[mburke2]

Quote: Originally Posted by Meast21Forever

this doesn't make sense. trindon holliday, brandon banks, these guys ran fast 40s and were some of the fastest guys in college. they get into the league and are still fast, but are rated in the 60's or worse. but they're still fast in the game and they should be. if a guy is fast, he's fast. it has nothing to do with competition. other attributes like man coverage, zone coverage, tackling etc. should come in lower due to competition maybe, but those are stats that can progress. throw power, speed, acceleration - the traits that can't progress - show remain mostly the same from ncaa.

What are you talking about? Ratings are all absolutely relative to all the other players! 99 means highest. If an NCAA player runs a 4.35 for example and is the fastest college player, he's getting a 99 speed rating in the NCAA game. Once he moves to NFL, 4.35 isn't necessarily the fastest so a 99 is unwarranted. You get what I mean by in relation to everyone else? I understand what your saying if the ratings translate to being waayy off. It makes sense that they shouldn't be, they should be close. Maybe we're splitting hairs here but I think that your point is that physical attribute ratings should translate exactly game to game. My point is that it should prbly remain fairly close but it shouldn't necessarily be exact. Just because a kid is the fastest college player doesn't necessarily mean he'll be the fastest NFL player the second he gets drafted.