Madden NFL 16 News Post

Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

11:28 AM - July 2, 2015 by RaychelSnr

Donny Moore, aka the ‘Madden Ratings Czar’, is leaving Electronic Arts as he will be “pursuing other interests.”

In an official statement on Twitter, Moore said, “After much thought & consideration, I have chosen to step away from @EASports & announce my retirement as the Madden Ratings Czar as I have opted to pursue other interests. I am especially grateful of the opportunity to rate players for some of the greatest fans in video games today. After 16 years, it is finally time to hang up the czar's mouse pad! #Czartirement"

For Moore, this ends a long tenure as the guy running the ratings and updates for Madden. Moore’s tenure spanned 16 years at EA Tiburon, which means he was easily one of the most tenured at that studio. There is no word yet on who will be replacing Moore, but we do expect an announcement soon.

The ratings position occupied by Moore has been a staple of Madden’s internet presence for years. Moore’s ratings oftentimes drew criticism, but the weekly ratings updates were always hugely anticipated by fans, despite what ire they may have drawn.

The ratings this year will likely still come in the same pacing as previous years, and it will be interesting to see if any differences in how much players move up and down the scale happens without Moore at the helm. We’ll certainly be watching it going forward!

Game: Madden NFL 16Reader Score: 7/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 24 - View All

Madden NFL 16 Videos

Member Comments

# 441 DCEBB2001 @ 12/26/15 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadman


	The only place he needs to sell his talents and abilities is at EA, not in a forum.

That's true, and he can choose to answer if he wishes. I just don't think that it is beyond anyone to ask questions, respectfully, in this forum of the devs. What I don't like is when they are met with disrespect back, as if asking in itself was disrespectful.

Wouldn't be the first time, that's for sure:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...updates-5.html

# 442 RogueHominid @ 12/26/15 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khaliib


	My answer is that "Ratings" function in various roles within the overall scope of the game, beyond just a "player value" system. What doesn't get discussed when talking about what mechanism/model should be used, is the "functionality" implication of a rating/model change upon years of coding, especially since Madden is not being rebuilt from the ground up. (per say) 3) Animations - triggering levels - ability to expand/add hundreds or more upon a "particular" rating, there by, limiting the ability to make an aspect of gameplay more fluid

This is the part that the crowd advocating for an FGB revolution doesn't talk enough about in my opinion.

I'm fine with FGB or any other system that seeks to incorporate more realistic data into the game and that seeks to achieve a greater ratings distribution across the league and across individual rosters.

But, none of that work will mean a thing if the threshold values at which animations trigger are not re-calibrated to fit whatever new scale is implemented.

The reason is that Madden is an animation-based game, not a physics-based game, so fetishizing raw, verifiable, historical physical data and real scouting metrics only have meaning for M17 insofar as they can be tied effectively into the game's existing framework of numerically-triggered animation sequences.

So my big take on this thread is that whoever fills the vacuum left by Donny Moore's absence--and I don't know the guy, so I can't say anything about him one way or the other--must account for the game's current dependence on animations triggered by certain numerical values.

Ideally, Madden would rebuild itself as a physics-based game where these linkages would be easier to achieve, but there's no way that's happening, not as I see it anyway.

# 443 NateDogPack12 @ 12/26/15 02:08 PM

Here's the thing, Dan... As someone who is petitioning the EA representatives to implement something you created, there is an inherent conflict of interest wherein it behooves you to undermine this gentleman's work. It's a self-promotional lambasting instead of an objective arena of ideas, or at the very best it has the potential to be so anyway.

I have seen you advocate for your ratings many times as if they are perfect or the best solution. I disagree completely. I think EA had it right when they actually tightened the curve back in the Madden 07 XBOX days. We can respectfully disagree on those fundamental principles and there's nothing wrong with that

I just feel like grandstanding and personal promotion isn't the best way to address EA.

# 444 DCEBB2001 @ 12/26/15 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trojan Man


	This is the part that the crowd advocating for an FGB revolution doesn't talk enough about in my opinion. I'm fine with FGB or any other system that seeks to incorporate more realistic data into the game and that seeks to achieve a greater ratings distribution across the league and across individual rosters. But, none of that work will mean a thing if the threshold values at which animations trigger are not re-calibrated to fit whatever new scale is implemented. The reason is that Madden is an animation-based game, not a physics-based game, so fetishizing raw, verifiable, historical physical data and real scouting metrics only have meaning for M17 insofar as they can be tied effectively into the game's existing framework of numerically-triggered animation sequences. So my big take on this thread is that whoever fills the vacuum left by Donny Moore's absence--and I don't know the guy, so I can't say anything about him one way or the other--must account for the game's current dependence on animations triggered by certain numerical values. Ideally, Madden would rebuild itself as a physics-based game where these linkages would be easier to achieve, but there's no way that's happening, not as I see it anyway.

I totally agree, and that is one caveat that I have made very clear with the brass at EA - in order for these things to work correctly, we have to be able to have some say on how they are implemented in the game itself. All of it is moot unless we are used to let the ratings drive the game. It's all just window-dressing until that happens.

In my honest opinion, I think that we may be closer to a day when EA has a real competitor in the NFL video game arena, and I am prepared for that possibility as well. If it were up to me, I would blow the whole thing up, make the game be data driven, and have the animations follow that data. It would require a reboot and real physics, however, which is likely going to be too costly for EA to see as a real option.

You don't have to tell me that simply changing the ratings will fix everything. We already know the limitations of the project, hence why we are always pursuing other vendors. I am considering this effort this year to be the last ditch effort in getting this data into the game. If it doesn't work now, after getting something tangible into the right hands at EA, it won't ever happen. We know this, and are prepared to seek other opportunities outside of the football gaming world; more in-line with our sister site, NFLDraftScout.com.

# 445 DCEBB2001 @ 12/26/15 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NateDogPack12


	Here's the thing, Dan... As someone who is petitioning the EA representatives to implement something you created, there is an inherent conflict of interest wherein it behooves you to undermine this gentleman's work. It's a self-promotional lambasting instead of an objective arena of ideas, or at the very best it has the potential to be so anyway. I have seen you advocate for your ratings many times as if they are perfect or the best solution. I disagree completely. I think EA had it right when they actually tightened the curve back in the Madden 07 XBOX days. We can respectfully disagree on those fundamental principles and there's nothing wrong with that I just feel like grandstanding and personal promotion isn't the best way to address EA.

I didn't undermine anything regarding his work, I just don't agree with his cited methodology of "film study and PFF". What I am doing is asking if he has a trained background in game film analysis. Is that so wrong of me to ask knowing that he doesn't have to, and likely won't, answer? You already know where I stand on PFF and I constantly question their methodology as well (like how it says on their FAQ page that they are not scouts and that they only look at the outcome of the play).

EA already knows my stance and I have already had those conversations with Rex, et al. They assured me that I am in no penalty for continuing to display my opinions on these boards. You can call it grandstanding if you like, but to me I am simply asking questions. I am not attempting to win everyone over here because that will never happen, but what I do want is an open dialogue about alternative methodologies. That requires us to ask questions and be critical. You all know I have had my fair share of that on these boards, but at least I am as transparent as I can legally be.

Now, do I stand by my work? Yes. Do I stand by the methodologies that I employ? Yes. Am I proud of it. Yes. However, if asking questions and entering into a constructive debate (especially whereas my past line of questioning was outright met with disdain, sarcasm, and a bunch of non-answers) makes me a grandstanding, self-promoting, whatever-you-want-to-call-me, then so be it. I can handle that.

# 446 mestevo @ 12/26/15 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Is that so wrong of me to ask knowing that he doesn't have to, and likely won't, answer? You already know where I stand on PFF and I constantly question their methodology as well (like how it says on their FAQ page that they are not scouts and that they only look at the outcome of the play). EA already knows my stance and I have already had those conversations with Rex, et al. They assured me that I am in no penalty for continuing to display my opinions on these boards. You can call it grandstanding if you like, but to me I am simply asking questions. I am not attempting to win everyone over here because that will never happen, but what I do want is an open dialogue about alternative methodologies. That requires us to ask questions and be critical. You all know I have had my fair share of that on these boards, but at least I am as transparent as I can legally be. Now, do I stand by my work? Yes. Do I stand by the methodologies that I employ? Yes. Am I proud of it. Yes. However, if asking questions and entering into a constructive debate (especially whereas my past line of questioning was outright met with disdain, sarcasm, and a bunch of non-answers) makes me a grandstanding, self-promoting, whatever-you-want-to-call-me, then so be it. I can handle that.

I think you had a leg to stand on until you flat out admit you didn't expect him to answer - which by your own admission is grandstanding, as you did not intend to 'enter into a constructive debate' - your words. You're bypassing the dialog you try and claim to have and instead openly discrediting which is putting it nicely.

Qualifications to do a job are not a dialog on ratings. It goes right up there with all of the 'developers suck'-style premises that go into so many posts and are the least bit constructive because they bypass criticism of the game and instead make it personal.

# 447 DCEBB2001 @ 12/26/15 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mestevo


	I think you had a leg to stand on until you flat out admit you didn't expect him to answer - which by your own admission is grandstanding, as you did not intend to 'enter into a constructive debate' - your words. You're bypassing the dialog you try and claim to have and instead openly discrediting which is putting it nicely. Qualifications to do a job are not a dialog on ratings. It goes right up there with all of the 'developers suck'-style premises that go into so many posts and are the least bit constructive because they bypass criticism of the game and instead make it personal.

I don't expect anything on here, but I will still ask the questions hoping for a debate. The last time I tried, it was met with static, hence why there are not any expectations. I welcome a constructive debate more than anything, but it takes two to do that. Thus, it just looks like I am asking for the sake of asking despite my line of questioning having merit. I think that the disclosure of qualifications is a good way to start. I guess my style is just different from what you would like, which is OK too.

# 448 RogueHominid @ 12/26/15 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I totally agree, and that is one caveat that I have made very clear with the brass at EA - in order for these things to work correctly, we have to be able to have some say on how they are implemented in the game itself. All of it is moot unless we are used to let the ratings drive the game. It's all just window-dressing until that happens. In my honest opinion, I think that we may be closer to a day when EA has a real competitor in the NFL video game arena, and I am prepared for that possibility as well. If it were up to me, I would blow the whole thing up, make the game be data driven, and have the animations follow that data. It would require a reboot and real physics, however, which is likely going to be too costly for EA to see as a real option. You don't have to tell me that simply changing the ratings will fix everything. We already know the limitations of the project, hence why we are always pursuing other vendors. I am considering this effort this year to be the last ditch effort in getting this data into the game. If it doesn't work now, after getting something tangible into the right hands at EA, it won't ever happen. We know this, and are prepared to seek other opportunities outside of the football gaming world; more in-line with our sister site, NFLDraftScout.com.

Frankly, that's good to hear; I hadn't heard you say that before.

I've read lots of your posts, but not all of them, so it wasn't clear to me that this was your position.

If it is, I'm totally behind them investing in you, though I get from a business standpoint why they might be reticent to do so as you're the proprietor of your data and system, not them. So my sense is they'd have to buy not only the data, but also the methodology of interpreting the data and interpolating it into the game, which could be expensive.

I'm not for anyone losing his or her job, as these are generally tough times, but I am for Mdden doing a better job with ratings and I'm for Madden doing a better job of making the ratings and game play they deliver as close to an authentic NFL experience as possible.

# 449 roadman @ 12/26/15 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	That's true, and he can choose to answer if he wishes. I just don't think that it is beyond anyone to ask questions, respectfully, in this forum of the devs. What I don't like is when they are met with disrespect back, as if asking in itself was disrespectful. Wouldn't be the first time, that's for sure: http://www.operationsports.com/forum...updates-5.html

I don't have any issues you asking questions professionally and respectfully, if it's done in a tactful manner without it becoming more about you than the person at EA you are addressing.

That's the way it came across to me and I can tell I'm not the only one that felt the same way.

Sorry, that's the vibe I get and appears many others received it the same way I did.

If you disagree, great, no problem, agree to disagree.

# 450 DCEBB2001 @ 12/26/15 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trojan Man


	Frankly, that's good to hear; I hadn't heard you say that before. I've read lots of your posts, but not all of them, so it wasn't clear to me that this was your position. If it is, I'm totally behind them investing in you, though I get from a business standpoint why they might be reticent to do so as you're the proprietor of your data and system, not them. So my sense is they'd have to buy not only the data, but also the methodology of interpreting the data and interpolating it into the game, which could be expensive. I'm not for anyone losing his or her job, as these are generally tough times, but I am for Mdden doing a better job with ratings and I'm for Madden doing a better job of making the ratings and game play they deliver as close to an authentic NFL experience as possible.

I can't give up any of the source data that I have as I am bound by NDAs. The guys at EA are well aware of that. However, what I can do is interpolate that data into a different system. That interpolated data and I, however, are a package deal. I can't sell the source material, but I can sell the interpolated ratings. Rex Dickson knows that if I get involved it will likely have to be as an outsourced 3rd party and not as a full-time employee of EA/Tiburon.

Basically, if you see the direction the site is going in, we will provide all of the data for everything player-profile-based. That covers info, equipment, appearance, ratings, traits, contracts, etc. Once we get all of the data in place and my new webmaster cleans some stuff up, it should be a one-stop-shop for everything you need to not only edit a player, but create one from scratch in Madden. That is the present goal.

# 451 DCEBB2001 @ 12/26/15 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadman


	I don't have any issues you asking questions professionally and respectfully, if it's done in a tactful manner without it becoming more about you than the person at EA you are addressing. That's the way it came across to me and I can tell I'm not the only one that felt the same way. Sorry, that's the vibe I get and appears many others received it the same way I did. If you disagree, great, no problem, agree to disagree.

I think that it should come down to giving someone the benefit of the doubt. So much is lost in translation on a message board that I myself often have to do that. I take a step back and ask myself what the person is really attempting to convey.

To quote him, he said, "I go off tape and PFF..... hard to have any opinion in it really."

OK, so now the first thing that comes to mind when I see that is there are a million ways to analyze tape, and not all of them are equal. Some ARE better than others, and I know that from PERSONAL experience. I want to know if he has any formal training that would alleviate any uneasiness I may have about him possibly doing it incorrectly or without formal training from a professional. Then, I want to know where/who he learned it from. Who knows? Maybe we know some of the same people in the business!

It's really that simple. However, I even took it a step further to exemplify what I have personally done to illustrate that you can have humble beginnings in a career of scouting (like as a HS football coach or working for a 3rd party website) knowing full well that what matters is where you finish and not where you start. That was not an attempt to toot my own horn, but rather, an attempt to open up a bit in the hopes that he too would open up and be a bit more transparent; something EA devs have lacked often around here.

To me, if someone is going to cite their use of film study, I want to know if they know how to properly use it. That's just me though because of my background in that world. It isn't easy. In fact, it sucks. Little pay for lots of work. I also understand that likely, nobody else cares about my inquiry or his background, and that's fine. However, nothing I said in there was a violation of the TOS from what I understand, so it seems as though I am getting beaten up over simply asking a question and framing it because people misunderstood where I am coming from.

The bottom line is that before anyone jumps on anyone we all need to do a better job of giving each other the benefit of the doubt.

# 452 roadman @ 12/26/15 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I think that it should come down to giving someone the benefit of the doubt. So much is lost in translation on a message board that I myself often have to do that. I take a step back and ask myself what the person is really attempting to convey. To quote him, he said, "I go off tape and PFF..... hard to have any opinion in it really." OK, so now the first thing that comes to mind when I see that is there are a million ways to analyze tape, and not all of them are equal. Some ARE better than others, and I know that from PERSONAL experience. I want to know if he has any formal training that would alleviate any uneasiness I may have about him possibly doing it incorrectly or without formal training from a professional. Then, I want to know where/who he learned it from. Who knows? Maybe we know some of the same people in the business! It's really that simple. However, I even took it a step further to exemplify what I have personally done to illustrate that you can have humble beginnings in a career of scouting (like as a HS football coach or working for a 3rd party website) knowing full well that what matters is where you finish and not where you start. That was not an attempt to toot my own horn, but rather, an attempt to open up a bit in the hopes that he too would open up and be a bit more transparent; something EA devs have lacked often around here. To me, if someone is going to cite their use of film study, I want to know if they know how to properly use it. That's just me though because of my background in that world. It isn't easy. In fact, it sucks. Little pay for lots of work. I also understand that likely, nobody else cares about my inquiry or his background, and that's fine. However, nothing I said in there was a violation of the TOS from what I understand, so it seems as though I am getting beaten up over simply asking a question and framing it because people misunderstood where I am coming from. The bottom line is that before anyone jumps on anyone we all need to do a better job of giving each other the benefit of the doubt.

I didn't say there was a violation of the TOS. And please, don't look at as though people are "jumping on you", take it as friendly advice and suggestions. I doubt anyone will change your mind.

I'm all for Madden becoming a realistic NFL experience and if that includes using your ratings, that's fine by me.

I feel that is a decision that EA will make inside their offices, not to be debated here at OS.

I just don't find it appropriate and professional for asking someone to provide their qualifications on a private forum. I feel that should have been addressed in a PM and or EA to go through the decision making process in Orlando.

I've been in the professional employment field a long time and find it personally inappropriate to ask for qualifications in this arena. Once the poster said tape and PFF....if I had your experience, I would have used the PM system.

That's all I'll say on the matter.

# 453 jb12780 @ 12/27/15 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SECElit3


	Cam Newton stats today: 17/34 with less than 150 passing... What is he rated again in Madden? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

To be fair he's had a pretty good season. 40 total TD's isn't bad.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

# 454 kehlis @ 12/27/15 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SECElit3


	Cam Newton stats today: 17/34 with less than 150 passing... What is he rated again in Madden? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Playing Monday morning quarterback is always a lot of fun.

# 455 mestevo @ 12/27/15 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SECElit3


	And... Here we see a great example of why we will never see realistic ratings in Madden. Cam Newton is not a Hall of Fame quarterback and shouldn't be rated as one Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Depends on how the ratings work/what they represent. They're a snapshot in time for the most part but aren't a lifetime portrait of their ability.

Most outside of physical characteristics should ebb and flow with coaching, injuries and opportunity.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

# 456 roadman @ 12/27/15 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SECElit3


	And... Here we see a great example of why we will never see realistic ratings in Madden. Cam Newton is not a Hall of Fame quarterback and shouldn't be rated as one Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

He is this year and he in the MVP discussion.

# 457 Gman 18 @ 12/27/15 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mestevo


	Depends on how the ratings work/what they represent. They're a snapshot in time for the most part but aren't a lifetime portrait of their ability. Most outside of physical characteristics should ebb and flow with coaching, injuries and opportunity. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

A player's individual ratings carry far more weigh than their overall rating. The way madden's ratings system is set up, some ratings that don't mean as much when it comes to gameplay or aren't represented very realistically, such as awareness or play recognition, take on more of an impact when forming a player's overall rating.

Speed has almost always been the most/one of the most crucial attributes for skills players, no matter what the rest of that players ratings were. I remember how dominant Brandon Banks was in madden 12 and 13 based purely on his speed rating. The guy occasionally flat out dropped the ball, but pretty much 90% of the time, his speed made him dominant. So when it comes to ratings in madden, it is best to critique a players individual rating first before the overall ratings. That being said, I believe most players attributes are overrated in the game, but people spend too much time complaining about a mostly meaningless overall rating as opposed to individual ratings.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

# 458 Millennium @ 12/27/15 09:06 PM

So much absolutely disrespect for fellow posters and devs thrown around in here. I'm truly sickened that some of you trot around this community as long time users and expect yourselves to be treated like idols, then when a dev comes in here you fire back with undertones of "Better than thou".

This close to banning the entire lot of you, so tread lightly.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

# 459 DCEBB2001 @ 12/27/15 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gman 18


	A player's individual ratings carry far more weigh than their overall rating. The way madden's ratings system is set up, some ratings that don't mean as much when it comes to gameplay or aren't represented very realistically, such as awareness or play recognition, take on more of an impact when forming a player's overall rating. Speed has almost always been the most/one of the most crucial attributes for skills players, no matter what the rest of that players ratings were. I remember how dominant Brandon Banks was in madden 12 and 13 based purely on his speed rating. The guy occasionally flat out dropped the ball, but pretty much 90% of the time, his speed made him dominant. So when it comes to ratings in madden, it is best to critique a players individual rating first before the overall ratings. That being said, I believe most players attributes are overrated in the game, but people spend too much time complaining about a mostly meaningless overall rating as opposed to individual ratings.

Also bear in mind that the OVR ratings are a positive correlated function of the attribute values. As in, if the OVR ratings are very high, the attributes that lead to that overall are also very high.

What EA really needs to do is pull in some historical empirical data to see EXACTLY where these attributes fall on a scale of say a full generation (20 years) or so. The big problem is that they are constantly setting the best every individual year equal to 99. It makes it impossible to differentiate between players from year to year and see how good, or weak, certain players are.

Physical attributes are a good place to start. Take the highest maximum velocity recorded in the past 20 years and set that to 99. Take the lowest and set it to 1. Use linear regression and 'viola', you have a realistic equal interval distribution of the SPD rating. Then, you can see how fast these players really are compared to a larger, more complete, population. Data distributions seemed to be completely ignored.

If you have a standardized set of historical data that can encompass such a timeline, you can see how good these players really are or aren't based upon that distribution.

The example of Cam Newton was brought up so let's use him as an example. The scouting data that I have goes back to 1996, so I basically have 20 seasons worth of scouting data to rely on. On that scale, Newton currently grades in at an 7.51 OVR grade. That's pretty darn good. To put that into context, only 14 QBs have had a grade that high or higher since 1996:

Peyton Manning (2000) 10.00
Tom Brady (2008) 10.00
Brett Favre (2001) 9.99
Aaron Rodgers (2011) 9.99
Kurt Warner (2001) 9.33
Drew Bledsoe (2000) 8.95
Drew Brees (2011) 8.66
Rich Gannon (2003) 8.22
Philip Rivers (2010) 8.21
Eli Manning (2009) 8.10
Donovan McNabb (2003) 8.02
Jeff Garcia (2002) 7.95
Mark Brunell (2000) 7.82
Steve McNair (2003) 7.76
Daunte Culpepper (2004) 7.50

There is no doubt, that this year he is performing among the best in the NFL at his position. However, when you place him on a historical scale per the scouts, it wouldn't even be top 100 in the last 20 years (the guys above have their best season listed, not including the multiple times they were above 7.51 in other seasons).

Once again, I think EA needs to pull from a more broad context instead of just one year at a time so we can really see how these players rate compared to the all-time greats of this generation. That in itself would help alleviate the issue of over-inflation of the attributes, and consequently, the OVR ratings.

You can't have high OVRs without high attributes. Both need to be rectified.

# 460 roadman @ 12/27/15 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Also bear in mind that the OVR ratings are a positive correlated function of the attribute values. As in, if the OVR ratings are very high, the attributes that lead to that overall are also very high. What EA really needs to do is pull in some historical empirical data to see EXACTLY where these attributes fall on a scale of say a full generation (20 years) or so. The big problem is that they are constantly setting the best every individual year equal to 99. It makes it impossible to differentiate between players from year to year and see how good, or weak, certain players are. Physical attributes are a good place to start. Take the highest maximum velocity recorded in the past 20 years and set that to 99. Take the lowest and set it to 1. Use linear regression and 'viola', you have a realistic equal interval distribution of the SPD rating. Then, you can see how fast these players really are compared to a larger, more complete, population. Data distributions seemed to be completely ignored. If you have a standardized set of historical data that can encompass such a timeline, you can see how good these players really are or aren't based upon that distribution. The example of Cam Newton was brought up so let's use him as an example. The scouting data that I have goes back to 1996, so I basically have 20 seasons worth of scouting data to rely on. On that scale, Newton currently grades in at an 7.51 OVR grade. That's pretty darn good. To put that into context, only 14 QBs have had a grade that high or higher since 1996: Peyton Manning (2000) 10.00 Tom Brady (2008) 10.00 Brett Favre (2001) 9.99 Aaron Rodgers (2011) 9.99 Kurt Warner (2001) 9.33 Drew Bledsoe (2000) 8.95 Drew Brees (2011) 8.66 Rich Gannon (2003) 8.22 Philip Rivers (2010) 8.21 Eli Manning (2009) 8.10 Donovan McNabb (2003) 8.02 Jeff Garcia (2002) 7.95 Mark Brunell (2000) 7.82 Steve McNair (2003) 7.76 Daunte Culpepper (2004) 7.50 There is no doubt, that this year he is performing among the best in the NFL at his position. However, when you place him on a historical scale per the scouts, it wouldn't even be top 100 in the last 20 years (the guys above have their best season listed, not including the multiple times they were above 7.51 in other seasons). Once again, I think EA needs to pull from a more broad context instead of just one year at a time so we can really see how these players rate compared to the all-time greats of this generation. That in itself would help alleviate the issue of over-inflation of the attributes, and consequently, the OVR ratings. You can't have high OVRs without high attributes. Both need to be rectified.

I get what you are saying DCEBB, but when I play Madden, (been playing since early 90's) I am just like the rest of the buying public.

I am playing in the now, at the moment, I don't care what Aaron Rodgers did for the last several years, I only care about what he is doing now. Over the last several years, he would belong in the hall and deserves a 99, but this year, he's not having HOF numbers. I don't care what Culpepper and McNair did 20 yrs ago, I'm playing Madden 16.

And as far as Cam Newton is concerned, his threat of running should be in the equation as well.

So, I don't feel Rodgers should be a 99 just because historically he's been there before. And his numbers should go down this week too.

I hope that makes sense.

« Previous 1 2…19 20 21 222324 25 26 27 Next »

More Links

Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA