DONNY please use THE SPORTING NEWS RANKINGS to help determine PLAYER RATINGS!!(link)

[Outkizast]

Quote: Originally Posted by KensaiKatai

no not at all, i just don't think it should be as drastically far apart as has been in years' past. i think the top team should be a 90 and the lowest a 78-80. at least until the first roster update.

I disagree about 123124% ...... I want the BEST teams to be in the low 90s... and i want the worst teams to be around 60-65... I want to FEEL the difference between a good team and a bad team... No more of this all the teams feel the same... Some teams are flat out BETTER than the other team in almost every way... I want that to be reflected in Madden... If I am playing Lions Vs. Steelers... I would hope the ratings would reflect what a lopsided matchup this SHOULD be...

Of course, one thing i do agree with, is that game management and the coaching staffs do play a pretty big role in whether or not a team is any "good"... I'm still waiting for Madden to introduce coaching staffs and stuff like in NFL Head Coach... I think they play a big part in any player reaching his potential as far as progression goes as well as playcalling and the like....

But face it, some players are just a lot better than others at the intracasies of their position. (IE: Route Running for WRs)..

[KensaiKatai]

Quote: Originally Posted by iBlievN5

those rankings are terrible.

care to specify why you think so? or are you just here to troll?

[kehlis]

shouldn't the team rating be based on some sort of calculation taking the individual player rankings into consideration?

IMO it shouldn't be a random number thrown out there.


And you also said "at least until the first roster update"

In the context that you want this done I don't see how that makes any sense. You want a mythical rating at first, then you want it to change with the roster update? Why?

What changes from initial rosters to the first roster update other than minor changes? I think it should be a number based on individual player ratings.

[DeLuX]

NO just NO.

[KensaiKatai]

Quote: Originally Posted by mars85042

So your saying talent doesn’t determine success in the NFL? Are you serious with all of the so called football professionals and coaches, talent is the only thing that separates teams. Dude do you watch, or better yet have you ever played football? 10% of the coaches in the NFL are great, 80% are good, & you always have to account for that 10% who are poor. Two identical players with similar talent coming in may just take very different paths player 1 gets it; he can be very successful, player 2 doesn’t yet even with similar skills his football IQ or awareness is just not there. Talent is and always will be the defining point in sports, but never underestimate heart & IQ. Football is a thinking mans game!

sorry but i'm of the firm belief that a player is only as good as the other players around him (cohesion) and the plays that are being called. e.g. overpursuing from not trusting your teammates in gap assignments etc.

we'll just have to agree to disagree. yes there are a few ELITE players...but coaching, schemes, specific calls in certain situations and adjustments at the line of scrimmage make up the majority of success on any given play and can a lot of the time make the difference between a win or a loss..it's not just talent that separates them..it's the NFL the majority HAVE TALENT!!


your player 1 player 2 example is what i think to but i don't think it's just "getting it". a lot of the time it's the system they are a part of that will determine whether or not they have any success.

[KensaiKatai]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

shouldn't the team rating be based on some sort of calculation taking the individual player rankings into consideration? IMO it shouldn't be a random number thrown out there. And you also said "at least until the first roster update" In the context that you want this done I don't see how that makes any sense. You want a mythical rating at first, then you want it to change with the roster update? Why? What changes from initial rosters to the first roster update other than minor changes? I think it should be a number based on individual player ratings.

i'm not saying a random number and i agree with you. i'm saying that the sum of the individual player ratings shouldn't be as drastically far off as they have been in years past. A majority of players are vastly overrated (in terms of ratings) when they are the products of good coaching and good systems.

[mars85042]

I can understand your point with speed or agility, but not overall team ability.
I've looked at the ratings so far and I have to say these guys are doing a phenomenal job, based on the true similarities in abilities the ratings so far have been very accurate & based on player to player comparison.

I.E. In another thread a guy was complaining about Ed Reed & Troy Polamalu both having 93 speed (Basically saying Reed is much faster than Polamalu).
The fact is; at there respective NFL combines Reed ran a 4.57 40 yard dash & Polamalu ran a 4.53, my point is these ratings are based on fact & player performance.

I myself have been checking the ratings they put out trying to show a discrepancy, but up to now there is none; if ratings are consistent and game play is in line they really look good.

I must give credit, when credit is do; these rating are very very good!

[salbowski]

Im sure he does use "sporting news" as well as many other sources to assist him in the ratings...

Couldn't you just have sent this to him.

(Isn't this a "hey donny" thread??)