Madden NFL 17 Player Ratings - Top 5 Running Backs

[Godgers12]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kwarren3

No problem. You couldn't pay me to attempt to tackle the guy (as cool as it would be to be able to say I got steam rolled by one of the greatest). Vikings fans will always passionately argue for AP because for years we've never had a real QB or passing attack. AP has had the team on his back since he came into the league. Can you just imagine what a team like the Patriots or Packers would have been like over the last decade with a back like AP?

Well Packers did have Green, for quite a few years while Favre was in his prime. Many forget Green was a top 3 HB in the early to mid 00's, even having an 1800 yard 70 catch season. Was he on AP's level, probably not, but it's something. Rodgers has never really had a consistent run game till Lacy's 1st two seasons. Also, let's not forget Brady has had good backs as well, Corey Dillon anyone? But ever so often I wonder what could've been had the Packers drafted Barry Sanders instead of that lineman who shall remain nameless. We probably would have won 3-5 SB's in the 90's with Favre and Barry.

[Bigg Cee]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kwarren3

The biggest problem isn't that Bell is rated higher (I feel AP should be #1 no question but I will admit AP is only a true runner, while LB is a receiver and blocker), but that AP is a 91. For years he's put the team on his back and dominated. Everyone said that last year he would regress because of his age but he showed that he still has it. He should be a 95 Minimum.

100% AGREE!!!

[angels eclipse7]

Gurley and Freeman are definitely better than Miller. I would even throw Jonathan Stewart in the category of running backs better than Miller. Miller would suffice at a 85 overall, in my opinion.

[waynefontes]

Quote: Originally Posted by Godgers12

But ever so often I wonder what could've been had the Packers drafted Barry Sanders instead of that lineman who shall remain nameless. We probably would have won 3-5 SB's in the 90's with Favre and Barry.

I was at or watched on TV, every game that Barry played. Barry on turf was absolutely amazing with an uncanny ability to juke, start and stop and then accelerate past helpless defenders but Barry on grass was a totally different player. He didn't have that same electric ability to make them miss on grass, like he did on turf so I don't think he would have made as great as impact for GB like he did for Detroit.

Barry wasn't a one cut and run through the hole player, his game was dancing behind the LOS and looking for the home run play which often resulted in many negative yard carries. He also wasn't a good pass catcher or blocker which would also diminish his value in a West Coast offensive scheme. However, as a pure running back, he probably had no peer, maybe Gale Sayers but I never saw him play live.

[TheGentlemanGhost]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kwarren3

No problem. You couldn't pay me to attempt to tackle the guy (as cool as it would be to be able to say I got steam rolled by one of the greatest). Vikings fans will always passionately argue for AP because for years we've never had a real QB or passing attack. AP has had the team on his back since he came into the league. Can you just imagine what a team like the Patriots or Packers would have been like over the last decade with a back like AP?

As a Viks fan, if the ratings are properly overhauled, he should be a 91. He doesn't block all that well and not a good receiving RB. Higher overalls should mean the player is an all out threat in every aspect of his position.

[KANE699]

Quote: Originally Posted by gr18

I'm not really concerned about ratings because I'll change them as I see fit but am a little surprised that more people don't express the feeling of being deceived by the calculation of the overall rating being lower despite all attributes in general being higher. I know the tuning of the game makes a difference but we are taught, to look at a players individual attributes not the overall yet are told how great it is that the overalls are a few points lower than before.I don't really see how that helps anything.

You're seeing the top guys, and yet you think nothing has been stretched out because your expecting low ratings for top tier players?

😦

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by KANE699

You're seeing the top guys, and yet you think nothing has been stretched out because your expecting low ratings for top tier players? [emoji46]

I think he's concerned that the only thing that seems changed is how the overall is calculated to get a lower number but, the individual ratings seem the same if not higher.

If that's true then what's the point of the so called stretched out ratings?

If a 86 overall this year would have been a 92 with the same ratings last year what has changed other than how the overall is calculated?

To be clear I like the new way it's being calculated. Seems to give a more clear number.

[KANE699]

Quote: Originally Posted by charter04

I think he's concerned that the only thing that seems changed is how the overall is calculated to get a lower number but, the individual ratings seem the same if not higher. If that's true then what's the point of the so called stretched out ratings? If a 86 overall this year would have been a 92 with the same ratings last year what has changed other than how the overall is calculated? To be clear I like the new way it's being calculated. Seems to give a more clear number.

We have done both, more was done to the overall to give a better representation of what that player truly is and we have spread the ratings some as well, it's a two part system, we didn't drop everyone by 10-20 points or anything.