Weight Training Tidbits

[Ben E Lou]

I never dug terribly deeply into this, in FOF7, but clearly it's intended to be more important in FOF8. A few quick hits based on some Player Tracker data:

1. Weight can change at least +/-20 pounds for heavier players. (roughly +/-6% of original weight)
2. The AI weight trains players *far* more frequently in FOF8 vs. FOF7. It happens more than 5 times as frequently on AI teams in FOF8.
3. The AI weight trains defensive players with much greater frequency than offense.
4. Sometimes players are changed *away* from the ideal weight, but what appears to be closer to the ideal BMI, thus lending some credence to the theory that BMI is still important here. I'm looking at a 6'7" OG who weighed 317 when drafted. (314 is heaviest ideal weight). It pumped him up to 329. Also move a 6'9" OT from 322 to 334.
5. The biggest percentage change I've seen so far is a DE who was dropped from 303 to 284 (-19 pounds, -6.3%)

[Hobart]

One thing about weight training that I've tried to make happen is switching a players ideal fit (as opposed to what he identifies as). I thought it might be possible to add weight to a 1-Tech DT and turn him into a NT for example but while I can get a player into the ideal weight range, I haven't seen the fit change. Has anyone seen this or do we assume it's just static regardless of changes in size?

[Sharkn20]

I take my seat in this Topic.

Really interested in seeing if this is indeed an important thing. I have noticed in FOF7 with one of my defenses that we got bullied a lot with the running game despite having great defenders. Of course when having a read around I noticed that they are severily underweight for their positions... It might be affecting my Run D#

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Hobart

One thing about weight training that I've tried to make happen is switching a players ideal fit (as opposed to what he identifies as). I thought it might be possible to add weight to a 1-Tech DT and turn him into a NT for example but while I can get a player into the ideal weight range, I haven't seen the fit change. Has anyone seen this or do we assume it's just static regardless of changes in size?

I did see it when I was playing around with FOF8 (it's already been deleted however)

I trained Suh down from being "slightly over ideal", and he changed from identifying as a x-Tech tackle to an NT.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Originally Posted by AlexB

I did see it when I was playing around with FOF8 (it's already been deleted however)

I trained Suh down from being "slightly over ideal", and he changed from identifying as a x-Tech tackle to an NT.

Haven't seen this yet, this is awesome.

[MizzouRah]

Would like to see a recommend button to just have my HC do the changes as he sees fit.

[LuckyJohn59]

Is weight training solely done by the AI? I can't find any options in the game to edit anything about the weight training stage.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by LuckyJohn59

Is weight training solely done by the AI? I can't find any options in the game to edit anything about the weight training stage.

it's available pre-training camp on the player's card on the bottom row middle above the close window button.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Would like to see a recommend button to just have my HC do the changes as he sees fit.

Honestly, this would scare me. I can just see my All Pro DT being told to lose weight because the AI thinks my DE aren't good enough.

I had a guy I drafted last night who has all the makings of a 3rd round steal at CB. He's a little heavy for the position and can't lose weight. I could easily see the AI try to convert him to safety. He's more valuable to me as a corner, at least for now.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Honestly, this would scare me. I can just see my All Pro DT being told to lose weight because the AI thinks my DE aren't good enough.

I had a guy I drafted last night who has all the makings of a 3rd round steal at CB. He's a little heavy for the position and can't lose weight. I could easily see the AI try to convert him to safety. He's more valuable to me as a corner, at least for now.

That's why it would be a button (optional). To me, it's a PITA going through each player. To each his own, I guess.

[TAFIV]

i think he's talking about a button to let the coaches adjust their weight only not position

[TroyF]

In many cases, that's the main reason you adjust the weight.

It takes about 3 minutes per year for me to go through it. (I don't bother with any player with over 3 years of EXP, by then they are what they are) I can see Mizzou wanting the option and why he wants it. I'm just scared about what it'd do so I won't bother with it.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

4. Sometimes players are changed *away* from the ideal weight, but what appears to be closer to the ideal BMI, thus lending some credence to the theory that BMI is still important here. I'm looking at a 6'7" OG who weighed 317 when drafted. (314 is heaviest ideal weight). It pumped him up to 329. Also move a 6'9" OT from 322 to 334.

This is potentially troubling.

I understand what you're offering - what you saw in some limited look-ins at AI controlled players. I understand your observation and speculation.

But taking this at potential face value...I don't want this to be too damned hard.

It's tedious enough to feel like we might need to go tweak each player 4 pounds here or 2 pounds there because there's some chart that says a free safety is supposed to weigh 206 lbs. That's dumb, that's not fun, and that's probably not "real football" but a least I know what I'm supposed to be doing to maximize my team.

But if that 206 pounds is just a starting point, and the player's real target value is some totally unsolvable puzzle as a function of his height and BMI. No, I really don't want that. Teasing out the ideal targets is nigh impossible, and what's the point of a puzzle game with no solution?


I like the core of this idea. If my cover corner wants to play at free safety, he needs to bulk up to do it. Some guys can handle that, some probably cannot. That seems reasonable to me. Same with other positions accordingly. Got it.

But nobody welcomes a clickfest for trivial benefits. Either we comply and resent the work we have to do, or we ignore it and resent the theoretical but unmeasurable loss we absorb from not bothering. Nobody wins there.

[gstelmack]

Agreed. I'd like to know what to do when height matters as well. For DB, WR, and DL in a 3-4, if the guy is 4" taller than average for his position (which is supposed to be an advantage), is it okay for him to weigh above the average (is BMI more important?) or do I want him skinny (weight more important)? And is the 4" of height worth him being several pounds overweight? How much overweight is worth the 4"?

Having said all that, this is why I need to dig into the Solevision files and figure out the +/- stuff. If the tall-but-overweight guy is doing poorly, I'm trying someone else. But this needs to be tracked as a stat. With this information, this becomes more reasonable, as we have something that tells us if the guy is doing his job or not on each play.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by TroyF

In many cases, that's the main reason you adjust the weight.

It takes about 3 minutes per year for me to go through it. (I don't bother with any player with over 3 years of EXP, by then they are what they are) I can see Mizzou wanting the option and why he wants it. I'm just scared about what it'd do so I won't bother with it.

I actually never messed with it until FOF 7. But.. I don't mess with gameplans or any of that other stuff either. I just do depth chart tweaks and the GM stuff.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I actually never messed with it until FOF 7. But.. I don't mess with gameplans or any of that other stuff either. I just do depth chart tweaks and the GM stuff.

That's what I do too. I really do get where you are coming from. But what you said at the end is what is important to me here. I do the depth chart. I think the weight thing has an impact on that depth chart. If my coach bulks up someone I don't want bulked up, that is going to impact what I want to do.

I agree with all of the QS post, but I really don't think you need to spend a ridiculous amount of time on it. I look at less than 20 guys a year. I don't overthink it either. If it's obvious he needs to bulk up, I bulk him up. If I need a G and have a couple of good C, I see if one can be moved. Nothing more, nothing less.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by TroyF

That's what I do too. I really do get where you are coming from. But what you said at the end is what is important to me here. I do the depth chart. I think the weight thing has an impact on that depth chart. If my coach bulks up someone I don't want bulked up, that is going to impact what I want to do.

I agree with all of the QS post, but I really don't think you need to spend a ridiculous amount of time on it. I look at less than 20 guys a year. I don't overthink it either. If it's obvious he needs to bulk up, I bulk him up. If I need a G and have a couple of good C, I see if one can be moved. Nothing more, nothing less.

I just try them all.. maybe I should only target certain players.. LOL

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by TroyF

...It takes about 3 minutes per year for me to go through it. (I don't bother with any player with over 3 years of EXP, by then they are what they are)...

This is interesting. I was going through the entire roster and finding that most, if not all, of the more "veteran" players were at a stopping point with height/weigh/BMI and nothing would change that.

I guess it's on me for not realizing that this only needs to be done for younger players. Does this appear to be the same for FOF8?

[perez24]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Would like to see a recommend button to just have my HC do the changes as he sees fit.

YES!!!!

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I just try them all.. maybe I should only target certain players.. LOL

Here is my method:

1 - Do a quick positional strength analysis. See if I have an overabundance at one position and a weakness somewhere else. If I do, I look at every player in that single position group. This takes me less than a minute.

2 - Sort by experience. Anyone 3 years and under look at. I skip punters, kickers and any "filler" player over their second year. Rarely is this over 15 to 20 players TOTAL to look at. The entire process takes less than 2 minutes.

3 - Move on.

I don't feel like I'm losing anything by this.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Here is my method:

1 - Do a quick positional strength analysis. See if I have an overabundance at one position and a weakness somewhere else. If I do, I look at every player in that single position group. This takes me less than a minute.

2 - Sort by experience. Anyone 3 years and under look at. I skip punters, kickers and any "filler" player over their second year. Rarely is this over 15 to 20 players TOTAL to look at. The entire process takes less than 2 minutes.

3 - Move on.

I don't feel like I'm losing anything by this.

Pretty much what I did this season.. thanks!

[yabanci]

I'm now a big fan of this aspect of the game. What I did was rather than just trying to match weights to a simple chart, I basically converted all the information in the relevant part of the help file into a spreadsheet. For example, with my 4-3 over defense it lists each position and things like technique, gap responsibility, key attributes/skills, ideal weight, etc. With all that information at hand, it's easy to look at my team as sort of a puzzle and figure out who has the best skills to play where and whether they have the size to do it. It forces me to make some tricky decisions and feels very realistic. Some examples of things I had fun with:

I needed a pass rushing RDE. I had a pass rusher at LDE and at 6-3 248 he was much too light there (ideal 270 lbs). I had to decide whether to switch him to WLB (ideal 246 lbs) or try bulking him up to play RDE (ideal 263 lbs). Given his pass rushing strength and technique, I went with bulking him up (hit 258 lbs), switched him to RDE, and now have a menacing pass rusher at the most important position. Next year maybe I'll have him bulk up a bit more but I'm afraid I'll overshoot the target.

I already had promising young player listed at RDE with great run and pass rushing skills, but at 6-5 297 lb and listed as an ideal 3-4 DE, he was just too big to play RDE in my scheme (ideal 263 lbs). One option was to trim him down closer to the ideal 270 lbs for a LDE. I already had a LDE, however, who had the run defense to set the edge and at 270 lbs already was the perfect size. What I didn't have and really needed was a good 3-tech DT. So I bulked him up and he hit 314 lbs (ideal 316 lbs). His listed ideal front fit changed to 3-tech DT, I switched him to LDT, and now I have the perfect player for that position.

Another example, I had a 6-1 229 lb rookie linebacker listed as an ideal 4-3 WLB but was too small for the position (ideal 246 lbs) and couldn't bulk up. He had terrible run and pass rushing skills, but he was very smart (intelligence 96) with a great position drill score (43) and coverage bars. In previous versions, I probably wouldn't have bothered and just released him, but with defensive players not being so locked into particular positions, I trimmed him down (hit 215 lbs) and switched him to free safety (ideal 206 lbs). He went from 28/35 roster filler to a 38/50 likely future starter. He'll be a backup this year and hopefully trim down some more next year.

Not everything went so well. I had an almost perfect 6-4 251 lb SLB who was listed as an ideal 4-3 SLB. I got a little greedy and tried trimming him down to the ideal 245 lbs. He ended up dropping to 238 lbs and his ideal front fit changed to 4-3 MLB. Not the end of the world obviously, but it shows how you can't really control how much weight they'll gain or drop. He'll continue playing SLB at that weight and I'll have to decide whether it's worth bothering with his weight next year.

So weight training has not been at all tedious for me. My favorite part of the game is finding players with the right skills and trying to build the perfect offense/defense. I can spend hours and hours just trying to find the right backups. Now with size being more important in FOF8 and defensive players not being so tied to their given positions, roster building has become both more restrictive and more flexible, which makes it far more interesting and fun for my style of play. In past versions, I never really cared about height/weight, it never seemed to matter. Just how much it really matters now, I don't know, but I enjoy it anyway. I'm sure it's just tinkering to some extent, but I'd rather tinker with this than tinker with astrological signs.

In past versions it seemed you could get any player with big bars and plug him in anywhere. Now, like in real football, a guy might be perfect for one scheme but not really fit in another. I think it adds a new dimension to the game and is a great addition.

[Sharkn20]

Originally Posted by yabanci

I'm now a big fan of this aspect of the game. What I did was rather than just trying to match weights to a simple chart, I basically converted all the information in the relevant part of the help file into a spreadsheet. For example, with my 4-3 over defense it lists each position and things like technique, gap responsibility, key attributes/skills, ideal weight, etc. With all that information at hand, it's easy to look at my team as sort of a puzzle and figure out who has the best skills to play where and whether they have the size to do it. It forces me to make some tricky decisions and feels very realistic. Some examples of things I had fun with:

I needed a pass rushing RDE. I had a pass rusher at LDE and at 6-3 248 he was much too light there (ideal 270 lbs). I had to decide whether to switch him to WLB (ideal 246 lbs) or try bulking him up to play RDE (ideal 263 lbs). Given his pass rushing strength and technique, I went with bulking him up (hit 258 lbs), switched him to RDE, and now have a menacing pass rusher at the most important position. Next year maybe I'll have him bulk up a bit more but I'm afraid I'll overshoot the target.

I already had promising young player listed at RDE with great run and pass rushing skills, but at 6-5 297 lb and listed as an ideal 3-4 DE, he was just too big to play RDE in my scheme (ideal 263 lbs). One option was to trim him down closer to the ideal 270 lbs for a LDE. I already had a LDE, however, who had the run defense to set the edge and at 270 lbs already was the perfect size. What I didn't have and really needed was a good 3-tech DT. So I bulked him up and he hit 314 lbs (ideal 316 lbs). His listed ideal front fit changed to 3-tech DT, I switched him to LDT, and now I have the perfect player for that position.

Another example, I had a 6-1 229 lb rookie linebacker listed as an ideal 4-3 WLB but was too small for the position (ideal 246 lbs) and couldn't bulk up. He had terrible run and pass rushing skills, but he was very smart (intelligence 96) with a great position drill score (43) and coverage bars. In previous versions, I probably wouldn't have bothered and just released him, but with defensive players not being so locked into particular positions, I trimmed him down (hit 215 lbs) and switched him to free safety (ideal 206 lbs). He went from 28/35 roster filler to a 38/50 likely future starter. He'll be a backup this year and hopefully trim down some more next year.

Not everything went so well. I had an almost perfect 6-4 251 lb SLB who was listed as an ideal 4-3 SLB. I got a little greedy and tried trimming him down to the ideal 245 lbs. He ended up dropping to 238 lbs and his ideal front fit changed to 4-3 MLB. Not the end of the world obviously, but it shows how you can't really control how much weight they'll gain or drop. He'll continue playing SLB at that weight and I'll have to decide whether it's worth bothering with his weight next year.

So weight training has not been at all tedious for me. My favorite part of the game is finding players with the right skills and trying to build the perfect offense/defense. I can spend hours and hours just trying to find the right backups. Now with size being more important in FOF8 and defensive players not being so tied to their given positions, roster building has become both more restrictive and more flexible, which makes it far more interesting and fun for my style of play. In past versions, I never really cared about height/weight, it never seemed to matter. Just how much it really matters now, I don't know, but I enjoy it anyway. I'm sure it's just tinkering to some extent, but I'd rather tinker with this than tinker with astrological signs.

In past versions it seemed you could get any player with big bars and plug him in anywhere. Now, like in real football, a guy might be perfect for one scheme but not really fit in another. I think it adds a new dimension to the game and is a great addition.

I enjoyed reading this... Are you playing any MP league??

[Caligari]

Great stuff, yabanci!

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Sharkn20

I enjoyed reading this... Are you playing any MP league??

Not now, I think I'm going single-player for a while at least until I get a better grasp on game-planning))

[Sharkn20]

Originally Posted by yabanci

Not now, I think I'm going single-player for a while at least until I get a better grasp on game-planning))

The CFL and OSFL need new blood. Please pop in or contact me when you feel ready. I always like competitive managers in the leagues I am playing!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by A-Husker-4-Life

Haven't seen this yet, this is awesome.

Here ya go.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

That is amazing Ben, thanks. I wonder if that means you need to match up the what the player Identifies as to get better production out of him. Hmmm, I'm going to have to test that tonight. Crazy possibilities if that's true.

[Darren29]

Somewhere I've tripped myself up with weight training is with aiming too much for the average mass/body ratio rather than just looking at the player's weight, which appears to be more important if I'm reading this right.

However, having weight trained a number of my LB's in my new SP career, I've found that a couple of guys who I *didn't* weight train are now identifying as different positions and have a different ideal front fit.

I'm playing as the Saints and SLB Hau'oli Kikaha is 6'2" and 245lbs, playing in a 4-3 over. His ideal fit was a 4-3 SLB and he identified as such.

However I weight trained 3 of my other LB's and suddenly Kikaha now identifies as a 3-4 ILB and that would be his best front fit too.

Any idea why this would happen? Has changing the weight of other LB's somehow affected the whole position group - does the game look for an average weight amongst your team (or maybe the league as a whole?) and assign players their ideal fit as a result?

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Darren29

Somewhere I've tripped myself up with weight training is with aiming too much for the average mass/body ratio rather than just looking at the player's weight, which appears to be more important if I'm reading this right.

However, having weight trained a number of my LB's in my new SP career, I've found that a couple of guys who I *didn't* weight train are now identifying as different positions and have a different ideal front fit.

I'm playing as the Saints and SLB Hau'oli Kikaha is 6'2" and 245lbs, playing in a 4-3 over. His ideal fit was a 4-3 SLB and he identified as such.

However I weight trained 3 of my other LB's and suddenly Kikaha now identifies as a 3-4 ILB and that would be his best front fit too.

Any idea why this would happen? Has changing the weight of other LB's somehow affected the whole position group - does the game look for an average weight amongst your team (or maybe the league as a whole?) and assign players their ideal fit as a result?

Is it possible that you inadvertently slimmed him down? He starts out at 6-2 253 lbs in the original player file.

Another thing, I think the player's specific attributes in addition to weight are taken into account when your staff assigns his ideal fit. You can see signs of this in a couple places. One is when you search for free agents. You might see two udfas with the same height/weight and one shows an ideal fit as 4-3 MLB and the other a 3-4 WLB. You check the bars and the 3-4 WLB is more of a pass rusher and the MLB more of a run stuffer with some coverage ability. The other is you can load up a new game a couple of times and look at a specific player. I did this a few times with Kekaha and he showed up either as a 4-3 SLB or 3-4 SLB. Obviously the only thing that changed between loads were his bars. If this is true, maybe he had a little change in ratings and your staff now thinks his best fit is at ILB.

There are some other possibilities such as averaging weights as you mention, but they seem much more unlikely based on what I've seen. Judging by the reloads, I think it's the attributes being taken into account. You have the same player, same height/weight, same staff, same front, the only thing that changes are the attributes and ideal fit.

Weight is definitely more important, though I don't think body mass is irrelevant. The help file is pretty clear. Height only matters for a few positions, but weight:

Weight: this is often the most important attribute for a player.

[gstelmack]

Check the combines as well.

[yabanci]

Good point, hadn't thought of that.

[TAFIV]

Guys according to the help file the height/Weight ratio is what matters most

Players closer to the ideal weight for their assigned position will perform better in games. Players who are further from the average height/weight ratio for their position might see a small decline in performance.

[yabanci]

It is a confusing way to put it. I ended up reading it as two different statements:

(a) ideal weight = will perform better
(b) bad BMI = might see small decline

I read it that that way because in the preceding paragraphs he focuses on weight being important and height not being important except for a few positions:

Weight: this is often the most important attribute for a player. Physics gives us the reason.

Height: For some positions, height matters. [for seeing over players or competing for balls in the air]

a player’s performance is reduced by the difference between that player’s weight and the ideal weight for the position he is playing on that particular play.

Then in the corresponding defensive philosophy article he phrases what you quoted a little differently, using the word "finally" to make it sound like he's saying two different things:

Players closer to the ideal weight for their assigned position will perform better in games. The darker highlights indicate defensive positions where more height is also important. Finally, players who are further from the average height/weight ratio for their position might see a small decline in performance.

The only way I could reconcile all of those statements was that weight is most important, height is important for a few positions, and BMI still matters a bit.

It didn't make sense to me to read it as weight is most important, height is important for a few positions, height/weight is what matters most.

But you may be right, it can be read different ways. It's not as clear as it should be and I might be reading it wrong.

Ben's original post indicates the AI moves some players away from their ideal weight and closer to their ideal BMI, for whatever that's worth.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by yabanci

Ben's original post indicates the AI moves some players away from their ideal weight and closer to their ideal BMI, for whatever that's worth.

Let's face it: this wouldn't be the first time Jim's documentation is unclear and might unintentionally steer people away from best strategies.

Based on what I'm seeing in the AI (and yeah, I looked at more Player Tracker data and there's no question that the AI is moving players toward their ideal BMI, even if it's "overweight" for a position,) logical consistency with the documentation as a whole, and how things work in real football (yes, I know that third one can be dangerous, but since this jibes with the first two points, I believe it to be pertinent here,) here's how I believe that it works:

1. The great majority of players come into the league at or near their ideal BMI because they're 21-24 years old, are elite college athletes in tip-top shape, and have trained extra-hard for the combines.

2. They play *best* (at whatever position) when they're at their ideal BMI.

3. Sometimes the position they played in college doesn't translate perfectly to that position in the pros.

4. Ideally, we should try to match our players up with the position/system that best fits their ideal weight at their ideal BMI.

Practical example:




When I pull up the postion-switch to center dialogue for Manning, I get the following:

He's underweight for a guard and shouldn't get any heavier. (Keep in mind that he has been eating like a horse and lifting like crazy for 3 years in college to bulk up to play guard. He's as heavy as he can be while being an effective football player.) But he's only one pound over the *perfect* weight for a center, and notice that his height/weight are both "average" there, so when I switch him to center, I get the "will lose no ratings" dialogue, and everything is listed as "about average." on the screenie above. And beyond that, once he is *moved* to Center and I try to weight train him, I get:



So Mo Manning is a Center, not a guard. He's going to play better there.

tl;dr version: Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm playing this game under the assumption that the best usage of every player is to get him at his ideal height/weight, and play him at the position that best matches that. And if there's a tension between "should I get him to ideal BMI" and "should I get him to ideal weight for his position," that means I'm trying to play him at which he will not get ideal production.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

The other bit of evidence that fits this theory is the *massive* number (compared to other recent versions) of 50-55 rated D7 players. There are so many because lots of them simply don't belong on your team because they'd stink at your system. Anyone who has paid attention to Jim's comments in the NFL threads should know that he's big on BB for his ability to find "system guys." That has got to influence his design decisions in FOF. Adding a bunch of players in the same ratings range is a great way to push the game in that direction. The Help File is also very specific about the *skills* that are needed at each position in each defensive system. So, on my 4-3 Over scheme in the CCFL, here's what I am told about the LDT position:

Left Defensive Tackle (T): Lines up in the 3-technique to the outside of the right guard, and is responsible
for the B-gap on the strong side. The 3-technique tackle in a 43 can be a little smaller and more athletic
than most tackles and may actually generate considerable quarterback pressure.

So for LDT, the ideal "system guy" has an ideal weight of 309 pounds and some pass-rushing skills. If this guy can bulk up, rather than being a run-of-the-mill average DT in a sea of guys with overall ratings +/- 5 from his, maybe he becomes a Pro Bowler.

[TAFIV]

here's another example, and a reason why you need to pay attention to weights even on older guys.

In the CCFL we just finished our allocation draft and this is one of the guys i picked up, 13 season veteran, 6ft 4in 302lb Left Tackle



well since 302 lbs is light for a LT i checked weight training, that was his max so i switched him to LG instead still a little light but much closer to his ideal weight and here's the result



he ended up losing a little experience so current stats dropped some, however max values went up
Run Blocking -12 current, +0 max
Pass Blocking -13 current, +7 max
Blocking Strength stayed the same
Endurance -6 current, +4 max
overall -9 current, +2 max

Now it may not end up being as important with a player that will only be on the team for a couple seasons before he retires but just think what that difference could mean if he was on your team his entire career.
That would mean 13 seasons he could have been playing with +7 Pass Block and +4 Endurance.
Not necessarily a lot but it could be the difference between him holding a block for that extra 1/2 second your QB needed to get off a game winning pass or being able to stay in that little extra bit needed instead of subbing out for a less talented backup.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

tl;dr version: Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm playing this game under the assumption that the best usage of every player is to get him at his ideal height/weight, and play him at the position that best matches that. And if there's a tension between "should I get him to ideal BMI" and "should I get him to ideal weight for his position," that means I'm trying to play him at which he will not get ideal production.

I might be wrong, but I think we're essentially saying the same thing or at least reaching the same end result. The way I would state my strategy is: If a player has the skill set I want at a particular position, I'll try weight training him to the ideal weight for that position as long as I don't f-up his BMI too much in the process. I apply this to all players, young and old.

If I have a great pass rusher who can't play the run or cover, I'm going to play him at WLB in a 3-4 as long as he's in the neighborhood of the ideal weight. I'm not going to move him to ILB or SLB just because his BMI is a better fit for those positions.

Using one of the examples I posted above:

Originally Posted by yabanci

...Not everything went so well. I had an almost perfect 6-4 251 lb SLB who was listed as an ideal 4-3 SLB. I got a little greedy and tried trimming him down to the ideal 245 lbs. He ended up dropping to 238 lbs and his ideal front fit changed to 4-3 MLB. Not the end of the world obviously, but it shows how you can't really control how much weight they'll gain or drop. He'll continue playing SLB at that weight and I'll have to decide whether it's worth bothering with his weight next year....

If I could do this over, I would not have slimmed him down. I'd rather have a player 6 pounds overweight with a good BMI than 7 pounds underweight with a bad BMI. However, if I knew in advance that he would slim down to exactly the ideal weight, I would weight train him even if it made his BMI slightly less that ideal. Either way, he has the skill set I want a SLB and that's where I will play him.

Anyway, my eyes are glazing over from all this)) As much as I enjoy this aspect of the game, I think we are tinkering with the margins as long as we all get the basic concept that both weight and BMI matter much more than they have before and it's worth taking the time to weight train where appropriate.

[Sharkn20]

Originally Posted by yabanci

I might be wrong, but I think we're essentially saying the same thing or at least reaching the same end result. The way I would state my strategy is: If a player has the skill set I want at a particular position, I'll try weight training him to the ideal weight for that position as long as I don't f-up his BMI too much in the process. I apply this to all players, young and old.

If I have a great pass rusher who can't play the run or cover, I'm going to play him at WLB in a 3-4 as long as he's in the neighborhood of the ideal weight. I'm not going to move him to ILB or SLB just because his BMI is a better fit for those positions.

Using one of the examples I posted above:



If I could do this over, I would not have slimmed him down. I'd rather have a player 6 pounds overweight with a good BMI than 7 pounds underweight with a bad BMI. However, if I knew in advance that he would slim down to exactly the ideal weight, I would weight train him even if it made his BMI slightly less that ideal. Either way, he has the skill set I want a SLB and that's where I will play him.

Anyway, my eyes are glazing over from all this)) As much as I enjoy this aspect of the game, I think we are tinkering with the margins as long as we all get the basic concept that both weight and BMI matter much more than they have before and it's worth taking the time to weight train where appropriate.

Remember that a 3-4 WLB will only blitz, if you ask him to do it in the Gameplan, if not he will be another LB.

[Sharkn20]

Originally Posted by TAFIV

here's another example, and a reason why you need to pay attention to weights even on older guys.

In the CCFL we just finished our allocation draft and this is one of the guys i picked up, 13 season veteran, 6ft 4in 302lb Left Tackle



well since 302 lbs is light for a LT i checked weight training, that was his max so i switched him to LG instead still a little light but much closer to his ideal weight and here's the result



he ended up losing a little experience so current stats dropped some, however max values went up
Run Blocking -12 current, +0 max
Pass Blocking -13 current, +7 max
Blocking Strength stayed the same
Endurance -6 current, +4 max
overall -9 current, +2 max

Now it may not end up being as important with a player that will only be on the team for a couple seasons before he retires but just think what that difference could mean if he was on your team his entire career.
That would mean 13 seasons he could have been playing with +7 Pass Block and +4 Endurance.
Not necessarily a lot but it could be the difference between him holding a block for that extra 1/2 second your QB needed to get off a game winning pass or being able to stay in that little extra bit needed instead of subbing out for a less talented backup.

I wish you could write a book about FOF, we all would learn a lot

[TAFIV]

Lol, I'm no expert I started playing after fof 8 came out. It's just that I've messed around experimenting with a lot of different things and have no problem sharing what I find out.

[Hammer]

I have seen the same as TAFIV. Small LT, 6-5, 275 lbs, moved to C and jumped 11 points. Only potential though, haven't seen if it comes to fruition. I hope so, because it would be great to see some sort of measureable weight effect.

Another interesting one in the VFL allocation draft. Veteran 6-2, 200 lbs CB. 38/38. Tried him at FS, 32/32. What caught my eye is that his bars never moved a single digit across the range, only his overall rating.

[Dawgfan19]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Another interesting one in the VFL allocation draft. Veteran 6-2, 200 lbs CB. 38/38. Tried him at FS, 32/32. What caught my eye is that his bars never moved a single digit across the range, only his overall rating.

Don't over analysis some of this stuff. What you described above also occurred in FOF 7. The game values the CB position more than S. Thus, the player's overall rating decreases despite his skill bars remaining unchanged.

[zbuckley]

In prior FOF versions when I switched a player that was fully developed at one position into a position with significantly lower development, sometimes I'd see a bump in his future ratings. I basically always considered it either scouting error or FOF valuing different skills for different positions.

There was that strange LB switch that seemed to actually bump ratings but that seemed like some bug.

[wustin]

So anyone know what I should do with this guy.



I drafted him with the intent of changing him into a safety coming into his rookie year but I found out before training camp it would've knocked out 75% of his potential. I have a better starting SILB so i decided to stick him at SLB this past year to see what would happen and he ended up with a good season. I think ideal weight might not be that important.

[wustin]

dola

just as I made that post, i get offered a first round pick for him by the Bills

Not my problem anymore

[garion333]

Originally Posted by wustin

I drafted him with the intent of changing him into a safety coming into his rookie year but I found out before training camp it would've knocked out 75% of his potential. I have a better starting SILB so i decided to stick him at SLB this past year to see what would happen and he ended up with a good season. I think ideal weight might not be that important.

Weight is likely just one of many factors about players. I'm not sure how much Jim changed between FOF7 and FOF8 regarding weight's impact, but now that we can see more info about weight we're all focusing on it more.

That said, that dude should be a pass rushing OLB. He'd be a stud as you can see by his 12.5 sacks. I would've kept him.

[Sharkn20]

Originally Posted by wustin

So anyone know what I should do with this guy.



I drafted him with the intent of changing him into a safety coming into his rookie year but I found out before training camp it would've knocked out 75% of his potential. I have a better starting SILB so i decided to stick him at SLB this past year to see what would happen and he ended up with a good season. I think ideal weight might not be that important.

That's the kind of player you wanted blitzing from LBs positions in 3rd and long

[wustin]

a little update on the guy



I don't really regret the trade as I got a 1.14 pick for him but he's had a great career so far. He'll probably be in the HoF.

[Hammer]

Is he in a 3-4 or a 4-3 now? Just wondering how underweight he is.