Generic vs NCAA draft classes?

[OG_McNabb]

Last year I had NCAA and Madden (I thought NCAA was better), but I dont like NCAA 05 so I didnt buy it. I saved a few draft clasess though (rented the game). My question is: has anyone drafted players created by Madden and are the Rating repectable unlike NCAA (all players rated 77-85).

[mirnes1]

Well actually, most players are between 77 and 85 this year that came in this year. I mostly use the imports for accuracy, not really attributes.

[Stu]

I simmed ahead to test out the draft and imported a class. My best pick was a 78 and the worst was a 68. Rounds 1-5 were all rated above a 70. I was able to get some very good players in late rounds, like Mark Clayton in the 4th, who i had rated as the #2 WR in the draft.

Seems like the NCAA players are rated better than the generic draft classes but there are very few above 80. I would say the ratings are similar to this years rookies.

[VanillaEps]

Quote: Originally Posted by camulos

I simmed ahead to test out the draft and imported a class. My best pick was a 78 and the worst was a 68. Rounds 1-5 were all rated above a 70. I was able to get some very good players in late rounds, like Mark Clayton in the 4th, who i had rated as the #2 WR in the draft. Seems like the NCAA players are rated better than the generic draft classes but there are very few above 80. I would say the ratings are similar to this years rookies.

The draft class are interesting. I simmed two different seasons and imported the same draft classes. Antrel Rolle, in the first import, was scouted as a great kick and punt returner. In the second import, his kick and punt return rating was absolutely horrible. How can that change when I'm using the same draft class?

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by VanillaEps

The draft class are interesting. I simmed two different seasons and imported the same draft classes. Antrel Rolle, in the first import, was scouted as a great kick and punt returner. In the second import, his kick and punt return rating was absolutely horrible. How can that change when I'm using the same draft class?

Madden must do some sort of process each time the custom draft class is loaded. Fooling around with it yesterday, Auburn RB Cadillac Williams' overall rating varied in the 82-86 range over three tries importing the same draft class. I will look at other players and see if this ratings variance is consistent, or if this was just an isolated incident.

Also, as a side, it seems like there are a ton of low 80s and high 70s in my classes, and the class only gets down to the low 70s near the tail end of the last round...

[Stu]

It does seem like the players vary a lot. Didn't they say something about this years draft classes including players who were great in college but wouldnt turn out good in the nfl. (ex: charlie ward) Just to play around with it i simmed another draft. The top 5 and 10 was completely different. Most of the ratings have been in the mid to high 70's which seems about right. This gives them a chance to be an impact player if they see time. If not they'll stay with the low rating.

People have been complaining about these ratings being too high but i think they are perfect considering the new progression and player morale. With the talent coming into the NFL most players, even late round picks, have the potential to be impact players if they get a chance to play. On the flip side, you can't just throw in rookies to replace better rated starters anymore because it will hurt player morale. It actually requires you to make tough decisions on who should play.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by camulos

It does seem like the players vary a lot. Didn't they say something about this years draft classes including players who were great in college but wouldnt turn out good in the nfl. (ex: charlie ward) Just to play around with it i simmed another draft. The top 5 and 10 was completely different. Most of the ratings have been in the mid to high 70's which seems about right. This gives them a chance to be an impact player if they see time. If not they'll stay with the low rating. People have been complaining about these ratings being too high but i think they are perfect considering the new progression and player morale. With the talent coming into the NFL most players, even late round picks, have the potential to be impact players if they get a chance to play. On the flip side, you can't just throw in rookies to replace better rated starters anymore because it will hurt player morale. It actually requires you to make tough decisions on who should play.

Regarding the Charlie Ward point: I just noticed that FSU RB Lorenzo Booker (redshirt sophomore), whom my friend rushed for over 2,500 yards with and came out at around OVR 94 through player progression, absolutely stinks in Madden. OVR 72 is the best I've seen him.

IMO the ratings are a little too high, but my sole basis for this is that (so far) I've seen a lack of downward progression by struggling players. For example, through the first five weeks of my Madden franchise, my QB Quincy Carter through for a brilliant passer rating of 46.2 (1 TD, 6 INTs, below 45% completions), yet his ratings haven't regressed at all; in fact only a few players regressed one point OVR downward. Now, I haven't gotten very far yet obviously, but do struggling players go down more if they continue to struggle?

And yes, I am not very good at passing.

[swine_jr]

I agree with camulos that I think ratings in the game are a little high this year, and I think that's good. I think it's more fun that a second or third rounder could step up to being a starter in his first couple seasons. In the past I feel if you took a RB in the fourth round, they would be around a 67 and never become a starter.

In the case of Rudy Johnson, he's turning out to be a stud, but in last year's Madden he was rated so lowly that he never could have done that in the game. I think it's better to give the players the benefit of the doubt with ratings so that they can possibly take advantage of situations where they get more playing time.