Madden NFL 13 News Post

Madden NFL 13 Team Ratings from E3 Build

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?

Game: Madden NFL 13Reader Score: 6/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Wii U / Xbox 360Votes for game: 77 - View All

Madden NFL 13 Videos

Member Comments

# 161 Fonrolalexexnay @ 06/10/12 11:17 PM

Bucs at 69 overall with all their new signings???

# 162 Melo_man28 @ 06/11/12 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chronoxiong


	These ratings are lower than the team ratings in NCAA Football 13. What the hell? Lol...I don't get it. The 49ers should be higher than 81 by the way. Should be near mid 80's just like the Patriots and Steelers.

lol the thing is though in ncaa WAY to many teams are rated in the 90's where madden is rated way to low..

# 163 sheaday30 @ 06/11/12 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by balcobomber25


	As a fan you would give them that grade which is expected because you have a biased opinion we all do when it comes to our teams. As a Patriots fan I have no biased against or for the Panthers, I can look at it objectively and see they are a team in transition, they have a lot of young talent but they are still a few years away from being a contender. I would say a rating in the 70-75 range is more than generous.

Def not. If I was being overly biased like some of these people I would say 85+. They don't deserve worse than the skins as they beat them and are just better and they had no original starting LB's last year and 1 original starting DL/DE. That being said if they had those players they would have played a lot better and EA would have been more generous. I think a 79 is more than fair. I'm not asking for and mid 80's even

# 164 87Birdman @ 06/11/12 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheaday30


	Def not. If I was being overly biased like some of these people I would say 85+. They don't deserve worse than the skins as they beat them and are just better and they had no original starting LB's last year and 1 original starting DL/DE. That being said if they had those players they would have played a lot better and EA would have been more generous. I think a 79 is more than fair. I'm not asking for and mid 80's even

The only problem I see with your logic is basing it off of the Redskins. After looking at the ratings the NFC East is overrated like always. Take a look around at some of the other teams and I would say the Panthers should be in the lower to mid 70s. But then the logic of well they beat the redskins so they should be better couldn't you make it like... O lets say the Panthers lost to the vikings so they should be worse?

But overall I just hope this means that the ratings are more stretched out and not everyone and their mother is at 90+ overall and you can't tell the difference between the good and the bad.

# 165 sheaday30 @ 06/11/12 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 87Birdman


	The only problem I see with your logic is basing it off of the Redskins. After looking at the ratings the NFC East is overrated like always. Take a look around at some of the other teams and I would say the Panthers should be in the lower to mid 70s. But then the logic of well they beat the redskins so they should be better couldn't you make it like... O lets say the Panthers lost to the vikings so they should be worse? But overall I just hope this means that the ratings are more stretched out and not everyone and their mother is at 90+ overall and you can't tell the difference between the good and the bad.

I honestly think the Vikings should be 1-2 points better than the Panthers or equal whatever the rating. I don't care about the numbers I'm talking relative numbers. I mean the panthers were the team with the most injuries last year if I recall correctly (at one point they def were) but the ratings don't take this into account. They probably gave the injured players like Jon Beason a few point decreases in OVR just because they were hurt, but probably not Peyton Manning... Beason was a 96 overall last year.

# 166 sheaday30 @ 06/11/12 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Errors Occurred


	lol what? Ravens 23 PPG....Steelers 20 PPG...Care to fix that post

Depends on the teams they played also

# 167 87Birdman @ 06/11/12 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheaday30


	I honestly think the Vikings should be 1-2 points better than the Panthers or equal whatever the rating. I don't care about the numbers I'm talking relative numbers. I mean the panthers were the team with the most injuries last year if I recall correctly (at one point they def were) but the ratings don't take this into account. They probably gave the injured players like Jon Beason a few point decreases in OVR just because they were hurt, but probably not Peyton Manning... Beason was a 96 overall last year.

Yeah I know what you mean about Injuries lol. I remember the Broncos against the Bengals early in the year half our payroll was injured lol. But I might be in the minority but I actually like the low ratings. But after reading some other things I think that one big culprit behind these may be the new production rating and that causing a huge swing in overall. If they have the production in at 0 then that may be why these ratings are overall fairly low. But once again just speculation.

# 168 sheaday30 @ 06/11/12 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 87Birdman


	Yeah I know what you mean about Injuries lol. I remember the Broncos against the Bengals early in the year half our payroll was injured lol. But I might be in the minority but I actually like the low ratings. But after reading some other things I think that one big culprit behind these may be the new production rating and that causing a huge swing in overall. If they have the production in at 0 then that may be why these ratings are overall fairly low. But once again just speculation.

Yea I like that too. I personally don't care gameplay wise because I was 22-3 in Madden last year with the Panthers lol. But the ratings more of a morale thing for me lol.

# 169 BDM313 @ 06/11/12 02:16 PM

Even tho this is based on a early build the Lions should have easily been an 80 or a tad higher....

# 170 brettmickey @ 06/11/12 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnSKINS26


	How do you forget that they traded up to #2, when they beat out your Browns to do it?? Anyways, you obviously are lacking some knowledge about the Skins roster-- At WR we signed Pierre Garcon and Joseph Morgan. Moss is our slot receiver after being our best rated WR last year. At RB we have Roy Helu as our best option in Madden. He's got speed hands, and moves. At TE we have a top-ten TE in Fred Davis. The OL keeps getting younger and more talented, and the defense is talented but hasn't met its potential. Never mind RG3. The Skins will be one of the most used teams online this year (which is annoying as an actual Skins fan). I don't necessarily agree where the Skins are rated in comparison to a bunch of other teams, but the 78 rating itself doesn't jump out as unfair to me.

The Skins are not a top 15 team yet. Pierre Garcon is severely inconsistent. Half of his total yardage was earned in only three games against Tampa, a beat up Chiefs squad, and the Pats. He has consistently been in the bottom of the league regarding drop percentage as he doesn't have very good hands at all (that stat can be found here http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog...op-percentage/) and those numbers were WITH Manning throwing him the ball. And Josh Morgan is an average receiver but nothing to write home about. Moss isn't anything special at this point in his career either. I will give you Fred Davis, he is one of my personal favorite tight ends in the league. Your o-line gave up 41 sacks last season and led a below average rushing attack. I will hand it to your defense as it is on the rise very quickly. But the offense is definitely lacking in areas and there is a reason the Skins were a bottom 10 team. Their team rating does not accurately reflect this as they should be bumped down a few points until they prove what you are touting them to be. The Skins seem to win free agency every year, but it is the quality of the players, not the quantity, that determines just how well a team has improved in the offseason. I wish them luck this season as I was a huge RGIII fan before the college season started, but they just aren't ready yet to make that leap.

# 171 DrewW777 @ 07/24/12 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSUCougars


	The Seahawks are a 73.... is that a joke? They're supposed to contend in the NFC West with one of the most stout defenses in the league! Plus with the addition of Matt Flynn?? QB was our only hole last year! HOW!?

The Seahawks suck and always will suck. Matt Flynn hasnt proven him self yet! He played 1 game!!

# 172 CT Pitbull @ 07/24/12 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSUCougars


	The Seahawks are a 73.... is that a joke? They're supposed to contend in the NFC West with one of the most stout defenses in the league! Plus with the addition of Matt Flynn?? QB was our only hole last year! HOW!?

matty flynn has proven zilch in this league how many wins does he have as a starter?? 1? lol come on man lets not get carried away with ourselves i got one name for you in comparison to matty flynn...kevin kolb he gotta do something on his own w/ his own team to earn respect from anyone but seahawk fans...hopefully for your sake he is not kevin kolb or scott mitchell for that matter

# 173 S C 0 0 Z E @ 07/25/12 02:50 AM

LOL Titans, a 9-7 team last year, ranked 24th overall. I don't expect the Titans to be in the top 10 or anything like that, but be nice to see them get a little more respect.

* There draft class from last year was very productive and will only get better
* I think they had a good draft this year (Kendall Wright)
* CJ2k looks to be back to his usual ways
* Emergence of Jared Cook
* Solid QB situation.
* FULL off-season for 2nd year head coach and all players

# 174 da ThRONe @ 07/25/12 10:29 AM

I know I'm super late, but we are tied with the Redskins?

# 175 m1ke_nyc @ 07/25/12 11:24 AM

Patriots are so overrated. They beat 1 team above .500 last year.

# 176 StreetCarp @ 07/25/12 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratedmoney


	Patriots are so overrated. They beat 1 team above .500 last year.

They also made it to the Super Bowl, which involved winning a playoff game against the Ravens. Go to bed.

# 177 K_GUN @ 07/25/12 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StreetCarp


	They also made it to the Super Bowl, which involved winning a playoff game against the Ravens. Go to bed.

that Ravens game shouldn't be allowed in the discussion-Billy Cundiff

# 178 Blue Ninja @ 07/26/12 06:14 PM

Higher ratings just mean more individually talented players. Of course we all know that talent alone doesn't win games.

# 179 Nza @ 07/26/12 06:42 PM

I honestly can't believe how good a job EA did on making these ratings almost universally disagreeable.

# 180 StanleyStutters @ 07/26/12 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratedmoney


	Patriots are so overrated. They beat 1 team above .500 last year.

That doesn't make the team any less talented. On paper the Patriots are one of the best teams in the NFL. Now being the best team on paper doesn't guarantee you anything on the field, but it does get you a higher overall rating in video games.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89Next »

More Links

Madden NFL 13 Team Ratings from E3 Build