Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings - Top 5 Wide Receivers

[mtmetcalfe]

Quote: Originally Posted by crackdownjr

There haven't been any significant rule changes to help WRs since Rice retired. "Illegal contact" was implemented in 1978, before he entered the league. Anyway these ratings don't matter as much as the gameplay, so let's hope they translate well in-game.

There may not have been a rule change but there was a significant crackdown on how aggressively defensive backs could play receivers after the Colts/Pats AFC championship game that clearly benefited wide receivers.

[Mdnghtmgcn1]

DeAndre Hopkins > Dez Bryant? Alright...

[JKSportsGamer1984]

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

A 0-100 scale would make more sense for a College football game. In the NFL, the talent level is not that drastically spread out (with the exception of the quarterback position). Every player in the NFL can play. There are no bums. These players made it to the NFL for a reason. For the most part NFL games are closely contested & the difference between winning or losing normally comes down to play calling or turnovers. I think a 0-50 scale fits the NFL.

[BreakingBad2013]

Quote: Originally Posted by JKSportsGamer1984

A 0-100 scale would make more sense for a College football game. In the NFL, the talent level is not that drastically spread out (with the exception of the quarterback position). Every player in the NFL can play. There are no bums. These players made it to the NFL for a reason. For the most part NFL games are closely contested & the difference between winning or losing normally comes down to play calling or turnovers. I think a 0-50 scale fits the NFL.

I see where you're coming from. But this is based on NFL talent. This isn't saying ones a HS caliber player. This is just comparing NFL players to other NFL players. I hear you all saying everyone in the NFL can play, well that's just not true. There are certain players who just can't compete in the NFL wether it be mental, technical, devotion, or just not plain skilled enough to crack a roster. We hear it all the time when players just CANT get on the field, it's not because he's so good that he couldn't get on the field. It's because he's not good enough to beat out the players around him, at least in the system.

Again 0 doesn't equal can't play in college, 0-10 are those guys who just aren't ever going to make it. They're not talented enough or don't have the physical stature to compete. Like an undersized CB or small DT. Etc. these scales would be in comparison to other NFL talent. Is there not a difference between Julio Jones, Martavis Bryant, Stephen Hill, Darren Waller, and Chris Conley? All of them are tall and fast, but all of them will not be superstar WRs. It's not just QBs, honestly.

[SolidSquid]

Quote: Originally Posted by JKSportsGamer1984

A 0-100 scale would make more sense for a College football game. In the NFL, the talent level is not that drastically spread out (with the exception of the quarterback position). Every player in the NFL can play. There are no bums. These players made it to the NFL for a reason. For the most part NFL games are closely contested & the difference between winning or losing normally comes down to play calling or turnovers. I think a 0-50 scale fits the NFL.

I get your logic but we are comparing NFL players to NFL players. Sure there are no bums in the NFL if you're comparing them to the rest of the population but when comparing them to over NFL players there are certainly bums

[SwedishTouch76]

Madden is an arcade game

[KickassJohnson]

Anyone else think Odell's arm looks weird in the screenshot?

[StayPlation82]

I'm thinking about the Jamarcus Russell situation. How do you rate a guy who has his skill set in Madden correctly? How do you rate him having to see a receiver open to throw it(oblivious trait)? How do you rate him not studying after practice(low awareness)? Is he not accurate physically or mentally(SAC, MAC, DAC vs AWR)? Meaning if he dropped back and threw a 30 yard pass into a tire vs not knowing the coverage being shown and a ball is deflected. Or both! But how do you differentiate between the two? How do you make a player in the video game who is user controlled, who waits to throw to an open WR and who doesn't have to practice or watch film a bad player?