PDA

View Full Version : Ronnie Brown should have been rated higher...



RunningBackGuru
08-12-2006, 06:30 PM
http://www.sportsgamer.com/madden07/roster/position.php?position=2

13 backs are "better" in the game. That list includes Droughts, Davis, Jordan, Dunn, C. Williams and McGahee which I believe Brown is all better than. In fantasy, Brown was rated a top 8 back and on NFL.com, he is rated #4 behind Alexander, LT and LJ. He should have been rated 91 infront of Carnell, but behind Johnson. Anyone else agree?

Alex44
08-12-2006, 06:34 PM
He hasnt proven anything yet so I think 89 is just fine for him

King Felix
08-12-2006, 06:36 PM
89 is perfect for him at this point.......

King Felix
08-12-2006, 06:37 PM
theres also a difference between fantasy and real life :lol:

TractorTraylor
08-13-2006, 12:07 AM
The only ones I kinda have a problem with are Warrick Dunn, Caddy and maybe Droughns.. Caddy tho is ahead b/c he had better stats but Warrick I dunno.. maybe next year

The Future
08-13-2006, 12:45 AM
his ratting right now is good, hes also fast in the game, much better then jordan is.

dolphinfan2k5
08-13-2006, 01:55 AM
theres also a difference between fantasy and real life :lol:
Since when is madden real life? :lol:

King Felix
08-13-2006, 02:30 AM
Since when is madden real life? :lol:since he was talking about how ronnie is better than other rbs

xDOLPHINSx
08-13-2006, 02:34 AM
I was pleased with Ronnie's rating actually. 93 speed is very nice.

Dolfan2788
08-13-2006, 03:52 AM
I wouldn't be adverse to 88 either, he rushed for a little over 900 yards and all those backs did that and more so I see no reason why Ronnie should leapfrog them just because he has great athleticism, or he plays for the dolphins or because he was the 2nd pick.

Predaphin
08-13-2006, 12:11 PM
http://www.sportsgamer.com/madden07/roster/position.php?position=2

13 backs are "better" in the game. That list includes Droughts, Davis, Jordan, Dunn, C. Williams and McGahee which I believe Brown is all better than. In fantasy, Brown was rated a top 8 back and on NFL.com, he is rated #4 behind Alexander, LT and LJ. He should have been rated 91 infront of Carnell, but behind Johnson. Anyone else agree?

I think he should be better than Droughns and L. Jordan, other than that, the rest are currently better than him.

AZStryker
08-13-2006, 02:20 PM
It really doesn't matter where he starts at! If you are any good, he'll be in the mid 90's by season's end. Or if you are really upset at the starting point, go to rosters and edit it to where YOU think it should be. Either way, no need to get upset about it.