Madden 12 News Post

Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - NFC North

06:01 PM - July 28, 2011 by Steve_OS

Jon Robinson of ESPN The Gamer takes us through the team overall ratings for the NFC North in Madden NFL 12.

Green Bay Packers: 92
No surprise here as the Super Bowl champs are the highest-rated team in "Madden 12." Aaron Rodgers falls just one point short of "Madden" perfection, with a 98 overall, while Charles Woodson (93 overall) and Tramon Williams (92 overall) will keep the corners on lock.

Chicago Bears: 85
Combine Jay Cutler's 98 throwing power with Devin Hester (98 speed) and Johnny Knox (97 speed) going deep, and you have a very fun "Madden" team. Throw in the running of Matt Forte, and you have an offense to be feared.

Detroit Lions: 76
The overall team number is a little low, but I can see the Lions being a popular team this year for the simple fact that this defensive line is going to give people headaches. Suh (95 hit power) and Fairley (88 hit power) are going to abuse virtual backs so bad, "Madden" might need to bring back the old ambulance.

Minnesota Vikings: 74
Ever since Adrian Peterson stormed the league, the Vikings have been a popular pick to play as in "Madden." But if you're still playing as them this year, it's really only because you want to run the ball down your friend's throat as All Day. And why not when the back boasts a 97 overall rating with 97 speed, 97 acceleration, and 90 trucking.

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

# 121 knucklar @ 07/31/11 04:29 AM

Is the Vikings score with McNabb joining the team?

# 122 roadman @ 07/31/11 10:51 AM

Without.

All people need to do is wait for day 1 rosters and it might change.

# 123 brettmickey @ 07/31/11 02:03 PM

Some of these arguments are pathetic. All that matters is:
1. The Packers are the WORLD CHAMPIONS. Deal with it.
2. They beat the Eagles TWICE in one season. 2 opportunities at showing your superiority, and neither happened.
3. 3 Game win streak on the road in the playoffs with the most players on the IR. Remarkable.
4. Their passing attack versus the Steelers, the best defensive team in the playoffs, was basically perfection. Should of had 400+ yards passing if some WRs had better hands.
Going by last season's performances, the Packers are the top dogs. End of story. Now does that mean they will be the best this season? Probably not. There is a lot of turnover in the NFL. Eagles are probably the preseason favorite, but NO team has EVER bought a Super Bowl. Just look at the Redskins every year and the Jets of last year. Oh, and go Bills.

# 124 authentic @ 07/31/11 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadman


	Yeah, ok all Packer fans are fair weather fans like Cub fans. Didn't notice how much hatred their are for winning teams. A team wins the SB for the 1st time in 15 yrs and there is hatred. Well, at least Packer fans don't have to say, Wait till next year every year or worry about goats and have Steve Bartman type fans.

zThere ya go, start talking about baseball now and my team. Really compelling arguement on the goats and Bartman.

Ask David Akers why the Packers beat the Eagles twice.

# 125 roadman @ 07/31/11 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by authentic


	zThere ya go, start talking about baseball now and my team. Really compelling arguement on the goats and Bartman. Ask David Akers why the Packers beat the Eagles twice.

Your opinion was just as compelling.

Yeah, Akers lost both games for the Eagles. The Packers weren't the better team both times.

Why do you think the Eagles loaded up in the secondary. Rodgers ripped them apart for 3 TD's in the playoffs.

# 126 authentic @ 07/31/11 05:54 PM

I meant no disrespect to THE GB Packers. They were lucky and had a lot of things go wrong for other teams, and themselves. I was just stating I love GB Packer fans after their team has success. Don't want to stray this topic away from what it was intended for, which was simply discussing the ratings of the NFC North and none others. Peace

# 127 XtremeDunkz @ 07/31/11 06:29 PM

Yeah it was really lucky that we had ryan grant, jermichael finley, morgan burnett, nick barnett, mike neal, just for a start, all get injured early in the season. Not to mention we lost Charles Woodson and Donald Driver very early in the Super Bowl, and yet we NEVER TRAILED in the game. Lucky...give me a break.

# 128 Wrecktum @ 07/31/11 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knucklar


	Is the Vikings score with McNabb joining the team?

The way McNabb played in Washington, Minnesota's overall will probably go down after McNabb is added to the roster.

# 129 BigBoi23 @ 07/31/11 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by authentic


	I meant no disrespect to THE GB Packers. They were lucky and had a lot of things go wrong for other teams, and themselves. I was just stating I love GB Packer fans after their team has success. Don't want to stray this topic away from what it was intended for, which was simply discussing the ratings of the NFC North and none others. Peace

Can you please state why you think the Packers were lucky? You throw out some weak excuse that David Akers singlehandedly won the Super Bowl for them. You give them backhanded compliments then follow that with thinly-veiled accusations of them being "lucky". Then, you go on to rip Packer fans for being fair-weather. I couldn't disagree with your post more. You obviously have some deep-seated issues with their fans and/or are jealous of the team's success. If you could further elaborate on your point, it would be much appreciated. If not, no one's going to take your opinion very seriously.

# 130 authentic @ 07/31/11 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrecktum


	The way McNabb played in Washington, Minnesota's overall will probably go down after McNabb is added to the roster.

Actually, I would say McNabb might do ok in Minnesota. I think the offense in Minnesota, players in general is much better than in Washington. Also, the style of play fits McNabb, he won't have to be great, just not turn the ball over, which in league stats, he's the best player active at QB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xtremedunkz


	Yeah it was really lucky that we had ryan grant, jermichael finley, morgan burnett, nick barnett, mike neal, just for a start, all get injured early in the season. Not to mention we lost Charles Woodson and Donald Driver very early in the Super Bowl, and yet we NEVER TRAILED in the game. Lucky...give me a break.

I said the Packers had a lot of things go wrong. I'm not talking about injuries really. The Saints were the luckiest team in 2010, they won the Super Bowl, the Packers were in 2011 they wont the Super Bowl. It's how the game usually works, besides when the Patriots were undefeated and lost, although I can't say I watched many of their games so I don't know. The reason I say Minnesota, GB, and Chicago are all equal is that this division is so tough that, whoever get's off to a hot start could win it. I think having AP and a solid defense is enough to put Minnesota in the category, and without Brett Favre they could be "ok". The Bears have a good run game as well and one of the top defenses. And of course, the GB Packers are the NFL Champs. By no means do I ever say a team shouldn't have won, I just said they were lucky in some circumstances. Don't get me wrong, they battled through without doubt, the toughest series of injuries I've ever seen to win the league.

# 131 roadman @ 07/31/11 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by authentic


	Actually, I would say McNabb might do ok in Minnesota. I think the offense in Minnesota, players in general is much better than in Washington. Also, the style of play fits McNabb, he won't have to be great, just not turn the ball over, which in league stats, he's the best player active at QB. I said the Packers had a lot of things go wrong. I'm not talking about injuries really. The Saints were the luckiest team in 2010, they won the Super Bowl, the Packers were in 2011 they wont the Super Bowl. It's how the game usually works, besides when the Patriots were undefeated and lost, although I can't say I watched many of their games so I don't know. The reason I say Minnesota, GB, and Chicago are all equal is that this division is so tough that, whoever get's off to a hot start could win it. I think having AP and a solid defense is enough to put Minnesota in the category, and without Brett Favre they could be "ok". The Bears have a good run game as well and one of the top defenses. And of course, the GB Packers are the NFL Champs. By no means do I ever say a team shouldn't have won, I just said they were lucky in some circumstances. Don't get me wrong, they battled through without doubt, the toughest series of injuries I've ever seen to win the league.

Actually, you fired the first round by saying Packer fans were fair weather fans. Sorry, but that doesn't start you out on good ground when you have Packer fans that are die hard Packer fans. The wait list to get season tickets at Lambeau is more than 50 yrs. Are you going to call out Packer fans as fair weather fans knowing that. You don't know me and other die hard Packer fans here, so, I'm saying what you called us is very far-fetched.

You either bleed green and gold around here or you don't. There is no in-between.

Never said you disrespected the Packers team(you did zing them again though by calling them lucky), where we are coming from is you disrespected the fans.

# 132 authentic @ 07/31/11 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadman


	Actually, you fired the first round by saying Packer fans were fair weather fans. Sorry, but that doesn't start you out on good ground when you have Packer fans that are die hard Packer fans. The wait list to get season tickets at Lambeau is more than 50 yrs. Are you going to call out Packer fans as fair weather fans knowing that. You don't know me and other die hard Packer fans here, so, I'm saying what you called us is very far-fetched. You either bleed green and gold around here or you don't. There is no in-between. Never said you disrespected the Packers team(you did zing them again though by calling them lucky), where we are coming from is you disrespected the fans.

I actually do know a ton of Packer fans, of course die hard fans are not fair weather fans, I am a die hard Cubs fan and I still watch every game, all 9 innings no matter how bad it is. I do the same for my football and basketball teams. From the Packers fans I know, none of them could care less when the Packers are losing, only when their winning. My comment about Packer fans was actually fueled by Facebook, might have gotten me a little tied up because of some recent Facebook comments. Darn Facebook!

# 133 roadman @ 07/31/11 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by authentic


	I actually do know a ton of Packer fans, of course die hard fans are not fair weather fans, I am a die hard Cubs fan and I still watch every game, all 9 innings no matter how bad it is. I do the same for my football and basketball teams. From the Packers fans I know, none of them could care less when the Packers are losing, only when their winning. My comment about Packer fans was actually fueled by Facebook, might have gotten me a little tied up because of some recent Facebook comments. Darn Facebook!

Alright, sounds good, at least know we know you were generalizing and not being specific.

To me, those aren't fans of the team and glad I don't know anyone like that.

Every sports team has casual fans or bandwagon fans, it's not just Packer fans. Especially, teams that win it all.

# 134 Nims4353 @ 08/01/11 12:44 AM

Correction: looking for things to ARGUE about

# 135 QJB1022 @ 08/01/11 11:23 AM

lions are going to be a beast

# 136 authentic @ 08/01/11 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadman


	Alright, sounds good, at least know we know you were generalizing and not being specific. To me, those aren't fans of the team and glad I don't know anyone like that. Every sports team has casual fans or bandwagon fans, it's not just Packer fans. Especially, teams that win it all.

Yeah, I have my favorite players that I follow but I don't consider myself a huge fan of the team he's on. Why I hate so many people that like the Heat now, because of LeBron, and being a 20+ year Bulls fan. Turns out the refs sided with the Heat as well

I actually think the NFC North will be very competitive, we'll see when it all starts.

# 137 ibigmike @ 08/02/11 12:24 PM

so glad the lions arent last.! but we should be a lil closer to the bears lol they aren't that good but hey it could be worse we could be the vikings lol

# 138 Lancelot205 @ 08/14/11 01:10 PM

Just wanted to stop in and voice in on the debate about the packers being 92 while the Eagles are just 86 (likely slightly higher once the roster update hits due to new aquisitions)

So, Eagles have better receivers?

Maclin (leading receiver) verse Jennings (leading receiver)

70 Catches 964 Yards 10 TDs Vs. 76 Catches 1,265 Yards 12 TDS

Jennings had more catches, a lot more yards, and more TD's. Jennings was better than Maclin Last year. Higher rating justified.

Jackson vs Driver

47 -1,056 - 6 vs 51 - 565 - 4

Driver had more catches, but Jackson was much more exsplosive. Driver is much older. Jackson should clearly be rated higher, and he likely is.

Wait, that's it then right? Wrong, last I checked the Packers have the deepest WR core in the NFL.

Avant verse Jones

51 - 573 - 1 vs 50 - 679 - 5

Avant had one more catch, but Jones was more productive with his catches. Jones is better than Avant. Not sure anyone in the NFL would say otherwise.

Cooper verse Nelson

7 -116 - 1 vs 45 - 582 - 2

Nelson is superior by a long shot. Packer fans argue he is better than Jones on their own roster. That's pure 1 through 4 depth like no other team has in the NFL. Truly, the packers have the best receiving core in the NFL.

Rodgers verse Vick

65.7% completion percentage - 3922 passing yards - 8.3 average - 248.6 ypg - 28 TD - 11 int - 31 sacks - 356 yards rushing - 5.6 ypc.

62.6% - 3018 - 8.1 - 234 - 21 - 6 - 34 sacks - 676 - 6.8

So as a pure passer, rodgers numbers were better across the board except for interceptions, where he had 5 more. However, rodgers also threw the ball significantly more than Vick. Rodgers completed a higher percentage of balls, threw for more yards, had a higher completion average, more yards per game, more TD's. Rodgers was simply the superior passer last season, and as such should be rated higher than Vick.

Vick had 320 more yards rushing than Rodgers, and a higher average. That being said, combine the yards totals and rodters is at 4,200+ total for the year where Vick hasn't cracked 3,900, which is what Rodgers had in just passing yards.

Vick had 9 rushing TD's to Rodgers 4, but combined Rodgers produced 32 TD's while Vick produced 30. Very tight, but a slight edge to Rodgers.

Now, who was truly better last year? Statistically it was Rodgers, especially as a pure passer even though Vick was very good. Who is better overall? Is that a real question? Last year was the first GOOD year for Vick in terms of passing in his entire career. Rodgers has put up these sort of numbers 3 years in a row. Vick has a lot to prove this year. Was it truly a one year wonder? Regardless, ROdgers edged him out as a passer last year and that was Vick's best year as a QB.

So, yes, Rodgers is overall better than Vick.

OL - Really hard to compare. Both are pretty good in areas. Packers have two legit Pro Bowl players (as of last year) in Clifton and Sitton, and the center Wells is close. The eaglies OL has their own talent, so it's sort of a wash. Though, with Vicks 34 sacks despite him running a lot, it would suggest the packers did better with pass protection. Especially considering Rodgers threw it a lot more.

McCoy verse Jackson

Not even close. No point in listing stats - McCoy was vastly superior to anything we had last year. Is he better than Grant? Debatable, but McCoy is a much bigger passing threat than any RB we have, and a much faster RB than any RB we have., We use WR"s and TE's way more than the Eagles do, becaue McCoy is practically another WR. Advantage to the Eagles. I am sure the ratings will show this.

Celek Verse Finley and Quarless

42 - 511 - 4 vs 21 - 301 - 1 and 21 - 238 - 1

Celek had a better year than both the packers TE's. However, Neither TE played the entire season as the starter. Finley had more catches and yards per game than Celek. Convential wisdom suggests that Finely is a vastly superior TE in terms of catching because that stat line isn't even close.

Oh, and the fact we have a second pass catching option at TE while the Eagles don't is further proof the packers have more depth, and thus deserve an overall higher rating at the position.

Defense:

Packers were the 5th best defense in the NFL. Eagels were 12th.

It's not even close. Even in adding a stud CB and a decent CB, that really only puts you at GB's already great CB level. Woodson is still great, and Williams was an absolute stud last year. I'll take sam shields stats over cromarties last year. Pretty much a wash.

The packers have the best saftey, and the better LB's and the the better DL. Overall, the packers defense is simply better, and it showed last year despite all the IR guys.

SO, the eagles are lower rated than the packers? Yup - because the packers were statistically superior in almost every facet of playing in the NFL. Oh, and they won this thing call the super bowl while playing every playoff game on the road. They also beat the eagles twice at their place. Statistically and in the final result, packers had a better 2010 than the eagles, and should be higher rated heading into this season

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 67Next »

More Links

Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - NFC North