All Ratings Talk Here Per Millennium

**StevieTheD** · 05-01-2009, 01:01 PM

Re: Here ya go Ian...

If he means that much to you than just tweak him down when you get the game.

**LBzrule** · 05-01-2009, 01:02 PM

Re: Here ya go Ian...

I wonder what position skill ratings took him up to 77. To me, I'd pay more attention to the position skill ratings than anything. Also I posted in the other thread if Hall is going up to a 77 ovr then Fabian Washington and Dominique Foxworth should go up too. But I'd be more concerned with position skill ratings. I don't care if Hall is higher ovr as long as some of their position skill ratings are better than his.

**Maelstrom-XIII** · 05-01-2009, 01:05 PM

Re: Here ya go Ian...

I tend to agree that the 9 point increase Deangelo Hall got seems a bit suspect, and I'm not sold on Brady being the same Brady when he gets back. Brady should probably be a 96 or so until he shows me he can be the same Brady. As for Hall, I was never sold on him being anything more than a nickel back anyway.

**thudias** · 05-01-2009, 01:05 PM

Re: Here ya go Ian...

I don't know what your issue is?

Hall 77 and Brady 98 this feels about right to me.

**wsu_gb23** · 05-01-2009, 01:06 PM

Re: Here ya go Ian...

I think Brady will be just fine. He's a pocket-passer and doesn't need to scramble too much with the protection he gets. McNabb, on the other hand used to be more of a scrambler that is why he struggled after injury. He had to learn to be a pocket-QB.

**pigspigs76** · 05-01-2009, 01:06 PM

Re: Here ya go Ian...

hmmm well I am going to put it simply...

Hall should be like in the mid 70's (like a 75) and based on how he preforms adjust that in the roster updates. I loved the Hall signing when he first came to Oakland... to bad it did not work out.

Same idea applies to Brady put him in the mid to high 90's (like 96) and adjust accordingly.

Both of these players are pretty much question marks in terms of how they are going to preform this season (particularly Brady) but I would not over or under rate them before witnessing there on field performance. Hall takes more of a hit because he was overrated to begin with and can't play man coverage, not to mention he has yet to prove he is deserving of a high rating since his departure from ATL.

Anyways yeah give them safe ratings and adjust accordingly is my thoughts on those two in particular.

**cowboysfan440** · 05-01-2009, 01:09 PM

Re: Here ya go Ian...

Originally posted by DTown

DTown1@ian_cummings You guys screwed up big time with Hall 77 and Brady 98. Hall 72 Brady 94 Brady hasn't played for a YEAR! I Hate the Pats Bias

ian_cummings@DTown1 what should they be? Post in OS for discussion...

How many people agree that D. Hall was always over rated to begin with? I mean he is okay against average WR's but when up against anyone above average he is burnt toast!
He seemed to be even worst last season then ever before so a rating drop was needed but 77 OVR? More like 72... Just my thoughts.
As for Tom Brady! OMG that is INSANE! He hasn't played in a year! He had multiple surgeries! We don't even know if he is fully recovered but he only drops 1 point? Does anyone remember what happen to McNabb after his knee surgerie? It took him 2 years just to look half decent again!
Also I am a HUGE! NCAA fan and this is THE WORST draft class I have ever seen and yet these guys are given elite status right off the bat!?!? Even the guys on my team! They don't deserve that status!
And this is sim? I think not! Drop everyone from this draft 10-5 OVR, Drop Brady and anyone else that sat out ALL SEASON 10-5 OVR and then you can call this a sim without me breaking into laughter because to have us believe the worst draft class EVER will come in and play like elite players is outrageous. To have us beleive players can comeback from MULTIPLE surgeries and no game time in a full year and still be elite is OUTRAGEOUS!

i get what your saying but also theres no proof that brady's play will be effected and the last thing they rly have to go off is a 50 td season if he does play bad they will have roster updates and as far as hall goes he was awful in oakland but with the skins he was decent i thought the 62 he had oringinally was extremely harsh
i think they got it right being around 77

**kcarr** · 05-01-2009, 01:12 PM

Re: Here ya go Ian...

As for the rookies with elite ratings, curry is considered one of the most nfl ready, polished, all around lbs coming out in quite a while and crabtree has been considered an elite receiver at the ncaa level since his freshman season, won the bilitnikof award 2 times and is easily the top receiving prospect in the last 4 drafts other than calvin. These two in my opinion deserve elite ratings.

The QB class is considered weak but so was last years class going into the draft. These guys ratings are considerably lower than those from last year.

Smith and monroe might be a little overrated but smith is bumped up hugely due to athleticism and monroe is lower than the top guys from last year.

There are some guys that are overrated but the top few probably deserve their ratings.

**RGiles36** · 05-01-2009, 01:13 PM

Re: Here ya go Ian...

I'm glad ratings mean more this year...but I still don't understand how people gripe about them as if they're an exact science. I can see picking apart some things if somebody is severely over/underrated in a specific category. I just don't understand when people throw stones over small amounts of points (ex: Brady should be a 96, not a 98 overall!!)

**hollywood21** · 05-01-2009, 01:15 PM

Re: Here ya go Ian...

I think the ratings are fine. Donny should leave brady in the high 90's until he shows us that he's lost a step.

As for D.Hall I might sound like a redskins fan but D.Hall should be between 79-83. He played very well the last half of the season for the redskins. Take his Man coverage to a 68 if you want. But he has the tools and speed to be an elite corner. U can't take that away from him.

Keep up the good work Donny.

**pigspigs76** · 05-01-2009, 01:20 PM

Re: Here ya go Ian...

Originally posted by rgiles36

I'm glad ratings mean more this year...but I still don't understand how people gripe about them as if they're an exact science. I can see picking apart some things if somebody is severely over/underrated in a specific category. I just don't understand when people throw stones over small amounts of points (ex: Brady should be a 96, not a 98 overall!!)

96 vs 98 overall could mean the difference between 99 thp and 90 thp LMAO which is huge!!!

**kcarr** · 05-01-2009, 01:28 PM

Re: Here ya go Ian...

Originally posted by pigspigs76

96 vs 98 overall could mean the difference between 99 thp and 90 thp LMAO which is huge!!!

But it could also mean the difference between 95 and 99 awareness so until you know, why complain?

**CzecHitYou** · 05-01-2009, 01:31 PM

Re: Here ya go Ian...

Originally posted by pigspigs76

96 vs 98 overall could mean the difference between 99 thp and 90 thp LMAO which is huge!!!

Hmmm..are you sure about that?

**Maelstrom-XIII** · 05-01-2009, 01:37 PM

Re: Here ya go Ian...

Brady with 99 THP is just ludicrous anyway...but alas, I should leave the ratings to the ratings man...

And rgiles, I was simply saying 96 instead of 98 to appease those who want Brady to drop some because of injury, but it still leaves him up there in elite status...not trying to nitpick that I think he wasn't 98 rating good at one point.

All Ratings Talk Here Per Millennium

Recommended Videos

All Ratings Talk Here Per Millennium

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment