Charting the Change in Rookie Ratings in Madden

[MMChrisS]

Another NFL Draft is behind us, and naturally, the talk among gamers has turned to the Madden ratings of this year’s top rookies. But before we look forward, let’s take a look back to rookies in the time of bench press drills and lead blocking controls – Madden 07.

We all know that Madden doesn’t rate players on the same scale anymore. Five years ago, a rookie at 71 OVR would be a scrub with no future.

Read More - Charting the Change in Rookie Ratings in Madden

[TheShizNo1]

Madden 07's roster was awesome. I'd do a fantasy draft and get the players you mentioned (Bush, Young, and Davis). That's definitely one of the things Madden does a better job at now. Now you have to actually invest time into your rookies to see growth which is much more realistic.

[msdm27]

Very interesting read.

I think Madden 12 rookie ratings were, for the most part, really good. You could find a wide variety of prospects.... Immediate impact, average players, developmental, busts, hidden gems.... And even the potentials (without getting into whether this feature works properly or not) seemed to be well distributed among the available players in each rookie class.

The one gripe I have with M12 rookie ratings is I think there are a bit too many 80+ rated players in each draft, I know it always happens that teams find diamonds in the rough in the 3rd, 4th or 5th round, but I feel like I'd personally like it more if these "diamonds" were found in the form of A potential with around 74-79 rating... Players that, given the chance to play, would make a difference; but not just obvious starters from day 1 who were drafted in the 5th round.

I'm not saying remove 80+ rated players alltogether, but just reduce the amount we find in draft classes. Other than that, my only issue with draft classes is the ULTRA-BAD system they use to determine height/weight of rookies by position.... lots of midgets playing football in madden generated draft classes world.

DANG! I just realized the article is referring to the current incoming draft class for that year's game IE: 2011 rookie class (Cam, Miller...) :P Sorry for mumbling, but those were my thoughts on Madden rookie ratings.

[Dj_MyTime]

I like the drop in overalls, but IMO the ovr rating is irrelevant. It's a place-holder fro the CPU depth chart.

Example Wes Welker is the highest rated Patriots receiver, their playbook is designed to have the no. 2 WR (Wes Welker) in the slot by DEFAULT (no manual/formation subs); but, because of the way things work currently he would line up at no. 1 without user adjustments and in any game vs the CPU you get a less realistic experience from an X's and O's stand-point as far as where he'd normally line up.

IMO the rookies 'positional stats' are too high and leave little room for improvement/progression. See Below...

1 Andrew Luck QB Colts
ovr 85 spd 82 agi 84 inj 98 awr 62 tpw 92 tas 93 tam 92 tad 75

2 Robert Griffin III QB Redskins
ovr 83 spd 93 agi 96 inj 85 awr 55 tpw 96 tas 82 tam 86 tad 88

Those are their ratings coming out. I'm not saying they won't have great careers but Luck is better/as good as guys like Manning, Brees, Brady, Rodgers accuracy wise right out the box. I'm not saying he isn't an accurate QB but 93 SAC, and 92 MAC as a rookie, he may as well not even progress.

I'd think low to mid 80's, since he likely has 'A' potential he will progress quickly and reach the 90's in accuracy but having them that high from the beginning is a bit much IMO. Griffin's aren't as high but he's already on par with Matt Schaub's accuracy if memory serves, and he's a pro-bowler.

I understand these are supposed to be once in a generation type players, BUT they still have to play first, I'd be much more in agreement with under-rating players coming out, then adjusting once they play in the NFL.

[chi_hawks]

Nice job here Bo. I have always wondered about this.

I think it was Madden 09 or Madden 10 where I imported draft classes from NCAA and Tim Tebow was an 88 overall (with like 91 speed) and Malcom Jenkins from OSU was a 93 overall. Both got like 75 million dollar contracts.

[khaliib]

These high ratings in many ways defeat the DPP aspect and limit the drafting/gameplay experience because there is really only about a 30 pt window that separate players.

For some reason, much of the lower end of the 12-99 (or 12-55) scale has a negative perception attached to it without a really good reason other than it would "Look" strange having an 30 OVR rated player on a roster.

Thus, certain type of player's are negated because of this perception...

-->3rd down RB's have no business being rated high when they are in for only one play of a series.
-->Yes, they possess a certain skill that would benefit an Offense, but to rate them so high just to be in-line with a perception makes no sense and in my mind, under utilize part of the building aspect of the game (whether Team or Player).

-->Special Team Specialist
-->What's wrong with a 30 OVR rated WR/RB/DB who lacks the skillset for a specific position, but will avg 25+ yrds on KO or avg 15 yrds on PR?
-->As it stands, this guy must occupy a specific postition, thus be at least rated 55+ OVR rated at that position eventhough he's mainly just a Special Teams guy.

As stated, the OVR currently is just a Depth Chart designator and some other hidden things (in past releases, it decided the pecking order of who got the ball thrown to them), eventhough it's supposed to be a "Value" designator.

The other major thing is that how the ratings are weighted in the OVR.
Just because a player has certain Physical Measurements doesn't mean his OVR should increase as those measurements increase.

-->Raiders are a perfect example of how "Fast" players doesn't mean they will translate into good players, thus, good team.

So the weight of Physical Measurements in the OVR calculation needs to be minimized greatly.

Thank God they give us an editor (although very time consuming) to edit our own rosters, as I like to utilize more of the lower end of the 12-99 scale.

And yes I know that many of the player ratings actually mean/have little on-field gameplay impact, but that's an discussion not getting into again.

[Heroiczero13]

I'm glad that on average the rookie ratings are lower now, it makes things a bit more realistic for me. They may have been supreme college talents but they still have to earn there way in the league.

[Hova57]

for me the biggest issue is the actually progression, especially in OF's i feel like the potentials limit rookie progress. Stats and playing time doesn't matter. were in year six in our OF and my rookies from 2011 season all are starting to regress regardless of how well or not they did during previous seasons. I think that should change too. i don't want a team full of 99 ovr , but the specific skillset for each position should regulate how good that player is, not a potential or ovr. this also trickles down to created players drafted too.

[PGaither84]

A lot of those rookie ratting in Madden 07 were pretty spot on. Davis is a Beast, Manny Lawson was only a tiny bit over rated. He flat lined at about an 80-82 OVR as a 49er. We have seen what Reggie and others have done. I'd like to see where those same rookies OVR ratings are now in Madden 12.

[Vaporub83]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dj_MyTime

I like the drop in overalls, but IMO the ovr rating is irrelevant. It's a place-holder fro the CPU depth chart. Example Wes Welker is the highest rated Patriots receiver, their playbook is designed to have the no. 2 WR (Wes Welker) in the slot by DEFAULT (no manual/formation subs); but, because of the way things work currently he would line up at no. 1 without user adjustments and in any game vs the CPU you get a less realistic experience from an X's and O's stand-point as far as where he'd normally line up. IMO the rookies 'positional stats' are too high and leave little room for improvement/progression. See Below... 1 Andrew Luck QB Colts ovr 85 spd 82 agi 84 inj 98 awr 62 tpw 92 tas 93 tam 92 tad 75 2 Robert Griffin III QB Redskins ovr 83 spd 93 agi 96 inj 85 awr 55 tpw 96 tas 82 tam 86 tad 88 Those are their ratings coming out. I'm not saying they won't have great careers but Luck is better/as good as guys like Manning, Brees, Brady, Rodgers accuracy wise right out the box. I'm not saying he isn't an accurate QB but 93 SAC, and 92 MAC as a rookie, he may as well not even progress. I'd think low to mid 80's, since he likely has 'A' potential he will progress quickly and reach the 90's in accuracy but having them that high from the beginning is a bit much IMO. Griffin's aren't as high but he's already on par with Matt Schaub's accuracy if memory serves, and he's a pro-bowler. I understand these are supposed to be once in a generation type players, BUT they still have to play first, I'd be much more in agreement with under-rating players coming out, then adjusting once they play in the NFL.

Realistically there isn't a way to fix that. Bottom line if you are a rookie or a veteran physical attributes should be on a standard scale. Accuracy is a physical thing that shouldn't change just because you are in the NFL