MARIO MANNINGHAM 61/62 NO WAY
AMAHAM BRADSHAW 75 NO WAY
:mad:
Printable View
MARIO MANNINGHAM 61/62 NO WAY
AMAHAM BRADSHAW 75 NO WAY
:mad:
No, those two are not as bad as Polamalu being rated only 88. He, if it exists, should be 100.
94-97Quote:
Originally Posted by president
Actually, I'd say that's a solid rating for Bradshaw. He's a good change of pace back who can break big runs but he's not physical enough to really be more than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh123123123
I think almost all of the 2009 rookies got way too low grades. Depending when they inputed the ratings, there should of been given some idea of a player was in the starting lineup or rotation at a position. Obvious Sanchez, Malauga should be a bit higher than most them starting right off the bat. Manningham being in the receiver rotation should be a bit higher.
lmao! Ya'll think thats bad. They have Patrick Willis rated at 77! WTF?! Thats like 99!
that is a definite WTF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clypse
Although he did slump from 174 tackles to 141 tackles (insert steep dose of sarcasm)
Start a franchise in 2002 and just sim the seasons and take part in the drafts... It's crazyness.
Predicted stats. Basically the same type of system Baseball Mogul uses.Quote:
Originally Posted by BradK