Madden NFL 13 Player Ratings - Top 10 Running Backs

[ShaneTheMaster]

I think EA would rate me an 89 overall.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by ShaneTheMaster

I think EA would rate me an 89 overall.

LMAO! Thank you for that laugh.

[shavane]

Quote: Originally Posted by 8mileroad

Sorry for stating the obvious... but Lesean McCoy runs nothing like Lesean McCoy.

Actually none of the backs run like themselves. Come to think of it no one on this game runs like themselves...lmao. I've finally moved on in my life and put the demons of 2k5 to rest and accepted that Madden is the only way I can take the edge of my need for a football video game fix and to be honest its helped me actually enjoy Madden more with my new lowered expectations. lol

Still curious why after all these years we can't get the simple task of having runners actually look like they are running...foot plants, digging, actual realistic leg movement instead of the weird running on skates for the last 20 years. 2k did it, there are a dozen action games that did it but the one game where it might be important to make players actually look like they run can't get it right...I'm just saying.

I do hope that one day there is a definitive destinction between the way different positions run...we can work on that 1st and then maybe attempt to differentiate between different running styles for actual players.

[MlbTheShowYo]

Darren Mcfadden is easily a top 5 back, he was the best in football last year before getting injured, from a pure physical skill set he may be the best in football. What a joke. Msfadden is fast, elusive, a great receiver and can still run over people.

[MlbTheShowYo]

Quote: Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas

If he's a top ten player with as little as he's done, then Jamaal Charles must be at least top five.

LOL, dillusion. Mcfadden is a better every down runner, has more power, is a better receiver. Charles is a flash in the pan that was just a change of pace back. HE got his YPC from getting spot duty. If he was an every down back his YPC would be way lower.

Mcfadden is a way more dynamic overall player, Charles is not in mcfaddens league. Injuries should not matter to rating, heck Charles did noit play last year.

Darren Mcfadden is easily a top 5 back, he was the best in football last year before getting injured, from a pure physical skill set he may be the best in football. What a joke. Mcfadden is fast, elusive, a great receiver and can still run over people, he knocks over defenders.

[KingRell]

So Chris Johnson had one bad year now Michael Turner Charles and frank injured prone gore is better?

[mpeterso]

Quote: Originally Posted by ghettogeeksta

I disagree that 95-99 rating should be reserved for Hall of Fame type players. I think ratings should be based of the season the player had last season.

I agree for the most part. The problem with reserving 95-99 ratings for "hall of famers" is obvious - none of us know for certain if a player is getting into to the hall of fame until either they are well into their already hall of fame worthy career, or until they are basically at the end of their career and have met certain milestones and criteria that seem to be important to hall of fame voters. Even then, we may not actually find out if they are "hall of famers" until 2-3, sometimes 4 decades later when they actually get voted in.

Therefore, a player early in their career, playing at an elite level will actually be underrated using the 95+ equals hall of fame only criteria. This makes no sense when you consider that many of the truly greatest iconic players in NFL history were pretty much great right out of the box (i.e. Jim Brown, Lawrence Taylor, Ronnie Lott, Reggie White, Joe Greene, Anthony Munoz, Dick Lane etc) while others shone brightest in their first 2-4 years in the league (Earl Campbell, Gale Sayers, John Mackey, Mike Ditka, Marcus Allen, Eric Dickerson etc). In fact, the career arc for many NFLers is to burn brightest early in their career and then either fade away out quickly, or carve out a niche as a solid pro later in their careers. This seems particularly true when considering a position like running back where one or two injuries and wear and tear can knock a former beast to average back in a matter of a season or two.

The bottom line is ratings should be fairly heavily weighted to how the player is performing at this moment, in this season. I mean an elite season is an elite season because it can be some what easily compared to player performance before it. If a player is playing at an elite level, and is not just the product of a system, this should be recognised in their ratings.

[DeuceDouglas]

Quote: Originally Posted by MlbTheShowYo

LOL, dillusion. Mcfadden is a better every down runner, has more power, is a better receiver. Charles is a flash in the pan that was just a change of pace back. HE got his YPC from getting spot duty. If he was an every down back his YPC would be way lower. Mcfadden is a way more dynamic overall player, Charles is not in mcfaddens league. Injuries should not matter to rating, heck Charles did noit play last year. Darren Mcfadden is easily a top 5 back, he was the best in football last year before getting injured, from a pure physical skill set he may be the best in football. What a joke. Mcfadden is fast, elusive, a great receiver and can still run over people, he knocks over defenders.

You should familiarize yourself with the end of the 2009 season.

Week 14 - 20 car. - 143 yards
Week 15 - 25 car. - 154 yards
Week 16 - 24 car. - 102 yards
Week 17 - 25 car. - 259 yards

I wouldn't exactly call 20+ carries per game spot duty.

In 2010, he ran for 1467 yards. Hard to call nearly 1500 yards spot duty. By the looks of it, his spot duty is more effective than McFadden's full time duty. Weird.