Home
Madden NFL 17 News Post



Thus far in the rating's reveals for Madden NFL 17, there have been four players rated at 99 overall: Rob Gronkowski (TE), Luke Kuechly (ILB), Von Miller (OLB), and J.J. Watt (DE).

All four players are obviously incredible players, otherwise they wouldn't have even granted such a consideration from the Madden team for the 99-overall rating.

But when it comes to which of the four is the last deserving of the 99-overall honor, do any of them stick out to you?

Sound off by voting in our poll on which of the four you don't think deserve the rating, and rank the 99-overall players from first to worst in a comment as well!

Game: Madden NFL 17Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 15 - View All
Member Comments
# 1 GlennN @ 07/29/16 03:00 PM
This has been my problem (well, one of my problems) with Madden consistently over the years. If the highest possible rating is 100, then only players who are certain HOF level - best of all-time - players should even be close. Watt arguably deserves to be in the high 90's, as he plays at an all-time level and requires the offense to account for him on every snap. One could argue Gronk is also at that level on the other side. Miller and Kuechly are great players, no doubt, but if 100 is the maximum possible rating, neither of these guys is even close. Part of the problem is that Madden refuses to use the full 100 point scale - make the marginal players rated much lower, so that the Millers and the Kuechlys can be properly rated in the high 80's to low 90's. There should be a much greater spread of ratings in the game, so we only have a 99 player once in a generation. This is an EA problem, as the NHL series suffers from the same flaw.
 
# 2 Yazan Gable @ 07/29/16 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennN
This has been my problem (well, one of my problems) with Madden consistently over the years. If the highest possible rating is 100, then only players who are certain HOF level - best of all-time - players should even be close. Watt arguably deserves to be in the high 90's, as he plays at an all-time level and requires the offense to account for him on every snap. One could argue Gronk is also at that level on the other side. Miller and Kuechly are great players, no doubt, but if 100 is the maximum possible rating, neither of these guys is even close. Part of the problem is that Madden refuses to use the full 100 point scale - make the marginal players rated much lower, so that the Millers and the Kuechlys can be properly rated in the high 80's to low 90's. There should be a much greater spread of ratings in the game, so we only have a 99 player once in a generation. This is an EA problem, as the NHL series suffers from the same flaw.
Where is it said that 100 rating is best of all time? Also it goes 0-99. Also when you talk about ratings in this way you describe it as if these ratings don't get changed throughout the season with improving and declining performance. Madden ratings are not a representation of their place in history or their career performance, the first rating is a prediction of how good that player will be in the upcoming season and all ratings updates are representations of how the league looks like in that week until the final roster updates are done which represent how the league in the end looked. This manufactured idea of "90+ must be Hall of Fame" is based on a misunderstanding of what the ratings represent. These aren't NBA2K ratings where it tries to use a historical scale, these are encapsulated in each season.
 
# 3 GlennN @ 07/29/16 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yazan Gable
Where is it said that 100 rating is best of all time? Also it goes 0-99. Also when you talk about ratings in this way you describe it as if these ratings don't get changed throughout the season with improving and declining performance. Madden ratings are not a representation of their place in history or their career performance, the first rating is a prediction of how good that player will be in the upcoming season and all ratings updates are representations of how the league looks like in that week until the final roster updates are done which represent how the league in the end looked. This manufactured idea of "90+ must be Hall of Fame" is based on a misunderstanding of what the ratings represent. These aren't NBA2K ratings where it tries to use a historical scale, these are encapsulated in each season.
True, I did misstate that 100 is the highest possible; it is, as you say, 99. But, what I wrote is not a misunderstanding of ratings at all. All ratings have to be historical to have any meaning at all, in my opinion. An all-time great, in the upper 90's or even 99, will dominate other players in the league as an all-time great should. Under your scheme (and Madden's) there are never generational players because there are always a group of players at the highest possible rating. Given the wide spread of numbers, there is just no need for the figures to be grouped so high. Yes, ratings do change over the course of a season, if you so desire (I turn that option off in most sports games, but that's just me), but there is still no reason for a base rating of a "good" player to ever touch 99.
 
# 4 Yazan Gable @ 07/29/16 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennN
True, I did misstate that 100 is the highest possible; it is, as you say, 99. But, what I wrote is not a misunderstanding of ratings at all. All ratings have to be historical to have any meaning at all, in my opinion. An all-time great, in the upper 90's or even 99, will dominate other players in the league as an all-time great should. Under your scheme (and Madden's) there are never generational players because there are always a group of players at the highest possible rating. Given the wide spread of numbers, there is just no need for the figures to be grouped so high. Yes, ratings do change over the course of a season, if you so desire (I turn that option off in most sports games, but that's just me), but there is still no reason for a base rating of a "good" player to ever touch 99.
In your opinion, that's how things should be. I suppose I'll just pose the question I asked someone else regarding this viewpoint: considering he was the worst quarterback in the NFL this year, would you have put Peyton Manning in the upper 90s range in Madden 16 despite how atrociously he played? He's an all-time great, one of the 2-3 best QBs to ever play, but he was absolutely hideous this year when he played.
 
# 5 Cowboy008 @ 07/29/16 06:32 PM
I would have to say it's between Luke Kuechly and Von Miller. I voted for Luke though.
 
# 6 Ghost Of The Year @ 07/29/16 06:43 PM
None of the above, The only time I don't really mind a 99 is when using a "historic" or "classic" roster.
And even then, I want the majority of 99's to be HoF'ers.
Just give these four a 97, & be done with it. I'll probaly wind up just editing them down ever so slightly.
 
# 7 seasprite @ 07/29/16 07:03 PM
Von Miller


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
# 8 Dcooks @ 07/29/16 07:05 PM
Von Miller definitely. 99 should be reserved for all pro players that have no weaknesses..i.e JJ, GRONK, LUKE. .....Von Miller isn't even the best OLB, that's khalil Mack. He had more sacks, qb hurries, tackles, and plays the run much better than Von.

Ps. Cam and Brady should be 99. Unquestionably the two best qbs. Offering two unique but all time great styles.
 
# 9 sir psycho @ 07/29/16 09:27 PM
Another vote for Miller here.
 
# 10 blackscorpion11 @ 07/29/16 09:32 PM
Gronkowski has elite receiving skills but isnt that fast, i think the patriots scheme is more responsible for getting him open than his route running skills.
 
# 11 cuoreceltico @ 07/30/16 03:44 AM
no one of this player should be 99 ratings
 
# 12 blinzy @ 07/30/16 04:38 AM
Von Miller, no doubt about it. Gronk already has an argument to be the greatest Tight End ever, and certainly has the highest peak if he has even reached it yet. Watt is the most influential player in the game today, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. And Luke Kuechly is dominating the game at a level nobody has ever seen before. Von Miller is not a top 5 defender in the league and is certainly not the best player at his own position.
 
# 13 stocksy @ 07/30/16 07:54 AM
Starting with 4 99s leaves you with no where to go during season.

If 1-99 is representative of players ability in that one season and not a scale of all time ablilites then week one players should start top 80s early 90s. No player starts week 1 at his very best. You have to allow stats to go up
 
# 14 mykull85 @ 07/30/16 08:34 AM
I think people are looking at this oddly. First off 99 is not the top rating in the game. It is the top rating the game will show but anyone who has edited or created players knows that guys are truly rated over 99. I also think people are getting caught up in overall rating too much. I agree Madden would benefit by going more towards the NBA 2k model and bringing down player ratings so their is more separation and role players. At the same time a 99 over player is by no means flawless. I guy like Von Miller or say Vick in his prime is very hard to rate because their athleticism jacks up their ratings with the way things are calculated. It doesn't mean Miller will have a zone and man coverage rating of 99.
 
# 15 k2thaz @ 07/30/16 10:25 AM
Von. All he does is Pass Rush, very good but not a 99.
 
# 16 lambo3500 @ 07/30/16 12:27 PM
Von should be a 98.
 
# 17 Cam Fan @ 07/30/16 04:59 PM
In this context I would say Von but after what he did to us in SB50 he should be rated 199.
 
# 18 Cam Fan @ 07/30/16 05:04 PM
For those who voted for Luke, I forgive your not watching him play. For what he does against the run and pass, he is THE top defender in the league.
 
# 19 convince @ 07/30/16 06:50 PM
the ratings really doesn't matter anyway. as long as they are fast
 
# 20 TheKingOfVa @ 07/30/16 07:11 PM
Luke, he missed a lot of tackles last year. Never felt like he was a 99 player the last two seasons.
 

« Previous12Next »

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