FOF: Preseason playing time

[SackAttack]

How much playing time do you give your rookies? In the past, I've not given mine much at all (unless their ratings indicate that they could step in and start immediately), and instead look to stick them in the lineup in future seasons.

Last night, though, I decided to let a QB I had selected in the 4th round play the preseason. My starter, you see, was demanding big bucks in the final year of his contract. He'd done alright in the previous two years as starter: 291/520 passing for 3365 yards, 22 TDs, and 26 INTs his first full year as the starter, and 301/489 for 3502 and a 24/20 ratio his 2nd. Nothing spectacular, but good enough to lead us to consecutive titles.

My 4th rounder by comparison, doesn't look like much to write home about at all. His 'talent' and 'potential' bars are lower than the starter's across the board, particularly in "Avoid Interceptions," where the starter had a rating of 81. The rookie, by contrast, had current/potential of 40/67. Further, the rookie's ratings were lower after training camp - significantly so - than they had been pre-camp. I played him anyway, since he was the best backup I had, and he surprised me by completing 67% of his passes in the preseason, and passing for 8 TDs against 0 INTs.

"Okay," thought I, "fair enough, but those are second string defenses. Let's see how he fares against real competition."

Week 1 of the regular season? 25-36 for 350 yards, 5 TDs, and 2 INTs. Three of those TDs came in the 4th quarter (including a 2-point conversion), sparking a 22 point rally to win 36-33. The 5 TD passes set a team record (in 2007) for a single game, and the 350 yards were good for 3rd (he set the team record with 366 later in the year).

I went ahead and let him start the entire season, despite the abysmal ratings, telling myself that I'd yank him as soon as he played poorly (nice guy, huh?). When the dust had settled, he had completed 322 of 498 passes for 4,099 yards, and 42 TDs (against 10 INTs). The 42 TD passes were both team and league records, as was his 110.0 passer rating.

His ratings, though, they're still puny. The players around him are essentially unchanged from the personnel the starter had in his two years, with the exception of a new third wideout (who caught 56 passes for 863 yards and 4 TDs). Same offensive line, same WRs/RBs/FBs (except for the lone new guy).

Is he just the product of a favorable system? Or can I expect a ratings explosion in future years?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just from that info, it sounds like a systemic thing to me.
That, and perhaps a combination of factors converging at once -- throwing more, or at least more in TD situations, WR improvements in big play maybe, playing against significantly poorer pass defenses than usual (either by degradation or by quirk of schedule).

Also ... does your scout suck at grading QB's?

[SackAttack]

My scout is rated "Very Good" at QBs, or at least, he was before I replaced him. (My new scout is "Good" across the board, instead of "Very Good" in two areas followed by a bunch of "Average").

My gameplan hasn't changed. If you look at the starter's numbers, he threw 520 and 489 passes, respectively, prior to Alston (the rook) with his 498 thrown. So that's about right. Both of my primary wideouts are approaching their 10th years in the league, so I'm not sure it's an improvement in their play as much. I could see either:

a) the poorer pass defenses to which you alluded,
b) more passing in TD situations (but, again, my gameplan is identical to the one I've used for the last 4 years), or
c) my scout REALLY dropped the ball,

but despite thinking that yeah, it could be systemic, I'm just not seeing how a guy who, on paper, should be so much worse could put up much more outstanding numbers with essentially the same cast.

[stevew]

D) You have Kurt Warner

[stevew]

dola]

Can we get a screenshot of this dude?

[Leonidas]

I've noticed (especially in TCY) that the ratings and the stats sometimes don't work out like you expect. I guy with near max ratings sometimes turns mediocre while a guy with average ratings is all pro. I think maybe some guys have a particular skill set better suited to aparticular system or matches well with the other talent. IRL look at Rich Gannon. He was pretty much a nobody throughout his career then gets with the Raiders and blossoms.

[SackAttack]

stevew,

Yeah, I'll get one up in a bit.

[gstelmack]

I think the third receiver was a big factor here. Remember a couple of versions ago how the #3 receiver would often end up leading your team in receptions or yards? A good third WR is lining up against nickel corners, safeties, or LBs and if he's good creates mismatches. Having solid third (and fourth) receivers can REALLY help a passing game, unless the defense has a really good third CB.

[SackAttack]

That could be. The 3rd receiver was targeted 100+ times, but only made 50ish catches. I ended up having to trade him in the offseason, though (a stud of a running back was in the draft, and I couldn't pass him up), although I did acquire another receiver whose talents appear comparable.

We'll see if the kid can repeat the year he had.

[SackAttack]

dola]

Can we get a screenshot of this dude?

As requested. This was taken shortly after the 2008 amateur draft, but hasn't changed any from the end of the '07 season.

http://www.filenikki.com/images/staff/josh/alston1.jpg

[Dutch]

He's got pretty good timing, so maybe he just showed up on your team when you had the best players to surround him? :)

[SackAttack]

The starter's timing is about 10 points better :)

[stevew]

That is a shitty QB. But he does so well. Im perplexed, cause in 3 seasons of Wigfl, thus far my 30/50 QB posted a 80 rating, but since then, 2 "better" qb's have gone on to suck.

[SackAttack]

Year Two of the great Courtney Alston experiment is underway. Not only did the starter sign a new 5 year deal (with no bonus, no less, I'm shocked), but I managed to snag a young up-and-comer on the late FA market, too. We'll see if he can duplicate it, but if he can't, we have plenty of talent at the position.

[SackAttack]

2008 season, Alston goes 319/501 for 4212 yards, 29 TDs, 13 INTs, but thankfully sees his sack numbers drop from 27 to 19. His passer rating is a quite respectable 98.6.

His ratings still suck, though.

[stevew]

What do his salary demands look like. As a 4th Im guessing hes up for a contract after his 3rd year?

[stevew]

dola

You wouldnt happen to have combine numbers?

[SackAttack]

Um. He did REAL well on the Solecismic Test, I remember that much. Had a score in the 40s (and has intelligence of 96 now).

His strength wasn't so impressive, he did 10 or 11 reps, I think. Had a 40 time in the high 4s, and agility in the low-to-mid 7s.

[OldGiants]

A thought or two:

1) I don't think this QB is dreadful. I've seen many AI QB's with this level of talent put up comparable numbers. Check out your own saved files once the 'real' QBs have retired and see for yourself.

2) In an earlier version of FOF, I tried a concept of having only FAs at the skill positions but all of them had tremendous third down skills. While the didn't put up terrific numbers, these folks were decent but not good enough to do more than make the playoffs.

Players like the above example doing well in FOF are not unusual. You simply need to check out the AI teams more often--after you're well into a career, say 2010 or so.