Madden NFL 15: Top Rookies

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing that the reason the ratings are so high on here for rookies is most likely so that they progress correctly over time in CFM modes. Yes, it isn't a perfect system, but it does make sense. If they lower the technical skills to where you want them since they are unproven, then they might not develop correctly in CFM compared to other players. I'm not defending EA's ratings, as many of you are right, Clowney has too high of PMV, Robinson may have a bit too high of RBK, and there are more, but saying so-and-so has too high of an OVR is too quick to judge. You can't say that until you have seen what other players at the position are rated. Some of these guys are overrated, but some are also underrated, EA realizes that and just tries to take a moderate approach in terms of OVR. Look at Sheldon Richardson, taken number 26 last year. Had he been rated even 85 in the first ratings, most people would be freaking out, talking about inflation of rookies. However, he played as one of the better 3-4 ends in the league, justifying a rating that high. He was rated mid-high 70's I believe in the initial ratings. A few of these rookies even make the pro bowl some years, thus, I don't believe it is right to say EA over-rates rookies every year, even though some of them are under-rated based on the way they perform.

Completely disagree here. Rookies should have those ratings warranted when they EARN THEM. NOT before their first season starts! They haven't even entered camp yet (except for the Bills)! I would prefer, in CFM, to have REALISTIC physical attributes and then build on them with XP going to honing the skills...you know...LIKE IN REAL LIFE. From this day forward, for every season accrued, these players will get slower, less agile, less twitchy, and even less strong as their bodies deteriorate over time. What is it that keeps the good ones in the game? THEIR TECHNICAL SKILLS! They learn to amass so much knowledge and technique, that they can overcome their physical regression with better technique and training.

Do you think Jerry Rice was productive in Oakland because he still ran a 4.58? He was productive because he was easily the smartest, most experienced player on the field who could turn blanket coverage by a corner's raw ability into a 5 yard deficit by running a route at 99% accuracy. But instead, we can increase speed, agility, yada, yada, yada.

The data I have shows that teams grade rookies very low and after, and ONLY after they prove their worth, do their grades go up. NOT before they even play one competitive snap against the best in the world! EA's logic is BACKWARD. Rate them as they are NOW, not what you "think" they "may" be in the future. Nobody has a crystal ball and that is why we get draft busts. Let these guys prove it first!

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Completely disagree here. Rookies should have those ratings warranted when they EARN THEM. NOT before their first season starts! They haven't even entered camp yet (except for the Bills)! I would prefer, in CFM, to have REALISTIC physical attributes and then build on them with XP going to honing the skills...you know...LIKE IN REAL LIFE. From this day forward, for every season accrued, these players will get slower, less agile, less twitchy, and even less strong as their bodies deteriorate over time. What is it that keeps the good ones in the game? THEIR TECHNICAL SKILLS! They learn to amass so much knowledge and technique, that they can overcome their physical regression with better technique and training. Do you think Jerry Rice was productive in Oakland because he still ran a 4.58? He was productive because he was easily the smartest, most experienced player on the field who could turn blanket coverage by a corner's raw ability into a 5 yard deficit by running a route at 99% accuracy. But instead, we can increase speed, agility, yada, yada, yada. The data I have shows that teams grade rookies very low and after, and ONLY after they prove their worth, do their grades go up. NOT before they even play one competitive snap against the best in the world! EA's logic is BACKWARD. Rate them as they are NOW, not what you "think" they "may" be in the future. Nobody has a crystal ball and that is why we get draft busts. Let these guys prove it first!

Just to add to the Jerry Rice example even he didn't come into the NFL as this fished product. He was pretty raw his rookie year. He dropped a lot of passes at first. It took time to learn Bill Walsh's system and develop.

[SECElit3]

100% agree! Donnie Moore and his ratings are a major issue with this game? I swear he just spits things out with no factual backing behind them. Look at the acceleration ratings for offensive linemen...seriously? How is this guy qualified to do any of this? Man he is terrible.

[charter04]

I will say this about Donny Moore. He seems like a good guy and seems to work hard and love e his job. I just think he's in a lose lose situation. Some will complain the ratings are too high while others appalled that they are too low. I don't want his job I'll tell you that. Lol

I just feel he uses a faulty way to rate. Seems like watching games, you tube scouting, NFL.com "official" combine numbers, and outside pressure is his total method. It just makes the gameplay less realistic and more arcade, no matter how good a job the gameplay guys do.

[bxphenom7]

Up and down time for Madden. Comes in with the negative stuff it always does, live-stream excites people, then these high ratings bring it back down. Wonder how much the modes changed.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

I appreciate what you do but I do have a few concerns. 1. You say you have data to back up your claims but when asked for it you cannot release it for legal reasons. I understand that you are required to abide by the NDA but it still comes off odd. Donny Moore says the same thing. I have a few people who can attest to the data. Dr. Craig Larner, formerly of Texas A&M University is one of them. Look him up, and contact him to vouch for it. I doubt he would put his professional reputation on the line over myth...especially considering he is a scientist, first and foremost. What Donny often cites is "Youtube Scouting". He has mentioned several times about why players are rated the way they are based on what he sees and references on Youtube. Why else do you think he has Desean Jackson as the fastest player in the league. SMH. BTW, it isn't just one NDA...I had to sign SEVERAL. You don't have to take my word for it, though. You either buy it or you don't. I have often cited on this forum some of the "raw" grades for certain players regarding their attributes. You can look that up. Even that is "borderline" for me, but as long as I am not providing massive downloads, I should be within my legal limits. 2. Regarding the portion about any rookie being tops in any category I must ask, according to who? Your source? Well that is problematic for me. It is almost circular. Rating technical attributes (no matter what your methodology is) is subjective. The technical ratings are very subjective, yes. However, would you rather trust a brain surgeon when you suffer from a brain embolism or the NASCAR fan who just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night? Everything I do is based on source data. I will refer you to our FAQ page. 3. You also slightly shifted the goal posts a bit on this. You went from "there should NEVER be a player rated that high as a rookie in ANY of those categories." to "not been ONE rookie that entered the league as tops in any category." Has Madden ever rated a rookie as tops in a technical category? In any of the technical categories, no. Physical? Possibly, but rarely. Data going back to 1997 gives you a pretty broad spectrum of which most players (we add about 2500 of the 9000 rookies to the site every year) fit within. I can't tell you if one came in at the very top, but it wouldn't surprise me. The larger point is that the data I have posits that these rookies shouldn't even be in the top 10% for the most part, with very, very few exceptions. Instead, EA seems to defy that. I am NOT saying it is the end-all, be-all, but based on what I personally know from doing this for several years, even going back to my scouting days as NFLDS, I tend to side with the scouts. 4. This is more of a personal quirk, but I just dislike use of the word never. Just because it has not happened does not mean it will not. Based on the data I have, it has never happened. This is not the same as saying it won't, but that probability is closer to a guy like me winning the PowerBall...and I don't buy tickets. 5. Regarding PFF and its relationship with Madden, it is a tricky thing. I know you have spoken about the difference between traits and production before and I get what you are saying. But I think the primary goal when rating players in a videogame should be to come as close as possible to replicating real life results. So, and others may disagree, I think matching production should take precedence over traits. If Madden had a "YPC Outside The Tackles" rating or a "Completion % on Go Routes" rating, then sure, it would work. But even NFL front offices don't draft based on production. They draft based on traits. http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/...tion_strategy/ Bill Belichick does the same thing. In fact, he's often given credit for saying it first. That guy can back it up. 6. Most importantly, I am not a fan of Donny Moore. Don't take this as me defending him or anything. Madden's rating philosophy is pretty bad in my view.

Stay calm, and join the Empire.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by Hobbes217

I might be the odd one out but I actually support these "high" ratings. First off I'm sure EA wants the top players rated fairly high otherwise they wouldn't be as fun to play with. If Manziel was a 66 and Clowney was a 71 there would be very little hype for the rookie class and the game. Also higher ratings give the players more of an impact. We all know that rookies (some, not all) are going to excel and going to make a huge difference for their teams this year, we just can't always predict who. Other than free agency, without the draft there's not much else to shake up the rosters from year to year. Also there were 256 players drafted and probable a few dozen more UDFA that will make rosters this year. If only 13 rookies are rated 78+ that's only 5% of the new class making it into the upper 70s and being impact starters in the game. Also it could be worse. Remember when Reggie Bush came out as a 87 OVR?

The bold is untrue, imo, it's possible to have rookies realistically rated and still fun to play with in-game. Like DECEBB points out, physical ability is what it is, meaning if a rookie can have phenomenal physical gifts, speed, strength, size, etc, which can all be utilize in their ratings to make them fun to play with, while their skill ratings keeps them realistically limited.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by StefJoeHalt

I agree with anything u have said here..one side note I'm "Shocked" Watkins speed is so low..to be honest one of the few positives I see..speed appears to be lowered well except for OL..shm..side note I love JD Clowney..however 90's for power move? Look he did all his work on ability, first step explosion, unreal speed for that size and strength...very little of it was on technique..this is out of control high..when I think 90's power moves I think Reggie White, Bruce Smith, Michael Strahan, the greats, maybe even JJ Watt ..JD Clowney has once every 10/15 year physical gifts not hand placement, counter moves, even leverage.. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't have Watkins as a burner, but he has near-elite speed. More fast than quick, though.

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/pr...hp?pyid=119364