Who will be the top players at there position?

[westview33]

Quote: Originally Posted by trashman

I completely agree but Clowney is an absolute freak athlete that definitely deserves a 99. Draft analyst were talking about how he would've been a round 1 pick freshman year, AND he has the stats to back it up. Definitely should be the only 99 in the past few years though.

I disagree he deserves a 99 that means he has no weaknesses at all.

In fact i think the overall ratings are meaningless anyway because there's no seperation between players when you use a overall rating to determine who's the best.

If the players were properly rated you could get the same IMPACT out of a 88 overall rated player as you could with a 99 overall player.

The problem is when people start using overall ratings to determine who's the best they completely ignore player strenght's vs weaknesses.

I blame EA for this problem though because the reason why people start off with players rated 95+ in predictions is because EA has never released a roster out of the box that limits the amount of 90+ overall players.

[Madwolf]

QB:
Teddy Bridgewater - 95
Johnny Football - 93

Forgot the other QB I was thinking of. :/

[jello1717]

Quote: Originally Posted by westview33

I disagree he deserves a 99 that means he has no weaknesses at all.

That isn't what a 99 means at all. Not even close. In this game a player doesn't need to be perfect (or even very close to it) to get a 99 OVR rating. Here's my QB that just graduated as an example:


Obviously he has weaknesses (only 89 THP, 79 AWR, 89 AGI, etc) but he's still a 99.

Here's another 99 OVR QB from my OD:


He's also a 99, but I'd argue that my guy is better since McFadden's THP is only 83. I personally wouldn't recruit a QB with such a weak arm (keep in mind that he's a SR(RS)). Most of his rushing attributes are weaker than Smith's too. To say that this 99 OVR QB has no weaknesses would be a dumb thing to say.

For a direct comparison to Clowney, here's the best DE I've had (he even set the NCAA mark in our OD for most career sacks, the first time I've ever set an NCAA mark in any NCAA game):


Hartman is an absolute MONSTER as a pass rusher, and his ratings show that. I'd argue that he's easily the best of these 3 99s, but you STILL can't say that he's without weakness. 91 TKL is good, but it obviously could be better. Also, for a DE, he's pretty slow with only 77 SPD and 78 ACC (I've recently recruited ends that are faster than that as true FR).

So, obviously, in NCAA football video games, not only is it possible for a 99 to have weaknesses, I'd wager that every single 99 has weaknesses.

[Swamp Swagger]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madwolf

QB: Teddy Bridgewater - 95 Johnny Football - 93 Forgot the other QB I was thinking of. :/

No way IMO opinion why is Bridgewater ahead of JM?

[FightinSnydersKSU]

Ty Zimmerman K-State S 91 ovr

John Hubert K-State HB 90 ovr (He has never rushed for 1,000 yards yet in his career, but he was an 89 OVR on '13 and judging the past I think EA makes him a 90+) if it were me he would only be an 85 OVR

[westview33]

Quote: Originally Posted by jello1717

That isn't what a 99 means at all. Not even close. In this game a player doesn't need to be perfect (or even very close to it) to get a 99 OVR rating. Here's my QB that just graduated as an example: Obviously he has weaknesses (only 89 THP, 79 AWR, 89 AGI, etc) but he's still a 99. Here's another 99 OVR QB from my OD: He's also a 99, but I'd argue that my guy is better since McFadden's THP is only 83. I personally wouldn't recruit a QB with such a weak arm (keep in mind that he's a SR(RS)). Most of his rushing attributes are weaker than Smith's too. To say that this 99 OVR QB has no weaknesses would be a dumb thing to say. For a direct comparison to Clowney, here's the best DE I've had (he even set the NCAA mark in our OD for most career sacks, the first time I've ever set an NCAA mark in any NCAA game): Hartman is an absolute MONSTER as a pass rusher, and his ratings show that. I'd argue that he's easily the best of these 3 99s, but you STILL can't say that he's without weakness. 91 TKL is good, but it obviously could be better. Also, for a DE, he's pretty slow with only 77 SPD and 78 ACC (I've recently recruited ends that are faster than that as true FR). So, obviously, in NCAA football video games, not only is it possible for a 99 to have weaknesses, I'd wager that every single 99 has weaknesses.

Depends on what you consider weaknesses with your ratings scale.

A lot of those ratings can be reduced down IMO and you'd still get better gameplay on the field.

For example those QB's with 99 accuarcy could still make plays even if their accuarcy rating was at 89.

If EA would include the same 4-6 accuarcy ratings as we see in Madden then it would stop having over inflated QB's in NCAA Football because those 4-6 accuarcy ratings in Madden will balance things out.


I also don't like seeing 262 lb DE's with 88 Strength because that makes them stronger than guys like Richard Seymour (bigger DE's in the 280-290 range). Play Recognition, Hit Power and Strength are also ratings that inflate the games overall calculations.

I just know from my experience when using rosters of others who have reduced those ratings that they don't have to be that high in order to get the best gameplay on the field.

But then again this thread is for EA ratings out of the box for each player and not exactly for ratings that make for better gameplay on the field.

[canesfins]

Quote: Originally Posted by Swamp Swagger

No way IMO opinion why is Bridgewater ahead of JM?

Call me crazy but I believe Bridgewater should be ahead of JM.

[jello1717]

Quote: Originally Posted by canesfins

Call me crazy but I believe Bridgewater should be ahead of JM.

I concur...