04:25 PM - June 7, 2012 by RaychelSnr
These are the team overall ratings from the E3 build so obviously they're not final just yet. What do all you think? Any anomalies?
Madden NFL 13 News Post
04:25 PM - June 7, 2012 by RaychelSnrMadden NFL 13 Videos
Member Comments
# 101
Bmore Irish @ 06/08/12 01:33 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 103
I.B.Foolin @ 06/08/12 01:43 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Cole and Babin had 11 and 18 sacks respectively Doom had 9.5
McCoy and the WR/TE MURDER the Broncos skill positions
You get the check for Manning and LBs
At the end of the day Den overachieved and Eagles underachieved but roster wise Eagles are better
# 106
jhols1nger @ 06/08/12 03:40 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 107
SuckaRepellent @ 06/08/12 03:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2
|
|||||||||||||
|
The team Overalls are only based on the collective stats of the players on that team. So they haven't judged the team as a whole, they've judged the players on the team
|
|||||||||||||
|
I don't exactly see how you guys loaded up on offense, not to mention a very average QB. Yes Alex Smith is average at best. Take away Vernon Davis and the guy can't throw the ball at all.
Panthers = 76 while the Redskins = 78? LOL, good old fashioned NFC East bias is alive and well in Madden 13.
# 112
Yeah...THAT Guy @ 06/08/12 08:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
I will admit didn't think the ends were that good, but Doom was coming off an injury and didn't really play early. Hence the low sack count, plus we weren't putting up alot of points so we couldn't really rush the passer.
I wouldn't say your skill positions murder ours since early in the season before the switch to Tebow Decker was close to top of the league in TD's, and then after that DT returned from his injury and over the last half of the season only 1 WR put up better numbers that was Calvin Johnson. So murdering ours would be bad choice of words. Don't forget what he did with the best pass D with what some consider the worst QB in the league. over 200 yards on a pro bowl CB.
So the broncos over achived and the Eagles underachived?? huh. Looked to me the Broncos were just young and inconsitent while the Eagles just couldn't gel. I would say either team is head and shoulders above the other, but looking at the team ratings that is what they are saying. But it is just the entire NFC East gets over rated every year.
But like I said hopefully this means the actuall player ratings are rated like this because I would love to see it where only for sure HoF players break the 90 overall and great players are in the 80 range. But I can only dream lol.
# 114
PioneerRaptor @ 06/08/12 09:51 AM
Okay, there needs to be some obvious logic checks, because it seems everyone is just completely flustered.
First, don't compare these ratings to what they were last year. It is very obvious that the ratings went down across the board. Which is actually a good thing, that means there aren't too many players that are 90+. They are have expanded how they use their ratings which can only be good for us.
Second, the overalls are based on TALENT not PRODUCTION. The Eagles do have a lot of talent, they didn't produce. Talent isn't the biggest key to winning, it's called coaching and chemistry. However, since ratings are based on talent, it is easy to see how the Eagles are rated high. It also explains why the Bronco's who did PRODUCE a lot better than the Eagles but have less talent are rated lower. So yes, last year the Bronco's played as a better team, regardless of talent level.
Third, these overalls are not even final. There are still just under 3 months until the game comes out and ratings can change. Though, I do hope they continue to use this expanded scale, only VERY exceptional players should make it over 90.
First, don't compare these ratings to what they were last year. It is very obvious that the ratings went down across the board. Which is actually a good thing, that means there aren't too many players that are 90+. They are have expanded how they use their ratings which can only be good for us.
Second, the overalls are based on TALENT not PRODUCTION. The Eagles do have a lot of talent, they didn't produce. Talent isn't the biggest key to winning, it's called coaching and chemistry. However, since ratings are based on talent, it is easy to see how the Eagles are rated high. It also explains why the Bronco's who did PRODUCE a lot better than the Eagles but have less talent are rated lower. So yes, last year the Bronco's played as a better team, regardless of talent level.
Third, these overalls are not even final. There are still just under 3 months until the game comes out and ratings can change. Though, I do hope they continue to use this expanded scale, only VERY exceptional players should make it over 90.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Fellow Colts fans shouldn't fret too much anyway, I don't think. I was able to snag a quick screen from the Raw Gameplay video from E3 and the Colts look to be about 7 or so points better than what's listed here. As usual, looks like everything is a work in progress until the game actually releases.
|
|||||||||||||
|
But I can't wait till they start releasing the rosters so we can see how they are rated, and I hope individual ratings matter this year more. Or other wise every DE on a user team will be a power rush end because finese never mattered lol.
# 117
I.B.Foolin @ 06/08/12 10:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 118
TheBleedingRed21 @ 06/08/12 10:28 AM
Cracks me up people complaining about ratings and records. Since when does your record of the previous season judge how good of a football team you are? Giants 9-7 (by your guys complaints) would be mediocre, but wait.. they won the Superbowl?
# 119
Bulls321974 @ 06/08/12 10:42 AM
Eagles 84? 80 or 79 would have been more appropriate. Btw: I'm no Eagles *****...
# 120
I.B.Foolin @ 06/08/12 10:55 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Post A Comment
Working...