6.1 Impressions so far

[Ben E Lou]

A few thoughts after a couple of evenings in SP.

• AI identifying talent better seems to be creating higher-rated players across the board. No longer the *huge* difference between FOF2K4 and FOF2K7. (EDIT: Poorly worded. See clarification farther down.)
• Bars seems to match combines more, but there are still hidden gems.
• I know that there were engine changes, but my 6.0e game plans don't seem to be behaving any differently so far, so maybe they weren't huge. (EDIT: I'm talking offensive game plans. Don't know about defense yet. It takes longer to form an impression on defense.)
• As best as I can tell, the goal-line issue seems to be a lot better, and may well be 100% resolved.

Any impressions others care to share?

[korme]

QBs can have godlike combines

[twothree]

I think FOF2k7 has finally reached a point where it is a very solid game. The goal line issue was my last major gripe with FOF2k7. I thought the next patch would make the game very fun and playable for me if it fixed that issue. So far so good.

And, 6.1 came with a great bonus feature for how I play one of my leagues (a multiplayer league). The ability for the commissioner to adjust all team depth charts and game plans is wonderful. I no longer have to load the league for each team and create an export each week of the season. As far as I can tell, I can do everything I want to do in the league from the preseason to the playoffs by just logging in as the commissioner. Fantastic.

[DougW]

Small complaint.

Adding colors to combine scores = great.

But. They seem backwards to me.

[korme]

Originally Posted by DougW

Small complaint.

Adding colors to combine scores = great.

But. They seem backwards to me.

I concur

[Solecismic]

I appreciate the comments. It's nice knowing that I can make a difference for people by continuing to try and fix things that may amount to a tiny bit of code (the goal-line thing was one line), but can take people right out of the illusion of realism.

The theory behind the colors is related to optical studies. Red is noticed most easily on computer screens, followed by blue. Green is down the list - it's a hard color to make contrast, unless you go with the chartreuse hues that aren't dark enough to show up well on my light-colored list backgrounds.

So I wanted the good players to jump out at you, and the bad players to blend in more easily. I try to follow that rule throughout the game - red = attention, blue = a little less, other colors = information only. Hopefully I'm consistent in that manner, but I'm sure there are exceptions. In the future, I may darken my red a little and integrate a brighter orange just to get a third "jump out at you" color.

I also develop mainly on a CRT with the brightness fairly low, just a personal preference. Whenever I use my laptop with the TFT display, I'm reminded of the "yeeech" response my graphics sometimes generate (especially the pastel backgrounds of the roster screen positions/uniform numbers).

No changes were made to the player generation algorithm or the combine generation algorithm other than to prevent RBs from having negative scores on the position drills, which was confusing to people, though not actually a bug in that the score was generated fairly according to the rules I set up.

[korme]

Interesting reasoning behind the color coordination -- makes enough sense to me, I suppose.

[DougW]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I appreciate the comments. It's nice knowing that I can make a difference for people by continuing to try and fix things that may amount to a tiny bit of code (the goal-line thing was one line), but can take people right out of the illusion of realism.

The theory behind the colors is related to optical studies. Red is noticed most easily on computer screens, followed by blue. Green is down the list - it's a hard color to make contrast, unless you go with the chartreuse hues that aren't dark enough to show up well on my light-colored list backgrounds.

So I wanted the good players to jump out at you, and the bad players to blend in more easily. I try to follow that rule throughout the game - red = attention, blue = a little less, other colors = information only. Hopefully I'm consistent in that manner, but I'm sure there are exceptions. In the future, I may darken my red a little and integrate a brighter orange just to get a third "jump out at you" color.

I also develop mainly on a CRT with the brightness fairly low, just a personal preference. Whenever I use my laptop with the TFT display, I'm reminded of the "yeeech" response my graphics sometimes generate (especially the pastel backgrounds of the roster screen positions/uniform numbers).

No changes were made to the player generation algorithm or the combine generation algorithm other than to prevent RBs from having negative scores on the position drills, which was confusing to people, though not actually a bug in that the score was generated fairly according to the rules I set up.

Wow, alot more thought & research of colors than what went through my mind.

My thought process was much more caveman like .... Duh .. Red Stop .... Green Go. LOL.

As per the bold - It does make a difference. Big difference.

[yabanci]

removing the "give away" on KRBs has made a huge difference in the suspense of watching solevision. The problem of goal-line/pass-defense in prevent situations is totally fixed as far as I can tell. I haven't been able to discern the changes in the passing game. It's good not to see nickel-backs racking up sacks. It seems that the main problems that had been lingering have been fixed.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

AI identifying talent better seems to be creating higher-rated players across the board. No longer the *huge* difference between FOF2K4 and FOF2K7.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

No changes were made to the player generation algorithm...

I didn't state what I meant very well at all there ("creating" was a very poor chose of words in particular), so let me clarify. What I meant was that because the AI is identifying talent better and the scout error is less, it appears that guys who are really rated in the 40s-low 60s, who might have languished on the bench or in the FA pool due to masking, and never developed (like this guy), are now actually ending up getting playing time and eventually making the player pool *look* better than it looked from 6.0-->6.0e. In the case of the guy I pointed out, he was cut in his second season in 6.0e. Reloading that career in 6.1, he received playing time and eventually developed into the 50s, adding another solid-looking QB to the pool.

Bottom line: This appears to be an excellent change that I suspect will serve to make SP more challenging.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by yabanci

It seems that the main problems that had been lingering have been fixed.

Yes yes. Good stuff.

It'll take me a while to get used to the KRB text, though. Right now, every time I see a good run with no preceeding KRB, I'm conditioned to think that my guy fumbled.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

So I wanted the good players to jump out at you, and the bad players to blend in more easily. I try to follow that rule throughout the game - red = attention, blue = a little less, other colors = information only. Hopefully I'm consistent in that manner, but I'm sure there are exceptions. In the future, I may darken my red a little and integrate a brighter orange just to get a third "jump out at you" color.

While this may be consistent in "drawing attention", the good vs bad doesn't always line up. For example, blue means conflict while green means affinity when viewing FAs (and red means "was just on your team"). So I look for green/red guys on the FA screen, but blue/red guys in the combine screen. This is where it can get confusing.

But I do understand the problems with selecting colors. Try working on IFF in a shooter, where "Red" means enemy to some and "Stop Don't Shoot" to others...

Edit: Almost forgot the other issue. Red/Green colorblindness. You ought to look for someone who is red/green colorblind (actually fairly common) and have them check your coloring to see if the shades are far enough off that they notice. We're fortunate to have a couple at work.

[gstelmack]

I have not simmed games yet with 6.1, but I will say I love the coloring on the draft screen. While I may still use Analyzer to help me organize my draft for MP, it's eliminated my first-pass run to identify guys to interview. And it was more than enough for me to use for quick late-round picks once I'd exhausted all the guys I liked in the WOOF draft.

[MizzouRah]

Can't wait to have my first draft post 6.1. Before, I hated going through it.. but with the new colors scheme.. it should make it much easier for me to identify targets.

..and I agree, green to me would = best and red would = bad...

[Icy]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I have not simmed games yet with 6.1, but I will say I love the coloring on the draft screen. While I may still use Analyzer to help me organize my draft for MP, it's eliminated my first-pass run to identify guys to interview. And it was more than enough for me to use for quick late-round picks once I'd exhausted all the guys I liked in the WOOF draft.

Same for me, i still use the Analyzer in MP leagues, but for solo play, where i go faster, the colors are awesome.

As other said, for me it would be more intuitive if red=bad, but i can get used to it the way it is now.

[Sgran]

Small comment that's a bit off-topic: it's great to have the new schedule, but I prefer Yabanci's player file (just looking at the Bears).

[Dave Hansen]

As a noobie who just completed my first draft, the color scheme was very helpful to make sense of the combine scores. It will certainly help to bring me up to speed on drafting a lot quicker as a learn more about the game.

[Bonegavel]

yes, colors = sweet.

All I care about (as far as colors are concerned) is that they follow the ROY G. BIV flow. I don't care which end you start with, just follow the rainbow and life is good.

[gstelmack]

In the WOOF preseason, I am noticing that the "Recommend" buttons on the depth chart are definitely putting lower-rated rookies ahead of marginal-but-higher-rated veterans when those rookies showed some creep upward during training camp and had good combine numbers.

[Antmeister]

I don't know if this is new or not, since I haven't noticed it before, but are players actually creeping in preseason. A few of my players seemed to have gained a point from the last preseason game.

[Ben E Lou]

Drafting seems a good bit more difficult now in SP. I'm no longer routinely finding masked quality players in the late rounds like I could in 6.0e

[Mistwood19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The theory behind the colors is related to optical studies. Red is noticed most easily on computer screens, followed by blue. Green is down the list - it's a hard color to make contrast, unless you go with the chartreuse hues that aren't dark enough to show up well on my light-colored list backgrounds.

Don't you live here in the land of Automotive??? RED is always bad, Yellow is risky, and Green is GOOD!!!

[Icy]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Drafting seems a good bit more difficult now in SP. I'm no longer routinely finding masked quality players in the late rounds like I could in 6.0e

Agree, and the more difficult the more fun and challenging.

Btw, i still keep missing a lot to have preseasons stats kept in the players cards. In a game like FOF2k7, where we need to watch closely our players stats because the scouting error, we need the preseason stats to be kept to decide the players that make our final team after the preseason.

[stevew]

Is anyone noticing odd logic in who it chooses to kick return/punt return? It seems like when i hit Recommend, it will throw a guy with no ratings in the skill there before it puts someone with actual ratings in there. Just seems very odd.

[Mistwood19]

Originally Posted by stevew

Is anyone noticing odd logic in who it chooses to kick return/punt return? It seems like when i hit Recommend, it will throw a guy with no ratings in the skill there before it puts someone with actual ratings in there. Just seems very odd.

No just you because we transfered a bug into your game when you left PFL.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Mistwood19

No just you because we transfered a bug into your game when you left PFL.

actually that's stevewed, not stevew.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic.com

• Various tweaks to engine, especially passing game, to better fit 2006 professional football numbers.

More is coming on this, but I thought this change is worth noting ASAP. With prime's permission, I'm posting this before it's all ready to roll for 6.1, but I think it gives us a pretty good idea about at least one aspect of the non-specific part of this change "..various tweaks to engine..."


BEFORE (6.0e)

Expectation	Carries	Yards	YPC	WF Avg Point
Run	16209	40077	2.47	0.45
Pass	22163	118331	5.34	0.85
Aggressive Run	7304	16618	2.28	0.48
Aggressive Pass	9370	53462	5.71	0.99
Non Aggressive Run	8905	23459	2.63	0.42
Non Aggressive Pass	12793	64869	5.07	0.75

AFTER(6.1)
Defensive Expectation

Expectation	Carries	Yards	YPC	WF Avg Point
Run	43820	106921	2.44	0.43
Pass	50029	271261	5.42	0.87
Aggressive Run	22117	49207	2.22	0.45
Aggressive Pass	30085	181156	6.02	0.91
Non Aggressive Run	21703	57714	2.66	0.41
Non Aggressive Pass	19944	90105	4.52	0.82

I'm very much in favor of this change and the potential strategic ramifications of it for MP. It looks like it's a bit easier to run against aggressive pass, and significantly harder to run against plain ol' pass defense. Good stuff!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic.com

• Various tweaks to engine, especially passing game, to better fit 2006 professional football numbers.

Preliminary indications also are that short passing works better now, and that longer passing is toned down a bit.


BEFORE (6.0e)

Pass Type	Atts	Cmps	Cmp %	Yards	YPA	TD %	Int %	WF Avg
Screen	3949	3253	82.4	15851	4.01	2.3	1	0.56
Very Short	4303	3603	83.7	16833	3.91	3.1	1	0.59
Short	10642	8105	76.2	60845	5.72	6.8	1.5	0.90
Medium	8951	5849	65.3	65817	7.35	4.5	2.4	1.06
Intermediate	8688	4736	54.5	74584	8.58	3.8	3.3	1.18
Long	6650	2581	38.8	57354	8.62	4	4.1	0.98
Deep	3232	880	27.2	28620	8.86	5.5	5.4	0.75
Long Bomb	2250	357	15.9	16227	7.21	4	6.4	0.43

AFTER (6.1)

Pass Type	Atts	Cmps	Cmp %	Yards	YPA	TD %	Int %	WF Avg
Screen	13838	11938	86.3	62922	4.55	2.4	1.3	0.61
Very Short	12050	10438	86.6	55364	4.59	3.9	1.2	0.65
Short	22547	17190	76.2	141698	6.28	6.5	1.8	0.96
Medium	22240	14130	63.5	165975	7.46	4.4	2.9	1.08
Intermediate	20519	10279	50.1	167113	8.14	3.6	3.9	1.07
Long	16020	5543	34.6	129937	8.11	4.4	5.1	0.87
Deep	8773	1908	21.7	65905	7.51	4.5	5.7	0.56
Long Bomb	5814	653	11.2	30821	5.30	3.5	7	0.21

Oh, and those distances correspond to the game plan numbers on the "Miscellaneous Offensive Selections" screen...

Screen=Screen
Very Short=0-4
Short=5-8
Medium=9-12
Intermediate=13-18
Long=19-26
Deep=27-39
Long Bomb=40+

[Subby]

Sweet. Those are all positive changes, methinks.

[RedKingGold]

Absolutely!

[cuervo72]

Thanks a bunch for adding the ranges, I think that's helpful in using the info.

Interesting shift...one which I kind of like actually, as I've been shifting to a much shorter passing attack than I might generally be known for (after the last tweak my FOFL attack *tanked* in the long range, and even in 6.0e we're doing quite well with the short pass).

[redfox000]

Originally Posted by Icy

Btw, i still keep missing a lot to have preseasons stats kept in the players cards. In a game like FOF2k7, where we need to watch closely our players stats because the scouting error, we need the preseason stats to be kept to decide the players that make our final team after the preseason.

I agree.

[stevew]

Anybody noticing "scrub" type rated qB's putting up huge numbers? It is probably just the offense I run, but my 27/39 guy just dropped a 120 rating for the year. Of course there are a million other factors at work.

And I still notice that the game won't set guys with very large ratings >70 in KR/PR as the kick/punt returner when you hit recommend. I dunno whether it values them more as a positional starter and doesn't want to get them hurt or not, but it just seems odd.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Icy

Agree, and the more difficult the more fun and challenging.

Btw, i still keep missing a lot to have preseasons stats kept in the players cards. In a game like FOF2k7, where we need to watch closely our players stats because the scouting error, we need the preseason stats to be kept to decide the players that make our final team after the preseason.

I was REALLY hoping Jim added this in the patch. This game NEEDS THIS badly. I had two QB's battling it out in preseason and besides writing down their stats, there is no way to track this. I mean, preseason is where coaches make many decisions on certain players and positions. Now all I do, is put the highest rated player at the position, which takes away from the game.

[michael1123]

Originally Posted by DougW

Wow, alot more thought & research of colors than what went through my mind.

My thought process was much more caveman like .... Duh .. Red Stop .... Green Go. LOL.

I don't believe cavemen had traffic lights ...

Is it possible to download some file to change the colors around for draft combine colors? Something like how there's downloads for changing the level of development / experience colors?

[Masked]

Originally Posted by michael1123

I don't believe cavemen had traffic lights ...

Is it possible to download some file to change the colors around for draft combine colors? Something like how there's downloads for changing the level of development / experience colors?

I'm looking for this too - I am having a very hard time distinguishing the green from the red numbers.

[Ben E Lou]

Bump. My posts with the engine change data have been updated with final results.

[Dutch]

Definately an effort to tone down the intermediates and beyond. Which I think is good.

I'd like to think this is the work of a better defense system...but that might be asking too much right now. Although we know the defensive part in this process was tweaked as well. I think it's an improvement for the better regardless. Thanks for the work.

[jkat]

I'm not sure about the conclusions you're getting from those tables. The running success seems particularly questionable as while the ypc is lower the Win-Fail is actually higher. Seems that running against non-aggressive pass defense is actually more effective by those stats but it may just be an issue of the defensive playcalling.

Remember that any "Recommended" gameplanning is very different now, obvious passing situations getting aggressive pass defense instead of non-aggressive as was the case in 6.0e. So those high ypc runs in passing situations will come against aggressive instead of non-aggressive, the shorter situations will have a higher ratio of non-aggressive where the defense gives up fewer yards per carry but with a higher win/fail.


The passing stats do seem pronounced enough to not just be a result of that difference but they still may be effected to some extent by the change to aggressive pass defense, which is more effective against long passing, as opposed to non-aggressive as in 6.0e.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by jkat

I'm not sure about the conclusions you're getting from those tables. The running success seems particularly questionable as while the ypc is lower the Win-Fail is actually higher. Seems that running against non-aggressive pass defense is actually more effective by those stats but it may just be an issue of the defensive playcalling.

Remember that any "Recommended" gameplanning is very different now, obvious passing situations getting aggressive pass defense instead of non-aggressive as was the case in 6.0e. So those high ypc runs in passing situations will come against aggressive instead of non-aggressive, the shorter situations will have a higher ratio of non-aggressive where the defense gives up fewer yards per carry but with a higher win/fail.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Yes, we'll see more runs against pass-aggressive now, and that would explain the WF going down for those. It's now much more likely that pass/aggressive shows up on 3rd and 8-10, for example, so that's going to naturally decrease the WF. However, pass/aggressive is still pass/aggressive, whether it's on 2nd and 6 or 3rd and 15 (unless the engine is smart enough to play more "soft" on 3rd and 15, and I'd have to see more indications of that before I could buy into such a theory.) It's still an increase of .31 ypc vs. pass/aggressive, and a decrease of .55ypc vs. pass/non-aggressive over an awfully large sample size. And, yeah, the WF number *should* go up against pass/non-aggressive for the same reason: less opportunities in situations where it has very little chance of getting the win.

The passing stats do seem pronounced enough to not just be a result of that difference but they still may be effected to some extent by the change to aggressive pass defense, which is more effective against long passing, as opposed to non-aggressive as in 6.0e.

Agreed. Plus, when you consider the longstanding thought that medium/long passing worked better in FOF than the current NFL, combined with the specific comment in the 6.1 change log that the passing game was changed to be a better fit 2006 passing numbers, that one's a no-brainer.

[Warhammer]

Honestly though, this data is good for the user. There is a decision to be made. If the offense decides to run on 3rd and 7, there is chance they do not make it, but there is a pretty good chance that they do. The defensive game planner can pick up this tendency and boost his pass non-aggressive defense in response (not once the game starts, but by scouting his opponent). A chess match can now take place between two game planners.

The more meaningful decisions in the hands of the users the better.

[jkat]

Whether the defense is "soft" would be a result of the coverage set (Slight Running/Slight Passing etc.). The recommended gameplans in 6.0e had aggressive pass defense in the shorter situations, which then scaled out to non-aggressive as the situations got longer. In 6.1 that reverses, so instead of those low YPC runs, against extreme/normal running defensive coverages, coming against aggressive pass defense they now come against non-aggressive. The high YPC runs, against extreme passing coverages, now come against aggressive pass defense instead of non-aggressive. This same switch is there in the more common situations as well, where 75% of total pass expectation in slight running might now be from non-aggressive instead of aggressive with aggressive having more slight/normal passing situations.

You end up with more non-aggressive pass coverage in running situations and more aggressive pass coverage in passing situations. Thereby non-aggressive will have more 1-deep and 2-deep coverages, while aggressive ends up with far less. As the reverse was true in 6.0e, there would be an expected shift in YPC because of the defensive playcalling (as far as type of coverage), rather than changes to the engine.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by jkat

Whether the defense is "soft" would be a result of the coverage set (Slight Running/Slight Passing etc.). The recommended gameplans in 6.0e had aggressive pass defense in the shorter situations, which then scaled out to non-aggressive as the situations got longer. In 6.1 that reverses, so instead of those low YPC runs, against extreme/normal running defensive coverages, coming against aggressive pass defense they now come against non-aggressive. The high YPC runs, against extreme passing coverages, now come against aggressive pass defense instead of non-aggressive. This same switch is there in the more common situations as well, where 75% of total pass expectation in slight running might now be from non-aggressive instead of aggressive with aggressive having more slight/normal passing situations.

You end up with more non-aggressive pass coverage in running situations and more aggressive pass coverage in passing situations. Thereby non-aggressive will have more 1-deep and 2-deep coverages, while aggressive ends up with far less. As the reverse was true in 6.0e, there would be an expected shift in YPC because of the defensive playcalling (as far as type of coverage), rather than changes to the engine.

Good point. To be 100% sure on this, we'd have to compare, say, 2-deep pass-aggressive vs. run in 6.0e to 2-deep pass-aggressive vs. run in 6.1. It's definitely a possibility that the change in resultant coverages could make that much of a difference, though. From a practical standpoint for putting together an offensive game plan, though, the basic data we have is enough in the vast majority of situations. In SP, you're always facing Rex, and in MP, I'd guess that you're facing Rex or a not-much-modified Rex in 70-90% of your games. So you just don't end up looking at much 2-deep, pass/aggressive.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm finding a greater degree of difficulty overall. After 15 seasons of going pretty much all out (the only house rule I'm using is "no trading up more than 10 spots in the first round"), this is my starting lineup going into the postseason, with no key players out due to injury:



I still have a good team most years, and because of not being able to trade into the Top 5, and usually not the Top 10, I'm not getting marquee skill position players, so I'm having to game plan around my talent, rather than just do what I did prior to 6.0e: build a game plan in year 1, and just keep acquiring really good players through the draft.

The other thing I'm going is using a game setting to help ramp up difficulty. I've mentioned it before, but using 60 to 90 for cap changes seems to help the AI teams keep their talent. Here's the available talent (besides punters and kickers) in FA1 in year 16:



This is pretty typical of this career: not a single marquee player in the pool. Here's the breakdown of the ratings of the top 5 available players at each position.

QB: 39/39, 36/36, 33/44, 31/40, 31/31
RB: 46/49, 42/42, 42/42, 41/41, 40/40
FB: 63/63, 43/43, 40/40, 39/39, 38/38
TE: 60/60, 57/57, 47/47, 45/45, 44/44
WR: 54/54, 49/49, 45/45, 44/44, 44/44
C: 67/67, 55/55, 50/50, 49/49, 48/48
G: 53/53, 49/49, 47/47, 46/46, 45/45
T: 65/65, 51/51, 48/48, 45/45, 43/43
P: 60/60, 60/60, 58/58, 57/57, 53/53
K: 64/64, 57/57, 55/55, 53/53, 50/50
DE: 51/51, 51/51, 48/48, 44/44, 43/43
DT: 52/52, 49/49, 49/49, 48/48, 48/48
ILB: 52/52, 45/45, 41/41, 41/41, 40/40
OLB: 46/46, 45/45, 45/45, 44/44, 43/43
CB: 52/52, 48/48, 44/44, 42/42, 42/42
S: 53/53, 46/46, 45/45, 44/44, 43/43

That pool is typical of what I've seen so far. I'm finding myself holding on to vets who help with cohesion more, rather than grabbing a FA who is only a modest improvement, ratings-wise. Pretty neat stuff so far.

[Dutch]

I've mentioned it before, but using 60 to 90 for cap changes seems to help the AI teams keep their talent.

I'll probably start my new career with that. Anything to help the poor AI out.

[MizzouRah]

I agree with SD, I use the same cap increase as well.

[Ben E Lou]

Another observation on drafting...It has been hard to get a G/VG/E QB in this version. The league currently has 13 QBs with a current rating of Good (50) or better. Of those...

• 12 were taken in the first round (all at pick 18 or higher)
• 10 were taken in the Top Five
• 5 were taken #1 overall
• Only one came later in the draft: a 5(27) pick who is now 55/55.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Another observation on drafting...It has been hard to get a G/VG/E QB in this version. The league currently has 13 QBs with a current rating of Good (50) or better. Of those...

• 12 were taken in the first round (all at pick 18 or higher)
• 10 were taken in the Top Five
• 5 were taken #1 overall
• Only one came later in the draft: a 5(27) pick who is now 55/55.

Any chance you can break that down a little more? Meaning how many of those are actually down in the 50's, 60's, 70's? I haven't done solo play with 6.1 yet since I have been sidetracked by a bunch of other things, but I plan on getting into it at some point.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Any chance you can break that down a little more? Meaning how many of those are actually down in the 50's, 60's, 70's? I haven't done solo play with 6.1 yet since I have been sidetracked by a bunch of other things, but I plan on getting into it at some point.

Well, I have seen league talent ebb and flow. (At one point in 6.0e, my league had only one or two RBs rated over 50.) And I *think* playing with higher injuries That being said, here are the top QBs right now:



(Kenny Schneider is the fifth-rounder.)