FOF challenge idea

[QuikSand]

I was just puttering around a bit with a half-hearted FOF dynasty... and had a thought.

From time to time, I find myself playing FOF early in a career, and getting fairly interested with the players that I have to work with -- some undrafted rookies, late round picks, and other castoffs, who end up making a contribution to the team. It's kinda cool to have some 7th round guy end up making the team, becoming your starting FS, and getting 6 picks one year and making the all-pro team.

Usually, though, over time, most of these scrappers end up getting replaced on my teams, and I build toward the inevitable monster roster. So, that fleeting romance of the game ends up getting lost.

So, that got me thinking...

What about a FOF challenge setup where you just load up, in one draft (and after-draft free agency, of course), with everything you can all at once... and then you never, ever add any new players after that? Never sign any free agents, never draft any more players -- that's it.

It might be an entertaining challenge, though a very different one than the usual setup. Presumably, you'd have a dreadfully weak roster... so you'd have to continually rely on lots of marginal players. With the relative rarity of certain positions like DE, OT, CB, and maybe WR -- it might be really tough to come away with respectable players in all those spots, so you'll just have voids, I'm sure.

But this might invite some more intriguing game planning, depth charting, and position flexibility decisions than we're used to. If you're stuck with a certain set of players, year after year, perhaps you'd be more concerned about tweaking with the game plan and formations and so forth to take better advantage of what you have on hand. I'd also think that players with versatile skill sets (LBs who can pass rush, etc.) might become more important - over time, injuries will thin out your roster no doubt, so having some depth everywhere would be pretty important, I guess.

Assuming you could manage the cap and keep everyone healthy and on the team, you'd have mad cohesion after a number of years -- which might be pretty interesting. I have no idea how to fit chemistry into this, but that's a potential consideration also.


Anyway... just an idea I never thought about before. It might not be original, but it also might be something worth fiddling with...

[DaddyTorgo]

i like it. it's interesting. but how would you cope with injuries and the draft picks in future years?

[jbmagic]

thats very interesting...that sure ill be a great challenge..


i wondering if we never allowed to ever add any new players after that? Never sign any free agents, never draft any more players -- that's it.


what you do if you have injuries and players retire, or they wont resign with your team?

and how you skip the draft?

[FBPro]

I like the idea, but question how it would be possible since the game places positional roster requirements on you.

[Cap Ologist]

I think it would be difficult to stay under the cap. Maybe a better idea would be only being able to resign players you originally drafted and not being able to cut them. You could pick up a free agent or two for a couple of seasons, but then they walk. This might accomplish some of the same results you're loking for.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Assuming you could manage the cap and keep everyone healthy and on the team, you'd have mad cohesion after a number of years ...

Hehe, the computer said "mad cohesion".

it's a very interesting idea. of course, if you get hammered by career ending injuries quickly, youd have to add people just to field a team. unless, i guess, the injuries arent really "career ending", as i call them (meaning they lose all their ratings, but in this case, youd have to keep him anyway, not cut him like usual).

its worth a try for someone, i guess.

[QuikSand]

I certainly understand that this could be a total monster. If you get hit with injuries, you could end up with an invalid roster, I understand that.

Maybe the challenge here woudl not be to see how great your team could be, but in part how long your team could last -- maybe the true test would just be how many total wins you could accumulate, rather than a winning percentage.

Certainly not your ordinary challenge, but that's kinda the point.

[QuikSand]

Thinking this through, I think the way to do it would be:

-Start out as the team drafting #1 overall, that way you have plenty of trade-down options within the draft

-Make sure you get adequate players with fairly early picks at a few key spots like DT, LT, and perhaps CB -- it will be very tough "getting by" with castoffs at those positions.

-I think you'd probably have to build the team philosophy around your players, rather than the other way around -- if your best CB ends up being a great zone defender - that's probably your main coverage, like it or not. However, you will need to get adequate run stoppers, period - so you need to draft wisely there along the frint seven. But I'm thinking that with skill positions, you take what you can get and see how it works out.

-The more versatile positions might become an important commodity, as would players who are in the right weight ranges to make late-career position shifts. If you need another DB, you might have to switch over your 4th RB to safety. I'm thinking that a couple depth-chart fillers at each position could end up just being your "keep us legal" guys.

-I don't see how this gets that tough with the salary cap, unless you get a monstrous bonanza of good fortunte in the draft -- you won't have more than a few star-caliber players in all likelihood, and no matter how much other guys play, they shouldn't get out of hand.

[jbmagic]

what about this idea


you keep all your players like you said...and only can replace your players if they retire or you are below roster limit..

you can never release your players

if you do replace a player because they retire they only can be replace with 1st year free agent only and you can still be in the yearly draft...

f you trade you can only trade for picks or for 1st year player only...

[cthomer5000]

im just going to jump into this all out and see what happens.

[cthomer5000]

Took my Saints to a 19-0 record, now taking over the 0-16 Redskins to begin the challenge. I think i'll probably have to take the draft very, very seriously.

[flere-imsaho]

I think I'd need to have some sort of advanced FOF AI to sort all of this out. Oh wait....

[MIJB#19]

That idea is so 2000...

I've tried something similiar back in 2000 with EA's FOF (FOF2). Cohesion did go through the roof after five seasons and it might have been the main reason for the success of the team. As to be expected, down the road I lost interest when the last player retired. In the end, I only kept playing to see who made it to the Hall of Fame.

I like the challenge, though, it's a challenge to my heart. I might pick it up, but then, I'm still a no-know in game planning. (Or maybe not, somehow my pretty weak IHOF team did end up 8-8 with one of the toughest schedules.)

But then, I'm too attached to my IHOF team and it takes up all my FOF playing time, even in the relative down times for my team, I doubt that I would have a hard time getting attached to a single player career team.

Still, I might give it a shot this weekend, perhaps even picking up dynasting it...

[cthomer5000]

I went 2-46 through 3 seaons last night.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I went 2-46 through 3 seaons last night.

So, the bar is set. Two total wins.

Honestly - sorry if things were a shade disappointing. I don't think the ceiling is all that high here, though.

If youu hold the #1 pick and there is a stud QB out there, what do you do? You could probebly tade down from #1 to #10 or so and grab an extra six or eight decent draft picks -- but woudl you be tempted to instead go for the QB, hoping a one-man-show could be enough to get you some victories?


The more I think about it, the more intrigued I am. I think getting usable players after the draft is probably the most important thing, really.

[cthomer5000]

Here's how the draft worked out for me (trading down from #1 overall)

Amateur Draft Report:
Rnd 1.6 - Leo Hinds, OLB, Virginia
The OLB was a bonafide stud, winning DROY, DPOY, and 1st team OLB awards in year 1.

Rnd 1.17 - Ross Lindell, CB, Miami, Florida

Was a semi-bust who looked "good" aftwerwards, then suffered a major knee injury in season two (injuries = 200). He retained most of his skills for season 3.

Rnd 2.2 - Artie Weaver, T, Georgia
Pretty decent pick, though not spectacular.

Rnd 2.3 - Duane Kotter, DT, Michigan State
So-so looking DT, but not enough run support I guess

Rnd 2.4 - Marco Winters, DE, Louisiana State
Bust, bust, bust.

Rnd 2.5 - Carlos Boyles, DE, Louisiana State
Solid pick, probably the best of the second rounders.

Rnd 3.1 - Nathan Frederick, T, Coe
Not so hot but better than anything I got through free agency.

Rnd 4.1 - Luther Bonney, DE, Ohio State
Solid situation pass-rusher with 0 run defense.


I thought my draft was good enough, but I pretty much got shutout in the undrafted free agent class. My QBs wer terrible and I got one breakout guard, another usable guard, and some decent enough running backs (including an offensive rookie of the year winner).

If I was to do it again I'd probably take a big-time QB, as that is something that's just too risky to do without. My best QB had a 0/15 TD/INT ratio in season 2. Painful stuff.

[cthomer5000]

update:

Year Team Eval Perf Diff Proft FrVal Record Playoffs
2009 WAS 52 10 79 75 47 5-11-0 None
2008 WAS 49 0 79 74 51 2-14-0 None
2007 WAS 57 5 77 86 54 3-13-0 None
2006 WAS 63 0 74 100 58 1-15-0 None
2005 WAS 63 0 69 100 63 0-16-0 None
2004 WAS 64 0 67 100 71 1-15-0 None


I'm in the 2010 offseason, and still have all 53 on board (despite some ugly injuries). The only notable occurences were a suspension to some crap CB last season, and a mystersiously angry player:

I have an RB who refuses to resign citing 'past injustices' but his attitude has always been fine. Don't know how that came about, but it's forced me to franchise him (he's my #2 RB) the past two seasons.

My lone bonafide superstar trashed his knee in the 11th game last year, and is now in the "good" range. He played well enough to earn 2nd team all honors even in just 11 games last season.

But with my terrible QB (think an even more skill-challenged Thad Pilkington) and I can't see us pulling off more than 8 wins in a season, ever.

edit: and when I talk about how good that LB is (well, was), think Joe Teeters in his 2005 rampage. My guy is great and reallllly benefited from being the only solid run defender (one other safety does the rest, basically).

[Celeval]

Intrigued me enough to try a dynasty. Just the drafting done so far, but I'll try and keep at this one.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...ad.php?t=32792

[Samdari]

I think to add a bit of spark/hope to this challenge, it would be interesting to allow replacing of retired players with FA's from the same draft year.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I think to add a bit of spark/hope to this challenge...

I only want one. Spark or hope. Here, I choose spark.

There are any number of challenge concepts out there where you get hope. Hope is passe. Overrated.

Spark, I want.

[Pyser]

what about pizzazz ?

[QuikSand]

No.

[wade moore]

flare?

[QuikSand]

This challenge has proven to be fairly interesting, at least for me. I'm three seasons deep - we have one monster star player (at a good position) and have managed to go 6-10 each of the last two seasons.

There are certainly things I would have done differently, though, had I to start over again.

[jbmagic]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

This challenge has proven to be fairly interesting, at least for me. I'm three seasons deep - we have one monster star player (at a good position) and have managed to go 6-10 each of the last two seasons.

There are certainly things I would have done differently, though, had I to start over again.

that is truly amazing....

that shows me how important it is doing your own gameplans

[QuikSand]

It might only show how big a difference a stud QB can make... and I got a big breakout at WR to go along with him, too.

[QuikSand]

Just a small update -- my team, playing under these rules, has made it to the Superbowl after a 13-3 season in 2010. As noted, I managed to land a stud QB, but the other top pick I made has suffered a serious injury and is nowhere near the player I drafted.

It's a little surprising to see what consistent playing time can do for players who looked pretty marginal when you acquired them. If I learn nothing else, I'll take that away from this experience.

[QuikSand]

Just bumping this thread... I have given thought to this whole idea, and am concluding that it's worthy of revival. WHile at the moment, I'm a bit tied up with my multi-player FOF teams, this challenge idea is still in the back of my mind. Alas, I ended up with a stud QB in my One and Done Bears team, which probably skews the results. I think it would be a lot more interesting to be playing a team with lower-caliber players everywhere.


Hmm... maybe marry the two concepts of "one and done" and "misfit toys" -- and have a team consisting of nothing but undrafted rookie free agents, all from one year, who duke it out forever as a unit.

That could be brutally difficult. :salivates:

[QuikSand]

Well, I remembered that this thread existed, so I though I'd append a new idea here rather than start an old one.

I have just started the initial stages of a new FOF career - here is the basic challenge rule:

-Every player must be signed to a minimum salary contract for his experience - no bonuses, no negotiations, no trades, no draft picks.

My thinking is that anyone who is any good at all (especially a player getting starting playing time) will eventually demand a contract that's at least a bit more than minsal, rendering him impossible to re-sign. So, there ought to be real turnover at most of the top positions - at least I hope so. (I though my Push-Button team al on one year contracts would be rife with turnover, and the opposite happened instead)

Anyway - with my first team assembled by these rules, I was able to land pretty decent players at every position on 2 and 3 year contracts - so it might not turn out to be as challenging as I had thought. But the inability to capitalize on things like breakout rookies seems like a real impediment to me. Hard to know whether a backbone of strong affinity is the way to go here, either.

Anyway - thought I'd share the idea. Seems interesting to me.

[tdydynasty]

I once did a TCY SC8 team (Anaheim, CA) moved them to Los Angeles, CA and got players only from Los Angeles for the team. The players sucked of course, I moved some to othe positions and cut the non-LA players. Landed the 12th ranked QB in Los Angeles. (sarcasm)

[QuikSand]

Way back when (playing, I think, FOF2), there was a trendy FOF challenge to run a team withonly players from a limited group of colleges. Some people did only one conference, I remember playing a team with only players from Ohio colleges.

Challenging yes, but the biggest downside for me was tat your success was so largely out of your own control. If a couple of star players happen to come along fromt he right schools, you're in fat city - if not, you can end up being teh suck. Too much seemed like a lottery, rather than a game of skill.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Well, I remembered that this thread existed, so I though I'd append a new idea here rather than start an old one.

I have just started the initial stages of a new FOF career - here is the basic challenge rule:

-Every player must be signed to a minimum salary contract for his experience - no bonuses, no negotiations, no trades, no draft picks.

My thinking is that anyone who is any good at all (especially a player getting starting playing time) will eventually demand a contract that's at least a bit more than minsal, rendering him impossible to re-sign. So, there ought to be real turnover at most of the top positions - at least I hope so. (I though my Push-Button team al on one year contracts would be rife with turnover, and the opposite happened instead)

Anyway - with my first team assembled by these rules, I was able to land pretty decent players at every position on 2 and 3 year contracts - so it might not turn out to be as challenging as I had thought. But the inability to capitalize on things like breakout rookies seems like a real impediment to me. Hard to know whether a backbone of strong affinity is the way to go here, either.

Anyway - thought I'd share the idea. Seems interesting to me.

I'm thinking, just like PBR, you are not going to know the TRUE results of this until you get through a couple of off-seasons... Where you may get by here is with older players that other teams are relatively unwilling to sign, despite ability...

[tdydynasty]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Way back when (playing, I think, FOF2), there was a trendy FOF challenge to run a team withonly players from a limited group of colleges. Some people did only one conference, I remember playing a team with only players from Ohio colleges.

Challenging yes, but the biggest downside for me was tat your success was so largely out of your own control. If a couple of star players happen to come along fromt he right schools, you're in fat city - if not, you can end up being teh suck. Too much seemed like a lottery, rather than a game of skill.

I see every team, no matter their distance from California seems to have 1 or 2 Californians on their team. In real life Rutgers kicker is from California. BTW: Rutgers secondary recruiting base is Miami, FL. They have 18 from Florida on the roster, 9 from Miami alone.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by tdydynasty

I see every team, no matter their distance from California seems to have 1 or 2 Californians on their team. In real life Rutgers kicker is from California. BTW: Rutgers secondary recruiting base is Miami, FL. They have 18 from Florida on the roster, 9 from Miami alone.

If your argument here is that TCY might make a better seting then FOF for a restricted-geography challenge, then I'd agree.

[stevew]

Since this seems to be an "idea thread," one idea I've been playing around with is to only offer option 1 contracts to my rookies, to play around with the idea of being a "hard ass" cheap owner. It sucks rather quickly, as i seem to forfeit my top couple picks every year.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Well, I remembered that this thread existed, so I though I'd append a new idea here rather than start an old one.

I have just started the initial stages of a new FOF career - here is the basic challenge rule:

-Every player must be signed to a minimum salary contract for his experience - no bonuses, no negotiations, no trades, no draft picks.

My thinking is that anyone who is any good at all (especially a player getting starting playing time) will eventually demand a contract that's at least a bit more than minsal, rendering him impossible to re-sign. So, there ought to be real turnover at most of the top positions - at least I hope so. (I though my Push-Button team al on one year contracts would be rife with turnover, and the opposite happened instead)

Anyway - with my first team assembled by these rules, I was able to land pretty decent players at every position on 2 and 3 year contracts - so it might not turn out to be as challenging as I had thought. But the inability to capitalize on things like breakout rookies seems like a real impediment to me. Hard to know whether a backbone of strong affinity is the way to go here, either.

Anyway - thought I'd share the idea. Seems interesting to me.

So far, tough to say. I have played through three seasons under this rule, and am about to see a lot of my initial signees depart -- veterans who are willing to sign a minsal deal will generally do so for three years but not more. So we have about 25 players who have been with us for three seasons, but who now will think they're a little bit better than minsal guys, and won't consider our offers to re-sign.

Three years of just under .500 ball -- we did have a very strong degense in year two for some reason, but our offense was dreadful. In year three, both regressed to the mean a bit more, but we couldn't get above 7 wins.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

So far, tough to say. I have played through three seasons under this rule, and am about to see a lot of my initial signees depart -- veterans who are willing to sign a minsal deal will generally do so for three years but not more. So we have about 25 players who have been with us for three seasons, but who now will think they're a little bit better than minsal guys, and won't consider our offers to re-sign.

Three years of just under .500 ball -- we did have a very strong degense in year two for some reason, but our offense was dreadful. In year three, both regressed to the mean a bit more, but we couldn't get above 7 wins.

The win total is promising on the surface...

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I have just started the initial stages of a new FOF career - here is the basic challenge rule:

-Every player must be signed to a minimum salary contract for his experience - no bonuses, no negotiations, no trades, no draft picks.

Well, it is startig to look like this is a truly tough challenge - my mediocre teams have fallen apart on me. My team's defense is okay, and I have been able to get decent players at every defensive position as needed, but we can't pass worth a damn. I seem to have been lucky at QB in the initial couple of seasons, but now we can't get anyone to sign with us who has any concept of the air game. Two more crappy seasons gone - and no hope in sight.

Tough to say whether this is good or bad. I'm starting to feel like it's becoming a "lottery" situation again - if a solid QB comes along who would sign with me, we could probably have three decent seaons with him. but my lack of QB talent is not because I decided not to get one, it's just because I can't get anyone any good, period. (Plenty of decent guys just tantalizingly out of our reach with minsal contracts)

[wade moore]

still interestd to see how this pans out over the long run...

[QuikSand]

Looks like there's one more rule necessary to keep this fair.

I had gotten into the habit of trying to re-sign a veteran player of mine after training camp, notably when he was my position leader but unwilling to re-sign at minsal. One year, I was in the FA section after camp, and noticed a couple players I liked who would play for minsal - so i signed two or three guys (admittedly, one was a QB). Best season yet.

I think my new rule is basically no post-camp contracts, period - though i'm possibly open to just deals to retain an guy for affinity sake. Tough to blur the line there, though.

[QuikSand]

I may dig back through my notes, and post a not-very-detailed "dynasty" thread on this idea. This might be the closest I have come to my own holy grail for challenge careers -- where I am able to keep the challenge and difficulty level high, but still feel like it's my decision making that really guides the team's success or failures. This set of rules does have its own share of luck involved... but I do feel like I am making a lot of meaningful decisions along the way. And it is *tough* to win, I am finding.

Prety good stuff... I have notes in two locations, so I will try to post the beginnings of a thread tonight.

[QuikSand]

Need a better nickname than just "The Minsal Chalenge" though...

[stevew]

You could be chicago, and call it the "Bear Minimum Challenge"

[Kodos]

The Mike Brown Challenge?