Rookie Ratings...

[Chi Dynasty12]

How can there be a 1 point difference in catching between Hakeem Nicks and Percy Harvin? Nicks has way better hands...this worries me

[Scott]

Really? A one point difference worries you?

[JTRaines92]

I believe he is trying to say Nicks should have more than a 1 point difference in catching, but I don't understand what worries you.

[Saber]

Remember the ratings were very preliminary and clearly completed before the draft ever happened as more than half of some team's picks aren't included and several undrafted free agents are rated highly. I would be shocked if they weren't tinkered with before the game actually releases.

[thenmber2]

I'm more worried about their idea of having the ratings spread out a lot further in the ratings spectrum.

One of the examples they used was having Matt Leinart rated in the 60s.

Lets not forget that he was barely beat out by Warner for the starting spot last season.

Say what you will about Leinart or even Warner. I just don't think having the starter rated in the 90s and his first round draft pick back-up rated in the 60s as very credible.

How is any team ever going to lose their starter and have their back-up come in and progress if he can't complete a pass?

[Saber]

Quote: Originally Posted by thenmber2

I'm more worried about their idea of having the ratings spread out a lot further in the ratings spectrum. One of the examples they used was having Matt Leinart rated in the 60s. Lets not forget that he was barely beat out by Warner for the starting spot last season. Say what you will about Leinart or even Warner. I just don't think having the starter rated in the 90s and his first round draft pick back-up rated in the 60s as very credible. How is any team ever going to lose their starter and have their back-up come in and progress if he can't complete a pass?

I understand what you're saying and absolutely agree. I'm not sure what Leinhart is rated, but let's just assume he's a 66 for a second. That would put him below 5 rookie QBs! Stafford (79), Sanchez (77), Freeman (72), Bomar (68), and Nate Davis (67). That's the kind of absurd I can't even begin to wrap my mind around. I actually don't have too much of an issue of the top 3 rated guys, but the next QB should probably be rated a 60 at best with these new ratings to be stretched out.

Issues like this are all over the place with 13 receivers and 11 running backs rated at least 70. Contemplate that for a second. I haven't yet run franchise on Madden that didn't typically have a 70 or so rated player being my 3rd RB and my 5th (and sometimes my 4th) WR. A LOT of the computer controlled teams are the same way. Now I'm to understand from this draft alone, if no receivers EVER progressed, that 13 of them will have no problems finding a team to play on. C'mon.

11 players are rated at least an 80. If it's true that EA has finally fixed the progression system, there's NO reason that there are still that many players rated that highly. Especially if you've stretched the ratings out. I've always thought the rookies were rated entirely too high in Madden (especially the first round ones) and this hasn't helped the case. EA really needs to stretch to overall all the way from 1-99 and cap incoming rookies at 70 or so. The argument of course is that anyone playing in the NFL would have some degree of talent and therefore could NEVER be a 1, but I disagree. If I have a 5'6" 150 lb. kicker and I move him to LG, then he would probably be a 1. Same with my 6"8" 325 lb RT that I try out at CB. Certainly odd ideas that might never happen, but would certainly warrant a 1. As injuries increase (hopefully) in football games this would certainly help with strategy. If I decide that I'm only going to carry 2 QBs on my roster, then I should probably have an emergency guy like a Tom Tupa, a Antwan Randel-El, or a Michael Bush. A player who at least has the slightest proficiency in playing QB.

[thenmber2]

Quote: Originally Posted by Saber

I understand what you're saying and absolutely agree. I'm not sure what Leinhart is rated, but let's just assume he's a 66 for a second. That would put him below 5 rookie QBs! Stafford (79), Sanchez (77), Freeman (72), Bomar (68), and Nate Davis (67). That's the kind of absurd I can't even begin to wrap my mind around. I actually don't have too much of an issue of the top 3 rated guys, but the next QB should probably be rated a 60 at best with these new ratings to be stretched out. Issues like this are all over the place with 13 receivers and 11 running backs rated at least 70. Contemplate that for a second. I haven't yet run franchise on Madden that didn't typically have a 70 or so rated player being my 3rd RB and my 5th (and sometimes my 4th) WR. A LOT of the computer controlled teams are the same way. Now I'm to understand from this draft alone, if no receivers EVER progressed, that 13 of them will have no problems finding a team to play on. C'mon. 11 players are rated at least an 80. If it's true that EA has finally fixed the progression system, there's NO reason that there are still that many players rated that highly. Especially if you've stretched the ratings out. I've always thought the rookies were rated entirely too high in Madden (especially the first round ones) and this hasn't helped the case. EA really needs to stretch to overall all the way from 1-99 and cap incoming rookies at 70 or so. The argument of course is that anyone playing in the NFL would have some degree of talent and therefore could NEVER be a 1, but I disagree. If I have a 5'6" 150 lb. kicker and I move him to LG, then he would probably be a 1. Same with my 6"8" 325 lb RT that I try out at CB. Certainly odd ideas that might never happen, but would certainly warrant a 1. As injuries increase (hopefully) in football games this would certainly help with strategy. If I decide that I'm only going to carry 2 QBs on my roster, then I should probably have an emergency guy like a Tom Tupa, a Antwan Randel-El, or a Michael Bush. A player who at least has the slightest proficiency in playing QB.

I'm sure they've thrown around ideas left and right.

The rookies coming in rated in the 80s don't really bug me that much because rookies bring excitement. And players want to play with their team's new rookies. I don't think the rookies rated in the 70s will be able to do much.

Besides, you have to account for those that will ultimately make a splash. These days, there's always rookies that come in rated too low for what they contribute that year.

If I were them, I'd keep the rookie ratings the same. But I'd stretch the ratings out a bit. Not so much like they've said. But rather just have a regular grading scale. The top players are in the 90s, with few stars. The bottom tier guys a 50 at their natural position. And if you take any player that doesn't fit, he should drop down to a 10-40. I think a kicker could possible just dive in front of a DL, so that's about a 10 rating in my book. A 0 would be a dead guy out there. A fatty DL could kick a ball 30 yards if he had to, and a DL could also bump a WR off the line and sit in a zone. So a 20-30 for them moving to CB is ok in my book.

I definitely think the best thing they could do. And I KNOW it's easy to do this. Is adjust the speed ratings. Compare game players running speeds within a specific amount of yards and make it so that it matches what real players run those times in. That'll open the game a lot and give people more exciting play-making abilities.

[nighttrain32]

IMO instead of just downgrading the rookies, take the whole ratings spectrum down about 5 points. A 94+ should be for players that transcend the game. Rookies should come in at high 60's or low 70's. Rookie progression/regression should happen like every week 5, 11 and 17 of each season and should be based on consistent good/bad play. Playoff games should improve the progression for each win. Rookies should actually have to play in order to get to be average and then they can become elite.