FOF Catch-22: Injuries/Talent/Stats (and Suggestion for Solecismic)

[Ben E Lou]

<style></style> 1. People don't want to do MP with injuries as high as in real life, so...


2. More than a realistic number of talented players get to play 16 games, so...


3. Offensive stats are higher than normal.


SUGGESTION: "positional talent" slider. Let leagues lower the talent level on offense a bit so that stats will come down.

[Ben E Lou]

For those who don't realize it, high-talent offensive players will beat high-talent defensive players in FOF, and low-talent offensive players will struggle against low-talent defensive players. If you don't believe me on that one, just use the player generator to create two leagues: one with every player at 9 talent, and another with every player at 0 talent, and run the first season a few times with all teams using Rex game plans. I just did a quick one-season run with each as an example. The all 9 league yields 27.5ppg and a 100.7 league-wide QB rating. The all 0 league resulted in 17.9ppg and a 75.5 QB rating.

[gstelmack]

Or make endurance have a bigger impact.

Or fix the offense/defense disparity.

The slider may have other reasons (for those who want to simulate smash-mouth eras or something), but it doesn't address the fundamental issue.

[Hammer]

I think if the importance of WRs was decreased a little, we would take a large step in the right direction.

[Ben E Lou]

Or make endurance have a bigger impact.Please, no. I think people focus too much on endurance and RBs, and forget that endurance has too much of an impact elsewhere. To whit:

1. Just because a player isn't an overall good player, it doesn't mean that he's out of shape to the point that he has to sit out 20-50% of the snaps. But in the player creation model, nearly *every* non-starter has low endurance. I just ran a quick query of the WOOF wide receivers. There are exactly two wide receivers rated under 45 overall with endurance of 75 or better. FOF would have you believe that Renaldo Nehemiah's problem was that his low endurance forced him to take a break every couple of players or so.
2. And on the other end, far too many starter-quality non-RBs have endurance so low that it keeps them off the field far too much. For example, I had Shawn VanCleave (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/woof/ben/playercard.php?playerid=7642) at 100% playing time all season long, and he played all of 543 plays (out of a little over 1,000). There were some 2-TE sets, sure, but come on, it's preposterous to think that an NFL wide receiver who was never used on special teams would need to take a break roughly one out of three plays because of his "endurance."
How often do you see an NFL wide receiver needing a breather? My 6'0"

3. Overall, how often do you see non-RBs (besides big, fat defensive tackles) coming out because they're too tired to compete? It rarely happens in the NFL, but it's a huge part of FOF.
Or fix the offense/defense disparity.For game planning, I agree with this. Is that what you mean there?

[Ben E Lou]

I think if the importance of WRs was decreased a little, we would take a large step in the right direction.I tend to disagree here. A big-time WR is a big-time impact player. Teams with big-time WR duos win championships in real life. It may be that FOF creates too many big-time WRs, thereby creating too many opportunities for teams to have big-time WR duos. If this is an issue, the fact that they don't get hurt with the frequency that they do in real life further makes it worse.

No, the big issue here is that we have a fairly realistic number of talented WRs, and they have a fairly realistic impact, but they get hurt at an unrealistic rate, therefore making them more valuable than they are. Because people insist on playing at the unrealistic injury rate, the only logical way to deal with this seems to be to give the ability to lower the talent.

[tarcone]

As far as endurance and centers. How often do centers in the NFL come out of games? Rarely I imagine. And when they do it's a big deal. The announcers make comments about the center/QB exchange. I would hate for endurance to become more of a problem then it already is.
I couldnt find a breakdown of how many Centers play every down. But my guess it is most starting centers play most downs.

[Ben E Lou]

As far as endurance and centers. How often do centers in the NFL come out of games? Rarely I imagine. And when they do it's a big deal. The announcers make comments about the center/QB exchange. I would hate for endurance to become more of a problem then it already is.
I couldnt find a breakdown of how many Centers play every down. But my guess it is most starting centers play most downs.Right. And I suspect that this is true for nearly every position on the football field that doesn't switch out situationally. Notable exceptions would be RB and some of the big, fat under tackles. How often do you hear of a backup corner or safety getting beaten on pass play because the starter was just needing a breather on that play? ;)

[Hammer]

I think we disagree Ben. What I am seeing all too often is that there are two positions that dominate a game, QB and WR. QB rightly so, WR not so much.

WR is very important, sure. More important than a CB, DE, LT? It is in this game, by some margin. Not so much in real life. Therefore it seems to me, the quick and easy answer is to lower the impact WRs make in the game. That gets the stats back in line, whilst at the same time putting WR back into the 2nd tier of positional importance, where it belongs.

I think your idea would gets stats in line for sure, but it wouldn't put WRs in their place. People are going crazy for WRs in MP leagues, as I say much like QBs. This just doesn't follow the nfl. Anyone who knows the game takes a stud WR over a LT in a blink, it simply shouldn't be that way.

[TheMeat]

A big-time WR is a big-time impact player. Teams with big-time WR duos win championships in real life.

Absolutely. It should be obvious to most NFL fans that by far the best strategy to move the ball and therefore score points is to pass the ball. And the best way translate that into wins is to team a solid pass game with a solid defense. Top teams average around 8yds per attempt throwing the ball as opposed to top running teams averaging 4.5yds per rushing attempt. So it only makes sense that passing is the more powerful form of offense. This is limited by several factors, injuries being a huge one (WRs get hurt more on a per-touch basis than RBs, they're smaller and are involved in more high-speed collisions). Also interceptions are deadly so there's more risk to passing. And it is just harder to assemble the talent for a passing offense, #1 RBs are a dime a dozen but #1 WRs are few and franchise QBs are even more rare so a lot of teams do better running the ball given their current talent because they just don't have the players to do anything else. The modern NFL is a pass-first league and I think FoF does a good job of representing this, but as Ben said we use a lesser injury rating so it makes it almost too easy to put up big passing numbers. I think sliders for everything are a good idea for the advanced users but I think the fun way to do it would be to have sliders for the draft pool to control the type and quantity of talent that comes into the league, perhaps then we could set offensive talent to a "6" and defensive talent to a "9" to get more realistic offensive numbers.

[Ben E Lou]

I think we disagree Ben. What I am seeing all too often is that there are two positions that dominate a game, QB and WR. QB rightly so, WR not so much.

WR is very important, sure. More important than a CB, DE, LT? It is in this game, by some margin. Not so much in real life. Therefore it seems to me, the quick and easy answer is to lower the impact WRs make in the game. That gets the stats back in line, whilst at the same time putting WR back into the 2nd tier of positional importance, where it belongs.

I think your idea would gets stats in line for sure, but it wouldn't put WRs in their place. People are going crazy for WRs in MP leagues, as I say much like QBs. This just doesn't follow the nfl. Anyone who knows the game takes a stud WR over a LT in a blink, it simply shouldn't be that way.Gotcha. I guess the big disagreement I have is with this statement:

"Anyone who knows the game takes a stud WR over a LT in a blink, it simply shouldn't be that way."

What I'm saying is this: in a draft with Calvin Johnson and Joe Thomas, Johnson goes ahead of Thomas.

[Hammer]

I think in the NFL scouts would be scratching their heads all day about bypassing the next Walter Jones. You just have to look at this history of the NFL draft to see how high tackles go, and how many go in the first. If you check the stats I bet they are right there with WRs in terms of first picked (as in just how high they go) at the position, and number picked in the first round. Left Tackle is a key position, as is Wide Receiver - so they struggle to decide.

I don't play in any of your leagues. Still, my guess is you have some tasty WRs? Am I right? The top GMs seem to be filling the tackle positon through FA more and more, simply because of the little impact they have in this game. Have you spent many high picks on a tackle lately? I'd put it to you in the real game you would make LT a priority, in this game you would only take a LT if he was the BPA.

We probably just disagree, but thats how I see it, based on my experience from the leagues I am in. We are in different leagues, so perhaps we are seeing different things.

[Ben E Lou]

I think in the NFL scouts would be scratching their heads all day about bypassing the next Walter Jones. You just have to look at this history of the NFL draft to see how high tackles go, and how many go in the first. If you check the stats I bet they are right there with WRs in terms of first picked (as in just how high they go) at the position, and number picked in the first round. Left Tackle is a key position, as is Wide Receiver - so they struggle to decide.

I don't play in any of your leagues. Still, my guess is you have some tasty WRs? Am I right? The top GMs seem to be filling the tackle positon through FA more and more, simply because of the little impact they have in this game. Have you spent many high picks on a tackle lately? I'd put it to you in the real game you would make LT a priority, in this game you would only take a LT if he was the BPA.

We probably just disagree, but thats how I see it, based on my experience from the leagues I am in. We are in different leagues, so perhaps we are seeing different things.Sorry, I left out a key point in my last post (distracted by the cute 2-week old sleeping int he bouncy seat in front of me, so I have an excuse). I meant to jump back to my comment earlier that FOF may create too many big-time WRs, and that's more of the issue at work here. Example: in the 2008 NFL draft, the first WR picked went in the early 2nd round. My point is that it isn't because stud WRs have significantly less impact in the NFL. It's because there were no stud WRs in that draft class. Donnie Avery was the first one taken. He's not exactly projected to be an impact WR. Impact WRs do go early. To give an extreme example, we had an IHOF draft recently where 10 WRs went in the first round. And it's not that we owners were overvaluing them. All 10 are now good starting wide receivers. I'd have to double-check to be certain, but my impression is that good starting WRs in the NFL are usually first rounders, too, but you wont' see 10 WRs from the same draft putting up solid numbers. I don't think it's an impact issue as much as a "too many talented ones" issue. As for tackles, some testing I've done convinced me that they do have a big impact, but it's one that I suspect most people haven't really clued in on yet, so people are undervaluing them.

[gstelmack]

First off, my comment on endurance was kind of off-the-cuff, but the point was there are other ways besides injuries to limit how many plays players are in for. Lower the threshold for "Tired" on a per-position basis (most O-Linemen and QBs rarely need/get breathers for example, while most NFL teams are rotating D-Linemen to keep them fresh), and make "Tired" have a bigger impact on performance and on injury risk. That forces some depth and paying more attention to the playing time schedule.

But the issue isn't so much with talent as with how FOF handles WRs internally. WOOF's WR talent:

82 - Andre Johnson
80 - Larry Fitzgerald
78 - Steve Smith
78 - Roddy White
73 - Calvin Johnson
73 - Greg Jennings
72 - Brandon Marshall
71 - Antonio Bryant
70 - Wes Welker
69 - Reggie Wayne
69 - Vincent Jackson
68 - Terrell Owens
67 - Santana Moss
65 - Hines Ward
63 - Anquan Boldin
63 - Derrick Mason
63 - Dwayne Bowe
62 - Lee Evans
62 - Donald Driver
61 - Randy Moss
61 - Steve Breaston
61
59
59
58
57

Names are the receivers over 1000 yards in the NFL last year. Are we that far off in talent? Note that guys with bad QB situations don't show up here: Ocho Cinco, TJ Housh, Bernard Berrian, Braylon Edwards (so his avoid drops is low...), Jericho Cotchery, Laverneus Coles...

And for the record, WOOF had 19 receivers with 1000 yards or more, while the NFL had 21 listed above (and the NFL had a couple of TEs up there, while WOOF had none).

The only real issue is that in FOF it is hard to defense this kind of offense. You can't put together a NYG pass rush that can stop Brady/Moss/Welker, or the complete effort that BAL nearly put together, or play the "hit Faulk whenever you can" that helped NED beat Warner/Bruce/Holt/Faulk, or just use suffocating coverage and rush like PIT used against Warner/Fitzgerald/Bolden/Breaston.

That's why I think this is a more fundamental engine thing than just lowering the talent of receivers. It's not that individually our receivers are overpowered, it's that the engine doesn't handle the QB+WR+WR very well from a defensive standpoint when matched against a good defense. And in the NFL, QB+WR+WR (+WR or +RB) is a very potent combination as well, so FOF is close. It's just missing that a pair of good corners and/or some very good rushing DEs/LBs should have a better shot at controlling it.

[Yoda]

But shouldn't it be hard to defense?

As Greg has shown here, the NFL had more 1000+ yard receivers than a league did.

For the record, the number of 1000 yard receivers in the following leagues:
League- # of WR's- year
FFL 11 (2016)
AUFL 12 (1985)
GEFL 19 (1990)
GMFL 14 (2010)
HFL 16 (1984)
IHOF 23 (2019)
PFL 14 (2024)
RNFL 19 (2017)
VNFL 14 (2012)

I think what part of it maybe is that people are more willing to part with talent in FoF than they are in the NFL.

Getting the QB + 2 WR combo really isn't that terribly taxing in MP leagues. Even with QB's, you'll find teams dumping quality QB's into the FA market at the supposed end of their career. Or dumping a good QB because they are 'rebuilding' and the QB is in his 10th season. With probably 5-7 good seasons left in him.

Anyway... I think that the short coming is on the defensive side of the ball.

[stevew]

I'm not good at running tests, but I would be interested to see the results if you took an ordinary league other wise and did the following:

Cranked up the DEs across the board.
Nerfed all the offensive linemen.

In that type of situation you'd probably expect to see multiple 20+ sack type guys, but I wonder if that would happen. In solo careers I've always noticed that sack numbers seem a lot higher in the early years(when a lot more teams have shitty lines), then they do after 10 or 20 years. Most teams by then seem to have the 40/40 types everywhere at a minimum.

[stevew]

Gotcha. I guess the big disagreement I have is with this statement:

"Anyone who knows the game takes a stud WR over a LT in a blink, it simply shouldn't be that way."

What I'm saying is this: in a draft with Calvin Johnson and Joe Thomas, Johnson goes ahead of Thomas.


Are you seriously basing anything off of a Matt Millen decision?:D

[Julio Riddols]

I think the key thing to do here would be to compare the amount of passing plays over 30 yards in FOF to those in real life. Some teams seem to hit 4 or 5 of these a game, which is what doesn't seem realistic to me. The final numbers I have seen seem to reflect realistic numbers, but the way those numbers are achieved seems to be a little tilted.

[Ben E Lou]

Lolz steve.

Julio, it's a definite that the numbers are high. Sure, we have a near-correct number hitting the 1,000-yard mark. I suspect that Endurance keeps that number down. Some of the better guys aren't playing enough plays. But look at the whole of the league: the NFL averaged 6.55 yards per attempt this past season. You don't see FOF MP leagues that low. A quick sampling of the a few leagues and their most recent seasons with the current patch:

WOOF: 6.93
IHOF: 7.12
FOFL: 6.82
USFL: 7.27
GEFL: 6.98

[QuikSand]

What I'm saying is this: in a draft with Calvin Johnson and Joe Thomas, Johnson goes ahead of Thomas.

*snickers at team passing on both*

[Julio Riddols]

Lolz steve.

Julio, it's a definite that the numbers are high. Sure, we have a near-correct number hitting the 1,000-yard mark. I suspect that Endurance keeps that number down. Some of the better guys aren't playing enough plays. But look at the whole of the league: the NFL averaged 6.55 yards per attempt this past season. You don't see FOF MP leagues that low. A quick sampling of the a few leagues and their most recent seasons with the current patch:

WOOF: 6.93
IHOF: 7.12
FOFL: 6.82
USFL: 7.27
GEFL: 6.98

Yeah, they are a bit higher.. I wonder if the long pass plays are the reason. I know in FOF there does seem to be a high instance of significant plays involving the pass, and I wonder if that is a product of aggressive game planning by experienced FOF vets versus the defensive game plans which seem to be catching up slowly as we learn more about that aspect of the game..

I know the NFL has turned into a league of dink and dunk passes punctuated by the occasional bomb, which may be one reason for the YPA being so low.. 6.55 is pretty anemic. In FOf teams seem to run more of a traditional passing game in most cases, something more akin to the passing games of the 80's.

I was trying to find some hard evidence to back this up, but I will have to wait til I get home to confirm my suspicion that passing averaged more YPA back in the day. I know Greg Cook was an example for instance. he averaged over 9 per attempt in his rookie season.. but then that was in the 60's I think.

[Hammer]

Lolz steve.

Julio, it's a definite that the numbers are high. Sure, we have a near-correct number hitting the 1,000-yard mark. I suspect that Endurance keeps that number down. Some of the better guys aren't playing enough plays. But look at the whole of the league: the NFL averaged 6.55 yards per attempt this past season. You don't see FOF MP leagues that low. A quick sampling of the a few leagues and their most recent seasons with the current patch:

WOOF: 6.93
IHOF: 7.12
FOFL: 6.82
USFL: 7.27
GEFL: 6.98


In the vNFL we have averaged 6.65, 6.68 and 6.72 over the last 3 years.

We only have 16 QBs over a 60 rating.

We have only 4 WRs over 70, and a total of 16 over 60. 9 are 8th year and older though, which indicates an interesting future for the league. To give you some comparison, the NAFL has 26 over 60, the RDFL has 32!

There does certainly appear to be merit to the idea of talent control. The vNFL league does have the best game balance of anywhere I play.

The main drawback is you have, "haves" and "have nots". You don't get the parity of the nfl. There are a small number of dominant teams, and a large number of teams who are a fair way off the pace. To be fair though, many MP leagues are like this anyway though. However, its just going to heighten the issue, that I perceive at least, of people going crazy for WRs. More than what is realistic in my opinion.

What I would like to see is running teams, and defensive teams win more often. I'd like to see a team being able to build around a pair of stud CBs or DEs, the way you can with WRs. You could raise the impact of CBs I guess, other positions may start to make things complicated. You wouldn't want to hurt the current running game balance. I'm still thinking we take the edge off of WRs, and the impact they have. There are options, I guess testing is really required.

[Celeval]

*snickers at team passing on both*

It's worth pointing out in counter that there will probably be two LTs taken before Michael Crabtree this time around...

[ddrrbb]

Another way to look at talent level is the low 1st round bust percentage. In my experience, almost every player taken in the first round becomes a 50-60+ player. How many #1 drafted QBs bust out in FOF compared to the NFL? How many Alex Smith, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, etc. types occur in FOF? How many Robert Gallery types (can't miss LT) become fringe o-linemen? How many top rated WRs fail to reach their potential in FOF compared to the NFL? (Troy Williamson, Charles Rogers, Reggie Williams, David Terrell, Peter Warrick). All these players plus many, many more become 60+ rated players in FOF instead of out of the league or average players.

I think making the boom rate low and the bust rate higher would help even out talent and mirror real life better without having to change a lot of things. The overall league talent would drop since half (more or less) of the top 10 picks would become average instead of very good-excellent.

[Ben E Lou]

Another way to look at talent level is the low 1st round bust percentage. In my experience, almost every player taken in the first round becomes a 50-60+ player. How many #1 drafted QBs bust out in FOF compared to the NFL? How many Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, etc. types occur in FOF? How many Robert Gallery types (can't miss LT) become fringe o-linemen? How many top rated WRs fail to reach their potential in FOF compared to the NFL? (Troy Williamson, Charles Rogers, Reggie Williams, David Terrell, Peter Warrick). All these players plus many, many more become 60+ rated players in FOF instead of out of the league or average players.

I think making the boom rate low and the bust rate higher would help even out talent and mirror real life better without having to change a lot of things. The overall league talent would drop since half (more or less) of the top 10 picks would become average instead of very good-excellent....and many people would hate it. I'm pretty sure it's a design decision to have the bust rate significantly less than real life. People already get pissed off when they have one of the 1-2 guys per draft class who get hit with the random bust stick. If there were, say, a half dozen in each first round, I suspect that the frustration level with the draft would go through the roof.

[ace1914]

Another way to look at talent level is the low 1st round bust percentage. In my experience, almost every player taken in the first round becomes a 50-60+ player. How many #1 drafted QBs bust out in FOF compared to the NFL? How many Alex Smith, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, etc. types occur in FOF? How many Robert Gallery types (can't miss LT) become fringe o-linemen? How many top rated WRs fail to reach their potential in FOF compared to the NFL? (Troy Williamson, Charles Rogers, Reggie Williams, David Terrell, Peter Warrick). All these players plus many, many more become 60+ rated players in FOF instead of out of the league or average players.

I think making the boom rate low and the bust rate higher would help even out talent and mirror real life better without having to change a lot of things. The overall league talent would drop since half (more or less) of the top 10 picks would become average instead of very good-excellent.


Cosign.

[Ben E Lou]

In the vNFL we have averaged 6.65, 6.68 and 6.72 over the last 3 years.

We only have 16 QBs over a 60 rating. Wow. My guess then is that people don't know how to game plan on offense. WOOF only has 11 QBs over a 60., and only 6 and 19 WRs over 60/70, so the talent is very similar.

The main drawback is you have, "haves" and "have nots". You don't get the parity of the nfl. There are a small number of dominant teams, and a large number of teams who are a fair way off the pace. To be fair though, many MP leagues are like this anyway though. However, its just going to heighten the issue, that I perceive at least, of people going crazy for WRs. More than what is realistic in my opinion.I agree with this, and I'd add to it. I see four critical areas of knowledge in FOF MP.

1. drafting
2. knowing how to value positions to build a winning roster
3. knowing how to structure contracts to FAs to make them appealing
4. game planning

In many leagues, there are only a small number of "HAVES" with regard to #3, so when absentee owners let good players hit FA, those guys get them. I'm in at least two leagues (IHOF and WOOF) where a good 20-25 owners have at least a decent grasp of high-bonus, low-years, and it makes a difference. When better players hit FA in those two leagues, it's not a given that they're going to go to one of a small handful of owners. In others I'm in, that's not the case.


What I would like to see is running teams, and defensive teams win more often. I'd like to see a team being able to build around a pair of stud CBs or DEs, the way you can with WRs. You could raise the impact of CBs I guess, other positions may start to make things complicated. You wouldn't want to hurt the current running game balance. I'm still thinking we take the edge off of WRs, and the impact they have. There are options, I guess testing is really required.I'm also not sure that there's as much CB talent as there is WR talent, by the way. I know for a fact that's the case in WOOF and IHOF, as I've checked those leagues. I suspect that it may be true across the board.

[gstelmack]

I'm also not sure that there's as much CB talent as there is WR talent, by the way. I know for a fact that's the case in WOOF and IHOF, as I've checked those leagues. I suspect that it may be true across the board.

And that is a better type of area to address, although it doesn't quite fix as noted by your "all-9s" and "all-0s" test.

I also suspect that if gameplanning were fixed, both to streamline the entry process (and remove the absurdities that put you in run aggressive with a 4-deep zone) and to give better feedback of how well a gameplan "works" that goes beyond "run 20 seasons of single player, tweak, run 20 again", especially with how tedious that is, you'd have more parity in gameplanning that may help here. As it is only a handful of folks have a clue how to reliably gameplan their defense, and they've only recently reached that point, while a much larger number (although I'd still wager a minority of the community) have a decent grasp of offensive gameplanning, even if they are just using your stock gameplans. It shouldn't be up to third-party utility makers to tell the GM how effective they are when throwing short passes out of a 2-TE set, and it shouldn't require the player to watch every game in Solevision.

The point in all this is to identify and address the issues, not put a nerf in place to hack around it. Unless you're trying to get something hacked into a patch, in which case I have bigger fish to fry (like franchise player renegotiations...)

[Hammer]

Wow. My guess then is that people don't know how to game plan on offense. WOOF only has 11 QBs over a 60., and only 6 and 19 WRs over 60/70, so the talent is very similar.


:D Thats fighting talk. The owners in the vNFL have either been playing there 7 seasons, or got into the league after spending time in the vNFL house league (which is full in itself) and earned a position in the league in the vast majority of cases. I played in the GEFL for a number of seasons, which had many very experienced FOFC GMs. The vNFL is roughly the same in terms of GM capability.

I think most likely, its that we know how to play defense better than your WOOF guys :D

[Chubby]

:D Thats fighting talk. The owners in the vNFL have either been playing there 7 seasons, or got into the league after spending time in the vNFL house league (which is full in itself) and earned a position in the league in the vast majority of cases. I played in the GEFL for a number of seasons, which had many very experienced FOFC GMs. The vNFL is roughly the same in terms of GM capability.

I think most likely, its that we know how to play defense better than your WOOF guys :D

Nobody knows how to play defense unless thy name is REX...

[Ben E Lou]

And that is a better type of area to address, although it doesn't quite fix as noted by your "all-9s" and "all-0s" test.Well, the problem with this (and other similar things) is that it takes so all-fired long for that sort of thing to get noticed. Jim uses small beta teams, but to get a real handle on things like how contract renegotiation requests impact a league for the long-term, it has to be "tested" by having 32 human-owned teams pushing the system for at least half a dozen seasons. Similarly, in SP, the AI teams don't use Summer League and Mentors to the level that we humans do, so in the same way, you can't really know how the talent is going to look until 32 human-owned teams have churned their way through a good 10-15 seasons to nearly turn over the entire player universe once. (League-wide, youngsters develop quite a bit faster in SP than MP because of our use of every tactic imaginable to make sure that they do, and I'll bet that contributes to the talent inflation that I mention.) Point being, I see these as the sort of imbalances that don't really show themselves until Jim is well beyond the cycle of patching deep long-term stuff like this.

[gstelmack]

But again, increasing the talent of CBs to be more balanced is better than nerfing WRs I'd think. And we still have the offense/defense imbalance which nerfing WRs may or may not help with (maybe the running game becomes a bigger deal, or it exposes a 2-TE set vs typical defenses exploit, or who knows).

As for Jim's beta cycle, I'd point out that the long-called-for "sim 20 seasons to get some history" feature would be a huge boon to generating lots of data in a short period of time, and the "show an analysis of gameplanning results" like my old LogFileProcessor did and primelord's short-lived database did would be very handy for analyzing gameplan results. All useful for getting MORE testing out of a limited cycle / cadre of testers. It's also why it's important to be involved with the community and keep up with updates and patches, not let things sit and fester for a long period of time until some possible future major update (like the swapped defensive gameplanning column bug).

But that's beside the point, and I don't see actually fixing this as any sort of a quick FOF-fix. By your own admission, exactly how much do WRs need to be nerfed, and how would you know if you got it right anytime quickly? We've been hacking fixes onto FOF for a couple of years now and still aren't happy with where we are. And FOOL is on its third iteration trying to tweak things. We need to stop hacking at this and just wait for it to get FIXED.

[Ben E Lou]

I don't think the offense/defense thing is an imbalance. I think it's intentional.

As for stopping coming up with our own fixes, that's my nature. I'm not interested in sitting around and waiting, and I'm forever tweaking things. I'm never satisfied. The most attractive thing to me about working for Young Life is that the founder said "the best Young Life hasn't been done yet. Keep tweaking things." That's what I do, and always will do.

[Hammer]

But again, increasing the talent of CBs to be more balanced is better than nerfing WRs I'd think.

You do that you hurt RBs and TEs also. Its WRs that are the problem not the passing game in general. If anything TEs could do with a bit of a tweak upwards.

[gstelmack]

You do that you hurt RBs and TEs also. Its WRs that are the problem not the passing game in general. If anything TEs could do with a bit of a tweak upwards.

Maybe what has not been explained then is why WRs are considered the key problem. It's been pointed out that yards per attempt is where the issue seems to lie, not with total yards gained. Is it really the WRs, or are QBs too accurate on long throws? Or is the pass rush on long throws not effective enough (i.e. QBs have too long to throw)? Maybe QBs just need to throw to TEs/RBs/FBs more often? What is the evidence I'm missing that the WRs in particular are overpowered?

[gstelmack]

As for stopping coming up with our own fixes, that's my nature. I'm not interested in sitting around and waiting, and I'm forever tweaking things. I'm never satisfied. The most attractive thing to me about working for Young Life is that the founder said "the best Young Life hasn't been done yet. Keep tweaking things." That's what I do, and always will do.

Well, in this case we're asking Jim for a fix. I'd rather he go for the underlying causes of these problems as opposed to band-aiding the symptoms.

[Ben E Lou]

Taking a step back to the original start of the thread. I think the thing that may be overlooked here is that the system works pretty well for SP. The talent, game plans, and player usage don't give the elevated stats that we see in MP. And MP participants are quite the minority of Jim's customers. That's the main reason I think it should be something that we can play with as a MP crowd rather than spending a bunch of development time coming up with two different systems, or trying to balance the two universes types into one.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, in this case we're asking Jim for a fix. I'd rather he go for the underlying causes of these problems as opposed to band-aiding the symptoms.See my post above for why I'd want it to go this route. It's for a small subset of his customers that this even matters at all.

[Hammer]

Is it really the WRs, or are QBs too accurate on long throws? Or is the pass rush on long throws not effective enough (i.e. QBs have too long to throw)? Maybe QBs just need to throw to TEs/RBs/FBs more often? What is the evidence I'm missing that the WRs in particular are overpowered?


I haven't done a lot of research, so take this for what its worth...

QBs are not too accurate on long throws, I think quality WRs are able to do too much after the catch. Some guys have 400 more YAC with the same number of receptions. That sounds a lot to me. 4-5 yards per catch. QB Accuracy appears to play comparitively, a very small role in YAC.

I am not really sure how much influence WRs have over the deep routes, I don't have much experience with that type of offense.

Without looking at stats I wouldn't like to say the pass rush isn't strong enough. The sacks seem about right (bar the 3-4 WLB syndrome) but perhaps more hurries to force incompletions are an issue? Not so much for long balls though I don't think, the 5-18 yard area is where the defenses ass seems to be getting kicked.

I do think TEs could do with a tweak upwards (based on the stats I've seen posted on them). I am also thinking there simply isn't enough routes for them in the game as when I have "forced" a QB to throw to a TE in testing I have never managed to get much over 80 catches before the familiar message starts to bite quite hard.

In terms of evidence that the WRs in particular are too overpowered. You can see by stats that RBs and TEs are not having big influences in the game in general. As has been widely discussed, when a team has 2 quality WRs the defense is basically buggered. When you turn this around to having 2 quality CBs on defense a good offense still functions well. Hell, have 2 quality DEs and 4 quality DBs, your still likely to see the offense come out on top. I can't give evidence as such statistically, but that is my opinion.

[marcmoustache2]

Could we not have something as simple as being able to double team 2 WRs on any given play?

[Ben E Lou]

QBs are not too accurate on long throws, I think quality WRs are able to do too much after the catch. Some guys have 400 more YAC with the same number of receptions. That sounds a lot to me. 4-5 yards per catch. QB Accuracy appears to play comparitively, a very small role in YAC.YAC is lower than NFL norms. At least it was the last time I checked. Gimme a sec to find that study...

[Hammer]

Could we not have something as simple as being able to double team 2 WRs on any given play?


Its an interesting thought. It might even bring RBs and TEs into the game a bit more as the QB reads and dumps off. I have no idea if this is a realistic option, I guess its a question for Jim.

[Ben E Lou]

Ah...found the NFL numbers from 2006.
MYTH OR FACT: Short passing is less effective in FOF than in the NFL. Specifically, YAC seems lower.

In the NFL in 2006, there were 9796 pass completions. The average completion was 6.32 yards downfield, with an average of 5.14 YAC, for a total of 11.46 yards per completion.
Looking at the date when I last checked (07-13-2007), there have been at least two patches since then, at least one of which increased YAC. I'll check some current league data.

[RedKingGold]

I haven't done a lot of research, so take this for what its worth...

QBs are not too accurate on long throws, I think quality WRs are able to do too much after the catch. Some guys have 400 more YAC with the same number of receptions. That sounds a lot to me. 4-5 yards per catch. QB Accuracy appears to play comparitively, a very small role in YAC.

This is one thing I "have" done research on (b/c of my love of short passing). I can tell you that a quarterback's accuracy does have a significant impact on the amount of YAC yards a receiver can generate.

I do think TEs could do with a tweak upwards (based on the stats I've seen posted on them). I am also thinking there simply isn't enough routes for them in the game as when I have "forced" a QB to throw to a TE in testing I have never managed to get much over 80 catches before the familiar message starts to bite quite hard.

This is something FOF does quite right, IMO. Tight ends who have over 80 catches in a single season are a rarity in the NFL, not the norm. If FOF is supposed to simulate NFL-like statistics, then I'd rather not see tight ends threaten the 100-catch barrier, no matter how hard I try.

That being said, I do think that the screen pass needs to get re-worked in future FOF versions. It's such a widely used weapon of NFL short pass attacks, but is really useless in FOF. This would also ease the pressure on receivers as running backs would have more of a use in the receiving game (whereas now they basically just get in the way).

[Hammer]

YAC is lower than NFL norms. At least it was the last time I checked. Gimme a sec to find that study...


I quite believe you. Its the difference these stud WRs make though. Again coming back to the "haves" and "have nots" point. The difference between an elite WR and an average one seems immense. The difference between an average LT, DE or CB, and a great one not so much.

[Ben E Lou]

6.2 was released 10/05/2008.

I have a SP career that I have put into a database that has run exclusively in 6.2, so I'll start there:

40752 catches, 104188 YAC, 2.56 YAC/catch, 11.13 yards per catch

WOOF has run 2013, 2014 and 2015 on 6.2. Same query, but limited to those three seasons...

79713 YAC, 33009 catches, 2.41 YAC/catch, 11.18 yards per catch

So yards per catch is a bit lower than 2006, YAC/catch is a *lot* lower.

Now all that said, Jim has said publicly that YAC is calculated in a pretty odd manner, so I don't think that tells us much of anything, really.

[Hammer]

I can tell you that a quarterback's accuracy does have a significant impact on the amount of YAC yards a receiver can generate.

I am really not seeing that. Significant statistically sure, but a poor 2nd to getting downfield. If you look at the top YAC WRs its the guys who can run after the catch. Its not the QBs who have the best accuracy. I appreciate QB accuracy must do something, but my research really conflicts with yours here.

I have a dude in the vNFL that has been top 3 in YAC every year since I got him (100 getting downfield). QB Accuracy is only 50. Similar story in the RDFL. Just looking now, getting downfield appears to be clearly a stronger variable in my leagues, in relation to YAC.

[Hammer]

Regarding TEs. Just looking at the NFL stats for last year. 4 guys over 75 catches, Gonzalez had 96. Never seen a TE with 96 catches in FOF, ever. The year before it was 99 catches for Gonzo, 96 for Whitten.

5 guys over 800 yards last year. Never seen that in a FOF season. 3 over 1,000 the year before.

As I say, a little nudge seems in order.

[RedKingGold]

I am really not seeing that. Significant statistically sure, but a poor 2nd to getting downfield. If you look at the top YAC WRs its the guys who can run after the catch. Its not the QBs who have the best accuracy. I appreciate QB accuracy must do something, but my research really conflicts with yours here.

I have a dude in the vNFL that has been top 3 in YAC every year since I got him (100 getting downfield). QB Accuracy is only 50. Similar story in the RDFL. Just looking now, getting downfield appears to be clearly a stronger variable in my leagues, in relation to YAC.

It depends on what you call "statistically" significant.

I'll agree with you that "getting downfield" is the more important rating. But, I've seen a quarterback with maxed accuracy be able to generate 100-150 more YAC yards to a WR with high GD under the same amount of targets.

Perhaps it's something like 66/33 or 70/30 GD:ACC. While it's not the overriding factor, it's definitely significant.

[Hammer]

Sure, I think we are on the same page RKG.

[MartinD]

Regarding TEs. Just looking at the NFL stats for last year. 4 guys over 75 catches, Gonzalez had 96. Never seen a TE with 96 catches in FOF, ever. The year before it was 99 catches for Gonzo, 96 for Whitten.

5 guys over 800 yards last year. Never seen that in a FOF season. 3 over 1,000 the year before.

As I say, a little nudge seems in order.

An example might be useful here...

My Colts team in RDFL last year should have seen lots of catches going to the TE - the only skill-position players rated above 50 were QB (low 80s), TE (70ish, with 90-odd route running and endurance) and WR (low 50s). The RBs and other receivers were all rated in the low 40s, with the offensive line being solid but nothing special. The offence I ran was biased a little bit towards the pass, and passing biased towards short passing (ended up with 574 passes (367 short), 445 rushes). Thinking about it, there are quite a few similarities between this Colts offence and the RL Chiefs - better QB and lesser RBs, yes, but the receving corps is basically the TE and a bunch of close to replacement-level guys playing WR.

The TE in question ended up with 66 catches (543 yards, 7 TDs) - three receivers were more productive, and a fourth wasn't too far behind:
WR1: 72-889-9TD
WR2: 59-722-6TD
WR3: 59-691-5TD
WR4: 44-471-5TD

While this TE is never going to be a big-play guy (in that his Getting Downfield and Big-Play Receiving aren't all that high), his other receiving skills are very solid. Given the other players on the offence, it wouldn't have been surprising to see him being the team's top receiver, and possibly threaten 100 catches or 1000 yards, but didn't get anywhere close.

A one-season sample, yes, but thought that it was worth mentioning.

[Ben E Lou]

One thing to note about tight ends. If you use the default formations, they don't play enough snaps to get a lot of catches.

[ace1914]

Regarding TEs. Just looking at the NFL stats for last year. 4 guys over 75 catches, Gonzalez had 96. Never seen a TE with 96 catches in FOF, ever. The year before it was 99 catches for Gonzo, 96 for Whitten.

5 guys over 800 yards last year. Never seen that in a FOF season. 3 over 1,000 the year before.

As I say, a little nudge seems in order.

My TE in OSFL had over 100 catches and 1000 yards.

[Hammer]

My TE in OSFL had over 100 catches and 1000 yards.


If the NFL played 100 odd seasons some TE would probably catch 130 or more. There will always be the odd freak season, but there is no doubt in my mind FOF is behind the NFL in terms of TE output.

[Ben E Lou]

Hammer, I'm fairly certain it's a game planning issue, not an engine one. If you have mediocre talent around him and actually put him on the field, a stud TE will get those kinds of numbers every single time.

[Jughead Spock]

^ I agree with Ben on this one, it just takes a lot of tweaking in the game plan. Like he said in the 100 Little Things thread, you have to decide if you want your 3rd WR on the field or your TE.

I started tweaking this last season and bumped my TE from 400 pass plays to 515. His route running sucks (targeted only 11.7%) or I think he'd be near the 90/900 mark.

[Hammer]

Hammer, I'm fairly certain it's a game planning issue, not an engine one. If you have mediocre talent around him and actually put him on the field, a stud TE will get those kinds of numbers every single time.


Well, I had a damn good go. I don't know if you remember the TE thread I created a while back. The guy in question has just completed his rookie year, so I haven't gone into anymore depth yet. However, I did do some testing. Perhaps I will do it again, record and publish the data this time.

I found the passing game really started to suffer once the TE went over 80 catches. I only did half a dozen seasons, but the most catches I got was 92. Familiar messages were coming thick and fast in the TEs games where he caught a lot of passes. I used a QB who knew every formation.

I altered the passing distance to suit the TE. 5-8 and 9-12 were 70% and 40% respectively. I modified 0-4 and 13-18 to a lesser extent, 30% and 30%. I ensured the TE was on the field as much as possible by altering the formations screen to suit him.

The guy in question had 100 endurance and 100 RR. I made sure the other receivers had very low RR. I did 6 season and didn't get the results I hoped for, and expected. I say hoped for as I drafted a stud TE at 2.1 in the vNFL (the league with very few good WRs). Once my 9th year stud WR hangs up his boots or declines I planned to base my offense around the TE. The rookie TE is currently 83/83 and isn't done, so the project is still very much underway.

I came away from my study thinking that I had done everything to promote this TE. I felt I had perhaps started to make the offense suffer by pushing him so much. It appeared going over 80 catches (roughly) really started to bring the familiar messages home in certain games. It made me think the guy was going to need support, in short a TE could never be a primary receiver the way he could be in the NFL.

If anyone has any suggestions as to further measures I could take, please feel free. Passing distances, formations, and low RR for the other WRs came to mind. I set his "staying in to block" to 0.

[Chubby]

Well, I had a damn good go. I don't know if you remember the TE thread I created a while back. The guy in question has just completed his rookie year, so I haven't gone into anymore depth yet. However, I did do some testing. Perhaps I will do it again, record and publish the data this time.

I found the passing game really started to suffer once the TE went over 80 catches. I only did half a dozen seasons, but the most catches I got was 92. Familiar messages were coming thick and fast in the TEs games where he caught a lot of passes. I used a QB who knew every formation.

I altered the passing distance to suit the TE. 5-8 and 9-12 were 70% and 40% respectively. I modified 0-4 and 13-18 to a lesser extent, 30% and 30%. I ensured the TE was on the field as much as possible by altering the formations screen to suit him.

The guy in question had 100 endurance and 100 RR. I made sure the other receivers had very low RR. I did 6 season and didn't get the results I hoped for, and expected. I say hoped for as I drafted a stud TE at 2.1 in the vNFL (the league with very few good WRs). Once my 9th year stud WR hangs up his boots or declines I planned to base my offense around the TE. The rookie TE is currently 83/83 and isn't done, so the project is still very much underway.

I came away from my study thinking that I had done everything to promote this TE. I felt I had perhaps started to make the offense suffer by pushing him so much. It appeared going over 80 catches (roughly) really started to bring the familiar messages home in certain games. It made me think the guy was going to need support, in short a TE could never be a primary receiver the way he could be in the NFL.

If anyone has any suggestions as to further measures I could take, please feel free. Passing distances, formations, and low RR for the other WRs came to mind. I set his "staying in to block" to 0.

Oh I'm pretty sure I could get that team to have the TE have 150 catches... :)

[Hammer]

Oh I'm pretty sure I could get that team to have the TE have 150 catches... :)



Prove it ;0)

[Firefly]

I agree with some of the posters above in that dominating offenses are relatively common, but what seem to be dominating defenses don't match up to them.

In other words, defense may win games in FOF, but offense wins championships.

[Ben E Lou]

Prove it ;0)

The screenie below is coming from a non-ideal situation for this. Manning is missing two of the formations involving tight ends, and I've got Clark paired with a stud WR who has very high RR. Replace Gonzalez with a mediocre WR or lower-RR WR, get a QB who knows all of the formations that use a TE (Manning is missing two of them), and it's very easy to see 150 catches:

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/Ben%20E%20Lou/tewrftmfw.png

[Hammer]

What am I missing then? Spill the beans. There is obviously something you are doing that I am not. I have been playing around for an hour or so, still can't break 100 catches.

EDIT: I notice the sheer volume of passes your throwing. 66% passing, 33% rushing roughly. I was staying balanced overall. Thats a big contributing factor. Is your plan biased towards short passing?

[Ben E Lou]

1. I don't know what you're missing. I'm not going to share this or the other game plan I use, but I think I've told you all the principles that I know of for getting good production out of TEs. To recap...

Keep the TE on the field as much as possible by only using formations that use the TE.
Keep the pass distances as much as possible within the distance range where the TE has the most plays possible.
Having a QB who knows most/all of the formations that use at least one TE helps reduce/eliminate familiars.
If some/all of the RB/FB/WR have lower RR, the TE will get more targets.2. I wouldn't say it's a short passing offense. It's pretty balanced. (It's a fairly similar mix to the GSOT one that I shared publicly, with some small adjustments to give a nod to the TE.) The season in the screenie had 293 short, 253 medium, 97 long. At 12.35 yards per catch, I wouldn't exactly call it a dink and dunk offense. ;)

[Ben E Lou]

Oh...I guess the other thing would be this: have a high-endurance TE.

[Hammer]

I think familiar messages was one issue. I was hurting production by going short in the 5-8 range too often. I was getting the targets, but not the completions. Also, passing 650 times a year instead of 450 obviously makes a difference in raw stats. I am finding its hurting my win column though passing that much.

Thanks Ben, perhaps my TE in the vNFL can be a leading receiver afterall.

[Yoda]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v680/Nusair/TETEST.jpg

Here is normally the best I come up with consistantly.

For game planning, it's about 40-45% runs with about an equal split between short and long passes.

For formations, I removed most if not all the 3WR sets, and increased all the 2TE formations to at least 10%.

[Yoda]

Actually, I take that back, after making it like another similar idea offense, I was able to get 100-115 catches a season with a TE.

[Hammer]

Did Clark have high big play receiving Ben? Those averages per catch and target are pretty flashy for so many catches.

[Ben E Lou]

66, but I think this career is on Wall Street, so that could be masked a fair bit in either direction, I suppose.

[merry]

Hi,
What would happen if you added some 4 wide receiver formations but put the tight end in the 4rth WR slot?
Merry

[Ben E Lou]

Hi,
What would happen if you added some 4 wide receiver formations but put the tight end in the 4rth WR slot?
MerryLast I tried that, it absolutely sucked.

[Dutch]

...and many people would hate it. I'm pretty sure it's a design decision to have the bust rate significantly less than real life. People already get pissed off when they have one of the 1-2 guys per draft class who get hit with the random bust stick. If there were, say, a half dozen in each first round, I suspect that the frustration level with the draft would go through the roof.

Sorry, have to go back in time as I just caught up with this thread.

I realize this is not a reflection on you or anyone in particular. But draft busts happen. Injuries happen. In the NFL, shitty quarterbacks start. (For examples)

Taking the reality of football out of the simulation may make the game more fun, but it does nothing for making it a realistic simulation. I think it's important that these sorts of things are modelled accurately.

If we want something different than most realistic, then provide an option to change settings in the "Game Options" tab.

[Chubby]

Last I tried that, it absolutely sucked.

Would make more sense if you put the TE in the FL1 or SE1 slot of the 4WR/5WR sets. Not sure how it would work as I haven't fiddled with it (am home all day tomorrow since the radon system is getting put in before we sell)

[bmerryman]

I tend to disagree here. A big-time WR is a big-time impact player. Teams with big-time WR duos win championships in real life.

Recently...Pittsburgh, New England, Baltimore, and Tampa Bay were all marked by great defenses more so than big time WR duos. One could make the case that their WR duos were somewhat average.

Follow where the money goes if you wish to find out which positions have the most impact on winning. Cubes are easily number one. Top end Tackles, DEs, WRs and CBs are all close for second place.

[Ben E Lou]

Would make more sense if you put the TE in the FL1 or SE1 slot of the 4WR/5WR sets. Not sure how it would work as I haven't fiddled with it (am home all day tomorrow since the radon system is getting put in before we sell)Last I checked, neither one of these methods worked in terms of getting even a decent performance. Jim talked about it in one of the Q&As. If I recall correctly, the reason is that the game treats a TE (or RB) slotted anywhere else as playing out of position, so it uses his positional experience at FL/SE.

[Ben E Lou]

Yup. Looks like this hasn't changed. I just moved TE1 to a WR slot in every formation. Clark was on the field roughly the same number of plays, but dropped to only 71 catches and 6.71 ypt. (I was getting 115-140 and 9-10.5 consistently with him treated as a TE.)