Jump to content

Rankings of all teams, from best to worst


Recommended Posts

based on my own personal system. you might disagree, but I did it just for fun, and maybe someone will find it useful:

Offense Defense KR PR Total

1 49ers 500 407 31 63 1001

2 Oilers 514 350 25 44 933

3 Giants 370 463 31 50 914

4 Raiders 407 434 25 44 910

5 Bills 399 383 19 50 851

7 Bears 274 495 31 44 844

6 Vikings 344 412 25 63 844

8 Dolphins 382 369 25 56 832

9 Eagles 364 402 25 19 810

10 Steelers 226 469 44 56 795

11 Chiefs 340 376 25 44 785

12 Lions 371 289 25 56 741

13 Chargers 300 370 25 44 739

14 Redskins 351 308 25 44 728

15 Rams 425 215 31 50 721

16 Cowboys 313 327 25 50 715

17 Bengals 331 288 25 69 713

18 Saints 263 301 44 50 658

19 Jets 282 302 25 44 653

20 Broncos 325 244 25 56 650

21 Cardinals 257 307 25 56 645

22 Bucs 271 288 25 50 634

23 Falcons 326 238 31 25 620

24 Patriots 257 302 19 31 609

25 Packers 302 233 19 44 598

26 Browns 313 206 25 38 582

27 Seahawks 264 194 25 50 533

28 Colts 269 149 19 44 481

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Method for the above rankings (long and boring, skip this if you just want to yell at me because the Bengals are better than that (they're not), the Pats are worse than that (they're better than people think), or the Steelers have a better defense than the Bears (they don't).

Note: In addition to the QB, I used the top 4 players on each team, regardless of position, plus a TE. For teams with no TE I used the top 5 players.

QB: PC + [-6 if PS < 38, +6 if PS is 56-69, +13 if PS > 69] + [+6 if Avoid Blk > 50] + (MS - 13).

Top 5 QBs:

QB Eagles 125

Montana 100

QB Bills 94

Moon 94

Marino 81

RBs, WRs, and TEs were all ranked the same, going with the assumption that you can put players in any position. Based on this, Jerry Rice can be one of the best RBs in the game, as well as a great receiver. MS was given prime importance, with REC being valued about half as much. MS from 19-56 was given its actual value - 19 MS got 19 points up to 56 MS got 56 points. Then:

MS: value

63: 75

69: 88

75: 100 (this was just to give Bo a higher value)

I tacked on 6 points for RBs with 81-88 HP and 13 points to RBs with 94 HP. I gave Okoye 6 bonus points for having 63 RS and 75 RP, otherwise I didn't factor RS at all.

REC: value

19-44: 0

50: 6

56: 13

63: 19

69: 25

75: 38

81: 56

The reason for this system developed when I realized if I just added MS and REC together, annoying things like Roger Craig and Bo both scoring 94 would happen. So I realized I had to give more than face value to players with higher ratings, and also that a player with 69 MS is much better than a player with 69 REC. I also realized that there were no players with over 69 REC who were slow, so the only one maybe getting screwed was like Ricky Proehl, who only got 44 points.

Top 5 WRs:

Rice 144

Ellard 113

Hill 113

Rison 113

Anderson 94

Givins 94

AC 94

Top 5 RBs:

Bo 100

Barry 88

Neo 81

Thurmal 81

Humphrey 75

Butts 75

I gave Okoye 6 points for high RS/RP, and that brought him up to 69 points. I think the above guys are better than him.

Top 5 TEs:

Novacek 69

Keith Jackson 69

Marv Cook 63

Brent Jones 63

Jim Jensen 56

Steve Jordan 56

O-Line:

HP: value

31-38: -6

44-56: 0

63-69: 6

75: 13

I'm redoing the defense, but I don't expect the overall team rankings to change much. Stay tuned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bengals are 17th? *scratches head*

Yeah I did, too, at first. But really look at their defense. Fulcher is a superstar and I gave him 125 points, higher than any other player in the game except Jerry Rice, and Francis is slightly above average (a lot of guys have at least 31 RS and 44 RP), but other than that it sucks. That's really all you need to use them, but I added up every player so they suffered a bit from lack of depth.

Their offense is better than average, but not by a lot. The only two teams that scored higher offensively that my gut tells me the Bengals are better than are the Vikings and Redskins. Overall I was surprised by how well the Chargers and Steelers ranked.

My defensive rankings probably need work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole process doesn't sound like it weights things accurately.

I think my offensive rankings are pretty accurate. I already said I have to rework the defense. What specifically do you think is not accurate about the offense? Here are my offensive ranks:

Offense

Oilers 514

49ers 500

Rams 425

Raiders 407

Bills 399

Dolphins 382

Lions 371

Giants 370

Eagles 364

Redskins 351

Vikings 344

Chiefs 340

Bengals 331

Falcons 326

Broncos 325

Cowboys 313

Browns 313

Packers 302

Chargers 300

Jets 282

Bears 274

Bucs 271

Colts 269

Seahawks 264

Saints 263

Cardinals 257

Patriots 257

Steelers 226

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an example it has the eagles as just a slightly better offense than the redksins. That is vastly underating the ability of QB eagles.

His 56ms +69pc makes him worlds better than any other qb. He's like an offense unto himself.

I just think trying to lump Rb's and Wr's together with one formula kinda messed things up.

Basically it looks like teams with good WR's are going to come out much higher offensively than they should.

I think the HP bonus was a bit excessive as HP does little on this rom.

Id use the QB, top RB, and the top 3 receiving threats (whatever position they may be). I'd wieght REC as a little more important for WR/TE's.

Using the top RB hurts a few teams like OAK, NYG, and CHI that can put in

two good Rb's but i think that is OK.

Basically i would weight things like follow (2*QB points) + (avg of WR+TE points)+ 1.5*RB points. This makes passing twice as important as running even though that isn't really the case on the original rom. If you wan't to have it ranked more as it actually plays out multiply RB points times 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

somewhat fair assessment. I tried to make the rankings based on putting anyone in any position, with the exception that most people use at least one TE for blocking. So you can do more with a WR that has high MS and high REC than you can with a RB who just has high MS. Ricky Sanders and Gary Clark make better RBs than Byner, plus they can catch.

I put PR in because I was thinking more of how the teams play against the computer. It's easy to get PR TDs in the double digits when your MS is high enough. I don't know how many times I won playoff games or the Super Bowl with the Bengals by returning punts for TDs. One time I had a really sucky Super Bowl with the 49ers and that's even how I won with their 63 MS. I forgot that most MAN players never punt. Will consider removing it.

Good point about QB Eagles. Plus teams with bad QBs and good WRs are ranked too high, and that annoys me. Just doubling the QB points of my existing ratings looks like it will make for more accurate offenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is excessive. That like saying >88HP is worth two notches of MS which it isn't even close to.

Let me put it this way. On the original rom a

56ms 06HP RB is at worst equal to a 50MS 94HP RB. HP really only comes into play if the man defender can't corral you and you manage to pop a few drones that would otherwise grab you. It doesn't help much for a-button wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't your RB get tackled just by being touched if he had 6 HP?

Plus it's not a one-to-one thing as far as HP or MS; they have different uses. Blocking, for instance, and like you said popcorning drones is mainly what I was thinking of. That can be really helpful if you can burn the MAN player on KRs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

is bo really much better than barry? barry's stats are all the same or better except in ball control in which bo is 75, barry is 69. i was never sure who actually was better since bo always gets more recognition

edit: yet bo is so much faster...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...