The Great Rebuilding

[jeronemitchell]

I have found myself in a position where I am probably going to have to rebuild (i.e. start a bunch of young guys with great potential but low current ratings) at least on section of my defense. If you were FORCED to have to go this route, which sections have you guys found will least impact your teams negatively?

Safeties
Corners
Linebackers
DLine

I would prefer NOT to have to endure another losing season... though, I'm guessing, that's one of those big parts of why they call it "rebuilding".

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by jeronemitchell

I have found myself in a position where I am probably going to have to rebuild (i.e. start a bunch of young guys with great potential but low current ratings) at least on section of my defense. If you were FORCED to have to go this route, which sections have you guys found will least impact your teams negatively?

Safeties
Corners
Linebackers
DLine

I would prefer NOT to have to endure another losing season... though, I'm guessing, that's one of those big parts of why they call it "rebuilding".

Is this SP or MP? That will play a role in my determination. However, I try to ALWAYS have a good secondary. If you have great CBs, you can shut down a good passing team, even with poor LBs and DLs. Safties help to shut down the TEs and also help out in the run game. My safties typically have the most tackles on my team, since they help out greatly against both aspects of the opposing offense.

I would say the DL is the next most important section of the D, while very hard to do, a great DL can mask other areas that are ineffectual. You can have a very good passing D with a great line and ok CBs. However, the DLs tend to have the highest cap numbers on defense.

I tend to have the fewest impact players at LB. I like having a stud MLB, but my OLBs are average at best. But, you can be flexible with what you look for here. You can go for a PR specialist or a Run D specialist, and save a lot of cap space in doing so.

[mhass]

Definitely focus on a top secondary. Frequently I have a stud DE or DT that manages only 40-55 tackles and 3-5 sacks. I almost never have a stud CB that doesn't perform. I would start with the CB and then get a S. Then orient your top corner to cover the opponents top WR. If you can then pick up another good corner, all the better. There's a reason CB get the top money in free agency. Safeties, in my opinion, are freqently under-valued however.

Stud OLB's do the least for you.

[flere-imsaho]

I concur. I think you can get away with skimping on LBs.

And I'm pretty sure this is MP....

[jeronemitchell]

Heh. Yeah... this is Multi-Player. Flere should know, since he now has one of my stud Safeties who I exchanged for a "project" and a pick (I'm battling salary cap woes, and am working on long-term solutions).

Out of curiousity, what would you guys say about the offensive end? I'm pretty good right now, but I've been following some teams to see how they are going to react. What would you say are most important from

QB
RB
WRs
OLine

I'm not including Fbs and TE's, as, from everything I read, they aren't worth as much as the other four.

[flere-imsaho]

QB, easily. But risky. If your O-Line sucks, you run a good chance of that QB getting badly injured. You could decide to go the other route and just run all the time, but then you'll need a good RB & some talent on the O-Line.

The "safest" option would probably to get a QB who excels at the short stuff, and then run a short passing game that minimizes the chance of the QB getting obliterated by the defense on sacks.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by jeronemitchell

Heh. Yeah... this is Multi-Player. Flere should know, since he now has one of my stud Safeties who I exchanged for a "project" and a pick (I'm battling salary cap woes, and am working on long-term solutions).

Out of curiousity, what would you guys say about the offensive end? I'm pretty good right now, but I've been following some teams to see how they are going to react. What would you say are most important from

QB
RB
WRs
OLine

I'm not including Fbs and TE's, as, from everything I read, they aren't worth as much as the other four.

Actually I LOVE stud TEs and FBs. If you are playing a short passing game offense, they are critical to its success. If you are playing long ball, the WRs stretch the field, while the TE takes the underneath routes. They also help out tremendously in the running game.

I would rate them:

QB
TE
WR
FB
RB

The only reason why FB is rated below WR is that a stud TE can go deep, FBs never do. I also like having a deep receiving threat. Stud WRs can make an average QB look great. I would rate having a stud OL higher than the other positions, but it is so difficult to really do, and keep the line together for many years. Plus, to keep every one together will put you in cap hell.

RBs I rate lowest because I can take an average RB and still get 4.25 YPC out of him. Its hard to have a below average QB still average more than 7.25 YPA.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by jeronemitchell

Heh. Yeah... this is Multi-Player. Flere should know, since he now has one of my stud Safeties who I exchanged for a "project" and a pick (I'm battling salary cap woes, and am working on long-term solutions).

Out of curiousity, what would you guys say about the offensive end? I'm pretty good right now, but I've been following some teams to see how they are going to react. What would you say are most important from

QB
RB
WRs
OLine

I'm not including Fbs and TE's, as, from everything I read, they aren't worth as much as the other four.

My order
QB
Oline
WR
RB

You can get a 1,000 yard season out of a nobody RB with a good O-line. I've seen guys with overall ratings in the 30's lead the league in rushing just because of good lines. Also, preventing sacks is crucial.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

My order
QB
Oline
WR
RB

You can get a 1,000 yard season out of a nobody RB with a good O-line. I've seen guys with overall ratings in the 30's lead the league in rushing just because of good lines. Also, preventing sacks is crucial.

While I agree with this, you still need a stud somewhere on the offense besides the OL and at QB.

[mhass]

It used to be (FOF2?) that a QB could carry any team if good enough. I think there's still a lot of weight given the quality of QB on a team, but that follows IRL. I always try to have a good QB and definitely have an excellent FB and TE because their cheap and effective. Then I try to get a good pair of WR's if I can, if not a good RB. Like Leonidas said with RB's, a mediocre but not awful WR can rack up 700-1000 yards receiving on the right team. Since WR's get so much darn money at the top end, I usually stay away from the All-Pro's. I'd say

QB
TE & FB (cheap and good)
WR
RB

[Warhammer]

One other note, try to make your WRs complement each other. Does no good to have two clones at WR, you want one that can go deep, and another posession type.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by mhass

It used to be (FOF2?) that a QB could carry any team if good enough. I think there's still a lot of weight given the quality of QB on a team, but that follows IRL. I always try to have a good QB and definitely have an excellent FB and TE because their cheap and effective. Then I try to get a good pair of WR's if I can, if not a good RB. Like Leonidas said with RB's, a mediocre but not awful WR can rack up 700-1000 yards receiving on the right team. Since WR's get so much darn money at the top end, I usually stay away from the All-Pro's. I'd say

QB
TE & FB (cheap and good)
WR
RB

My WR strategy differs a little from yours, but for the same reason. I draft good WR's with no intention of ever re-signing them. I usually have a steady rotation, every 4-5 years with my WRs. I get those good years out of them at draft pick prices, then let em go elsewhere for the big paydays. I augment the starters usually with a bargain veteran (rating 45-50) as my 3rd receiver.

I do kinda the same thing with RBs. Sometimes I'll draft a stud RB with no intention of re-signing him at contract time. Maybe I'll franchise him, but I'll never give into one of those $30M contracts they ask for when re-signing.

I've also had good luck getting decent veterans (rating around 50) for decent contract prices. If I don't want to draft a new guy I'll go this route. Lamont Jordan was a guy I got like that as a FA for like $4.5M for 3 years and I usually got around 1200 yards a season. Then of course when the time came he wanted a huge deal. As a 7 year RB he was already on the downside of his career so I let him go.

[jbmagic]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

One other note, try to make your WRs complement each other. Does no good to have two clones at WR, you want one that can go deep, and another posession type.

what ratings do you look at for possession type WR? and for deep WR?

thanks

[Warhammer]

For possession WR: Avoid drops, adjust to ball, route running

For deep WR: Getting downfield, Big Play receiving, route running

[jbmagic]

thanks

which position for Wr is good for the one to go deep? FL or SE

and which one is good for possession WR? FL or SE

[Warhammer]

I think of my FL as the deep threat, and the SE for possession, but others have it the other way around.

[mhass]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

thanks

which position for Wr is good for the one to go deep? FL or SE

and which one is good for possession WR? FL or SE

Those positions are really more significant in the running game to be truthful. Since the SE is on the same side as the TE typically, make that one the better blocker (or more physical, bigger, tougher, stonger, etc.) if you tend to run to the strong side. I've found very little correlation to the specific position a quarterback will favor (i.e., the QB likes the better receiver regardless of position).

[Rhone Ranger]

Originally Posted by mhass

Those positions are really more significant in the running game to be truthful. Since the SE is on the same side as the TE typically, make that one the better blocker (or more physical, bigger, tougher, stonger, etc.) if you tend to run to the strong side. I've found very little correlation to the specific position a quarterback will favor (i.e., the QB likes the better receiver regardless of position).

I thought the SE was on the opposite side relative to the Tight End. And the FL "flanks" the TE - i.e. is on the same side as the TE.

[mhass]

You're right. I wrote that wrong. The Flanker "flanks" the TE. Duh.

[jbmagic]

Originally Posted by Rhone Ranger

I thought the SE was on the opposite side relative to the Tight End. And the FL "flanks" the TE - i.e. is on the same side as the TE.

so true

it seems like so far in my season i have a great TE that can catch the ball and get over 10 yards per catch and a great FL receiver and SE

and my TE gets more catches and more target than my FL receiver.

so i am wondering if you have a great TE that will cut into the FL receiver catch and targets?

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

so true

it seems like so far in my season i have a great TE that can catch the ball and get over 10 yards per catch and a great FL receiver and SE

and my TE gets more catches and more target than my FL receiver.

so i am wondering if you have a great TE that will cut into the FL receiver catch and targets?

It sure can. Also having a great receiving FB or RB can cut into receiver production. I know of some guys who got rid of really good FB's because it changed the way they wanted their offense to run.

[MIJB#19]

Now there's a theory, it being smart to dump a good receving RB, FB and TE to increase the production of WRs. But where's the opposite theory of having 5 guys who can get open rather than the 2 WRs, which is easier to game plan against, no?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Now there's a theory, it being smart to dump a good receving RB, FB and TE to increase the production of WRs. But where's the opposite theory of having 5 guys who can get open rather than the 2 WRs, which is easier to game plan against, no?

My philosophy is to have as many quality receivers as possible. I would rather have a 67% completion rate and get 6.8-7.25 YPA vs. a 55% completion rate and 8.0 YPA.

[mhass]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

My philosophy is to have as many quality receivers as possible. I would rather have a 67% completion rate and get 6.8-7.25 YPA vs. a 55% completion rate and 8.0 YPA.

But as to the question jerone asked to start this off, if you have to prioritize, a good receiving TE and FB come much cheaper than a good RB or WR.

[QuikSand]

Fascinating thread.

[MIJB#19]

Like you, Warhammer, I think I prefer having 5 good receivers on the field in stead of 2 elite WRs with non-catching RB, FB and TE.

Originally Posted by mhass

But as to the question jerone asked to start this off, if you have to prioritize, a good receiving TE and FB come much cheaper than a good RB or WR.

But one decent WR comes cheaper than a duo of top TE and top FB. And you really need decent blockers there to have your running game not drop to a below 4.0 ypc level, I think.