we wouldn't have these great discussions!

[XtremeDunkz]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Barnett was a 91 before the injury. Shields was a 71. He also gave up a TD in the Super Bowl to Mike Wallace. Jarrett Bush had an INT in the big game and was in on the game-ending 4th down play. In fact, he almost picked that one of as well. Bush is a bit more aware and has better tackling skills. Why do you think he also plays FS? Shields still has a lot of learning to do. He was a rookie after all. It's one of those coaching decisions made every day in the NFL. When you go nickle, do you put in the young kid with the high ceiling who hasn't peaked yet, or the 4 year vet who is less athletic but a bit more polished right now? The Packers chose the first option by putting Shields in the entire year. Doesn't mean he was light-years ahead of Bush though. This is something I wish Madden would take into consideration by getting rid of the OVR rating like back in Madden 99. Makes you make tough choices and see who works best for your team and playing/coaching style.

Nick Barnett is nowhere near 91 level, even if you take away all the injuries. He has been overrated his whole career. And Jarrett Bush is not nearly as good a player as Shields.

[Faizon]

Realized last two ratings won't be updated till Monday, poor Bucs and Saints fans gotta wait the whole weekend.

Hopefully they throw up all the Free Agents too, I notice the All-Players and All-Teams Tabs.

[genghisfrog]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Barnett was a 91 before the injury. Shields was a 71. He also gave up a TD in the Super Bowl to Mike Wallace. Jarrett Bush had an INT in the big game and was in on the game-ending 4th down play. In fact, he almost picked that one of as well. Bush is a bit more aware and has better tackling skills. Why do you think he also plays FS? Shields still has a lot of learning to do. He was a rookie after all. It's one of those coaching decisions made every day in the NFL. When you go nickle, do you put in the young kid with the high ceiling who hasn't peaked yet, or the 4 year vet who is less athletic but a bit more polished right now? The Packers chose the first option by putting Shields in the entire year. Doesn't mean he was light-years ahead of Bush though. This is something I wish Madden would take into consideration by getting rid of the OVR rating like back in Madden 99. Makes you make tough choices and see who works best for your team and playing/coaching style.

And you lost all credibility in my mind. You think Bush is better than Shields based on two plays. Wow just wow, I can't even have a conversation with you now because you obviously don't watch the games. You see the highlights and that's it. Go ask 100 out of 100 scouts how good Sam Shields is and I guarantee you almost all of them will say he is light years better than Bush.

P.S. Jarrett Bush had nothing to do with the last play of the game. Tramon broke it up and Jarrett Bush was simply there as the ball hit the ground. He did nothing on the play.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by genghisfrog

And you lost all credibility in my mind. You think Bush is better than Shields based on two plays. Wow just wow, I can't even have a conversation with you now because you obviously don't watch the games. You see the highlights and that's it. Go ask 100 out of 100 scouts how good Sam Shields is and I guarantee you almost all of them will say he is light years better than Bush. P.S. Jarrett Bush had nothing to do with the last play of the game. Tramon broke it up and Jarrett Bush was simply there as the ball hit the ground. He did nothing on the play.

It's not based on two plays. Just two examples. If it was not much more in depth than that, they both would not have been 71 OVRs before that point. Shields played very well as a rookie. But then again, so did Tyrone Williams in 96. I have seen every Packer game since 1995 either in person or on TV. You fail to realize that teams will start players based on particular skill sets over others. Bush came into that season with more experience as I pointed out, and it showed in the Super Bowl. I don't recall him getting torched for a TD in that game.

And BTW, Bush was rated as 71 as a FS, not a CB. Convert that rating to a CB and its probably more like a 65. Shields is a better CB than Bush, yes. But not when Bush is a FS and Shields a CB. You are forgetting that Madden has different OVR rating calculations for different positions.

And yes, I fully understand that Tramon broke the play up, but Bush was also there in coverage, not picking his nose back at the goal line.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by xtremedunkz

Nick Barnett is nowhere near 91 level, even if you take away all the injuries. He has been overrated his whole career. And Jarrett Bush is not nearly as good a player as Shields.

Well, that is your opinion on Barnett. The scouting data and interpolation thereof says something different.

Bush was as equal as a FS as Shields was a CB. Bush's OVR rating was calculated based on the rating of a FS, not CB. If you simply change his position in Madden, it drops to around a 65 OVR, making Shields 4-6 points better.

[genghisfrog]

Bush is terrible period. He is good on special teams and that's it. The only reason he got that pick is because he studied film and knew Big Ben would throw it to Wallace so he left his man wide open and broke on the ball. Asked to play man 2 man, Bush can't cover anyone.

There is a reason the Packers had the best nickel pass d in the league this past year and it's not because of Bush. Sam Shields had a better statistical season than DRC, but I'm sure DRC isn't a 71 overall in your ratings. So keep thinking your ratings are accurate based on the limited research you've done.

The Steelers came back in the game after SHields and Woodson both got hurt. Bush had to play and was terrible outside of his INT. Remember that TD he gave up, yeah, thought so. Remember the Arizona game last year? Barnett and Bush got abused all day. Remember any game that Bush has played, he got abused in coverage.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Barnett was a 91 before the injury. Shields was a 71. He also gave up a TD in the Super Bowl to Mike Wallace.

And Shields shouldn't have been a 71. He was basically our starting CB. GB D was in nickel most of the time, and in the nickel, Woodson is the nickel back.

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Jarrett Bush had an INT in the big game and was in on the game-ending 4th down play. In fact, he almost picked that one of as well. Bush is a bit more aware and has better tackling skills. Why do you think he also plays FS?

I like how Bush is progressing as a DB, I'm not a Bush basher, but if you think Bush is more aware than Shields you are crazy. One, Bush would be starting or the nickel back instead of Shields. And did you even watch Shields play during the season? After what you have written so far in this post, I'm convinced you don't know what you are doing.

And did you notice the separation Finley got on that safety last night?

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Shields still has a lot of learning to do. He was a rookie after all. It's one of those coaching decisions made every day in the NFL. When you go nickle, do you put in the young kid with the high ceiling who hasn't peaked yet, or the 4 year vet who is less athletic but a bit more polished right now?

Under the TT McCarthy regime, they put in the best player until the kid with the higher ceiling plays better. Sure Shields has a lot to learn, but he is still ahead of Bush as a DB. He's not in there because he's young with a higher ceiling, he's in there because he's already better than Bush. Get out of here with this crap.

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

The Packers chose the first option by putting Shields in the entire year.

False, they chose to put the better DB in. He has better cover skills, better balls skills. Bush is just starting to become on OK DB after 5-6 years.

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Doesn't mean he was light-years ahead of Bush though.

He was ahead of Bush. As much as I like Bush and am happy he's progressing as a DB, he STILL is not ready to start.

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

This is something I wish Madden would take into consideration by getting rid of the OVR rating like back in Madden 99. Makes you make tough choices and see who works best for your team and playing/coaching style.

I don't want to hide the overall, but I do want it to be inaccurate, or a range, that gets more accurate with how good your GM, Scouts, and Coaches evaluate and how long the player is in the NFL. But you COULD NOT BE MORE OFF ON SHIELDS AND BUSH.