Madden NFL 15: Top Rookies

[WakeUp_YoureDreaming]

No way Khalil Mack should be an 81 while Jadeveon Clowney is an 83. If nothing else, they should have the same rating. It's highly debatable who the better player is amongst the two. Clowney may be the better athlete, but Mack is a better all around football player.

No worries though, initial rookie ratings are somewhat of a rough draft. Once the players get a few games under their belts, the ratings will be much more accurately represented.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

And that is why: A. Teams still draft huge guys who maybe aren't as strong as some FBs and LBs. AND B. Strength doesn't always 100% correlate to size. Size is size, strength is strength. Don't get them confused and mixed up like EA sports does. Do you know the rate of linear correlation between weight and strength in Madden 25? R-Squared = 0.8161 or 81.61% Do you know what it REALLY is when you actually measure STRENGTH vs. weight using NFL player data going back to 1997? R-Squared = 0.4754 or 47.54% That means that only 47.54% of the correlation is exhibited by the model of a rational correlation between weight and strength. So in essence, in reality, weight only accurately correlates to strength 47.54% of the time. That means that weight is actually a pretty crappy indicator of strength amongst football players. However, as you can see, EA has taken a different approach. They seem to posit that weight is almost TWICE as likely to indicate strength as the real world model. Only one can be correct with that wide of a margin. Now the question is, who is?

Ugh, that is pretty drastic. Not something I enjoy seeing. But I don't think it is something a roster re-rate would remedy. The ratings are borked, but the game is built around this horrible system. Seems EA uses the rating as more of a size attribute with a little strength mixed in.

What I am wondering is how the game plays when you make significant adjustments. If we had a RG who may not be that strong, but has good technique and is a good blocker, what happens in game when he is matched up against someone with elite strength but not quite as technically skilled?

This also further illustrates the ambiguity in Madden's ratings. Something which appears clear cut like strength is actually not quite strength but something else.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

Ugh, that is pretty drastic. Not something I enjoy seeing. But I don't think it is something a roster re-rate would remedy. The ratings are borked, but the game is built around this horrible system. Seems EA uses the rating as more of a size attribute with a little strength mixed in. What I am wondering is how the game plays when you make significant adjustments. If we had a RG who may not be that strong, but has good technique and is a good blocker, what happens in game when he is matched up against someone with elite strength but not quite as technically skilled? This also further illustrates the ambiguity in Madden's ratings. Something which appears clear cut like strength is actually not quite strength but something else.

No doubt that the game is messed up, but those who have played with the FBG re-rates claim that they do help the gameplay. Charter04 and CM Hooe may be able to shed some light on this. They have some remarks regarding the gameplay in the FBG thread.

[jdmsi7]

Just saw an article on the NFL Facebook page that if Clowney is moved to DE from OLB he goes up to 92....

[Hoops737]

So if you switch Clowney to a D-End he becomes a 92.


...You stay classy Madden

[Packers4U]

Quote: Originally Posted by jdmsi7

Just saw an article on the NFL Facebook page that if Clowney is moved to DE from OLB he goes up to 92....

Shouldn't be a surprise. It's been this way in every Madden. Good OLB's usually translate to higher OVR rating at DE in the game.

[Birdman85]

Future is bright in STL.

[Cavicchi]

Isn't rookie RT Lewan kind if light to be playing offensive tackle at 6'7" 215?

It's a misprint in the video clip, he should be 315.