Madden NFL 15 News Post

Madden NFL 15 Ratings Release Monday, Watch Rookies React After Hearing Their Rating

09:25 PM - July 18, 2014 by Steve_OS

Donny Moore, the "Ratings Czar" for Madden NFL 15 will start revealing player ratings on Monday. During the developer livestream earlier, they revealed that some of them will be revealed, not all of them. So we will no doubt see them trickle out every week or so, before release on August 26th.

EA Sports did release this video, showcasing quite a few rookie reactions, after hearing what their rating is in the game. Those players include Johnny Manziel, Jadeveon Clowney, Khalil Mack, Mike Evans, Sammy Watkins, Blake Bortles and more.

Blake was only interested in his punt ratings, find out what the other rookies thought of their ratings here.

Game: Madden NFL 15Reader Score: 6.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 42 - View All

Madden NFL 15 Videos

Member Comments

# 21 K_GUN @ 07/19/14 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Donny Moore specifically asked me what I would do if someone from the marketing department or an executive told me to change a rating for a player. The example he used was, "If you had Larry Fitzgerald rated as a 93 OVR but a suit came down and told you to change it to a 99, what would you do or say?" I answered his question with a question: "Why would an executive have any say over how a player is rated". His response was that it was a "hypothetical" question. I said that I wouldn't like it one bit because it would undermine the system. Needless to say, I guess I wasn't willing to "play ball" enough to get hired for the job.

Welcome to Corporate America son

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

# 22 oneamongthefence @ 07/19/14 07:31 PM

So it sounds like we really can't blame Donny. We all do things at work we don't like just so we can keep our job. If you don't want to do those things then the job isn't right for you. Or at least that particular company. Close minded as it might be sometimes you don't have a choice.

# 23 DCEBB2001 @ 07/19/14 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake


	Do what's need to get in through the door. You could very well have said, "Perfectly fine. Sure I'll change Larry Fitzgerald's OVR from a 93 to a 99." And you follow up by changing the universal rating scale. Maximum now would be 106 as oppose to the standard 100. So, technically Larry Fitzgerald would definitely be a 99 but on an adjusted scale of 1-106, Fitzgerald would still have an OVR attribute of 99 but in the overall scheme of things he would still be a 93. "Suits, Larry Fitzgerald is now literally, numerically a 99 as you wanted."

That wasn't my thought process at the time. At the time, it was more like, what on earth are these guys talking about? Why would that question even be necessary. That isn't really the kind of company I would want to work for, personally. So I guess it "all worked out". Besides, if what is published (in the game) is from a scale of 99 to 0, I wouldn't be able to put anyone that is a 106 rated as such in the game. Instead, the player in question would simply be rated the same as the other players who were actually worthy of the 99 rating in Donny's example.

# 24 strawberryshortcake @ 07/19/14 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	That wasn't my thought process at the time. At the time, it was more like, what on earth are these guys talking about? Why would that question even be necessary. That isn't really the kind of company I would want to work for, personally. So I guess it "all worked out". Besides, if what is published (in the game) is from a scale of 99 to 0, I wouldn't be able to put anyone that is a 106 rated as such in the game. Instead, the player in question would simply be rated the same as the other players who were actually worthy of the 99 rating in Donny's example.

Yes, hindsight is definitely 20/20 ...what about "hidden" rating only the developers can see and not the suits. What about fractional ratings: 99.1, 99.5, 99.7, 99.9, etc. Hindsight could have also showed the "suits" video footage of Fitzgerald and a few other elite receivers and their actual performances on the field to give evidence backing your ratings.

# 25 DCEBB2001 @ 07/19/14 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneamongthefence


	So it sounds like we really can't blame Donny. We all do things at work we don't like just so we can keep our job. If you don't want to do those things then the job isn't right for you. Or at least that particular company. Close minded as it might be sometimes you don't have a choice.

I thought the same thing, but every time he justifies what he does with youtube scouting and PFF stats I can't help but SMH. To some, it comes down to the willingness to sacrifice your ethics. I just wasn't willing to do so. It didn't seem right to me.

# 26 DCEBB2001 @ 07/19/14 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake


	Yes, hindsight is definitely 20/20 ...what about "hidden" rating only the developers can see and not the suits. What about fractional ratings: 99.1, 99.5, 99.7, 99.9, etc. Hindsight could have also showed the "suits" video footage of Fitzgerald and a few other elite receivers and their actual performances on the field to give evidence backing your ratings.

Oh man! You hit it right on the head here! Donny's line of questioning indirectly proposed that even when "all the evidence in the world" is brought to back something up, that it may still get shot down from the business side of their world at EA. Talk about being hamstrung from doing a decent job.

# 27 oneamongthefence @ 07/19/14 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I thought the same thing, but every time he justifies what he does with youtube scouting and PFF stats I can't help but SMH. To some, it comes down to the willingness to sacrifice your ethics. I just wasn't willing to do so. It didn't seem right to me.

Madden has always been a stat driven game in regards to ratings. I'm sure there's more than enough examples of players who have amazing stats and are highly rated in Madden but they're just a product of system/players around them. Public perception is the biggest determining factor of ratings. While this is wrong, it's the general public who this game is made for. You appeal to the widest audience. And guys that really dig into ratings and logic behind them are the majority. I know too many people who play Madden but they don't follow football or are just casual fans.

# 28 kehlis @ 07/19/14 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Donny Moore specifically asked me what I would do if someone from the marketing department or an executive told me to change a rating for a player. The example he used was, "If you had Larry Fitzgerald rated as a 93 OVR but a suit came down and told you to change it to a 99, what would you do or say?" I answered his question with a question: "Why would an executive have any say over how a player is rated". His response was that it was a "hypothetical" question. I said that I wouldn't like it one bit because it would undermine the system. Needless to say, I guess I wasn't willing to "play ball" enough to get hired for the job.

I would tell them okay and change the overall rating which shouldn't have any meaning anyway.

Individual ratings should be what matters, they can give whatever overalls they want for whoever and as long as that ghost rating has no bearing on actual gameplay then no harm no foul.

# 29 strawberryshortcake @ 07/19/14 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Oh man! You hit it right on the head here! Donny's line of questioning indirectly proposed that even when "all the evidence in the world" is brought to back something up, that it may still get shot down from the business side of their world at EA. Talk about being hamstrung from doing a decent job.

I was just thinking right this moment ... options. (1) Patch (2) Settings.

Why couldn't EA simply have optional settings. Out of the box, default setting has Madden's Donny Moore plus upper suit adamant in game ratings. Option two, hidden under wherever (i.e. FBG ratings) catered to simulation gurus.

Secondly, couldn't they issue an optional Patch (i.e. FBG ratings 1.0119) or something. Just something to give the gamer the option for a more realistic rating settings for those that care or want. Download if you want. Don't download if you don't want. Just something ... optional.

# 30 wordtobigbird @ 07/19/14 08:31 PM

I'm happy this topic is being discussed knowing that it will be read by an EA dev.

4 players over 90. Doesn't seem to hurt FIFA's popularity at all.

# 31 K_GUN @ 07/19/14 08:45 PM

The #1 selling sports game in the world has its advantages...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

# 32 jerwoods @ 07/19/14 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	If these kids really knew what their ratings SHOULD be compared to the ENTIRE professional and amateur population, they would be even more upset. They should be thanking their lucky stars that Donny Moore over-inflates every single rating category beyond anything that REAL data suggests. These kids, however, are used to being told that they are the fastest/strongest/greatest since they were in middle school. Why else do you think you had over 100 juniors declare and just under half of them went undrafted? They are receiving poor advice from people telling them that they are the best. It hasn't gotten real for them until the moment they realize that they are not as good as they thought they were. The same goes for these kids and their Madden ratings expectations. When the guy rating your abilities uses faulty logic, the wrong data, and youtube scouting abilities, you get a complete mess. It would be much more accurate to rate players based on DATA from trusted sources. Instead, Donny Moore utilizes conjecture and seems, quite literally, AFRAID to rate a player below an 80 in any important category for fear of backlash. I mean, one player in this video even said something to the effect of "what is the guy's email?". This is complete crap. EA needs to rate players using real, verifiable, data and needs to use LOGIC when doing so. Also, they need to stop making the best in each category a 99 every single year. Ratings need to carry over year to year so we can see how players develop. Alas, this would put an end to their ratings-driven hype machine, so I doubt that would ever happen. I am tired of seeing rookies come in with attributes as high as HOF-level players. It doesn't happen people! Sure, maybe you get a rookie with exception physical skill (think Randy Moss his rookie year), but the physical stuff is verifiable! You can measure it and compare it to those who were rated before and will be rated after. Believe it or not, there is a ceiling to much of this stuff. The scouts know what qualifies as a "99" THP or a "99" TAK. How many players do you think ACTUALLY have that grade right now in the NFL? NONE! Not ONE! Why? Because scouts know that a "perfect" grade in those categories is 1) impossible, and 2) was probably achieved by someone who came before or will come after those who are currently in their database. Scouts don't hand out "perfect" grades to the highest players at any time - they hand them out to the highest players OF ALL TIME, and use that as a standard of comparison. So, in summary, what EA and Donny Moore is doing here is complete crap. EA has already created a game where "if you are below an 80, then you suck" is the norm, and now, these players know it. Really, Johnny Manziel, you will be upset if you are not rated a 90+ in any throw accuracy category? Do you even realize how RARE a 90+ at any throw-level is? Of course you don't! EA has been making you think that every QB in the NFL today is among the best ever at throwing accurately because passing stats are at an all-time high. I bet the likes of Starr and Unitas would beg to differ. Rant over.

the only time Madden has gotten ratings right was Madden 2000 2003 and 2010 default

if i ran the ratings i would a real czar lol think nba live 2004
like i would rate guys in the 60's 50's 40's

num 1
no one gets a 99 in my ratings
2 i am a believer in SPD AGL and ACC are the same expect for OL'S K P
3 if u look at a players stats or watch him play over 3 or 4 games u can develop a temple on him meaning u can make him play like real life
4 speed is way too high period

# 33 Kaiser Wilhelm @ 07/19/14 08:49 PM

While I also enjoy taking a good crap on other people, one thing I want to throw out that the ratings being used aren't just calculated numbers and thrown into a game. Those numbers need to have meaning behind them. You can give guys low ratings, but how does that translate to the game. We see numbers, a 60 versus a 75.

To me, having a guy who is a 76-80 range should be what you would consider most NFL starters. The best in the league would be between 85-89 and those whom we would consider in the HOF level of talent would be 90+ and GOAT 95+.

I suppose a fair, though shallow, analogy would be comparing Celsius to Fahrenheit. Fahrenheit is a more accurate scale, but the difference between a couple degrees is hardly noticable, whereas Celsius is less accurate but shows a more noticeable difference between degrees. Note, when I'm saying Fahrenheit is more accurate, I'm referring to the fact that there are 180 degrees Fahrenheit between Freezing and boiling of water as opposed to 100 degrees in Celsius.

# 34 oneamongthefence @ 07/19/14 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake


	I was just thinking right this moment ... options. (1) Patch (2) Settings. Why couldn't EA simply have optional settings. Out of the box, default setting has Madden's Donny Moore plus upper suit adamant in game ratings. Option two, hidden under wherever (i.e. FBG ratings) catered to simulation gurus. Secondly, couldn't they issue an optional Patch (i.e. FBG ratings 1.0119) or something. Just something to give the gamer the option for a more realistic rating settings for those that care or want. Download if you want. Don't download if you don't want. Just something ... optional.

We can download his roster off of share. The biggest issue is that they don't align with CFM and the draft picks.

# 35 Hooe @ 07/19/14 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordtobigbird


	4 players over 90. Doesn't seem to hurt FIFA's popularity at all.

Could be an NFL-mandated thing that the best active players in the league are rated at 99. Doesn't the NBA mandate that no player in NBA2K have a rating below 50 in any category?

In any event, I'm hoping like hell that CFM gets either A - full draft class editing (ideal) or B - full player editing in the annual "Start Season" step (minimum required functionality, players have no weekly / season goals until after this step so editing ratings here would have no affect on any progression logic) so that these ratings can be fully used in CFM. I figure that potentially weird contracts can be worked around in a few different means once the ratings are actually in place within the mode.

# 36 William85 @ 07/19/14 09:31 PM

After skimming over a few of the FBG ratings , someone will have to explain to me how Drew Brees gets "adjusted" to 90 but Manning and Brady are 98 ? While you are at it , how is Ray Rice even on the same planet as AP?

# 37 jerwoods @ 07/19/14 09:35 PM

since i am a broncos fan

here is how i would rate them Offence

QB
1 Manning 92 and a hot-cold base of 90-95
2 Osweiler 61 Hot Cold 50-67
3 Dsyest 50 Hot cold of 40-60

RB
1 M Ball 79 Hot Cold of 70-88
2 C J Anderson 63 Hot cold of 55-73
3 Bibbs 57 Hot Cold of 45-69
4 Hillman 44 Hot Cold 40-66
FB
1 V Green 66 50-77

WR
1 Thomas 90 Hot Cold 86-96
2 Welker Slot Rating 91 Hot Cold 85-95 Outside WR 80 Hot Cold 70-89
3 Sanders Rating 77 Hot cold 67-88
4 Latimer Rating 68 Hot cold 55-85
5 A Caldwell 74 Hot Cold 65-84
6 Greg Wilson 47 Hot Cold 40-70

TE
1 J Thomas 87 72-94
2 J Tamme 78 67-88 Slot WR 70 55-75
3 J Dreessen 69 64-74
4 Robinson 52 42-64

LT
1 Clady 88 82-96
2 Painter 50 48-68

LG
Franklin 77 70-86
garland 54 46-65

C
Ramirez 81 -74-90
Montgomery 73 67-80
Paradis 57 45-71

RG
Vasquez 91 85-97
Miller 49 40-62

RT
Clark 75 65-84
schofield 60 55-69
Justice 64 61-68
Cornick 48 44-65

# 38 DCEBB2001 @ 07/19/14 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordtobigbird


	4 players over 90. Doesn't seem to hurt FIFA's popularity at all.

THAT is more like it! Here are the top 10 in FBG's system with the equal-interval approach utilized (max set to 99, minimum to 12 - the lowest OVR possible).

1. Calvin Johnson 97
2. Tamba Hali 97
3. Peyton Manning 96
4. Tom Brady 94
5. Aaron Rodgers 92
6. Larry Fitzgerald 91
7. Richard Sherman 89
8. Joe Thomas 87
9. Adrian Peterson 84
10. Robert Quinn 84

As you can see, not very many over 90. Yet, according to the data, it is the most realistic way to rate the players. Unfortunately, Madden doesn't agree.

# 39 DCEBB2001 @ 07/19/14 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaiser Wilhelm


	While I also enjoy taking a good crap on other people, one thing I want to throw out that the ratings being used aren't just calculated numbers and thrown into a game. Those numbers need to have meaning behind them. You can give guys low ratings, but how does that translate to the game. We see numbers, a 60 versus a 75. To me, having a guy who is a 76-80 range should be what you would consider most NFL starters. The best in the league would be between 85-89 and those whom we would consider in the HOF level of talent would be 90+ and GOAT 95+. I suppose a fair, though shallow, analogy would be comparing Celsius to Fahrenheit. Fahrenheit is a more accurate scale, but the difference between a couple degrees is hardly noticable, whereas Celsius is less accurate but shows a more noticeable difference between degrees. Note, when I'm saying Fahrenheit is more accurate, I'm referring to the fact that there are 180 degrees Fahrenheit between Freezing and boiling of water as opposed to 100 degrees in Celsius.

CM Hope has written up some reviews/results from some Madden 25 games utilizing the true-mean FBG Ratings. You can find them in the FBG thread to give you an idea. According to him, the edits seem to make the game play better overall. May want to read into those. They are in the latter pages of that thread.

# 40 jerwoods @ 07/19/14 10:14 PM

Def
LE
1 M Jackson 68 62-79
2 D Wolfe 70 66-80
3 davis 53 45-64

RE
1 D Ware 87 80-95
2 Q Smith 59 50-78

DT
1 Knighton 86 80-94
2 K Vickerson 75 69-81
3 S Williams 74 65-83
4 m Unerin 66 60-74
5 Fua 54 45-65
6 Austin 60 50-70

LOLB
1 V Miller 90 85-96
2 B Marshall 50 40-60
3 L Mccray 55 44-66

MLB
1 N Iring 64 60-73
Chaney 59 48-68
Fort 51 42-64
Nelson 46 40-69

ROLB
1 D Trevathan 80 68-91
2 S Johnson 72 64 -79
3 Burrow 58 48-70

CB
1 Tailb 89 82-96
2 C Harris 85 77- 93
3 Roby 70 60-87
4 K Westber 67 57-77
5 T Carter 60 50-68
6 Murphy 49 40-60

FS
1 R Moore 75 65-83
2 bruton 61 52-72
bolden 56 45-65

SS
1 T J Ward 84 76-92
2Ihenacho 68 58-78
3 Carter 67 60-75
Hagg 50 42-58

K Prater 86 80-95
p Colquitt 78 70-89

LS Also a TE A brewer 50 46-54

« Previous 123 4 Next »

More Links

Madden NFL 15 Ratings Release Monday, Watch Rookies React After Hearing Their Rating