Thurmanation Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 67 Overallthis is ridiculous..they even have the stains and Raiders ahead of us.How can they justify this rating? Quote
kevnz Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 The ratings are based off of last year, and let's be honest we sucked last year. Sports video games are always this years schedules with last years teams....They are done even before preseason and as such have no basis in fact. To me it illustrates that EA needs to allow update-able rosters and skills for the games, but then that may cut into next year sales, and since they have no competition why should they add something like that? Quote
ArmyBengal Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 How does it make sense ??It's a video game... Quote
whizzo Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 well that's fairly ridiculous. of course, we might be biased Quote
Kazkal Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 Hell even 2006 seemed like we got jipped nothing new..... and few key players got injured so their stats on madden go down...I'll remain playing Cinci online though after some fresh ass whoopin's I may give Vikings a try haha. Quote
TJJackson Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 How can they justify this rating?We'll be fine as soon as we get Odell back, right? Quote
Sandwedge Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 67 Overallthis is ridiculous..they even have the stains and Raiders ahead of us.How can they justify this rating? Sorry, but isn't Madden a video game? It's not real. Personally, I wouldn't base anything off imaginary...Just saying... Quote
gregstephens Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 67 Overallthis is ridiculous..they even have the stains and Raiders ahead of us.How can they justify this rating? Sorry, but isn't Madden a video game? It's not real. Personally, I wouldn't base anything off imaginary...Just saying...Hey! Hey! Hey!You take that back!!! Quote
Bearcat1975 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 67 Overallthis is ridiculous..they even have the stains and Raiders ahead of us.How can they justify this rating? Sorry, but isn't Madden a video game? It's not real. Personally, I wouldn't base anything off imaginary...Just saying...Exactly.Palmer and Ocho are both coming off of "off years." And they are the cream of the crop in this bunch, from a Madden Rating perspective.The defense is still a bunch of has-beens/never-weres. I doubt Madden has any of them rated higher than 81 or 82. And we all know about the oline. Well, most of us anyway.67 seems a little harsh, but if you want the World-Shaking Cincinnati Bengals, go buy Madden 2006. That's the one that came out after 2005, which of course is the only time the Bengals have had a winning record in the past 19 years. To those of you who think the Bengals rating should be higher, what do you think it should be? And why? Those of you who have played Madden for years, look at this team. Does anybody even belong in the low 90s? Not in my opinion.I'll take a wild guess here and say that they made the Stillers really good on defense, and pretty good on offense. Probably one of the best teams on Madden. I wonder why. Same reason they made the Bengals suck again. Because its a video game. They are trying to be "best guess" realistic based on past performance, and prediction of upcoming performance based on...wait for it... past performance. Quote
Ickey44 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 67 Overallthis is ridiculous..they even have the stains and Raiders ahead of us.How can they justify this rating? Sorry, but isn't Madden a video game? It's not real. Personally, I wouldn't base anything off imaginary...Just saying...Exactly.Palmer and Ocho are both coming off of "off years." And they are the cream of the crop in this bunch, from a Madden Rating perspective.The defense is still a bunch of has-beens/never-weres. I doubt Madden has any of them rated higher than 81 or 82. And we all know about the oline. Well, most of us anyway.67 seems a little harsh, but if you want the World-Shaking Cincinnati Bengals, go buy Madden 2006. That's the one that came out after 2005, which of course is the only time the Bengals have had a winning record in the past 19 years. To those of you who think the Bengals rating should be higher, what do you think it should be? And why? Those of you who have played Madden for years, look at this team. Does anybody even belong in the low 90s? Not in my opinion.I'll take a wild guess here and say that they made the Stillers really good on defense, and pretty good on offense. Probably one of the best teams on Madden. I wonder why. Same reason they made the Bengals suck again. Because its a video game. They are trying to be "best guess" realistic based on past performance, and prediction of upcoming performance based on...wait for it... past performance.Well, I would think Palmer should be in the low 90's somewhere, other than that no one else on the team is that good. I honestly don't know who does the ratings for Madden, but in my opinion, the ratings have always been flawed. Not just for the Bengals, but for every team. I normally spend the first hour or so with every new Madden adjusting player ratings to what I think they should be.But, I don't have anything to complain about with the 67. They earned it last year. Quote
Dimster28 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 i think 67 is too low but one thing btoher me is dolphins with 77 while pats with 93, dolphins is the one who enter playoff not pats Quote
whizzo Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 Carson should definitely be a low 90. also, some other players should be between 85 and 90 - leon hall and chad immediately come to mind. i wonder what our rookies will be rated at. Quote
Thurmanation Posted June 20, 2009 Author Report Posted June 20, 2009 67 Overallthis is ridiculous..they even have the stains and Raiders ahead of us.How can they justify this rating? Sorry, but isn't Madden a video game? It's not real. Personally, I wouldn't base anything off imaginary...Just saying...Exactly.Palmer and Ocho are both coming off of "off years." And they are the cream of the crop in this bunch, from a Madden Rating perspective.The defense is still a bunch of has-beens/never-weres. I doubt Madden has any of them rated higher than 81 or 82. And we all know about the oline. Well, most of us anyway.67 seems a little harsh, but if you want the World-Shaking Cincinnati Bengals, go buy Madden 2006. That's the one that came out after 2005, which of course is the only time the Bengals have had a winning record in the past 19 years. To those of you who think the Bengals rating should be higher, what do you think it should be? And why? Those of you who have played Madden for years, look at this team. Does anybody even belong in the low 90s? Not in my opinion.I'll take a wild guess here and say that they made the Stillers really good on defense, and pretty good on offense. Probably one of the best teams on Madden. I wonder why. Same reason they made the Bengals suck again. Because its a video game. They are trying to be "best guess" realistic based on past performance, and prediction of upcoming performance based on...wait for it... past performance.I agree 100% with what your saying, and there are roster updates so by the end of the year we will be where were supposed to, but why would they have teams like KC and Oakland and even the stains higher then us? Thats what im really trying to figure out. Quote
Pidge Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 It's a video game...LIES!/put fingers in ears and runs away screaming Quote
gregstephens Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 It's a video game...LIES!/put fingers in ears and runs away screamingYeah, I know. The nerve of some people. Quote
Pidge Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 I take it 67 is particularly low score for the game then. I mean, that's what a high C grade? Seems generous going on last season's efforts. Quote
whizzo Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 player ratings go from 0-99. starting players are usually 80-90, with the really good guys being 91-99. 67 is just too low as an average for a team with guys like palmer (should be around 90), benson, ocho, coles, williams, hall (all certainly 80+), and other decent players. Quote
Kazkal Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 player ratings go from 0-99. starting players are usually 80-90, with the really good guys being 91-99. 67 is just too low as an average for a team with guys like palmer (should be around 90), benson, ocho, coles, williams, hall (all certainly 80+), and other decent players.Well I do wonder if Cedric will crack 80 well he turned it on at end of the year but they probably value it as a whole ie we suck even though we played much better 2nd half of year vs the shetty teams ahead of us....I also see our offensive line & Defense line probably hurting the score alot....Cook High 65-70?Livings 65-70?Whitworth 70?+Bobbie williams high 70?Andre I think was what 78? Defense Geathers 68-72? odom same?Peko(hopefully he get's some love but I could see them putting him as high 70 even though he had a great year last year....)Sims,Tank?70-75? at best... Quote
Pidge Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 player ratings go from 0-99. starting players are usually 80-90, with the really good guys being 91-99. 67 is just too low as an average for a team with guys like palmer (should be around 90), benson, ocho, coles, williams, hall (all certainly 80+), and other decent players.I see. Ah well. No doubt it''ll still be easy enough to go undefeated and win the SB yr after yr anyway. Just like most comp games. Quote
whizzo Posted June 21, 2009 Report Posted June 21, 2009 Cook High 65-70?Livings 65-70?Whitworth 70?+Bobbie williams high 70?Andre I think was what 78? Defense Geathers 68-72? odom same?Peko(hopefully he get's some love but I could see them putting him as high 70 even though he had a great year last year....)Sims,Tank?70-75? at best...i would think our DEs would get a bit more. but otherwise, about right yeah. now explain how we arrive at 67 average with that - the average form those nine is a (conservative) 72. our QB is 85-90, our RB certainly over 72, our two WRs as well. TE prolly around 70, FB as well. on D, our three LBs should certainly be around 70 at least. our two young CBs are 75-80, and we have a nice selection of good safeties as well. i just don't see how you could get a 67 average from that. Quote
Kazkal Posted June 21, 2009 Report Posted June 21, 2009 I could see them giving Odom a pass and be like 75ish but Geathers hasn't done shet for several years so I don't see him getting love...Hope Joseph & Hall land with decent stats kekeour RB certainly over 72, oHow high was he in 2009? I don't get my PS3 till the 29th so I'm not sure what his previous stat'sare but I can't see him going up much being how his career was for the Beers went and even though he finished strong last year it seems like madden ignores that hence us being the 3rd worst team.....our three LBs should certainly be around 70 at least. our two young CBs are 75-80, and we have a nice selection of good safeties as well. i just don't see how you could get a 67 average from that.Well Several things I see driving our score mix of lack of experience just lack of well known players.... Quote
WhosTombrady? Posted June 21, 2009 Report Posted June 21, 2009 67 Overallthis is ridiculous..they even have the stains and Raiders ahead of us.How can they justify this rating? That's because you suck ass, even Madden knows it. Get used to being 4th because that is your new lucky number, for the next 10 seasons. Quote
Bearcat1975 Posted June 21, 2009 Report Posted June 21, 2009 Cook High 65-70?Livings 65-70?Whitworth 70?+Bobbie williams high 70?Andre I think was what 78? Defense Geathers 68-72? odom same?Peko(hopefully he get's some love but I could see them putting him as high 70 even though he had a great year last year....)Sims,Tank?70-75? at best...i would think our DEs would get a bit more. but otherwise, about right yeah. now explain how we arrive at 67 average with that - the average form those nine is a (conservative) 72. our QB is 85-90, our RB certainly over 72, our two WRs as well. TE prolly around 70, FB as well. on D, our three LBs should certainly be around 70 at least. our two young CBs are 75-80, and we have a nice selection of good safeties as well. i just don't see how you could get a 67 average from that.You forgot about all of the backups. Depth has never been a strong suit for the Bengals, so some of our backups are in the 50s I bet.If your starters only make the 80s, and your backups are in the 50s-60s... 67 sounds about right. Quote
whizzo Posted June 21, 2009 Report Posted June 21, 2009 so is that 67 the average of all players, or the starters? i was figuring the latter... Quote
Ickey44 Posted June 21, 2009 Report Posted June 21, 2009 so is that 67 the average of all players, or the starters? i was figuring the latter...It's all the players as far as I know. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.