99 Rated players

[JBH3]

Looking into the Defensive side more too... What about Tommie Harris? Best DT in the league. W/ everyone one on D that Chicago has they still struggled w/out Tommie Harris up front in the trenches.

[Leahmic223]

Quote: Originally Posted by dbshady

I understand what you saying, hes a great young WR, I already said that. But he is not better then 7-8 WR in the league, so IMO opinion he doesn't earn anything higher then a 94-95. Yes, he plays with a bad team, but that is the game of football. Almost every running back in the league, could be better, if they ran behind a better line... thats true... every WR can be better if they had a better line and QB... thats true... but thats not the way the NFL works. Im sorry, we have to base our ratings on how much a player produces on the field, not with what we think he can produce if Peyton Manning was his QB. All that is just speculation, not reality. Andre Johnson, is on the Texans, they don't have a good offense, im sorry, thats just they way it goes. He led the league in receptions, yes, and got 1150 yards and only 5 TD's on the season (he was also 11th in yards, and not even in the top 30 in TD's, he hasn't had a double figure TD season in his career). Mike Furrey, from DET, was 2nd in receptions (5 behind), does he deserve a 95?? Absolutely not. So, im sorry, it doesn't work for AJ either. IMO he is a top 10 WR, as I said, but he shouldn't be higher then a 94-95, at least not yet. Giving him the 94-95 is giving him more than he might deserve stat wise as it is, because people do respect his skills. Mike Furrey, won't get near a 95, not even close (because he doesn't have the noticable skills of a AJ). Another good season from AJ and then we'll see. But he is just not (yet) as good as the top 7-8 WR in the league, whether they play on a better offense or not, so anything over a 94-95 would be impossible for him to get. If your a a 90+ WR in Madden, your a good WR. Like I said, everyone feels like they need a 99 to get some respect. 90+ rating in Madden is very respectable. So lets not say, that no one is giving him any love, we are, hes just not a 99. Hes not a dominate player, hes a great player, but to get a 99 you need to dominate. Manning and LT, they dominate. Yes, they have a better offense (mainly because they dominate, they make others better), but for AJ to become a 96-99 type player, he needs to dominate, and for whats its worth (team, qb, line, whatever, it doesnt matter), he needs to dominate, and he hasn't (Im not saying he can't, he just hasn't yet). Until he can find a way to dominate for a couple of years (go to a better team, find better players, whatever), then and only then will he earn his 97-99. IMHO.

I guess really it comes down to how his ratings were compared ot others. If I were to rate each player, i'd give out 90s to only the elite players, average players would get 60s and good players would get 70s and great 80s...but the future HOFs would get 90s and above. But the way EA does it, alot of players are given out 90s... so to me If I see some other WRs who probably don't deserve 90s, i'd give Andre a 95 to seperate himself from say....TJ. What I am saying is if TJ were to get a 90, then by comparison IMO Andre deserves a 95.

But if they are tougher on the ratings this year then he'd probably get 89-94.

I am just wondering how they are going to rate those breakout rookies, Like Demeco and Reggie.

[dbshady]

Quote: Originally Posted by JBH3

Looking into the Defensive side more too... What about Tommie Harris? Best DT in the league. W/ everyone one on D that Chicago has they still struggled w/out Tommie Harris up front in the trenches.

The man had 22 Tackles and 5 sacks in 12 games... a 99??????? Hes a great D end, but he doesn't belong in this conversation. He only has 103 tackles and 11.5 sacks in 3 years. He going to be great, just not yet, no 99 love for Tommie. IMO.

If you wanna know how un-impressive those stats are, even Warran Sapp had 47 Tackles and 10 Sacks last season. And thats Warren Sapp... Warren Sapp (whos lost some weight this year..) but still. Warren Sapp...!

Id give Tommie a 90-92. Somewhere around there, I don't think there will ever be a 99 DT, its just not that dominate of a position (plug holes, LB clean up), there production on the feild is hardly seen and they dont get alot of sacks. Tommie is good, I don't know if hes the best in the game (definitley has the most potential, talent, and hes young) but I still would give him a 90-92, maybe 93, but thats my highest.

[dbshady]

Quote: Originally Posted by Leahmic223

I am just wondering how they are going to rate those breakout rookies, Like Demeco and Reggie.

Yeah, I hope they don't go overboard tho. I mean they did good, but there just rookies, its one season. You can't base a player on his first season. They will a jump, but I just hope they don't give Reggie a 93 or something. Not in his second year, hes given us one good year (started out pretty bad). I hope hes around a 88-90 and that Demeco is around maybe the same, 86-88.

[BezO]

Quote: Originally Posted by dbshady

Yeah, I hope they don't go overboard tho. I mean they did good, but there just rookies, its one season. You can't base a player on his first season.

Personally, I think players should only be rating based on the previous year, except for players that were injured. I want players rated based on the most recent achievements. If a rookie proved to be the most elusive back in the league(not saying Bush was), they he should be rated accordingly so we an accurate rating at this point in time.

Same for the other side. I don't want players who have had great careers, but whose skills are declining, to be rated as if they were in their prime.

[dbshady]

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

Personally, I think players should only be rating based on the previous year, except for players that were injured. I want players rated based on the most recent achievements. If a rookie proved to be the most elusive back in the league(not saying Bush was), they he should be rated accordingly so we an accurate rating at this point in time. Same for the other side. I don't want players who have had great careers, but whose skills are declining, to be rated as if they were in their prime.

I agree, but just because Reggie Bush is elusive doesn't mean he should have a high rating. I agree that we should give the players who have produced on the field for several years the benefit of the doubt. But for rookies im not quite sure, at least not yet, maybe after a couple seasons.

Reggie Bush averaged 3.6 yards per carry. Lets face it, he's a threat when hes on the field, but not as a "pure running RB". He had more recieving yards then he did rushing. His position is a RB, and elusive or not, anything over a 92 would be crazy.

Think of it this way, forget his name is Reggie Bush. This "man" had 155 carries, for 565 yards, averaged 3.6 yards a carry, had 6 TD's and his longest carry was 18 yards... does that sound like a 92 rated RB to you?

ok this "man" is a WR, he had 88 receptions (which is crazy by the way) for 742 yards, and 2 TD's, had 8.4 yards a catch... does that sound like a 92 rated WR to you?

Granted this was one man, but both aspects of his game alone doesnt equal to a 92 rated. Ill let him have the 88-90 because, we all know what he can do, hes an exciting player. But I think when it comes to Reggie Bush, people forget what he actually "procudes" rather then the plays he makes. Hes got that Micheal Vick factor, he looks great and he entertianes like no other, but he gets more credit then he deserves because he doesn't really produce big numbers on the field (except for maybe last year).

And its sort of like Devin Hester, hes a great return man (so it seems) but hes a horrible CB. He is a CB, hes was rated a 78 last season, has a return man this man could be a 96-99. whatever. But at his position, hes just not that good. Reggie bush is a good RB, but hes better at doing other things then running. Hes a better WR or Return man, then what his position really is, which is a RB. So overall, yeah, he should be good in the game. But at RB? There should be plenty of people in front of him, and I mean pleeennty.

IMO, Thats just my take on it.

[DLaren]

The Overall ratings don't mean much to me, it's the individual ratings that really determine the caliber of the player...

I don't think any player should have an overall rating of 99, but as long as their individual ratings are "fair" I won't have a problem with it...For example, even though Troy Polamalu is 99OVR, I think it would still be fair if his ratings looked similar to this:

95 AWR
90 SPD
86 ACC
85 AGI
55 STR
88 JMP
85 TKL
...ect...


...As long as those individual ratings aren't 99's I don't think we should worry too much...Same goes for the other players as well...

[lbartlett_32]

Huh. No Tom Brady? Very interesting. FYI, Im a Buckeye fan too.