Madden 12 News Post

Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - AFC West (ESPN)

04:55 PM - July 21, 2011 by RedZoneD25

Jon Robinson of ESPN The Gamer breaks down the AFC West team overall ratings in Madden NFL 12.

As you no doubt know, we are releasing the "Madden NFL 12" Overall Team Ratings over the course of this week and next. We're doing it division by division, and today we've got ratings for the AFC West. And remember, we'll also be breaking down the complete player ratings starting August 1. Until then, Tebow or Orton, who you got?.

Denver Broncos: 74
It's all about who you want as your starting quarterback in Denver. Tim Tebow is 77 overall with 80 speed and 76 throwing accuracy while Kyle Orton is 82 overall with only 64 speed but 85 accuracy. Really depends on how you like to play "Madden." As a guy who likes mobility, I'll take Tebow.

San Diego Chargers: 85
With Philip Rivers clocking in at 96 overall and Antonio Gates at 99, the Chargers are going to be tearing up defenses through the air. The fact that they have three running backs with 90-plus speed doesn't hurt, either.

Kansas City Chiefs: 84
Jamaal Charles was one of the surprises of the "Madden" cover vote, showing strong support throughout his campaign. His reward? EA Sports makes him one of the most feared backs in Madden with 98 speed.

Oakland Raiders: 76
Darrius Heyward-Bey blazes the virtual field with 97 speed but only has a 68 catching rating. That pretty much sums up the team right there. Oh yeah, Shane Lechler is a beast at 98 overall.

Source: Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - AFC West

Game: Madden NFL 12Reader Score: 6.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Wii / Xbox 360Votes for game: 44 - View All

Madden NFL 12 Videos

Member Comments

# 61 CFTejada @ 07/24/11 12:21 PM

Team Overall means absolutely nothing...

no need to get worked up because the Raiders aren't a high team overall

It's all about the player behind the controller, and the only factor that matters in Madden is speed; so therefore the Raiders are the best team to use in Madden; bar none..

I can careless if Madden rated the Giants a '70'; I won't lose sleep over it..It's just a number, and 9/10 the team will play better then the overall rating '70'..

# 62 iBlievN5 @ 07/24/11 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trauma


	What a joke.

why? who else is truly in the upper echelon at their position?

# 63 SportsTop @ 07/24/11 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trauma


	We were missing McFadden in the first game who was much, MUCH more important to our team than anyone the Chargers were missing (not sure if this was brought up, but if it wasn't...). So yes, we were as shorthanded as you guys.

The argument could me made that the Chargers missed:

1. David Binn
2. Kassim Osgood (left as a FA)
3. Vincent Jackson
4. Marcus McNeill

In that order....more than the Raiders missed Nnamdi Asomugha. The Binn and/or Osgood absences can be directly attributed to at least 3 losses.

# 64 SportsTop @ 07/24/11 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brettmickey


	Geez can we stop the stupid arguments about who could have/ should have won games because of injuries? Even if players weren't injured who knows if they would have had a bad game anyways? There are too many variables involved for someone to justify an argument based on injuries. There is absolutely no way in proving who would win a game if injuries didn't occur because they are apart of the game so whoever won is the winner whoever lost is the loser that's all we know and that's all we need to know. Stop making excuses for your team because they lost

Well genius, seeing as how the conversation is about why team A is rated where it is or why it's higher than team X, Y, and/or Z then how would you suggest everyone go about having an objective discussion on subjective material?

# 65 bkrich83 @ 07/24/11 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brettmickey


	Geez can we stop the stupid arguments about who could have/ should have won games because of injuries? Even if players weren't injured who knows if they would have had a bad game anyways? There are too many variables involved for someone to justify an argument based on injuries. There is absolutely no way in proving who would win a game if injuries didn't occur because they are apart of the game so whoever won is the winner whoever lost is the loser that's all we know and that's all we need to know. Stop making excuses for your team because they lost

Are you confused about what thread you are in?

# 66 brettmickey @ 07/24/11 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	Are you confused about what thread you are in?

hahaha sorry about that, that was supposed to be in another thread on the Bills message boards. Some Bengals fan was complaining about the Bills win last season. Again sorry about any confusion continue your discussion haha

# 67 DaggerSwagger @ 07/25/11 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broncoman


	The Raiders aren't a good team period. Sure they swept the division and put up the best record since what....2002? All this crying over a team rating..... The Faid have some of the fastest skill players and ya'll should be happy with that. Consistancy.... When they can accomplish that then they will get madden respect. Maybe try finishing better than 3rd or 4th more than once in a decade...

ha ha don't you feel good about your team

# 68 Tyrant8RDFL @ 07/25/11 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTFitsDaveyJ


	Jon Robinson of ESPN The Gamer breaks down the AFC West team overall ratings in Madden NFL 12. As you no doubt know, we are releasing the "Madden NFL 12" Overall Team Ratings over the course of this week and next. We're doing it division by division, and today we've got ratings for the AFC West. And remember, we'll also be breaking down the complete player ratings starting August 1. Until then, Tebow or Orton, who you got?. Denver Broncos: 74 It's all about who you want as your starting quarterback in Denver. Tim Tebow is 77 overall with 80 speed and 76 throwing accuracy while Kyle Orton is 82 overall with only 64 speed but 85 accuracy. Really depends on how you like to play "Madden." As a guy who likes mobility, I'll take Tebow. San Diego Chargers: 85 With Philip Rivers clocking in at 96 overall and Antonio Gates at 99, the Chargers are going to be tearing up defenses through the air. The fact that they have three running backs with 90-plus speed doesn't hurt, either. Kansas City Chiefs: 84 Jamaal Charles was one of the surprises of the "Madden" cover vote, showing strong support throughout his campaign. His reward? EA Sports makes him one of the most feared backs in Madden with 98 speed. Oakland Raiders: 76 Darrius Heyward-Bey blazes the virtual field with 97 speed but only has a 68 catching rating. That pretty much sums up the team right there. Oh yeah, Shane Lechler is a beast at 98 overall. Source: Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - AFC West

Pretty much agree with what was done.

My question is with Darrius. Is it that he can't catch or can't get open?

I did not see every raiders game, but from the one I saw. He catches the ball, but does'nt get open much.

If this is the case I would have given him a low route running rating, and a decent catch rating.

This way yes he is fast, but can't run a good route to get open on a avg AWR DB. Just makes more sense to me.

# 69 trauma @ 07/26/11 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	Uhhh no. 10 char.

Uhhh, ya. Darren McFadden was MUCH more valuable than Jackson or McNeill. If you can actually deny that, then you really have no idea what you're talking about.

# 70 SportsTop @ 07/26/11 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trauma


	Uhhh, ya. Darren McFadden was MUCH more valuable than Jackson or McNeill. If you can actually deny that, then you really have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm pretty sure his comment was regarding you saying the Raiders were as short-handed as the Chargers --- which is complete lunacy by the way.

Let's just take McNeill and Jackson (two pro-bowlers) argument and compare them to McFadden (who was a marginal NFL running back to that point.

You don't even have to include the Chargers losing their long-snapper that, can be argued, directly led to three losses or losing their other starting WR for an extended period of time, or their 1st round draft pick running back, and the list goes on....

# 71 trauma @ 07/26/11 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SportsTop


	I'm pretty sure his comment was regarding you saying the Raiders were as short-handed as the Chargers --- which is complete lunacy by the way. Let's just take McNeill and Jackson (two pro-bowlers) argument and compare them to McFadden (who was a marginal NFL running back to that point. You don't even have to include the Chargers losing their long-snapper that, can be argued, directly led to three losses or losing their other starting WR for an extended period of time, or their 1st round draft pick running back, and the list goes on....

A marginal running back? He was top 5 or so in the league in terms of rushing yards at that point. McFadden was one of the top 3 most valuable players (to his team) last year. But let's name someone else who was out...Robert Gallery, the best OL on our team and a huge part of the run game. Considering McFadden is more valuable to Oakland than either Jackson or McNeill and Gallery was the best OL this team had (and was a very good guard the last two years), yes we were just as shorthanded. If you want to bring in STs, then it's not going to make a gigantic difference. McFadden being out cost us the SF game. So if SD WAS really more shorthanded, it was by a VERY small amount...not enough to use it as an excuse.

And why are you bringing up Matthews and Floyd when they both played in this game?

# 72 letsgopens66 @ 07/27/11 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trauma


	A marginal running back? He was top 5 or so in the league in terms of rushing yards at that point. McFadden was one of the top 3 most valuable players (to his team) last year. But let's name someone else who was out...Robert Gallery, the best OL on our team and a huge part of the run game. Considering McFadden is more valuable to Oakland than either Jackson or McNeill and Gallery was the best OL this team had (and was a very good guard the last two years), yes we were just as shorthanded. If you want to bring in STs, then it's not going to make a gigantic difference. McFadden being out cost us the SF game. So if SD WAS really more shorthanded, it was by a VERY small amount...not enough to use it as an excuse. And why are you bringing up Matthews and Floyd when they both played in this game?

You're comparing a mediocre (at best) OL to a pro bowl OL. There is quite a difference

# 73 Reggie16 @ 07/27/11 01:07 AM

59-14 broncoman.......59-14

# 74 trauma @ 07/27/11 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by letsgopens66


	You're comparing a mediocre (at best) OL to a pro bowl OL. There is quite a difference

Uh, mediocre? Gallery is a very good guard. Shows how much you know. And this isn't about who's better as a PLAYER, it's who's more valuable to their team. Rivers posted 4700+ yards with a 101 rating. McNeill is valuable, but having an elite QB makes up for LT problems. Gallery, on the other hand, has been crucial to this team's running game and was really the only good OL on this team. Gallery is (was) just as valuable to Oakland's OL as McNeill was/is to SD's.

# 75 SportsTop @ 07/27/11 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trauma


	A marginal running back? He was top 5 or so in the league in terms of rushing yards at that point. McFadden was one of the top 3 most valuable players (to his team) last year. But let's name someone else who was out...Robert Gallery, the best OL on our team and a huge part of the run game. Considering McFadden is more valuable to Oakland than either Jackson or McNeill and Gallery was the best OL this team had (and was a very good guard the last two years), yes we were just as shorthanded. If you want to bring in STs, then it's not going to make a gigantic difference. McFadden being out cost us the SF game. So if SD WAS really more shorthanded, it was by a VERY small amount...not enough to use it as an excuse. And why are you bringing up Matthews and Floyd when they both played in this game?

Three things:

1. Whoever said this conversation was based on one game? The overall discussion is the duration of the season.

2. My comment about McFadden was his history coming into 2010 -- which was a marginal (at best) NFL running back.

3. If you want to get into a conversation about that specific game, how can you possibly argue McFadden was more valuable if the Raiders won the game and Michael Bush nearly ran for 100 yards? Again, I'd argue David Binn was probably the Chargers biggest loss of the season as their special teams showed by spotting Oakland the first 12 points of that game.

# 76 JMD @ 07/27/11 09:11 AM

The AFC West is back in the hands of the Chiefs where it belongs. I'll say it now, the Chiefs will win the division. Not a big stretch there.

# 77 dkomarek @ 07/27/11 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j_paq_9


	The Chargers with 3 Running Backs with 90 plus Speed.......... Ryan Mathews and Jordan Todman I can see, those guys can both fly but Mike Tolbert with 90 plus speed just doesn't seem right.

Darren Sproles Maybe?

# 78 bkrich83 @ 07/27/11 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trauma


	Uh, mediocre? Gallery is a very good guard. Shows how much you know. And this isn't about who's better as a PLAYER, it's who's more valuable to their team. Rivers posted 4700+ yards with a 101 rating. McNeill is valuable, but having an elite QB makes up for LT problems. Gallery, on the other hand, has been crucial to this team's running game and was really the only good OL on this team. Gallery is (was) just as valuable to Oakland's OL as McNeill was/is to SD's.

So a guy who's an average guard is more valuable than a franchise LT?

That explains why NFL teams value LT's almost more than any position in the league. I guess that's why left tackle get drafted so high and guards don't. You think the Raiders would have taken Gallery that high if they knew they would have to move him to the guard position?

# 79 bkrich83 @ 07/27/11 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trauma


	Uhhh, ya. Darren McFadden was MUCH more valuable than Jackson or McNeill. If you can actually deny that, then you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah. I am the one who doesn't know what I am talking about.

# 80 Instant C1a55ic @ 07/27/11 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broncoman


	Really....? I do feel good about my team. I don't have any unrealistic expectations of where the Broncos might finish in terms of wins/loses and place in the AFCW. The delusional average faid fan on the other hand thinks his team was a contender...Wants respect for an average season.....The AFCW is not a very strong division, and hasn't been for awhile now. They want respect for beating a really bad Broncos team. A Broncos team that hadn't been that bad in over 40 years! Oooooh... World beaters! The funny thing is that the Raiders were that bad for 8 years! 8 years! Damn! If the Broncos were that bad of a team for 8 years I might throw batteries at people at Mile High stadium too! I still wouldn't dress like I'm at a halloween party 16 weeks out of the year though... Now they get to average status and here come all the faid fans complaining about ratings. "We were undefeated in the division and we don't even get respect!". WTF man! This is BS! And blah, blah, blah! Your fast! Thats it! Thats all you get. An overachieving Chiefs team?? Really. Again not much to celebrate about. The Chargers are the team to beat this year. They've been the team to beat for a few years now. Sure they underachieved some the last year or two, and fell to the faid, but they are still a notch above the rest of the West and have the best QB in the division. Live with it. Just like the last 9 years.....

Well said, any little ray of hope the raiders get, they latch onto it cause it might be all they get for a long time.

« Previous 1 2 345 Next »

More Links

Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - AFC West (ESPN)