In what order do you value positions?

[Kodos]

I'll start things off with FB being at the very bottom.

[TheMeat]

And QB at the top.

[Kodos]

What about Punters? Surely they are above QBs! It's all about field position!

[Nogram]

QB
DE
WR
CB
RB
T
.
.
.

[gstelmack]

QB
QB
QB
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
.
.
.
DE
CB
WLB (for the 3-4 folks out there)
.
.
.
are there any other positions?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

QB
QB
QB
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
.
.
.
DE
CB
WLB (for the 3-4 folks out there)
.
.
.
are there any other positions?

You want 3 QBs before a WR???

Top 2
QB
WR

...everything else

Bottom 3
K
P
FB

[Firefly]

I'll say this for FBs: there are a few out there who are game changers as receivers. Go ahead and laugh, but my FB in the AUFL has posted longs in receptions of 70, 40, 58 and 33 (so far this season) in his 4 years in the league. Last year he caught 38 balls for 400 yards and 6 TDs, for an average of 8 yards per target and he had a 3rd down conversion rate of 87% (7/8). Not bad for a lowly FB, huh?

[Alan T]

In one of my leagues I don't think I've even had a FB on the roster for the past 5 seasons. If I did, I am sure it was completely accidental.

[Steel]

I think this should be broken down into a couple categories. Some people value offense more, some defense more. Also, depends on whether you are playing a 3-4 D versus a 4-3 D. On offense, QB would be the clear choice here. After that, I think is where the debate begins, but here would be my choices in my short time of playing:

Offense
1. QB - Makes life a whole lot easier when game planning, especially a QB who is rated at least high 50s or higher, because chances are he's good in at LEAST 2 main categories i.e. Short Passes & Screens, or Medium & Long Passes, Accuracy & Read Defense, etc.

2. HB - Having at least a good RB, not even a great RB forces the defense to respect the run. No RB means you must have a QB and WRs who can carry the offense through the air, but the risk there is your opponent keying solely on the pass, because you're 1 dimensional. Again, I'm very new to this, but I've completed shut people down who are 1 dimensional on offense, because it's easy to gameplan for.

3. WR - The D will always be expected to respect the pass, especially if you have a WR who can get downfield and/or has a high "Big Play" number like 90 or higher.

4. OL - Would say a RT is most important here, but if you're a running team, 1 could make an argument for a LG or RG here. But having at least 2 stud lineman is a must, especially for the run game.

5. TE - I have a league where I got a stud TE, and 2 good backups. I have yet to figure out how to get any of the 3 the ball at least 6-7 times a game. So, I don't place much value on this position as of now.

6. FB - Someone stated FB was critical, but I would say that is VERY RARE, and this is probably the LEAST important position on offense.

I'll break the D down to my top 3 choices for each type, then #4 on is for either the 4-3 or 3-4 D.

4-3 Defense
1. DT - This can be interchanged with #2, but I would say a DT who can play the run and pass is the most critical position in a 4-3 D. I'm in a league where my 52/52 DT who has 34 RD, 83 PRT, 83 PRS and he causes multiple negative plays for the offense every game. In 13 games he has 53 tackles, 9 sacks, 13 hurries, and 28 QB Knockdowns.

2. DE - Same as DT, but think you would want someone who can exclusive rush the passer in this spot

3. DE or DT - Same as above. Having at least 3 good players on the line in a 4-3 allows you to play coverage only with your back 7. I put very little emphasis on the 4th lineman, whether it be a DE or DT.

3-4 Defense
1. WLB - PRT and PRS are the 2 most critical categories for this player in a 3-4 D. If you have a monster at Linebacker, move him to WLB in a 3-4 and he will shine like you have never seen before. It also like in real life, gives the defense a little more flexibility.

2 & 3 DE or NT - In a 3-4 D, having 2 of these players be run stuffers is vital to the success of the D. The 3rd lineman, which would be the other DE, should exclusively be a pass rusher, but I wouldn't place much emphasis on him.

4. SS - I saw a few topics here, as well as the other football sites I belong to, and almost everyone had SS as a priority on D. I didn't understand it at first, but have noticed that having a good SS helps the D out immensely. This is probably the position that has the most effect on the back 7. A great, even good SS can help with the run game, as well as pass game. If able to do both, again, you won't have to take risks and blitz much. It also allows you to play 8 man fronts in pass coverage, as long as you have the CBs to do so.

6. CB - Put slightly less emphasis on the CB versus the SS, because the CB has less effect on the run game. Having a corner who can play the run well is a bonus, as you really are just concerned with the pass coverage skills. But if you do have a top tier CB, it allows you to double team the other side of the field where your weaker CB may be.

7. LB - Having a LB who can make plays in the run game and pass game is vital to playing good D. Doesn't matter whether it's an OLB or MLB, although I would say the priority leans slightly to OLB in a 4-3, or the WILB in the 3-4. I lack this in 1 of my leagues, which explains why I have so much trouble stopping opposing offenses.

Hope all this helps. As I've stated, I'm new to the game, but this is just what I've observed in the short time playing.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Steel

Some people value offense more, some defense more.

I'm not sure that's really the case with FOF. I don't know of a single person in any league of community who has played a substantial amount of FOF who doesn't believe offense "counts" substantially more than defense in this game. This isn't some sort of jump ball.

[Dandelion]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'm not sure that's really the case with FOF. I don't know of a single person in any league of community who has played a substantial amount of FOF who doesn't believe offense "counts" substantially more than defense in this game. This isn't some sort of jump ball.

I would - though I don't fit in Your description - but only if defensive playcalling would be a little bit more realistic..
The % based calling might work statisticly, but as it is nearly pure randomness to get the right def call for the opponents off call there isn't any way to really "plan" defense.. so most people seem to let Rex do the Def playbook.. and of course the offense has a great advantage then and its players are more important..

To make defensive players as important as offensive players, there would have to be the option to plan your defensive plays with a lot more detail.. to let the defense react closer to the chosen offensive formation for example.. blitz patterns.. stuff like that.

Nonetheless I'd say that P/K and P/K-Returner are quite high in my list.. winning the battle for field position is IMHO very important.. when my team gains 10 Yard on each exchange of punts after three and out's of both teams then I'm 30 yard closer to his endzone then he is to mine after three exchanges

[NiteMaestro]

Personally, I place emphasis on 'pairs', i.e., having a strong FS/SS combo that compliment, or SLB/WLB that work together.

But that aside :

Offense -
OLine - You can get by with an 'okay' QB if you plan right with him, but no QB will do great if he's on his back all the time. LT/RT, C, then RG/LG is my preference. I like to have studs on the bookends, a solid C, then the Guards fill in the gaps.

QB/RB - One of these needs to be solid. Not 'great' IMO. Just a consistent way to gain yardage on every play.

WR/RB - If you snagged the QB, then you need a possession guy 1st, then a game breaker. Which position for which role is up to you, but personally, I prefer a possession receiver.

TE/2RB/FB - If you prefer the RB, then you need either a spell guy/3rd down guy so he doesnt get tired, a Possession/3rd down/Run blocking TE, or a Run blocking/Possession FB. I'm still trying to figure out the FB position, so I lean more towards my spell RB or TE.

P/K - Yeah, it's high, but it makes all the difference. Depending on how strong your offense is, you need a punter to constantly pin the other team deep, or a Kicker to get points out of every drive & pin them on kickoffs. Team talent will determine this one.

Defense :

A pair of 'Something'.
I want my defense to be built a round a verygood/elite pair of players at the same position. Be it DE, CB, S, OLB (not ILB, because of lack of PT for WILB), or even DT, having a pair that you can count on to do their job every play (be it run stop, pass rush, coverage), allows you to build the rest of the defense to compliment. So whichever you can get a pair of roll with that. Personally, I'm biased towards S combos. Though a pair of OLBs in a 3-4 can be absolutely devastating.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Alan T

In one of my leagues I don't think I've even had a FB on the roster for the past 5 seasons. If I did, I am sure it was completely accidental.

So do you just play a backup RB at FB? Or do you avoid formations with a FB altogether?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Firefly

So do you just play a backup RB at FB? Or do you avoid formations with a FB altogether?

I have a backup RB and/or backup TE in at FB in the depth chart. I do run some formations that have a FB in it, but don't really see much drop off having a backup RB or TE in the role. I've actually had pretty decent receiving from a TE out of the FB spot as well at times.

[MIJB#19]

1 WR
2 QB
3 everything else

[Kodos]

Oh come on! We know about your mancrush on DTs!

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Dandelion

I would - though I don't fit in Your description - but only if defensive playcalling would be a little bit more realistic..

See, Quik's point is the second part. He said "in the game". You say you value defense more, then go on to list all the reasons why folks here value offense more than defense "in the game". A very good offense will dominate a very good defense "in the game" most of the time. Sure, aberrant die rolls will occasionally tip things the other way, but most successful defenses occur because someone gets big red bars and no one else has built a successful offensive triumverate. A good example of this was my WOOF Doggie Bowl win with Raleigh, which I did primarily via big red bars on defense and an efficient offense, largely because it was early enough in the league that the offenses hadn't come together or built enough cohesion yet. Big offenses now dominate that league.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Oh come on! We know about your mancrush on DTs!

Shh, don't let people in on what the real secret to succes in FOF is!

[Dandelion]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

See, Quik's point is the second part. He said "in the game". You say you value defense more, then go on to list all the reasons why folks here value offense more than defense "in the game". A very good offense will dominate a very good defense "in the game" most of the time. Sure, aberrant die rolls will occasionally tip things the other way, but most successful defenses occur because someone gets big red bars and no one else has built a successful offensive triumverate. A good example of this was my WOOF Doggie Bowl win with Raleigh, which I did primarily via big red bars on defense and an efficient offense, largely because it was early enough in the league that the offenses hadn't come together or built enough cohesion yet. Big offenses now dominate that league.

I do not fit Quik's description because I am not playing in any "league of community" and I guess a SP career of only about 23 Seasons wouldn't satisfy what he sees as "substantial" - and rightly so
As a season in my SP career only takes me one or two (or to the utmost three..) days to play through, building a team.. cohesion.. finding players.. works on a totally different scale than in a MP game/career. Computer controlled opponents aren't that eager to trade.. so free Agency and Draft are about all one can do to build a team. A good defensive player will last me a week or two, depending on how many seasons I can do in that time.. so as soon as I find one, I'll start looking for the guy to step in his shoes in a couple days.. finding one great player and adjusting all my gameplanning around him would be fine in a MP League with one game per week.. in my short lived world it's easier to set up the plan and hope to find a player that fits in it to about 50%

At least the Computer controlled GMs seem not very fortunate in building those triumvirates You describe.. One got close.. two 1-1 picks in a row gave it a top notch QB/RB pair.. but it only worked until they came to their free agency.. then that team had to pay them such an enormous amount of money, that it hit the salary cap wall with a big bang.. and even those two great players couldn't push that team to the Bowl Game with only a bunch of 30/30 better-to-be-waterboys at their sides..

So, under that point of view.. SP League etc. etc.. the most high rated players on my team are
- the Kicker and Punter, who shouldn't ever be rated lower than 70+
- Punt and Kick returner with a skill of at least 60+
- and two gunners with special teams skill as high as possible.

With these, a bunch of around 50ish guys for the other positions, proper offensive and - as far as possible - defensive gameplanning it should be possible to get a good SP career going.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dandelion

I do not fit Quik's description because I am not playing in any "league of community" and I guess a SP career of only about 23 Seasons wouldn't satisfy what he sees as "substantial" - and rightly so
As a season in my SP career only takes me one or two (or to the utmost three..) days to play through, building a team.. cohesion.. finding players.. works on a totally different scale than in a MP game/career. Computer controlled opponents aren't that eager to trade.. so free Agency and Draft are about all one can do to build a team. A good defensive player will last me a week or two, depending on how many seasons I can do in that time.. so as soon as I find one, I'll start looking for the guy to step in his shoes in a couple days.. finding one great player and adjusting all my gameplanning around him would be fine in a MP League with one game per week.. in my short lived world it's easier to set up the plan and hope to find a player that fits in it to about 50%

At least the Computer controlled GMs seem not very fortunate in building those triumvirates You describe.. One got close.. two 1-1 picks in a row gave it a top notch QB/RB pair.. but it only worked until they came to their free agency.. then that team had to pay them such an enormous amount of money, that it hit the salary cap wall with a big bang.. and even those two great players couldn't push that team to the Bowl Game with only a bunch of 30/30 better-to-be-waterboys at their sides..

So, under that point of view.. SP League etc. etc.. the most high rated players on my team are
- the Kicker and Punter, who shouldn't ever be rated lower than 70+
- Punt and Kick returner with a skill of at least 60+
- and two gunners with special teams skill as high as possible.

With these, a bunch of around 50ish guys for the other positions, proper offensive and - as far as possible - defensive gameplanning it should be possible to get a good SP career going.

Completely unrelated to this thread's subject, but from your description of how you enjoy to play FOF you would really fit in to FOWL, our multiplayer league where we basically sim similar to how you play Single player. (basically 1 year is simmed every 2 weeks, where the entire season is simmed in one day.) It forces you to think more about team overall strategy instead of taking a game to game approach.

Sorry for the threadjack, now back to the regularly scheduled discussion

[TheMeat]

Agreed, come join in our reindeer games!

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I have a backup RB and/or backup TE in at FB in the depth chart. I do run some formations that have a FB in it, but don't really see much drop off having a backup RB or TE in the role. I've actually had pretty decent receiving from a TE out of the FB spot as well at times.

I'll have to give it a try

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

1 WR
2 QB
3 everything else

I think this is really worth discussing. I think almost all experienced players would say QB and WR are clearly the most important players in this game. But WR over QB? I do think its close. I would sooner have 2 great WRs and an average QB, but I have to think its more important to have a great QB than 1 great WR. I'm not totally sure though. You could have a QB with high sense rush and avoid interceptions dominate. I guess with WRs it would be RR, GD and END as the equivalent in the offenses I tend to run.

Whats your justification MIJB? I recall you having a good offense in the GEFL without decent QBs.

[Julio Riddols]

I try to have as well rounded and deep as I can get in as many positions as I can get it. I don't think I really prefer any one specific slot, but if I was building a team by draft, my first 22 picks would be:

QB
WLB (See Harold Lavorin in FOWL for why)
SS
WR1
LT
CB1
NT (3-4)
WR2
RT
LG
RB
CB2
SLB
WR3
TE
RG
SILB
FS
LDE
RDE
FB
P

FB over WILB because I use the FB a lot in my offense as a receiver. P over K because changing field position and solid coverage can help a lot defensively when you're in a bad spot. Kickers tend to be more easily replaceable IMO.

I don't value WR as highly as others do, but I do like having 3 good ones around for both injury security and heavy passing situations.

The SS is so high because I find a really good SS seems to put my particular defense over the top and make it run far more smoothly than when I lack a stud at this spot. I think SS is more valuable than either CB spot, but not by a ton.

Theres my 2 cents.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I think this is really worth discussing. I think almost all experienced players would say QB and WR are clearly the most important players in this game. But WR over QB? I do think its close. I would sooner have 2 great WRs and an average QB, but I have to think its more important to have a great QB than 1 great WR. I'm not totally sure though. You could have a QB with high sense rush and avoid interceptions dominate. I guess with WRs it would be RR, GD and END as the equivalent in the offenses I tend to run.

Whats your justification MIJB? I recall you having a good offense in the GEFL without decent QBs.

You really can't compare my GEFL success to a league with a game built universe. Talent was (and still is) much slimmer in GEFL, whilst I had an above average player at basically every position, from player 1 to 53. Of course that's going to make your team win 10 games more often than 6 games.

In that player 1 to 53, I include QB. In all four of the bowl game runs I had a top 10 quarterback in red bars (not counting that interceptions avoinding sacks magnet Preston Davis, whom I think won only 1 or 2 playoff games, iirc). That success was largely in (and based on) FOF2004. Stuff that worked on defense stopped working in FOF2007, effectively boosting the importance of offense even more. I had some success in FOF2007 as well, but there, moreso thatn before the transition, I think it was largely based on a superior roster compared to at least 3/4th of the rest of the field. Not to mention that it was an offense build to have WR1 to get as many looks as possible, with low RR all around him.

GEFL situation aside, I've come to realization that the following things seem to be true:
Offense beats defense
Passing wins more games than rushing
great QB don't make great WRs
great WRs do make great QB

From there on, I think it's a rat race to get the best players to make up for flaws of your WR and then your QB and then try to battle the opponent's WR and QB. You try to get your pass rush up from (on average) 40 to 50 to get one hurry per game more. You bump up the secondary's interception ratings from roughly 50 per player to 60 per player to get 2 interceptions more over the course of a season. At the same time, the improvement of 20 skill points (half of what you'd need to improve that interceptions average, 1/3rd of what's required to improve the pass rush average) doesn't outweigh improving your WR1 situation by 10 points acorss the GD, RR and BP bars.

Last but not least, then it becomes a case of actually managing to have your (sub-)star QB throw to your star WR. 10-15 targets for 10 catches and 15 or so yards per catch. personally I haven't figured out how to do that yet.

In my opion, of course.

[Dutch]

Top 5 positions in my opinion?

QB, WR1, WR2, RB, TE

Here's a simple value system that kind of highlights priority. It's similar to chess piece scoring (Q=9, R=5, K/B=3, P=1).

Skill positions
QB = 10 pts
WR1 = 5 pts
WR2 = 5 pts
WR3 = 2 pts
RB = 4 pts
TE = 3 pts
TE2 = 1 pt
FB = .5 pts

Offensive Line
LT = 2 pts
LG = 1 pt
C = 2 pts
RG = 1 pt
RT = 2 pts

Special Teams
K = 1 pt
P = 1 pt
KR = 2 pt
PR = 1 pt

FRONT SEVEN
LDE = 3 pts
LDT = 2 pts
RDT = 2 pts
RDE = 3 pts
SLB = 2 pts
MLB = 2 pts
WLB = 2 pts

SECONDARY
LCB = 3 pts
RCB = 3 pts
SS = 2 pts
FS = 2 pts

[Chubby]

I don't think WR2 = WR1, no way no how

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I don't think WR2 = WR1, no way no how

I figured you wouldn't.

I am of the belief that FOF def gameplans only allow you to double-cover one WR. If WR1 and WR2 are both great and only one gets doubled, a great QB is going to have a lot of success shredding a defense.

Now, obviously you have something worked out where WR2 doesn't mean a whole lot, so I think there are really two ways to skin this cat, but I like my method and if a great WR2 becomes available when one isn't present, I'll grab him and utilize him very effectively. Plus, if one gets hurt, then I can figure out this run-heavy, WR1 deep thing you got going.

[TheMeat]

I'd say:

WR1-10pts

QB-5pts

SS-3pts

DE-3pts


That would be my top 4. I'm currently testing this type of thing, have been for awhile, where I have a team set up with a very vanilla GP and 50ish starters all around, then I plug in a monster 80+ guy at one position and see how much it affects the overall team performance. Of course there are many variables to this and certain gameplans may favor certain positions but as far as my initial tests go: WR all the way. If you have one WR that can dominate the opposing secondary, nothing else matters.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I figured you wouldn't.

I am of the belief that FOF def gameplans only allow you to double-cover one WR. If WR1 and WR2 are both great and only one gets doubled, a great QB is going to have a lot of success shredding a defense.

Now, obviously you have something worked out where WR2 doesn't mean a whole lot, so I think there are really two ways to skin this cat, but I like my method and if a great WR2 becomes available when one isn't present, I'll grab him and utilize him very effectively. Plus, if one gets hurt, then I can figure out this run-heavy, WR1 deep thing you got going.

I def agree that a very good WR2 > junk WR2 but I do think junk WR2 > mediocre WR2 (which is why I got Harding)

I agree, I'm fairly certain only 1 WR can get doubled per play.

Heh, don't bother trying to figure it out since with my luck there's a new FOF coming out soon (once I got a great gameplan in 2K4 Jim released the new game and now I have a great gameplan for 2K7. My Mohawk offense had it's flaws in that if you didn't hit on a couple deep balls you were FUBARd...)

[Hammer]

QB = 10 pts
WR 1 = 8 pts
WR 2 = 7 pts

Everyone else 4 or less.

I'm thinking a defense may be only worth around 25 points total. An offensive line maybe 12 points. RB 4 points. FB like 0.5 of a point.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by TheMeat

I'd say:

WR1-10pts

QB-5pts

SS-3pts

DE-3pts


That would be my top 4. I'm currently testing this type of thing, have been for awhile, where I have a team set up with a very vanilla GP and 50ish starters all around, then I plug in a monster 80+ guy at one position and see how much it affects the overall team performance. Of course there are many variables to this and certain gameplans may favor certain positions but as far as my initial tests go: WR all the way. If you have one WR that can dominate the opposing secondary, nothing else matters.

Heh, Irving Fryar in my historical dynasty with the Dolphins certainly supported that.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Hammer

QB = 10 pts
WR 1 = 8 pts
WR 2 = 7 pts

Everyone else 4 or less.

I'm thinking a defense may be only worth around 25 points total. An offensive line maybe 12 points. RB 4 points. FB like 0.5 of a point.

OL line is worth it but not the highest priority. It's actually not that hard to build a good OL since it's usually undervalued in MP

[QuikSand]

I think one tricky part of this is differentiating between what positions are important to your team's success, and what positions are a priority to fill via top draft picks, big trades, and the like.

I see some people really promote the importance of the strong safety. I haven't done any studies to support or refute those claims of importance. I know that I tend to think of the safety slots as near-afterthoughts, in large part because it's much easier to find "good enough" guys at safety (and G, C, FB, TE, and maybe a few more slots) than it is as spots like DE, LT, WR, and QB. So my first impression is to scoff at the weight given to the easier-to-fill positions.

However, it may indeed be true that these positions do matter a good deal, it's just tougher to quantify that in-game effect without controlled testing.