All Ratings Talk Here Per Millennium

[Maelstrom-XIII]

Barber is higher because he's on "America's Team"...what a load of.......

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by Maelstrom-XIII

Barber is higher because he's on "America's Team"...what a load of.......

This is definitely part of it. Barber as 91 is grossly overrated. He should really be a mid 80s player.

Part of him being rated higher than jacobs is probably due to his catching ability but I don't really see what else he does better than brandon. Brandon on the other hand is stronger in every one of their strengths.

[Jukeman]

Quote: Originally Posted by I Peench

I was raised in Philly, 5-10 minutes from where Westbrook went to college. As a Giants fan, he's the only Eagle I can STAND. As a matter of fact, I actually like Westbrook. To say he is 97 speed is just bias on your part and ridiculous. Like I said, he's extremely elusive and should have 99 acc. He gets to top speed as quickly as anyone in the NFL. Bottom line: you DONT run a 4.6 40 and have 97 Madden speed. PERIOD. He is effective in the open field because the Eagles run arguably the BEST screen in the NFL. I've witnessed it for years on TV and in person several times. Ian said he had a very long rushing TD with Earnest Graham in 10, and he has 80 speed. The touchdown was a product of excellent downfield blocking, which is exactly how the Eagles get those long touchdowns (think Buckhalters dump off against the Cowboys). Now that this is represented in Madden, you can cut Westbrook speedand still get an accurate representation of his talents. I've yet to see anyone without an Eagles avatar disagree with me. Like I said, give him 99 acc high agility and 88-92 speed. He is not an elite speed guy. That label belongs to VERY few people: Chris Johnson, Fabian Washington, maybe 5 or 6 more...these guys should have 96+ speed. Anybody who thinks WBrooks straight line speed is on par with these guys is out of there mind. I'd love to see Donny hope on here and share his thoughts on Westbrook, as well as give me an explanation as to why Barber is rated higher than Jacobs

100% agree and I loved him since Nova....

Barber is def overrated...86 not 91

[Candyman5]

Quote: Originally Posted by I Peench

I was raised in Philly, 5-10 minutes from where Westbrook went to college. As a Giants fan, he's the only Eagle I can STAND. As a matter of fact, I actually like Westbrook. To say he is 97 speed is just bias on your part and ridiculous. Like I said, he's extremely elusive and should have 99 acc. He gets to top speed as quickly as anyone in the NFL. Bottom line: you DONT run a 4.6 40 and have 97 Madden speed. PERIOD. He is effective in the open field because the Eagles run arguably the BEST screen in the NFL. I've witnessed it for years on TV and in person several times. Ian said he had a very long rushing TD with Earnest Graham in 10, and he has 80 speed. The touchdown was a product of excellent downfield blocking, which is exactly how the Eagles get those long touchdowns (think Buckhalters dump off against the Cowboys). Now that this is represented in Madden, you can cut Westbrook speedand still get an accurate representation of his talents. I've yet to see anyone without an Eagles avatar disagree with me. Like I said, give him 99 acc high agility and 88-92 speed. He is not an elite speed guy. That label belongs to VERY few people: Chris Johnson, Fabian Washington, maybe 5 or 6 more...these guys should have 96+ speed. Anybody who thinks WBrooks straight line speed is on par with these guys is out of there mind. I'd love to see Donny hope on here and share his thoughts on Westbrook, as well as give me an explanation as to why Barber is rated higher than Jacobs

This!
Just saying that Westbrook is the second best in the league with his overal is just ridiculis.

[bigboii30]

If Brett Farve comes back he should be in the 90s as far as his rating.
Going over his stats last year he had better stats than Big Ben except for Ints. There was a debate open on another thread but it has been closed. Thoughts and facts please.

[cowboyscowboys]

Quote: Originally Posted by Maelstrom-XIII

Barber is higher because he's on "America's Team"...what a load of.......

That is B.S. it has nothing to do with him being a Cowboy. People need to understand the team a guy plays on has no barring on his rating. Yes he is overrated, and it has to do with public perception. After our 13-3 season most people thought he would be a 1,300+ yd 15 TD back. Well he is 0-1, but obviously still flashed at times last year. Either way I would rate him 87 probably because he can do everything pretty well.

Jay Ratliff is on "America's team" why was his overall rating only 88 at the end of last year placing him about 15th overall for DT's? Clearly should of been 92+ Ovr.

[chris luva luva]

I really don't think DeAngelo Hall should have dropped as far as he has but oh well, they'll adjust it if he keeps playing at the level he did in Wash.

[cedwebb]

Quote: Originally Posted by bigboii30

If Brett Farve comes back he should be in the 90s as far as his rating. Going over his stats last year he had better stats than Big Ben except for Ints. There was a debate open on another thread but it has been closed. Thoughts and facts please.

Yeah I started it not even remembering this place exsisted

I had to laugh cause I gave him a 93 and got heck for it. I also said that I wasn't that great at the rating game, and maybe a little biased.

My adjusted ratings:

Short range- 95- The guy flat out is accurate, underhanded, overhanded, anywhere within 15 yard he is on the money. As a Vikings fan I have watched alot of his games. He might be old but he can still put the ball where it needs to be, that never goes away IMO.

Medium Range- 89- I know his arm strength is in question but at the beginnig of last year before the injury he didn't have a problem passing the ball where it needed to go. His arm is still better than alot of guys in the league, even at his age.

Long Range-88- Ok, he is 39 years old and he has lost arm strength. Someone in the thread mentioned that he was underthrowing balls even before the injury. Sure, but look where he was throwing, the Meadowlands (very windy).

Overall Rating- 90-92 - Not budging much from a 93 before. The guy can still play and he can still throw the ball probably better than more than half the starting QBs in the league. Lets be honest, he gets knocked more now because of all the drama, if he was still a Packer what would people be rating him at?

[Falzon]

Quote: Originally Posted by cedwebb

Yeah I started it not even remembering this place exsisted I had to laugh cause I gave him a 93 and got heck for it. I also said that I wasn't that great at the rating game, and maybe a little biased. My adjusted ratings: Short range- 95- The guy flat out is accurate, underhanded, overhanded, anywhere within 15 yard he is on the money. As a Vikings fan I have watched alot of his games. He might be old but he can still put the ball where it needs to be, that never goes away IMO. Medium Range- 89- I know his arm strength is in question but at the beginnig of last year before the injury he didn't have a problem passing the ball where it needed to go. His arm is still better than alot of guys in the league, even at his age. Long Range-88- Ok, he is 39 years old and he has lost arm strength. Someone in the thread mentioned that he was underthrowing balls even before the injury. Sure, but look where he was throwing, the Meadowlands (very windy). Overall Rating- 90-92 - Not budging much from a 93 before. The guy can still play and he can still throw the ball probably better than more than half the starting QBs in the league. Lets be honest, he gets knocked more now because of all the drama, if he was still a Packer what would people be rating him at?

In all honesty...i still love me some Brett Favre...but i'd rate him lower then Rodgers at this point in his career. i'm much more confident in ARod as a QB then Brett...to many uncertainties at the moment to give him such a high rating. If he was still a packer i'd give him an 83-85 under the new rating system. He is undoubtedly an upgrade over the 2 current Viking's Quarterbacks, but he is on a STEADY decline with regards to performance.

[ShimSham]

Quote: Originally Posted by bigboii30

If Brett Farve comes back he should be in the 90s as far as his rating. Going over his stats last year he had better stats than Big Ben except for Ints. There was a debate open on another thread but it has been closed. Thoughts and facts please.

You say that like INTs aren't important and that leading the league in INTS isn't a big deal.

And yeah he might have done better than Big Ben in some statistics, but that doesn't change the fact that he had the 16th best passer rating of all starting QBs last year. He was absolutely mediocre. His long ball disappears in the 2nd half of the season and he gets reckless and desperate when he tries too hard.

Having his stats anywhere in the 90s overall would be a joke.