FOF2k4: Studs other than QB?

[alansl]

It seems to be widely accepted that a stud quarterback pretty much makes the difference to your team in FOF. How much difference do studs in other positions make? Which positions does a stud make too little difference to be worth the price?

I'll start with my own observations, though I have relatively little experience with the game, compared to most of you:

RB: I've always used mediocre running backs, around 50-55. They seem to do alright, though I've never had a bowl-winning dynasty (only consistent playoffs). I'm particularly curious if a stud RB makes a great difference, as I currently have the opportunity to draft one.

WR: Not worth the pricetag. Mediocre is good enough here.

Offensive Line: I've always had a pretty good one. My theory is that one or two studs on the line doesn't make a significant impact by themselves. The line altogether and its cohesion is more important. Purely anecdotal evidence, though.

CB: I've never spent the money on a stud cornerback (drafted one once, but he busted to mediocre). I've also consistently had poor pass defense. Does a stud CB make enough of a difference to be worth the price?

Alan

[Izulde]

Offhand I'd say a stud RB can make a huge impact, especially if you have an offense designed around that.

I'll agree with you on WR. There's no guarantee they'd consistently get the ball game after game IMO, so why bother?

Not sure about OL or CB.

[cthomer5000]

i seem to be the anti-you, as i think great WRs and CBs are well worth the money.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

It depends on what you play frankly. If I have a run offense, then I would want a stud RB, FB, and O-line run ability. If passing offense, then QB, WR, and passing O-line.

As for defense, I find studs at any position help.

[Eaglesfan27]

I think it largely depends upon the system. A stud WR can definitely help, and I've designed very successful offenses around two stud WR's which can be deadly together. I also think a stud CB is worth the price as is a great DE. Of course, I place a high value on a great QB as well, but I won't overpay for one that is just good. I'd rather have an average QB at a cheaper price in that situation.

[stevew]

2 stud WR is a deadly combo. But they will eventually break your heart with the contract demands.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't think having a stud at any other position has the "franchise-changing" effect that having a stud at QB does. Having said that, having a stud at pretty much any position can be a significant benefit, if you set up your team to exploit that.

[Warhammer]

It really depends on the state of your team. If you have a good QB and VG/Excellent WRs, you can afford a mediocre RB. The opposite it true as well.

Regarding the OL, a stud there can do wonders for your running or passing game, especially at LT.

A stud at one of your CB positions is great because you can fill in your #2 slot with a guy that is good in any coverage and not worry about finding a second guy with matching skills.

If you can get an RB with a rating of 80+ and make a pretty good run blocking OL, you can get 5+ YPC with the guy and run away with the title.

[Abe Sargent]

Stud MLBs are amazing. They get sacks, picks, forced fumbles, fumble recoveries, lead your team in tackles, yay!

[revrew]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I don't think having a stud at any other position has the "franchise-changing" effect that having a stud at QB does. Having said that, having a stud at pretty much any position can be a significant benefit, if you set up your team to exploit that.

Ditto.

Like many of the players on this board, I have had great success in FOF--so much so that I have to make up house rules to make it harder. Winning 6 of 10 superbowls in a decade is not unusual if I just play the game as is. I say that not to brag, but to verify my observations:

1. A stud QB is the surest route to success, but a B+ QB who has skills in a few key areas can still be a hall-of-famer. (See my Rebels dynasty for a QB who was never rated above a 75 in his career but still was one of the winningest and most efficient QBs I have ever seen.)

2. The positions where a stud seems the least effective are guard and WLB.

3. Beware studs that don't produce the stats. Again, in my Rebels dynasty, I had a stud SLB rated in the 80s who never got more than 80 tackles in a season. When his contract got too high, I replaced him with a guy who rated in the 50s, and the new guy gobbled up 120 tackles and 1st team LB.

4. Other than that, a stud at ANY position can make a difference, even Fullback Again, see my Rebels dynasty--no this is not shameless self-promotion, it just fits your question. The Rebels were led to 3 SuperBowls by a Fullback and Tight End tandem that were unstoppable. Both were rated in the high 80s.

5. Do not too quickly dismiss a stud WR. One great WR--who constistently produces stats--can destroy your opponents. Two? Never something I've tried. Too expensive. And as for a stud CB--I consider that a necessity. I've never won consistently without an intimidating secondary. Safeties, as they generally cost less, are fantastic studs to stock, but a pair of B+ guys are better than an A+ and C+.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by alansl

RB: I've always used mediocre running backs, around 50-55. They seem to do alright, though I've never had a bowl-winning dynasty (only consistent playoffs). I'm particularly curious if a stud RB makes a great difference, as I currently have the opportunity to draft one.

Half decent running backs can get the job done, but you'll need them to be very good in a couple of areas to really be productive.

Originally Posted by alansl

WR: Not worth the pricetag. Mediocre is good enough here.

I used to believe this. Until I added a super stud WR to both my multiplayer teams. And I think people in both leagues can confirm that it turned my team from just above .500-ish to a true title contender, or at least made the team a lot better. It's crucial to know how to use your receiver. If your wide receivers are just decent, spread around the ball, if he's a 'super duper receiver' you'll want to get him the ball a lot, even sacrifice at other positions by fielding players with slightly lower 'route running'.

Originally Posted by alansl

Offensive Line: I've always had a pretty good one. My theory is that one or two studs on the line doesn't make a significant impact by themselves. The line altogether and its cohesion is more important. Purely anecdotal evidence, though.

Anecdotal here too. Cohesion seems to help, as does fielding some experts in some areas. But people have gotten away with mediocre OL and still consistently won games while not getting their QB and running game destroyed. Personally I'm a bit paranoid at making sure the left tackle I use is one of the best pass protectors. And that I have an above average backup left tackle as well. Or even two of those.

Originally Posted by alansl

CB: I've never spent the money on a stud cornerback (drafted one once, but he busted to mediocre). I've also consistently had poor pass defense. Does a stud CB make enough of a difference to be worth the price?

It's become pretty common to scout for CBs and safeties who are good in one pass defense style. It gives room to hire some less overall talented, but consequently also cheaper players. In the end, one stud player maker at CB could still be very useful, while you might want to make sure your strong safety can support the run as well.


Other crucial positions?
Personally, I rank defensive tackle very high. A stud defensive tackle can be a key player to your run defense, while he can keep the interior linemen busy to make room for the pass rush specialized defensive ends to pressure the quarterback. Have at least one stud. To have two would be great, but almost impossible to afford. I'd also press for having a MLB and if possible a SLB who can stop the run. If available, get guys who do help the pass defense, but stopping the run is compulsory. And never underestimate the power of special teams. Especially an excellent punter and excellent non-fumbling kickoff return specialist can win a game per season for ya.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

If your wide receivers are just decent, spread around the ball, if he's a 'super duper receiver' you'll want to get him the ball a lot, even sacrifice at other positions by fielding players with slightly lower 'route running'.

Nice.

[st.cronin]

If you have a half-decent team, a stud kicker/punter can in fact make a TREMENDOUS difference.

[MizzouRah]

Can we get a new game already?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If you have a half-decent team, a stud kicker/punter can in fact make a TREMENDOUS difference.

This is a very true and astute point

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by stevew

2 stud WR is a deadly combo. But they will eventually break your heart with the contract demands.

Or when you pay one a huge contract and then he retires abnormally early in his career after helping you win a SB!

[Hoosierbuckeye]

I have a very nice defensive backfield led by a great SS and a great RCB. Both very young in FOF terms. The other db's are good. I have the second best pass defense in the league yet with minimal interceptions. They cover better than my wifes quilts. Given that my Lb's are mediocre at best and the DL inconsistent, they've carried me throughout most of the season in The DFL. So, what does this all mean? I agree with Vinperez, Studs at any position certainly help!

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I can testify as to the difference a stud QB can make.

With my stud QB, I won consistantly and had two WR's better than 1000 yds. I went to three straight NFC championship games and two straight Super Bowls, winning the last one. When he went down for the season in game one, using four different QB's who would play ok, then implode, I finished 8-8.

I had two stud WR's before the 8-8 season, but fell victim to Roy Williams wanting a bazillion dollars. My OL I built using guys whose main positive trait is brute strength. I figure they can develop their run blocking and pass blocking. I want strong guys with endurance.

I need a stud FB. No question.

I can get by with a decent TE.

At RB, I have started four different guys in four seasons, all due to holdouts. Each time the new guy has at least held his own and had 1000 yards. The 8-8 season I started a rookie 2nd rd pick who somehow slipped despite starting out in the low 70's! The backup was a rookie FA who was rated 34/34, but had great workout numbers. He's developing and both averaged 4+ per carry.

On defense, I need at least one stud DE and solid DT's. I need a stud CB and at least decent safetys. At LB, I found that I don't need studs so long as they have good endurance and can stop the run.

[Daimyo]

In single player pretty much any strategy works so you can't really use success in SP as a measuring stick to tell if a system works or not.

In MP I think its important to decide what positions you're going to focus on, get the best you can at those positions and fill in everything else on the cheap with lower draft picks and FAs.

RB, TE, OL, S, one-dimensional DL (either all pass rush or all run stopping), and specialist CB (good at only one coverage) seem to grow on trees... you can almost always find startable guys in FA or develop them from easy to get draft picks.

QB, WR, and all-around DL/CB tend to be hard to come by so you usually have to be willing to invest a top 5 draft pick to get a stud.

LB probably depends on your coverage. If you play bump-and-run LB are pretty easy to get (#1 reason so many people play 100% B&R I'm sure). If you play zone or man-to-man it can be pretty challenging to find good LB.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

LB probably depends on your coverage. If you play bump-and-run LB are pretty easy to get (#1 reason so many people play 100% B&R I'm sure). If you play zone or man-to-man it can be pretty challenging to find good LB.

For sure.
It's almost impossible to build depth at LB with guys who are at least good (40+) in zone or M2M defense. Getting 3 starters at 60+ is even harder than that (providing you also want them to at least be able to support the run defense). I'm talking about experience here, not potential.

[Abe Sargent]

It's important here to understand the FOF2k4 question. In another game, a different set of positions may become apparent, like TPF.

In TPF I built one of the top defenses year in and out in MP with what I called my Star defense (because it looked liked a star). This consisted of two DTs, two OLBs, and a SS that were all All-Pro levels (I also had a great corner as a luxury). I could start chumps at all of the other positions and it didn't matter, because I had a great defense.

In FOF2k4, I built what I call an X defense (because it looks like an X), two greats DEs, MLB, and two CBs. Thic became my most powerful defensie formation from a personnel standpoint, and I built several dynasties on this.

So again, it deends on teh sim engine and the understanding therein.

-Anxiety

[kingnebwsu]

Good thread guys.

Semi-thread jack, I've just started trying upping my B&R defensive calling. Do you guys (or some of you guys) really just make it 100% bump&run defense and totally ignore loose man to man AND all zone coverage? I'm just wondering since I've read the whole "focus on one specific coverage" thing before. Not that I really care about this part too much...but is having only one coverage unrealistic? Wouldn't any decent offensive coordinator be able to play-call around a defense that only ran the bump&run? I don't play MP so for me this is a SP discussion only

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by kingnebwsu

Good thread guys.

Semi-thread jack, I've just started trying upping my B&R defensive calling. Do you guys (or some of you guys) really just make it 100% bump&run defense and totally ignore loose man to man AND all zone coverage? I'm just wondering since I've read the whole "focus on one specific coverage" thing before. Not that I really care about this part too much...but is having only one coverage unrealistic? Wouldn't any decent offensive coordinator be able to play-call around a defense that only ran the bump&run? I don't play MP so for me this is a SP discussion only

I do 100% bump and run. It's not realistic, but it's effective in FOF.