Madden NFL 11 News Post

Madden NFL 11 Rookie Ratings

07:52 PM - April 22, 2010 by Steve_OS

Just wanted to post the Madden NFL 11 rookie ratings here, for easy viewing. I'll update as they happen. You can follow along LIVE at the Official Madden NFL 11 website. What are your thoughts?

#1 Rams: Sam Bradford - Overall 80
#2 Lions: Ndamukong Suh - Overall 85
#3 Buccaneers: Gerald McCoy - Overall 84
#4 Redskins: Trent Williams - Overall 79
#5 Chiefs: Eric Berry - Overall 85
#6 Seahawks: Russell Okung - Overall 82
#7 Browns: Joe Haden - Overall 79
#8 Raiders: Rolando McClain - Overall 79
#9 Bills: C.J. Spiller - Overall 79
#10 Jaguars: Tyson Alualu - Overall 69
#11 49ers: Anthony Davis - Overall 75
#12 Chargers: Ryan Mathews - Overall 77
#13 Eagles: Brandon Graham - Overall 78
#14 Seahawks: Earl Thomas - Overall 81
#15 Giants: Jason Pierre-Paul - Overall 79
#16 Titans: Derrick Morgan - Overall 79
#17 49ers: Mike Iupati - Overall 84
#18 Steelers: Maurkice Pouncey - Overall 76
#19 Falcons: Sean Weatherspoon - Overall 75
#20 Texans: Kareem Jackson - Overall 70
#21 Bengals: Jermaine Gresham - Overall 78
#22 Broncos: Demaryius Thomas - Overall 74
#23 Packers: Bryan Bulaga - Overall 78
#24 Cowboys: Dez Bryant - Overall 80
#25 Broncos: Tim Tebow - Overall 70
#26 Cardinals: Dan Williams - Overall 76
#27 Patriots: Devin McCourty - Overall 74
#28 Dolphins: Jared Odrick - Overall 76
#29 Jets: Kyle Wilson - Overall 76
#30 Lions: Jahvid Best - Overall 74
#31 Colts: Jerry Hughes - Overall 74
#32 Saints: Patrick Robinson - Overall 75

Game: Madden NFL 11Reader Score: 6/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 96 - View All

Madden NFL 11 Videos

Member Comments

# 81 SouthernBrick @ 04/25/10 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LBzrule


	SPI = Spin Move I believe.

Ah...why didn't I think of that. Thanks for answering that.

It was getting on my nerves, I couldn't figure it out.

# 82 mmorg @ 04/25/10 12:27 AM

These ratings are all pretty ridiculous. Only one that should be above a 75 is Suh in my opinion and it still shouldn't be above 80. Another reason we need weekly progression and a rating system based on scouts/GMs which weigh stats heavier than actual player attributes.

# 83 XXL78 @ 04/25/10 01:03 AM

the highest should be like 82-83 and the lowest in the first round should be like 73-75. there shouldnt be any 69-70 overall players in the first round especially if they got picked in the top ten

# 84 T3B0W @ 04/25/10 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXL78


	the highest should be like 82-83 and the lowest in the first round should be like 73-75. there shouldnt be any 69-70 overall players in the first round especially if they got picked in the top ten

My bias aside, I don't disagree at this stage with Tebow at 70 despite being a first round pick. Most had him as a second or third round pick, if he fell there, there would be no disagreement.

# 85 canes21 @ 04/25/10 01:53 AM

Wow, these are ridiculously high. i went to the link and did Sam Bradford to my liking. Came out as a 75 OVR, but I wanted to lower some things, but it wouldn't let me go lower. The highest rated player should be Suh at a 78.

# 86 xblake16x @ 04/25/10 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniperhare


	They're rating everyone really high. Wish they went the NBA route and made the rookies earn 80+ OVR ratings.

cant say it any better than this

# 87 TomBrady @ 04/25/10 02:49 AM

Quote:


	They're rating everyone really high. Wish they went the NBA route and made the rookies earn 80+ OVR ratings.

Basketball and football are two very different things. In basketball the difference between the best players and the medicore ones are often very notable. While in football the difference is no way close to being that big.

# 88 babyfat9 @ 04/25/10 05:26 AM

No unproven rookie should be rated in the 80's!!!!!

# 89 ImReady77 @ 04/25/10 09:56 AM

All i want to know is will the athletic rating differentiate between positions? Is a DT's ACC rating the same as a WR's?

# 90 cubsball899 @ 04/25/10 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomBrady


	Basketball and football are two very different things. In basketball the difference between the best players and the medicore ones are often very notable. While in football the difference is no way close to being that big.

the difference between peyton manning and jay cutler isn't noticeable?
the difference between randy moss, and devin aromashodu? (i'm a bears fan stay with me)
the difference between darelle revis and charles tillman?

look the highest rookie should come in around the 75-77 range, most rooks in the later rounds shouldn't even see above the 50's, but in the first round if you draft a guy thats a 71 overall at a position of need that should be enough to start.... if the bears drafted a Receiver or an offensive lineman with that rating i'd be starting him because theres no way the bears currently have 3 receivers above a 71

70's should be the average starters in the NFL, with anybody above 80 bein a star...a rookie will have a few big games, and a few games where he disappears... performance like that should not warrant an 80+ rating

but i suppose the problem is in the entire ratings spread not just the rookies i mean seriously though, an 85 for suh and berry? pro bowlers already? sigh....

maybe they will at least get jake delhomme's rating right this year

# 91 xblake16x @ 04/25/10 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cubsball899


	the difference between peyton manning and jay cutler isn't noticeable? the difference between randy moss, and devin aromashodu? (i'm a bears fan stay with me) the difference between darelle revis and charles tillman? look the highest rookie should come in around the 75-77 range, most rooks in the later rounds shouldn't even see above the 50's, but in the first round if you draft a guy thats a 71 overall at a position of need that should be enough to start.... if the bears drafted a Receiver or an offensive lineman with that rating i'd be starting him because theres no way the bears currently have 3 receivers above a 71 70's should be the average starters in the NFL, with anybody above 80 bein a star...a rookie will have a few big games, and a few games where he disappears... performance like that should not warrant an 80+ rating but i suppose the problem is in the entire ratings spread not just the rookies i mean seriously though, an 85 for suh and berry? pro bowlers already? sigh.... maybe they will at least get jake delhomme's rating right this year

I completely agree! There should be a great disparity between the better players and the not so great players, and you used some great examples with your team. They sort of tried last year, but failed with the sim engine...while 70 rated players were avg starters, if you simmed they were god awful because of the engine. If they altered the sim engine to where a (and these are just rough estimates with no research):

70 OVR HB would get 900 yds and a 3.7 YPC (Julius Jones)
70 OVR QB would have pretty close to the same amount of INTs as TDs (Matty H did have the same amount of INTs and TDs but he had one of the worst OL and systems so maybe this is Delhome here)
70 OVR receiver could reach 1000 yds if he was the number one guy (but still probably has alot of drops (not really sure how to explain this one maybe someone like Devery Henderson)
OL would be serviceable, but they arent going to dominate the trenches for you (look at OL of 2009 Seahawks)
DL same as OL, reach 7 sacks and mid 30 tackles (Look at DL of 2009 Seahawks)
LB serviceable but wont be winning you a defensive player of the year (Na'il Diggs maybe)
DBs will get beat sometimes but also be making some plays for you. (Kelly Jennings and Brian Russell)

Now i understand that a lot of these dont really work, but Im tired and its barely 8 AM...why am I even up?

And for a proper ratings spread to work I think progression needs to be revamped to the older legacy gen system

# 92 GlennN @ 04/25/10 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcarr


	I really don't think -5 across the board is even enough but then again I think that all ratings should be much more spread out to where each individual rating takes into account the full 100 point range and overall ratings would take in atleast 80% of that. Also, I do not think overall ratings should be judged on a scale that goes above 100 like they currently are. I feel that ratings should go up to 100 just because from a computing standpoint that makes more sense but I also feel that to get a 100 overall a player should need a 100 in each rating applicable to his position or atleast enough that when weighted by importance of the rating it averages out to above a 99.5. Such an overall scale would really allow differentiation of the players and then if it was truly represented on the field it would make a much better overall game.

Yep, I agree. Need a wider spread to see differences.

# 93 LBzrule @ 04/25/10 11:43 AM

One thing I do not agree with at all. You can't simply rate rookies by round and I don't think round should be an indicator of potential either. I was trying to get this across in the chat. There is always the tape. A player may not have a great senior year, however, he may have a great deal of film that shows he is a great player. His senior year, maybe his production drops off for whatever reason - injury, new coordinator ect. Then what often happens is his draft stock plummets as well. He may end up getting taken in the 4th round, but that does not mean he should be rated in the 50's or even low 60's.

# 94 xblake16x @ 04/25/10 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LBzrule


	One thing I do not agree with at all. You can't simply rate rookies by round and I don't think round should be an indicator of potential either. I was trying to get this across in the chat. There is always the tape. A player may not have a great senior year, however, he may have a great deal of film that shows he is a great player. His senior year, maybe his production drops off for whatever reason - injury, new coordinator ect. Then what often happens is his draft stock plummets as well. He may end up getting taken in the 4th round, but that does not mean he should be rated in the 50's or even low 60's.

much like greg hardy and george selvie who were taken in the 6th and 7th round, respectively. Both were first round projections at the beginning of the college football season

# 95 Mr. Franchise @ 04/25/10 12:17 PM

I'm looking forward to Tim Tebow having an A potential, and Clausen having a B potential.

# 96 DoubleIt5 @ 04/25/10 12:25 PM

What I find interesting about this whole thing is EA asking fans to rate players without knowing exactly how the ratings work or what they do.

That being said, if someone who learned Spanish from a Chihuahua on TV could peer review my Spanish paper it would be great.

# 97 xblake16x @ 04/25/10 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Franchise


	I'm looking forward to Tim Tebow having an A potential, and Clausen having a B potential.

potential shouldnt even be in the game! in the right system, with the right coaches, with enough luck to stay healthy, etc... anyone can become good. Why not revert back to old way of progression where anyone can become gold and anyone can become dust. with what we have now tebow WILL throw more INT's than TD's and still progress, even losing every game, and throwing 25 INT's to 10 TD's...he will still progress for the better part of his career. And say John Skelton throws 30 TD's and 12 INT's for 5 straight years... because he was drafted in the 5th (?) he wont be able to get passed a 76 or whatever potential they give him

# 98 krc1130 @ 04/25/10 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xblake16x


	potential shouldnt even be in the game! in the right system, with the right coaches, with enough luck to stay healthy, etc... anyone can become good. Why not revert back to old way of progression where anyone can become gold and anyone can become dust. with what we have now tebow WILL throw more INT's than TD's and still progress, even losing every game, and throwing 25 INT's to 10 TD's...he will still progress for the better part of his career. And say John Skelton throws 30 TD's and 12 INT's for 5 straight years... because he was drafted in the 5th (?) he wont be able to get passed a 76 or whatever potential they give him

You're right, they should revert back to the old-gen progression system but, I don't see them doing that. The Alternative? Make POTENTIAL EDITABLE!!!

This would make it easier for all of us to properly rate (and hate) these rookies. Sam Bradford's out of box potential may be like 98, which is insane. He's alright and doesn't have nearly the upside of Matt Stafford.

So, if potential was editable, I could lower it to around 91-90.

This is OUR game. We should be able to edit everything to the way WE want it.

# 99 poppin_fresh @ 04/25/10 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xblake16x


	potential shouldnt even be in the game! in the right system, with the right coaches, with enough luck to stay healthy, etc... anyone can become good. Why not revert back to old way of progression where anyone can become gold and anyone can become dust. with what we have now tebow WILL throw more INT's than TD's and still progress, even losing every game, and throwing 25 INT's to 10 TD's...he will still progress for the better part of his career. And say John Skelton throws 30 TD's and 12 INT's for 5 straight years... because he was drafted in the 5th (?) he wont be able to get passed a 76 or whatever potential they give him

How about the ability for players to gain/lose potential? For example, if a rookie player with A potential underperforms for say 3 or 4 years, they go down "grade(s)" depending on how bad they do. If a player plays at an elite level for say 3 or 4 years, they go up "grade(s)". Thoughts?

# 100 SouthernBrick @ 04/25/10 03:18 PM

Does anyone know when the full ratings came out last year?

« Previous 1 2 3 456 Next »

More Links

Madden NFL 11 Rookie Ratings