So if I throw Pro Bowl worthy yards & TD's

[jWILL253]

Plus, the average-arm QB's rating would drop because of the system he's in.

In a ratings system like the one I just mentioned, you would be able to draft based on potential, physical skill, and the system you're placing the player under. It would also make you actually consider which system to use when running a team, because just because a certain team has great weapons doesn't mean they'll thrive under any system.

In regards to the Rex Grossman argument, teams don't draft based off of stats, and barely do they draft off of physical skill. They draft off of positional awareness and work ethic. You can have the fastest receiver ever, but if he doesn't improve in his catching and route running, he will be useless (I'm talking to you, Al Davies). The best players in the league basically live in the film room, and they're always practicing. So, to improve a subpar QB, you would have to put him through repitition to improve his skills...

[ZoneKIller]

Quote: Originally Posted by mmorg

Performance is the result of a players ratings therefore the performance of a player is equal to the ratings of said player. If you were to have progression based on the performances of the players you would get some really far out progression trends in your franchise. Offensive linemen would constantly regress if they had bad QB's. Great running backs would regress if you had a horrible offensive line. Horrible running backs would progress if you had a great offensive line. In real life you can hide the fact that your QB is mediocre with a great offensive line and good Wide Receivers. You can compensate for poor running backs by having great blocking schemes and great offensive linemen. Does this necessarily make the mediocre QB or poor HB any better because they put up good numbers? No, it doesn't make them better. They are just in a situation that allows them to put up numbers not indicative of their talent level because of the talent around them. Do you see where I am getting at? A performance based progression system doesn't belong in a game like Madden anymore considering their new tagline is promoting realism.

If this is true then TOM BRADY should be rated a 80
You take his line and wr away and see how good he'd be.
Every1 knows its true

and EVERY1 needs to shutup about TOM HAMMOND He should be rated at least a 90 with Collinsworth's skills

[ZoneKIller]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jimixiii

"Rex lead the Bears to the Superbowl" "Dilfer lead the team to the Superbowl" LMAO!!!! are you guys serious...it's QBs like them that help coin the phrase "Defense wins Championships" (even though the Bears didn't win it but that's much more of the reason why they were even there)...QBs don't play 21 of the other positions fellas.

Did you forget about the TD pass Dilfer threw in the super bowl??
That the Ravens won??Or did the defense magically do that for Dilfer too?

And Did you see how good the Ravens were after they got rid of DIlfer and brought that pro bowl QB Elvis there to play? NOT

They sucked after they got rid of Dilfer,BUT the defense did everything right??

Dont get me wrong.Im not saying the defense was no good.They were very good.But they didnt do everything.
Cant remember the wr name but he went on to play with the colts.

[grismosw]

Baltimore allowed only 152 yards of offense by the Giants (the third lowest total ever in a Super Bowl), recorded 4 sacks, and forced 5 turnovers. All 16 of the Giants possessions ended with punts or interceptions, with the exception of the last one which ended when time expired in the game. The final score was 34-7. Dilfer threw for 160 yards and completed less than half his passes.

Baltimore also returned a kick and an interception for a TD. Dilfer was hardly the reason they won the Super Bowl.

[ZoneKIller]

Quote: Originally Posted by grismosw

Baltimore allowed only 152 yards of offense by the Giants (the third lowest total ever in a Super Bowl), recorded 4 sacks, and forced 5 turnovers. All 16 of the Giants possessions ended with punts or interceptions, with the exception of the last one which ended when time expired in the game. The final score was 34-7. Dilfer threw for 160 yards and completed less than half his passes. Baltimore also returned a kick and an interception for a TD. Dilfer was hardly the reason they won the Super Bowl.

That may be true,but you could say the exact same thing about Ben at Pittsburgh but that doesnt mean he sucks does it?

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Colladie

Oh, so you knew that Kurt Warner would lead the Cardinals to the Super Bowl before the 2008 season? Give me a break, its not a mistake, its that they have to compensate for good performance like they should do.

Lol I was just making the point that the roster updates are necessary. Chill bro.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Quote: Originally Posted by ZoneKIller

That may be true,but you could say the exact same thing about Ben at Pittsburgh but that doesnt mean he sucks does it?

The first time Ben won the superbowl, it was because of a good defense. I believe that QBs like Dilfer and Grossman are still respectable because no matter how you slice it, they helped to lead the team to the superbowl. Everyone plays a role. In his first superbowl, Ben was just another player with a role. Last year, he and Santonio Holmes were the heroes.

[Echopax]

Rex is much better than Dilfer. He has a lot of potential, he really does. For some odd reason, though, he'd always find a way to make a bone-headed mistake.

When he was hot, he was the best QB to put on a Bears jersey, easily. When he was not-so-hot, he'd make us Bears fans chant for Cade McNown.

Grossman's overall should be in the low 70s I think. I think anything lower is jumping on the hate-train that has lengthened since 2006. He's still a viable starter for some teams.. I'd still take him over Orton, truthfully.

His arm strength should be up there with guys like McNabb and Cutler, and he should have great deep ball accuracy.

It's the short routes that killed Grossman. He has problems reading short coverages and has low awareness.

Now that I think about QB ratings more and more... why the hell does Stafford already have a 79? Should be a low 70 tops.