The point of the idea is to like have a feel of the players, not have an exact number.
Chris Johnson runs a 4.24 thats an A+ in speed. (that's outstanding in football). His Elusiveness is an A, so yea with those 2 you'd say oh he's a great running back but he has his flaws. Can he truck people? maybe but thats least likely so D+ trucking, Power C. We get it, he's a speed back. Its just the number system in a nutshell as if you are a scout in real life.
I'd give him an A. Yes I know he ran for 2,000 but is he really a complete running back? no, he just uses his speed in a phenomenal way. Jamal Lewis ran for 2000 as well but was he fast? no way, just a big power back (he was my fav player). So based off of that, would they both be a 99? I dont think so. Jamal Lewis was all power and got it done but definately not a complete RB, what I mean is having the speed,power,and moves (Complete).
Im saying these ratings are a little too loosely thrown around, its like they jack them up rediculously because they had a good season. Like Chris has a 77 truck rating, thats a little too decent of a truck rating for a guy who doesn't truck. Letter ratings exist anyway so dont act like this is new or so drastically different that you cant live with it.
<!-- / message -->
Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are both great QB's but does one really deserve a 99 compared to his 98? Its better to say both are an A, rather than a number that really doesn't show a difference. They are both good but why is his rating 1 less than his when they can be catergorized with an A.
P.S. this was edited because I explained it poorly on my old version of it so hopefully you understand more.

Comment