The Curious Case of Eli Manning...

[Kushmir]

FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm an Eagles fan...I HATE the Giants--not as bad as the Cowboys--but still....

The question i'm asking is: "Why is Eli Manning rated an 80?"

While its often said that ratings are subjective (and they are--to an extent) i've always thought that using production (which isn't subjective) was more accurate....and that ratings consistency meant more than anything...right? When I look at a guy like Luke Kuechly avg 124 tackles the last 3 years, i'm fine with him having a higher tackle rating than say, Jordan Hicks (who's avg'd 67) it just kinda makes sense.

Which is why the "Eli Thing" is a splinter in my brain...its not like he plays in some small market or is someone you can overlook...he has 2 superbowl rings for crying out loud. Also: 1) How does something like that happen in a legitimate ratings system? 2) It makes me wonder what other ratings are this way off...3) It destroys my confidence in the ratings--which--lets be honest--are the backbone of any sports game....

I first noticed the Eli thing last year when Blake Bortles was rated higher than him...it was only a point but just didn't sit right. I've always thought you look at a 3 year window (emphasizing the most recent yr) when you determine ratings. Blake was coming off his first big year (58.9-35-18-4428) after a bad rookie season (58.9-2908-11-17). Eli was coming off a strong 2014 (63.1-30-14-4410) and followed it up with an even stronger 2015 (62.6-35-14-4436) NY was 6-10 and Jacksonville was 5-11.... I looked at Eli's 84 rating and Blake's 85 and thought...How? How does that happen?

Then this year happened...I watched Eli drop 4 more OVR points and i'm kinda baffled. How does a guy who's averaged 30TDs and 14 INTs the last 3 years (63-4027-26-16 last year) get rated an 80? How other players perform in comparison certainly matters...sure--but explain that when Ben Roethslisberger (27-12 during that same span) is rated a 91? Help me out here...is it yardage? Can't be...Eli's last 3 yrs are 4410-4436-4027...Ben? 4952-3938-3819. Maybe having a really good receiving corps means Eli's numbers are skewed? Again--nope. Ben has had a very deep group led by AB, who many consider the best in the NFL.

The only real discrepancy I could see is the Giants record was 6-10 in 2014 and 2015 and was 11-5 last year while PIT was 11-5 in 2015, 10-6 in 2015 and 11-5 last year...and while a winning record should factor as a small part of rating...is it worth 11 whole points?

P.S. Carson Wentz had a solid rookie year (62.1-3782-16-14) and is rated a 79.

Do you guys see my dilemma? What do you think? What am I missing here? Help me out.

[Hooe]

Pro Football Focus had Eli Manning graded at 53.0 / 100 last year, 27th among eligible quarterbacks.

For better or worse, PFF is a significant influence on how Madden grades players, so that's probably the entirety of your explainer.

[GiantBlue76]

As a lifelong Giants fan, I will tell you that the rating they gave him isn't far off from what it should be. Eli has been regressing. He plays in a VERY favorable system under McAdoo where his completion percentage should be approaching 70% yet he still struggles to reach slightly over 60%. He has accuracy issues on short to medium passes and he often stares down receivers. He also has issues throwing off his back foot, resulting in high throws. As we all know, high throws over the middle in the NFL are interceptions. I love Eli Manning and the flashes of brilliance he's shown throughout his career, but let's not be unrealistic as to how good he is.

[Kushmir]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Pro Football Focus had Eli Manning graded at 53.0 / 100 last year, 27th among eligible quarterbacks. For better or worse, PFF is a significant influence on how Madden grades players, so that's probably the entirety of your explainer.

I really like PFF--really I do....I dig how they claim to grade guys after each game, but thats not nearly good enough.

[Black Bruce Wayne]

Thank goodness you can edit the ratings for CFM

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[l8knight1]

Quote: Originally Posted by Black Bruce Wayne

Thank goodness you can edit the ratings for CFM Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Exactly. Why people get their panties in a bunch over ratings is beyond me. They are extremely subjective...but editable.

[deiied]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm an Eagles fan...I HATE the Giants--not as bad as the Cowboys--but still.... The question i'm asking is: "Why is Eli Manning rated an 80?" While its often said that ratings are subjective (and they are--to an extent) i've always thought that using production (which isn't subjective) was more accurate....and that ratings consistency meant more than anything...right? When I look at a guy like Luke Kuechly avg 124 tackles the last 3 years, i'm fine with him with a higher tackle rating than say, Jordan Hicks (who's avg'd 67) it just kinda makes sense. Which is why the "Eli Thing" is a splinter in my brain...its not like he plays in some small market or is someone you can overlook...he has 2 superbowl rings for crying out loud. Also: 1) How does something like that happen in a legitimate ratings system? 2) It makes me wonder what other ratings are this way off...3) It destroys my confidence in the ratings--which--lets be honest--are the backbone of any sports game.... I first noticed the Eli thing last year when Blake Bortles was rated higher than him...it was only a point but just didn't sit right. I've always thought you look at a 3 year window (emphasizing the most recent yr) when you determine ratings. Blake was coming off his first big year (58.9-35-18-4428) after a bad rookie season (58.9-2908-11-17). Eli was coming off a strong 2014 (63.1-30-14-4410) followed it up with an even stronger 2015 (62.6-35-14-4436) NY was 6-10 and Jacksonville was 5-11.... I looked at Eli's 84 rating and Blake's 85 and thought...How? How does that happen? Then this year happened...I watched Eli drop 4 more OVR points and i'm kinda baffled. How does a guy who's averaged 30TDs and 14 INTs the last 3 years get rated an 80? How other players perform certainly matters...sure--but explain that when Ben Roethslisberger (27-12 during that same span) is rated a 91? Help me out here...is it yardage? Can't be...Eli's last 3 yrs are 4410-4436-4027...Ben? 4952-3938-3819. Maybe having a really good receiving corps means Eli's numbers are skewed? Again--nope. Ben has had a very deep group led by AB, who many consider the best in the NFL. The only real discrepancy I could see is the Giants record was 6-10 in 2014 and 2015 and was 11-5 last year while PIT was 11-5 in 2015, 10-6 in 2015 and 11-5 last year...and while a winning record should factor as a small part of rating...is it worth 11 whole points? P.S. Carson Wentz had a solid rookie year (62.1-3782-16-14) and is rated a 79. Do you guys see my dilemma? What do you think? What am I missing here? Help me out.

I imagine the "ratings guy" like this:



They ratings often feel opinion based or maybe designed for a purpose instead of to reflect reality. Does the actual NFL player "rating"( or player talent) model reflect the bell curve? Does the madden rating system need to be redesigned, because the scores are flattened between 60 and 100, almost completely eliminating the 0-60 rating range?

Quote:

While its often said that ratings are subjective

Do they need to be though?

The "ratings guy" could write an API to read stats from an NFL statistics database and use that as input for the ratings formula. Subjectivity would be eliminated. Take the entire statistical history of the player but weight the previous year slightly higher in the formula.

Rookies would tougher but he could access their college history, find current nfl players with similar stats, and assign the rookie similar ratings or a modified version of that.

[XtremeDunkz]

Quote: Originally Posted by l8knight1

Exactly. Why people get their panties in a bunch over ratings is beyond me. They are extremely subjective...but editable.

Well for those that play in online leagues you are stuck with what you got. No commish is gonna open the can of worms that is rating editing.