FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mavmoses07

In response to your first point, no one's ability is not governed by their position, but odds are a player will play a position best suited to their ratings. You're not going to have someone with P Manning's ability playing DT, or someone with Ngata's ability playing FS. How much does STR determine a successful block? I guess I've always been a little unclear what the STR rating does, if its really that important in determining a success block. I always assumed that the blocking rating is much more important in determining a success block than the STR, but I could be wrong. Would Welker indeed get run over if he lined up as a TE because he has a low STR value? My main point is that if Gronk and Welker were lined up on the line and asked to block a LB, Gronk should have a much higher success rate. Looking at Welker's ratings, I'd say he fits the mold of a TE better than a WR. He's not fast, just quick. Great receiver in the short passing game and is a good blocker for a TE. His only downside is his STR rating, which again I'm not sure how much this rating matters. If he'd make such a good TE, why hasn't NE switched him to TE yet, let him and Hernandez trade positions?

A player may or may not be placed into a spot that best suits his abilities. Sometimes, coaches and scouts get it wrong. Sometimes they get it correct.

The fact of the matter here is that the ratings are what they are. Since everything is equal, Welker graded out better than Gronk as a blocker. He graded out better than the average TE and far better than the average WR. The numbers of WRs with this designation and grade are few. Welker is one in that said example.

Welker would fit the role of TE pretty well given his ratings. Here are his ratings compared to that of the average for a TE ().

STR 56 (71)
AGI 76 (71)
SPD 77 (70)
ACC 87 (71)
CTH 88 (64)
CAR 79 (57)
PBK 53 (57)
RBK 67 (58)
JMP 65 (67)
TRK 69 (63)
ELU 76 (36)
BCV 78 (52)
SFA 75 (63)
SPM 81 (51)
JKM 84 (55)
IBL 74 (65)
RBS 75 (63)
RBF 73 (64)
PBS 57 (57)
PBF 58 (62)
SPC 89 (60)
CIT 89 (63)
RTE 99 (59)
REL 99 (64)

As you can see, Welker excels as a TE compared to the averages for the position. His rating as a WR is 90. As a TE, his rating is over 99 (101 by calculation). This is due, of course, to the high receiving skills and above average blocking ability, even for a TE.

Like I said earlier, the data dictates that he graded out very highly as a blocker regardless of his position. If you feel that no TE should be below that of a WR for blocking, that's fine. The scouts who derrived the data disagree. Personally, I tend to side with the scouts, but anyone can feel free to disagree. For this project, however, opinion and speculation is minimized and only real data is utilized.

[RogueHominid]

I think the Welker discussion is an interesting one. He has better run blocking and impact blocking ratings than your average tight end.

Do those ratings reflect the fact that Welker is most often blocking corners and safeties, whereas tight ends are most often blocking linebackers and defensive ends?

In other words, would you really want Welker in your goal line sets instead of a TE for blocking purposes?

If the answer is yes, then I wonder why the Patriots, who excel at designing special roles to fit particular players' strengths, don't seem to value him over their tight ends in clear running situations as a more dominant blocker.

Interesting stuff.

[Big FN Deal]

To jump in here about blocking ratings, if Welker was being used as a blocker, according to his ratings it would need to be as a chip or help blocker in the pass game like most TE but like most TEs in the run game, he shouldn't be effective against higher rating defenders. I guess what I am saying is, with this universal approach, Welker being as good or a little better run blocker than most TEs, ain't really a big deal because relative to the ratings of the defenders they would block at TE, neither should be that good at it.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by JMP

I think the Welker discussion is an interesting one. He has better run blocking and impact blocking ratings than your average tight end. Do those ratings reflect the fact that Welker is most often blocking corners and safeties, whereas tight ends are most often blocking linebackers and defensive ends? In other words, would you really want Welker in your goal line sets instead of a TE for blocking purposes? If the answer is yes, then I wonder why the Patriots, who excel at designing special roles to fit particular players' strengths, don't seem to value him over their tight ends in clear running situations as a more dominant blocker. Interesting stuff.

That is a very good question. Perhaps a call to Darth Hoodie himself is in order?

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

To jump in here about blocking ratings, if Welker was being used as a blocker, according to his ratings it would need to be as a chip or help blocker in the pass game like most TE but like most TEs in the run game, he shouldn't be effective against higher rating defenders. I guess what I am saying is, with this universal approach, Welker being as good or a little better run blocker than most TEs, ain't really a big deal because relative to the ratings of the defenders they would block at TE, neither should be that good at it.

The reasoning I use, and I know for a fact that you would prefer, is that the data dictates the rating. He won't be as effective against an OLB with a BSH of 75+, but you are correct in saying that neither would an average TE with a RBK of 58.

Feel free to chime in on this, BIG, since I value your opinion so much. Would it make sense if WR1 and TE1 graded out at 2.0/5.0 and 1.8/5.0 for RBK and we automatically gave the TE a 65 and the WR a 40 simply because the WR is a WR and not a TE? Should the TE warrant a higher RBK rating just because he is a TE even though the data dictates that his RBK should be lower than that of the WR? Is that logically sound?

To me, if the grading criteria are the same and a WR grades out higher than a TE in a category, then the WR should be higher, regardless of the attribute.

[SonOfEd]

There's another key attribute missing in this RBK discussion that plays a role: strength.
I think you have Welker at 56. It's important to consider this when comparing positions. His lower STR rating help keep the balance, and shows that he is good at blocking, but definately not going to be pancaking the D all over the field.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

The reasoning I use, and I know for a fact that you would prefer, is that the data dictates the rating. He won't be as effective against an OLB with a BSH of 75+, but you are correct in saying that neither would an average TE with a RBK of 58. Feel free to chime in on this, BIG, since I value your opinion so much. Would it make sense if WR1 and TE1 graded out at 2.0/5.0 and 1.8/5.0 for RBK and we automatically gave the TE a 65 and the WR a 40 simply because the WR is a WR and not a TE? Should the TE warrant a higher RBK rating just because he is a TE even though the data dictates that his RBK should be lower than that of the WR? Is that logically sound? To me, if the grading criteria are the same and a WR grades out higher than a TE in a category, then the WR should be higher, regardless of the attribute.

The whole issue I think people would have with Welker being a better blocker than the average TE is size and strength. I guess Madden accounts for that variable by causing players that are out of position, ie editing Wes Welker to a TE, by having their skill set lowered at that position. This actually makes sense because even with scouts grading Wes Welker as a blocker, they are doing so based on him blocking as a WR against mostly CB, not more skilled block shedding defenders.

So I guess the universal element of ratings would easily apply to measurable ratings, like speed but for skill ratings it would need to be more position, size based, to be closer to accurate.

[RogueHominid]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

So I guess the universal element of ratings would easily apply to measurable ratings, like speed but for skill ratings it would need to be more position, size based, to be closer to accurate.

Darth Hoodie! I love it.

What stands out here is that the ratings aren't universal at all, but contextual; they're based on data gathered mostly in the context of blocking defensive backs or the occasional chip.

I'd think that'd make a difference, since no statistics and no data are produced in a vacuum.

In any case, I'm proud of Wes, who has proven to be objectively valuable at multiple positions. There's no good reason for him to be rotting on the bench as he is now.