FOF 2K4 Position Tags

[Grid Iron]

I'm not a big fan of FOF splitting up positions in such a detailed fashion (e.g. LCB/RCB, RDT/LDT). I think whether someone is a "LCB" or "RCB" or "ILB" or "OLB" is a function of that players' abilities and the gameplan. It's just too darn complicated and messy. What do you think?

[VPI97]

Well, I can see the difference ibetween ILB and OLB, so I don't agree with you there, but I do find the LCB/RCB splits a little tedious.

[corbes]

Yeh. I think if the tags were less detailed, I'd have to get to know my players more to figure out where they ought to go.

The more detail makes it a little more formulaic.

[corbes]

dola-

my initial reaction was, duh, ILB and OLB is a big split. But maybe I'd rather just see "LB", and have to look at the player's size, speed, and runstopping to decide where to play him on my team.

I'd feel like my team was more versatile, maybe.

[Castlerock]

I would like to see a difference between ILB and OLB but not WILB/SILB or RCB/LCB.

[pskov]

Yeah, letting me look at the players skills and deciding whether he would be best suited to ILB or OLB would be good. Maybe there could be some indication of where he played at college or on a previous team though. It could apply to other positions, so I could get my best pass blocker at left tackle and my best pass rusher at right end etc. rather than it being arbitrarily decided for me.

[corbes]

Maybe there could be some indication of where he played at college or on a previous team though.

Hey, that's a nice idea, rather than the tags. Then you could really play the player wherever you wanted.

[Darkiller]

I'm not a big fan of FOF splitting up positions in such a detailed fashion (e.g. LCB/RCB, RDT/LDT). I think whether someone is a "LCB" or "RCB" or "ILB" or "OLB" is a function of that players' abilities and the gameplan. It's just too darn complicated and messy. What do you think?
I agree...I know there's a difference between playing LT and RT for example, but as far as the FOF gameplay, I'd rather have the option to choose for "split/ no split" when beginning a career...and I would go for "no split".

[Grid Iron]

I agree...I know there's a difference between playing LT and RT for example, but as far as the FOF gameplay, I'd rather have the option to choose for "split/ no split" when beginning a career...and I would go for "no split".

I was wondering if there a real impact of LT or RT in FOF2K4? Suppose I have the league's best LT, but a left-handed QB--the QB's blind side would then be at RT, correct? But does the sim engine take into account whether a QB is left or right handed to determine which is his blind side?

The result might be that you get fewer sacks due to a great LT, even though the RT is the one protecting the blind side.

[cthomer5000]

I was wondering if there a real impact of LT or RT in FOF2K4? Suppose I have the league's best LT, but a left-handed QB--the QB's blind side would then be at RT, correct? But does the sim engine take into account whether a QB is left or right handed to determine which is his blind side?

The result might be that you get fewer sacks due to a great LT, even though the RT is the one protecting the blind side.

There are no left hand/right hand QB's in FOF. Just QBs. So my guess is the game engine always assumes the LT is manning the blind side.

[Grid Iron]

There are no left hand/right hand QB's in FOF. Just QBs. So my guess is the game engine always assumes the LT is manning the blind side.

Good point.

[rkmsuf]

There are no left hand/right hand QB's in FOF. Just QBs. So my guess is the game engine always assumes the LT is manning the blind side.

So which side would that be?

[Maple Leafs]

I would like to see a difference between ILB and OLB but not WILB/SILB or RCB/LCB.Agreed.

[amdaily]

The less detail in this respect the better.

[cthomer5000]

So which side would that be?

I said the LEFT tackle is manning the blind side. so the left side would always be the blind side.

[rkmsuf]

I said the LEFT tackle is manning the blind side. so the left side would always be the blind side.

So all QBs are right handed then...

[Grid Iron]

So all QBs are right handed then...

Another good point. :)

[rkmsuf]

Another good point. :)

I'm quick...

[henry296]

Why should RBs and WRs have defined positions. Why not just decide their position on their skills?

[yabanci]

I don't think it's an issue of "detail" at all. ILB and OLB are different positions, just like LF, CF, and RF are different positions in baseball. Sure, some baseball players can play multiple outfield positions, but many cannot. Even for players who can play multiple OF positions, if someone has been playing LF, he naturally will have an adjustment period if you switch him to RF. The same is true in football with ILB and OLB, and even with SLB and WLB, RDE and LDE, LT and RT, SE and FL, and even LCB and RCB -- they are different positions with different responsibilities and in many cases require different skills (or at least size/speed).

FOF models this, as I think it should. You're free to move a WLB to SLB, for example, but he will likely have an slight experience reduction at the new position. Isn't this true in real life? If you move a WLB to MLB, you might have a greater experience reduction, as also would be true in real life. I don't see the problem with this. I've moved RCBs to LCB many times and have no problem with the experience reduction, because they SHOULD have an slight experience reduction at the new position -- and just as you would expect, they regain that experience fairly quickly after they've played the new position for a bit. I also don't mind seeing a ratings hit on a change between similar positions. For example, if in real life you move a smallish but quick RDE to LDE, his run stopping and pass rushing "ratings" are likely to be different, because on running plays he's more often than not going to have to deal with a run blocking RT, a TE, and maybe a FB (all three of whom might be bigger than he is) and on pass plays he's not going to have the advantage of coming from the QB's blind side (of course, this isn't a universal truth, but it is generally true).

I understand that some people do not want to deal with the intricacies of football, but I do not think realism should be sacrificed for simplicity in a simulation of this nature. While it might not be perfect, I see FOF modelling of this aspect of the game as a sign of sophistication, not something complicated and messy.

[jfbbis]

Wouldn't it be nice if players had a "versatility" attribute, maybe based on intelligence? In the real NFL, some players switch fairly easily from say guard to center while others seem unable to play more than a position..It would give more sense to the stricter tags imo

[yabanci]

Wouldn't it be nice if players had a "versatility" attribute, maybe based on intelligence? In the real NFL, some players switch fairly easily from say guard to center while others seem unable to play more than a position..It would give more sense to the stricter tags imo

There is something like this in FOF, although it's not displayed rating. It seems to be based on some combination of size/weight, age, experience, and existing ratings. Some players when moved between similar positions will have a slight decrease in experience/potential, some will have a significant decrease, some will have an increase, and some won't even have the option of changing.

edit - I think intelligence might play a factor in this to, with intelligent players being able to change positions more easily than the dumb ones.

[astralhaze]

I don't think it's an issue of "detail" at all. ILB and OLB are different positions, just like LF, CF, and RF are different positions in baseball. Sure, some baseball players can play multiple outfield positions, but many cannot. Even for players who can play multiple OF positions, if someone has been playing LF, he naturally will have an adjustment period if you switch him to RF. The same is true in football with ILB and OLB, and even with SLB and WLB, RDE and LDE, LT and RT, SE and FL, and even LCB and RCB -- they are different positions with different responsibilities and in many cases require different skills (or at least size/speed).

FOF models this, as I think it should. You're free to move a WLB to SLB, for example, but he will likely have an slight experience reduction at the new position. Isn't this true in real life? If you move a WLB to MLB, you might have a greater experience reduction, as also would be true in real life. I don't see the problem with this. I've moved RCBs to LCB many times and have no problem with the experience reduction, because they SHOULD have an slight experience reduction at the new position -- and just as you would expect, they regain that experience fairly quickly after they've played the new position for a bit. I also don't mind seeing a ratings hit on a change between similar positions. For example, if in real life you move a smallish but quick RDE to LDE, his run stopping and pass rushing "ratings" are likely to be different, because on running plays he's more often than not going to have to deal with a run blocking RT, a TE, and maybe a FB (all three of whom might be bigger than he is) and on pass plays he's not going to have the advantage of coming from the QB's blind side (of course, this isn't a universal truth, but it is generally true).

I understand that some people do not want to deal with the intricacies of football, but I do not think realism should be sacrificed for simplicity in a simulation of this nature. While it might not be perfect, I see FOF modelling of this aspect of the game as a sign of sophistication, not something complicated and messy.
Was going to reply until I read this. Agreed 100%

[Vegas Vic]

I'll throw out a question here. Suppose your top two corners are tagged as "LCB". Is there any disadvantage in leaving the tags alone and starting both of them, or do you gain anything by manually changing one of them to "RCB"?

[BigJohn&TheLions]

back in the football pro days I had a TE rush for almost 1000 yds after all my RB's went down.

Maybe, just maybe I'll someday want to play a guard at QB. Maybe...

[BigJohn&TheLions]

even LCB and RCB -- they are different positions with different responsibilities and in many cases require different skills (or at least size/speed).



What if you have your corners set for top corner to cover the opposing top WR? Wouldn't that mean that the corners move all over anyway???

[Ben E Lou]

I don't think it's an issue of "detail" at all. ILB and OLB are different positions, just like LF, CF, and RF are different positions in baseball. Sure, some baseball players can play multiple outfield positions, but many cannot. Even for players who can play multiple OF positions, if someone has been playing LF, he naturally will have an adjustment period if you switch him to RF. The same is true in football with ILB and OLB, and even with SLB and WLB, RDE and LDE, LT and RT, SE and FL, and even LCB and RCB -- they are different positions with different responsibilities and in many cases require different skills (or at least size/speed).

FOF models this, as I think it should. You're free to move a WLB to SLB, for example, but he will likely have an slight experience reduction at the new position. Isn't this true in real life? If you move a WLB to MLB, you might have a greater experience reduction, as also would be true in real life. I don't see the problem with this. I've moved RCBs to LCB many times and have no problem with the experience reduction, because they SHOULD have an slight experience reduction at the new position -- and just as you would expect, they regain that experience fairly quickly after they've played the new position for a bit. I also don't mind seeing a ratings hit on a change between similar positions. For example, if in real life you move a smallish but quick RDE to LDE, his run stopping and pass rushing "ratings" are likely to be different, because on running plays he's more often than not going to have to deal with a run blocking RT, a TE, and maybe a FB (all three of whom might be bigger than he is) and on pass plays he's not going to have the advantage of coming from the QB's blind side (of course, this isn't a universal truth, but it is generally true).

I understand that some people do not want to deal with the intricacies of football, but I do not think realism should be sacrificed for simplicity in a simulation of this nature. While it might not be perfect, I see FOF modelling of this aspect of the game as a sign of sophistication, not something complicated and messy.What yabanci said.

[QuikSand]

I basically agree with yabanci, but I wouldn't object to making this a user-definable option, so if a given player wants the more simplified version, he can adjust the game to his tastes.

But it didn't take me long to develop an appreciation for the position differences, and I think it adds not only realism but a worthwhile degree of extra challenge to the game. If I had the options to sethtis however I could, I'd probably leave it just as it is... perhaps with fewer penalties for players making a modest position switch at an appropriate time (like during training camp), or perhaps a separate rating for player "flexibility" (perhaps related to intelligence) as an indicator on how easily he can play a new position.

[Fritz]

If the simpler format is a huge deal to you I suggest trying Football Mogul.

[Franklinnoble]

I'd like to be able to play my defensive tackle at RB or TE from time to time. Do you think Jim could work on that?

[Passacaglia]

I agree with yabanci, too, but as I was reading, I had the same thoughts that Big John expressed. LCB and RCB seem not to matter much, given that most teams arrange their CB's by strength of WR. But I can see why the distinction is made -- just in case you DO want to arrange them by sides. For example, my eNFL Bills do this, since our CBs were relatively even in ability at the beginning of the season, but as one of them has become much better, we might switch to orienting by Top WR.

One more point to add is to remind people of what this game was like before the tags were this detailed. The AI would just line them up by ability, i.e. the better Tackle played on the left, and the 2nd best on the right. While most teams probably do it that way, it's definitely not all of them. I found that to be pretty annoying, and when I was feeling ambitious enough to go through and change that myself to make it more realistic, I still knew in the back of my mind that the other teams were doing it this way, too.

[timmae]

I haven't noticed a huge, if any, difference between playing a LCB at RCB or other positions for that matter. It may just be that I am blind... is there even an advantage of switching the pos's to make sense???

[ISiddiqui]

I actually believe most polygamous relationships are unhealthy. But then again, most marriages in the west before the 20th century were unhealthy as well. And even today, many marriages are so unhealthy they're ending up in divorce, or in domestic violence (it is a bane in Europe, especially in Spain, I don't know for the US).

The problem is, IMO, that it should be defined what other positions the player can play easily... such as a DT that can play both sides should be defined before you try to make the 'permanent' switch. Kind of like how baseball games tell you what positions each player can play and how well.

[Vegas Vic]

Does anyone have any input on just leaving the position tag alone and plugging a RCB at LCB, or RG at LG if needed? Performance wise, would this be better or worse than manually changing the position?

[QuikSand]

Does anyone have any input on just leaving the position tag alone and plugging a RCB at LCB, or RG at LG if needed? Performance wise, would this be better or worse than manually changing the position?

I think the general consensus is that you're better off playing the guy slightly out of position (LCB at RCB, etc) than switching him over. Jim made one post to this extent, saying that the one main exception was a meaningful penalty for a RT playing LT, but generally there's not a big in-game offset.

In practice, I've even had very good results playing guys *way* out of position: C playing LT, LB playing DE, S playing CB, RB playing WR, etc. As long as the player has the right apparent skills, I don't think the "out of position" penalty is all that great.