Madden 12 News Post

Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - AFC West (ESPN)

03:55 PM - July 21, 2011 by RedZoneD25

Jon Robinson of ESPN The Gamer breaks down the AFC West team overall ratings in Madden NFL 12.

As you no doubt know, we are releasing the "Madden NFL 12" Overall Team Ratings over the course of this week and next. We're doing it division by division, and today we've got ratings for the AFC West. And remember, we'll also be breaking down the complete player ratings starting August 1. Until then, Tebow or Orton, who you got?.

Denver Broncos: 74
It's all about who you want as your starting quarterback in Denver. Tim Tebow is 77 overall with 80 speed and 76 throwing accuracy while Kyle Orton is 82 overall with only 64 speed but 85 accuracy. Really depends on how you like to play "Madden." As a guy who likes mobility, I'll take Tebow.

San Diego Chargers: 85
With Philip Rivers clocking in at 96 overall and Antonio Gates at 99, the Chargers are going to be tearing up defenses through the air. The fact that they have three running backs with 90-plus speed doesn't hurt, either.

Kansas City Chiefs: 84
Jamaal Charles was one of the surprises of the "Madden" cover vote, showing strong support throughout his campaign. His reward? EA Sports makes him one of the most feared backs in Madden with 98 speed.

Oakland Raiders: 76
Darrius Heyward-Bey blazes the virtual field with 97 speed but only has a 68 catching rating. That pretty much sums up the team right there. Oh yeah, Shane Lechler is a beast at 98 overall.

Source: Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - AFC West

Game: Madden NFL 12Reader Score: 6.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Wii / Xbox 360Votes for game: 44 - View All

Madden NFL 12 Videos

Member Comments

# 21 mestevo @ 07/22/11 12:08 AM

I'm surprised the Raiders are that low, they've been a collection of talented players for some time, just rarely played as a team. Aso leaving does hurt a bit as far as this team OVR goes.

# 22 Outkizast @ 07/22/11 01:40 AM

I could care less about any of the team "overall" ratings in Madden. Because they very rarely are that telling of how well a team will play in a game of Madden. I remember starting a Franchise with the Bills last year and I was rated an 84 or something... Then on the field I would get killed... I don't know how they do their team rating system, but I think it's lame.

Regarding the Raiders: I think the discrepancy between the Raiders and the Chargers is what doesn't seem right to me. The Raiders beat the Chargers twice last year, beat the Chiefs twice last year, and beat the Broncos twice last year. If anything, put the Chargers down some. They have been overrated for a while now.

Aso leaving the Raiders does hurt the secondary obviously, as losing the best player at any position will do. Whoever was talking about how great Routt is has obviously not watched any Raiders games recently (within the past oh 4 years or so). As someone who watches EVERY Raider game each year, Routt is a BIG liability in man coverage. If Aso is gone, the Raiders will need to make a move for someone else in the secondary.

# 23 Jewelz0376 @ 07/22/11 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outkizast


	I could care less about any of the team "overall" ratings in Madden. Because they very rarely are that telling of how well a team will play in a game of Madden. I remember starting a Franchise with the Bills last year and I was rated an 84 or something... Then on the field I would get killed... I don't know how they do their team rating system, but I think it's lame. Regarding the Raiders: I think the discrepancy between the Raiders and the Chargers is what doesn't seem right to me. The Raiders beat the Chargers twice last year, beat the Chiefs twice last year, and beat the Broncos twice last year. If anything, put the Chargers down some. They have been overrated for a while now. Aso leaving the Raiders does hurt the secondary obviously, as losing the best player at any position will do. Whoever was talking about how great Routt is has obviously not watched any Raiders games recently (within the past oh 4 years or so). As someone who watches EVERY Raider game each year, Routt is a BIG liability in man coverage. If Aso is gone, the Raiders will need to make a move for someone else in the secondary.

I gotta disagree with you about Routt... I watch every game and he played great...Sure he got burned sometimes, but considering what the Raiders ask their corners to do he did his job... Not every cb on the raiders can be Nnamdi..

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/po...one-in-oakland

He had the 3rd lowest completion % against him last season among corners at 39.4%...which was tied with Nnamdi...Teams never threw at Nnamdi so they often challenged Routt and he more than held his own imo...

Routt needs to have at least a 90 in man coverage

# 24 bkrich83 @ 07/22/11 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outkizast


	I could care less about any of the team "overall" ratings in Madden. Because they very rarely are that telling of how well a team will play in a game of Madden. I remember starting a Franchise with the Bills last year and I was rated an 84 or something... Then on the field I would get killed... I don't know how they do their team rating system, but I think it's lame. Regarding the Raiders: I think the discrepancy between the Raiders and the Chargers is what doesn't seem right to me. The Raiders beat the Chargers twice last year, beat the Chiefs twice last year, and beat the Broncos twice last year. If anything, put the Chargers down some. They have been overrated for a while now. Aso leaving the Raiders does hurt the secondary obviously, as losing the best player at any position will do. Whoever was talking about how great Routt is has obviously not watched any Raiders games recently (within the past oh 4 years or so). As someone who watches EVERY Raider game each year, Routt is a BIG liability in man coverage. If Aso is gone, the Raiders will need to make a move for someone else in the secondary.

Chargers were missing a lot of players when the Raiders beat them. Still took what 3 (or was it 2 I don't remember) blocked punts to beat them in the first game.

If SD returns everyone, they should on paper be pretty good. That being said Gates has been dinged up a lot lately and with the new CBA in the works, there's no guarantee Floyd or Jackson will be back at the WR positions.

As far as the Raiders ratings, I tend to agree that they are rated low there's some talent on that roster. I think they lack depth and have some holes, but at the skill positions they look pretty damn solid. Ford is a nightmare to cover, Miller is probably one of the most underrated TE's in the league, and McFadden and Bush represent a nice 1-2 punch. McFadden finally showed flashes of being the player everyone thought he could be when he was drafted. I am a huge Michael Bush fan. I so desperately wanted the Chargers to draft him. He reminds me of Marion Butts with his running style and his physical makeup. He's a presence and can wear down a defense, who's usually already tired after chasing McFadden around the field.

I think KC caught lightning in a bottle, I am not convinced they are quite as good as their record indicated they were.

Just going on talent on paper I would rank the Raiders #2 behind the Chargers, if the Chargers do indeed keep everyone and Gates remains healthy. If not then I think the it's anyones guess.

Phillip Rivers however does give the Chargers the chance to win any game. His production last year despite the fact that the Chargers were literally signing guys off the streets to play WR was pretty phenomenal.

I think the top 3 in the division are pretty close together the more I look at it however.

I will say this about Routt, I didn't watch the Raiders a ton last year, but San Diego had a lot of success against him. Malcolm Floyd had a 200 yard game, and I think IIRC a lot of that was on him. Rivers threw for 700 yards in the two games they played, and they picked on him quite a bit in those games. If memory serves.. I may be off there, as I have tried to block last season from my memory.

# 25 mestevo @ 07/22/11 04:00 AM

Divison is Chargers' to lose again, last year they lost it for once. Raiders had to go 6-0 in the division just to make 8-8, I think they improve and reach that same mark at best. Chiefs I think will play better, but I don't think their record will reflect it due to their 2nd half schedule:

Broncos
@ Patriots
Steelers
@ Bears
@ Jets
Packers
Raiders
@ Denver

Could lose all of those, or win 5 of them, really don't know.

They are also one of the 3-4 teams that has a ton of money that they have to spend in order to hit the salary floor, will be interesting to see what they do once the league year opens or if they just sign rookies/mid-level FA's and rework a lot of players to deserve the money.

Denver... who knows. Could surprise people, otherwise could be a dismal rebuilding year as they figure out their QB situation.

# 26 bkrich83 @ 07/22/11 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSpleen


	The ole we missed some players excuse, BS, we were missing as many if not more. One of those games you guys were healthy. face it, excuses are for losers, we beat you fair and square. After saying that you are still the best team in the division talent wise. Again, its not the score as such, it was the comment about DHB and that sums up the team, did this guy watch or see any Raiders games last year or know anything about the roster? As the other guy said, routt had the third best CB rating in the league, ASo will be missed but not as much as some think.

Wasn't an excuse. It was what it was. And no you weren't missing the same number or same caliber of player.

Hats off to the Raiders for breaking the losing streak, but as someone else said they went 6-0 to go 8-8. They may not have turned that corner just yet.

If you believe Aso won't be missed I think you are kidding yourselves.

# 27 TheTodd84 @ 07/22/11 11:30 AM

BigSpleen - I think the issue is that people like that are reviewing these games, who clearly do not know a lot about football, or choose to believe the hype they hear about stigmas. No one has doubted the raiders talent, the criticism is about building a proper football team. The coaches have not been able to realize their full potential because they are constantly looking over their shoulder at an overbearing owner. For example... why was Tom Cable fired after going 6-0 in the division and 8-8 overall, which was the Raiders best record in a long time? My guess would be it was that he and Al Davis butted heads on the direction of the football team, so Al got rid of him. Otherwise, it's hard to justify firing a guy who has improved every year as the Raiders coach. And Al Davis can have all the skill position speed in the world, but what difference does it make if the offensive line is mediocre? Jacoby Ford is a nightmare to cover, but not if Jason Campbell can't get him the football. That's my only gripe.

Maybe the rating has something to do with a heavy emphasis on skill position players and not enough in the trenches with the raiders? Although, I do not know enough about the raiders defensive and offensive lines to say that they are truly mediocre. I am just saying that is maybe why they only went 8-8 last year and have been held back in their development, despite having speed and talent all over the field.

# 28 TheTodd84 @ 07/22/11 11:31 AM

I want the raiders to succeed because when the Silver and Black are good and are truly feared, it is good for the game and for the NFL. So I am hoping they are good. Plus, I love routt, ford, and Michael Bush.

# 29 DaggerSwagger @ 07/22/11 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerPitcher


	Every fan believes their team is better that it truly is, let the #'s speak for themselves Raiders go (6-0) 8-8?!?! That just SCREAMS "BAD DIVISION" to me that means they went 2-8 against non division teams! What part of that means UNDERRATED??????

and the games they did win a few were blowouts too and the ones they lost were close

# 30 bkrich83 @ 07/22/11 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSpleen


	it was an excuse, injuries happen to everyone. . One of the games we played you you were fully healthy.

Nope wasn't an excuse merely a fact. And no they were not fully healthy the second game either but it is what it is.

If you want to pound your chest about Raider greatness have at it.

# 31 bkrich83 @ 07/22/11 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSpleen


	Not pounding my chest , neither the chargers or raiders were great last year, fact is, it is an excuse, and only losers use excuses. We never had out best defensive player in one game against you in nnamdi, and seymour was playing hurt. I can go on.... You lost because the raiders dominated the line of scrimmage nothing more, nothing less.

First game they lost because they couldn't get a punt off. Second game they lost simply because the Raiders outplayed them.

Again not an excuse merely a fact.

Bottom-line for this subject the Raiders were an 8-8 team with point diff of just +39. That's the epitome of average so I am not sure how much higher they should be rated. They were 29th in the league vs. the pass with Aso so I don't imagine that is going to get better. Particularly since teams are only in their base defense what 45% of the time these days. Losing a another CB is big. Not to mention without him basically taking away the opposing teams #1 they can't give Routt and the others the same type of help coverage they were able to in the past.

I realize the Raiders have been awful for the better part of a decade and since they showed some life last year Raider fan feels they should get more respect than they probably deserve. It happens every year with certain fan bases.

# 32 bkrich83 @ 07/22/11 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSpleen


	I believe they are too lowly rated and they are they are as good if not better then the chiefs who are rated 10 points higher. anyone who knows anything about football knows they raiders are not one of the worst teams in the league this year, that rating says they are. Most see the raiders as a team on the rise, ESPN picked them to win the west. its not rocket science, teams no better are ranked much higher.

ESPN picked them. Oh well then it must be true.

# 33 bkrich83 @ 07/22/11 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSpleen


	None of what you said changes the fact that the raiders are rated way too low, are the chiefs 10 points betetr? You can make a strong argument the raiders are better then the chiefs. Average team should get an average rating, the rating says one of the worst teams in the NFL, understand now? It is not rocket science.

What argument can you make that they are?

# 34 bkrich83 @ 07/22/11 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSpleen


	Irrelevant, just shows being rated as one of the worst teams in the league is moronic.

ESPN's pre-season picks mean nothing. Hell they have picked the Chargers for the SB like 3 of the past 6 seasons.

# 35 bkrich83 @ 07/22/11 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSpleen


	total ignorance, other then DHB name 1? Raiders have a lot of great players (Zach miller, seymour, Mcfadden, Branch, ford, Bush,Wimbley, mcclean) etc.. Spewing the old raiders myths i see.

With the exception of possibly Seymour none of those players are great. Some of them are pretty good, but none are great.. McFadden could be, need to see him play like that more than just one year. Bush is a nice player and a banger but he's not a great player. Ford and McClain had nice rookie years, but it's way to early to call them great as well.

If you look at the Raiders roster they have some talent, but not a lot of depth and there certainly are holes on the roster. At least on paper.

# 36 bkrich83 @ 07/22/11 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSpleen


	the same can be said of 7-8 teams rated higher, again its not rocket science.........................

It's certainly not rocket science, because science is basically just that, for the most part black or white.

This is purely subjective, you can't say definitively one way or another, particularly before a single game is played one team is definitely better than the other.

Unless you believe your opinion to be fact and can not be questioned.

# 37 bkrich83 @ 07/22/11 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSpleen


	It is fact, sorry, the chiefs rated 10 points higher is baloney. Who ever did these ratings does not have a good knowledge of NFl rosters and are using the last 6-7 years were the raiders struggled instead of what the team is as of right now. The comment about DHB shows this.

Subjective ratings can not be factual. Hence the reason they are subjective.

It's your opinion, nothing more nothing less. And your opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.

# 38 bkrich83 @ 07/22/11 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSpleen


	except the comment he made about DHB and the raiders shows he really doesnt know the roster at all.

In your opinion. Again, that has nothing to do with the fact you seem unable to grasp. these ratings are purely subjective. Again your opinion on NFL talent or roster talent holds no more weight than his or anyone's else.

# 39 iBlievN5 @ 07/22/11 03:52 PM

Zach Miller and Seymour are the only "great" players the Raiders have right now. They have plenty of potential at S, LB, RB, and a couple at the WR position but by and large they are not a super talented team. No OL, no QB and just decent to good pieces on defense.

# 40 Outkizast @ 07/22/11 04:01 PM

I will say this about the Raiders: They are not the same team that was a joke for the last decade. For most of those years, they neglected any attention to the O and D lines. Last year they FINALLY got their heads together and owned the trenches for most of the year on both sides of the ball. I would understand people saying that we shouldn't expect another 8-8 year if the wins seemed like flukes, but when a team is as dominant in the trenches as the Raiders were last year, I don't think it's crazy to think they have the potential for a great season.

« Previous 123 4 5 Next »

More Links

Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - AFC West (ESPN)