[a4reak]

Quote: Originally Posted by mddst34

I still dont get how you guys say what a player should be rated. It seems totally arbitrary to me. There has to be a better way to 'rate' players. Would it be all that bad for players not to have any ratings, or have their ratings hidden? We know how good Manning is. We know how good LT is. WE should be able to 'rate' them based on how they play in the game. For rookies and draft classes, the only way to know if so someone is good or not would be to use their scouting and see how they play on the field. Example: Rookie DE is 6'5 runs a 4.5 40 , benches 25 reps, has a 35 inch vert and scored a 20 on the wonderlic test. Then, give some college stats. That would allow the player to 'play' more rather than the game coming right out and telling you clear as day how good someone is.

still that do you want to do this tedious process for a team of players that you may not know strentgths or weaknesses about?