I was thinking about this the other day and I think it's one more reason I tink EA is killing football games.

I noticed when looking through player rosters for 2007 that there were many rookies who have overall scores that were pretty damn high.  For example.

• Lendale White - 80
• Vince Young - 82
• Matt Leinart - 81
• Reggie Bush - 87

Even compared to players with 1-2 years experience those are pretty high.

• Alex Smith - 82
• Phillip Rivers - 83
• Rex Grossman - 85
• Eli Manning - 88

Let alone season veterans which are not much higher:

• Deuce McCallister - 88
• Chad Penington - 85
• Deion Branch - 88

I thought it was weird...the small difference between rookies, young players, and veterans.  Heck, there is not much of a difference between starst either with players like Edgerin James only having 92 points overall.

When playing Madden 2003 there was a much larger discrepancy.  Rookie players, even top drafted players come in with maybe a high 70s rating, most in the high 60s, and a few in the low 60s to 50s.  Many veterans range from 40s to 80s, and the starts are the only ones who make it to the 90s.  When scanning through 2007 I had a hard time finding players in the 60s...in 2003 I saw a larger variety which makes me think they just decided to balance things out rather than make it more realistic.

Why do I bring this up?

Because to me it looks like EA is simplifying the game and in the process ruining it.  Soon we should expect players to be different in name and looks only.

I mean honestly.  They rank players who have never played on the pro level, on equal footing with those who have?  It can't be just the high draft status and they look good because Phillip Rivers, Eli and Alex Smith were all top picks as well.

It used to matter when you're playing franchise and Hasselback goes out for a few weeks with an injury.  No matter.  Just pick up any of the players off the free agent pool.  Chances are they are only 10 points overall weaker.   Heck throw on that rookie.  Hell if you want to have a monster franchise just pick The Cardinals and bench Warner.  They have the youngest players (1-3 years) but most of them ar in the high 80s to 90s.  WRs, RB, and rookie QB.

My team in 2003 has a QB with an 87 rating.  WHen he got injured I had a veteran with a 70 rating, and a rookie with a 65.  Rookie was first round pick, veteran was a decent young player.  That point difference made a huge difference and I lost several games because of it. 

But maybe thats EA's new motto.  "Tired of losing because your star player is out?  Never fear Madden '09 is here.  With our newest release nobody is better and everybody wins!"

It ruins realism when you can have new players or 3rd stringers that can easily lead the league in stats, or win Super Bowl victories, not because the player is better than the opponent/computer but because there is little difference statwise between crap players and star players.

It doesn't matter anyway.  Without the competition of 2k they can do whatever they want and people will still buy it.

Is this too nitpicky of a complaint?  Does it make sense?