Connect with us

Madden 20: Analyzing EA's New Player Ratings and How They Affect the Rookies

Madden NFL 20

Madden 20: Analyzing EA's New Player Ratings and How They Affect the Rookies

Unlike past seasons, EA is hell bent on differentiating players based on their individual skills, abilities and traits.

And although a ton of time has been focused on Superstar X-Factors, it is worth noting that the remaining group of players also received a makeover in Madden 20. This new ratings system adds parity from one team to another. Furthermore, it allows elite players to play like their real-life counterparts, which is something we have long yearned for in Madden. No longer will a starting offensive lineman be removed from a game, only to have lower-rated player pick up exactly where he left off. Each player will feel different, and EA deserves a “tip of the hat” for the effort.

Here’s a look at the new player ratings system in Madden, and how it affects this year’s rookie class

What We Like

  • Each roster is now broken down into five tiers. Elite/near elite, quality starters, low-level starters, backups and low-level backups. This creates a great disparity between the top-tier players and those at the bottom, which is one of the things Madden failed to do in the past. Players should no longer feel the exact same or generic. Instead, a great deal of time has been taken to break each roster into tiers, bringing some added realism to EA’s popular game. It has been said EA went through and adjusted each rating based off of this new system. Great players will finally feel like elite players, and this was something that was ever apparent in the beta.
  • Additionally, with EA’s revamped ratings system, no longer will backup players be plug and play. This just reaffirms that the new system works. And although it seems like a flawless idea on paper, there’s still some concerns I have which I will touch on later in this article. However, this is something that has been a glaring issue in previous games and many are happy EA finally found a way to separate the starters from the career backups.
  • The creators of Madden also made some small refinements to player archetypes. This new system is a bit more accurate than what we were accustomed to in last year’s game. For example, a “west coast” quarterback is now labeled as an improviser. Possession receivers are now route runners, and so on. This allows EA to really hone in on each player’s skills and categorize them as realistically as possible.

What We Don’t Like

  • My biggest gripe with the new rating overhaul is how it will affect some of the lesser-rated teams in Madden 20. If last year a player on the lowly Cardinals had a 70-overall rating and was a starter, that player very well could find himself with a 55-60 in this year’s game. This means that player won’t be very good and may also play like a perennial backup. Nevertheless, it is something that fans of the lower-rated teams should be very much aware of this season. After all, everyone is going to use the teams at the top of the virtual totem pole.
  • As you can see, EA has made a ton of gameplay adjustments to this year’s game. And whether it is the new and improved ratings, player archetypes or X-Factors, the age old saying “if it’s in the game, it’s in the game” may finally hold true. However, not everything is perfect. And after reading about the changes EA has made to a QB’s throw power and passing trajectories, I’m a bit more skeptical than I may have been previously. I say this because while scaling back QB throw power and adjusting the trajectories needed to be done, I’m just not sure this was the right way to do it. In a recent Madden blog, the developers discussed lowering the passing trajectory of those QBs with a higher throw power, and vice versa for those with less arm strength. This is all well and good, but how it ultimately looks and plays could pay great dividends.

How They Affect This Year’s Rookie Class

  • The average overall rating for the top-32 rookies in this year’s class is a 73.1 overall. This is quite a difference compared to past seasons, and continues to show you the great divide between the top-tier rookies and those selected later in the draft.
  • For example, aside from some first-round draft picks, the rest of the rookie class falls somewhere between the low and mid-60s. Again, in previous installments, some teams would have multiple rookies with superstar potential. And although every player can develop through CFM or have their ratings updated in a future roster update, this is a huge change from what we are used to. However, it is worth noting that these changes have been made to every player in the Madden 20. So, it should balance out accordingly.
  • In conclusion, the most important thing to keep an eye on is whether or not players come with a potential superstar trait entrenched in their virtual counterpart. For example, Daniel Jones is rated a 65 overall. Does he have the potential to get Superstar X-Factors and Abilities naturally? Or is this something that will need to be implemented in a future installment.

Below is a screenshot with each rookie’s overall rating and the respective average at the bottom:

Conclusion

For better or worse, EA has spent a great deal of time altering player ratings this offseason. And as we saw with the rookies, and as we will see again later this month with the veterans, players are affected a great deal by these changes. Unfortunately, for teams with less talent, it could be much harder than in the past to compete with some of the higher-rated teams. Additionally, users might avoid some of these teams due to their lack of superstars. Online could slowly turn into FIFA, where the same juggernaut teams are all anyone plays with game to game. Sure, lowly teams like the Dolphins and Cardinals will be fun to build over time, but in head-to-head online play very few will be able to compete while using those teams.

In the end, EA has made some big changes to this year’s game. And in just a few weeks, everyone will get a chance to weigh in on the revamped ratings system.

45 Comments

Leave a Reply

Discussion
  1. "My biggest gripe with the new rating overhaul is how it will affect some of the lesser-rated teams in Madden 20. If last year a player on the lowly Cardinals had a 70-overall rating and was a starter, that player very well could find himself with a 55-60 in this year’s game. This means that player won’t be very good and may also play like a perennial backup. Nevertheless, it is something that fans of the lower-rated teams should be very much aware of this season. After all, everyone is going to use the teams at the top of the virtual totem pole."
    How is this a bad thing? Bad players in real life should be bad players in the game... It seems like you want them to have some type of participation trophy for being in the NFL where they can't be rated accurately so their fans don't feel bad... Cardinals fans and Dolphins fans should feel how horrible their teams are when they play with them.
    I see that your picture has a Dolphins player in it so maybe the reason you're not a fan of this accuracy is because you want the Dolphins to feel like they're actually a viable franchise and not a second rate team that could finish with the worst record in the league.
    This is really exciting. Even though the Seahawks are easily my #1 favourite team I am excited to try out Kyler Murray's Cardinals this upcoming season! Super fun player to watch highlights of. The development trait should be included on the spreadsheet for these rookies. It's 100% fair to have them lower rated to begin with and have appropriate potential. Don't rate them to high too soon. 
    Can you please write an article detailing the specific attributes of the archetypes on a player career? This is how I design my players. Or if you don't I will just make an Excel document when I get the game and design my players from that. 
    Steve_OS

    Unlike past seasons, EA is hell bent on differentiating players based on their individual skills, abilities...
    Written By: Josh Houtz
    Click here to view the article.
    Okay, that pic looks nothing like Kyler Murray lol
    EDIT: Oh, and on the actual topic, I'm looking forward to the ratings spread. And I'm REALLY looking forward to the rookie progression. Don't want there to be a league full of 99's 8 years into my Franchise, but I also don't want there to be none.
    I'm interested in how this impacts #1 drafted rookie QBs in future seasons that should be starters. In past Madden's, the CPU would sign a veteran QB and take the starts away.
    I hope rebuilding teams recognize that their QB with higher potential should start over the veteran with a higher overall. Or something like that.
    this ratings system has so much potential in a cfm/dynasty mode.* I can see alot of parity in a cfm universe,* fluctuations with a teams dominance should occur if the drafted players are done correctly.***
    Hopefully the progression of players or roster updates dont skew the numbers too much.**
    Also, roster updates probably wont be needed with this type of feature.* again only if player progressions are done correctly.
    like the article says, this sounds good in theory and has plenty of potential.*
    PhillyPhanatic14
    "My biggest gripe with the new rating overhaul is how it will affect some of the lesser-rated teams in Madden 20. If last year a player on the lowly Cardinals had a 70-overall rating and was a starter, that player very well could find himself with a 55-60 in this year’s game. This means that player won’t be very good and may also play like a perennial backup. Nevertheless, it is something that fans of the lower-rated teams should be very much aware of this season. After all, everyone is going to use the teams at the top of the virtual totem pole."
    How is this a bad thing? Bad players in real life should be bad players in the game... It seems like you want them to have some type of participation trophy for being in the NFL where they can't be rated accurately so their fans don't feel bad... Cardinals fans and Dolphins fans should feel how horrible their teams are when they play with them.
    I see that your picture has a Dolphins player in it so maybe the reason you're not a fan of this accuracy is because you want the Dolphins to feel like they're actually a viable franchise and not a second rate team that could finish with the worst record in the league.

    Damn you went ruthless on him 😆. I know people from Philly don't play but damn you were Hella ruthless. Especially saying his team was 2nd rate and could finish last in the league. 😂
    Sounds like a step in the right direction for me. I recently got a PS2 and got Madden 2001 through Madden 2007 and I noticed that on the earlier Madden's teams and players were for the most part rated in the 70s and 60s. But somewhere along the way too much emphases was put on the speed rating and tons of bad to average players had "good" ratings because they had a high speed rating. I can't remember which year it was but on one of the Madden games the lowest rated team was the 49ers at 83 overall. You mean to tell me there were no bad teams in the NFL that year? That's ridiculous!!
    CMH
    I'm interested in how this impacts #1 drafted rookie QBs in future seasons that should be starters. In past Madden's, the CPU would sign a veteran QB and take the starts away.
    I hope rebuilding teams recognize that their QB with higher potential should start over the veteran with a higher overall. Or something like that.

    Yes, this!!! It has absolutely been crappy to see teams draft rookie QB's in the 1st round and then they never play.
    EliteSmarts
    Damn you went ruthless on him 😆. I know people from Philly don't play but damn you were Hella ruthless. Especially saying his team was 2nd rate and could finish last in the league. 😂

    Haha I wasn't trying to be rude, but "Tank for Tua" is a thing in Miami. They should feel that terrible in Madden.
    I mentioned this before and it bears worth mentioning again: I hope salaries account for the ratings spread. This is what I mean:
    If the best free agent LT in the game is rated a 78, I hope he's not going to sign for 3/$8M. The reality is if you're the the top LT, you're going probably get 5/$36M or whatever.
    If the salaries do not account for this, you're going to have a situation where by the time you're in year 3 of your franchise, every team will be 60M under the cap.
    I fear that the spread will create too much separation between top tier and middle/bottom.  They are all still NFL players. I realize there are tiers of guys but I worry that EA will make the top tier so damn dominant than what the middle/bottom tier is capable of.  I hope I'm wrong and will be playing regardless but this is one of my bigger concerns this year, this whole x-factor stuff. And I'm a Chiefs fan so Mahomes is going to be even more OP!!
    The article doesn't take into account that yes players will be lower, but they will rise quicker because of the tweaking to xp. It will be much easier to take that 60 OVR player and get him to mid 80's. This is why the rookie generated classes in game will basically be guys 70 and below, it'll be a shock for some when the first overall pick is a 72 but it was done that way for a reason.
    kennylc321
    I mentioned this before and it bears worth mentioning again: I hope salaries account for the ratings spread. This is what I mean:
    If the best free agent LT in the game is rated a 78, I hope he's not going to sign for 3/$8M. The reality is if you're the the top LT, you're going probably get 5/$36M or whatever.
    If the salaries do not account for this, you're going to have a situation where by the time you're in year 3 of your franchise, every team will be 60M under the cap.

    Players will ask for more realistic contracts, that includes younger players who's ratings may not be high yet but have the potential to become really high later on.
    CMH
    I'm interested in how this impacts #1 drafted rookie QBs in future seasons that should be starters. In past Madden's, the CPU would sign a veteran QB and take the starts away.
    I hope rebuilding teams recognize that their QB with higher potential should start over the veteran with a higher overall. Or something like that.

    This is my main concern for all positions. Will CPU teams realize that a 68 OVR Superstar rookie, should probably start over a 71 OVR Normal veteran.
    Has the draft logic been tuned so that CPU teams don't think that a 25 year old mid 70s starter is necessarily a player that they should be replace in the draft.
    These little things quite often get overlooked when they tune the CPU team building logic.
    jfsolo

    Has the draft logic been tuned so that CPU teams don't think that a 25 year old mid 70s starter is necessarily a player that they should be replace in the draft.
    .

    Yes, especially if they drafted them recently. As they get further away from that draft their protection will degrade over time. You shouldn't see a team who drafted a 1st round QB look to replace them with another 1st round QB the next year or year after that.
    T4VERTS
    You shouldn't see a team who drafted a 1st round QB look to replace them with another 1st round QB the next year or year after that.

    If NFL teams were smarter *more* of them would be doing this. Just off of the top of my head the following 1st round QBs should've been cut loose after the first year of their rookie deals: Josh Rosen, Jake Locker, Mark Sanchez, Blaine Gabbert, Johnny Manziel, Blake Bortles, EJ Emmanuel, Christian Ponder. I won't bother digging up more.
    Rookie wage scale means straight up cutting these players should be an option for teams with cap space. If you can get some salvage value in a trade so much the better.
    stinkubus
    If NFL teams were smarter *more* of them would be doing this. Just off of the top of my head the following 1st round QBs should've been cut loose after the first year of their rookie deals: Josh Rosen, Jake Locker, Mark Sanchez, Blaine Gabbert, Johnny Manziel, Blake Bortles, EJ Emmanuel, Christian Ponder. I won't bother digging up more.
    Rookie wage scale means straight up cutting these players should be an option for teams with cap space. If you can get some salvage value in a trade so much the better.

    ..why would a team cut a guy after one year when the cap hit is so low? That actually makes zero sense. You are using revisionist history to justify it, but the reality is you really don't know after one year that a player will or will not make it.
    T4VERTS
    Yes, especially if they drafted them recently. As they get further away from that draft their protection will degrade over time. You shouldn't see a team who drafted a 1st round QB look to replace them with another 1st round QB the next year or year after that.

    If they finally have this logic down, that is a major fix. For those of us who play long Franchises, poor CPU team building is one of the main things that leads to us abandoning a Franchise playthrough.
    jfsolo
    If they finally have this logic down, that is a major fix. For those of us who play long Franchises, poor CPU team building is one of the main things that leads to us abandoning a Franchise playthrough.

    I'm not saying it's all gumdrops and rainbows but it's heading in the right direction. There will still be hiccups in terms of FA and signing a better player than a younger player you'd like to see the CPU develop longer. That is tough because there are instances where this occurs in real life like a Tebow situation.
    T4VERTS
    The article doesn't take into account that yes players will be lower, but they will rise quicker because of the tweaking to xp. It will be much easier to take that 60 OVR player and get him to mid 80's. This is why the rookie generated classes in game will basically be guys 70 and below, it'll be a shock for some when the first overall pick is a 72 but it was done that way for a reason.

    This is gonna be a problem as you move forward in CFM. Along with the fact that players cant drop a dev level. Teams are going to be stacked.
    XtremeDunkz
    This is gonna be a problem as you move forward in CFM. Along with the fact that players cant drop a dev level. Teams are going to be stacked.

    I don't think it will. What I was told was they got a 1st overall pick who was 68 to like a 92 by year 5 or 6. I think they are banking on guys playing franchises around 7-8 seasons. As it was explained to me if you actually play them and have success they can be really good. If you play them and don't have success he will be decent. If you don't play them they won't really become anything besides back ups.
    T4VERTS
    I don't think it will. What I was told was they got a 1st overall pick who was 68 to like a 92 by year 5 or 6. I think they are banking on guys playing franchises around 7-8 seasons. As it was explained to me if you actually play them and have success they can be really good. If you play them and don't have success he will be decent. If you don't play them they won't really become anything besides back ups.
    This doesn't jive with how xp works in madden though. XP earned through gameplay is a drop in the bucket. The lions share of xp is earned through weekly training. If you take a position group through gold drills over the course of a season, players with higher dev sky rocket up. So sure maybe the 66 overall rookie will take a while, but what about the 78 overall star dev 2nd year player?
    I did extensive xp testing in the beta to get an idea for xp sliders for my league, and my findings were not good at all.
    Edit - now in the past the upside to this was players that don't play or don't play well drop a dev level after the season which is no longer the case. So the balance of this terrible xp system was completely removed.
    And the reason they removed the dropping dev level is because abilities are tied to Dev (terrible decision) and they didn't want players losing abilities.
    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
    XtremeDunkz
    This doesn't jive with how xp works in madden though. XP earned through gameplay is a drop in the bucket. The lions share of xp is earned through weekly training.

    My impression from the beta is that getting players on the field at all, along with on-field performance, is going to matter more in Madden 20 relative to the past couple games.
    I noticed while playing the beta that training XP rewards were flattened based on whether a player had Normal or (any other better-than-normal) dev trait, and it was well-reported (and present in the beta) that scheme fit XP payout in training results was reduced. I also noticed that the amount of XP rewarded for downs played was significantly increased in the beta compared to Madden 19 (it was 1 XP per down in M19; if I recall correctly, in the M20 beta that was at least doubled). That's not much on its face, but in combination with Skill Points requiring less XP to earn now, that's going to matter, and finding spots to get low OVR players on the field for a few series a game is viable strategy.
    I also have to assume that, if players are going to be able to progress more quickly, player regression will in turn be more powerful as well, particularly for players with dev traits below the ability thresholds. Tiburon is well-aware that the NFL is a league of replacement.
    Regardless, I doubt the launch balance of franchise XP was present in the beta anyway given that the rosters were basically Madden 19's final roster update and also that the Scenario Engine was basically only present at basically a proof-of-concept level.
    CM Hooe
    My impression from the beta is that getting players on the field at all, along with on-field performance, is going to matter more in Madden 20 relative to the past couple games.
    I noticed while playing the beta that training XP rewards were flattened based on whether a player had Normal or (any other better-than-normal) dev trait, and it was well-reported (and present in the beta) that scheme fit XP payout in training results was reduced. I also noticed that the amount of XP rewarded for downs played was significantly increased in the beta compared to Madden 19 (it was 1 XP per down in M19; if I recall correctly, in the M20 beta that was at least doubled). That's not much on its face, but in combination with Skill Points requiring less XP to earn now, that's going to matter, and finding spots to get low OVR players on the field for a few series a game is viable strategy.
    I also have to assume that, if players are going to be able to progress more quickly, player regression will in turn be more powerful as well, particularly for players with dev traits below the ability thresholds. Tiburon is well-aware that the NFL is a league of replacement.
    Regardless, I doubt the launch balance of franchise XP was present in the beta anyway given that the rosters were basically Madden 19's final roster update and also that the Scenario Engine was basically only present at basically a proof-of-concept level.

    The problem is lack of variety.
    Look at my Packers for example
    The secondary of Green Bay consists of:
    CB Alexander 82 Star, 22 years old
    CB King 77 Star, 24 years old
    CB Jackson 75 Star, 23 years old
    S Savage 71 Star, 22 years old
    S Amos 91 Star, 26 years old
    I can say before I even start my league for 100% fact, by season 3 my entire secondary will be filled with 90+ overall studs as there is no variance in progression, no stagnation, no regression before 29/30 years old for any player in the league.
    The system is a mess. And now without reduction of dev levels, the league will be littered with high overall players.
    T4VERTS
    ..why would a team cut a guy after one year when the cap hit is so low? That actually makes zero sense. You are using revisionist history to justify it, but the reality is you really don't know after one year that a player will or will not make it.

    You move on when the cap it is low because it won't cost you much in terms of your ability to build around their replacement.
    What about my post is revisionist history? Every dude I listed was a first round pick, most of them high picks, and not a single one ever demonstrated the ability to play QB competently at the NFL level.
    Most guys who end up being good are at least decent the first year they get playing time. Guys can get better, but you don't generally see anyone go from "worst starter in the league" to even league-average, much less elite (top 5-10).
    Goff is the closest thing to engineering that sort of turn-around, and he's still a liability that's probably going to keep a championship caliber roster from ever winning it all.
    XtremeDunkz
    The problem is lack of variety.
    Look at my Packers for example
    The secondary of Green Bay consists of:
    CB Alexander 82 Star, 22 years old
    CB King 77 Star, 24 years old
    CB Jackson 75 Star, 23 years old
    S Savage 71 Star, 22 years old
    S Amos 91 Star, 26 years old
    I can say before I even start my league for 100% fact, by season 3 my entire secondary will be filled with 90+ overall studs as there is no variance in progression, no stagnation, no regression before 29/30 years old for any player in the league.
    The system is a mess. And now without reduction of dev levels, the league will be littered with high overall players.

    As far as Madden 19 goes, your criticism of lack of variance is valid. The dev trait was a kingmaker in that game (and basically all of of the previous Madden games since Madden 13 rebuilt franchise mode).
    To reiterate my previous point, though, I honestly don't think the lack of dev trait regression is going to be a big deal. Again, there are basically going to be two levels of XP progression via training in M20: normal, and better than normal. Since there's no additional XP payout for Superstar or X-Factor dev (they are only used to gate off abilities instead), the device which caused the guaranteed ascension of Star and Superstar dev players to the top of the league from M19 based solely on training XP and not on-field results simply isn't in the game anymore.
    Dev trait improvement is tied to the breakout scenarios (one of the few components of the scenario engine actually present in the beta), which doubles down on the idea that players are going to have to prove themselves on the field to earn the top ratings and abilities.
    Since dev trait can't go down in M20, I also venture to guess that player regression is going to be tied more to on-field performance and may trigger sooner, with some resistance built-in regression resistance based on if a player has achieved Superstar or X-Factor dev trait. (Honestly, I didn't look at this much due to the player ratings in the beta not being representative of the final product).
    We'll see at the end of the month how this all works out. I obviously don't think the situation is nearly as dire as you fear.
    XtremeDunkz
    This doesn't jive with how xp works in madden though. XP earned through gameplay is a drop in the bucket. The lions share of xp is earned through weekly training. If you take a position group through gold drills over the course of a season, players with higher dev sky rocket up. So sure maybe the 66 overall rookie will take a while, but what about the 78 overall star dev 2nd year player?
    I did extensive xp testing in the beta to get an idea for xp sliders for my league, and my findings were not good at all.
    Edit - now in the past the upside to this was players that don't play or don't play well drop a dev level after the season which is no longer the case. So the balance of this terrible xp system was completely removed.
    And the reason they removed the dropping dev level is because abilities are tied to Dev (terrible decision) and they didn't want players losing abilities.
    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

    I just gave you an example and explanation straight from the horses mouth. Not sure what else to tell you. They tweaked xp this year.
    stinkubus

    What about my post is revisionist history? Every dude I listed was a first round pick, most of them high picks, and not a single one ever demonstrated the ability to play QB competently at the NFL level.

    That is literally the definition of using revisionist history. Statistically speaking Alex Smith, John Elway, Eli Manning, Matt Stafford all would have been cut after their rookie year. It would be dumb to cut highly picked guys after one season, and the NFL agrees with that sentiment. Guys take different times to acclimate to the game.
    T4VERTS
    That is literally the definition of using revisionist history. Statistically speaking Alex Smith, John Elway, Eli Manning, Matt Stafford all would have been cut after their rookie year. It would be dumb to cut highly picked guys after one season, and the NFL agrees with that sentiment. Guys take different times to acclimate to the game.

    To be fair, there is statistical and analytical evidence that after 16 starts, we basically know what level a quarterback is capable of playing in the NFL. There is some merit to the line of thought that NFL teams consistently fall victim to sunk cost fallacy with bad quarterbacks. I think we can agree that Blake Bortles should have never seen five seasons as QB1 in Jacksonville, for example. I think this line of thought is what Stinkubus is getting at.
    Very few teams actually handle their business with this idea in mind, however, as you've noted. First-round draft pick quarterbacks are given almost every possible opportunity to succeed, sometimes to the detriment of the team, because teams don't want to admit they got such a high-profile draft pick wrong. The only recent example of a team cutting bait early on a passer is the Cardinals drafting Kyler Murray and trading Josh Rosen, but that probably doesn't happen without the decision to bring in Kliff Kingsbury as the new head coach (an aggressive decision on its own).
    CM Hooe
    To be fair, there is statistical and analytical evidence that after 16 starts, we basically know what level a quarterback is capable of playing in the NFL. There is some merit to the line of thought that NFL teams consistently fall victim to sunk cost fallacy with bad quarterbacks. I think we can agree that Blake Bortles should have never seen five seasons as QB1 in Jacksonville, for example. I think this line of thought is what Stinkubus is getting at.
    Very few teams actually handle their business with this idea in mind, however, as you've noted. First-round draft pick quarterbacks are given almost every possible opportunity to succeed, sometimes to the detriment of the team, because teams don't want to admit they got such a high-profile draft pick wrong. The only recent example of a team cutting bait early on a passer is the Cardinals drafting Kyler Murray and trading Josh Rosen, but that probably doesn't happen without the decision to bring in Kliff Kingsbury as the new head coach (an aggressive decision on its own).

    Right, but I just identified 5 in a couple minutes who would have been cut by that logic. In general identifying good qb's is difficult, based on Mariota's first year no one would bail on him but here the Titans are trying to decide what he is long term. Sam Darnold actually had a worse year then a couple guys he said were guys who should have been cut year 1, but we have people saying he will be great still (I don't agree but still).
    Even if some people think that they shouldn't think that way, the fact is that this is how teams act in real life, and IMO the game should be a reflection of the aversion teams have to giving up on those first round QBs that quickly.
    Because of a lack of a rating spread in the past, QBs of course played too similarly with back up QBs being able to play almost as well as a Franchise QB, and also with there being too many Franchise QBs in draft classes, I could let 85+ OVR QBs go to free agency and not miss a beat with a 78 OVR rookie taking his place.
    Hopefully Users in Franchise have to be more caution about trading, cutting, or not resigning highly rated players, because there won't be a guarantee that they can adequately fill that hole with a back up or a rookie.
    jfsolo
    Even if some people think that they shouldn't think that way, the fact is that this is how teams act in real life, and IMO the game should be a reflection of the aversion teams have to giving up on those first round QBs that quickly.
    Because of a lack of a rating spread in the past, QBs of course played too similarly with back up QBs being able to play almost as well as a Franchise QB, and also with there being too many Franchise QBs in draft classes, I could let 85+ OVR QBs go to free agency and not miss a beat with a 78 OVR rookie taking his place.
    Hopefully Users in Franchise have to be more caution about trading, cutting, or not resigning highly rated players, because there won't be a guarantee that they can adequately fill that hole with a back up or a rookie.

    This is always the hope, but it's never truly been done. It's been said too many times by the developers themselves, "misses arent fun."
    With no real way to differentiate QBs decision making and the difference in arm talent of qbs being minimal at best we arent left with a whole lot to want to "trade everything you've got" to move up and grab that potential franchise quarterback.
    I know theres superstar abilities that do add an additional layer but I'm not convinced it's enough. There needs to be an element that makes you not want to play someone because they truly arent ready and makes you scared to drop back and throw it or run an offense. AWARENESS needs to matter somehow as well as traits for a user controlled qb, right now they dont.
    The fact that the gap between 1pt has been increased within the Positional Ratings will have a big impact on grinding/developing a player once Drafted etc...
    I don’t know if this is the standard, but my drafted MLB with Superstar Dev Trait required “500” snaps just for his abilities to be revealed.
    - Sim 98% came to a full season + 3 regular games to meet this requirement
    - just to find out what abilities he possessed
    This can turn out to be a Sleeper in CFM improvement.
    T4VERTS
    Right, but I just identified 5 in a couple minutes who would have been cut by that logic. In general identifying good qb's is difficult, based on Mariota's first year no one would bail on him but here the Titans are trying to decide what he is long term. Sam Darnold actually had a worse year then a couple guys he said were guys who should have been cut year 1, but we have people saying he will be great still (I don't agree but still).

    Hot take: Eli Manning has been league-average or worse every season he's played. The only reason people think he's good is because of his last name and that the Giants were lucky enough to backdoor a couple of titles during his tenure.
    Scorching hot take: Elway was massively overrated. He'd basically be a more mobile Joe Flacco in today's game.
    His career ANY/A is 6.52. This puts him in 62nd place all time. His peers by this metric are Neil O'Donnell and Bernie Kosar, not the all-time greats.
    Noodle armed Chad Pennington beat hims out here by almost .3 yards per attempt. I want you to think about what that means for a second. Chad Pennington was a more efficient QB than John Elway, and by a very large amount (almost a full yard per series of downs).
    His carrer INT % is 3.1. He was more turnover prone than a gaggle of his contemporaries including legends like Ken O'Brien, Neil O'Donnell, Steve Bono, Bernie Kosar (probably better than Elway, TBQH), Brad Johnson, and Jeff George (!).
    He is also the second all time in sacks taken and sack yardage lost. He ranks 76th all time in sack rate.
    For such a great player he manages to show up near the top of the leaderboard (both rate and bulk) for any metric which measures negative plays, and he's mediocre in every metric which measures efficiency or success.
    All stats were taken from Profootballreference.com
    T4VERTS
    That is literally the definition of using revisionist history. Statistically speaking Alex Smith, John Elway, Eli Manning, Matt Stafford all would have been cut after their rookie year. It would be dumb to cut highly picked guys after one season, and the NFL agrees with that sentiment. Guys take different times to acclimate to the game.

    I missed this the first time around, and it will allow me to make an important point so I'm going to reply late.
    Alex Smith is the *PERFECT* example of why it's better to cut and run early than try to develop someone. It took years before he could even play at a serviceable level, and even then his ceiling is getting your team beaten in the divisonal round.
    I would much rather my team roll the dice in the draft 2-3x then trot out Alex Smith for a decade and a half because Alex Smith will never be good enough to make a difference on his own.
    CM Hooe
    To be fair, there is statistical and analytical evidence that after 16 starts, we basically know what level a quarterback is capable of playing in the NFL. --------

    There is no question that analytics are being used in sports, now more than ever before. My humble opinion is that they are far more applicable and reliable with regards to baseball. There are just far too many "variables" involved at the QB position in the game of football that cannot simply only be explained or determined by a number.
    All 11 need to be on the same page on any given play, When that does not happen, no matter how well a QB may have done his job, that will not always yield a favorable result. I am reminded of the pounding Troy Aikman took during his 1989 rookie year. The Cowboys won only 1 game that year and Steve Walsh was the starter for that game. There were rumors by some rather trusted sources that state Jimmy Johnson actually seriously pondered going forward with Walsh as the permanent starter. Enter a vastly improved roster and the installing of a timing-based offense and off Troy was to a Hall of Fame career.
    Conversely, RG3 took the league by storm in his rookie year. What happened? Did he lack leadership skills? Was his game so limited that after a full season of tape that the rest of the league figured him out? Obviously, injuries also came into play.
    At the present moment, take Dak Prescott as an example. I've watched every throw he's made as a Cowboy. While I personally love his leadership, dedication and approach to the game, I still don't know, as he heads in to his fourth year, if he has the ability to throw with anticipation on a more consistent basis and improve his accuracy. Carson Wentz is also entering his fourth season and while he's played extremely well at times, he hasn't been able to stay healthy and there are rumors, true or not, as to whether or not he has the leadership skills for the position.
    My Dad used to always say; "figures don't lie but liars can figure". The obvious point is that statistics and analytics can be important in sports. However, you've got to peel the onion back sometimes and get a deeper and truer picture as to how those numbers were arrived at. Just some food for thought. Speaking of which, it's time for dinner.
    This all sounds great, but when you actually play the game and it literally feels the same, that's the problem. Possibly because it was beta or at E3, but the game literally felt no different than last year. The Superstar X-Factor, especially at RB, wasn't noticeable. Hopefully they will improve this throughout the season they can keep their player base still playing. 
    Welcome aboard Cory
    I'm not the only that will be telling you this, but if you played the beta, the beta game play is different than the Madden 19 game play I just traded in.
    The difference is night and day and it's not even close. The game play is smooth as silk.
    roadman
    Welcome aboard Cory
    I'm not the only that will be telling you this, but if you played the beta, the beta game play is different than the Madden 19 game play I just traded in.
    The difference is night and day and it's not even close. The game play is smooth as silk.
    I don't know if night and say difference is even enough to describe the difference in the gameplay. It was not like playing Madden , I actually needed to pay attention to the plays I called. Default all pro actually presented a challenge.
    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Operation Sports mobile app
    Sphinx
    I don't know if night and say difference is even enough to describe the difference in the gameplay. It was not like playing Madden , I actually needed to pay attention to the plays I called. Default all pro actually presented a challenge.
    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Operation Sports mobile app

    Yeah, I know I wasn't overly descriptive, but you need to pay attention who you are playing each week.
    Plus, the animations and play on the field looked and felt smooth.
    Sphinx
    I don't know if night and say difference is even enough to describe the difference in the gameplay. It was not like playing Madden , I actually needed to pay attention to the plays I called. Default all pro actually presented a challenge.
    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Operation Sports mobile app

    Yeah for the first time in my life I could not win on All-Pro so I went back to Pro and then I was competitive again...
    Sent from my iPad using Operation Sports
    ODogg
    Yeah for the first time in my life I could not win on All-Pro so I went back to Pro and then I was competitive again...
    Sent from my iPad using Operation Sports

    It was truly humbling using the dolphins and getting stomped by the cpu on all pro. But what was more amazing to me is how different things felt when i used a team like the pats, it was still a challenge but the difference in Brady to Rosen was like no madden I have ever played. Brady could make every throw, where Rosen would struggle with accuracy and time in the pocket.
    The more I type about this game the more I am looking forward to playing it. I really can't remember the last time I said that about a madden game.

More in Madden NFL 20

To Top