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

# 41 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushmir


	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)

Yeah I do not know why EA had Mebane that high in the first place. I had him at barely an 82 on my scale...and that is a best-case scenario for him unless he unloads with 10 sacks this season. That goes to show you that a guy who recorded 6 sacks in 2008 is still only an 82 as a DT...not a 90.

# 42 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by at23steelers


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

I was just going to add the years pro number to the OVR-10. With the 2010-yr drafted you can have a guy who has been out of the league for a few seasons still have a high AWR even though he hasn't been in the game. It doesn't mean that he is any less aware though and his OVR will still play a big part in the rating.

What sounds better?
1) OVR-10+(2010-draft year)

OR

2) OVR-10+(years in the league)

# 43 Kushmir @ 07/07/10 03:51 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.

see you and i are pretty close...i've always rated "JAG" veterans from 60-65. i've always had a dislike for people who rate mr. rookie "hasn't done squat in the NFL" anything higher than a 70. and EVEN a 70 would be first pick in the draft franchise changer like Peppers. for the most part i'd like to see 1st round picks from 65-70. 2nd rounders 60-64. third rounders 50-59 and anything past the third round? 40-49. 66-69 is a NFL guy who contributes off the bench...kinda like what Keyaron Fox did for the Steelers last year. average nfl starter? 70-74. solid player who's better than average 75-79 (mike patterson of the eagles for example) GOOD players? 80-84 (i'd rate Miles Austin and Sidney Rice an 82) 85-89 is for pro-bowl level guys or guys just outside the "elite range" (i.e. Djack, kellen winslow and robert mathis) although i max out one-dimensional guys at an 87. Elite? 90-96. ratings over a 97 are reserved for Hall Of Famers. is peyton one? probably...but we'll give him those ratings after he gets a BUST. NOT BEFORE.

# 44 at23steelers @ 07/07/10 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I was just going to add the years pro number to the OVR-10. With the 2010-yr drafted you can have a guy who has been out of the league for a few seasons still have a high AWR even though he hasn't been in the game. It doesn't mean that he is any less aware though and his OVR will still play a big part in the rating. What sounds better? 1) OVR-10+(2010-draft year) OR 2) OVR-10+(years in the league)

If he is out of the league though, he shouldn't gain awareness for the years he was never in the league. So, I like #2 better. Btw, I calculated it, and the lowest overall you can give a player in Madden NFL 10 is a 12 overall with 12 overall attributes for everything.

# 45 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by at23steelers


	If he is out of the league though, he shouldn't gain awareness for the years he was never in the league. So, I like #2 better. Btw, I calculated it, and the lowest overall you can give a player in Madden NFL 10 is a 12 overall with 12 overall attributes for everything.

Thanks for the input. I like #2 as well but want to know what people think first before making a decision. The only problem is a lot of guys still play ball, but in the CFL, IFL, Arena, etc...which isn't to say they are not learning constantly.

Is that low rating of 12 for every position?

# 46 at23steelers @ 07/07/10 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Thanks for the input. I like #2 as well but want to know what people think first before making a decision. The only problem is a lot of guys still play ball, but in the CFL, IFL, Arena, etc...which isn't to say they are not learning constantly. Is that low rating of 12 for every position?

Yes it is. I think those leagues just make the matter more complicated, and a year in the NFL gives you more awareness than a year in those leagues anyhow.

# 47 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by at23steelers


	Yes it is. I think those leagues just make the matter more complicated, and a year in the NFL gives you more awareness than a year in those leagues anyhow.

Makes sense to me. I suppose I can do it that way and see how it goes.

Thanks for the info on the OVR ratings too.

# 48 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlc12576


	Ok, I think it's a good idea for having a standard to calculate AWR. However, I dont like the way it allows AWR to decline based on player skill. I think AWR should never go down because a player doesnt lose their position knowledge. AWR can become stagnant for a player while their position skill sets lower or raise their OVR. All rookies should probably enter the league with a base AWR of 0 since nobody has any idea how they will perform in the NFL. Young players completion of certain basic team mini camps, training camps and making cuts should raise this AWR standard for them. Preseason games would begin to raise some young players AWR based on their performance. This way, young players making it all the way through preseason to be on a teams regular season roster would have higher AWR than young players cut. Young player AWR would continue to raise as they begin to get more playing time in the regular season. This would allow their AWR to be linked to their NFL performance consistency like other players. I fully agree with a players AWR going up every year just by being on a NFL team every year but I never think it should fall. AWR should only raise or stay the same, IMO. That way, a player being misused in a certain team scheme could account for their inconsistent play, not just their OVR/AWR ratings being lowered. For example, WR Brandon Marshall would keep the same AWR and OVR even if doesnt put up consistent stats in Miami because he isnt utilized properly like when in Denver. His skill sets and OVR would remain the same and his AWR would only see a small raise because of another year in the NFL. So he wouldnt have some huge difference in OVR next year just because he didnt perform the same way in Miami as he did in Denver. Hopefully, you feel where I coming from.

It makes sense to make the AWR of a player be independent, yes. It also makes sense to not drop it. However, as you know no 2 players come into the league with the same level or preparedness for the NFL. Some come in far better than others. The minimum shouldn't be so low either. 0 for AWR for rookies seems a bit extreme. If you have rookies at the high end around 70 OVR, then a 60 AWR isn't too far fetched because they are better players. Did Aaron Rodgers come into the league with a better skill-set than Jason Campbell? You could argue that he didn't. But he did come from a pro style offense and had more knowledge than Campbell did...and it showed. In 2005 we graded Rodger's better in football sense and reading defenses than Campbell, and yet Campbell went ahead of Rodgers. This factored heavily into our OVR assigned to him that off-season, in this case Rodgers was #2 and Campbell #4.

This shows that the AWR does make a big difference and because it correlates to the OVR so well, having them linked may be beneficial, so long as the AWR does not regress. What do you think?

# 49 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlc12576


	I agree with the fact that no 2 players come into the NFL with the same preparedness. My issue is that their AWR is speculative until we actually see how they perform in the NFL. For instance, Heath Shuler, Tim Couch and Alex Smith would have all been given decent AWR as rookies but that would have to be lowered to compensate for their actually performance. While I admit OVR of 0 may not be a good base, I do believe there should be a low base for all rookies. This would allow for AWR progression based on consistent NFL performance and/or team personnel without having to lower the AWR of underachievers. Also, it leaves room for those underachievers, to potentially increase their AWR just by staying in the NFL. This also brings to mind another interesting point about players that dont start but play behind very talented starters and under talented coaches/coordinators. These players should have their AWR increase more yearly than players who dont start and have mediocre players starting in front of them and coach/coordinators. Tom Brady always had the skill set but his knowledge(AWR) was undoubtly increased from being under Belicheat, Wies and Drew Bledsoe. Where as Rex Grossman never really had a QB to learn under or exceptional QB coaches. So even though players dont enter the NFL with equal NFL preparedness, I think it is to hard to determine AWR before they actually are in the NFL. The players that are the most prepared still have to translate that into consistent NFL performance(AWR), IMO. Their NFL preparedness, like what system they played in during college, falls more under their potential rating than their actual AWR rating, IMO. See what I mean?

This all makes great sense to me, but now you have to come up with a way to rate the AWR of rookies and non-rookies given the current system that EA has provided. So what do you recommend we do to tweek the AWR rating? How should we numerically determine a players AWR?

# 50 Maelstrom-XIII @ 07/07/10 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	This all makes great sense to me, but now you have to come up with a way to rate the AWR of rookies and non-rookies given the current system that EA has provided. So what do you recommend we do to tweek the AWR rating? How should we numerically determine a players AWR?

In my opinion? Rookies have an AWR cap coming into the league...a ceiling on how high their awareness can be. It can be as low as you want (but I'd say keep it roughly around the average, which was 56 to 60, I think?)...If an offensive player came from a pro-style offense, they have awareness at that ceiling...if they came from a triple option, spread, etc...then you adjust down a little, because they won't be used to the verbiage of the NFL, etc...it also brings their OVR down a bit (to coincide with having rookies lower than most veterans)...

As far as defensive rookies, I'm at a bit of a loss, because ANY defense is basically a pro defense...

Another possible tweak would be to decrease awareness by 5 or so points (again, up to you) depending on when they came out--if they came out as underclassmen, or only played for 2 years in college, they've got a lower awareness than someone who was a 4 year starter...for instance. Just a thought.

With respect to veterans, I'm on board with the "years of experience" coming into play...maybe adjust more for veterans who have been starters compared to bench warmers as well (AWR - 10 + EXPERIENCE for starters, AWR - 15 + EXPERIENCE for backups)...that way we're not lowering awareness based on OVR, but we're accounting for those seeing more playing time as well...

Man, I'm enjoying this thread.

# 51 Maelstrom-XIII @ 07/07/10 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlc12576


	The problem with this Maelstrom, IMO, is that you still risk having to lower a players AWR in the future for ratings balance. I think it's best to let whatever the player did in college or system they played under in college only effect their potential grade, not their AWR.

I actually have an issue with this, as a players potential isn't at all affected by what system they played in college. It affects how ready they are for the pro game, but not what athletic ceiling they could reach (which is what I think when I hear Potential)...In all honesty, I'm not really sure what the best way to calculate rookie AWR would be, but I'm not ready to say that just because Jimmy Clausen played in a pro style offense his potential should be higher than Tony Pike's...rather, I'd say that Clausen is more pro ready RIGHT NOW. Hence, a higher awareness in my opinion...that's just my thought.

# 52 at23steelers @ 07/07/10 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlc12576


	That's a great point. That considered, all the more reason why AWR lowest base should be set very low. If Clausen comes in with better AWR than Stafford, thats cool as long as the rookie base is set low. This allows Stafford AWR to potentially progress above Clausen AWR without having to lower Clausen's. Agreed?

My problem with it being too low is, if it's the CPU, they will throw far too many INT's with an awareness of 20. Or, if it's a rookie CB on your team with an awareness of 20, he will get beat almost every time. I think awareness would play too big of a role, compared to the QB's throwing power and accuracy or in the CB's case, the coverage. I think every system will have its flaws, and it seems like the more detailed you get, the harder it is to make it a universal system. IMO, DCEBB has the best system with just subtracting 10 from overall, and adding from there based on how many years in league. It won't matter if they are a bench warmer or a starter, because that's what the other attributes are for.

I must say this thread is what CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM is all about!

# 53 Megatron2k7 @ 07/07/10 09:43 PM

I love this thread. I feel like I've finally met up with some fellow gamers who understand football, and how important it is to fix these ridiculous ratings. I've been fixing my own rosters for the last few years now, and it's definitley a time consuming hobby. Many thanks and kudos to any of you who are in the same boat.

Awareness is gonna be tough.

It may be too hard to accurately rate players without sprinkling in some opinion.

Rating a players awarness based off of their overall score - 10 + yrs in the league might not work very well.

Take for example, an old Punter who's leg strength has diminished a lot in his older yrs, yet his kick accuracy is still high. His overall rating would suffer greatly from the lack of kick power, and each year that his leg continued to get weaker, his awareness would never be able to go up while his reducing kick power kept dragging down his overall.

I am disgusted when I play franchise mode in Madden 10 and I see my veterans dropping Awareness points at the end of a season. Why they program the game to do this is insanely silly. Its like they don't truely understand what their own rating even means. I seriously have my doubts. lol.

I don't have a quick or simple answer for you on how to rate players awareness, but I do know, that the older players definitely need to have some physical attributes decllining, but their awareness needs to keep getting better until the day they retire imo.

Older players with physical skill diminishing still have a place on many teams. The Patriots signed Junior Seau last year, and even though for his age he is in great shape, he is no where near the physical specimen he was in his younger years. His awareness gained from all his experience still made him a better option to plug into their defense than many of the athletically superior young players on their team. I would give Seau an average to slightly below average overall rating based on his current skill set, yet he would need an awareness rating in the 90's at least. What would that do to his overall rating then...?

# 54 Maelstrom-XIII @ 07/07/10 10:01 PM

If anything, this discussion gives me a bit more respect for Donny Moore, who has to come up with a system (even if it is one that many of us have complaints about) for all this stuff...

@ Megatron2k7 - I agree that awareness shouldn't drop, UNLESS there's extenuating circumstances...you know, like you reach retirement age (65) while playing QB for the Vikings (ahemFavreahem).

Senility is something, huh?

In all seriousness though, I'm all in favor of setting a ceiling for rookie awareness...I mean, it seems to me to be a solid system. On one hand, you can sort of contain rookie OVR better, and as far as the rookies performing worse than veterans (ie the rookie CB getting burned) I think that's okay, for the most part. Are there rookies who contribute very well? Yes. However, balance that with the amount of rookies who just look lost sometimes...A blown coverage against a veteran receiver and a veteran QB is something to be expected. And rookies are often benchwarmers, role players or special teamers until they can progress a bit. I think it fits fairly well with what we see on Sundays (and Monday and Thursday nights)...and I'm not certain that other attributes are a fair example of starters vs backups. As Megatron pointed out, Seau was athletically inferior to many players on the Patriots roster (so his attributes would've been lower) but his awareness, and field intelligence is what put him in the lineup.

Thoughts?

# 55 cubsball899 @ 07/07/10 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by at23steelers


	My problem with it being too low is, if it's the CPU, they will throw far too many INT's with an awareness of 20. Or, if it's a rookie CB on your team with an awareness of 20, he will get beat almost every time. I think awareness would play too big of a role, compared to the QB's throwing power and accuracy or in the CB's case, the coverage. I think every system will have its flaws, and it seems like the more detailed you get, the harder it is to make it a universal system. IMO, DCEBB has the best system with just subtracting 10 from overall, and adding from there based on how many years in league. It won't matter if they are a bench warmer or a starter, because that's what the other attributes are for. I must say this thread is what CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM is all about!

but when everybody's rating is fixed that wouldn't be an issue... the CB you mention wouldn't be getting burned by every joe schmo WR in the league with poor route running or something, but if you have your poor CB covering Larry Fitzgerald you better be damn sure to double team him every time... ya feel me?

as far as awareness for veterans...i kinda tie it into route running for an aging WR.... he may lose a few steps or not be able to go up and pull down a jump ball anymore, but he has learned a few 'tricks of the trade' through his years in the league ya know what i mean? the WR won't be able to burn anyone at any time anymore but he may be able to set up his cuts better or he may be better at finding the soft spot in the zone and just always seems to be "on the same page" as his QB...

awareness is a very difficult concept to put a number on which is why i think they should slowly start deleting numerical ratings

also think that the formula for awareness doesn't quite work... i think it needs some human insight because the formula won't take into account guys who are just students of the game... the guys like Peyton Manning who are absolute football nerds, versus the guys like Randy Moss who get by on athletic abillity.... ya know?

# 56 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissionMaximus


	Terrible ratings for the Saints. Randall Gay higher ratings than both J.Greer and T.Porter come on now. Lot of other questionable ratings.

First of all, not all of the 17000 players have been updated. The players that have been updated have last names beginning with A, B, E, I, J, some K, N, O, P, Q, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. However, some rookies with these last names have also not been completed. Also, these ratings are from March ie: the offseason rating pre-draft. They will be updated again during training camp and the preseason with weekly updates to follow. Keep in mind that injuries also affect the OVR rating.

And since you asked, Porter is now an 86, Gay an 80, and Greer an 82 as of today. They just have to be updated and will be throughout the rest of the summer.

# 57 DCEBB2001 @ 07/07/10 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Megatron2k7


	I love this thread. I feel like I've finally met up with some fellow gamers who understand football, and how important it is to fix these ridiculous ratings. I've been fixing my own rosters for the last few years now, and it's definitley a time consuming hobby. Many thanks and kudos to any of you who are in the same boat. Awareness is gonna be tough. It may be too hard to accurately rate players without sprinkling in some opinion. Rating a players awarness based off of their overall score - 10 + yrs in the league might not work very well. Take for example, an old Punter who's leg strength has diminished a lot in his older yrs, yet his kick accuracy is still high. His overall rating would suffer greatly from the lack of kick power, and each year that his leg continued to get weaker, his awareness would never be able to go up while his reducing kick power kept dragging down his overall. I am disgusted when I play franchise mode in Madden 10 and I see my veterans dropping Awareness points at the end of a season. Why they program the game to do this is insanely silly. Its like they don't truely understand what their own rating even means. I seriously have my doubts. lol. I don't have a quick or simple answer for you on how to rate players awareness, but I do know, that the older players definitely need to have some physical attributes decllining, but their awareness needs to keep getting better until the day they retire imo. Older players with physical skill diminishing still have a place on many teams. The Patriots signed Junior Seau last year, and even though for his age he is in great shape, he is no where near the physical specimen he was in his younger years. His awareness gained from all his experience still made him a better option to plug into their defense than many of the athletically superior young players on their team. I would give Seau an average to slightly below average overall rating based on his current skill set, yet he would need an awareness rating in the 90's at least. What would that do to his overall rating then...?

The thing is that the OVR is set FIRST. So if an old kicker like Vinatieri loses KPW, his AWR will keep rising to make up for the loss. Get it? The -10 is a starting point that is then refined and adjusted.

# 58 DCEBB2001 @ 07/08/10 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cubsball899


	also think that the formula for awareness doesn't quite work... i think it needs some human insight because the formula won't take into account guys who are just students of the game... the guys like Peyton Manning who are absolute football nerds, versus the guys like Randy Moss who get by on athletic abillity.... ya know?

Well the idea is that the OVR-10+EXP will be a starting base that can then be edited. But to begin, it keeps everyone on even ground.

# 59 rice_n_gravy @ 07/08/10 09:37 AM

i like the site but as many said the ratings on some of the guys ........ Bunkley is a better DT than Cole is DE ?

EDIT: o i see Cole didnt get updated yet

# 60 DCEBB2001 @ 07/08/10 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rice_n_gravy


	i like the site but as many said the ratings on some of the guys ........ Bunkley is a better DT than Cole is DE ? EDIT: o i see Cole didnt get updated yet

Yeah, it takes some time to get through 17000 players as you could guess. There will be more updates in August.

« Previous 1 234 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »

More Links

Old Madden Ratings Site Reborn Under New Management