I cannot say I am surprised with these QB OVR ratings. Once again, you have way too many players over 95. I don't disagree so much with having 9 QBs over 90 (considering that I myself have 8 of them over 90 in the FBG Ratings), but having 5 above 95? That seems a bit top heavy even for being a QB-driven league.
Think about this. The HOF players were rated 99 (Sanders, Sanders, and Irvin) in the primes of their careers according to EA. That means that 5 QBs right now are playing at near perfection, at accomplished by their predecessors.
Now, I can see that being the case for Rodgers, Brady, and Brees right now, but all 3 are coming off of amazing seasons with great win totals, passing statistics, and physical/mental abilities on the football field.
Let's carry this trend of 9 90+ rated players to all positions though. If every other position has at least 9 players rated in the 90s, that's almost 200 players rated over 90. To me, only the ELITE players should be rated a 90+. In the FBG system, there are less than 90 total 90s out of the 18500+ players rated. However, many positions don't even have a player in the 90s. Here is the breakdown of players in the 90s by position with the highest OVR for FBG:
QB 8 (99)
RB 9 (95)
FB 0 (83)
WR 10 (98)
TE 6 (95)
OT 8 (95)
OG 3 (91)
C 2 (92)
K 1 (91)
DE 4 (94)
DT 9 (93)
OLB 9 (97)
ILB 7 (97)
CB 6 (97)
S (Free and Strong) 3 (92)
P 2 (94)
LS 0 (65)
It seems to me that EA doesn't really evaluate the individual traits of each player, but rather simply "slots" them into a predetermined OVR. It is kind of like saying, "Well, we don't have anybody rated 93 on just overall talent, so let's take the best 92 we have and boost him up to a 93 so we have some variation."
Does anybody else get that feeling? That EA simply slots players into an OVR without actually using logic and reason?
The easy thing to do would be to either make everyone a 99 or simply subtract 1 point from each position as you go. At least THAT way we would get some variation between the best QB and the 99th best QB (hope you pick up on the sarcasm here because I am laying it on pretty darn thick).
If EA used real player evaluation they would find that the best, CONSISTENT talent in the NFL is RARE. I don't even know if Rodgers can repeat the season he had last year, or anyone for that matter. The NFL is a game that rewards consistency until you can no longer produce. One bad season could end your career as you find yourself on the street. It shows not only that to make an NFL squad is hard and you have to produce, but that most players are pretty equal when it come to physical ability. It is, however, the technical skill that seperates the top from the bottom. THAT is where EA needs the most differentiation.
Instead, EA has several players up at the top where technical and physical skills barely differ at all from a 99 to a 98 and so on. The only way to even notice a difference is when a player is a 99 and another is a 69. And even then, the 69 can be cheesed into producing like a 99 given his traits and your playbook.
I could be totally off-base here, but that is the impression I get. If EA still has 10+ players in the 90s at each position, look for more inflation of the OVR ratings and subsequent attributes.
Also, ask yourself if that 99 is really deserved. Does that WR with 99 SPD really possess Darrell Green/Bo Jackson/Deion Sanders speed? Does the QB with 99 THP really have an arm that rivals that of Terry Bradshaw, John Elway, Dan Marino, Joe Gilliam, or Brett Favre's in their primes? Is that RB with 99 JKM/SPM/AGI really as agile as Barry Sanders was for so many years in the early to mid 1990s? Does that WR really have hands as good as Jerry Rice's? Can a CB today match the MCV skills of Deion Sanders in his prime? Is your favorite LB really as hard of a hitter as Butkus, Nitschke, or LT?
These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when these ratings are fully released. I understand that EA is trying to honor football legends this year, but by allowing us to vote on their counterparts' skills and have the ability to give someone the "99" in a category, we may actually be insulting the unmatchable talents from our hallowed football's past.
Think about this. The HOF players were rated 99 (Sanders, Sanders, and Irvin) in the primes of their careers according to EA. That means that 5 QBs right now are playing at near perfection, at accomplished by their predecessors.
Now, I can see that being the case for Rodgers, Brady, and Brees right now, but all 3 are coming off of amazing seasons with great win totals, passing statistics, and physical/mental abilities on the football field.
Let's carry this trend of 9 90+ rated players to all positions though. If every other position has at least 9 players rated in the 90s, that's almost 200 players rated over 90. To me, only the ELITE players should be rated a 90+. In the FBG system, there are less than 90 total 90s out of the 18500+ players rated. However, many positions don't even have a player in the 90s. Here is the breakdown of players in the 90s by position with the highest OVR for FBG:
QB 8 (99)
RB 9 (95)
FB 0 (83)
WR 10 (98)
TE 6 (95)
OT 8 (95)
OG 3 (91)
C 2 (92)
K 1 (91)
DE 4 (94)
DT 9 (93)
OLB 9 (97)
ILB 7 (97)
CB 6 (97)
S (Free and Strong) 3 (92)
P 2 (94)
LS 0 (65)
It seems to me that EA doesn't really evaluate the individual traits of each player, but rather simply "slots" them into a predetermined OVR. It is kind of like saying, "Well, we don't have anybody rated 93 on just overall talent, so let's take the best 92 we have and boost him up to a 93 so we have some variation."
Does anybody else get that feeling? That EA simply slots players into an OVR without actually using logic and reason?
The easy thing to do would be to either make everyone a 99 or simply subtract 1 point from each position as you go. At least THAT way we would get some variation between the best QB and the 99th best QB (hope you pick up on the sarcasm here because I am laying it on pretty darn thick).
If EA used real player evaluation they would find that the best, CONSISTENT talent in the NFL is RARE. I don't even know if Rodgers can repeat the season he had last year, or anyone for that matter. The NFL is a game that rewards consistency until you can no longer produce. One bad season could end your career as you find yourself on the street. It shows not only that to make an NFL squad is hard and you have to produce, but that most players are pretty equal when it come to physical ability. It is, however, the technical skill that seperates the top from the bottom. THAT is where EA needs the most differentiation.
Instead, EA has several players up at the top where technical and physical skills barely differ at all from a 99 to a 98 and so on. The only way to even notice a difference is when a player is a 99 and another is a 69. And even then, the 69 can be cheesed into producing like a 99 given his traits and your playbook.
I could be totally off-base here, but that is the impression I get. If EA still has 10+ players in the 90s at each position, look for more inflation of the OVR ratings and subsequent attributes.
Also, ask yourself if that 99 is really deserved. Does that WR with 99 SPD really possess Darrell Green/Bo Jackson/Deion Sanders speed? Does the QB with 99 THP really have an arm that rivals that of Terry Bradshaw, John Elway, Dan Marino, Joe Gilliam, or Brett Favre's in their primes? Is that RB with 99 JKM/SPM/AGI really as agile as Barry Sanders was for so many years in the early to mid 1990s? Does that WR really have hands as good as Jerry Rice's? Can a CB today match the MCV skills of Deion Sanders in his prime? Is your favorite LB really as hard of a hitter as Butkus, Nitschke, or LT?
These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when these ratings are fully released. I understand that EA is trying to honor football legends this year, but by allowing us to vote on their counterparts' skills and have the ability to give someone the "99" in a category, we may actually be insulting the unmatchable talents from our hallowed football's past.
Comment