Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings - Top 5 Wide Receivers

[Yazan Gable]

Quote: Originally Posted by jsteele14

Interesting that they consider the best WRs to be better than the best RBs. I agree with that.

That's a weird thing to note. I'm sure there'll be Kickers better than Adrian Peterson in OVR, doesn't really mean much.

[BreakingBad2013]

Quote: Originally Posted by Yazan Gable

Love the consistent arbitrariness of NINETY PLUS IS HALL OF FAME. As if we're supposed to predict an entire player's career ahead of time. Or that a player who is a Hall of Famer but is at the tail end of their career is garbage so suddenly they're not a hall of famer (Peyton Manning). Fewer players at the tip top is good, but there are still going to be plenty of very good players who deserve to be up there. Except nowadays it's a lot easier than before to get star wide receivers (nearly every team has at least one) so if there are loads of low-90s high 80s it would fit with how the league looks right now.

Understandable, is Tom Brady a Hall of Famer? Is JJ Watt HOF caliber? Is REVIS going to be a hall of famer? Being high 90s is about being consistent and playing at an elite level. That's how I would value someone. If you're a 77 and for 6 years you solidify yourself as one of the best, year in and year out, you'll be a HOF or whatever. There have been flash in the pan players, and they shouldn't be rated season by season, but career production and consistency. Nick Foles should've been a 90s few years ago based on 27 TDs 2 INTs, now look at em.

[BreakingBad2013]

Also it's not arbitrary. 90+ is the highest you can go in madden. Isn't the highest level of football to be a hall of famer? It makes perfect sense

[Yazan Gable]

Quote: Originally Posted by BreakingBad2013

Also it's not arbitrary. 90+ is the highest you can go in madden. Isn't the highest level of football to be a hall of famer? It makes perfect sense

No, the highest you can get is 99. And it depends on your performance that season. 2015 Peyton Manning should have been in the mid-70s range based on his performance, but he's still a hall of fame quarterback. Got to stay at mid-80s since for whatever reason the person rating him didn't want to admit (?) that Peyton became worse than Josh McCown. Also so what if Nick Foles was a high 80s/low 90s player? That's how good he was that season and it reflects on his performance. Until they do transparent analysis of these ratings and expanded mechanics involving the scheme and playcalling you're not going to accurately reflect that Nick Foles looked great because the playcalling gave him clear and easy reads passing to great receivers who bailed out his bad passes and a great offensive line protecting him.

[BreakingBad2013]

Quote: Originally Posted by Yazan Gable

No, the highest you can get is 99. And it depends on your performance that season. 2015 Peyton Manning should have been in the mid-70s range based on his performance, but he's still a hall of fame quarterback. Got to stay at mid-80s since for whatever reason the person rating him didn't want to admit (?) that Peyton became worse than Josh McCown. Also so what if Nick Foles was a high 80s/low 90s player? That's how good he was that season and it reflects on his performance. Until they do transparent analysis of these ratings and expanded mechanics involving the scheme and playcalling you're not going to accurately reflect that Nick Foles looked great because the playcalling gave him clear and easy reads passing to great receivers who bailed out his bad passes and a great offensive line protecting him.

The caliber of a player is based on consistency and long term. Anyways, they need to spread ratings, you're focusing on the most minuscule thing in my entire post lol. 90+ to me should be compared to all time greats. Like Barry Sanders, Tom Brady, and Deion Sanders. There's certain players that may be great bust still not on their caliber.

[jsteele14]

Quote: Originally Posted by BreakingBad2013

That's my point. I prefer a spread. I'd like to see a 0-100 scale. But looking at the top 5 WRs, there are another 6 or 7, maybe even 8 or 9 that have to be up there. I think ratings will again be inflated, because they try to fit all of the NFL players from about 55/60-99. Where it should be 1-99. Especially squeezing 2200 or so players into 39 rating numbers. That gives you 57 players per rating number. From our Madden experiences we look at some 70s as starters based on their skills. Imagine having: Tom Brady 94 Matt Ryan 76 Sam Bradford 66 Kevin Kolb 43 Jamarcus Russel 13 Or something like: Darrell REVIS 90 Jason Varrett 75 Jalen Ramsay 62 Dimitri Patterson 48 Etc. You'd have a legit amount of super stars, feeling elite. And bums would be bums, huge liabilities. Imagine the draft impact of you draft a 21 overall player first round, and pickup a 67 overall in the 6th round! Overalls: 0-10 can't even get a tryout 11-20 project, has physical tools, just not technical or intangibles. 21-30 practice squad project 31-40 bench player 41-50 fringe starter 51-60 average starter 61-70 solid starter, just really solid in what he does. 71-80 really good player, not HOF caliber, but Pro bowl potential 81-89 Excellent player, just right under HOF, consistent All Pro, just not ground breaking 90+ First ballot HOF

I am all for wider ratings but this is too wide. It would make the superstar too powerful because you would likely be able to throw to that receiver nearly every time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jershy88]

"Put some respek on my name" -Dez

[XtremeDunkz]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jershy88

"Put some respek on my name" -Dez

I thought this terrible phrase was long dead.