Ian / Phil Time for mid season ratings change

[Nintari]

All I know is Kyle Orton needs to go up to around 90 overall. His ratings are WAY underrated and needs to be bumped significantly.

[JMD]

It must all be in my head then. I'm a Chiefs fan, the Chiefs are rated a 71. With the Chiefs online my record is 19-40 a few losses are from quits and a few from disconnections. Just for the heck of it I played the last 5 games using the Titans rated a 89 and I'm now 24-40 so I've won all 5 games. It seems much easier to win with a higher rated team, so these overall team ratings must mean something.

[Palo20]

Quote: Originally Posted by JMD

It must all be in my head then. I'm a Chiefs fan, the Chiefs are rated a 71. With the Chiefs online my record is 19-40 a few losses are from quits and a few from disconnections. Just for the heck of it I played the last 5 games using the Titans rated a 89 and I'm now 24-40 so I've won all 5 games. It seems much easier to win with a higher rated team, so these overall team ratings must mean something.

Yup, the individual players on the Titans are better than the individual players on the Chiefs.

[Nightfly]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nintari

All I know is Kyle Orton needs to go up to around 90 overall. His ratings are WAY underrated and needs to be bumped significantly.

Kyle Orton, a 90? So, Matt Ryan should get like a 90/95 rating? I do agree with you that Kyle Orton should be rated a bit higher. Mid 80's sounds about right to me, but a 90!?

[krc1130]

Quote: Originally Posted by JMD

It must all be in my head then. I'm a Chiefs fan, the Chiefs are rated a 71. With the Chiefs online my record is 19-40 a few losses are from quits and a few from disconnections. Just for the heck of it I played the last 5 games using the Titans rated a 89 and I'm now 24-40 so I've won all 5 games. It seems much easier to win with a higher rated team, so these overall team ratings must mean something.

Yes. Ok this is just obvious, the reason you did better is because they are the Titans. They are alot better than the Chiefs

[Nintari]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nightfly

Kyle Orton, a 90? So, Matt Ryan should get like a 90/95 rating? I do agree with you that Kyle Orton should be rated a bit higher. Mid 80's sounds about right to me, but a 90!?

Well, he HAS been one of the top QB's in the entire league so why not?

You mention Matt Ryan. Kyle Orton has more TDs, more passing yards, less INT, a higher QR rating, better pass PCT...and has played 3 less quarters to boot.

So whatever they have Matt Ryan at, Kyle needs to be atleast a few points higher overall.

[Nightfly]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nintari

Well, he HAS been one of the top QB's in the entire league so why not? You mention Matt Ryan. Kyle Orton has more TDs, more passing yards, less INT, a higher QR rating, better pass PCT...and has played 3 less quarters to boot. So whatever they have Matt Ryan at, Kyle needs to be atleast a few points higher overall.

Wow, the difference in stats between Matt Ryan and Kyle Orton is rather small. You make it come off like it's a huge difference, but it isn't.

There is no way Kyle Orton deserves a rating of 90. You are making much more sense when you say that he should be a few points higher than Matt Ryan. As I said in my previous message, mid 80's sounds about right.

[Nintari]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nightfly

Wow, the difference in stats between Matt Ryan and Kyle Orton is rather small. You make it come off like it's a huge difference, but it isn't. There is no way Kyle Orton deserves a rating of 90. You are making much more sense when you say that he should be a few points higher than Matt Ryan. As I said in my previous message, mid 80's sounds about right.

I just threw 90 out there. After doing a little research, I think you're right. 85-87 would be about right IMO.

Either way, I think everyone would agree he's one of the most underrated players in the game (apart from Packer fans lol).