04:25 PM - June 7, 2012 by RaychelSnr
These are the team overall ratings from the E3 build so obviously they're not final just yet. What do all you think? Any anomalies?
Madden NFL 13 News Post
04:25 PM - June 7, 2012 by RaychelSnrMadden NFL 13 Videos
Member Comments
# 141
savoie2006 @ 06/09/12 03:20 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 142
steve bartman @ 06/09/12 03:24 PM
Pretty sure Tampa Bay won't be rated 69 once the game drops.
# 143
savoie2006 @ 06/09/12 03:49 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 144
Raven Nation42 @ 06/09/12 10:17 PM
80 Rating and they've been perennial superbowl contenders for the last 4 years with 3 of the leagues best young and upcoming players Flacco, Rice and Smith. The Nation is not amused with this foolishness
# 145
savoie2006 @ 06/09/12 10:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Yeah, but the beef of that 80 rating is because of their D. Their offense left when they let Heap go. Rice is their best offensive weapon and they don't use him near enough.Their D is also why they have been consistent contenders.
# 147
phenomenal_waffles @ 06/10/12 12:36 PM
Quite a lot of bickering in here considering these aren't even the final ratings...
Bucs will be a playoff contender this year...69 is too low but it is early. Last year the coaching staff was a disaster and Freeman was too much of a risk taker, partly due to a lack of targets. Now with V-Jax and the new coaches, he'll show hes the QB we saw in 2010 and not the INT machine we saw last year. And Schiano will have a structured coaching staff. As for the D...depends on those young guns on the D line. They need to be more durable.
It's always good to see your favorite team atop of the ratings! Nothing to complain about. Go-Pack-Go!
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 151
azdawgpound @ 06/10/12 05:06 PM
i still dont see how they came up with some these overall's esp with the lower rated teams like browns,buc's colt's etc the browns were an 82 on last madden roster update in 13 there a 67? thats a 15 point overall drop and they didnt lose that many players the biggest i would say was hillis. the buc's were a 81 in 13 a 69? after the off season they had and grabbing 2 of top FA's? now onto the colts yea they are rebuilding etc and lost manning,clark,garcon but they was 79 in 12 last update and now a 66? they grabbed 2 top rookies in this yrs draft and some how lost 13 overall points? i have an update madden 12 roster with every single FA move this yr plus Draft picks, UDFA's and the overalls for every single team didnt even drop... i know these arent offical yet but i just dont get how they came up with these when like i meantioned the rosters on 12 didnt even change? gonna be interesting to see what they rated the players on some these teams when they come out.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
I would give the Panthers an honest 79-81 range
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 156
themassacre771.1 @ 06/10/12 05:54 PM
Lets not forget how injured that Panthers team was last year.
# 157
chronoxiong @ 06/10/12 08:50 PM
These ratings are lower than the team ratings in NCAA Football 13. What the hell? Lol...I don't get it. The 49ers should be higher than 81 by the way. Should be near mid 80's just like the Patriots and Steelers.
# 158
Aftershock9958 @ 06/10/12 09:20 PM
Maybe this has been pointed out. Has anyone taken into account that there are a couple of new ratings that might be worked into the equation now?
Also that this could mean that there's more of a gap in overalls than there has been in the past (which I think a lot of people were hoping for).
I feel as though the high experience costs may be a sign of that. It would be unreasonable for the 90's attributes to cost so much experience if the stock rosters had too many players with ratings in the 90's - the draft class players would never reach those levels, so the players from the 2012 season at their peak would always be better than the future players. Speculation of course.
Also that this could mean that there's more of a gap in overalls than there has been in the past (which I think a lot of people were hoping for).
I feel as though the high experience costs may be a sign of that. It would be unreasonable for the 90's attributes to cost so much experience if the stock rosters had too many players with ratings in the 90's - the draft class players would never reach those levels, so the players from the 2012 season at their peak would always be better than the future players. Speculation of course.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Post A Comment
Working...