Madden 2010 News Post

Madden NFL 10: Top Ten Position Ratings (Gamespot)

05:59 PM - April 24, 2009 by Steve_OS

Gamespot has posted the top ten positional ratings for Madden NFL 10. Not all positions of course, and I'm sure most will change before release, but it's interesting.

Quote:


	"During the show, Eisen and company revealed the top ten players at several positions in the upcoming Madden 10, as well as their overall ratings. Here's how things will break down this season."

Game: Madden NFL 10Reader Score: 7.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Wii / Xbox 360Votes for game: 76 - View All

Madden NFL 10 Videos

Member Comments

# 41 iBlievN5 @ 04/25/09 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lint


	As a falcon fan I can agree with most accept Tony G... he is probably at best in the high 80s.

you dont really know who tony g is, do you?

# 42 kcarr @ 04/25/09 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by da ThRONe


	So many issues with these ratings! SMH Who thinks Roddy White is better than Calvin Johnson thats a joke. Donovan McNabb is a top 5 QB. Who besides Brady has done more with less and is ask to do it passing as much as Andy Reid passes the ball? Larry Johnson is still an elite running back no love. Everybody gets all wrapped up in hype way to fast. Cassell is a 83 please remember Derek Anderson after that year he was rated all high now he probably back in the 60's. These rating are based on hype not actual talent and the still are way to high. Just these ratings alone proves this scaling down thing is a joke. Its the same as 09 just with this year inflated players!

I will agree with you on calvin being better than roddy and with the ratings being scaled too high.

As far as LJ, he had one and a half good years as a starter and then has been weak for the last two years. Also, he will be turning 30 next season. he is on the decline will never be considered a top back again.

# 43 Meast21Forever @ 04/25/09 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave374


	Other than the facts that he sucks and has a big mouth, I have no clue what their problem is.

Finding an elite player like that who doesn't talk trash is hard to do. He does not suck. He played bad in a bad defense, then came to a good one and played great. He played like 6 games and tied for the most picks on the team. The rating he got is undeserved. Fred Smoot should take a hit, but Hall should not drop 25 points. Ridiculous. I don't normally edit rosters, but if EA lets that rating stand I certainly will. Their ratings guys should watch more Skins games.

# 44 ChuckMonts @ 04/25/09 04:13 AM

Someone should make a list of the same positions and show how many players were rated from the lowest rating in this years top ten up to 99 and see how much they scaled it back as a whole. I don't have madden 09 anymore or I would check it out.

# 45 RigorousXChris @ 04/25/09 07:52 AM

For DeAngelo Hall, he played horrible in Raiders in comparison to Chris Johnson and Nnamdi. Chris Johnson gave up 1 TD and Nnamdi gave up 0. Opponents threw at Hall all day and got torched. So you have to take in consideration that he was horrible with the Raiders and pretty much the worse corner in the league during the time.

Even if he played decent or well with the Skins, you still have to take consideration how poorly he played in comparison to people who replaced him or opposite side of him. So with the Raiders who had one of the worse defenses, Chris Johnson and Nnamdi were still able to hold their ground.

I would rate him around high 70's just because he can play cover 2 decent. Other than that he sucks in everything else.

# 46 poster @ 04/25/09 08:22 AM

I am concerned about the scaling down of ratings as well. I thought there would be more of it, these are the final ratings? Hopefully Donny can elaborate on this.

# 47 achain @ 04/25/09 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RigorousXChris


	For DeAngelo Hall, he played horrible in Raiders in comparison to Chris Johnson and Nnamdi. Chris Johnson gave up 1 TD and Nnamdi gave up 0. Opponents threw at Hall all day and got torched. So you have to take in consideration that he was horrible with the Raiders and pretty much the worse corner in the league during the time. Even if he played decent or well with the Skins, you still have to take consideration how poorly he played in comparison to people who replaced him or opposite side of him. So with the Raiders who had one of the worse defenses, Chris Johnson and Nnamdi were still able to hold their ground. I would rate him around high 70's just because he can play cover 2 decent. Other than that he sucks in everything else.

What's the point in doing roster updates if you're not going to acknowledge that he played well in Washington? Isn't that the whole point of doing roster updates? So that if a player starts playing better or poorer the game can change it's ratings to reflect that?

I'm not saying he's a top 10 corner, but he's MUCH better than the paltry 63 that the game has him rated at.

# 48 jbooc13 @ 04/25/09 09:43 AM

rivers played better than all the qbs if u take away those horrible fumbles.dhall should not be destroyed by that degrading rating he should be a 76

# 49 SHO @ 04/25/09 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomeStrangeSin


	i dissagree with kurt warner he had boldin and fitz to throw to no wonder why he had a good season. he should be rated no higher then a 85 fact also im hoping in franchise mode players can accel and decel by 17+ or 17- points for the next season this means players that had great seasons go up while ones with bad seasons go down

Dead that nonsense. The Cardinals offense doesn't go without Warner. Point blank. He's not exactly a game manager. He's a great QB on his own right and should be around that rating.

# 50 Yeah...THAT Guy @ 04/25/09 10:16 AM

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is about so and so being 1 point higher than whoever. 1 point isnt gonna make that big of a difference. Give these guys a break, jeez. The only things that I didn't agree with was Welker being above Calvin and Marshall, and Deangelo being so high after one year.

# 51 Nilsen31 @ 04/25/09 11:10 AM

remember they changed how ratings work, there are very few 95+ players now...an average starting LB will no longer be around an 80-85, he'll be around 65-75. 84 for Torry Holt sounds about right...he's no longer elite (90+) he could still use a couple points maybe, but so far the ratings seem OK...way to early tho.

# 52 Jukeman @ 04/25/09 11:31 AM

Re: Warner

How many years have both Boldin and Fitz been with ARI? Didnt they even have Johnson too?

Name 1 qb who had a good season as a Card before Warner......Nuff said

Ratings are good, yea they are kinda high for some players but it seem like they jyst looked at last year instead of careers so im ok with that...Roster updates will eventually fix it

# 53 kcarr @ 04/25/09 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nilsen31


	remember they changed how ratings work, there are very few 95+ players now...an average starting LB will no longer be around an 80-85, he'll be around 65-75. 84 for Torry Holt sounds about right...he's no longer elite (90+) he could still use a couple points maybe, but so far the ratings seem OK...way to early tho.

I wouldnt exactly call 50 very few but ok

# 54 da ThRONe @ 04/25/09 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juk34man


	Re: Warner How many years have both Boldin and Fitz been with ARI? Didnt they even have Johnson too? Name 1 qb who had a good season as a Card before Warner......Nuff said Ratings are good, yea they are kinda high for some players but it seem like they jyst looked at last year instead of careers so im ok with that...Roster updates will eventually fix it

Just because you fit well into a system doesnt make you elite! Look at Kerry Collins and Chad Pennington when in the right offense they can look like hall of famers but that doesnt mean they are.

# 55 Jukeman @ 04/25/09 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by da ThRONe


	Just because you fit well into a system doesnt make you elite! Look at Kerry Collins and Chad Pennington when in the right offense they can look like hall of famers but that doesnt mean they are.

????

The NFL is based off schemes and systems.......

Never called him elite....

He is better than Big Ben(loved him since college) and McNabb(loved him since college)

For a QB who throws the ball more than anyone, he does a pretty damn good job....

# 56 da ThRONe @ 04/25/09 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juk34man


	???? The NFL is based off schemes and systems....... Never called him elite.... He is better than Big Ben(loved him since college) and McNabb(loved him since college) For a QB who throws the ball more than anyone, he does a pretty damn good job....

You think Warner is better then McNabb? And they say my ratings are crazy. There is no way hes better than Mc5 no way. Warner isnt that talented and has only produced with elite talent at the wideouts.

# 57 Jukeman @ 04/25/09 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by da ThRONe


	Just because you fit well into a system doesnt make you elite! Look at Kerry Collins and Chad Pennington when in the right offense they can look like hall of famers but that doesnt mean they are.

????

The NFL is based off schemes and systems.......

Never called him elite....

He is better than Big Ben(loved him since college,but he doesnt tgrow as much) and McNabb(loved him since college, but he think he's playing frizby with his ankle passes)

For a QB who throws the ball more than anyone, Warner does a pretty damn good job making plays...

# 58 slick1186 @ 04/25/09 01:13 PM

If you guys are thinking about all the guys rated 95+i have no problem with the elite being elite as long as system players are just that. If you think about it 50 players that are 95+ is not really ridiculous considering there are 53 players on each team and there are 32 teams that means there are still 1,696 guys on rosters who are not elite level players and also there will be those guys available in free agency that are not elite so 50 players is not bad at all.

# 59 kcarr @ 04/25/09 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slick1186


	If you guys are thinking about all the guys rated 95+i have no problem with the elite being elite as long as system players are just that. If you think about it 50 players that are 95+ is not really ridiculous considering there are 53 players on each team and there are 32 teams that means there are still 1,696 guys on rosters who are not elite level players and also there will be those guys available in free agency that are not elite so 50 players is not bad at all.

That means that 3% of players on active rosters are above 95 overall. If the lowest overalls are even as low as 30, that is putting 3% of the league in the top 7% of ratings. This seems alright when you first look at it, but really it should follow more of a bell curve with the largest portion of players by far fitting into the middle portion of the ratings. I really think it should fit somewhere around the following list:

30-35, 1%
36-41 3%
42-47 10%
48-64 15%
65-71 21%
72-78 21%
79-84 15%
85-90 10%
91+95 3%
96+ 1%

That means in that 10 category you would have around 16 players, near 50 in the next, around 5 or 6 per team in the next so an average team should have around 7 or 8 players above 85. That makes around 237 players in that 85+ area. There are what, 100 or so pro bowlers every year plus some who should go or some who decline. These players and those others in contention for those slots should go in this area.

The 79-84 area should be pretty much all starters or at least players who would start on most teams and can be solid starters. By here you have about 15 players per team (including all levels mentioned so far) so good teams with a lot of depth like pitt or NE might have 20 or 25 players in this area. Teams like detroit however will bring it back down to average by only having maybe 4 or 5.

The next 2 areas should be the bulk of most teams. The top half of these should be your average starters. An average team should have 26 or 27 players at this level or better meaning their starting lineups should be filled out with a quality backup or two. The bottom half of this are players who are considered weaknesses as starters but can include players who can contribute sensationally due to a unique skill set or who can be solid backups and fill in.

The bottom few groups are guys who probably should never start and if they see any time it is because of injuries or because they have a special skill set that allows them to make an impact. These guys will generally play special teams and fill out your roster. Most late round picks will fall into this area but some should have the potential to move out of this range.

# 60 marcoyk @ 04/25/09 02:47 PM

is it just a coincidence that 3/5 of the biggest shakers were on the redskins. I'm a redskins fan and i agree that devin thomas should go down, but deangelo hall went down to below 70?!?!?! a little extreme there. and fred smoot didn't have a bad year last year.

« Previous 1 234 Next »

More Links

Madden NFL 10: Top Ten Position Ratings (Gamespot)