Madden 12 News Post

Madden NFL 12 Player Ratings - Green Bay Packers and Minnesota Vikings

05:40 AM - August 18, 2011 by Steve_OS

ESPN The Gamer has posted the Madden NFL 12 player ratings for the Green Bay Packers and Minnesota Vikings.

Are there any changes you would like to see, or are they just about right?

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

# 101 aceoye @ 08/18/11 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dayman


	But naaaahhh. Finley can't jump.

lol leave them alone man before they say finley is not black..haha

# 102 DCEBB2001 @ 08/18/11 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ_Bills9


	DCEB, do you have rosters available for download throughout the season? Thinking I'm going to have to use yours.

Not yet. Trying to tie up some legal stuff first for distribution. However, I am thinking about approving some fellow posters who inquired about making rosters for the site and then distributing them. I will keep you posted.

# 103 poopoop @ 08/18/11 10:09 PM

Go ahead. Tell me Finely can't jump.

# 104 poopoop @ 08/18/11 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ_Bills9


	Speed has nothing to do with how much separation you can get on a route. That's route running and how well the DB covers the route. JerMichael Finley isn't fast. This is a fact. Quarless is faster than him. This also a fact. No point debating this because it's true. Finley should be a mid 70 guy in speed. But frankly players in this game aren't accurately rated in speed across the board. Vernon Davis should be at least 15 points higher than Jermichael based on 40 and based on in-game film. Speed is speed. Please rate it correctly Donny.

Basically.

I think the root of the problem is the game placing too much priority on speed. Slower players who are better at other things aren't as valuable as the faster guys. They need to do a better job representing the importance of things like route running in addition to making the ratings as objective as possible.

# 105 DCEBB2001 @ 08/18/11 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poopoop


	Go ahead. Tell me Finely can't jump.

This one is harder to judge because we don't know where in the endzone they are in relation to that pylon. My guess is its about the same as the last one.

# 106 poopoop @ 08/18/11 10:40 PM

Yeah I was being sarcastic, wanted to take a stab at the "google image search jermichael finely jumping and post first result" method. Next I want to try "well he jumped that high at the combine, but he jumps higher in the real game I've seen it."

I mean we know how high he can jump should not have been an argument to begin with.

# 107 DCEBB2001 @ 08/18/11 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poopoop


	Yeah I was being sarcastic, wanted to take a stab at the "google image search jermichael finely jumping and post first result" method. Next I want to try "well he jumped that high at the combine, but he jumps higher in the real game I've seen it." I mean we know how high he can jump should not have been an argument to begin with.

None of this stuff should be an argument. The problem is that EA relies on crappy information to do their ratings and they get things out of whack IMO. Just trying to shed some light on that.

# 108 DCEBB2001 @ 08/18/11 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ_Bills9


	Agreed. This is really the core of the argument. There are certain ratings in this game that the developers have concrete numbers to go off of, and they choose to just come up with stuff off the top of their head. Like speed, and strength, jumping, stuff like that... not hard to figure out since there are numbers you can look at to get very accurate ratings. Now awareness, throwing accuracy, blocking skills? Those are a bit of a guessing game, but they should be able to be in the ball park to something accurate.

Well if I am able to come up with scouting data for the other ratings, I would think that the guys with the big salaries at EA could.

After all, they are a big multi-million dollar gaming company and I'm just a little baby website owner.

Please...

# 109 kunner @ 08/19/11 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky60


	How do you have Sam Shields rated 69 because of injury and then have Barnett rated 86 coming off an injury bad enough to put him on IR. And he's been injured each of the last 3 seasons?

So you have Barnett, who has had 2 season ending injuries in the past 3 years, one a wrist injury and the other a torn up knee, at 86 overall. While Shields, who hurt his shoulder in one game, gets docked into the 60s? really man, you gotta be more consistent with your ratings. Going by your method, Barnett would be an upper 90s LB if he had no injuries.

# 110 kunner @ 08/19/11 03:58 PM

just wanted to add to my last post, if you dont like the ratings. Change them. There is no law that says you have to play with the ratings out of the box.

# 111 TearsOfPurple @ 08/19/11 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	My argument, however, is how do you know what attributes to performance? How do you know that it is SPEED that attributes to Finley being the better player? What about Finley's AGI being better? Or being the better route runner? Or reading the defense better? My point is that you cannot simply make a player faster just because he is better. That is what EA does. They make players faster because they play better, when in reality they may be better because they are more technical. When I watch Finley, I see a guy who runs good routes and out muscles anyone for a ball. He has GREAT hands. However, when I see Quarless, I see a fast straight-line runner who has tighter hips. He isn't as agile or as good of a route runner. He has difficulty reading defenses. Watch this Vid. Who do you think is faster? 45 year old Jerry Rice or this kid at a Nike Combine? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fzX30Efvtg My guess is that the kid is MUCH faster than Jerry at that age, but because Jerry is such a good route runner and knows what he is doing against man coverage he DESTROYS the DB and makes him look like a fool. The kid isn't even in the frame at the end of the route! So in essence, you don't have to be fast to be good. That is what I think of Finley. He is a tad slower than Quarless, but is much more technically sound. So why make him faster when he truly isn't? That would make as much sense as rating Jerry Rice a 99 in SPD and that poor kid a 79 in SPD when we all know that is probably not true.

This post wins the argument, no idea why it was ignored.

Anyway, BACK ON TOPIC:

I think the Viking's ratings are pretty fair. I do agree with the poster on the first page, Erin Henderson isn't that bad. He's high 60s at worst, low 70s at best.

# 112 DCEBB2001 @ 08/20/11 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunner


	So you have Barnett, who has had 2 season ending injuries in the past 3 years, one a wrist injury and the other a torn up knee, at 86 overall. While Shields, who hurt his shoulder in one game, gets docked into the 60s? really man, you gotta be more consistent with your ratings. Going by your method, Barnett would be an upper 90s LB if he had no injuries.

Barnett was a 91 before the injury. Shields was a 71. He also gave up a TD in the Super Bowl to Mike Wallace.

Jarrett Bush had an INT in the big game and was in on the game-ending 4th down play. In fact, he almost picked that one of as well. Bush is a bit more aware and has better tackling skills. Why do you think he also plays FS? Shields still has a lot of learning to do. He was a rookie after all. It's one of those coaching decisions made every day in the NFL. When you go nickle, do you put in the young kid with the high ceiling who hasn't peaked yet, or the 4 year vet who is less athletic but a bit more polished right now? The Packers chose the first option by putting Shields in the entire year. Doesn't mean he was light-years ahead of Bush though. This is something I wish Madden would take into consideration by getting rid of the OVR rating like back in Madden 99. Makes you make tough choices and see who works best for your team and playing/coaching style.

# 113 DCEBB2001 @ 08/20/11 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TearsOfPurple


	This post wins the argument, no idea why it was ignored.

The reason most of these posts are ignored is because people can't handle logic, reason, and truth. I try to bring evidence over and over again and it seems I am only met with opinion. How can someone argue with something that makes this much sense.

You would have to be only 1% serious to disagree with something like that...and we have a place for those people. Down the hall, last door on the left...welcome to the one-percent club.

http://imgsrv.1053thefan.com/image/k...rcent_club.jpg

# 114 kunner @ 08/20/11 02:34 AM

Your quoting what you say as truth, when it reality it is your opinion. If someone's opinion is that your ratings are wrong and Madden's are right, its their opinion. You cant argue someone's opinion. My opinion is that you have people rated lower than they should be, while your opinion is that Madden has them rated higher than they should be. Doesnt make either one of us right. I dont play with the set ratings, i tweak them to how i feel they best represent on the field.

Judging by the preseason game i watched tonight, Graham Harrell and Matt Flynn should have insane accuracy and play recognition ratings, if you go by how they last played in games.

This whole thread is opinion, so im not right, your not right, nobody is right when it comes to the ratings.

# 115 DCEBB2001 @ 08/20/11 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunner


	Your quoting what you say as truth, when it reality it is your opinion. If someone's opinion is that your ratings are wrong and Madden's are right, its their opinion. You cant argue someone's opinion. My opinion is that you have people rated lower than they should be, while your opinion is that Madden has them rated higher than they should be. Doesnt make either one of us right. I dont play with the set ratings, i tweak them to how i feel they best represent on the field. Judging by the preseason game i watched tonight, Graham Harrell and Matt Flynn should have insane accuracy and play recognition ratings, if you go by how they last played in games. This whole thread is opinion, so im not right, your not right, nobody is right when it comes to the ratings.

I was not referring to the OVR ratings. I was referring to the whole SPD vs. Technique issue. I agree that OVR ratings are WIDELY speculative and open to opinion. If they weren't, we wouldn't have these great discussions!

# 116 XtremeDunkz @ 08/20/11 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Barnett was a 91 before the injury. Shields was a 71. He also gave up a TD in the Super Bowl to Mike Wallace. Jarrett Bush had an INT in the big game and was in on the game-ending 4th down play. In fact, he almost picked that one of as well. Bush is a bit more aware and has better tackling skills. Why do you think he also plays FS? Shields still has a lot of learning to do. He was a rookie after all. It's one of those coaching decisions made every day in the NFL. When you go nickle, do you put in the young kid with the high ceiling who hasn't peaked yet, or the 4 year vet who is less athletic but a bit more polished right now? The Packers chose the first option by putting Shields in the entire year. Doesn't mean he was light-years ahead of Bush though. This is something I wish Madden would take into consideration by getting rid of the OVR rating like back in Madden 99. Makes you make tough choices and see who works best for your team and playing/coaching style.

Nick Barnett is nowhere near 91 level, even if you take away all the injuries. He has been overrated his whole career. And Jarrett Bush is not nearly as good a player as Shields.

# 117 Faizon @ 08/20/11 04:47 AM

Realized last two ratings won't be updated till Monday, poor Bucs and Saints fans gotta wait the whole weekend.

Hopefully they throw up all the Free Agents too, I notice the All-Players and All-Teams Tabs.

# 118 genghisfrog @ 08/20/11 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Barnett was a 91 before the injury. Shields was a 71. He also gave up a TD in the Super Bowl to Mike Wallace. Jarrett Bush had an INT in the big game and was in on the game-ending 4th down play. In fact, he almost picked that one of as well. Bush is a bit more aware and has better tackling skills. Why do you think he also plays FS? Shields still has a lot of learning to do. He was a rookie after all. It's one of those coaching decisions made every day in the NFL. When you go nickle, do you put in the young kid with the high ceiling who hasn't peaked yet, or the 4 year vet who is less athletic but a bit more polished right now? The Packers chose the first option by putting Shields in the entire year. Doesn't mean he was light-years ahead of Bush though. This is something I wish Madden would take into consideration by getting rid of the OVR rating like back in Madden 99. Makes you make tough choices and see who works best for your team and playing/coaching style.

And you lost all credibility in my mind. You think Bush is better than Shields based on two plays. Wow just wow, I can't even have a conversation with you now because you obviously don't watch the games. You see the highlights and that's it. Go ask 100 out of 100 scouts how good Sam Shields is and I guarantee you almost all of them will say he is light years better than Bush.

P.S. Jarrett Bush had nothing to do with the last play of the game. Tramon broke it up and Jarrett Bush was simply there as the ball hit the ground. He did nothing on the play.

# 119 DCEBB2001 @ 08/20/11 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genghisfrog


	And you lost all credibility in my mind. You think Bush is better than Shields based on two plays. Wow just wow, I can't even have a conversation with you now because you obviously don't watch the games. You see the highlights and that's it. Go ask 100 out of 100 scouts how good Sam Shields is and I guarantee you almost all of them will say he is light years better than Bush. P.S. Jarrett Bush had nothing to do with the last play of the game. Tramon broke it up and Jarrett Bush was simply there as the ball hit the ground. He did nothing on the play.

It's not based on two plays. Just two examples. If it was not much more in depth than that, they both would not have been 71 OVRs before that point. Shields played very well as a rookie. But then again, so did Tyrone Williams in 96. I have seen every Packer game since 1995 either in person or on TV. You fail to realize that teams will start players based on particular skill sets over others. Bush came into that season with more experience as I pointed out, and it showed in the Super Bowl. I don't recall him getting torched for a TD in that game.

And BTW, Bush was rated as 71 as a FS, not a CB. Convert that rating to a CB and its probably more like a 65. Shields is a better CB than Bush, yes. But not when Bush is a FS and Shields a CB. You are forgetting that Madden has different OVR rating calculations for different positions.

And yes, I fully understand that Tramon broke the play up, but Bush was also there in coverage, not picking his nose back at the goal line.

# 120 DCEBB2001 @ 08/20/11 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xtremedunkz


	Nick Barnett is nowhere near 91 level, even if you take away all the injuries. He has been overrated his whole career. And Jarrett Bush is not nearly as good a player as Shields.

Well, that is your opinion on Barnett. The scouting data and interpolation thereof says something different.

Bush was as equal as a FS as Shields was a CB. Bush's OVR rating was calculated based on the rating of a FS, not CB. If you simply change his position in Madden, it drops to around a 65 OVR, making Shields 4-6 points better.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 567 Next »

More Links

Madden NFL 12 Player Ratings - Green Bay Packers and Minnesota Vikings