Home
Madden NFL 16 News Post


EA Sports has released more Madden NFL 16 ratings. Below are the top 5 tight ends in Madden NFL 16, more ratings on these players can be seen here.
  • Rob Gronkowski (99 OVR)
  • Jimmy Graham (95 OVR)
  • Jason Witten (93 OVR)
  • Greg Olsen (92 OVR)
  • Travis Kelce (91 OVR)
Previously released Madden NFL 16 player ratings:

Madden NFL 16 screenshot gallery - Click to view Madden NFL 16 screenshot gallery - Click to view Madden NFL 16 screenshot gallery - Click to view Madden NFL 16 screenshot gallery - Click to view Madden NFL 16 screenshot gallery - Click to view
Game: Madden NFL 16Reader Score: 7/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 23 - View All
Madden NFL 16 Videos
Member Comments
# 1 guppya @ 07/24/15 02:06 PM
Jesus how many players are rated above 95 on this game? Lmao.
 
# 2 The JareBear @ 07/24/15 02:07 PM
Yeah I think this was predictable. I don't have an issue with the order. Seems like everyone has great spec catch this year tho
 
# 3 The JareBear @ 07/24/15 02:11 PM
I know Julius Thomas is a big name but keep in mind he can't block. He's probably a 95 in terms of pass catching but the terrible block ratings probably brought his ovr to 89 or 90
 
# 4 DCEBB2001 @ 07/24/15 02:13 PM
Well, the OVRs are unreal again. A trend to continue, I imagine.

Here's mine:

Gronk: 82
Graham: 78
Olsen: 73
Witten: 71
Cameron: 68
 
# 5 guppya @ 07/24/15 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCEBB2001
Well, the OVRs are unreal again. A trend to continue, I imagine.

Here's mine:

Gronk: 82
Graham: 78
Olsen: 73
Witten: 71
Cameron: 68
I know your ratings make the game better. But perhaps you can adjust the ratings ratios better if you know what I mean, to make the game a bit more marketable. Like if you add 10 to all of those ratings I think it wouldn't be a complete turnoff aesthetically to the casual gamer.

EDIT: Add 10 numerically but the effects of those ratings stay the same. If you understand what I'm saying.
 
# 6 Gossennator @ 07/24/15 02:18 PM
I really hope these ratings are in sync with the new gameplay mechanics and sliders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
# 7 DCEBB2001 @ 07/24/15 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by guppya
I know your ratings make the game better. But perhaps you can adjust the ratings ratios better if you know what I mean, to make the game a bit more marketable. Like if you add 10 to all of those ratings I think it wouldn't be a complete turnoff aesthetically to the casual gamer.

EDOT: Add 10 numerically but the effects of those ratings stay the same. If you understand what I'm saying.
I really could care less about the aesthetic appearance. I put all my eggs into the realism basket. The goal is to see exactly how elite some of these elite players are, being very far above the average players.

Here's the top guys, overall, regardless of position:

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/top100.php
 
# 8 Number999 @ 07/24/15 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by guppya
I know your ratings make the game better. But perhaps you can adjust the ratings ratios better if you know what I mean, to make the game a bit more marketable. Like if you add 10 to all of those ratings I think it wouldn't be a complete turnoff aesthetically to the casual gamer.

EDIT: Add 10 numerically but the effects of those ratings stay the same. If you understand what I'm saying.
I actually think it should stay the way he's putting them. One of the things I HATE hearing people say is "oh man Brady you have 90 deep accuracy and you throw that?" as if Brady has never made a bad throw or thrown an interception in a game. By the effect of making the ratings lower, you avoid people constantly saying stuff is BS or the game is rigged...
 
# 9 BreakingBad2013 @ 07/24/15 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by guppya
I know your ratings make the game better. But perhaps you can adjust the ratings ratios better if you know what I mean, to make the game a bit more marketable. Like if you add 10 to all of those ratings I think it wouldn't be a complete turnoff aesthetically to the casual gamer.

EDIT: Add 10 numerically but the effects of those ratings stay the same. If you understand what I'm saying.
I don't think the ratings are a market issue. Your casual madden player isn't going to search for ratings, they'll just want to play with their team and new players.

If in the off season, they highlight and market other aspects of the game, this is a non-issue. Instead they give us 3 weeks od ratings drops, by top on position, then by division, and drag it out.

If instead, they did small deep dives on each new feature they put in the game, or released compiled gameplay of each team for 3 weeks, then I think they'd have a better chance getting over the ratings objection.

The casual gamer isn't going to base his purchase off of what overall Gronk is lol.

Also, keeping overalls down will truly separate elite from good from average, to bad, to terrible.
 
# 10 guppya @ 07/24/15 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCEBB2001
I really could care less about the aesthetic appearance. I put all my eggs into the realism basket. The goal is to see exactly how elite some of these elite players are, being very far above the average players.

Here's the top guys, overall, regardless of position:

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/top100.php
It has nothing to do with affecting realism. Its just scaling the actual rating system. I'm not saying that your wrong in your ratings i'm just saying that EA in general should scale the system better to create a better gap between an 80-90. Like Gronk may play better as an 82, in your system to create realistic game-play. But making his 82 the new 92 scaled properly should make the game ratings more realistic. Sure in the current madden rating scale it may be more realistic to keep gronk at a 82, but he should be one of the few players that be above an 90.

And as stated above, Gronk should not be below Marshall in ratings as he is the better player in the nfl. But the ratings don't reflect that on your website.
 
# 11 BreakingBad2013 @ 07/24/15 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by guppya
It has nothing to do with affecting realism. Its just scaling the actual rating system. I'm not saying that your wrong in your ratings i'm just saying that EA in general should scale the system better to create a better gap between an 80-90. Like Gronk may play better as an 82, in your system to create realistic game-play. But making his 82 the new 92 scaled properly should make the game ratings more realistic. Sure in the current madden rating scale it may be more realistic to keep gronk at a 82, but he should be one of the few players that be above an 90.
If you add to to everyone's rating, it'll cause the Inflation you see now. Also, if player a is normally a 98, and you inflate an 87 overall player's #s then you're at 97... How's that work?
 
# 12 DCEBB2001 @ 07/24/15 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by guppya
It has nothing to do with affecting realism. Its just scaling the actual rating system. I'm not saying that your wrong in your ratings i'm just saying that EA in general should scale the system better to create a better gap between an 80-90. Like Gronk may play better as an 82, in your system to create realistic game-play. But making his 82 the new 92 scaled properly should make the game ratings more realistic. Sure in the current madden rating scale it may be more realistic to keep gronk at a 82, but he should be one of the few players that be above an 90.

And as stated above, Gronk should not be below Marshall in ratings as he is the better player in the nfl. But the ratings don't reflect that on your website.

No. What is realistic is to keep the gap in the total score provided by the data in Madden, not to fudge the data to replicate Madden.

Data --> Madden

NOT

Madden --> Data

This whole point is to show that a guy like Watt is still WAY ABOVE the level of a guy like Gronk (99 to 82). I'm sorry if you can't wrap your brain around that, but the data doesn't lie.
 
# 13 DCEBB2001 @ 07/24/15 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshake8
Could you explain why Gronk is rated lower than Brandon Marshall?
Marshall = 8.35 grade
Gronk = 8.18 grade


That's why.
 
# 14 guppya @ 07/24/15 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BreakingBad2013
I don't think the ratings are a market issue. Your casual madden player isn't going to search for ratings, they'll just want to play with their team and new players.

If in the off season, they highlight and market other aspects of the game, this is a non-issue. Instead they give us 3 weeks od ratings drops, by top on position, then by division, and drag it out.

If instead, they did small deep dives on each new feature they put in the game, or released compiled gameplay of each team for 3 weeks, then I think they'd have a better chance getting over the ratings objection.

The casual gamer isn't going to base his purchase off of what overall Gronk is lol.

Also, keeping overalls down will truly separate elite from good from average, to bad, to terrible.

Of course it matters its part of visual appeal. Why do you think marketing plays a part in affecting player ratings? If a fan sees that Gronkowski is rated an 82, they will obviously criticize the game.

Nobody wants too see their favorite player rated low.

Not every player is a hardcore madden player like on this forum. There has to be a compromise.
 
# 15 guppya @ 07/24/15 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCEBB2001
No. What is realistic is to keep the gap in the total score provided by the data in Madden, not to fudge the data to replicate Madden.

Data --> Madden

NOT

Madden --> Data

This whole point is to show that a guy like Watt is still WAY ABOVE the level of a guy like Gronk (99 to 82). I'm sorry if you can't wrap your brain around that, but the data doesn't lie.
So based on the data you collected, Brandon Marshall should be rated better than Gronkowski. It has nothing to do with madden, I cant wrap my head around that as nobody would rate Marshall better than gronkowski.

Theres no point in the ratings if you cant differentiate that gronk should be rated higher than marshall.
 
# 16 Kodii Rockets @ 07/24/15 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by guppya
Of course it matters its part of visual appeal. Why do you think marketing plays a part in affecting player ratings? If a fan sees that Gronkowski is rated an 82, they will obviously criticize the game.

Nobody wants too see their favorite player rated low.

Not every player is a hardcore madden player like on this forum. There has to be a compromise.
You made your point there, his rosters aren't for casuals. They're for guys who'd rather play the closest thing we can get to a sim game without staring at numbers.

Personally, I'd love to see my favorite player rated low if it meant that it would help the gameplay overall. Just my .02
 
# 17 guppya @ 07/24/15 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCEBB2001
No. What is realistic is to keep the gap in the total score provided by the data in Madden, not to fudge the data to replicate Madden.

Data --> Madden

NOT

Madden --> Data

This whole point is to show that a guy like Watt is still WAY ABOVE the level of a guy like Gronk (99 to 82). I'm sorry if you can't wrap your brain around that, but the data doesn't lie.
Also you say that the whole point is to show that certain players are "WAY ABOVE" others

Is Tom Brady really 18 points above Roethlisberger? The gap is simply too high.
 
# 18 guppya @ 07/24/15 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodii Rockets
You made your point there, his rosters aren't for casuals. They're for guys who'd rather play the closest thing we can get to a sim game without staring at numbers.

Personally, I'd love to see my favorite player rated low if it meant that it would help the gameplay overall. Just my .02
I understand his roster is not for casuals. Thats my entire point, do you honestly believe that EA would throw away all of their ratings and just take these numbers as the way to go where Brandon Marshall is an 87?

That would be crazy.
 
# 19 DCEBB2001 @ 07/24/15 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by guppya
Not every player is a hardcore madden player like on this forum. There has to be a compromise.
That's why EA should just make everyone a 99 in everything so everyone is happy.

Or...

They can get real(istic).

OR...

Allow us to edit draft classes and rosters easier.
 
# 20 DCEBB2001 @ 07/24/15 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VdaStampede
You won't find too many out there who love Gronk more than I do, but a 99 is simply absurd. The released ratings are working against a Madden purchase for me right now.

From what I've seen so far I'm going to have drop every Pats rating by 20 or 30 for a rebuilding challenge

I agree with much of what you have to offer, but this right here is where you lose me. You just can't make an argument in any way that Marshall is a better player or that Watt should be rated so much higher
I don't make the argument. The scouts do. I just interpolate the data. Keep in mind the injury holds when you do this. Be sure to read the FAQ page on the website.
 

« Previous12345Next »

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.