Madden NFL 11 News Post

Old Madden Ratings Site Reborn Under New Management

10:31 PM - July 6, 2010 by Steve_OS

The popular FBG Ratings website of the mid 2000's is up and running again under new management. Over 17000 NFL players are being evaluated and re-rated for the 2010 NFL season. The FBG ratings system will utilize old philosophies for bringing accuracy to Madden NFL game-play while incorporating the NextGen attributes into player ratings.

Because of the many critiques of EA and their ratings over the years, the managers are hearing recommendations for player ratings. This will give the most loyal Madden gaming community at OS the opportunity to give their input into player ratings. Please visit www.fbgratings.com/members to check the site out.

You can PM Dan B. on OS under his handle DCEBB2001.

Game: Madden NFL 11Reader Score: 6/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 96 - View All

Madden NFL 11 Videos

Member Comments

# 1 RedZoneD25 @ 07/06/10 11:03 PM

So we can re-rate the players according to these ratings? Sounds SWEET.

# 2 DCEBB2001 @ 07/06/10 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTFitsDaveyJ


	So we can re-rate the players according to these ratings? Sounds SWEET.

Yes you can! The goal is to get a ratings system that will bring more accuracy to gameplay in Madden. Then, you can rate the players according to the site to see for yourself!

# 3 arsenal123gunners @ 07/06/10 11:13 PM

Is it possible that we see a roster created with the new attributes that someone posts that we can download?

# 4 sniperhare @ 07/06/10 11:20 PM

Love to see EA have a feature like the 2K Locker/Share so we can get teams of roster guys instead of relying on Donny to do everything.

# 5 Bash @ 07/06/10 11:32 PM

Quote:


	Overall Name, Rating Change Hgt Wgt Exp Current Team 99 Manning, Peyton 6-5 230 11 Colts 98 Brees, Drew 6-0 213 9 Saints

BS!

# 6 djack10jmac18 @ 07/07/10 12:29 AM

not to rip on this, because it is a very good idea and i would like to see more work on this, but these aren't very good. i like donny's ratings better. just taking a look at my eagles and i am already disappointed. they have brodrick bunkley who is a decent player, not an amazing star, rated higher than trent cole, a pro bowler and one of the best defensive ends in the whole league. then they have darryl tapp rated only 4 points less then cole. i have a problem with that. then they have sav rocca at a 86 overall. that is sad. i love the guy but he does not deserve an 86 overall. some more problems, jason avant is higher then jeremy maclin, nate allen is given a miniscule 54 after being selected with the 37th pick in the draft, lesean mccoy is a 72 when i think he deserves to be pushin about 80 (he did great in his rookie year and proved he can start for the eagles and even replace brian westbrook), and they also have jamaal jackson as the best offensive lineman for the eagles when he is 3rd maybe 4th, and more. just by looking at one roster and seeing quite a bit of problems i don't think that the whole nfl ratings are accurate.

# 7 snowman5607 @ 07/07/10 12:35 AM

Yeah. Those ratings as of right now are a joke. Clinton Portis a 56? I know he's had a bad year and a half, but c'mon, man.

# 8 djack10jmac18 @ 07/07/10 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniperhare


	Love to see EA have a feature like the 2K Locker/Share so we can get teams of roster guys instead of relying on Donny to do everything.

i think this is a great idea

# 9 Kushmir @ 07/07/10 01:33 AM

i've played Madden for some time and i happened to like the ratings Madden 2003. ratings were much better and elite players ONLY were in the 90s. best part? 80 rated players were no slouch.

the biggest thing? people DID NOT progress too quickly and an 80 rating was considered VERY SOLID. haven't we learned from the examples of players like Michael Bennett and Reggie Bush? what about Roy Williams? (the safety) all these guys were grossly overrated based of one year after the ratings ballooned out of control. why is this important? because when one-year wonders have a pedestrian the year after, or a pedestrian couple of years....you're reducing them from 83 to a 78. not from a 90--that just looks bad.

funny thing? i'm an eagles fan too...here's the system. highest rating? 96. 97+ are reserved for the best to ever put on the uniform (rice, payton, marino, montana, ect..). elite players are 90+. average NFL starter? 70-74. 75-79 is for "above average" 80-84? this is for guys considered GOOD. 85-89 is for VERY GOOD, guys on the "cusp" of elite or veterans with 3 straight years at a high level of play. 65-69 is for solid bench contributors. 60-64 is your average bench player.

rookies are unproven commodities. they simply won't be overrated until we see what they can do. 1st round picks? 65-70. 2nd round picks? 60-64. third round picks? 50-59. after the third round? 40-49.

how do these ratings help? it helps players not be TOO GOOD. we've all seen what player ratings that are too high do to the game. they HURT it. it gives us a game where too many passes are caught, completed, intercepted and players are too fast, impossible to tackle and other manner of foolishness.

so here's the eagles:

Cole - 90. a good end, no doubt. but there are 5 or 6 guys better than he is. still elite tho...

Djack - 87. you're seeing he's not a 90 and you're about to die, right? good receiver no question. he's also not one-dimensional as people think--great route runner with GREAT hands. the issue? last year was his FIRST 1,000 yard season (he had 912 his first year i believe). giving any player with one thousand yard season a 90 is just crazy. i'd normally have said 85 (a great rating BTW) but intangibles like making the pro-bowl as a PR and WR were BIG. he can get those three points with another season like last year tho. that'll provide a good 3 year window. 900 yards as a rookie (which is excellent) 1100 yards as 2nd year player (again, really good) and he gets his 90 if he maintains his status quo as one of the league's most dangerous receivers.

Tapp - 63. 7 sacks his first year and has gone down in sacks every year since...this was in seattle. a lower-level bench contributor.

Rocca - 70. any eagles fan knows this guy is average at BEST.

Avant - 67. a high level bench contributor. 41catches-583yds-3tds..good slot guy with good hands.

Mccoy - 72. an 80? how? 637 yds and 4tds as a rookie? he started a great deal too.when i think 80 i think of guys like darren sproles. proven commodities.

jamal jackson. 77 (coming off injury: woulda been an 81). yeah you're right...he's behind peters and herremans. good, solid lineman...not the best on the team tho. FAR from it.

jeremy maclin. 73. - 55 catches, 762 yards, 4 tds. solid rookie year. now a starter...can be as good as he wants to. but since there are updates. we won't upgrade him until he deserves it.

nate allen - 60. 2nd round pick. a rookie...it makes no sense to rate rookies high for no reason.

just my 2 cents.

# 10 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arsenal123gunners


	Is it possible that we see a roster created with the new attributes that someone posts that we can download?

We will be producing roster files and draft classes in our downloads section for download.

# 11 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bash


	BS!

They are the two best QBs in the league right now, but Manning has dropped to a 98 as well.

# 12 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djack10jmac18


	not to rip on this, because it is a very good idea and i would like to see more work on this, but these aren't very good. i like donny's ratings better. just taking a look at my eagles and i am already disappointed. they have brodrick bunkley who is a decent player, not an amazing star, rated higher than trent cole, a pro bowler and one of the best defensive ends in the whole league. then they have darryl tapp rated only 4 points less then cole. i have a problem with that. then they have sav rocca at a 86 overall. that is sad. i love the guy but he does not deserve an 86 overall. some more problems, jason avant is higher then jeremy maclin, nate allen is given a miniscule 54 after being selected with the 37th pick in the draft, lesean mccoy is a 72 when i think he deserves to be pushin about 80 (he did great in his rookie year and proved he can start for the eagles and even replace brian westbrook), and they also have jamaal jackson as the best offensive lineman for the eagles when he is 3rd maybe 4th, and more. just by looking at one roster and seeing quite a bit of problems i don't think that the whole nfl ratings are accurate.

1. The ratings have not been updated for players that do not have an "O" for "Offseason Update" in their status. This means that players without the "O" are not rated correctly at the moment. Trent Cole, Jeremy Maclin, and McCoy are among them.

2. Rookies are rated lower than in the typical Madden system. When they go through the training camps and preseason, they will rise.

3. Injuries knock a player's rating down. Take this into account.

4. Jackson is presently the best rated OLman for the Eagles because he is one of the only ones to have been recently updated.

5. It takes about a week to do a few hundred players and rate them correctly. I have about 1/3 of 17000 already complete. Please be patient with the overalls and getting the data filled in. Once this initial phase is complete, ratings will be adjusted WEEKLY to fit current NFL trends during the season.

# 13 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowman5607


	Yeah. Those ratings as of right now are a joke. Clinton Portis a 56? I know he's had a bad year and a half, but c'mon, man.

Portis is a 56 because he was placed on IR. When he is healthy and returns to the starting lineup, he will rise back to his usual rating. Injuries have a massive effect on the OVR rating.

# 14 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushmir


	i've played Madden for some time and i happened to like the ratings Madden 2003. ratings were much better and elite players ONLY were in the 90s. best part? 80 rated players were no slouch. the biggest thing? people DID NOT progress too quickly and an 80 rating was considered VERY SOLID. haven't we learned from the examples of players like Michael Bennett and Reggie Bush? what about Roy Williams? (the safety) all these guys were grossly overrated based of one year after the ratings ballooned out of control. why is this important? because when one-year wonders have a pedestrian the year after, or a pedestrian couple of years....you're reducing them from 83 to a 78. not from a 90--that just looks bad. funny thing? i'm an eagles fan too...here's the system. highest rating? 96. 97+ are reserved for the best to ever put on the uniform (rice, payton, marino, montana, ect..). elite players are 90+. average NFL starter? 70-74. 75-79 is for "above average" 80-84? this is for guys considered GOOD. 85-89 is for VERY GOOD, guys on the "cusp" of elite or veterans with 3 straight years at a high level of play. 65-69 is for solid bench contributors. 60-64 is your average bench player. rookies are unproven commodities. they simply won't be overrated until we see what they can do. 1st round picks? 65-70. 2nd round picks? 60-64. third round picks? 50-59. after the third round? 40-49. how do these ratings help? it helps players not be TOO GOOD. we've all seen what player ratings that are too high do to the game. they HURT it. it gives us a game where too many passes are caught, completed, intercepted and players are too fast, impossible to tackle and other manner of foolishness. so here's the eagles: Cole - 90. a good end, no doubt. but there are 5 or 6 guys better than he is. still elite tho... Djack - 87. you're seeing he's not a 90 and you're about to die, right? good receiver no question. he's also not one-dimensional as people think--great route runner with GREAT hands. the issue? last year was his FIRST 1,000 yard season (he had 912 his first year i believe). giving any player with one thousand year season is just crazy. he can get those three points with another season like last year tho. Tapp - 63. 7 sacks his first year and has gone down in sacks every year since...this was in seattle. a lower-level bench contributor. Rocca - 70. any eagles fan knows this guy is average at BEST. Avant - 67. a high level bench contributor. 41catches-583yds-3tds..good slot guy with good hands. Mccoy - 72. an 80? how? 637 yds and 4tds as a rookie? he started a great deal too.when i think 80 i think of guys like darren sproles. proven commodities. jamal jackson. 77 (coming off injury: woulda been an 81). yeah you're right...he's behind peters and herremans. good, solid lineman...not the best on the team tho. FAR from it. jeremy maclin. 73. - 55 catches, 762 yards, 4 tds. solid rookie year. now a starter...can be as good as he wants to. but since there are updates. we won't upgrade him until he deserves it. nate allen - 60. 2nd round pick. a rookie...it makes no sense to rate rookies high for no reason. just my 2 cents.

You sir...GET IT! That is the whole idea behind the new FBG ratings! No more over-inflated ratings. Rookies do not earn their high ratings until they EARN it. That is the point. There are under 100 guys in the 90s in this system, so they are rare, but amazing on the field. Your average player? About a 70. This is how it is supposed to work. Thank you for your comments...I am glad someone gets it!

# 15 Kushmir @ 07/07/10 10:37 AM

preciate it.

yeah a friend of mine and i have been doing our own ratings since you guys went down, did i agree with all of your ratings? NOPE. most of them? YESSIR. rating based on the last 3 years (with the most emphasis on the most current year) is usually the most accurate. you guys saw how ratings spiralled out of control in 2005.

there were simply too many "popularity guys" who had ratings that were much too high. it showed me that the ratings people weren't being thorough. Roy Williams (safety) was never higher than a 81-83...he was a one-dimensional player--and not a dominant one. hell, atleast Simeon Rice gave you 12 sacks a year. we got to the point where we rated players without looking at the names to "test ourselves" to see if we'd give the player the same rating if we just saw his numbers. we'd started using intangibles to rate as well...because the ratings of halfback A (900 yards, 6TDs, 4.2 yd average) and B (1000 yards, 8 tds, 3.8 yard average) aren't always what you think. especially if halfback A's team when to the NFC championship and B's went 3-13. players put up empty stats on bad teams ALL the time. they're not the equal of someone contributing during "winning time." while Haloti Ngata might never put up great "measurables" like 12 sacks a year...look at how the raven's rank .vs. the run every year to help determine his rating. how many points did they give up? how was their red zone defense? how many 100 yard rushers? this stuff lets you track a players effectiveness.

inflated ratings hurt the game badly...they make players too dominant. 200yd games by reggie bush (i'll never forget his rookie 88 in 2006) 5 sack games by peppers, Moss with 300 yards receiving--stuff like that. we even decided to go with a consistent -3 rating for a year lost to injury as well...so a guy like bob sanders who can't stay on the field the last 2 years? 84.

do we change the ratings on our players? naaah....the game plays much better now that the ratings have been lowered. it was always more of a "if we did the rosters they'd look like this" kinda thing. and we were big on CONSISTENCY. I wish we could help, we recently devised a way to use macros to take the opinion part out of rating players even more (by letting numbers determine 90% of a rating) that way we could just plug a guys numbers in, let it generate an 85...and then let logic tell us if that's accurate or if we should be SUBTRACTING 8 points or ADDING them. and while we think stats are the most accurate based on a yearly basis, we submit that updates during the year are important. most important thing to understand? most players don't change much. rookies usually change the MOST, and its usually most accurate to rate quarterly (i.e every 4 games) these changes during the year often aren't much...but taking someone's rating up 5 ppoints for a good game usually gets you right back in the inflated ratings mess. worse ratings i've seen?...had to be vick in the 90s from madden 2004 to 2007 (has never been an elite player--at his best he was the best we'll give a one dimensional player:87) bush's rookie 88 or the 90 they gave cleveland LB andra davis. anytime you're giving 90 ratings to "solid" players who's teams never sniff the playoffs (and were literally sieves on defense) you KNOW we're in trouble.

lastly, we understood how ludicrous it is for "one guy" to do the ratings. its much too big a job--too much gets lost. you need a TEAM of guys and quite honestly? one person per team. and they have to be people who are knowledgeable and objective. there are waaay too many "OMG! Miles Austin should be a 92!!" homers out there because they want their team to benefit from high ratings. a 92 for one good year? (81 catches, 1300 yds, 11tds) so what do we rate Moss? 115? because those are essentially his "averages". and that's the difference--elite guys put up numbers over a PERIOD of years. anyone can start out the season well, or have a good four game stretch. elite and good guys (rated 85+) put up numbers even after teams start scheming for them. let austin put up numbers like that for three years in a row (like Romo did)--then we'll talk 90's.

WOW...rating a guy like Austin in the 90s would mean that a player like Jerry Rice would have been rated somewhere in the 150's...

food for thought.

and since the ratings just came out? i think its time for another ratings article

# 16 King Gro23 @ 07/07/10 10:58 AM

^^ I am excited for these ratings, and excellent post Kushmir. Wow is all I can say man, madden may be so much more different,

# 17 Maelstrom-XIII @ 07/07/10 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushmir


	we'd started using intangibles to rate as well...because the ratings of halfback A (900 yards, 6TDs, 4.2 yd average) and B (1000 yards, 8 tds, 3.8 yard average) aren't always what you think. especially if halfback A's team when to the NFC championship and B's went 3-13. players put up empty stats on bad teams ALL the time. they're not the equal of someone contributing during "winning time."

So you're saying Steven Jackson (STL) should be rated lower than Joseph Addai (IND) just because Addai's team goes to the playoffs yearly? I cry foul.

In my opinion, ratings should never take into account what team someone is on...it should be all about individual ability--because that's what it is. Someone's ability. In my opinion, once you start factoring in, "Oh the team's defense was #1 in the NFL last year, so this guy must be good at lots of things" you start inflating ratings (which is what you're opposed to) just for the sake of showing that he's a great defensive player. Is Haloti Ngata a great defensive player? Sure...but is he the sole reason they've got a top 5 defense every year? Nope. Make sure you rate him (strengths AND weaknesses) accordingly, and it's all good. But ratings are about an individual, not a team.

# 18 Kushmir @ 07/07/10 11:30 AM

crying is unnecessary

i think jackson's numbers and effectiveness speak for themselves...and we'll have to agree to disagree. team is VERY IMPORTANT. running for 100 yards when ur team is getting blown out 48-0 and running for 100 in a game tied at 17 in OT are NOT the same...the defense is lax in the first example...backups are probably in too. the latter? not so much.

jackson is the best player on his team. addai isn't in the top 5 on his. jackson gets his numbers DESPITE 8 in the box because of a poor passing game--addai gets his because defenses focus on so many other weapons. addai shares carries now. jackson still gets the bulk of his.

here are addai's last three years numbers:

2007 Indianapolis 15 261 1072 71.5 4.1 12
2008 Indianapolis 12 155 544 45.3 3.5 5
2009 Indianapolis 15 219 828 55.2 3.8 10

here's jackson:

2007 St. Louis 12 237 1002 83.5 4.2 5
2008 St. Louis 12 253 1042 86 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting**************12 253 1042 2009 St. Louis 15 324 1416 94.4 4.4 4

its pretty obvious who the better back is. a 4 yard average DESPITE being the defense's focus? although playing for the league's WORST team does change people's view of him. keep in mind that this is JUST my opinion. but i'd rate jackson a 90 (IMO still an elite back..the TDs and missed games hurt tho) and addai an 81. i've always said instead of looking AT the numbers..you've got to look INTO them.

i have no idea why skype is playing games with jackson's numbers...here they are again:

2007 St. Louis 12 237 1002 83.5 4.2 5
2008 St. Louis 12 253 1042 86.8 4.1 7
2009 St. Louis 15 324 1416 94.4 4.4 4

i just emailed my partner to see what his rating would be...i'll edit his in when he send it back to me. now i'm gonna go look and see what Donny gave Addai. this oughta be good.

# 19 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushmir


	preciate it. yeah a friend of mine and i have been doing our own ratings since you guys went down, did i agree with all of your ratings? NOPE. most of them? YESSIR. rating based on the last 3 years (with the most emphasis on the most current year) is usually the most accurate. you guys saw how ratings spiralled out of control in 2005. there were simply too many "popularity guys" who had ratings that were much too high. it showed me that the ratings people weren't being thorough. Roy Williams (safety) was never higher than a 81-83...he was a one-dimensional player--and not a dominant one. hell, atleast Simeon Rice gave you 12 sacks a year. we got to the point where we rated players without looking at the names to "test ourselves" to see if we'd give the player the same rating if we just saw his numbers. we'd started using intangibles to rate as well...because the ratings of halfback A (900 yards, 6TDs, 4.2 yd average) and B (1000 yards, 8 tds, 3.8 yard average) aren't always what you think. especially if halfback A's team when to the NFC championship and B's went 3-13. players put up empty stats on bad teams ALL the time. they're not the equal of someone contributing during "winning time." while Haloti Ngata might never put up great "measurables" like 12 sacks a year...look at how the raven's rank .vs. the run every year to help determine his rating. how many points did they give up? how was their red zone defense? how many 100 yard rushers? this stuff lets you track a players effectiveness. inflated ratings hurt the game badly...they make players too dominant. 200yd games by reggie bush (i'll never forget his rookie 88 in 2006) 5 sack games by peppers, Moss with 300 yards receiving--stuff like that. we even decided to go with a consistent -3 rating for a year lost to injury as well...so a guy like bob sanders who can't stay on the field the last 2 years? 84. do we change the ratings on our players? naaah....the game plays much better now that the ratings have been lowered. it was always more of a "if we did the rosters they'd look like this" kinda thing. and we were big on CONSISTENCY. I wish we could help, we recently devised a way to use macros to take the opinion part out of rating players even more (by letting numbers determine 90% of a rating) that way we could just plug a guys numbers in, let it generate an 85...and then let logic tell us if that's accurate or if we should be SUBTRACTING 8 points or ADDING them. and while we think stats are the most accurate based on a yearly basis, we submit that updates during the year are important. most important thing to understand? most players don't change much. rookies usually change the MOST, and its usually most accurate to rate quarterly (i.e every 4 games) these changes during the year often aren't much...but taking someone's rating up 5 ppoints for a good game usually gets you right back in the inflated ratings mess. worse ratings i've seen?...had to be vick in the 90s from madden 2004 to 2007 (has never been an elite player--at his best he was the best we'll give a one dimensional player:87) bush's rookie 88 or the 90 they gave cleveland LB andra davis. anytime you're giving 90 ratings to "solid" players who's teams never sniff the playoffs (and were literally sieves on defense) you KNOW we're in trouble. lastly, we understood how ludicrous it is for "one guy" to do the ratings. its much too big a job--too much gets lost. you need a TEAM of guys and quite honestly? one person per team. and they have to be people who are knowledgeable and objective. there are waaay too many "OMG! Miles Austin should be a 92!!" homers out there because they want their team to benefit from high ratings. a 92 for one good year? (81 catches, 1300 yds, 11tds) so what do we rate Moss? 115? because those are essentially his "averages". and that's the difference--elite guys put up numbers over a PERIOD of years. anyone can start out the season well, or have a good four game stretch. elite and good guys (rated 85+) put up numbers even after teams start scheming for them. let austin put up numbers like that for three years in a row (like Romo did)--then we'll talk 90's. WOW...rating a guy like Austin in the 90s would mean that a player like Jerry Rice would have been rated somewhere in the 150's... food for thought. and since the ratings just came out? i think its time for another ratings article

We have simply tried to do away with the inflated ratings. The site has always been a 1-man job, but an unbiased one at that. The data for the ratings is actually calculated and compiled from our scout data. At TSX, we employ hundreds of scouts and scouting interns who provide the best information. This isn't speculative stuff; its the real deal. The best players don't change much from year to year, but we still employ a wider range in the ratings, albeit the guys at the top in the 90s are fewer in numbers.

# 20 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maelstrom-XIII


	So you're saying Steven Jackson (STL) should be rated lower than Joseph Addai (IND) just because Addai's team goes to the playoffs yearly? I cry foul. In my opinion, ratings should never take into account what team someone is on...it should be all about individual ability--because that's what it is. Someone's ability. In my opinion, once you start factoring in, "Oh the team's defense was #1 in the NFL last year, so this guy must be good at lots of things" you start inflating ratings (which is what you're opposed to) just for the sake of showing that he's a great defensive player. Is Haloti Ngata a great defensive player? Sure...but is he the sole reason they've got a top 5 defense every year? Nope. Make sure you rate him (strengths AND weaknesses) accordingly, and it's all good. But ratings are about an individual, not a team.

Have to agree with you here. There are far better ways to rate individual players than by just using stats though. However, we do not use team stuff very much. The individual rating is far more important because that is how Madden is set up.

« Previous12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »

More Links

Old Madden Ratings Site Reborn Under New Management