Madden NFL 15 Top 5 Running Backs and Fullbacks

[D0WN N DIRTY]

Quote: Originally Posted by Iceman87GT

Blocking, blocking, blocking. Reece is a great running FB but he is not a huge impact in pass protection. Kuhn is a short-yardage back, who is excellent in pass protection (i.e. what Full Backs are called on to do in today's league, if they are called upon at all). Blocking isn't as important for TEs any more but it is still crucial for FBs (because most teams would rather give the ball to a RB than the slower FB - I know Reece isn't slow, but he is slower than your RBs). He did Aaron Rodgers is rated at 98 overall, if you are referring to Brady being a 93, take a look at his last 3 seasons, last year was especially down but he hasn't been the dominant QB he has been in the past. I think he's a better QB than Wilson, so I find it odd that he is sitting at a 93 with him (pulled the same overrating crap when Eli Manning won the SB too, though I think Wilson is a more solid/consistent QB than Eli).

i agree brady is going down hill fast.. Wilson is alot better than people give him credit..but he is not mr rodgers or manning..

[Iceman87GT]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sheba2011

Tom Brady's was a top 5 QB his last 2 seasons (we can all agree that like AP he had a down year in 2013) but are you really going to say 2012 and 2011 he wasn't a top QB? 2012 - completions 5th, yds 4th, TD's - 4th, QBR - 6th 2011 - completions 3rd, yds 2nd, TD's 4th, QBR - 3rd So again why did one bad year matter for Tom Brady but not for AP? I honestly don't care that much I edit everyone's ratings myself but the hypocrisy is hilarious from the "czar" sometimes.

The fact that we know his rating means he is a top QB in the game.

Another big difference between APs down year and Brady's is that there were no RBs who stepped in and asserted themselves as the best RB, meanwhile Brady wasn't the best QB heading into last season. Manning further cemented his spot ahead of Brady, Rodgers had a fantastic year before and after his injury, Brees also stepped his game up.

[Iceman87GT]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sheba2011

Tom Brady's was a top 5 QB his last 2 seasons (we can all agree that like AP he had a down year in 2013) but are you really going to say 2012 and 2011 he wasn't a top QB? 2012 - completions 5th, yds 4th, TD's - 4th, QBR - 6th 2011 - completions 3rd, yds 2nd, TD's 4th, QBR - 3rd So again why did one bad year matter for Tom Brady but not for AP? I honestly don't care that much I edit everyone's ratings myself but the hypocrisy is hilarious from the "czar" sometimes.

Also:
2011 - at best 3rd best QB behind Rodgers (not debatable, one of the best seasons a QB has ever had), and Brees.
2012 - statistically the 4th best QB
2013 - not in the top 5 statistically or in the eye test.

Statistically 2013 was a anomaly in that there was a huge dropoff, but not because his level of okay dropped.

The numbers you provide make a case for him being in the top 5, which he is. So I don't see the need for the complaint.

[Iceman87GT]

Quote: Originally Posted by underdog13

I believe it's how easily (quickly)you can run left,right with the left stick alone. Or something of that nature

Slipping tackles, ability to run laterally is affected by multiple ratings (speed, acceleration, agility: running laterally is no different than regular running, the tough part is changing direction). Elusiveness determines how elusive you're back is, ability to slip tackles, how difficult it is to wrap you up, etc.

[Gagnon39]

I see Madden is still going with the enormous and non-accurate stripes on the Bears jerseys. Sheesh, that looks awful.

[MossMan84]

This is where the madden ratings really show their ugliness: John Kuhn is on par with Tom Brady too! If it wasnt bad enough that Wilson was on par with Brady now he is competing with FBs. Your rating shouldnt go by position and I dont think it does? If Brady is a 93 by Maddens ratings then Kuhn should be closer to 80 and Wilson closer to 85. The ratings are broken in the sense that when you turn up a certain ability for a position it inflates their overall too much! Like I imagine if you crank up run blocking for your FB it makes your overall go up more than it should and this happens with most positions. Just like if I turn my kickers kick power and accuracy up to 99s he is a 99! My kicker should not be a 99 and the best rated player on my team! Even if I have the best kicker in the league I would still only expect him to be 85ish. There could be exceptions if you had a kicker that was kicking 10 plus 65 yard FGs a season, carrying the team on his back kicking 4 or 5 FGs per game, hitting the game winner week in and week out! Then maybe we give him a 90 rating. Im not saying that any position is better than any other but the best players should be rated the highest regardless of position and a lot might go into determining that but what I have stated is irrefutable if common sense is involved.

[Iceman87GT]

Quote: Originally Posted by MossMan84

This is where the madden ratings really show their ugliness: John Kuhn is on par with Tom Brady too! If it wasnt bad enough that Wilson was on par with Brady now he is competing with FBs. Your rating shouldnt go by position and I dont think it does? If Brady is a 93 by Maddens ratings then Kuhn should be closer to 80 and Wilson closer to 85. The ratings are broken in the sense that when you turn up a certain ability for a position it inflates their overall too much! Like I imagine if you crank up run blocking for your FB it makes your overall go up more than it should and this happens with most positions. Just like if I turn my kickers kick power and accuracy up to 99s he is a 99! My kicker should not be a 99 and the best rated player on my team! Even if I have the best kicker in the league I would still only expect him to be 85ish. There could be exceptions if you had a kicker that was kicking 10 plus 65 yard FGs a season, carrying the team on his back kicking 4 or 5 FGs per game, hitting the game winner week in and week out! Then maybe we give him a 90 rating. Im not saying that any position is better than any other but the best players should be rated the highest regardless of position and a lot might go into determining that but what I have stated is irrefutable if common sense is involved.

Rating players by position makes perfect sense. Kickers are not expected to do anything but kick, if they can tackle that is a bonus but the hope is that you would never need them to tackle anyone. It makes no sense to rate a kicker with 99 Kick Power and Accuracy, as well as 99 Awareness as anything but a 99 OVR, if you line him up at any other position then his rating will drop fast.

The only way your proposal makes sense is if players were divided by role: OL, DL, LB, DB, etc. Even then you'd still like to see how much better they stack up at different positions so position ratings would still be needed. I feel that doing this would make things simpler in determining who is the better Offensive Lineman/Defensive Lineman, but would be useless in determining whether or not they would work at a certain position along the Offensive or Defensive line, DT are very different from DEs, OT are different from OG, which are significantly different from Centers. Basically you are arguing for a simplistic rating system that doesn't actually do anything to improve how players are evaluated. Football is full of specialized position which really limits the ability to rate players as though they are all equal.

I would be in favor of toning down ratings (i.e. FIFA), they had toned down players at the beginning of Ultimate Team this year and it really made you focus on your strategy (you had to consider chemistry because you couldn't just stack the OL and run on them, at least not at the beginning). But even in that situation a Kicker with 99 in the 3 categories that they have for measuring Kicking ability should be a 99 Overall.

[Ueauvan]

surprised a Miller isnt there