OK, question: Ratings related.

[adembroski]

I should have asked when I was there, but I'm curious.

99. Does that apply the best best, or the best right now?

Lets take accuracy. IMHO, two players in NFL history deserve 99 throwing accuracy: Montana and Brees. Nobody else.

But some would say the best in the league right now, whoever that is, deserves 99 throwing accuracy.

What do you think?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Re: OK, question: Ratings related.

Pegging the rating limit to historical players is pretty difficult to manage IMO. Maybe you could do so for something which is measurable like speed, but once you get into intangibles then you're all over the place. How do you meaningfully compare Mahomes' awareness to Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Unitas, etc?

[adembroski]

Re: OK, question: Ratings related.

Pegging the rating limit to historical players is pretty difficult to manage IMO. Maybe you could do so for something which is measurable like speed, but once you get into intangibles then you're all over the place. How do you meaningfully compare Mahomes' awareness to Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Unitas, etc?

AWR is unfortunately the rating left behind. They've made strides in opening things up; zone coverage vs. man, deep accuracy vs. short, all that. AWR is still just too generic. You're not wrong, but I think the system needs fixing, I don't think it's impossible to compare.

I think you simply always judge by, "If this guy was as good in this era as he was in his." That's the right way to go about it. No, Babe Ruth would not be as good dropped directly into this era, but if he had access to the same coaching and training we had today? His talent might have still made him one of the best. I prefer to look at it that way, but make some accounting for all-time rank. Montana and Brees are, imo, the most accurate QBs of all time in any era, and deserve that respect. That said, I wonder about eras... you really gonna tell me anyone today can fling it like Jeff George? Certainly not one of the great QBs, but I saw him make throws Mahomes might be challenged to match.

[canes21]

Re: OK, question: Ratings related.

I've always been a believer that a 99 should be best of all time, but I think it's pretty clear with how Madden rates their players each year that a 99 in EA's eyes is a current best.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Kanobi]

Re: OK, question: Ratings related.

I should have asked when I was there, but I'm curious.

99. Does that apply the best best, or the best right now?

Lets take accuracy. IMHO, two players in NFL history deserve 99 throwing accuracy: Montana and Brees. Nobody else.

But some would say the best in the league right now, whoever that is deserves 99 throwing accuracy.

What do you think?

There is no "whoever that is"...it's Mahomes.

[Detroit Tigers]

Re: OK, question: Ratings related.

I wonder about eras... you really gonna tell me anyone today can fling it like Jeff George?

I think a random like Joe Milton can fling it like Jeff George, so yes.

I do think this can lead to an interesting discussion, but era vs era is like arguing religion.

To your question, I think Madden ratings are era-relative. So like whether Josh Allen or whoever scientifically has a much bigger arm than Dan Marino, Marino gets 99 THP regardless. Or to your Babe Ruth example, yeah, dude gets 99 PWR, it's Babe f'n Ruth, how he would perform today is irrelevant.

So I guess my answer to your OP question is “it’s both.”

[oneamongthefence]

Re: OK, question: Ratings related.

I think In terms of Madden that's where stretched out ratings can help differentiate different players. 90% of qbs in Madden have between 85 and 99 throw power. But Even then there's so many different factors that Madden doesn't account for. Arm mechanics, footwork, pass velocity vs distance etc. And the game evolved so much since it's inception that it's impossible to truly say who is a true 99 in any category. The bar is constantly being reset but I think it should be based on how they compare to their peers and not all time.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[Spudbox65]

Re: OK, question: Ratings related.

Personally, I would think in terms of all-time, but I would make the greatest all-time for any particular rating a 98, that way there is room for improvement within franchise mode.

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Re: OK, question: Ratings related.

There is no "whoever that is"...it's Mahomes.

My humble opinion:
He's not necessarily the most accurate. He's just by far the best overall. I mean, per Pro Football Reference he was 8th in on target passing. What sets him apart, other than his insane arm angles, is his mind, honestly. His crazy read-and-react reflexes, and ability to process everything at once. Yeah, he's accurate, and yeah, he has the strongest arm in the league except maybe Allen (Maybe), but it's all the between the ears stuff and the arm anlges that truly makes him great. He practically has eyes in the back of his head.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Re: OK, question: Ratings related.

I think you simply always judge by, "If this guy was as good in this era as he was in his." That's the right way to go about it. No, Babe Ruth would not be as good dropped directly into this era, but if he had access to the same coaching and training we had today?

Maybe, but then again the game is different than it used to be (maybe not baseball, lol). Sure, Gale Sayers with modern medicine might not have had knee injuries end his career, but in the modern game he might not even be a halfback. Maybe Ronnie Lott would have had to tone down his brutal hits over the middle to account for defenseless wideout rules and been a totally different player. Fridge Perry was enormous in the 80s but would be unremarkable today, he'd be playing a different role.

It's just too speculative IMO. I'd say one should rate guys against their peers but save the high 90s for guys on historic paths, like Mahomes, the Kelces, the Watts, Donald, Jefferson, etc.

[gausec]

Re: OK, question: Ratings related.

I think it makes sense to have the historical context and using all time as the base. However, I think madden uses who is the current best. If EA included legends in the roster I think it makes it more salient for players to understand, but I think how it's set-up everyone wants to use the current best as the discussion point.

[adembroski]

Re: OK, question: Ratings related.

There is no "whoever that is"...it's Mahomes.

I said, "whoever that is," expressly to avoid that taking over the thread :P

[jerwoods]

Re: OK, question: Ratings related.

the best morden qb of all time is still Montana

without that leronard marshall hit and the bad start aga Wash in 83 Montana wouild have 6

and brady got 3 breaks for his 7
in 2001 it was a fumble and it costs the rams a 2nd ring
in 2014 had carroll just ran the ball on the goal line ne loses
in 2016 had dan quinn just turned in to marty S for 1 haif ATL wins easy

mahomes will only get 2 more rings at best because once kelce and reid go mahomes will turn in to aaron rodgers kelce is 34 so he only has 2 to 3 years left

right now the 3rd best QB of all time is troy aikman 1 bad first 5 min aga SF From a 3-peat

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Re: OK, question: Ratings related.

My personal preference is PHYSICAL ratings would be a lot easier to use an all time standard rather than recent relative one, because we have all time numbers to choose from. While some may not be from the combine, if they match what the film shows, they should be utilized. For example, Randy Moss ran a hand-timed 4.25 40 yard dash, and he clearly terrorized the league with his speed. As Tyreek Hill ran a 4.29, if anyone should get 99 speed, it's Randy Moss. But Hill was a bit more agile, so you can wash it out by making him a bit quicker. Chris Johnson as well, with his 4.24. My central point: physical measurements do not change over time. A 4.3 40 yard dash may be more common now than 25 years ago, but it's still just as fast as it was then.



But more subjective traits would be harder, since the game has changed a lot over the years, which clouds things.



Nevertheless, were it me, I'd definitely use the all time standard.

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Re: OK, question: Ratings related.

the best morden qb of all time is still Montana

without that leronard marshall hit and the bad start aga Wash in 83 Montana wouild have 6

and brady got 3 breaks for his 7
in 2001 it was a fumble and it costs the rams a 2nd ring
in 2014 had carroll just ran the ball on the goal line ne loses
in 2016 had dan quinn just turned in to marty S for 1 haif ATL wins easy

mahomes will only get 2 more rings at best because once kelce and reid go mahomes will turn in to aaron rodgers kelce is 34 so he only has 2 to 3 years left

right now the 3rd best QB of all time is troy aikman 1 bad first 5 min aga SF From a 3-peat

Lol spoken like a loyal Broncos fan. I believe they said something similar about Tyreek Hill.