All Ratings Talk Here Per Millennium

[cedwebb]

Quote: Originally Posted by ShimSham

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.

Brett has always thrown alot of INTs, I think he is pretty high on the list for all time if I'm not mistaking, and yet he has always been rated high in Madden.

I don't think he played mediocre at all last year. First half of the year he played great football. He had 6 TDs by week 4. Lets face it, the Jets flat out stunk before Brett got there,They were 4-12!! He comes in and carries them to 9-7 and one game away from the playoffs. Believe it, if he doesn't have the arm injury the Jets are in the playoffs last year and it wouldn't have happened without Favre. I know Packer fans want to say he is to old and over the hill and just mediocre, but that is just not 100% true. He is still a very good QB and will make the Vikings very tough to beat if he signs. Point is he should be a 90+ in Madden easily.

OMG this is very funny! A Viking fan arguing for Favre and a Packer fan arguing against Favre. I heard there is a big snowball fight in hell today.

[bigboii30]

Quote: Originally Posted by ShimSham

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.

Does Madden take into account his recklessness when formulating the ratings? I would agree he would be lower.

So if that is the case what should Big Ben be rated.

[ShimSham]

Quote: Originally Posted by cedwebb

Brett has always thrown alot of INTs, I think he is pretty high on the list for all time if I'm not mistaking, and yet he has always been rated high in Madden. I don't think he played mediocre at all last year. First half of the year he played great football. He had 6 TDs by week 4. Lets face it, the Jets flat out stunk before Brett got there,They were 4-12!! He comes in and carries them to 9-7 and one game away from the playoffs. Believe it, if he doesn't have the arm injury the Jets are in the playoffs last year and it wouldn't have happened without Favre. I know Packer fans want to say he is to old and over the hill and just mediocre, but that is just not 100% true. He is still a very good QB and will make the Vikings very tough to beat if he signs. Point is he should be a 90+ in Madden easily. OMG this is very funny! A Viking fan arguing for Favre and a Packer fan arguing against Favre. I heard there is a big snowball fight in hell today.

Brett carried the Jets? Really? Find me a Jets fan who will agree with that. Thomas Jones was one of the best rushers in the league and that defense was stout. And you want to say the Jets stunk before he got there and he carried them?

This is another case of the QB getting all the credit and none of the blame. The Jets spent a lot last off-season, Favre was hardly their only acquisition. They beefed up the O-line and the defense with the addition of guys like Faneca and Jenkins, JUST to name a few.

And don't blame his crappy performance in the last month of the season on the arm injury. He's done horribly in the last half of the season for 4-5 years now.

Quote:

This is the modern Brett Favre: 2005 First 11 weeks - 63,6%, 6.77 ypa, 19 TD, 19 INT (1.0:1) Final 5 weeks - 56.8%, 5.67 ypa, 1 TD, 10 INT (0.1:1) 2006 First 11 weeks - 57.1%, 6.54 ypa, 14 TD, 10 INT (1.4:1) Final 5 weeks - 53.8%, 5.96 ypa, 4 TD, 8 INT (0.5:1) 2007 First 11 weeks - 68.5%, 7.90 ypa, 22 TD, 8 INT (2.8:1) Final 5 weeks - 59.1%, 7.26 ypa, 6 TD, 7 INT (0.9:1) 2008 First 11 weeks - 70.6%, 7.09 ypa, 20 TD, 13 INT (1.5:1) Final 5 weeks - 56.0%, 5.78 ypa, 2 TD, 9 INT (0.2:1) Per game averages last 4 years: First 11 weeks - 64.8%, 7.08 ypa, 1.7 TD/gm, 1.14 INT/gm (1.5:1) Final 5 weeks - 56.1%, 6.03 ypa, 0.65 TD/gm, 1.7 INT/gm (0.4:1) Over the same time span, week 1 averages: 58.4%, 5.63 YPA, 0.5 TD/gm, 1.2 INT/gm (0.4:1)

The data is courtesy a poster from the Football's Future boards.

So yeah, it was just the arm injury that kept them out of the playoffs. Please.

So okay, you can give Favre an overall rating of 90 for 10 weeks out of the season, and then a rating of about 70 overall down the stretch.

[cedwebb]

Quote: Originally Posted by ShimSham

Brett carried the Jets? Really? Find me a Jets fan who will agree with that. Thomas Jones was one of the best rushers in the league and that defense was stout. And you want to say the Jets stunk before he got there and he carried them? This is another case of the QB getting all the credit and none of the blame. The Jets spent a lot last off-season, Favre was hardly their only acquisition. They beefed up the O-line and the defense with the addition of guys like Faneca and Jenkins, JUST to name a few. And don't blame his crappy performance in the last month of the season on the arm injury. He's done horribly in the last half of the season for 4-5 years now. The data is courtesy a poster from the Football's Future boards. So yeah, it was just the arm injury that kept them out of the playoffs. Please. So okay, you can give Favre an overall rating of 90 for 10 weeks out of the season, and then a rating of about 70 overall down the stretch.

Ok...So if Brett isn't carrying them, why after his arm injury do the Jets finish the season losing 4 of their last 5 games?? Where were all the off-season upgrades not named Favre. I am not giving him all the credit, I am not giving the team any credit. When his performance got worse via injury, the rest of the team did not hold up.

Wow!! So going 13-3 with Favre in 2007 and almost making the Super Bowl is finishing horribly?? Really??

Yes sir, thats exactly what I am saying. They lost 4 of thier last 5 games while he was injured. The Jets were a healthy Favres arm away from a playoff team.

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by kcarr

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.

Barber might be rated higher, but he does not have the impact that Jacobs does in this game in the running game IMO. Unless they somehow radically change things, Jacobs was the more intimidating RB in the CD build bar none.

[Candyman5]

Quote: Originally Posted by ShimSham

Brett carried the Jets? Really? Find me a Jets fan who will agree with that. Thomas Jones was one of the best rushers in the league and that defense was stout. And you want to say the Jets stunk before he got there and he carried them? This is another case of the QB getting all the credit and none of the blame. The Jets spent a lot last off-season, Favre was hardly their only acquisition. They beefed up the O-line and the defense with the addition of guys like Faneca and Jenkins, JUST to name a few. And don't blame his crappy performance in the last month of the season on the arm injury. He's done horribly in the last half of the season for 4-5 years now. The data is courtesy a poster from the Football's Future boards. So yeah, it was just the arm injury that kept them out of the playoffs. Please. So okay, you can give Favre an overall rating of 90 for 10 weeks out of the season, and then a rating of about 70 overall down the stretch.

Suggestion to Ian and the Rating Guys:
Bret Farve: 61 Overall, 40 Pass Strength(1 point per yard he through at the end of the Jets season), 20 Deep ball Acc, and make sure you put his Injury at 2 so I can forcefully retire him in Madden. Done.

[NOBLE]

Matt Leinart got screwed. Any reason behind the decision to make him 62?

[Jukeman]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

Barber might be rated higher, but he does not have the impact that Jacobs does in this game in the running game IMO. Unless they somehow radically change things, Jacobs was the more intimidating RB in the CD build bar none.

Another reason they should "cover" the numbers with Letter grades

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by NOBLE

Matt Leinart got screwed. Any reason behind the decision to make him 62?

I don't know here. Could it have something to do with the more career ints than tds? Possibly something to do with him last year getting beat out for the starting job by a guy who is almost 40 was at the time considered washed up and is now expected to start over matt again this upcoming season?

Could it have something to do with the previous season where before getting injured and being out for the season his coach started bringing in kurt and phasing matt out of the offense because kurt was outplaying him?

Or could it be that he considered to be on the path to being a bust? Maybe the fact that after 3 years in the league he is no more proven than when he was drafted and actually is considered a worse qb by most people than what he was considered when he was drafted?

Life's great mystories, eh.

[pigspigs76]

Michael Mitchell
-------------------------------------------------------
Looking very closely at the ratings I feel Chris Clemons (Pick 29, Round 5) and Michael Mitchell should be VERY closely related in terms of there ratings. They both had extremely similar combine/proday results

both ran the 40 at 4.4
both had a 37.5 vertical leap
Similar broad jump, MM had a 10'3 broad jump while Clemons had a 10'7
Similar bench press, MM had 21 while Clemons had 19
Both had similar amount of pics (MM=6 CC=5)
ECT.....

The only really big difference is MM hit power which should be above 90... So assuming MM has practically the same ratings with the exception of hit power which would bump his overall up slightly they would both be in the mid 60's overall which I think is fair.

Chris Clemons is a 64 overall so maybe with the increase in hit power Michael Mitchell would be like a 65-67 (but i dont know how much weight is put on the hit power category in terms of a players overall)

So i present you with Clemons' ratings with Michael's hit power

Michael Mitchell SS

Overall: 64

SPD: 92
ACC: 95
STR: 65
AGI: 87
AWR: 35
CTH: 44
CAR: 55
THP: 25
THA: 30
KPW: 15
KAC: 14
RBK: 15
PBK: 25
TAK: 66
JMP: 87
RET: 42
INJ: 94
STAM: 86
TGH: 77
TRK: 20
ELUS: 45
BVC: 54
STIFF: 39
SPINN: 55
JUKE: 68
IBL: 40
RBS: 30
RBF: 25
PBS: 25
PMV: 37
FMV: 35
BLKSHED: 47
PUR: 72
PLAYREC: 68
MCV: 56
ZCV: 71
SPEC: 35
CIT: 44
RTE: 22
POW: +90
PRESS: 62
REL: 20
TAS: 15
TAM: 10
TAD: 10
PLACT: 15
THRUN: 15

I put the more interesting stuff in bold... and btw POW=hit power

please no a$$hat comments... this took allot of time and I would appreciate some serious feedback.

and ohhhh god please no referring the clowns on nfl network by making an argument about how high he was drafted blah blah blah