What rating are you most annoyed at?

[mrcsch]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

There hasn't been a 100 rating since Devin Hester's speed. If ever there was a player that deserved it, it's Josh Allen's THP. He generates 20% greater release velocity than Brett Favre. He literally has the strongest arm in the history of strength or arms. Carson Wentz's TUP. His completion percentage was indeed not very good, and that appears to be what Kane went off of, but Wentz's under pressure throws were far deeper, on average, that anyone else. He took shots when he was under pressure, and he averaged 15 yards per attempt, had 8 TDs and 1 INT in these situations. Wentz throws damn well under pressure, but because he takes shots, his completion percentage is low. For the record, I gave this feedback to Kane and he said it's fixed for roster update 1. DeForest Buckner's strength. There are very few DTs with greater strength than Buckner, that's really his game, and why he generates so much pressure. His technique is lacking, so he doesn't get home very often.

Dang. Didn't know Allen's arm was seriously that strong. Haven't watched too much of him or Buckner. About Wentz, I didn't know he averaged so many yards-per-attempt when under pressure, glad his rating is getting fixed. Carson's a good guy and one heck of a football player.

Quote: Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas

Not really annoyed but I feel like Kareem Hunt's break tackle should be higher. It's by far the best part of his game and he was ranked number one last year by both PFF and Football Outsiders in terms of broken tackles. He also broke as many tackles in his first 7 games as Ezekiel Elliott did in his entire rookie season on almost 200 less carries. Is what it is though and 88 is still pretty good.

Kareem Hunt is a beast. Speaking of Elliot, I don't know, I feel he's rated a bit too generously. It was argued that Carson wasn't high due to his short time in the league, while Elliot has been a top back with only about a year and half of games under his belt. Not to mention his offensive line could make me look good with the holes those guys can open up.

Quote: Originally Posted by stinkubus

I'm annoyed by the existence of the OVR rating. It's an arbitrary number that conveys no meaningful information in all but the most trivial of cases. Worse yet to get players to the OVR number they "should" be at other ratings, which we know for a fact have a significant impact on gameplay, must be artificially manipulated. As we are seeing yet again it also causes endless controversy with the user base. I also get annoyed by the existence of redundant ratings like STR. There's absolutely no need for a strength rating. That a player possesses adequate strength is implied by any number of other ratings, like PMV and BSH for DL. If player isn't strong enough to shed a block then just give them a bad BSH rating. Then there's the nebulous and ill defined ratings like AWR. I'm not even certain this has any impact on the field if you actually play your games. I completely ignore it when developing players in franchise, and I'm convinced my team is better off for it. Why waste XP on AWR when I can dump it into things that I *know* make a difference like ZCV, BSH, PMV, FMV, RTE, etc?

Yeah, the overall number can be pretty controversial, especially for people who casually view them without knowing what makes them up. I'd argue that block shedding and things like that are based on technique as well, so I don't like that case. I think strength is needed for some instances. And about awareness. I'm not sure what awareness is fully used for. It seems to affect ratings pretty heavily.

[stinkubus]

Quote: Originally Posted by mrcsch

Yeah, the overall number can be pretty controversial, especially for people who casually view them without knowing what makes them up. I'd argue that block shedding and things like that are based on technique as well, so I don't like that case. I think strength is needed for some instances. And about awareness. I'm not sure what awareness is fully used for. It seems to affect ratings pretty heavily.

A combination of athleticism and technique are what allow great players to shine, but the athleticism part of the equation is almost always a binary, yes or no, proposition. You don't get anything extra by being even a teeny bit stronger than necessary to get the job done.

That's before we even get into the problem of how to measure and convert a player's strength into a single metric. Bench reps from the combine are a terrible proxy, and they are moot for anyone who's been in the league for more than a year or two. They are also probably the only publicly available information for the overwhelming majority of players.

[mrcsch]

Quote: Originally Posted by stinkubus

A combination of athleticism and technique are what allow great players to shine, but the athleticism part of the equation is almost always a binary, yes or no, proposition. You don't get anything extra by being even a teeny bit stronger than necessary to get the job done. That's before we even get into the problem of how to measure and convert a player's strength into a single metric. Bench reps from the combine are a terrible proxy, and they are moot for anyone who's been in the league for more than a year or two. They are also probably the only publicly available information for the overwhelming majority of players.

Yeah, you've got a solid point.

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by stinkubus

A combination of athleticism and technique are what allow great players to shine, but the athleticism part of the equation is almost always a binary, yes or no, proposition. You don't get anything extra by being even a teeny bit stronger than necessary to get the job done. That's before we even get into the problem of how to measure and convert a player's strength into a single metric. Bench reps from the combine are a terrible proxy, and they are moot for anyone who's been in the league for more than a year or two. They are also probably the only publicly available information for the overwhelming majority of players.

I think generally speaking it's a mistake to directly translate a Madden rating and refer it to how that word is used in common language or even " football speak" . Ratings like toughness , strength , RTE, PUR function within the game mechanics in ways not necessarily directly translatable , pursuit is more a "catch up speed" not a measure of whether a player takes good pursuit angles for example , strength ratings would include ability to get leverage on an opponent , more about technique than out and out strength as you would normally hear it talked about outside of Madden ratings etc , as I said there are people here way more qualified than me to ask but I think your wrong to say they do nothing or shouldn't be factors

[BleedGreen710]

Quote: Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas

Not really annoyed but I feel like Kareem Hunt's break tackle should be higher. It's by far the best part of his game and he was ranked number one last year by both PFF and Football Outsiders in terms of broken tackles. He also broke as many tackles in his first 7 games as Ezekiel Elliott did in his entire rookie season on almost 200 less carries. Is what it is though and 88 is still pretty good.

The whole break tackle rating seems funky to me. Like Patrick Peterson is just a few points off guys like Hunt or even Fournette. Break tackle rating is new this year and it seems to me like they kind of just threw darts at a board to decide what numbers to give some of the players.

Sent from my HTC Desire 625 using Tapatalk

[PhillyPhanatic14]

Hands down it's Nick Foles. Dude won the Super Bowl and he is rated 1 point higher than Lamar, who some scouts didn't even consider a QB in the NFL, and 1 LOWER than Mayfield somehow.... I mean he won the Super Bowl.... and anyone that watched him in the playoffs knows that he deserves better. That's just crazy to me. I get the hype of rookies but this is a bit ridiculous.

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

DeForest Buckner's strength. There are very few DTs with greater strength than Buckner, that's really his game, and why he generates so much pressure. His technique is lacking, so he doesn't get home very often.

While you appear to be in a ratings related mood anyway you could respond to this ?
Re: What rating are you most annoyed at?

Quote :

"I'm annoyed by the existence of the OVR rating. It's an arbitrary number that conveys no meaningful information in all but the most trivial of cases. Worse yet to get players to the OVR number they "should" be at other ratings, which we know for a fact have a significant impact on gameplay, must be artificially manipulated. As we are seeing yet again it also causes endless controversy with the user base.*

I also get annoyed by the existence of redundant ratings like STR. There's absolutely no need for a strength rating. That a player possesses adequate strength is implied by any number of other ratings, like PMV and BSH for DL. If player isn't strong enough to shed a block then just give them a bad BSH rating.

Then there's the nebulous and ill defined ratings like AWR. I'm not even certain this has any impact on the field if you actually play your games. I completely ignore it when developing players in franchise, and I'm convinced my team is better off for it. Why waste XP on AWR when I can dump it into things that I *know* make a difference like ZCV, BSH, PMV, FMV, RTE, etc?"

Pretty certain you could answer him far more accurately than I could as an (ex) insider

[stinkubus]

Quote: Originally Posted by PhillyPhanatic14

Hands down it's Nick Foles. Dude won the Super Bowl and he is rated 1 point higher than Lamar, who some scouts didn't even consider a QB in the NFL, and 1 LOWER than Mayfield somehow.... I mean he won the Super Bowl.... and anyone that watched him in the playoffs knows that he deserves better. That's just crazy to me. I get the hype of rookies but this is a bit ridiculous.

Foles is a fine player, but he's not a world beater. The success he's experienced in Philly is as much a product of Pederson being a great coach. Philly fans should hope that ownership never lets that guy go.

I'll also now insert the obligatory comment that all sorts of average to mediocre QBs, and even a couple of poor ones, have managed to win SBs.

Jackson was probably the third best QB prospect in the draft behind Mayfield and Rosen. He probably also ran the most "pro" style offense of any of the hyped prospects. His issues are going to be with footwork and touch/accuracy, not reading D's. Any scout who sincerely thought he should be a WR instead of a QB needs to find a new line of work.

Josh Allen was this year's hyped prospect who can't read a defense. I'd bench a HS QB for making some of the inexplicably stupid mental errors he's prone to. NFL teams love to drool over that arm strength and think they can fix the other issues, but it almost never works out that way.

You can take a smart guy with a weak to middling arm and build an effective offense with smart play design and good decision making from the QB. What you can't do is build an effective offense with a moron who just so happens to be capable of flinging it 70 yards because no good NFL defense is ever going to give you that anyway.

As far as the rookie's ratings go hyped prospects have had jacked ratings for as long as I can remember. 'Twas ever thus. We all may was well just accept it. Accurately rating them before they've played a down in the NFL is mission impossible anyway.