"Actual" Team Ratings ...
 

For any of you interested, below are the "actual" team ratings based on each roster's overall player ratings. A few years back I stumbled across this accidentally when making some roster tweaks. I noticed that once ANY player changes were made (even dropping a back-up), the team's overall rating changed dramatically.

Now I realize adding a higher rated player should raise a team's overall rating or vise-versa when removing a high-rated player. But I'm simply talking about dropping, then re-signing the same player! Feel free to try it for yourself, simply drop and resign (same player) off each roster and you will then see each team's overall rating change to a new rating based off of that team's current roster. The ratings listed below are based off of week six roster updates.

CHI 86
CIN 84
BUF 81
DEN 83
CLE 79
TB 79
ARI 86
SD 87
KC 80
IND 88
DAL 85
MIA 79
PHI 86
ATL 83
SF 84
NYG 88
JAX 83
NYJ 86
DET 79
GB 86
CAR 85
NE 88
OAK 82
STL 81
BAL 84
WAS 85
NO 87
SEA 85
PIT 90
HOU 84
TEN 83
MIN 88

This goes a long ways towards explaining why in Madden it's really not that much harder to play with a team like Oakland (82), compared with a team like the Giants (88) ... there is only a six point spread in their true team ratings in Madden! Obviously in the real world these two teams are substantially different when it comes to how competitive they are (see last week's game). Taking all teams into consideration the rating only spreads from a low of 79 to a high of 90? Maybe that's accurate based on parity in the NFL these days, but imo the bottom feeders should be rated lower than 79 ...

For future year's I really think EA needs to take their idea of spreading out ratings and apply it to the teams as well, versus randomly applying a team rating based on their opinions. This would hopefully allow teams to really show their strengths and weaknesses because as it is now, team ratings have NO effect on how each team plays. Until they change this it will always be difficult to really feel much difference between each team?

They also need to take into account the overall attitudes of the franchise and their playing styles. Like the Raiders, they usually like to play a dirtier game than others. This type of stuff would be especially true in rivalry games.

Re: "Actual" Team Ratings ...
 

Make it a little clearer

PIT 90
MIN 88
IND 88
NYG 88
NE 88
NO 87
SD 87
GB 86
PHI 86
ARI 86
CHI 86
NYJ 86
WAS 85
DAL 85
CAR 85
SEA 85
CIN 84
SF 84
BAL 84
HOU 84
TEN 83
DEN 83
ATL 83
JAX 83
OAK 82
STL 81
BUF 81
KC 80
CLE 79
TB 79
MIA 79
DET 79


I play with Atlanta and am really surprised to see them that low. I guess their D is worse then I thought because their offense is pretty well rated.

Re: "Actual" Team Ratings ...
 

well, I traded FS Sanders & picks for L Landry signed CB McAlister to the Patriots and my overall dropped to 70-something... explain that! :)

Re: "Actual" Team Ratings ...
 

Thanks RBK, that does make it clearer for comparing teams. I don't think you should consider 83 for ATL to be low, afterall the highest rated team is only 90?

The real problem here is that the lowest teams are as high as 79! There needs to be a much greater spread between good and bad teams ... this is exactly why you see others making posts that it's just too easy to win with "bad" teams. Based on these ratings there really aren't any bad teams?

Re: "Actual" Team Ratings ...
 

Your saying you picked up L. Landry and McAlister to the Pat's and teh Pat's are now rated 70-something? I find that REAL hard to believe! Something else happened there ....

I took the default Pat's and dropped Moss, then re-signed Moss, and their overall moved to 88.

Re: "Actual" Team Ratings ...
 

This year in the NFL I don't think I've ever seen a bigger discrepancy between the good teams and the bad teams. There are way more bad teams this year and more teams starting the year undefeated than any other year. So yea, the teams ratings should be spread out A LOT more.

I think the Raiders, Chiefs, Lions, Rams, Bucs are probably the worst teams in the league and they should be all in the low 60s at the highest. Hell the Chiefs and the Lions have won a combined 4 games in the past two years!!!!

Re: "Actual" Team Ratings ...
 

I think the major reasoning behiend something like this is in the NFL almost everyone has the physical talent, yes some have a little more than others but most of the guys are close. The Mental aspect of both players and how the coaches utilize players determines a lot about a team, which is why sudden turn arounds in either direction occur.

It is very possible for a team that doesn't have quite as good of players but have a great scheme could destroy a team with good players and a bad scheme.

I think thats why you see the ratings change as the default ones are made by the developers trying to express that and the recalculated ratings don't have the ability to take the scheme and mental element into consideration.