Walt 'No Longer' Bangs

[Cringer]

So I have not done FOF solo play, even testing, for a long time. I am talking years. I recently had the desire to do a lot of drafting though and have kicked into a fast sim mode. I don't really have any house rules, but I have avoided signing free agents other then guys to be backups. My whole goal is to draft players, keep them on the team until it is clear they are not useful or until they retire as I keep track of ratings and performances. Nothing too serious as I am making quick notes with pen and paper to keep things speedy.

Walt Bangs is my current starting QB in 2020, someone I never expected to start for three years and going onto a fourth. I had a stud QB taken in the initial league draft who was my only QB that whole time. I never drafted a guy who looked like a decent replacement and when the guy retired Walt Bangs was a 6th round 'project' pick who had a name I liked so I went with him in what I thought would be a throw-away year.

Walt's ratings while on the bench early on:

Year one: 4/19
Year two: 7/22
Year three: 14/25

Walt is now going into year six (and I will get through several seasons tonight probably), and is rated a still mediocre 38/38 after three years of starting.

A few things about the guys around Walt. Never has had much a great running game behind him, with guys in the 40's and two years with a guy breaking over 1000 yards rushing. WR's though are pretty good with a 6th year 1st round pick rated 64/64 and an 8th year 6th round draft pick now rated 57/57. No number three stud WR but some solid performing guys in their 40s.

Walt's three years starting (same game plan all three years):

2017: 63.2% cmp pct., 4067 yards, 35 TD, 29 INT, 85.6 QB rating
2018: 63.3 %, 4027 yards, 26 TD, 19 INT, 90.6 QB rating
2019: 66.9%, 4118 yards, 37 TD, 15 INT, 106.5 QB rating

The team won the Solecismic Bowl in 2017 in four games with him having 1125 yards, 10 TD, 4 INT, and a 102.9 QB rating. The next two years saw the team lose in the divisional round and conference championship game.

Walt is a creeper, but not a huge one. I wait to see if he can manage to hit 40/40 at this point. He is at this point the best 'crappy QB' I have had in this game, over a period of more then one season. I guess one could point to the problem of passing in the game of FOF, but I take the bright side and am enjoying Bangs success.

Anyways, just wanted to share. Not trying to say anything earth shattering or anything here.

[Cringer]

Just finished Bang's 4th year as starter. In TC he went up to 39/39, so I am pretty sure he hits 40 going into his 7th year. This was his best year yet.

67.7%, 4534 yards, 43 TD, 12 INT, 108.9 rating

6th most yards in league history for a season (88 yards short of the record), and league record for TDs. It was his first time as All-League QB.

He had a 113.4 rating in the playoffs and played well in the Solecismic Bowl, stats weren't enough though and the game was lost 13-10. The regular season was 11-5, the worst since his first year (when we last won the Bowl) so I thought he might get a 2nd title.

[stevew]

How many formations does he know?

[Bako]

I am interested to see his scouting report to see his ratings in each attribute. Can you post that?

[Cringer]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/Cringer/Bangs.jpg

I always have liked Accuracy and Timing in a QB, so the fact I went with him on just his name is a slight stretch. Not much of one though.

And he knows 13 formations as I sit in free agency of his now 7th year.

[Cringer]

I went through one more year for the night. Rough season compared to seasons past. Went 11-5 again but this time I was runner-up in the division by one game, then had to play that team in the Wild Card round. I lost and they went on to win the Bowl. This is about Walt Bangs though, and it seems this divisional foe was the thorn in his side, with two bad and one average game against this team.

In a roster note for this year, my 2.30 WR from a few years ago finally developed into starter quality, giving me a real weapon as a 3rd WR, rated 54/54. Interesting is he was the only one of my three WRs to go over 1000 yards receiving as the ball was spread around. The two starters were above 900. These guys help Bangs out, I don't deny that.

Bangs' season:

67.2%, 4520 yards, 32 TD, 10 INT, 106.9 rating. 2nd team QB.

He is on a better run then the super star QB who ran the team for ten years ever had.

In training camp I was wrong in my prediction, he went up to 41/41. 45/45 won't surprise me now I guess.

I will run some more tomorrow probably, this guy has me hooked for now.

[Cringer]

Decided to do one more before going to sleep this fine morning. :)

In TC Walt went up 1 more point to 42/42 in his 8th year.

His stats:

Regular season - 65.4%, 4665 yards, 45 TD, 12 INT, 109.3 rating.
Post season - 3 games, 65.6%, 785 yards, 10 TD, 4 INT, 108.2 rating.

Regular season yards would have been a record except another team came out pass happy and their QB somehow had 150 more pass attempts and he got the record with 90 yards more. He broke his own league TD record. It was his third straight season with a 5 TD game, and 4th in 6 seasons of starting.

Walt won his second Bowl in three attempts. No 1000 yard rusher, though two combined for 1400 yards. Two WRs barely over 1000 yards each. Defense wasn't as good as in the past, so being #1 in scoring helped the team.

Just to repeat this, I have not changed the game plans since I started this game. Walt is doing this on the same game plan the previous QB was usually throwing for 3900 yards with. The passing gets a little more crazier as the game goes on though I guess, so that is part of it. The previous QB did have one year throwing 4599 yards. Walt is better though.

[Hammer]

I wonder what Walt could do without those 2 good WRs?

[Cringer]

I am going to start another season. I will cut my top three WRs (all in the 50's now), just to see how it goes.

[Hammer]

I am going to start another season. I will cut my top three WRs (all in the 50's now), just to see how it goes.

Great stuff :) Do you think this dude is masked, and if so to what extent?

[Jughead Spock]

Can we see YAC numbers? Wonder if it's a perfect storm of Timing/Accuracy along with WRs with great GD.

[Cringer]

Great stuff :) Do you think this dude is masked, and if so to what extent?

Well, when I drafted him he was rated 4/16, so he was then for sure. He is now 42/42. I don't think the is any great unmasking ahead where it shows he is 70/70 or anything. In my opinion he is just one of those guys you find once in a while who plays better then he looks. Sometimes you just have to go off of stats instead of bars, which is something I am much more used to doing with running backs and corner backs in this game.

So I cut the three WRs, which left me one guy on the roster and one guy I resigned who was a free agent. Ratings are 33/33 and 43/43, 10 and 9 year vets. I did actually sign two guys not from my team in free agency since I wasn't going to draft 2-3 WRs. I signed 7 and 6 year vets, both rated 42/42. One 1000 yard season between the two, both have more career drops then TDs.

They do both have affinities with my WR leader, which is a minor 'advantage' I gave myself in signing them. The three guys I cut had been around a while at this point, the youngest a 5th year guy. In the end part of what could take a chunk out of Bangs' performance is a drop in Cohesion, which my team of only drafted players is pretty high in.

Going to do the draft then get to the season here now.

[Cringer]

Can we see YAC numbers? Wonder if it's a perfect storm of Timing/Accuracy along with WRs with great GD.

The three WRs I just cut had the following YAC last year; 258, 158, and 88.

Walt Bangs led the league in Yards Per Pass Attempt last season, and has 3 of the top 10 seasons in that category in league history.

[Cringer]

Season is done. I drafted two WRs in the draft, in the 4th and 7th rounds. The 7th rounder was a stretch and was cut after camp. The 4th rounder stayed. Had 5 WRs for the season, rated;

30/30
42/42
42/42
43/43
22/34

TEs were all in the 40's. My 'star' RB who has a career similar to Bangs dropped from the 30's in TC, so all three on my RBs were in the 20's for ratings.

The above changes had an impact, but far from a collapse.

Team record was the worst under Bangs, 10-6, but still won the division and made it from the Wild Card round to the Conference Championship game to lose to the eventual Bowl winner.

Bangs stats;
Rated 44/44, went up one more point in TC.

Regular season: 62.6%, 4775 yards, 38 TD, 26 INT, 92.0 rating
Post season: 3 games, 68.6%, 835 yards, 4 TD, 3 INT, 93.1 rating

For the 2nd season in a row Bangs would have had the league record for passing yars with his career best 4775, but the former 1.1 pick of a division foe went nuts and set a new record with 4858 on 50 more passes. Clearly an increase in INTs. He did lead the league with a career high Yards Per Completion of 13.25. In the conference championship games Bangs had a horrible game with 0 TDs and 2 INTs, the team lost 30-23.

Running game averaged under 4.0 ypc, and last in almost all running categories(I need a new RB). One WR with 1200 yards and 14 TDs, the next three WRs had 920, 850, and 515 for yardage.

[Hammer]

Has anyone ever explored a relationship between quality of WRs and QB interceptions?

When I asked you if you thought Bangs was masked, I wondered if you thought his ratings were false. Some players seem to play above the ratings you see on screen, I wondered if you thought his true core rating was maybe 50 or 60's?

[Cringer]

Has anyone ever explored a relationship between quality of WRs and QB interceptions?

When I asked you if you thought Bangs was masked, I wondered if you thought his ratings were false. Some players seem to play above the ratings you see on screen, I wondered if you thought his true core rating was maybe 50 or 60's?

Well, he plays better then his ratings IMO, so if you want to say he is permanently masked then I wouldn't argue that. He is still unmasking slowly at one point per year or so, but it won't go on much longer.

The former 1.1 pick that beat him out for the season yards record this year has the following career stats:

9 years (starter since a rookie) - 58.7%, 37103 yards, 226 TD, 144 INT, 81.5 rating

Bang:

9 years (starter for 7) - 65.1%, 30741 yards, 257 TD, 123 INT, 100.0 rating

Mr. 1.1 is rated 84/84. Comparing him to that guy Bangs plays like a 94/94 QB. Is that his rating which will never be revealed? We will never know.

[Hammer]

I imagine its your gameplan versus the AI gameplan thats the big difference. Maybe sim the next season with a few different QBs. See how Bang compares keeping everything else equal?

[Yoda]

Mr. 1.1 is rated 84/84. Comparing him to that guy Bangs plays like a 94/94 QB. Is that his rating which will never be revealed? We will never know.

In the FFL when I took over the Saints they had QB- Joel Tapscott. I want to say he was rated in the upper 50's / lower 60's.

Until this current season(his 13th), he gained in rating every season until he hit 91/91.

[Nogram]

I am 99% sure that there is permanent masking in effect here. The best way to really check this out is to mess with the draft files and then play out some carreers.

I.E. (with X-Factor turned OFF) in the draft file create 9 maxed out RB's, and then import until a few of them are 'sleepers', then follow their careers. If the 'sleepers' get a chance to start they will put up numbers similar to the other guys but their ratings will never catch up. The best way to test this is to draft them your self, leave everything on Rex except for making sure they are your starter and run it out.

I have tested this in the past, but never saved anything on it.

Nogram.

[sovereignstar]

<object width="425" height="344">
</param>
</param>
</param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zcc8dTqflh8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Cringer]

Walt Bangs looks and moves much like William Hung in my mind.

[RedKingGold]

I am 99% sure that there is permanent masking in effect here. The best way to really check this out is to mess with the draft files and then play out some carreers.

I.E. (with X-Factor turned OFF) in the draft file create 9 maxed out RB's, and then import until a few of them are 'sleepers', then follow their careers. If the 'sleepers' get a chance to start they will put up numbers similar to the other guys but their ratings will never catch up. The best way to test this is to draft them your self, leave everything on Rex except for making sure they are your starter and run it out.

I have tested this in the past, but never saved anything on it.

Nogram.

Dude, the X-Factor has absolutely no effect on draft classes. The X-Factor ONLY affects the roster file used when you start the game. The in-game help file states this specifically.

[Cringer]

Loss of his wide receivers seems to have had an impact one season removed. In his 10th year Bangs stays at 45/45 after TC, which I thought would happen. May stay there or drop a point next year I think. I had the same group of WRs except with one old vet backup was replaced with a rookie mid round pick that was 20/33. Drafted two RBs, one a project and the other was a starter right away drafted early.

Running game still stunk, no WRs over 1000 yards. We finished 9-7 and missed the playoffs for the first time ever (solo play isn't the hardest thing in the world after all unless you really hold yourself back).

Bangs stats:

60.0%, 4093 yards, 30 TD, 21 INT, 84.2 rating

One interesting note, as I expected this team to improve over the regular season record of a year ago. I took a hit in passing cohesion. My guess is the changes at RB effected this some, and possibly a change in o-line leader? I have never paid 100% attention to what makes up the cohesion ratings. Bangs does have a conflict with the new o-line leader though, which I think probably played a small part in the season's problems.

[Nogram]

Dude, the X-Factor has absolutely no effect on draft classes. The X-Factor ONLY affects the roster file used when you start the game. The in-game help file states this specifically.



Dude, your wrong....

This is from the draft file text.

Ratings in each category are on a 375-625 basis. These ratings are not exact. When a new career begins, Front Office Football uses the ratings in the draft file only as a general guideline. Internal ratings are on a 0-1000 scale, and are partially determined by random chance. This adds to the replay value of the game, as you can not count on a player being a superstar or a dud in each new career.

There is an option, when starting a new game of Front Office Football, to be more exact when importing ratings. What this does is greatly lessen the variability of the ratings selected for individual categories. A "550" in a rating will always be better than a "500". Without that option selected, the "500" could be better than the "550" in some random instances.

[Cringer]

After missing the playoffs in 2024 I drafted a WR in the first round of 2025. He helped out the team I guess, as well as dropping the conflict Bangs had with line leader and cutting the WR leader which had a conflict in that group.

In 2024 the team was 13-3 and lost in the Conference Championship. Bangs stats:

64.1%, 3866 yards, 34 TD, 13 INT, 98.7 rating.

With a RB above a 30 rating, and who can catch, the RB started to get some receptions as well as the TE, so it lowered is yards per attempt and overall yardage.

In 2026 Bangs dropped to a 41/41 rating after TC, his 12th year. He kept the starting job and had one last hoorah I guess. The team wasn't smooth and neither was he. They went 10-6 and won the division, and went on to win the Solecismic Bowl, the 4th of his career. His stats were not pretty:

59.8%, 4201 yards, 35 TD, 36 INT, 76.5 rating.

That rating cost him the team career rating record. He owns most of the others though accept Attempts and Completions. He had a great SB to win it again, with 350 yards and 4 TD, 0 INT. I started think right away it was a good way for him to go since he was dropping off.

He just dropped to 35/35 in the 2027 TC, and as I go to start the season I have decided to bench him. I have a QB I drafted at 2.26 and who is now in his 6th year with limited playing time. He has been pissed off a couple of years now and I had to franchise tag him this season to keep him around. He isn't the story Bangs is though. He started 15/42 and is up to 53/53. He gets the job, and Bangs will fade away now.

[Ben E Lou]

So, give us a screenie of the stats screen for Banks now.

[RedKingGold]

Dude, your wrong....

This is from the draft file text.

Ratings in each category are on a 375-625 basis. These ratings are not exact. When a new career begins, Front Office Football uses the ratings in the draft file only as a general guideline. Internal ratings are on a 0-1000 scale, and are partially determined by random chance. This adds to the replay value of the game, as you can not count on a player being a superstar or a dud in each new career.

There is an option, when starting a new game of Front Office Football, to be more exact when importing ratings. What this does is greatly lessen the variability of the ratings selected for individual categories. A "550" in a rating will always be better than a "500". Without that option selected, the "500" could be better than the "550" in some random instances.

See bold above. Also,

From http://www.solecismic.com/support/FOF2007PlayerGuide.pdf


The X-Factor is a randomization of player attributes at the start of a new career. This prevents the player file from playing the same every time out. Ratings for young or inexperienced players may vary as much as 50 percent with the full X-Factor enabled. Ratings for very experienced players vary about 10 percent.

Front Office Football generates a new universe every time you start a new game. Take a good young starter in real life. Most of the time, He will be a decent player. A good percentage of the time, he’ll be
outstanding. And some of the time, he’ll be fairly mediocre. The established players will perform pretty much as they did in the past, but there will still be some variety.



X-Factor only has an effect when you start a new career with the initial roster file. X-Factor has no effect when you re-load and re-run draft classes. If you upload a historical draft class, those players will have the same underlying core ratings each and every single time.


These are the only things which will change ratings each time you upload a draft class: (a) scout error applied to each player, (b) ratings (such as bump and run and adjust to ball) which are applied randomly when you upload a new career, and (c) whether random voltility boom/busts have an effect during the career.

I am 99% sure that there is permanent masking in effect here. The best way to really check this out is to mess with the draft files and then play out some carreers.

In short, draft files does not equal roster file. If you use roster file here, then you may have a point.

[Cringer]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/Cringer/no_longer_bangs.jpg

[Ben E Lou]

Not bad for 4/16.

[DirkGildun]

I like how he shows a QB Rating of 39.6 for years when he hadn't thrown a single pass. Must be his presence on the field or sidelines. ;)

[Firefly]

So, if RedKing isn't just being contentious (and I say that first because I don't know the subject, and second, because it appears that he leaves the possibility open that it's just a matter of using the right word, "draft file" vs. "player file" -but like I said, I don't know the subject), does that mean that commishes all around MP historical leagues know exactly who the good player's are going to be?

[bighouserulez]

So, if RedKing isn't just being contentious (and I say that first because I don't know the subject, and second, because it appears that he leaves the possibility open that it's just a matter of using the right word, "draft file" vs. "player file" -but like I said, I don't know the subject), does that mean that commishes all around MP historical leagues know exactly who the good player's are going to be?

That was my exact first thought. The volatility stick being the only unsure factor i would guess because they may drop or creep??:confused:

[legendsport]

See bold above. Also,

From http://www.solecismic.com/support/FOF2007PlayerGuide.pdf




X-Factor only has an effect when you start a new career with the initial roster file. X-Factor has no effect when you re-load and re-run draft classes. If you upload a historical draft class, those players will have the same underlying core ratings each and every single time.


These are the only things which will change ratings each time you upload a draft class: (a) scout error applied to each player, (b) ratings (such as bump and run and adjust to ball) which are applied randomly when you upload a new career, and (c) whether random voltility boom/busts have an effect during the career.


In short, draft files does not equal roster file. If you use roster file here, then you may have a point.

I think what's causing confusion here is that the text Nogram quoted uses the phrase "When a new career begins." I read that phrase as really saying "When a new PLAYER career begins" ie - when a player is added to the game from the draft csv. The text goes on to discuss the 375-625 scale and so on which definitely refers to draft files. The roster files which are used when starting an entirely new game use a completely different 0-9 scale for ratings.

Everyone who's messed around with roster and draft csv files knows the rating format is different: 0-9 in roster csvs and 375-625 in draft csvs. Since the dcsv.txt specifically refers to the 375-625 and talks about using them as a general guideline in applying the true 0-1000 rating and partially using random choice that you can only read that as saying that there is randomness involved. You may or may not call it x-factor, but I would say (and believe based on my MP commish experience) that there definitely IS randomness when you import a draft class out of a csv.

[Firefly]

Thanks, commish! It took me a while to realize it was both you and wesley posting :)

Anyhow, that clears it up for me.