Madden NFL 11 News Post

Old Madden Ratings Site Reborn Under New Management

09:31 PM - July 6, 2010 by Steve_OS

The popular FBG Ratings website of the mid 2000's is up and running again under new management. Over 17000 NFL players are being evaluated and re-rated for the 2010 NFL season. The FBG ratings system will utilize old philosophies for bringing accuracy to Madden NFL game-play while incorporating the NextGen attributes into player ratings.

Because of the many critiques of EA and their ratings over the years, the managers are hearing recommendations for player ratings. This will give the most loyal Madden gaming community at OS the opportunity to give their input into player ratings. Please visit www.fbgratings.com/members to check the site out.

You can PM Dan B. on OS under his handle DCEBB2001.

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

Madden NFL 11 Videos

Member Comments

# 21 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushmir


	crying is unnecessary i think jackson's numbers and effectiveness speak for themselves...and we'll have to agree to disagree. team is VERY IMPORTANT. running for 100 yards when ur team is getting blown out 48-0 and running for 100 in a game tied at 17 in OT are NOT the same...the defense is lax in the first example...backups are probably in too. the latter? not so much. jackson is the best player on his team. addai isn't in the top 5 on his. jackson gets his numbers DESPITE 8 in the box because of a poor passing game--addai gets his because defenses focus on so many other weapons. addai shares carries now. jackson still gets the bulk of his. here are addai's last three years numbers: 2007 Indianapolis 15 261 1072 71.5 4.1 12 2008 Indianapolis 12 155 544 45.3 3.5 5 2009 Indianapolis 15 219 828 55.2 3.8 10 here's jackson: 2007 St. Louis 12 237 1002 83.5 4.2 5 2008 St. Louis 12 253 1042 86.8 4.1 7 2009 St. Louis 15 324 1416 94.4 4.4 4 its pretty obvious who the better back is. a 4 yard average DESPITE being the defense's focus? although playing for the league's WORST team does change people's view of him. keep in mind that this is JUST my opinion. but i'd rate jackson a 90 (IMO still an elite back..the TDs and missed games hurt tho) and addai an 81. i just emailed my partner to see what his rating would be...i'll edit his in when he send it back to me. now i'm gonna go look and see what Donny gave Addai. this oughta be good.

I think we have Jackson at 89 and Addai at 86 as of right now...which is likely to change before the season when the weekly updates start.

# 22 Maelstrom-XIII @ 07/07/10 10:51 AM

Kushmir, I'd love to philosophize ratings with you. You seem like you're really down to earth and critical about these things.

And I agree that stats in garbage time don't mean much...but I still think that involving the team itself into ratings does more harm than good. Looking into how often a player faced backups because of a blowout would be fine, but just taking the team at face value and saying "this team was bad, so this player isn't as good as player x from this playoff team" is the wrong way to go about things. Individual ability should matter more than what team they're on...my opinion. Steven Jackson is a great RB playing on a terrible team...Joseph Addai is (in my opinion) a mediocre RB on a great team...they should be rated as such (great vs mediocre). But I agree (mostly) with your ratings...Jackson should be a high 80s (I'm categorically opposed to giving out a 90+ unless they are the best at their position), Addai a low 80s.

# 23 Kushmir @ 07/07/10 10:56 AM

yup...Donny had Addai at an 86 as well. can't say i agree but again just my humble opinion...to me Madden ratings are still about 5 points too high.

a few Colts ratings stood out to me tho:

Antoine Bethea a 95? WOW...must be that +13 super bowl bonus i've heard so much about.
Robert Mathis a 95? YIKES...a good end? SURE...one dimensional as HELL tho..87.

the others are about 5 points too high as usual...not too bad tho. Freeney's a 94 IMO. (thats with 96 being the max of course)

yeah DCEB, your guys at TSX are top-notch. i did an article a few years back for Madden Nation after the ratings were really starting to tick me off, and i got to interview Frank over email. dude's a GEM. gave me more history on the ratings process than i knew was possible. STAND UP GUY.

he's the person that made me say ""this is total BS" the ratings should look like this.....

# 24 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushmir


	yup...Donny had Addai at an 86 as well. can't say i agree but again just my humble opinion...to me Madden ratings are still about 5 points too high. a few Colts ratings stood out to me tho: Antoine Bethea a 95? WOW...must be that +13 super bowl bonus i've heard so much about. Robert Mathis a 95? YIKES...a good end? SURE...one dimensional as HELL tho..87. the others are about 5 points too high as usual...not too bad tho. Freeney's a 94 IMO. (thats with 96 being the max of course) yeah DCEB, your guys at TSX are top-notch. i did an article a few years back for Madden Nation after the ratings were really starting to tick me off, and i got to interview Frank over email. dude's a GEM. gave me more history on the ratings process than i knew was possible. STAND UP GUY. he's the person that made me say ""this is total BS" the ratings should look like this.....

Frank Cooney is the real deal man! He has been on the tour with Madden (the man, himself) in his bus several times. Still has a soft spot for Madden ratings which will eventually carry over to an NCAA site at some point.

We have Bethea at 84, Mathis 85, and Freeney at 93, so we are no where near THAT inflated as opposed to the EA guys. You won't see that dreaded SB Bonus here!

# 25 Kushmir @ 07/07/10 11:32 AM

"I'd love to philosophize ratings with you. You seem like you're really down to earth and critical about these things."

anytime man...ratings might be the most important part to sports gaming. they determine how players are going to play. too high or inaccurate and the game can be HURT--badly. btw, i wanted to give jackson an 89 as well. 1400 yards last year and a 4 yard average the last 3 seasons swayed me tho...

and i hear you on the "team" rating/stats thing. but there are so many positions where its hard to gauge their impact because they don't have a ton of measurables...prime example. i can look at a MLB's numbers and tell you how good his DTs are. SERIOUSLY. show me a team who stops the run, and a weakside LB with good numbers... i'll show you a 4-3 strongside LB and a strongside end who do their jobs well...even if he doesn't have the same sexy "sack" stats that the 3-4 guys and pure pass rushers get. or a ton of tackles...

an example? pat williams of the vikes...44 tkls, 2 sacks and 2 FF's. not very "standoutish" right? but the vikes were 2nd against the run and allowed the least amount of rushing first downs by a pretty good margin. williams had ALOT to do with that...these are some of the things that can help determine a players rating w/o just relying on the "sexy" stats.

another bad rating that stuck out to me recently? Sidney Rice (pasta told us its a 90) can someone explain to me why? is he a bad receiver? NOPE. Elite? far from it...

last three years numbers?
31 - 396 - 4
15 - 141- 4
83 - 1312- 8

looks alot like robert brooks (former packer) to me. a quality receiver who'll put up numbers as long as the pieces are in place (really good running game, good QB, really good OL) elite receivers do this WITHOUT that stuff....should have the same numbers as Miles Austin 82/83 as they're basically mirror images of each other in terms of one good productive year. i need two more years at that level before we talk 90. because if favre doesn't come back and he goes for 54-852-6, whats his rating then?

in my experience its an 88 (when it should be a 76) because the lack of attention to detail means that bad ratings usually gets fixed too late (if at all) when the real issue is just rating the guys CORRECTLY from the beginning and making sure the ratings stay Current and Correct.

# 26 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushmir


	"I'd love to philosophize ratings with you. You seem like you're really down to earth and critical about these things." anytime man...ratings might be the most important part to sports gaming. they determine how players are going to play. too high or inaccurate and the game can be HURT--badly. btw, i wanted to give jackson an 89 as well. 1400 yards last year and a 4 yard average the last 3 seasons swayed me tho... and i hear you on the "team" rating/stats thing. but there are so many positions where its hard to gauge their impact because they don't have a ton of measurables...prime example. i can look at a MLB's numbers and tell you how good his DTs are. SERIOUSLY. show me a team who stops the run, and a weakside LB with good numbers... i'll show you a 4-3 strongside LB and a strongside end who do their jobs well...even if he doesn't have the same sexy "sack" stats that the 3-4 guys and pure pass rushers get. or a ton of tackles... an example? pat williams of the vikes...44 tkls, 2 sacks and 2 FF's. not very "standoutish" right? but the vikes were 2nd against the run and allowed the least amount of rushing first downs by a pretty good margin. williams had ALOT to do with that...these are some of the things that can help determine a players rating w/o just relying on the "sexy" stats. another bad rating that stuck out to me recently? Sideny Rice (pasta told us its a 90) can someone explain to me why? is he a bad receiver? NOPE. Elite? far from it... last three years numbers? 31 - 396 - 4 15 - 141- 4 83 - 1312- 8 looks alot like robert brooks (former packer) to me. a quality receiver who'll put up numbers as long as the pieces are in place (really good running game, good QB, really good OL) elite receivers do this WITHOUT that stuff....should have the same numbers as Miles Austin 82/83 as they're basically mirror images of each other in terms of one good productive year. i need two more years at that level before we talk 90. because if favre doesn't come back and he goes for 54-852-6, whats his rating then?

Relying on stats though will get you in trouble. You can't rely on them. I would think that you should rely more on scouting data. If you want stats though, try to find insider stats. Profootballfocus has some great insider stats. They review every game, player, and snap throughout the year and find out how players do in situations. For your DTs you are so concerned about, they break down how well a DT did against the run. They even rate DE/OLBs different depending on the system they play in! Not a bad source, but I still prefer the scouting data we have, then simply convert those findings into ratings.

# 27 Kushmir @ 07/07/10 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Relying on stats though will get you in trouble. You can't rely on them. I would think that you should rely more on scouting data. If you want stats though, try to find insider stats. Profootballfocus has some great insider stats. They review every game, player, and snap throughout the year and find out how players do in situations. For your DTs you are so concerned about, they break down how well a DT did against the run. They even rate DE/OLBs different depending on the system they play in! Not a bad source, but I still prefer the scouting data we have, then simply convert those findings into ratings.

agreed. stats lie...ALOT. which is why i look INTO them instead of AT them...i 'll definitely check profootballfocus.com though. this is another reason why I think rating players is a 30 man job (one guy for each team) then you can get the insider info from someone laying "eyes" on the team instead of some guy rating Brandon Mebane (DT) an 86 for no measurable reason WHATSOEVER...this rating really bothered me last year, the worst part? it couldn't be backed up by any data WHATSOEVER...especially since seattle has been horrible on defense since he's been there.

maybe someone owes him money or something...

# 28 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushmir


	agreed. stats lie...ALOT. which is why i look INTO them instead of AT them...i 'll definitely check profootballfocus.com though. this is another reason why I think rating players is a 30 man job (one guy for each team) then you can get the insider info from someone laying "eyes" on the team instead of some guy rating Brandon Mebane (DT) an 86 for no measurable reason WHATSOEVER...this rating really bothered me last year, the worst part? it couldn't be backed up by any data WHATSOEVER...especially since seattle has been horrible on defense since he's been there. maybe someone owes him money or something...

I think PFF had Mebane as the #18 DT overall...30th rushing and 15th against the run. However in 2008 he was 6th overall...6th rushing and 25th against the run.

We have him now at an 82 OVR.

# 29 Kushmir @ 07/07/10 12:37 PM

ok good...so maybe you can tell me why:

based on what? 1 solid (not good) year in 3? what's all the fuss about mebane?

# 30 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushmir


	ok good...so maybe you can tell me why: based on what? 1 solid (not good) year in 3? what's all the fuss about mebane?

Well he had a strong 2008 to put him up there. 6 sacks (t-4th), 13 hits on the QB (3rd), 17 QB pressures (t-12th), 27 solos (t-32nd), 6 assists (t-21st), no missed tackles (t-1st), and 26 stops that resulted in an offensive failure (t-21st). Those ranks are among all DTs that season.

Now, in 2009 he had a less productive year. He had 2 sacks (t-20th), 5 QB hits (t-12th), 15 QB pressures (t-10th), 33 solos (t-12th), 3 assists (t-47th), 2 missed tackles (t-44th), and 28 stops that resulted in an offensive failure (9th). Not a stellar year, but 2008 put him up there on the radar.

This is enough to justify his low 80 rating, but not any higher IMO.

# 31 Maelstrom-XIII @ 07/07/10 02:07 PM

Here's where I think we have a philosophical difference about ratings. To me, ratings should be STRETCHED. And I mean elastic waistband, "don't let go that's really going to hurt" stretched. We have a ratings system that goes from 1-99. The median value in that system is a 50 (actually 49.5 but you get the idea). Therefore, it stands to reason that an AVERAGE rating should be a 50. Therefore, an average NFL player, the JAGs (Just A Guy) would be in the 50s overall. That may seem low, but it's the average here...I'd even say, "Sure let's go to 60 instead." So now we have our average NFL player at 60. 70s? Starter. 80s? Pro-bowler. 90s? Future Hall of Famer. We're talking a handful of 90s.

But people would have a fit if they saw players on their favorite teams with overalls in the 60s, or speeds that are much lower than they perceive because they're used to everyone having high 80s or 90s speed...but alas, I'm writing up a blog about this very issue.

And from my perspective, being effective, but not dominant, for one year does not equal an 80 rating.

# 32 at23steelers @ 07/07/10 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maelstrom-XIII


	Here's where I think we have a philosophical difference about ratings. To me, ratings should be STRETCHED. And I mean elastic waistband, "don't let go that's really going to hurt" stretched. We have a ratings system that goes from 1-99. The median value in that system is a 50 (actually 49.5 but you get the idea). Therefore, it stands to reason that an AVERAGE rating should be a 50. Therefore, an average NFL player, the JAGs (Just A Guy) would be in the 50s overall. That may seem low, but it's the average here...I'd even say, "Sure let's go to 60 instead." So now we have our average NFL player at 60. 70s? Starter. 80s? Pro-bowler. 90s? Future Hall of Famer. We're talking a handful of 90s. But people would have a fit if they saw players on their favorite teams with overalls in the 60s, or speeds that are much lower than they perceive because they're used to everyone having high 80s or 90s speed...but alas, I'm writing up a blog about this very issue. And from my perspective, being effective, but not dominant, for one year does not equal an 80 rating.

This sounds good and all, but QB's with 60-70 accuracy in Madden, is pretty terrible. So, if the average QB has that for a rating, then he will be playing worse than what he does in the NFL. It still doesn't fix the AI, but just makes them much worse. The ratings now, correspond with the gameplay functions in the game, if that makes sense. It's hard enough to play Madden with a backup as a starter, but would be pretty difficult, if all your starters played like backups. I hope that makes sense.

# 33 Maelstrom-XIII @ 07/07/10 02:34 PM

I understand exactly where you're coming from. I'm not saying we should re-rate every player for Madden 11, because the development team has tuned performance around their own concept of what should be "average" and how often bad throws occur...I know that lowering Trent Edwards' accuracy down to a 60 or so would make for an incredibly frustrating experience (which Bills fans should be used to)...I'm just advocating for the development team to re-evaluate what they're rating system looks like, and why it isn't stretched to account for the actual median value of their range. I mean, why bother having ratings go from 1-99 if you only use 30 values (69-99) for it? I'm being a bit facetious of course, but you can see where I'm coming from, yes?

It certainly isn't helping their stance on "We have a new ratings philosophy" when their stretched ratings have just as many 90 overall players as past Madden iterations. You have the whole range for a reason, let's use it.

Some tuning, like DCEBB is working on, is a step in the right direction, but my holy grail of rating systems would be a ludicrously stretched rating system, which is what I posted up above...

# 34 at23steelers @ 07/07/10 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maelstrom-XIII


	I understand exactly where you're coming from. I'm not saying we should re-rate every player for Madden 11, because the development team has tuned performance around their own concept of what should be "average" and how often bad throws occur...I know that lowering Trent Edwards' accuracy down to a 60 or so would make for an incredibly frustrating experience (which Bills fans should be used to)...I'm just advocating for the development team to re-evaluate what they're rating system looks like, and why it isn't stretched to account for the actual median value of their range. I mean, why bother having ratings go from 1-99 if you only use 30 values (69-99) for it? I'm being a bit facetious of course, but you can see where I'm coming from, yes? It certainly isn't helping their stance on "We have a new ratings philosophy" when their stretched ratings have just as many 90 overall players as past Madden iterations. You have the whole range for a reason, let's use it. Some tuning, like DCEBB is working on, is a step in the right direction, but my holy grail of rating systems would be a ludicrously stretched rating system, which is what I posted up above...

I agree with you 100% as long as they made the gameplay correspond to your rating scale, then it would be an excellent addition to the game. It's then easier to see who are the best players in the NFL.

# 35 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maelstrom-XIII


	Here's where I think we have a philosophical difference about ratings. To me, ratings should be STRETCHED. And I mean elastic waistband, "don't let go that's really going to hurt" stretched. We have a ratings system that goes from 1-99. The median value in that system is a 50 (actually 49.5 but you get the idea). Therefore, it stands to reason that an AVERAGE rating should be a 50. Therefore, an average NFL player, the JAGs (Just A Guy) would be in the 50s overall. That may seem low, but it's the average here...I'd even say, "Sure let's go to 60 instead." So now we have our average NFL player at 60. 70s? Starter. 80s? Pro-bowler. 90s? Future Hall of Famer. We're talking a handful of 90s. But people would have a fit if they saw players on their favorite teams with overalls in the 60s, or speeds that are much lower than they perceive because they're used to everyone having high 80s or 90s speed...but alas, I'm writing up a blog about this very issue. And from my perspective, being effective, but not dominant, for one year does not equal an 80 rating.

I think you need to draw the comparison between the stretching of attributes and OVR ratings. The attributes go from 12-99, but the overalls are very different. For instance, there is a point where the OVR rating will not go any lower. Take a QB, make all of his attributes the lowest possible (12 if you edit them in the game as it will not let you edit any attribute lower than that). His OVR rating with all of his attributes at 12 will still make him like a 28 or something overall. At least that is how it used to be.

Would anyone be willing to go into Madden 10 real quick and create a player at all positions to determine their rating with all attributes turned down as low as possible? I want to check this out.

If that is the case then the average is not 50, but perhaps (99-28)/2 = 35.5 + 28 = 63.5

All I did was take the highest rating possible (99) and subtract the lowest rating possible (28?). Then take that number and divide by 2. Then add that to the lowest number. Note that this is only the case if 28 is the lowest rating possible.

So, once again, the real "average" could be a lot higher than 50 depending on what the lowest OVR rating possible is.

As for the attributes, an average attribute would be 100-12 = 88/2 = 44 +12 = 56.

However, I would prefer to use 70 as an "average" for each attribute. It kind of follows a grading system where an average mark is 70 to 75 depending on the scale you like.

# 36 cubsball899 @ 07/07/10 03:13 PM

absolutely loving what i'm seeing with this thread.... if these ratings work well, madden 2011 might turn into a buy for me ... imagine how many things in the game will look better with significantly lowered ratings

i'm with maelstrom i think though and love this as a good start but i'd try to lower them even more... addai IMO shoudn't sniff the 80's as he's been one example

but a love what i'm reading here i'll stay tuned!!

# 37 Maelstrom-XIII @ 07/07/10 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I think you need to draw the comparison between the stretching of attributes and OVR ratings. The attributes go from 12-99, but the overalls are very different. For instance, there is a point where the OVR rating will not go any lower. Take a QB, make all of his attributes the lowest possible (12 if you edit them in the game as it will not let you edit any attribute lower than that). His OVR rating with all of his attributes at 12 will still make him like a 28 or something overall. At least that is how it used to be. Would anyone be willing to go into Madden 10 real quick and create a player at all positions to determine their rating with all attributes turned down as low as possible? I want to check this out. If that is the case then the average is not 50, but perhaps (99-28)/2 = 35.5 + 28 = 63.5 All I did was take the highest rating possible (99) and subtract the lowest rating possible (28?). Then take that number and divide by 2. Then add that to the lowest number. Note that this is only the case if 28 is the lowest rating possible. So, once again, the real "average" could be a lot higher than 50 depending on what the lowest OVR rating possible is. As for the attributes, an average attribute would be 100-12 = 88/2 = 44 +12 = 56. However, I would prefer to use 70 as an "average" for each attribute. It kind of follows a grading system where an average mark is 70 to 75 depending on the scale you like.

Hmm...that's a very good point. I concede to your expertise.

However, I pick up my new charge. No more OVR at all...just attributes.

# 38 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlc12576


	DCEBB, this brings me back to the discussion we were having back on the other thread about how AWR and OVR relate in Madden. I dont have a problem with admitting when Im wrong and seems like I was in this case. I think since OVR is so widely accepted as the players complete skill set including AWR, they should be factored together on some scale. I still believe rookies and young guys should rarely, if ever, have high AWR and that NFL vets should. However, since alot of gamers will use OVR mainly to compare players, OVR should be skill set calculated with AWR, IMO. This would allow players OVR to stay balanced even if young players skill sets are high or NFL vets skill sets begin to decline. This would prevent Sidney Rice's OVR from being to high just because he has good skill sets and great height. His AWR would keep him balanced till he begins to play really well, consistently. As I am typing this, Im really coming to the conclusion that AWR should be based on player consistency, since we dont have player position IQ test, IMO. I think a good example of this in the NFL was Reggie White when playing for GB. Whites actually skill set peeked with the Eagles but he was still able to play consistently in GB using his position IQ(AWR), despite his deminishing skill set. The best indicator of position IQ(AWR) is a players on-field consistency, IMO. This should be calculated in some manner with players position skill sets to determine OVR, IMO. For example with WRs, catching, route running and release are major position skill sets that should factor into OVR. However, AWR should factor heavily into OVR as well because all the talent in the world is of little benefit without consistent play. Dez Bryant has high WR skill sets but until he gets in the game and becomes a consistent playmaker threat he will not be considered a good overall(OVR) receiver. I dont know the formula or equation to use but I think AWR in Madden currently isnt calculated right. IMO. I still believe it would be ideal if OVR was calcualted with just the position skill sets. However,currently it seems that other gamers consider OVR to be the overall scale at that position and consider AWR to be a part of this. If that's the case, calculating position skill sets and AWR to determine OVR, using a different equation than EA, is probably best, IMO. I have no doubt that you are already ahead of me on this but I just wanted to correct my position anyway.

First off, props to you man. It takes a real man to admit when he is wrong...especially here.

Now for the issue you bring up:

At FBG in the past we had a simple equation to determine a players AWR. Now, if you analyze last year's ratings there was a strong statistical correlation between a player's OVR rating and his AWR rating. This was a positive correlation of nearly .90. To those who are not stat-obsessed that means it was a positive correlation where 90% of the data was correlated. Most people who do stats accademically shoot for about .70 to show a statistically significant correlation between 2 pieces of data. This means that it wasn't just a strong correlation, but a VERY VERY VERY strong correlation.

So what does this mean? It means that as a players AWR goes up, his OVR goes up in nearly 90% of the cases. It also means that as a players OVR goes up, his AWR goes up in 90% of the cases. So what can we draw from this? We can conclude that the two are tied into each other very closely.

At FBG we used to actually have a formula for determining a player's AWR rating for rookies. We would take his OVR rating, which is pre-determined based upon his other skills including SPD, ACC, JMP, CTH, etc...and subtract 10.

Dez Bryant. As a rookie his skill set gives him a 60 OVR. So you subtract 10. His AWR is now 50 as a rookie.

So what about players who are not rookies? For them you do the same thing, but instead take the present year and subtract their draft year from it. Then add that to their OVR-10.

Randy Moss. Is currently rated a 90. Subtract 10. Now take this year (2010) and subtract his draft year (1998). Now add them.

90-10 = 80
2010-1998 = 12
80+12 = 92

It gives progression for each year a player is in the league, and rightfully so.

Peyton Manning

98-10 = 88
2010-1998 = 12
88+12 = 100 (or 99 because it is the maximum.)

This doesn't over-inflate the AWR rating and still takes into account experience and the player's OVR rating. Thoughts?

# 39 Kushmir @ 07/07/10 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Well he had a strong 2008 to put him up there. 6 sacks (t-4th), 13 hits on the QB (3rd), 17 QB pressures (t-12th), 27 solos (t-32nd), 6 assists (t-21st), no missed tackles (t-1st), and 26 stops that resulted in an offensive failure (t-21st). Those ranks are among all DTs that season. Now, in 2009 he had a less productive year. He had 2 sacks (t-20th), 5 QB hits (t-12th), 15 QB pressures (t-10th), 33 solos (t-12th), 3 assists (t-47th), 2 missed tackles (t-44th), and 28 stops that resulted in an offensive failure (9th). Not a stellar year, but 2008 put him up there on the radar. This is enough to justify his low 80 rating, but not any higher IMO.

see that's probably my issue...and those other stats were GREAT (the missed tackles,and stops that resulted in an offensive failure)...where'd you get them? i think those ratings are solid but he really only had ONE YEAR that would be considered good. its like a RB who has a rookie year with 300 yds and 2tds, a second year with 900 yards and 7tds and then a 3rd year where he had 700 yds and 5 tds. you know what I rate this back?

NOT AN 86.

he gets a rating that is barely "better than average" (a 75 the way i rate) the 80 rating for me isn't something i just give anyone. ratings guys too high to fast is what got us into this mess IMO. its for guys who are good (Darren Sproles is a good example). they've shown some semblance of consistency. and i take an 85 seriously...i need to see 3 consistent high levels of play from a VET (think Desmond Mason) or two really good ones from a younger player (Djack is an example) i also need to see someone who changes gameplans. to me Mebane is on a bad defense and he hasn't done anything to change that...no one goes into a game saying "whoah, we're gonna have to account for this mebane guy." i just can't find it in me to give a solid guy on a bad defense a rating i'd reserve for a DT like Shaun Rogers (no longer elite--but has dominant moments)

# 40 at23steelers @ 07/07/10 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	First off, props to you man. It takes a real man to admit when he is wrong...especially here. Now for the issue you bring up: At FBG in the past we had a simple equation to determine a players AWR. Now, if you analyze last year's ratings there was a strong statistical correlation between a player's OVR rating and his AWR rating. This was a positive correlation of nearly .90. To those who are not stat-obsessed that means it was a positive correlation where 90% of the data was correlated. Most people who do stats accademically shoot for about .70 to show a statistically significant correlation between 2 pieces of data. This means that it wasn't just a strong correlation, but a VERY VERY VERY strong correlation. So what does this mean? It means that as a players AWR goes up, his OVR goes up in nearly 90% of the cases. It also means that as a players OVR goes up, his AWR goes up in 90% of the cases. So what can we draw from this? We can conclude that the two are tied into each other very closely. At FBG we used to actually have a formula for determining a player's AWR rating for rookies. We would take his OVR rating, which is pre-determined based upon his other skills including SPD, ACC, JMP, CTH, etc...and subtract 10. Dez Bryant. As a rookie his skill set gives him a 60 OVR. So you subtract 10. His AWR is now 50 as a rookie. So what about players who are not rookies? For them you do the same thing, but instead take the present year and subtract their draft year from it. Then add that to their OVR-10. Randy Moss. Is currently rated a 90. Subtract 10. Now take this year (2010) and subtract his draft year (1998). Now add them. 90-10 = 80 2010-1998 = 12 80+12 = 92 It gives progression for each year a player is in the league, and rightfully so. Peyton Manning 98-10 = 88 2010-1998 = 12 88+12 = 100 (or 99 because it is the maximum.) This doesn't over-inflate the AWR rating and still takes into account experience and the player's OVR rating. Thoughts?

Sounds like a good universal system that corresponds with how many years the player has been in the league for. Good idea!

« Previous 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »

More Links

Old Madden Ratings Site Reborn Under New Management