7 Players Are Rated an Overall 99 in Madden NFL 19, Your Thoughts?

[TB5XSBW]

Quote: Originally Posted by mattjames2010

*sigh* ....you can regress in areas and still win a championship in a team sport. Eli Manning (twice) and Nick Foles both out dueled your boi on the biggest stage - does that make them better QBs? No, it obviously doesn't, because there are other things you must factor in. Football IQ, accuracy, and genius system keeps Brady from aging quickly.

Sure you can. Peyton Manning was a prime example of that. He clearly regressed and absolutely sucked in 2015, but still won a championship. What does that have to do with Brady putting together all-time great performances? You're being incredibly salty and letting that interfere with your ability to process facts.

[JoshC1977]

Quote: Originally Posted by briz1046

Genuine question and not meant facetiously at all , but as they are the ones building/ tuning the game , wouldn't you expect it to function best within the framework of the ratings as EA intend ( inflated ) , surely wholesale lowering of ratings ( of any attribute individually or across the board) SHOULD result in a poorer experience rather than an improved one ? Again this is a genuine question not a criticism if anything you're saying

(Disclaimer: this is all based on my experiences with Madden 18 (and before) using default gameplay sliders NOT with the M19 beta)

This is a very fair question...I'll rephrase my point....

The problem with the hyper-inflated ratings (i.e. players with overalls greater than 85 or so) is that they result in hyper-inflated gameplay. Big hits, big catches, big throws, etc. It's perfect for selling arcade style gameplay like the online H2H kids want. So yes, from that standpoint the roster and engine do typically work well together.

What I was previously referring to was the desire for REALISTIC gameplay; which means, in spite of all the hard work they might do on the engine, over-inflated ratings essentially undermine all the good things that they have tried to accomplish (again, from the perspective of them wanting something actually resembling real football).

[canes21]

Did I mistakenly wonder into r/NFL?

[Kentaurus]

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

For me, I want to see a game where a guy as good as Antonio Brown is like an 87. I want your average starter around in the mid 70's. I want some lower end starters in the mid 60's. I want a game where when a once in a generation talent comes he is like a 93. I want where the best player to ever exist is a 96. I want the imaginary best player ever to be a 99.

This is absolutely the best answer...

And it also goes with how the game currently works. John Ross ran a combine record 4.22, got rewarded with a 98spd in M18. Which is a perfect representation of how all of this should work. His 4.22 is undeniably great, but perhaps not this perfect imaginary sub 4.2 number to get a 99. Just apply this same concept everywhere else in the game.

[mattjames2010]

Quote: Originally Posted by TB5XSBW

Not being the most athletic or not having the strongest arm in the league isn't going to keep him from being the best at his position in the NFL, and therefore should not prevent him from being the highest rated QB. With the way EA does their ratings, it means giving him a 99 OVR. I have no problem if they stop dishing out 99 OVR, and instead he's a 94 OVR but still ranked #1. He hasn't played in a single system. He has played in several different systems throughout his career in the NFL. Unsurprisingly, he has excelled in all of them. It's clear that you've never watched Gronk play for more than a handful of games each season. His blocking has been great throughout his career. To see how he can blow up guys like Malik Jackson and JJ Watt, and then to see how dominant he is in the passing game, without any team having an answer for him other than to attempt to injure him, is quite astounding. You're making the mistake of thinking that giving out 99 OVR has some huge adverse effect on gameplay. There were things in previous games that were far more egregious. 99 OVR ratings should be among the lowest things on the list of concerns. As far as "keeping us in a cycle of mediocrity" and your take on Madden 19 and beyond, I'm pretty sure you haven't played the beta, so I'm not going to take any of your opinions seriously on the matter.

> Not being the most athletic or not having the strongest arm in the league isn't going to keep him from being the best at his position in the NFL

Dude, I'm not repeating 50 times after this, I'll give you one last chance to get it

Being the "best" at your position in the NFL (this is still highly debatable) does not justify a 99 overall. I specifically pointed out parts of his game that factor into a QBs rating - so he's 99 with nearly not athleticism and an average arm? WHY? So a statue QB who isn't elusive and needs a clean pocket deserves a 99? There's an obvious flaw to his game couples with a middling arm. There's actually a better argument for Rodgers being 99 since he's athletic, arguably has BETTER accuracy than Brady, still has a strong arm - he's the "Best" in terms of Madden QBs, based on what they include within their ratings for a QB. Yet, Brady who is a statue QB and weak arm is comparable to an all-around great QB? Give me a break.

> He hasn't played in a single system. He has played in several different systems throughout his career in the NFL. Unsurprisingly, he has excelled in all of them.

First off, Brady was just a good to borderline great QB for the first 6 years of his career (he was surrounded by great talent) - Around that time he was throwing less than 30 TDs and double digit INTs nearly every season. He blossomed again in 2007 with the addition of Moss and Welker and the evolution of the spread.

Brady has played within a spread system, this hasn't changed, he's help redefine it the way Montana and Walsh brought in the west coast. There wasn't a "variety" of different systems - you don't know what you're talking about.

You're either trolling or being obtuse on purpose. Start being a serious guy before I entertain your posts any further. Thanks.

[mattjames2010]

Quote: Originally Posted by TB5XSBW

Sure you can. Peyton Manning was a prime example of that. He clearly regressed and absolutely sucked in 2015, but still won a championship. What does that have to do with Brady putting together all-time great performances? You're being incredibly salty and letting that interfere with your ability to process facts.

What "all-time great"? Brady wasn't "all-time great" against the Falcons, he HELPED put the Pats into a hole in that game. Sure, the comeback was exciting to watch, but it wasn't an all-time great performance. Throwing a pick 6 in a game when your team was already in trouble is a huge negative.

Settle down.

[TB5XSBW]

Quote: Originally Posted by mattjames2010

What "all-time great"? Brady wasn't "all-time great" against the Falcons, he HELPED put the Pats into a hole in that game. Sure, the comeback was exciting to watch, but it wasn't an all-time great performance. Throwing a pick 6 in a game when your team was already in trouble is a huge negative. Settle down.

Re-read what I said about that game. It was the greatest 4th quarter performance in postseason history, and possibly of any game (regular season included.)

[TB5XSBW]

Quote: Originally Posted by mattjames2010

> Not being the most athletic or not having the strongest arm in the league isn't going to keep him from being the best at his position in the NFL Dude, I'm not repeating 50 times after this, I'll give you one last chance to get it Being the "best" at your position in the NFL (this is still highly debatable) does not justify a 99 overall. I specifically pointed out parts of his game that factor into a QBs rating - so he's 99 with nearly not athleticism and an average arm? WHY? So a statue QB who isn't elusive and needs a clean pocket deserves a 99? There's an obvious flaw to his game couples with a middling arm. There's actually a better argument for Rodgers being 99 since he's athletic, arguably has BETTER accuracy than Brady, still has a strong arm - he's the "Best" in terms of Madden QBs, based on what they include within their ratings for a QB. Yet, Brady who is a statue QB and weak arm is comparable to an all-around great QB? Give me a break. > He hasn't played in a single system. He has played in several different systems throughout his career in the NFL. Unsurprisingly, he has excelled in all of them. First off, Brady was just a good to borderline great QB for the first 6 years of his career (he was surrounded by great talent) - Around that time he was throwing less than 30 TDs and double digit INTs nearly every season. He blossomed again in 2007 with the addition of Moss and Welker and the evolution of the spread. Brady has played within a spread system, this hasn't changed, he's help redefine it the way Montana and Walsh brought in the west coast. There wasn't a "variety" of different systems - you don't know what you're talking about. You're either trolling or being obtuse on purpose. Start being a serious guy before I entertain your posts any further. Thanks.

Being the best at his position, as well as being the best player in the entire league (according to his peers) over the last 2 seasons warrants the highest rating in the game. There's no argument at all for Rodgers to be rated higher than him, as Brady is the superior QB and football player. I'm sorry that you/your team have been traumatized by Brady, but these are facts that you can't get around.

It might help if you bothered to actually understand the game of football on a meaningful level, as opposed to evaluating players, specifically QBs, based on individual attributes.