Madden NFL 12 Has Rated Four Players at 99. Overrated? Who Missed the Cut?

[R0M0mentum09]

Quote: Originally Posted by phillysouljah

The fact that you resort to strawmen (who said anything about Miles Austin?) shows everyone on this board how weak your argument is. And where do you get this Miles Austin stuff from? He played all 16 games last year. And had less yards than both and less TD's than Calvin Johnson. Miles Austin: 1041 yards 7 TDs in 16 games Larry Fitz: 1137 yards 6 TDs in 16 games Calvin Johnson: 1120 yards 12 TDs in 15 games So what the heck are you talking about with this irrelevant strawman?

2009 season I forgot to add that at the end of my post.

[R0M0mentum09]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lodeus

Some are missing the point of Witten/Gates debate. Witten is the best TE in the league, Gates is not. He is just the best receiving tight end, he is practically a wide receiver playing tight end. Witten does everything a tight end should do better then anyone it the game.

You hit the nail on the head!

[ANDROMADA 1]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

OVR rating is worthless to me. I only care about positional ratings. The sad thing is, individual ratings are manipulated to alter the OVR [be it up or down.] P.S. @ANDROMADA 1 next time you play BF: BC2, please try picking a class that can actually help your team instead of recon .

As far as the ratings go you can find very low overall players that are beastly in some individual aspects. There seems to be these types of players in every Madden.

haha, I use all the classes, recon just looks the coolest. My favorite is engineer(I love rolling the tanks)

[menglish20]

They're all overrated. They're all very talented but none of them are worthy of 99s. Revis is probably the best of them all, and is IMO the best of his position. Brady feels like a product of his system. He runs it perfectly, but I think once he has a few lesser games this season he'll drop. Polamalu is excellent and a game changer, but hardly a 99. Gates is a great TE but Witten is hands down the best TE in football. I'm an Eagles fan and I'll admit it.

The need for mass re-ratings is why we should demand roster share.

[Exonerated]

All overrated.

in fifa 11.

highest rated player: messi at 91. then ronaldo at 89.

let the rest lay where they fall.

[therealsmallville]

Since we can change the ratings to whatever we want, I see arguing over them to be pointless...however, with that said I'd like to chime in on the Brady vs Manning debate with my opinion:

Ratings are entirely based on the previous year, right? So I don't see how anyone can say Manning was better than Brady last year. Manning has that HORRIBLE 3-game stretch, while all Brady did was throw 4 picks the entire regular season. Brady was MVP for a reason, and he was better than Manning LAST YEAR.

There are years when one tops the other. Manning was the better QB in 06, and was a Super Bowl MVP. Brady was better in 07, and threw 50 TD's. They are both the top 2 QB's in the league, and on the all-time top ten list. YMMV. But I just dont see why anyone would think Manning was better LAST YEAR.

It was mentioned that Brady is a product of Belichicks system. Playing in a good system does not make a qb any more accurate, it doesn't make them automatically read a defense. A great QB is a great QB. Same for Peyton...when he's playing with joes off the street, he finds a way to win. When Moss was jettisoned, Brady found a way to win with 2 rookie TE's and an aging receiver past his prime. Both are great and seem to top each other every other year. This year, I agree with Brady higher than Manning.

And my last point: to the guy who said Manning was perhaps the greatest and most cerebral QB of all-time...yes, he's very smart and a good play caller. Unitas called his own plays too. And as for being perhaps the greatest? Joe Montana says "hi", and asks that you call him when Peyton goes 4-0 in Super Bowls with 0 picks and 3 SB MVP awards. Oh, wait...he can't do that. And neither can Brady, for that matter.

Sorry for the rant

[mcompton]

Quote: Originally Posted by havokeff

Manning has won almost as many games as Brady with far below average defenses. It balances out the 'mediocre WR' argument. Brady usually has a far stronger running game. I don't use rings as a measure of individual greatness, otherwise someone could make the argument that Terry Bradshaw was as good a QB as Joe Montana because they both have 4 rings. Or someone could say the Rothelisberger is better than Marino was. C'mon now. Also, without Brady, Bill Belichik can get 11-5 out of whats his name with his coaching and team he has built. Also, if Vinateri has a couple of bad kicks, Brady is a "choke artist". (Not to mention he needed a kicker to win his Superbowls) Oh and the Tuck Rule in 2001. The Colts can't even win 2 games without Manning. (Dungy and Irsay are forever douchebags in my book for that boneheaded move.) And honestly, even Brady has said Manning is the better QB. And before you say "oh he is just being gracious", he could have said nothing on the issue or just said thank you to the people that said he was the best and no one would have said anything bad about him. I will give that Brady has been really efficient, but he has had better overall teams and far better coaching than Manning has. Really, the only place Brady hasn't consistently had an advantage over Manning is the receiver position, except the year Moss decided to actually play. All that said, it's like comparing a 10.1k diamond to a 10.2k diamond. The argument for Brady being the best is certainly there and I only dispute it as far as I would personally choose Manning as my QB over Brady. As I originally said, they both deserve the 99 (it doesn't mean they have the exact same strengths and weaknesses by the way) for the game as they are both absolutely the best at their positions as or right now and are head and shoulders above any other QB playing.

Belichick might have went 11-5 the season w/o Brady but look who they played: NFC and AFC west teams (That's 7 wins right there and then the Bills twice) That's an easy 9 wins right there and they found a way to win 2 more games. Plus they didn't make the playoffs that year.

I know it's impossible to say who's better, but I believe Brady is actually getting better now while Manning is slowly fading.

[s38s38s]

Here's my opinion regarding a stretch in the ratings with a handful of guidelines:

Elite Players-96-94 (Manning, Brady, Revis, Asomugha, Willis)

Super Star Players-93-90 (Rivers, Palomalu, Reed)

Star Players-89-86 (Steve Smith , Matt Ryan, Ray Lewis)

Starters-85-80 (Hines Ward, Antonio Cromartie)

Solid Contributors-79-77 (Guys who start, but aren't household names)

2nd String-76-70 (Guys who spell, or are package specific)

Special Teams/Bench-69-60 (Exactly what it says)

1st Round-82-74 (80's reserved on the can't miss prospects: Suh, Jake Long, PP7, etc.)

2nd Round-73-70

3rd Round-69-64

4th-7th Round-63-60

Now let me explain, this list may not tickle the fancy of those who want to IMO over dramatize ratings desparity from top to bottom. But there is a huge difference from 96 down to 60's. Bench players/special teamers are competent NFL players but they are not in the upper echelon of the league or good enough to start but they serve their role/purpose well.

There's absolutely no place in the game for ratings below 60, I mean whats the point of having a 40-50 something overall player, I mean would they even make an NFL roster...? Players in that 60's range can step in during an injury, but there would obviously be a stark contrast between them and the starter/solid contributor/2nd stringer.

One thing I think would go a long way, and many others share this opinion is that each position should only have specific ratings. I do not need to know my DB's throw power etc. Also I'd like to see a cap on the AWR rating, preferably no lower than 60-65.