Madden NFL 13 Team Ratings from E3 Build

[reMicXz]

Yeah, an 8-8 team should have the same overall as the defending Superbowl champions...

you mean that same 8-8 team that would have beaten those same 9-7 almost didnt make it to the playoffs Giants BOTH TIMES in the regular season if the Eagles LBs and faulty secondary didnt give up 15 4th quarter points and Vick played the whole game? not to mention the people gone from the Giants now Manningham and Jacobs replaced with people that cant even scrape a 70 OVR

[k0brakai]

The team Overalls are only based on the collective stats of the players on that team. So they haven't judged the team as a whole, they've judged the players on the team

[sk]

Re: Madden NFL 13 Team Ratings from E3 Build

Just the Niners defense alone should give them an 85 lol. And we loaded up like crazy on offense.

You got a washed up Randy Moss, a terribly overrated WR in Mario Manningham(I'm a Giants fan, he can only play flanker), a RB who will never see the light of day with Gore Hunter and James in the backfield.

I don't exactly see how you guys loaded up on offense, not to mention a very average QB. Yes Alex Smith is average at best. Take away Vernon Davis and the guy can't throw the ball at all.

[CatMan72]

Re: Madden NFL 13 Team Ratings from E3 Build

Panthers = 76 while the Redskins = 78? LOL, good old fashioned NFC East bias is alive and well in Madden 13.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Exactly what I was thinking, no respect for the Lions.

Not sure how they're worse than the jets, but the bears I can understand. Chicago was a better team last year IMO and then they added Brandon Marshall.

[87Birdman]

Re: Madden NFL 13 Team Ratings from E3 Build

I'll give you Bailey but Nnamdi/DRC is still a better tandem then Den

Cole and Babin had 11 and 18 sacks respectively Doom had 9.5

McCoy and the WR/TE MURDER the Broncos skill positions

You get the check for Manning and LBs

At the end of the day Den overachieved and Eagles underachieved but roster wise Eagles are better

Denvers tandem isn't bad with Porter on the other side.

I will admit didn't think the ends were that good, but Doom was coming off an injury and didn't really play early. Hence the low sack count, plus we weren't putting up alot of points so we couldn't really rush the passer.

I wouldn't say your skill positions murder ours since early in the season before the switch to Tebow Decker was close to top of the league in TD's, and then after that DT returned from his injury and over the last half of the season only 1 WR put up better numbers that was Calvin Johnson. So murdering ours would be bad choice of words. Don't forget what he did with the best pass D with what some consider the worst QB in the league. over 200 yards on a pro bowl CB.

So the broncos over achived and the Eagles underachived?? huh. Looked to me the Broncos were just young and inconsitent while the Eagles just couldn't gel. I would say either team is head and shoulders above the other, but looking at the team ratings that is what they are saying. But it is just the entire NFC East gets over rated every year.

But like I said hopefully this means the actuall player ratings are rated like this because I would love to see it where only for sure HoF players break the 90 overall and great players are in the 80 range. But I can only dream lol.

[PioneerRaptor]

Okay, there needs to be some obvious logic checks, because it seems everyone is just completely flustered.

First, don't compare these ratings to what they were last year. It is very obvious that the ratings went down across the board. Which is actually a good thing, that means there aren't too many players that are 90+. They are have expanded how they use their ratings which can only be good for us.

Second, the overalls are based on TALENT not PRODUCTION. The Eagles do have a lot of talent, they didn't produce. Talent isn't the biggest key to winning, it's called coaching and chemistry. However, since ratings are based on talent, it is easy to see how the Eagles are rated high. It also explains why the Bronco's who did PRODUCE a lot better than the Eagles but have less talent are rated lower. So yes, last year the Bronco's played as a better team, regardless of talent level.

Third, these overalls are not even final. There are still just under 3 months until the game comes out and ratings can change. Though, I do hope they continue to use this expanded scale, only VERY exceptional players should make it over 90.

[65South]

Re: Madden NFL 13 Team Ratings from E3 Build

That 66 for the Colts is looking real ugly. I can't wait to see what I can do with the squad this season.

Ouch, My colts 66..

My Colts at 66? Yikes! HOWEVER it is a bitter sweet 66 for me. I love playing franchise mode with bad teams and building them up so it looks like I'm actually going to be able to do that with my home team finally XD

Love that AiDub!

Fellow Colts fans shouldn't fret too much anyway, I don't think. I was able to snag a quick screen from the Raw Gameplay video from E3 and the Colts look to be about 7 or so points better than what's listed here. As usual, looks like everything is a work in progress until the game actually releases.

[87Birdman]

Re: Madden NFL 13 Team Ratings from E3 Build

Okay, there needs to be some obvious logic checks, because it seems everyone is just completely flustered.

First, don't compare these ratings to what they were last year. It is very obvious that the ratings went down across the board. Which is actually a good thing, that means there aren't too many players that are 90+. They are have expanded how they use their ratings which can only be good for us.

Second, the overalls are based on TALENT not PRODUCTION. The Eagles do have a lot of talent, they didn't produce. Talent isn't the biggest key to winning, it's called coaching and chemistry. However, since ratings are based on talent, it is easy to see how the Eagles are rated high. It also explains why the Bronco's who did PRODUCE a lot better than the Eagles but have less talent are rated lower. So yes, last year the Bronco's played as a better team, regardless of talent level.

Third, these overalls are not even final. There are still just under 3 months until the game comes out and ratings can change. Though, I do hope they continue to use this expanded scale, only VERY exceptional players should make it over 90.

That bolded part is one of the biggest reason I have a problem with the current ratings. Because Chemestry and coaching aren't calculated in and isn't represented in the game in any way. Eagles gathered big name players yes, but not exactly ones I would say that fit their scheme. But there isn't a ratings hit for it. I would love to see a chemestry rating involved so you can't go grab big name players that don't fit your scheme and see them regress or not gel and play poorly.

But I can't wait till they start releasing the rosters so we can see how they are rated, and I hope individual ratings matter this year more. Or other wise every DE on a user team will be a power rush end because finese never mattered lol.

[I.B.Foolin]

Yeah, an 8-8 team should have the same overall as the defending Superbowl champions...

The Giants were 9-7 with a good playoff run just cuz they got a ring shouldnt make them yoked up. They did lose to SEA WAS 2x

[TheBleedingRed21]

Re: Madden NFL 13 Team Ratings from E3 Build

Cracks me up people complaining about ratings and records. Since when does your record of the previous season judge how good of a football team you are? Giants 9-7 (by your guys complaints) would be mediocre, but wait.. they won the Superbowl?

[Bulls321974]

Eagles 84? 80 or 79 would have been more appropriate. Btw: I'm no Eagles *****...

[I.B.Foolin]

That bolded part is one of the biggest reason I have a problem with the current ratings. Because Chemestry and coaching aren't calculated in and isn't represented in the game in any way. Eagles gathered big name players yes, but not exactly ones I would say that fit their scheme. But there isn't a ratings hit for it. I would love to see a chemestry rating involved so you can't go grab big name players that don't fit your scheme and see them regress or not gel and play poorly.

But I can't wait till they start releasing the rosters so we can see how they are rated, and I hope individual ratings matter this year more. Or other wise every DE on a user team will be a power rush end because finese never mattered lol.

They do have dynamic player ratings for team scheme this yr but chemistry is ultimately consistency. Which each ind player had rated on a 5 star system last yr. There would be no exact way to do that especially with offseason moves and retirement. Almost all acquistions come with positive anticipation

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Is this really a question when we bashed their brains in last year?? Our offense was garbo but that defense was top 5 in the league.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

Yes, beating a team when everybody is injured a year ago before they added a new coaching staff, upgraded at many positions, and got their players back from injury is definitely a good argument to have a higher overall.

[spartyon6686]

Redskins higher than Lions???