|
|
Post by BV on Jun 14, 2009 20:06:50 GMT -5
Indi! Indi! Indi! Well, I hate that every game that the Patriots are the best team in it. 09 they weren't.  Steelers at 92? I can live with that. ;D Don't worry you'll still suck with them anyway.  |
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Jun 14, 2009 20:08:46 GMT -5
09 they weren't. Steelers at 92? I can live with that. ;D Don't worry you'll still suck with them anyway. Considering my connection, the world may never know.  A little peeved the Pats landed that high though. |
|
|
|
Post by Kody on Jun 14, 2009 22:39:20 GMT -5
Honestly, I understand the Pats being number one. They have the best QB in the game, and the best WR in the game. So it makes sense for them to be the best team in the game. Plus, it's only 1 more point than the SB champs. And the previous year SB champs at number 3. And the only reason they're 89 is 'cause of the loss of Plaxico, pretty much.
|
|
|
|
Post by captain master talbot on Jun 15, 2009 9:40:59 GMT -5
Yea, everyone's ratings are down. I think Steve Smith should be a little bit higher, but I can work with that receiving core.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Tebow™ on Jun 15, 2009 10:40:05 GMT -5
These team ratings are JBL is poopyty and not accurate at all.
edit: LMFAO! JBL is poopyty
|
|
|
|
Post by BV on Jun 15, 2009 10:53:38 GMT -5
Im not too mad, they usually do roster updates and fix ratings depending how that teams season is.
|
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Jun 15, 2009 12:41:40 GMT -5
I am happy with the Falcons ratings.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 18, 2024 4:57:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2009 17:01:42 GMT -5
Wait, Bears 79? Yet Viking get 80? What a load of crock.
I swear, they treat new players' ratings like crap unless its a draft prospect ESPN whored out. I call out favortism with these ratings.
|
|
|
|
Post by captain master talbot on Jun 15, 2009 17:28:44 GMT -5
Well the Vikings finished first in the NFC North last year, and have the best running back, and one of the best defensive ends in the game on their team.
|
|
|
|
Post by BV on Jun 15, 2009 17:32:30 GMT -5
Well the Vikings finished first in the NFC North last year, and have the best running back, and one of the best defensive ends in the game on their team. Yep, specially since Bears D had been lackluster last season considering they have alot of good talent on defense. |
|
|
|
Post by Kody on Jun 15, 2009 20:16:56 GMT -5
Yeah, Vikings being higher than the Bears makes perfect sense.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 18, 2024 4:57:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2009 13:11:31 GMT -5
I'm just more mad that EA would rather have Bears at 79 instead of 80, but they don't deserve any higher than that. But why the hell aren't there any teams at 90 even?
|
|
|
|
Post by captain master talbot on Jun 16, 2009 14:01:02 GMT -5
It's pretty much based on the average of their players.
And the Bears, honestly, are a mediocre AT BEST team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Almost Like Flacco on Jul 13, 2009 20:37:42 GMT -5
Wait, Baltimore's only 82? That seems a bit low to me.
|
|
Adam235
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 25, 2007 14:30:36 GMT -5
Posts: 4,844
|
Post by Adam235 on Jul 20, 2009 15:33:38 GMT -5
I like where the Cowboys are. Can't wait to play this game. |
|
