Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings - Top 5 Free Safeties
Collapse
Recommended Videos
Collapse
X
-
-
Re: Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings - Top 5 Free Safeties
But this is madden I've never seen the height weight make a difference on the receiving side. You can easily put a small corner on a big receiver because the ball is tethered to a receiver or dB. So with his coverage and his physical traits in madden he will stick to those guys and cover them.
So if he can't cover those outside receivers his rating is to high. Using PFF as a reason shouldn't be done unless it is equal. As in covering a number 1 vs covering a back. One takes more ability.
A safety shouldn't have a higher man coverage than a corner who is covering the outside receivers.
Sent from my SM-G900R4 using TapatalkComment
-
Re: Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings - Top 5 Free Safeties
No it's just overall coverage. Mathieu has too high ratings for both IMOComment
-
Re: Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings - Top 5 Free Safeties
They got my man Malcolm in there ! Good work !Comment
-
Re: Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings - Top 5 Free Safeties
Got to love the functionality of Madden ratings!!!
Man Coverage is matched against Route Run to determine how much "separation" is achieved on the WR part, based on their Route Run rating.
- there are other functionalities at play like die-roll knock out chance etc...
Then you have to apply the AWR rating as a modifier against the rating to determine how close to 100% Man Coverage (or any other rating) will be played at.
Gameplay wise, there's no difference between 98 or 92, because as soon as a rating hits "90", that rating is considered top tier.
At 98, when regression is applied, it will take that 98 longer to fall out of the top tier level (90) than someone at 92.
- gameplay wise, this allows the Badger to have a greater advantage over WR's who's Route Run isn't 90 for a longer duration of his career.
- because of this longer advantage duration the 98 gives, he'll hold high value longer, until age/injuries etc... eventually drops his MCV.
Most WR/TE's don't have Route Run ratings in the 90's, so match ups (Man wise), will consistently be favorable to his side, thus, his value at a young age.
Unfortunately, because the game doesn't distinguish between the route running of a fleet footed WR and lumbering TE/FB/RB, the man rating has to be higher to balance high route run ratings that these lumbering players posses, which allows them to be wide open way too often.
The one rating that "all" defensive players will need to be modified downward on is "Zone Coverage".
From the vids, players are still redirecting with no regard to momentum as soon as the ball leaves the hand of the QB.
- up through M16, anything above 80 caused an "instant" reaction upon QB release, to the path of the ball.
The key to all ratings is only giving "90+" to an positional area (rating) were you want that player to shine above the rest at, plus a very high AWR rating so that there's little to no negative modification against that "90+" area (rating).
You have to look at Madden's ratings from a "Cause & Affect" functionality and not "Best & Worst" perspective.
At 98, he will be covering guys very close, well into his 30's.
If you don't think he's that type of player, lower it closer to 90, that when regression hits, he won't be as effective.Last edited by khaliib; 08-01-2016, 07:29 PM.Comment
-
Re: Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings - Top 5 Free Safeties
Malcolm Jenkins is easily in the too 5 he has great versatility which for what ever reason is not reflected in his ratings and a great tackler. If he didn't have stone hands he would be top 3 for sure.Comment
-
Re: Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings - Top 5 Free Safeties
So then you can't really use the PFF coverage grades to say Mathieu's man coverage rating is too high, can you?
For some reason it's not getting through. I don't know how else to explain this.I too think its a tad bit too high but its not that bad. It's really splitting hairs at this point. Honestly I wish they would name the man coverage rating something else so that the people getting upset over this wouldn't be so confused.
It doesn't matter that his man coverage rating is higher than Pete's when we know that a Megatron type receiver will beat Mathieu a lot more than Pete, downfield.Comment
-
Re: Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings - Top 5 Free Safeties
To me Mathieu's rating for man should be somewhere between 88-91, since man coverage is global across the defense he should not be rated higher than a top 5 corner.
HE IS NOT A CORNER.
Can he come down and play the slot, sure, can he match up vs perennial number one receivers, game in and game out...no, if so he'd be a corner all the time in the NFL if he possessed that true skill set.
His value is in that he's a versatile coverage FS, similar to Earl Thomas (who was also a high rated DB coming put of college).
Just because he grades out high in coverage on a blog/statistical site doesn't garner the highest rating in the game, because you have to account for WHO HE IS COVERING, which is mainly a TE/HB/3rd or 4th receiver on the depth chart. So naturally as a cover FS he will grade out high vs players who are not on the same level as a true number one receiver.The Impact of User vs User Sliders In CFM 5.0*
http://www.operationsports.com/forum...post2047473988Comment
-
Re: Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings - Top 5 Free Safeties
So then you can't really use the PFF coverage grades to say Mathieu's man coverage rating is too high, can you?
For some reason it's not getting through. I don't know how else to explain this.I too think its a tad bit too high but its not that bad. It's really splitting hairs at this point. Honestly I wish they would name the man coverage rating something else so that the people getting upset over this wouldn't be so confused.
It doesn't matter that his man coverage rating is higher than Pete's when we know that a Megatron type receiver will beat Mathieu a lot more than Pete, downfield.
Of course you can use that. His overall coverage is about the same as CB's. So why would his zone and man be way higher than all of them?Comment

Comment