Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings - Top 5 Free Safeties

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by manEATgod

Is this PFF category just looking at man coverage? Also Pat Pete is going to be better and more complete in man coverage due to his other attributes, just like in real life,which is why he follows the best around instead of Honey Badger.

No it's just overall coverage. Mathieu has too high ratings for both IMO

[Greenblood60]

They got my man Malcolm in there ! Good work !

[khaliib]

Got to love the functionality of Madden ratings!!!

Man Coverage is matched against Route Run to determine how much "separation" is achieved on the WR part, based on their Route Run rating.
- there are other functionalities at play like die-roll knock out chance etc...

Then you have to apply the AWR rating as a modifier against the rating to determine how close to 100% Man Coverage (or any other rating) will be played at.

Gameplay wise, there's no difference between 98 or 92, because as soon as a rating hits "90", that rating is considered top tier.

At 98, when regression is applied, it will take that 98 longer to fall out of the top tier level (90) than someone at 92.
- gameplay wise, this allows the Badger to have a greater advantage over WR's who's Route Run isn't 90 for a longer duration of his career.
- because of this longer advantage duration the 98 gives, he'll hold high value longer, until age/injuries etc... eventually drops his MCV.

Most WR/TE's don't have Route Run ratings in the 90's, so match ups (Man wise), will consistently be favorable to his side, thus, his value at a young age.

Unfortunately, because the game doesn't distinguish between the route running of a fleet footed WR and lumbering TE/FB/RB, the man rating has to be higher to balance high route run ratings that these lumbering players posses, which allows them to be wide open way too often.

The one rating that "all" defensive players will need to be modified downward on is "Zone Coverage".
From the vids, players are still redirecting with no regard to momentum as soon as the ball leaves the hand of the QB.
- up through M16, anything above 80 caused an "instant" reaction upon QB release, to the path of the ball.

The key to all ratings is only giving "90+" to an positional area (rating) were you want that player to shine above the rest at, plus a very high AWR rating so that there's little to no negative modification against that "90+" area (rating).

You have to look at Madden's ratings from a "Cause & Affect" functionality and not "Best & Worst" perspective.

At 98, he will be covering guys very close, well into his 30's.
If you don't think he's that type of player, lower it closer to 90, that when regression hits, he won't be as effective.

[J.Cole]

Quote: Originally Posted by OrganizedChaos

Malcolm Jenkins over Ha Ha? I also would put Harrison smith above other guys. But that is just splitting hairs, top four are all amazing at their craft.

Malcolm Jenkins is easily in the too 5 he has great versatility which for what ever reason is not reflected in his ratings and a great tackler. If he didn't have stone hands he would be top 3 for sure.

[iLLWiLL]

[manEATgod]

Quote: Originally Posted by charter04

No it's just overall coverage. Mathieu has too high ratings for both IMO

So then you can't really use the PFF coverage grades to say Mathieu's man coverage rating is too high, can you?

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

No, completely wrong. The man coverage rating is only half the equation, the other part is the physical skillset. How many times must that be said? Now having said that, I still think his MCV rating is too high.

For some reason it's not getting through. I don't know how else to explain this.I too think its a tad bit too high but its not that bad. It's really splitting hairs at this point. Honestly I wish they would name the man coverage rating something else so that the people getting upset over this wouldn't be so confused.

It doesn't matter that his man coverage rating is higher than Pete's when we know that a Megatron type receiver will beat Mathieu a lot more than Pete, downfield.

[Dj_MyTime]

To me Mathieu's rating for man should be somewhere between 88-91, since man coverage is global across the defense he should not be rated higher than a top 5 corner.

HE IS NOT A CORNER.

Can he come down and play the slot, sure, can he match up vs perennial number one receivers, game in and game out...no, if so he'd be a corner all the time in the NFL if he possessed that true skill set.

His value is in that he's a versatile coverage FS, similar to Earl Thomas (who was also a high rated DB coming put of college).

Just because he grades out high in coverage on a blog/statistical site doesn't garner the highest rating in the game, because you have to account for WHO HE IS COVERING, which is mainly a TE/HB/3rd or 4th receiver on the depth chart. So naturally as a cover FS he will grade out high vs players who are not on the same level as a true number one receiver.

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by manEATgod

So then you can't really use the PFF coverage grades to say Mathieu's man coverage rating is too high, can you? For some reason it's not getting through. I don't know how else to explain this.I too think its a tad bit too high but its not that bad. It's really splitting hairs at this point. Honestly I wish they would name the man coverage rating something else so that the people getting upset over this wouldn't be so confused. It doesn't matter that his man coverage rating is higher than Pete's when we know that a Megatron type receiver will beat Mathieu a lot more than Pete, downfield.

Of course you can use that. His overall coverage is about the same as CB's. So why would his zone and man be way higher than all of them?