Top Rated Defensive Players in Madden NFL 25

[NDAlum]

Hopefully having a 97-OVR stud DT in Geno Atkins will result in him being a disruptive force in the trenches.

I can dream...

[jtswag187]

If Richard Sherman is a 96 then Patrick Peterson is a 95, just sayin

[jtswag187]

I have never heard of Muhammed Wilkerson (no offense jets fans) and he's over D Ware?

[jwhezzy2003]

Quote: Originally Posted by jtswag187

If Richard Sherman is a 96 then Patrick Peterson is a 95, just sayin

lol u kidding.
peterson got some pick's and all but he was also burnt toast. He is like the new DeAngelo Hall. He makes plays on the ball but he also get beat alot.

[TheKingOfVa]

Quote: Originally Posted by jtswag187

If Richard Sherman is a 96 then Patrick Peterson is a 95, just sayin

I agree, Peterson anchored the number 2 pass defense in football and was an all pro

[TheKingOfVa]

Quote: Originally Posted by jwhezzy2003

lol u kidding. peterson got some pick's and all but he was also burnt toast. He is like the new DeAngelo Hall. He makes plays on the ball but he also get beat alot.

Not sure what Peterson you were watching. Because last season Peterson was a shut down corner. You must be thinking about the first 8 games of his rookie season because that's the only time he was burnt toast. Last season the Cardinals had the 2nd best pass defense in football and Peterson was the only pro bowler back there. To compare him to DeAngelo Hall is a huge insult and shows your lack of football knowledge. I can tell you only saw him play once or twice. I've seen every game of his career. The advanced metric stats and regular football stats show Peterson was a top corner. Fellow players on NFL top 100 voted him the best corner in football. I'm going to trust their opinions over yours.

[westview33]

Quote: Originally Posted by NDAlum

Hopefully having a 97-OVR stud DT in Geno Atkins will result in him being a disruptive force in the trenches. I can dream...

Why does everyone assume the overall rating means anything?

Atkins can be rated a 97 overall and it doesn't matter if the OL is rated a 75 overall because if that OL has 90+ strength regardless of his overall rating he's going o be able to hang with Atkins.

I think it's time people stop focusing on the overall rating and concentrate on the actual ratings that matter when playing the game.

Did you know that a higher overall rated OL is easier to beat than a lower overall rated guy if the higher rated guy has lesser strength for pass or run blocking?

Overall rating from what I've learned is just a way to rank the players in the data base and doesn't truly render how they will play on the field.

An example of this is when a scrub DB with 90 speed and acceleration will still play well because man coverage ratings doesn't have as much impact on the game.

Now lower that scrub DB agility ratings and all of sudden even with his speed and acceleration being high you'll start to see a huge difference in production when he has to change directions on the field to cover someone.

He loses a step in coverage when his agility is rated lower and the WR can then get better separation from him.

The problem is too many people are stuck using EA's ratings so they are left with the impression that ratings one either means nothing or two that higher overall rated players will be the best players on the field.

Both of those logics are false if you take the time to download any roster file from a roster creator who spends quality time on ratings.

I learned this a few years ago when using other rosters not made by EA.

[NDAlum]

That's what you took from that? My point was that I hope an elite DT (Geno Atkins) can be a disruptive force.


Sent from my iPhone 5