Operation Sports Logo Header
Home
Operation Sports Logo Header
NCAA Football 14 News Post

NCAA Football 14 Player Ratings - Top 15 Players

  02:07 PM - June 11, 2013 by RynoAid

Tradition Football has compiled a list of the top 15 rated players from NCAA Football 14. Even more details can be found here.

Quote:
99 OVR – Jadeveon Clowney DE#7 – South Carolina – JR
97 OVR – Johnny Manziel QB#2 – Texas A&M – SO(RS)
97 OVR – De’Anthony Thomas HB#6 – Oregon – JR
97 OVR – A.J. McCarron QB#10 – Alabama – SR(RS)
97 OVR – Marqise Lee WR#9 – USC – JR
97 OVR – C.J. Mosley MLB#32 – Alabama – SR
96 OVR – Braxton Miller QB#5 – Ohio State – JR
96 OVR – Teddy Bridewater QB#5 – Louisville – JR
96 OVR – Jake Matthews LT#75 – Texas A&M – SR
96 OVR – Aaron Murray QB#11 – Georgia – SR(RS)
96 OVR – Taylor Lewan LT#77 – Michigan – SR(RS)
95 OVR – Tahj Boyd QB#10 – Clemson – SR(RS)
95 OVR – Sammy Watkins WR#2 – Clemson – JR
95 OVR – Denicos Allen ROLB#28 – Michigan State – SR(RS)
94 OVR – Ka’Deem Carey HB#25 – Arizona – JR

What do you guys think of the list?

Game: NCAA Football 14Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 54 - View All
NCAA Football 14 Videos
EA/NCAA Settlement, When Can We Expect NCAA Football to Return? Video
EA/NCAA Settlement, When Can We Expect NCAA Football to Return? EA/NCAA Settlement, When Can We Expect NCAA Football to Return? Video
OS Simulation: Alabama vs. Auburn NCG Video
OS Simulation: Alabama vs. Auburn NCG OS Simulation: Alabama vs. Auburn NCG Video
NCAA Football 14 Dynasty Mode Trailer Video
NCAA Football 14 Dynasty Mode Trailer NCAA Football 14 Dynasty Mode Trailer Video
NCAA Football 14 - Player Ratings (Top Players For Each Team) Video
NCAA Football 14 - Player Ratings (Top Players For Each Team) NCAA Football 14 - Player Ratings (Top Players For Each Team) Video
NCAA Football 14 Presentation Trailer Video
NCAA Football 14 Presentation Trailer NCAA Football 14 Presentation Trailer Video
NCAA Football 14 - Army vs. Navy Video
NCAA Football 14 - Army vs. Navy NCAA Football 14 - Army vs. Navy Video

Member Comments
# 21 bucknut7 @ 06/11/13 03:53 PM
Say what you want about Braxton Miller's throwing ratings (a bit high, sure) but his running ratings are way low. 83 elusiveness? And you can't tell me Manziel is faster
 
# 22 zac358 @ 06/11/13 03:56 PM
Teddy should have been the second best qb.
 
# 23 The JareBear @ 06/11/13 03:56 PM
Strictly based off top speed, yes I'd say BM is faster, but I think Manziel is quicker.
 
# 24 Joobieo @ 06/11/13 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by freernnur5
Everything looks good to me except this one point when discussing Braxton Miller:

"Miller is a very good passer (91 Throw Power, 84 Throw Accuracy)"

He is an excellent runner as a QB, but not that good as a passer. He finished tied for 43rd in the country in passer rating at 140.5 (McCarron was #1 at 175.3). His YPA of 8.0 is tied for 25th with 9 other QBs. His completion percentage of 58.3% was good for 80th in the country.

Do those stats really show someone who is a very good passer to you?

I know I am a Michigan fan so this may sound like the homer in me talking. He is a very good QB because of his legs and that opens throwing opportunities for him, but to say he is a very good passer is a little laughable.

Just compare that year of his to Denard Robinson's from 2011 (2012 he was injured for 5 games and was not a QB so the stats aren't a fair comparison).

2011 - 55.0%, 8.4 YPA, 139.7 passer rating.

Keep in mind Denard had 15 ints that year to sink his passer rating as opposed to the 6 Miller had in 2012. Everyone, including myself would admit Denard Robinson is not a very good passer. He was electric because of his legs first and foremost.
Braxton Miller received OSU love that's the only way he is breaking 90 overall. I'm from Ohio and even I can't stand the hype he's been getting lately.
 
# 25 NikeBlitz @ 06/11/13 04:00 PM
Well, i hope a 99 DE is useful this year.
 
# 26 BigGamecock @ 06/11/13 04:00 PM
Clowney -99

should have been a 100...
 
# 27 volwalker @ 06/11/13 04:09 PM
Gotta love OS. EA sports could make the perfect game and half of you guys would be complaining about something. I have come to the realization that these sports games will never be good enough for some people. The trouble with creating sports games is that you are trying to create reality and it's just too hard to do. The developers will always be behind the 8-ball, trying to please all of the fans.

It is just players ratings, big deal. I don't recall too many complaining about them on the last-gen games.
 
# 28 Skillsonpills32 @ 06/11/13 04:19 PM
Tajh Boyd is better than Murray and McCarron. Boyd should be 97 Murray 96 and McCarron 94
 
# 29 theharbinater @ 06/11/13 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jello1717
I disagree completely with this. I think the 2 games should have 2 sets of ratings. The scales are (and should be) relative. A 99 in Madden should be the best to ever play in the NFL. Likewise a 99 in NCAA should be the best to ever play in the NCAA. There should be 90s in NCAA, which are the elite NCAA players (regardless of how they'd rate in Madden). A player's NCAA grade should have nothing to do with the NFL (since, of course, this isn't the NFL). A Pat White or Charlie Ward should be rated very highly in NCAA, even though they wouldn't be in Madden.
with what i said, they still would be.

if all players are scaled down in ncaa, pat white could still be a low/mid 80's player, making him good/great in ncaa, but average in nfl.

mostly i think things like natural gifts (i.e. speed, quickness, strength) where there is little difference/change from college should be universal. if a guy is a 95 speed in ncaa, he should be 95 in nfl.

i don't think things should be relative, they should be standard.

i also think players like pat white are bad transfers because of weight, which is not really represented in ncaa or madden. also scheme.
 
# 30 TomSNC @ 06/11/13 04:24 PM
Haha I have no idea how Mcarron is a 97??? Come on besides that and Millers
Rating I have no immediate problems
 
# 31 SkillzKillz719 @ 06/11/13 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by volwalker
Gotta love OS. EA sports could make the perfect game and half of you guys would be complaining about something. I have come to the realization that these sports games will never be good enough for some people. The trouble with creating sports games is that you are trying to create reality and it's just too hard to do. The developers will always be behind the 8-ball, trying to please all of the fans.

It is just players ratings, big deal. I don't recall too many complaining about them on the last-gen games.
Too true lol
 
# 32 daytarious5 @ 06/11/13 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikeBlitz
Well, i hope a 99 DE is useful this year.
Same thing i said...this is the deal breaker for me kind of cant wait to see some E3 footage with a lot of pass plays
 
# 33 ndirish6776 @ 06/11/13 04:27 PM
Pretty disappointed as a ND fan that neither Nix nor Tuitt are on there, but I'm sure no one else is too heart-broken about that one. Tuitt didn't do much at the end of the year and Bama ran off tackle for most of their yardage, so Nix didn't do much in that game. I'll be pretty annoyed if their both not at least 93s though as 99% of mock drafts have them going Top 15.

The QBs seem overrated, but EA does that so I'm not shocked. I don't think any QB except for Manziel should be above a 95, but that's just me. I love De'Anthony Thomas, but I'm not sure what he's done to deserve being a 97.

All in all, they weren't terrible though.

And to answer the Bama guy who wondered why people care about these ratings when you can just edit them: people who care most about online play care about these rankings, although I'm hopeful that there wont be too dominant of a team this year in online for ppl to abuse.
 
# 34 jello1717 @ 06/11/13 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theharbinater
with what i said, they still would be.

if all players are scaled down in ncaa, pat white could still be a low/mid 80's player, making him good/great in ncaa, but average in nfl.

mostly i think things like natural gifts (i.e. speed, quickness, strength) where there is little difference/change from college should be universal. if a guy is a 95 speed in ncaa, he should be 95 in nfl.

i don't think things should be relative, they should be standard.

i also think players like pat white are bad transfers because of weight, which is not really represented in ncaa or madden. also scheme.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Guys like Pat White and Charlie Ward, Johnny Football, Black Mamba, etc should all be rated in the mig-high 90s in NCAA. NCAA and Madden are 2 completely different games and there shouldn't be some universal ratings system that spans both games.
 
# 35 harlemkiid149 @ 06/11/13 04:28 PM
McCaron a 97 lol maybe his gf but not him...on second thought she's not a 97 either
 
# 36 theharbinater @ 06/11/13 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseySuave4
they are separate games. Not everyone even plays or buys both games. So a 99 in NCAA does not mean that guy would be a 99 in Madden. A 99 in NCAA is for the elite COLLEGE player. The max shouldn't be in the 80s for the college game because those guys wouldn't be in the 90s compared to the NFL players.
for starters, i don't play madden. haven't since 06. probably won't this year either.

and i didn't say there should be a max. i said they should be standard. a 99 player should be best in the world type player. hell, and argument could be made for clowney being a top player now. same a few years back with adrian petersen.

but these are the same sport made by the same company. they should be sharing everything almost. ratings, engine, animations, models, etc. just with a few tweaks to playbooks and rules.
 
# 37 theharbinater @ 06/11/13 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jello1717
We'll have to agree to disagree. Guys like Pat White and Charlie Ward, Johnny Football, Black Mamba, etc should all be rated in the mig-high 90s in NCAA. NCAA and Madden are 2 completely different games and there shouldn't be some universal ratings system that spans both games.
i'm good with disagreeing.

i will say, with the way things are set up now, ncaa should have ratings like they currently are. i just think the setup should be different.

EDIT: i'm also aware that things won't be changing anytime soon.

i also think we're mostly talking semantics. i'm not saying by any means that pat white, ward, manziel, etc. aren't elite cfb players. they are. some of my favorite, most explosive players recently. but i just think ratings should be spread out more and intune with nfl ratings. bad players shouldn't be in the 60/70 range. they should be 30/40. 60/70 should be normal/average starters for most of cfb. which are good players, but not great and certainly not elite. high 70's/low 80's are your good players, mid/high 80's are elite/all-conf/AA type, with the 90's reserved for once a generation types like clowney. maybe a handful a year reach 90's.

just my opinion.
 
# 38 Gap Integrity @ 06/11/13 05:04 PM
I think (hope) next gen we have more ratings for QB's than Throw Power and Accuracy. I think we could truly see separation from the elite passers that way. They need a touch rating, or have 3 sets of accuracy ratings Long, mid, and short. I'm hoping this gets done in the future so we as editors can really make the QB's play more true to form.
 
# 39 LebronAmazingHappens @ 06/11/13 05:22 PM
how in the world how McCaron is a 97 maybe a 79 lol
 
# 40 TripleCrown9 @ 06/11/13 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LebronAmazingHappens
how in the world how McCaron is a 97 maybe a 79 lol
Lol what? I can't stand Bama, but this is just plain dumb. Kid just went 30 TDs to 3 INTs last season.
 


Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.