|
Post by Jindred on Sept 2, 2012 1:55:51 GMT -5
@mo Your running backs are all rated about right. Except Pierre Thomas he should only be 80 IMO Lance Moore is Overrated. Bushrod is fine IMO Strieff is too low if anything. Will Smith is about right. Barrett Ruud to high? really? He is a very good MLB and the only reason he isn't mid 80s low 90s is because he has been so injury prone all his career 78 is perfect for him. I agree with the rest except Johnny Patrick cause I don't know who he is lol. Oh I also think Curtis Lofton is underrated should be a 93 IMO. No. I can understand Ingram being below 80, I actually think he is perfect at 79 for the time being. But the rest should be above. I am ready to argue this. How is Moore overrated? Smith used to be good, but he is getting old and didn't do that good last year. Point taken on Ruud Johnny Patrick is our 3nd round pick from 2011. He's better than a 68, but I wouldn't upgrade him too much. I think 71 is fair for him. I don't think any of NO running backs really deserve a rating much higher than 80. If one of them was actually a legitimate back on their own I would give them more credit but no one separates them self from the pack in those running backs, not one is any better than the other. And I don't believe they have proved that they are worth 80ovr's (I look forward to your argument on this! I wouldn't be on the forums if I didn't want to discuss and argue over things of this sort! ) Every time I watch the Saints receivers none of them impress me aside from Colston and even he is prone to dropping the ball lots. Lance Moore, along with Meachem, Henderson and most of the other receivers the Saints have are a product of Drew Brees. They wouldn't be good on teams with anything less than a top 5 QB. There is nothing impressive about him his hands are ok, his speed is average his route running isn't anything special. I think he is a low 80s to high 70s WR. Will Smith you might be right about. I just remember when him and Charles Grant were together how good they were and that might taint my view of him. Ehh I have no opinion on Patrick until I see him play. Its tough to rate rookies because there are always guys who are supposed to be good then suck and guys who are supposed to suck and turn out good. their rating will change so the first one doesn't really matter. Unless they rate them super high and then it annoys me. I don't think rookies should ever be rated over 80 until they have played a regular season game in the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by mitch9234 on Sept 2, 2012 6:59:38 GMT -5
Talking about the roster highs and lows, I think I didn't do mine for the Colts yet OverratedUnderratedSlightly underratedSuper Duper Ultra Mega UnderratedI agree with Hilton being underrated but disagree with Luck. I think Luck is too high. If we were talking about his rating before the season, then he could have been a bit overrated, but after some games, he should have a 85-86 overall
|
|
|
Post by mitch9234 on Sept 2, 2012 7:00:20 GMT -5
What does it mean when a player has a question mark besides his overall in Madden? I can only assume that the players you are referring to are rookies after the draft has taken place b/c those are the only players I've seen that ever have question marks beside any of their ratings. If they're rookies, the reason why they have question marks beside their OVR ratings is b/c you haven't fully unlocked ALL of their individual ratings yet... therefor the OVR rating for that player is just an estimate (hence the question mark) based on the individual ratings you have fully unlocked at that time that are relevant to the position he plays. That's the only reason I know of, though, so hopefully I didn't just waste 10 minutes telling you something you already knew Thanks
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Sept 2, 2012 15:18:55 GMT -5
No. I can understand Ingram being below 80, I actually think he is perfect at 79 for the time being. But the rest should be above. I am ready to argue this. I don't think any of NO running backs really deserve a rating much higher than 80. If one of them was actually a legitimate back on their own I would give them more credit but no one separates them self from the pack in those running backs, not one is any better than the other. And I don't believe they have proved that they are worth 80ovr's (I look forward to your argument on this! I wouldn't be on the forums if I didn't want to discuss and argue over things of this sort! How does Darren Sproles not deserve a high 80's ranking? He broke the all purpose yards record last year.. Pierre Thomas has proven to be a legit back on his own. The Superbowl season he was on his own for the majority, and he averaged 5.4 YpC on 147 carries and only fumbled once that year. Chris Ivory has been a feature back for us too. In 2010, Pierre Thomas was injured for pretty much the whole season, so was Reggie Bush. Ivory averaged 5.2 YpC that year on 137 carries that year. I know that 147 and 137 carries aren't that much in comparson to the carries RB's like AP get, but we are a pass first offense. I agree with Ingram's rating at the moment, but I fully believe he will move into the 80's sometime this year. If you want my own pesonal ratings for the Saints backs, I think Sproles = 88 Thomas = 84 Ivory = 81 Ingram = 79
|
|
|
Post by TonOdanK on Sept 2, 2012 19:48:17 GMT -5
ivory is underrated. hes not the fastest guy but he has great vision and is a bruiser. his only problem is that he has trouble holding on to the ball sometimes
lance moore is another underrated player. hes not the biggest or fastest guy but he has good hands and is great in the redzone. in 2010 and 2011 hes had 8 TDs each year and thats pretty good considering he only started 1 game in 2010 and 7 games in 2011
|
|
|
Post by Jindred on Sept 3, 2012 1:07:38 GMT -5
I don't think any of NO running backs really deserve a rating much higher than 80. If one of them was actually a legitimate back on their own I would give them more credit but no one separates them self from the pack in those running backs, not one is any better than the other. And I don't believe they have proved that they are worth 80ovr's (I look forward to your argument on this! I wouldn't be on the forums if I didn't want to discuss and argue over things of this sort! How does Darren Sproles not deserve a high 80's ranking? He broke the all purpose yards record last year.. Pierre Thomas has proven to be a legit back on his own. The Superbowl season he was on his own for the majority, and he averaged 5.4 YpC on 147 carries and only fumbled once that year. Chris Ivory has been a feature back for us too. In 2010, Pierre Thomas was injured for pretty much the whole season, so was Reggie Bush. Ivory averaged 5.2 YpC that year on 137 carries that year. I know that 147 and 137 carries aren't that much in comparson to the carries RB's like AP get, but we are a pass first offense. I agree with Ingram's rating at the moment, but I fully believe he will move into the 80's sometime this year. If you want my own pesonal ratings for the Saints backs, I think Sproles = 88 Thomas = 84 Ivory = 81 Ingram = 79 I forgot about Sproles! Sproles definitely should be over 80! I think between 85-88 is around right for Sporles. Pierre Thomas is good don't get me wrong but he is extremely one dimensional. His running ability is ok but he should only ever run the ball strait ahead. When he gets moving sideways he gets stopped more often than not. I would give him a rating of 79 maybe 80. Chris Ivory I think is honestly your best all around back but he hasn't won his starting job and the addition of Ingram last year also makes me question him. Id give him a 78 purely base on the fact that they have other players that the use instead of him. Ingram I haven't seen much that has really impressed me out of him tbh. He is slow, he didn't hit the hole with much authority last year he wasn't punishing players when he ran. I think he is the worst runningback on your team and I think the Saints never should have added him! He was unnecessary and it would have been smart of them to take other players over him. I find him totally mediocre but he only has one year under his belt I think he should be 75 at most. What has he done that warrants anymore than that?
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Sept 4, 2012 15:46:15 GMT -5
Fair point on Pierre Thomas and his lack of shiftiness but him being rated below Shonn Greene who is an 82 REALLY bothers me.
Again, fair points on Ivory.
I also agree Ingram wasn't very impressive last year, but he'll breakout this year imo.
|
|
|
Post by Jindred on Sept 4, 2012 16:36:35 GMT -5
Fair point on Pierre Thomas and his lack of shiftiness but him being rated below Shonn Greene who is an 82 REALLY bothers me. Again, fair points on Ivory. I also agree Ingram wasn't very impressive last year, but he'll breakout this year imo. Really? Shonn Greene is rated higher than Pierre Thomas? That is bullshit! If I had a team Pierre Thomas would definitely have a place on it! He is the kind of guy I like when you need just 3 yards because I believe he will get it! Pierre Thomas has his strength.. where as Greene isn't really very strong at any aspect of the game.. I guess we will see this year with him being in Sparano's offense.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Sept 4, 2012 19:28:37 GMT -5
Yeah, it's dumb. That's all I've been trying to argue about Thomas is he should be rated higher than Greene lol
|
|
|
Post by Jindred on Sept 4, 2012 21:04:03 GMT -5
Yeah, it's dumb. That's all I've been trying to argue about Thomas is he should be rated higher than Greene lol Yea.. Greene should be rated like a 75ish maybe 77..
|
|