Madden 2010 News Post

Madden NFL 10: Chicago Bears Ratings (ESPN Videogames)

12:35 PM - June 8, 2009 by iamemmittsmith

ESPN Videogames will be posting player ratings for Madden NFL 10, on a team by team basis, starting with the NFC North, and the Chicago Bears.

Quote:


	"Starting today, ESPN Video Games is unveiling the "Madden NFL 10" ratings, highlighting a division each week and revealing a team a day. First up, the NFC North and the Chicago Bears."

Game: Madden NFL 10Reader Score: 7.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Wii / Xbox 360Votes for game: 76 - View All

Madden NFL 10 Videos

Member Comments

# 61 J Masta J @ 06/08/09 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyy201


	plz tell me how they are old??? whose old??? urlacher??? theres like 3 players that are 30 or older that start

they were old and they got rid of there old guys like brown and now they have slim pickings.

packers avg member of the secondary=89

DAMN!

# 62 PlatooN @ 06/08/09 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Masta J


	they were old and they got rid of there old guys like brown and now they have slim pickings. packers avg member of the secondary=89 DAMN!

hard earned and well deserved

# 63 jimmyy201 @ 06/08/09 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Masta J


	they were old and they got rid of there old guys like brown and now they have slim pickings. packers avg member of the secondary=89 DAMN!

wow one other player mike brown which is 31... n still can play when healthy of course...

# 64 jimmyy201 @ 06/08/09 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falzon


	hard earned and well deserved

a lil funny considering they were predicted to win the division the whole season till about week 10
n then they finished 5-11... n couldnt hold on to a lead... sounds more like there D is overrated

# 65 J Masta J @ 06/08/09 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyy201


	wow one other player mike brown which is 31... n still can play when healthy of course...

hahah...when healthy....

Bears d ain't what it used to be. Which means they're going to be playing from behind a lot. Which means they're going to need to pass a lot. Which means....Cutler has no one to throw to.

# 66 J Masta J @ 06/08/09 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyy201


	a lil funny considering they were predicted to win the division the whole season till about week 10 n then they finished 5-11... n couldnt hold on to a lead... sounds more like there D is overrated

6-10 chump.

Let's review:
Al Harris- blew up his spleen
Bigby- ankle and knee issues the whole year
Cullen Jenkins- torn pectoral out in week 3
AJ Hawk- played with a bad groin the whole year
barnett- out in midseason with a knee
justin harrell- chronic back problems

Packers D isnt overrated, they were injured. they are easily top 5 when healthy.

# 67 Carolina Panthers @ 06/08/09 10:00 PM

Oh yeah and yall corners Toast lOl

# 68 ShimSham @ 06/08/09 10:03 PM

Yeah, the Packers defense very well could have 6 starters new and returning who weren't able to play in the final 6-7 games of the season last year.

Cullen Jenkins, Nick Barnett, Atari Bigby, Justin Harrell, BJ Raji, And Clay Matthews or Jeremy Thompson.

Those are projected starters who weren't playing down the stretch last year when the wheels fell off the defense.

Edit: Jeremy Thompson wasn't injured last year like the rest, but now he's playing a position best suited to his body type. He was too small for a 4-3 End, but he's perfect for a 3-4 OLB, and has looked like the best OLB so far in OTAs.

# 69 ShimSham @ 06/08/09 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Masta J


	Bears d is old and on the decline.

Urlacher is old. They have an average aged defense. Most of their guys are in their mid-late twenties. That's pretty much the average.

# 70 fcb-santana @ 06/08/09 10:06 PM

The Bears defense was great on 3rd down situations last season. What happened was that the offense could not stay on the field. Defense got tired late in games and that's where we lost most games.

That won't happen with Cutler at QB.

# 71 ShimSham @ 06/08/09 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bears_16_and_0


	why did this thread turn into packers what-if fantasy land?

Feel free to post Bears stuff tomorrow in the thread about the Packers player ratings when they're released.

It's pretty natural to get talk about rival opponents in threads about a singular team.

# 72 Siggy778 @ 06/08/09 10:07 PM

Did anyone notice that the Bears' second best QB is a 45 OVR? LMAO. That'll make you think twice about scrambling with Cutler (who is a decent speed). When's the last time a Bears QB has been moderately fast (besides Kordell)?

Also, I love that they gave Forte a 99 for Stamina as he was a workhorse last year. It's always annoying when you're putting together a nice drive and your RB has to come out for a play or two.

# 73 jimmyy201 @ 06/08/09 10:10 PM

a do remember tommie harris still hasnt been able to be healthy n vasher n tillman were both hurt last season
so if u wanna talk about injuries i think the bears had many injuries on D
but i do see the packers were 20th on yards allowed per game and and bears were 21st wow big difference n bears were 16th n points allowed per game n packers were 22nd

so i dont see much difference in the two Ds
but i do know the packers are gonna try the 3-4 this year n it will take them time to get good with it so i dont see there D being that much better next year

# 74 Siggy778 @ 06/08/09 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salbowski


	Let me premise this by saying im a vikings fan. Cutler 87 - Fair, maybe too low. Forte 89 - Fair, maybe too high Olsen 82 - Bit low but fair given last season performance. Expect to rise in updates. Bennett 72 - Not too sure how he's higher than hester. Hester 71 - Seems low but im sure he's still electric with the ball in his hands. Iglesias 69 - who knows. Pace 87 - Way too high. Should be an 82. Beekman 75 - Fair Kreutz 87 - about right. 88 Garza 80 - Fair, maybe too high. Shaffer 79 - too high. Harris 92 - maybe too high... 90. Ogunleye 83 - Fair, too high if anything. Brown 78 - bit too low. 80. Briggs 95 - Fair... maybe too high. 93. Urlacher 94 - Fair. Roach 68 - Don't care. Tillman 82 - Fair Vasher 75 - Fair Bullocks 76 - Fair Payne 76 - Fair

I don't want to be a jerk, and I could also be wrong, but I think the word you were looking for was "preface", not "premise".

- Anyways, I think Cutler should be a little higher but P. Rivers is an 88 and he had a better season so it's not too bad.

- I think Forte deserves his good rating, as he was a beast last year.

-Olsen hasn't proven enough to warrant a higher rating but that could definitely change in a hurry this year.

- I also think Hester should be a rated a little higher, but don't forget that he'd probably be an 80 if they hadn't spread out the ratings so much.

- Tommie Harris should be a 90 but I'm not complaining.

- Danieal Manning isn't as fast as he should be but it won't matter much in the game as we will all have Hester on KR/PR....Although Manning can plow through people at top speed unlike Hester.

# 75 J Masta J @ 06/08/09 10:12 PM

So how bout them Packers. Boys aint they something.

# 76 ShimSham @ 06/08/09 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyy201


	but i do know the packers are gonna try the 3-4 this year n it will take them time to get good with it so i dont see there D being that much better next year

Also a pretty common misconception.

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB...c.php?t=328837

Check that out. It's a collection of statistical data on teams who have switched to a 3-4 defense over the past 10 years. Most teams saw a significant improvement in overall defense in their first year running the system, whether they switched to a full 3-4 base, or ran a hybrid system.

# 77 fcb-santana @ 06/08/09 10:13 PM

The Bears offense ranked 27th in Time of Possession. So yes, the defense was out too long.

# 78 J Masta J @ 06/08/09 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyy201


	a do remember tommie harris still hasnt been able to be healthy n vasher n tillman were both hurt last season so if u wanna talk about injuries i think the bears had many injuries on D but i do see the packers were 20th on yards allowed per game and and bears were 21st wow big difference n bears were 16th n points allowed per game n packers were 22nd so i dont see much difference in the two Ds but i do know the packers are gonna try the 3-4 this year n it will take them time to get good with it so i dont see there D being that much better next year

Then you are blind, my friend.

# 79 jimmyy201 @ 06/08/09 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Masta J


	Then you are blind, my friend.

blind considering... we finished our atlanta game with marcus hamilton playing which is the last corner on our depth chart n shouldnt even be in the nfl
n in the game we beat the vikings with bowman and mcbride at corner...

# 80 PlatooN @ 06/08/09 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyy201


	a lil funny considering they were predicted to win the division the whole season till about week 10 n then they finished 5-11... n couldnt hold on to a lead... sounds more like there D is overrated

it doesnt matter who is predicted to win the division, i mean...wtf are you talking about... were in june for god sake, Were talkin about the Packers secondary rite?.....not defense as a whole...our secondary had how many int's for pick 6's?? people are so quick to hate on woodson, harris, and collins...all pro bowlers my friend...NOT over rated.. i think collins is a bit high but he killed it last year.

« Previous 1 2 345 6 7 Next »

More Links

Madden NFL 10: Chicago Bears Ratings (ESPN Videogames)