Madden NFL 13 Team Ratings from E3 Build

[m3commish]

Three teams rated higher than the SB Champs, what gives?

[mjhyankees]

Quote: Originally Posted by rbowers7

Cracks me up people complaining about ratings and records. Since when does your record of the previous season judge how good of a football team you are? Giants 9-7 (by your guys complaints) would be mediocre, but wait.. they won the Superbowl?

And I think they should be higher than the Eagles and maybe some other teams. They were 9-7 not due to personnel and ability but to a rash of injuries where they did not have any of there starting skill positions on the field together all year until the playoffs...same with D injuries....but then look how they played in the playoffs. I know all teams have injuries but to me their ovr should not be based on record but on the collective ability of the players.

[Instant C1a55ic]

Quote: Originally Posted by 87Birdman

I don't like the Broncos being rated lower than the Chargers big time since we just came off of winning the division and on top of that replacing Tebow with Manning to me seems like a nice upgrade...

Couldnt agree more. However i guess it must tie to Peytons overall as well. Is he even in the 90's anymore?

I dont want to sound biased because i am a bronco fan, and i know every fan of every team is gonna say they improved, but we have Peyton Freakin Manning and that is a GIANT upgrade over Tim Tebow.

[PioneerRaptor]

Quote: Originally Posted by 87Birdman

That bolded part is one of the biggest reason I have a problem with the current ratings. Because Chemestry and coaching aren't calculated in and isn't represented in the game in any way. Eagles gathered big name players yes, but not exactly ones I would say that fit their scheme. But there isn't a ratings hit for it. I would love to see a chemestry rating involved so you can't go grab big name players that don't fit your scheme and see them regress or not gel and play poorly.

I definitely agree with what you are saying. Chemistry and Coaching should have an affect on the overall rating of a team. However, it doesn't, so when we look at these ratings and bitch and moan, we must take note that it is based PURELY on TALENT.

They did say that overalls are now different factoring in schemes and stuff which is a great step, however, they need to find a way to make chemistry and coaching matter.

[Feldman011teen]

Let me know when the Panthers are 90, which is what they should be.

[Feldman011teen]

And in no way are the Pigeons better on paper than the Panthers. The kings of one and done.

[87Birdman]

Quote: Originally Posted by PioneerRaptor

I definitely agree with what you are saying. Chemistry and Coaching should have an affect on the overall rating of a team. However, it doesn't, so when we look at these ratings and bitch and moan, we must take note that it is based PURELY on TALENT. They did say that overalls are now different factoring in schemes and stuff which is a great step, however, they need to find a way to make chemistry and coaching matter.

Yeah I would love to see a chemistry rating, and with the new coaches I would love to see them have stats to that can be raised with points. Give them ratings that could do mutilple things. Like an ability to help team chemistry, or there ability to resign certain positions. And rating to get players to play more consistent, or ratings to help players progress at certain positions.

So coaches could be a big part, and then just give the team a chemsitry rating that goes into how well they play as a team. Low rating could cause more blown plays/assignments. Would be great to see in the future.

[87Birdman]

Quote: Originally Posted by Feldman011teen

And in no way are the Pigeons better on paper than the Panthers. The kings of one and done.

Isn't it better to be one and done then none and done like the panthers???