Madden NFL 17 News Post

Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings Available Now For All Teams

03:56 PM - August 2, 2016 by Examoc

EA Sports has opened up their Madden NFL 17 player ratings database, where you can check all of the player ratings for every team. The Top 16 players at each position can be seen here.

Check out the database and post your thoughts!

Madden NFL 17 screenshot gallery - Click to view

Game: Madden NFL 17Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 17 - View All

Member Comments

# 81 ScudDawg @ 08/03/16 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercury112491


	Eli is the number 17 rated QB?? Lol ok EA. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yeah, wth is that?

# 82 shaunlmason @ 08/03/16 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM Hooe


	Very quick maths about QB throwing ratings in Madden NFL 17 (thanks to Shaun Mason for getting all the ratings in a spreadsheet, that made my doing this pretty easy!): Code: - OVR THP SAC MAC DAC PAC TOR AWR μ 71.05 88.51 82.49 79.12 74.18 71.81 77.99 67.36 σ 9.24 4.82 5.79 6.49 5.91 9.53 4.52 14.72 I don't have this data for Madden NFL 16 quarterback ratings, but I can tell you the following about comparing these values to those generated by the Madden NFL 15 quarterback ratings: Average OVR is significantly lower than the default roster of M15 (74.57) and σ is higher than M15 as well (8.70). This means you will see lower-rated QBs by OVR in the general case in M17 and also a wider range of OVR ratings. That said, the average rating for every single one of the ratings above is higher in M17 than in M15. Average THP is almost a full point higher. MAC, TOR, and AWR each have higher σ values, so you will see a wider range of values in these individual ratings (in particular, σ for MAC is almost a full point greater). The other ratings all have slightly lower σ values, so you'll see slightly more bunched together ratings. First-level impression of this data? Tiburon has indeed redone the OVR formula and it is significantly different. Even with a higher average and lower variance in the important individual ratings by-and-large, the new OVR appears to be very sensitive to small changes, so you will see more differentiation between players at an at-a-glance level. None of this has any implications on how the game will actually play, obviously. If I were to speculate, it is likely M17 is tuned very differently from M15 to account for higher individual ratings.

Glad I could help.=)

# 83 shaunlmason @ 08/03/16 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dj_MyTime


	When I open the spreadsheet it initially only showed the Browns, now it's blank and starts at line 2365....assistance please.

It's fixed. Someone asked for edit permission to fix the headers and then filtered it.=(

# 84 T4VERTS @ 08/03/16 09:27 AM

If you follow my twitter you may have already seen this, but an interesting note about coverage stats. This year there are only 72 players with 80 or above man coverage and only 134 with 80 or above zone coverage. In comparison Madden 16 started with 107 80+ man coverage players and 198 with 80+ zone coverage.

It appears the coverage ratings have gone down, but curious if this is a response to pressure coming quicker now.

# 85 charter04 @ 08/03/16 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brza37


	There is no way a 4-12 team should have the second highest amount of 90+ OVR rated players and second in 80+ OVR players. Yes, they had a few key injuries but aside from Scandrick the D was healthy and they got no pressure (tied 25th in sacks), were dead last in Takeaways, and were bottom 10 in the league in yards per play passing as well as rushing. Yards per play is a much better indicator of team efficiency than total yards. There is really no reason they should have the second best roster in the game.

So which player should be lower than 80? Romo, Dez, Witten, Smith, Frederick, Lee, Scandrick, Crawford, Collins, Martin, Elliott, Lawernce, McClain?

I'm not completely disagree with with you but, everyone knows injuries to Romo and Dez played a huge role in going from 11 wins with them to 4 without.

Most of the 80+ overall guys are on offense. The defense has less as it should.

If key players stay healthy and they go 4-12 this year I'll shake your hand and say you where right. I just don't see that happening

# 86 shaunlmason @ 08/03/16 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T4VERTS


	If you follow my twitter you may have already seen this, but an interesting note about coverage stats. This year there are only 72 players with 80 or above man coverage and only 134 with 80 or above zone coverage. In comparison Madden 16 started with 107 80+ man coverage players and 198 with 80+ zone coverage. It appears the coverage ratings have gone down, but curious if this is a response to pressure coming quicker now.

It may also have something to do with overall coverage being better.

# 87 noplace @ 08/03/16 09:35 AM

Redskins

Players underrated

D. Jax 84� Still the best deep threat in the game 88 at the least
Brandon Sheriff- 78� started all 16 games and didn�t get any better from his rating last season? Might have gone down
Preston Smith-77� Lead all Rookies in sacks
B. Breeland-81 probably the best player in the secondary
Will Compton- 70 for a starting LB who lead the team in tackles? 75-77

Players overrated

J. Norman 94.. I don�t know about that but still top 5 IMO
Trent Murphy 81.. Dude hasn�t done anything. 71 at best
Matt Jones 77.. I don�t know about that..

# 88 Chiefsfan881129 @ 08/03/16 09:57 AM

Really surprised that Justin March The Chiefs MLB isn't in I mean he made the team last year yea he went on IR due to a Torn Miscues but he made the team.

& he gonna make the team this year as for 2nd year in a row he's a star in TC & Is Always around the ball..

When our Front office HC DC LB Coach all wave about this kid he gonna make the team he has drawn Compersions to Bart Scott from our own DC

& having been to Chiefs Training Camp & watching this kid play in the preseason last year he clearly the real deal..

Funny thing is this Kid is challenging Josh Mauga for a starting spot & if he continues to shine Magua could be out yet he's not In

Kane can you guys plz Add this kid in I'd give him about an 66 to 69 rating with 85 to 87 speed 80 to 86 tackling but Ike 45 to 58 awr since he was an undrafted free agent out of Akron last year & has no regular season experience but the other stats I mentioned are about right in what he should be..

Anyway love the new ratings setup gonna take time getting used to but I can see how deep we are & young we are no question future is bright

Nice to see Hogan with decent ratings looks like I'll be using him as my #2 since Murray & Bray have been gutted

Might Want to consider bumping Bray to 68 or 69 ovr as he looking really good in camp & is on pace to win #2 job Murray seems to be struggling atm & Hogan has been looking good as well the ratings he has are fair & accurate & it's looking like he will bump Murray off the roster.

But Bray should be bumped in his ratings

& keep an eye on Tyreek Hill the 95 speed Is nice even though with the old ratings system he clearly a 98 99 speed but with the new system the 95 speed is great.

I'm not sure if the 65 rating is due to his off season performance so far but I'll take it alot better then I thought it would be.

That said he someone to keep an eye on when it time to adjust ratings he seems to be picking up where he left off during mini camp might want to bump to 67 to 69 if he carries this over into preseason..

But no doubt his 95 speed makes him my new #1 KR & PR

Love seeing some of the ratings bumps for our rookie class from last year

All though Conley our new #2 Morse our stud County &
Wilson our other Future MLB should be rated higher based on how well they played.

Most of them are way to low Conley should be bout 74 Morse no question about it a 78 to 80
Wilson a 70 to 72 as there ratings are 2 low but hopefully they progress good in franchise.

Glad to see Steven Nelson get some love he having a great off season & is on pace to be our NB & he finally got the love he deserves thanks ea.

Also love how deep our WR core is Hopefully Mike Williams Sticks as he's a 71 but a good jump ball guy & a tackle braking machine

Lastly love Chris Jones & Russell ratings both look like they could be the stars of our rookie class & give me more options to develop in Franchise mode... Chris Jones is as Advertised he very strong all though 88 str in madden he more like 95 str just watch the videos & read his camp reports so far he the real deal..

Russell is gonna be a Dimond in the rough from this draft class kinda a young but better version of Darius Slay another former fighting Irish Though Slay has proven it in nfl when you compare there college tape he compared to Slay but a better version coming out of college.

Hope he lives up to the hype
& Demarcus Robinson kinda Disappointed about his speed rating he should be in low 90's as he known as a YAC WR with Mike Wallace Type Speed but better Protential that said his other ratings seems fine but every scouting report out there had him as a speed guy as he a yac wr & those kind of WR'S are speed guys mostly so hopefully that improves over the course of the season.

& Sean Smith is very overrated & doesn't deserve the ratings he has the guy isn't an 88 ovr CB he more of an 83 type CB I can tell you he's a guy who will get consistently bruned by Speedy WR'S

may I remind you of the Sammy Watkins game he had 158 yards total in game 154 in 1st half all on Sean Smith but the minute we put Peters on him in 2nd half Watkins was shut down only 2 rec for 4 yards Peter's basically won us that game.. there are more cases like this I can bring up AJ Green had a field day on Smith & countless others have as well

Smith can cover slower less Physical WR'S just fine but when it comes to guys like Antonio Brown,Maclin,Watkins Green,D,Thomas WR'S like that with both speed height & physicalty Smith gets taken to school i know this because I watch the games even when he was on my team i felt he was very overrated so lower him like he should be thx

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

# 89 Datninja619 @ 08/03/16 10:02 AM

Keenan Allen 88 OVR 89 SPD, 92 ACC, 91 Catching, 89 Spec, 94 CIT, 94 RTE ,87 Release
Jason Verrett 88 OVR 93 SPD, 93 ACC, 77 Catching, 93 Man, 89 Zone, 82 Play Rec

I like it!! Since coming in the league Allen has always been the most well balanced elite WR in the game.

# 90 87Birdman @ 08/03/16 10:05 AM

Man looking at denver's defense had me excited till I looked for their other MLB and had to go way down the list. Todd davis who filed in for Danny a few years ago rated in at a 64.

Zaire anderson who was on the practice squad last year is no where to be found. Jordan Taylor who had been making a splash at camp and was Manning's training partner last year during his injury didn't make the roster either.

O and I will probably have to use Sanchez the first year since his competition in Trevor fit rated at a 60 or so. Lynch is rated higher but with our offensive line coming in with pretty much low 70s I'm going to let Sanchez take the bearing till I can improve it lol

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

# 91 brza37 @ 08/03/16 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	So which player should be lower than 80? Romo, Dez, Witten, Smith, Frederick, Lee, Scandrick, Crawford, Collins, Martin, Elliott, Lawernce, McClain? I'm not completely disagree with with you but, everyone knows injuries to Romo and Dez played a huge role in going from 11 wins with them to 4 without. Most of the 80+ overall guys are on offense. The defense has less as it should. If key players stay healthy and they go 4-12 this year I'll shake your hand and say you where right. I just don't see that happening

I would start with the guys you left off the list above: Church, Williams, Free. Also think there are DTs and DEs rated lower than Crawford and Lawrence that are better than them.

And I'm not saying they will be a 4-12 team if Romo stays healthy. I am just saying they should not be the second highest rated team in the game. In the horrible NFC East making the playoffs is always a possibility but they don't belong in the top 10 teams, let alone top 2.

# 92 noplace @ 08/03/16 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	So which player should be lower than 80? Romo, Dez, Witten, Smith, Frederick, Lee, Scandrick, Crawford, Collins, Martin, Elliott, Lawernce, McClain? I'm not completely disagree with with you but, everyone knows injuries to Romo and Dez played a huge role in going from 11 wins with them to 4 without. Most of the 80+ overall guys are on offense. The defense has less as it should. If key players stay healthy and they go 4-12 this year I'll shake your hand and say you where right. I just don't see that happening

I have no problem with the offensive ratings but some of the defensive ratings just doesn�t make sense . So are we rating them off potential, actual player stats or league stats? Here's my issue...

Example: Will Compton starting LB Redskins 70 overall 96 tackles in 15� rated lower than his backups P. Riley and Mason Foster.

Versus Cowboys Anthony Hitchens LB 74 overall 67 tackles in 15�, Andrew Gachkar 71 overall 14 tackles in 15� K. Wilber 73 overall 24 tackles in 15�.. So what gives? Some of these guys arent even projected starters..

# 93 charter04 @ 08/03/16 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brza37


	I would start with the guys you left off the list above: Church, Williams, Free. Also think there are DTs and DEs rated lower than Crawford and Lawrence that are better than them. And I'm not saying they will be a 4-12 team if Romo stays healthy. I am just saying they should not be the second highest rated team in the game. In the horrible NFC East making the playoffs is always a possibility but they don't belong in the top 10 teams, let alone top 2.

How do you know they are the #2 rated team on the game? That info isn't out yet.

I can agree with the guys you mentioned. I wasn't looking at the ratings I was just listing guys off the top of my head.

As far as Crawford and Lawrence having guys rated lower that are better. I'd have to look. I think those and Free should be 80+.

It's a good debate none the less.

# 94 charter04 @ 08/03/16 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noplace


	I have no problem with the offensive ratings but some of the defensive ratings just doesn�t make sense . So are we rating them off potential, actual player stats or league stats? Here's my issue... Example: Will Compton starting LB Redskins 70 overall 96 tackles in 15� rated lower than his backups P. Riley and Mason Foster. Versus Cowboys Anthony Hitchens LB 74 overall 67 tackles in 15�, Andrew Gachkar 71 overall 14 tackles in 15� K. Wilber 73 overall 24 tackles in 15�.. So what gives? Some of these guys arent even projected starters..

So an Eagles and Redskins fan doesn't like the Cowboys ratings? Lol

JK.

I'm not sure about the guys you mentioned. As far as why they are rated that high. Obviously ratings can't only be based on production or Rookies would be 0 in every none physical rating.

Hitchens started a lot this past year. So did Wilber.

Gachkar start a game or two but was mostly special teams.

I would have no problem with those three be lower than 70.

# 95 cdub71323 @ 08/03/16 10:40 AM

Do you know who initially released this so we can try and get the free agents ratings as well?

# 96 noplace @ 08/03/16 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	So an Eagles and Redskins fan doesn't like the Cowboys ratings? Lol JK. I'm not sure about the guys you mentioned. As far as why they are rated that high. Obviously ratings can't only be based on production or Rookies would be 0 in every none physical rating. Hitchens started a lot this past year. So did Wilber. Gachkar start a game or two but was mostly special teams. I would have no problem with those three be lower than 70.

Lol, I've had a problem with a Cowboy fan doing rating since I found out. Just saying to rate teams accordingly across the board.

# 97 charter04 @ 08/03/16 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noplace


	Lol, I've had a problem with a Cowboy fan doing rating since I found out. Just saying to rate teams accordingly across the board.

I here ya. That's why I don't think one guys should be in charge of this. They need like 5-10. I don't care how unbiased you think you are there will be some.

Just be glade it wasn't me or all Skins, Eagles, and Giants would be rated 0. [emoji1]

# 98 brza37 @ 08/03/16 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	How do you know they are the #2 rated team on the game? That info isn't out yet. I can agree with the guys you mentioned. I wasn't looking at the ratings I was just listing guys off the top of my head. As far as Crawford and Lawrence having guys rated lower that are better. I'd have to look. I think those and Free should be 80+. It's a good debate none the less.

I'm just going off the fact that they have 18 guys rated 80 or above. Only the Pats have more than that at 20. Dallas also has the second most 90+ OVR guys at 4 and only the Seahawks have more with 6.
So I would assume because of that the team rating has to be just as high as well if over 80% of their starters are rated higher than most other teams.

# 99 Hova57 @ 08/03/16 11:00 AM

For the most part I agree with Eagles roster some of the rookie free agents need upgrades not much over not bad..I'm cool with Romo being 80 as long as his injury is in 60s same with Dez his injury should be in the 70s

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

# 100 Mauer4MVP @ 08/03/16 11:11 AM

Only player that was severely disrespected on the Vikings was Eric Kendricks. He's more like an 82. He was really good at the end of the year last year.

Chad Greenway on the other hand is probably more like a 73.

« Previous 1 2 3 456 7 8 9 10 Next »

More Links

Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings Available Now For All Teams