FOF 2007 GroupThink (season five)

[QuikSand]

Over the years, with various versions of the FOF games, we have had some substantial success with a multi-participant game here at FOFC. A search on terms like "GroupThink" will yield some of this history -- the Wyoming Wildfire team, run by a fair number of us back with FOF 2001, was very entertaining, as I recall.

I know that multiplayer competitive leagues are all the rage. But I'm wondering if there might be some interest in a multi-particpant effort to run one team in a single-player environment. Historically, this has been a matter of dividing up into several different roles to be played -- with various people focusing on drafting, free agency, various position groups, gameplanning, and the like.

SInce we're fairly early in the game's lifespan, maybe this might prove to be an interesting way for some of us to learn more about the new game together.


Anyone interested? I don't have easy access to web space to post game files, so someone with that resource would be needed... past that, I have to imagine we could swing things okay. I'm willing to play nearly any role.


- - -


With things gettiung underway, here are the essentials:

To get the files, log on to Yahoo! mail using this information:

username: groupthink2007
password: godillos

From there, go get THREE files, unzip and overwrite in this order:
-the very first initial file sent
-the file form the start of the latest season (currently 2009)
-whatever is the very latest file sent

Incidentally, by accessing the game files, you implicitly agree to NOT engage in any simming ahead, or any other unsportasmanlike activity contrary to the spirit of the game, whether articulated specifically here or not. This means no simming ahead, no testing out position switches, no conducting rookie interviews, no testing out contract offers, etc. -- that is all going to be done centrally, by the person who is actually conducting the sim. This is an exercise in playing the game collaboratively, not in cheating to demonstrate how clever you are.

[Peregrine]

I'm up for this, it sounds fun, and with all the new features it will add a lot to discuss, like who we interview for the draft, getting the results together, analyzing the new stats, etc

[MalcPow]

I'd definitely be interested as well. A few of the things I've seen lead me to believe that this version is going to be much deeper for multi-player or a slower collaborative game like this. It sounds like scouts are going to be much less dependable at higher levels, and that taking a more active interest in the league's universe, tracking other players' performance and development, and just generally being a bit more thoughtful about things will be a big factor in success. I really love that 'avoid interceptions' is now hidden, it's going to add a whole new layer to trying to guage the development of a young qb.

[JeffW]

I'm down. I like the roster management aspects best, but I am a capable game planner as well. Let me know if there is a spot open for me.

-Jeff

[SunDevil]

They are called succession games in Civ4, and they really do help people learn more about the game, especially if it is in a AAR (After Action Report) format, where you describe what you did and the reasons. I would definitely read the thread.

[SnDvls]

I'd read along as well, but don't think I'm a strong enough FOF player to help.
sounds like an awesome idea though.

[mckerney]

I'd be interested in some role, something along the lines of special teams coach. I do have access to about 20 MBs of webspace I could use for this as well.

[Icy]

Count on me for any free spot open.

[QuikSand]

Glad to hear there is interest. I know that if I play, I will want to be involved in the discussion for most things -- which was really fun all along. Ideally, we have one person who is ultimately in charge of, say, the rookie draft (presumably that won't be me) but I'd still want to be part of discussing whether we take the WR or the LB, for example. So, even if we have jobs, a lot of the fun comes from doing stuff collaboratively.

I am going to be intermittenly available the next few days, but by around Wednesday ought to be back available regularly. By then, maybe we can start appointing a staff and getting things started.

[wade moore]

I'd likely want to be involved. I just feel guilty because I think I completely killed one fo the Grou pThinks when I left for my like year or so long time away from the board with no notice or warning.

Anyway, I'll help any way I can.

[RedKingGold]

This sounds like a good way to get a feel of the mechanics of the game.

I'd like to give it a try if at all possible.

[TRO]

Ah, memories.

I think I would like to be involved in the draft / draft scouting side of things.

[Ragone]

I'd like to join in as well.. something to do with drafting as well..

[Vince]

I wouldn't mind participating at all -- but I'd be just as happy following along from the outside.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

...I know that if I play, I will want to be involved in the discussion for most things -- which was really fun all along. Ideally, we have one person who is ultimately in charge of, say, the rookie draft (presumably that won't be me) but I'd still want to be part of discussing whether we take the WR or the LB, for example. So, even if we have jobs, a lot of the fun comes from doing stuff collaboratively....

If it goes in this direction, I'd be interested in joining the discussions, though I don't want a particular job.

[Eaglesfan27]

I've never been involved in one of these, but I'm highly intrigued.

[QuikSand]

It's probably best to let people plow through the game a bit, but my plan will be to start something up probably on Wednesday of next week. If you're interested in a specific role, drop me a line by PM. If you have any specifics -- like "here's what I'd like to do as defensive coordinator" or somesuch, that would be great but not necessary. By far the most valuable contribution is a willingness to stay involved with the project - we'll let overall talent take care of itself.

Last time we did this, we gave actual roles to everyone, but allowed anyone who wanted to chime in in basically every decision. So, even if your job is special teams coach, you can certainly be part of discussions about drafting CB or OL, or about who ought to be starting at QB, or whatever the issue of the day happens to be.

My goal will be to have game files ready to go out on Wednesday, and we can start with an empty cupboard team in year two of a brand new career. I'm assuming that fictional rosters would be preferred here, and that we will take over (and presumably relocate) an NFL team.

We'll gin up the engines mid-week next week, so if you're interested, give some thought to a role you might want to stake out, and let me know. I'll do my best to pull things together as best I can and get it rolling.

[Dutch]

No way I have time since I get to start back up at school on Tuesday.

But I'll be following along, always trying to pick up whatever knowledge I can about the inner workings of FOF.

[Vince]

My last day at the restaurant is the 10th of November, so I'm probably out until then -- but after that, I'd love to jump in.

[QuikSand]

Casual respone in the thread has been fine, but follow-up has been... uh... less so. That's okay, maybe we're all too deep into home testing games to commit to something like this.

I'll try to get this started soon, maybe today. I'm thinking that to start, we'll just run season one of a league, and at its end release all the players -- then "take control" in year two with an empty roster and a severe cap problem for the initial year. That ought to phase-in any action a bit, which I think would be wise.

For those interested... does that seem sensible?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Casual respone in the thread has been fine, but follow-up has been... uh... less so. That's okay, maybe we're all too deep into home testing games to commit to something like this.

I'll try to get this started soon, maybe today. I'm thinking that to start, we'll just run season one of a league, and at its end release all the players -- then "take control" in year two with an empty roster and a severe cap problem for the initial year. That ought to phase-in any action a bit, which I think would be wise.

For those interested... does that seem sensible?

Definitely.

I'm having a hard time getting into testing as the SP feel is just not for me, so this should help me to gear up some interest.

At this point, I'm pretty willing to take on whatever is needed to make things move. With my job right now, I should be pretty able to take on some responsibility since I work from home, although some days are pretty busy.

Maybe we need to start actually assigning roles?

[Icy]

I'm still interested, but shouldn't we wait until the patch? There are some important bugs like FA negotiations. Anyway i'm up to this.

[lcjjdnh]

Didn't see this the first time around, but I would be interested in this.

[RedKingGold]

Still up to it

[Sublime 2]

I'd be up for a scouting/drafting role.

[QuikSand]

Okay, I have started a new FOF 2007 career, have QuikSimmed through year one, and after the disastrous 0-16 season from the Houston Texans, they have been folded and replaced.

Welcome to the NFL, Texarkana Armadillos. Zero players, a lingering cap disaster, and starting basically from scratch.

I have already hired a front office staff, all pretty young, on 1- and 2-year contracts (the shortest they would accept), so we will have to make decisions there soon. I just thought that the best way to get ourselves truly immersed would be by starting off at the hottest time of the offseason -- the start of free agency. So from right here, we can already see the free agents, and the rookie draft class. It's time to get to work.

I have set up a Yahoo! email account for use with the game files, which I hope will do for now at least. For anyone who is game for getting into this exercise, we'll hold off on the idea of formal roles for right now... most people just expressed a generic interest in being involved, so we'll run it without roles and titles for the moment.

To get the files, log on to Yahoo! mail using this information:

username: groupthink2007
password: godillos

There should be one huge zipped file in there, about 5 MB in size. I believe that all yolu newed to do is frop its contents into your "universe" directory, but it's been a while since I dealt with these various files, so it's possible that there's more work to be done. If you have trouble with this, please post it here, and we'll get it cleared up.

With that... load up the files, and we'll use this thread for discussion on what to do. If you did a seaqrch on the term "GroupThink" you may have noticed that at one point the multiple GT threads offended some users, so we'll need to be responsible about this -- no need to start 20 different threads to debate every single issues with the team. Let's try to keep it in this thread for now... if we need to branch out, we can discuss how to do that later.

[QuikSand]

Incidentally, by accessing the game files, you implicitly agree to NOT engage in any simming ahead, or any other unsportasmanlike activity contrary to the spirit of the game, whether articulated specifically here or not. This means no simming ahead, no testing out position switches, no conducting rookie interviews, no testing out contract offers, etc. -- that is all going to be done centrally, by the person who is actually conducting the sim. This is an exercise in playing the game collaboratively, not in cheating to demonstrate how clever you are.

[wade moore]

I will d/l these as soon as work settles down today (if?)

[QuikSand]

Chemistry Leaders

So, I think that if we want to make an effort to build some chemistry on this team, one way to do so is to take advantage of the “blank slate” beginning, and to go out and get some players who could be effective team leaders, just for chemistry purposes. So, I’m looking for five guys who are all in the same affinity group – that way we might all be able to easily spot affinities and conflicts, without having to do too much work to do so. We’d also have the opportunity for multiple affinities at QB.

So far, here’s the best lot I can find:

DT Corwin Burks, 11th year, 8-9, Ldr 100, Pers 99
CB Howie Gerak, 9th year, 8-9, Ldr 100, Pers 83
WR Grady Woodson, 9th year, 8-9, Ldr 98, Pers 90
RB Marc Aranda, 7th year, 8-9, Ldr 60, Pers 86
RT Bruce Cote, 8th year, 8-9, Ldr 90, Pers 60

If we go out and sign all five of these guys, then in theory we could completely organize all our chemistry planning. If things are set up as they were in FOF 2004 (which I have heard, but not confirmed) then we could target players in the 7-8 and 11-12 groups to try to build affinities. And, we could pretty easily keep that in mind when evaluating rookies as well, a nice bonus.

From this lot, I suspect that RB Aranda and DT Burks are probably good enough to actually contribute, and maybe even start. But the main focus is getting chemistry foundations, any on-field contributions would just be gravy.

[Eaglesfan27]

I'll be downloading after work today or tomorrow at the latest.

[RedKingGold]

I've d/led the files and will have a lot of time this afternoon to have a good look at everything.

[KWhit]

Downloaded. Should be fun.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Chemistry Leaders

So, I think that if we want to make an effort to build some chemistry on this team, one way to do so is to take advantage of the “blank slate” beginning, and to go out and get some players who could be effective team leaders, just for chemistry purposes. So, I’m looking for five guys who are all in the same affinity group – that way we might all be able to easily spot affinities and conflicts, without having to do too much work to do so. We’d also have the opportunity for multiple affinities at QB.

So far, here’s the best lot I can find:

DT Corwin Burks, 11th year, 8-9, Ldr 100, Pers 99
CB Howie Gerak, 9th year, 8-9, Ldr 100, Pers 83
WR Grady Woodson, 9th year, 8-9, Ldr 98, Pers 90
RB Marc Aranda, 7th year, 8-9, Ldr 60, Pers 86
RT Bruce Cote, 8th year, 8-9, Ldr 90, Pers 60

If we go out and sign all five of these guys, then in theory we could completely organize all our chemistry planning. If things are set up as they were in FOF 2004 (which I have heard, but not confirmed) then we could target players in the 7-8 and 11-12 groups to try to build affinities. And, we could pretty easily keep that in mind when evaluating rookies as well, a nice bonus.

From this lot, I suspect that RB Aranda and DT Burks are probably good enough to actually contribute, and maybe even start. But the main focus is getting chemistry foundations, any on-field contributions would just be gravy.

We should also keep in mind who we will be targeting in the draft. If we decide to actually use the 1.1, we want to make sure he fits in with our chemistry structure.

[MalcPow]

Downloaded also. I like the idea of locking up some good leaders as well, will add a layer of analysis for us as we're evaluating players and give us some more decisions to make.

Looks like we'll have a tough draft day decision to make between a good young qb or a stud LT. There look to be some very attractive options to trade down as well though, CB Lochner, OLB Tucker, and ILB Rockwell all have some pretty good 'measurables.' I think our next steps are interviewing everyone at the top of the board and trying to get a feel for how far down we can trade and still pick up an impact player. From what I've been seeing I'd be very surprised if QB McCartney did not go #1, but his blue bars don't set him apart from the two QB's rated beneath him, so even if we decide to focus on a QB with our first pick I think we'd get more value by moving down.

Good stuff, should be fun to have these discussions. Should we be targeting guys for interviews right now? Are we going to be signing free agents other than our leaders, or are we going to build through the draft and undrafted rookies?

[QuikSand]

WARNING -- it appears that we have a problem, and doing a rookie interview (with at least one player, the top QB) causes a crash. It's possible that the game file is corrupted somehow. Just be warned, before investing too much time into this game. I don't know what to do about it... but FYI.

[RedKingGold]

After we have our affinity structure set, perhaps we should try and determine what type of system we will run in terms of offense and defense?

That would guide us through determining what personnel we need through FA and the draft to build this team.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Good stuff, should be fun to have these discussions. Should we be targeting guys for interviews right now? Are we going to be signing free agents other than our leaders, or are we going to build through the draft and undrafted rookies?

Without any overall agreement that we shoudl restrict ourselves in any general way, I figure we'll play withotu house rules, but with common sense restraint. So yes, we can be looking at vetreran players as well -- but we do need to keep in mind that we have a seriosu cap problem this year, with more than 40% of our cap space dead from last year's cuts.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

WARNING -- it appears that we have a problem, and doing a rookie interview (with at least one player, the top QB) causes a crash. It's possible that the game file is corrupted somehow. Just be warned, before investing too much time into this game. I don't know what to do about it... but FYI.

Hmmm.... Yes, I'm getting the same thing.

[QuikSand]

So, assuming we go with the 8-9 group as our leaders… here are some affinity-positive free agents who look like they might be worth pursuing:

Birthdays 7/24 – 8/23 and 11/23 – 12/22:

QB Donald Morrill – 2nd year, probably a future mentor, pretty lousy skills
CB Maurice Sellers – 7th year, 38/38, solid in bump, decent cover man
WR Frankie Kramer – 10th year, 36/36, decent receiver, surplus mentor, ST+
SS Shannon Wolfe – 5th year, 45/55, great in zone, solid all around, PR, ST+
LG Allen Coffey – 12th year, 44/44, decent run blocker, 94 personality
DE Wade Bullock – 12th year, 43/43, void in run D, 84PRTech, 9.3 PR% in 06
DT Julio Forbes – 6th year, 31/31, run stopper (55) with little else to offer
WILB Lamont Samuels – 7th year, 37/39, decent all around
CB Percy Schiller – 11th year, 38/44, good play D and interceptions

Nobody here is a standout star player, but all (except QB Morrill) are worthy of putting on the field, at least as a stopgap, if need be, and none are likely to be very expensive.

[SunDevil]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Chemistry Leaders

So, I think that if we want to make an effort to build some chemistry on this team, one way to do so is to take advantage of the “blank slate” beginning, and to go out and get some players who could be effective team leaders, just for chemistry purposes. So, I’m looking for five guys who are all in the same affinity group – that way we might all be able to easily spot affinities and conflicts, without having to do too much work to do so. We’d also have the opportunity for multiple affinities at QB.

So far, here’s the best lot I can find:

DT Corwin Burks, 11th year, 8-9, Ldr 100, Pers 99
CB Howie Gerak, 9th year, 8-9, Ldr 100, Pers 83
WR Grady Woodson, 9th year, 8-9, Ldr 98, Pers 90
RB Marc Aranda, 7th year, 8-9, Ldr 60, Pers 86
RT Bruce Cote, 8th year, 8-9, Ldr 90, Pers 60

If we go out and sign all five of these guys, then in theory we could completely organize all our chemistry planning. If things are set up as they were in FOF 2004 (which I have heard, but not confirmed) then we could target players in the 7-8 and 11-12 groups to try to build affinities. And, we could pretty easily keep that in mind when evaluating rookies as well, a nice bonus.

From this lot, I suspect that RB Aranda and DT Burks are probably good enough to actually contribute, and maybe even start. But the main focus is getting chemistry foundations, any on-field contributions would just be gravy.

A couple of questions about chemistry.
1. How important is it to have team chemistry? Does it play that big of a role?

2. Are there certain birthdates to pick, or whatever grouping you can find?
3. Why 5? Why 3 offensive players and 2 defensive players?
4. Do certain positions have more of an impact on leadership and chemistry?

Thanks.

[QuikSand]

From the game help file:

Team chemistry is fairly simple in nature. The team is broken into five leadership groups (backfield, receivers, offensive line, defensive front and secondary). Each group has a leader, which can be any player on the roster. Every other player in the group may have a conflict or affinity with that leader. Conflicts or affinities can affect the performance of every player in that group. Quarterbacks may have conflicts or affinities with all of the other leaders on the team.

I believe that the mention of QBs interacting with defensive leaders has since been discredited, but this apparebntly still defines how the system works -- same as in FOF 2004.

As for how important it is... nobody really knows. There are some studies in the Strategy folder that might be interesting to read, but it's largely unknown how big a deal it is.

[QuikSand]

A graphic to replace the generic "Little Rock" might be nice, at some point, for those whose contributions might be something outside the game itself.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

After we have our affinity structure set, perhaps we should try and determine what type of system we will run in terms of offense and defense?

That would guide us through determining what personnel we need through FA and the draft to build this team.

I like that idea in general.

Here's a thought -- maybe we could try to build a style that is essentially something new to the game in FOF 2007, compared to what was available in FOF 2004? The obvious thing that I can think of is either a true West Coast offense (heavy focus on the short pass) or perhaps even a run-and-shoot style offense. On defense, I'm not sure what might make sense -- perhaps a 3-4 setup with more LB specializtion, enabled by the more detailed depth chart setting?

Any specific thoughts along these lines? I'm game for most anything, and I do like the notion of coming up with a style of play and them seeking out players who will fit well with it... at least to the extent that we plan to do anything but a generic gameplan, that is.

[Eaglesfan27]

I've developed a true West Coast Style Offense that has worked very well in one of my test leagues. I'd be glad to share it for the project if we wanted to go that route. Of course, it helps in that league that I have a great running back who is very dangerous with the short passes.

[QuikSand]

Chemistry Effects on Drafting

If we go ahead and adopt the 8-9 group from above as our deliberate chemistry leaders, then here are some top rookies who would be potential affinities:

RT Jonathan Bickler
CB Bryant Nissly
QB Floyd Carlisle
QB Ricardo McConnell


…and perhaps more importantly some potential conflicts (birthdays from 5/22 to 6/21):

LT Courtney Free (the #1 ranked player overall)
RT Jumbo Rogers
RT Deion Jennings
DT Kenneth Cassidy
LG Frankie Hawkins
DE Derek Cordie
DT Tony Testa
FL Bobby Herod
RB Antonio Caniff
SE Ellis Kurtz
CB Aaron Noe
RB Leonard Martin
LT Mitch Collado
RB Rich Anthony
SLB Quentin Matthews – superfast LB, ran a 4.39

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I've developed a true West Coast Style Offense that has worked very well in one of my test leagues. I'd be glad to share it for the project if we wanted to go that route. Of course, it helps in that league that I have a great running back who is very dangerous with the short passes.

I like that approach, and if you've got a gameplan already sketched out, I'm perfectly fine going with it. So, presumably, we would want to find "good fit" players. So, in addition to the things we usually would look for... we'd want:

QB - short passing, accuracy, screen passing
FB - good receiving skills, blitz bickup
WR - getting downfield, courage
OL and TE - emphasis on pass blocking skills

Anything else I'm leaving out?

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I like that approach, and if you've got a gameplan already sketched out, I'm perfectly fine going with it. So, presumably, we would want to find "good fit" players. So, in addition to the things we usually would look for... we'd want:

QB - short passing, accuracy, screen passing
FB - good receiving skills, blitz bickup
WR - getting downfield, courage
OL and TE - emphasis on pass blocking skills

Anything else I'm leaving out?

RB with good receiving skills and blitz pickup as well.

Also, route running should be at a premium with all our receivers in a West Coast offense (or at least our primary guys).

Draft wise, we should likely aim for high intelligence guys if we plan on running a "West Coast" offense.

As for defense, any ideas about what coverages we're planning to run? I was thinking base 3-4 bump and run with high blitz tendencies from our linebackers.

Also, reading the help file, it appears that free safety will become one of the more important positions on defense.

Thoughts?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Chemistry Effects on Drafting

If we go ahead and adopt the 8-9 group from above as our deliberate chemistry leaders, then here are some top rookies who would be potential affinities:

QB Ricardo McConnell

I find it very hard to "read" a FOF 2007 draft, so I have no idea where this guy would likely be selected. But in my view - he'd be a wonderful choice for the team we are envisioning thus far -- his strong suit si mostly with the shorter passes, he has all the secondary skills we'd be looking for, plus he's fleet of foot to scramble as need be. he graded out well in teh combine, and is among the more developed QBs in the draft.

I can't imagine taking him at 1.1, but if he were there for us in round two, I think I'd be very tempted. If he's a mid-1st guy, then I don't know what's best.

My general instinct would be not to take a QB early and to get a "good enough" guy in free agency...but the FA crop is dreadsfully weak, and I may biased toward what has tended to work well in FOF 2004, which may no longer be the case. My drafting of QBs in '07 thus far has yielded far more rocks than diamonds.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

RB with good receiving skills and blitz pickup as well.


Thoughts?

Absolutely agree. Ideally, the back will have good elusiveness which I *think* helps with turning the screen passes into decent gains at times.

[QuikSand]

Given a full day and night for input, I am going to make a few offers to key free agents, including the affinity leaders previously identified, and go from there. I won't be making any really binding FA offers -- nothing with a meaningful bonus that would keep us from reversing course if we eventually decide to do so. But I want to get the ball rolling a little bit, and it seems that with a few free agent players in place, we'll have a decent starting point for that. I'll probably sim through the first three or four weeks of free agency, until the inititl round of bids are resolved -- I expect we'll get all the players we target here.

New file coming soon...