Madden NFL 11 Rookie Ratings

[GlennN]

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.

[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.

[xblake16x]

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

[Mr. Franchise]

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

[DoubleIt5]

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.

[xblake16x]

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

[krc1130]

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.

[poppin_fresh]

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?