Using FB as a main ball carrier in FOF 7

[QuikSand]

My vague recollection is that in some of the early versions of FOF, using a FB as a main-duty RB was pretty effective. Then at some point that seemed to get pretty neutered. Now I'm seeing some FB on good teams run the ball pretty effectively for more than a trivial share of the load. So I'm guessing perhaps the pendulum has swung back on this

Anyone have more concrete thoughts on this? Any suggestions on what to look for in a FB to suggest effectiveness as a ball carrier?

[Ben E Lou]

Any suggestions on what to look for in a FB to suggest effectiveness as a ball carrier?Well, a good OL would probably help any FB do well, thought I haven't tested that theory. (I have a test team, though, that I might run a quickie on it.) That said, positional experience and hole recognition seem to be the big two.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, a good OL would probably help any FB do well, thought I haven't tested that theory. (I have a test team, though, that I might run a quickie on it.) That said, positional experience and hole recognition seem to be the big two.

Yeah..quick check with a test team with monster OL. (81-69-90-71-80) is yielding around 6 ypc to the primary RB (60/60). I replace him with a stud FB who has 60 HR and 5 positional experience at RB. The FB in the RB role gets around 1500 yards and around 5.0 ypc on average. (only five trials)

I don't know that you'll ever get a FB up to 8 or 9 positional experience at RB, but I'll bet if you did, you'd see them perform almost as well as a RB.

[Ben E Lou]

Oh...and just tried one season with the FB2 in there at RB1. He's a pretty terrible fit with 21 HR and 3 positional experience at RB. Even he is getting around 4.25 ypc.

[Julio Riddols]

With a monster OL you can just about put anyone at RB. I do think FB running is a little more effective than it used to be though, I started my top FB at RB last season in the RNFL for a good chunk of the year behind an above average but not amazing line and he had a 165-716 line, good for 4.34 a pop. He is a hell of a FB though, he's been effective as our primary TE and RB at different times and has 72 hole recognition. Only a 4 in RB experience though.

I feel like he is better now than he was on the old version though.. My O-line used to be impressive in the earlier parts of his career on FOF2k7 but he usually averaged around 3.7 or so a carry then.

[aston217]

Was Quik asking about the "FB run %" setting? Might be a different set of logic working with those stats.

[Ben E Lou]

Was Quik asking about the "FB run %" setting? Might be a different set of logic working with those stats.Nah. I assume that he was asking about this guy's most recent season.

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ihof/ben/playercard.php?playerid=32511

[aston217]

Wow!

Okay, that's cool. A 39/39 FB getting that kind of production.

How do you figure the RB static bars figure into it? Occasionally you'll see a FB who upon position switch would have nice breakaway, PI, and STO. I have a FB like this but don't want to convert him (he converts at 63%). Might have to give this a try!

[Front Office Midget]

In the 2nd round of a draft, the best player available is a 6.9 graded FB, with 4.6 40, 21 sole, 28 strg, 7.21 agil, 9-06 bjp and 47 pspec.

I have never really been keen on drafting FBs before, but he is so much better than the other available talent I wonder if it's worth it. His bars are all in the range of "topped out", except for hole recog which is between 25-50.

Is a stud FB worth drafting in the 2nd round? Vs. say a 5.0 WR who could be a good kick returner and solid #3 or #4 WR?

Typically I would go WR, but I am stacked at WR and already have returners. He might be the better long term investment... is a stud FB even worth having?

[garion333]

Yes, I believe FBs can be a meaningful part of your offense, especially if you slot him in as the backup TE. If he's as good as you say, draft him and move him to TE, assuming size works out.

His Hole Rec being low is a bad sign if you want to use him to run the ball.

That WR might be more useful to you in future years, but in the 2nd round I'd prefer to draft a player who starter potential than a backup WR, unless you're targeting him as a slot receiver or some such thing.

[Front Office Midget]

Good thoughts. FB ended up not being available. Passed on WR in favor of a solid CB.

I've never prioritized a FB at all before. I typically run a 3/4 WR constant passing offense. But I also tend to draft "best player available" so I was curious others' thoughts.

[Alf]

I tried using a rookie FB (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ihof/ben/playercard.php?playerid=44096) (stud) as my main ball carrier in IHOF last season but I had a shitty OL and it resulted in 3.17ypc <-- not good.

The following season, I plugged in a stud RB (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ihof/ben/playercard.php?playerid=44892) with the same OL and he got a 4.28ypc season

[redfox000]

I tried using a rookie FB (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ihof/ben/playercard.php?playerid=44096) (stud) as my main ball carrier in IHOF last season but I had a shitty OL and it resulted in 3.17ypc <-- not good.

The following season, I plugged in a stud RB (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ihof/ben/playercard.php?playerid=44892) with the same OL and he got a 4.28ypc season

Could that also be due to the lower number of FB running plays? The dreaded "the defense looked familiar with this play" message?

[Germanicus]

Could that also be due to the lower number of FB running plays? The dreaded "the defense looked familiar with this play" message?
03-02-2016 05:08 AM

If that is the case should we be looking at QB formations? I haven't really looked at how that affects the running game, but I'd guess if the QB can run more formations, more running plays are accessible.

[QuikSand]

Could that also be due to the lower number of FB running plays? The dreaded "the defense looked familiar with this play" message?

I think most people here are talking about slotting a FB into the RB1 slot on the main roster, and/or slotting a FB in as the ball carrier in the various personnel formations. Not the same thing as "handing off to the up-back a lot."

I tried using a rookie FB (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ihof/ben/playercard.php?playerid=44096) (stud) as my main ball carrier in IHOF last season but I had a shitty OL and it resulted in 3.17ypc <-- not good.

A rookie FB is bound to have a terrible position familiarity at RB... even if he's a stud FB, if he's only rated a 2 or 3 at the RB position, he's going to suffer for that.