Starters playing time in FOF7..

[kuykenda]

I just posted this after watching regular season week 1 of my multi-player league in APFL. Thought I would put it here in case other people had any thoughts.

"I haven't been reading much on FOFC so forgive me if everyone is already fully aware of the game changes in FOF7. My starters playing time was set at 90%. My entire OL played every snap of the game. No backup OL saw 1 play in the game. How realistic is this? What's hilarious is that most of my low endurance players (mostly backups) now show as "tired". Almost all of them didn't get into the game week 1. What made them tired?... were they running wind sprints all game long on the sidelines? I played a backup LB at 3 out of 4 LB positions and he played a total of 19 snaps. My most active starting LB played 72. This is really making a bad case for trying to attain a stacked 53 man roster full of quality backups. Why would that even matter if they never see any action? I think I already greatly miss the ability of changing each starters playing time to account for how often the backup at each position plays. I suppose I can reduce the starters playing time overall... but why would I do that if OL with low to no endurance still play every down? Has this topic already been fully covered somewhere? Seems like a pretty bad flaw. Are we really all just going to try and find the best 22 players to start since we don't ever have to worry about them coming off the field? I would appreciate other people's feedback. I haven't monitored this that closely until week 1 where it all jumped out at me in the log."

[ozias]

Very rarely will an OL get substituted for, that's just like the NFL.

Jim has even stated as much. Unless an O-Lineman gets injured, he plays on every offensive snap, including punts/field goals/extra points.

If you want to get your backups in the game, you'll need to lower your starters playing time. I'm not sure how low you'll need to set it, but feel free to experiment with it until you get it set to where you're happy with the results. I'd test that in SP though, not your MP league.

[chinaski]

I cannot stand that I cant set individual or positional playing time.

[mrtourette]

I agree that the starting OL should generally be on the field all the time barring injury, although it's a good point that if one of them had 0 endurance rating wouldn't they flake out and need to be replaced during the game? Unless the endurance rating doesn't affect their ability to participate but just means that their performance degenerates or they become more susceptible to injury as the game goes on.

[Antmeister]

I just posted this after watching regular season week 1 of my multi-player league in APFL. Thought I would put it here in case other people had any thoughts.

"I haven't been reading much on FOFC so forgive me if everyone is already fully aware of the game changes in FOF7. My starters playing time was set at 90%. My entire OL played every snap of the game. No backup OL saw 1 play in the game. How realistic is this? What's hilarious is that most of my low endurance players (mostly backups) now show as "tired". Almost all of them didn't get into the game week 1. What made them tired?... were they running wind sprints all game long on the sidelines? I played a backup LB at 3 out of 4 LB positions and he played a total of 19 snaps. My most active starting LB played 72. This is really making a bad case for trying to attain a stacked 53 man roster full of quality backups. Why would that even matter if they never see any action? I think I already greatly miss the ability of changing each starters playing time to account for how often the backup at each position plays. I suppose I can reduce the starters playing time overall... but why would I do that if OL with low to no endurance still play every down? Has this topic already been fully covered somewhere? Seems like a pretty bad flaw. Are we really all just going to try and find the best 22 players to start since we don't ever have to worry about them coming off the field? I would appreciate other people's feedback. I haven't monitored this that closely until week 1 where it all jumped out at me in the log."

I realize this is a huge change in the game but it is now more realistic. When you click on the Playing Time button on the Roster Screen, it tells you right there that Offensive Lineman are expected to play every down in the game (just like the NFL). So the method of thinking is different for this game. They are not substituted unless there is an injury and if they have poor endurance, then they will be tired for the next game. So you have the choice to keep them starting (playing tired which means they will be a bit less effective) or swap them out with another player to start for the next game.
To illustrate the offensive lineman not shuffling here is a recent article here: Offensive line mixes it up for the Rams (http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/offensive-line-mixes-it-up-for-the-rams/article_3bfb5064-7e69-5e9e-881d-7eaaa3ec1e7f.html)
Not to say that teams haven't tried it, but not with much success.

Now as far as the backup linebacker only getting 19 snaps, there are a number of factors that affect that including die rolls. The help file tells you this:
For the other positions, you choose a percentage of plays that player participates in. The game will use your starter based on his endurance rating, unless it is higher than the base percentage. Overused players can get tired, and they will be less effective in subsequent games. The base percentage is adjusted based on player positions. In general, offensive linemen play a much higher percentage of plays than other players. Defensive linemen play the least.

Right now you have it set for 90% so if they all have high endurance that can affect that. Another factor is total amount of time the defense spends on the field. Not going to be much tired if the offense is draining most of the clock. Another factor is that if your team plays a lot of Nickel and Dime packages, he is also reducing the amount of time he is seeing the field.

Yeah it is a bit of a change, but I believe this is why he has also included the Participation category in the box score so we can determine how adjust playing time for the players outside of the offensive lineman.

[Nataris]

I cannot stand that I cant set individual or positional playing time.

Agreed. Global settings is the worst idea in the game. So much for building teams with depth I guess.

[BigPitt]

Things like this have dissuaded me from playing FOF thru the years. It seems to me that the developer,seeming to have some knowledge of football,does not have as much as he portends.
I don't have time to check a great many box scores but it is absurd to think that offensive linemen play every snap. I am talking all five starters doing this at the same time. There are so many reasons this is untrue.
To me this reverts to the developer being too convinced that his analysis is always correct. Might be time to rethink some things and maybe consider some thoughts of those using FOF.

[Antmeister]

Things like this have dissuaded me from playing FOF thru the years. It seems to me that the developer,seeming to have some knowledge of football,does not have as much as he portends.
I don't have time to check a great many box scores but it is absurd to think that offensive linemen play every snap. I am talking all five starters doing this at the same time. There are so many reasons this is untrue.
To me this reverts to the developer being too convinced that his analysis is always correct. Might be time to rethink some things and maybe consider some thoughts of those using FOF.

Ugh....I will never figure out why someone would argue that it is absurd that NFL players play every snap in the game yet states they don't have to time check. Here is a link in which you can check how many snaps an offensive lineman plays on a week to week basis. So not sure why you are convinced it is otherwise: FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2013 NFL SNAP COUNTS (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/snapcounts) And yes all 5 lineman are taking 100% of the snaps in a majority of the cases.

[Nataris]

For OL it is fine... But the rest of the positions do get subbed quite a bit. Pass rush teams make a living off of a solid rotation of players at the DL.

[Antmeister]

For OL it is fine... But the rest of the positions do get subbed quite a bit. Pass rush teams make a living off of a solid rotation of players at the DL.

Yeah, I am arguing the OL point above. On offense, you still have control due to the different formations you can put a player in and endurance. On defense however it is a bit more trickier, however rotation does happen quite a bit for the defense. If you check the logs, you will find a number of defensive players rotating in the game. However I do see the argument that you have less control over their rotation.

And I not sure, since I have not done any sort of testing, but this line makes me think that whatever you set at a base percentage a portion of that percentage is dwindled down depending on the position group:
In general, offensive linemen play a much higher percentage of plays than other players. Defensive linemen play the least.
In other words I am wondering if you set the base at 85, will it be 75 or even 70 for defensive lineman.

Regardless I can see the argument for this. However I am more in favor of this decision being handled by the coach you hire. In other words, I lean more towards a GM game that leaves out any decisions that are supposed to be handled by the coach. I was thrilled when the offensive and defensive adjustments were moved out of the game (with the exception of 4th downs on offense).

[A-Husker-4-Life]

I really wish Jim reconsiders and gives us the old screen back in the next patch.

[TroyF]

Ugh....I will never figure out why someone would argue that it is absurd that NFL players play every snap in the game yet states they don't have to time check. Here is a link in which you can check how many snaps an offensive lineman plays on a week to week basis. So not sure why you are convinced it is otherwise: FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2013 NFL SNAP COUNTS (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/snapcounts) And yes all 5 lineman are taking 100% of the snaps in a majority of the cases.


I understand the other positions, I just don't get the offensive lineman thing. Offensive lineman play the full game and have for years. This isn't even some state secret. Even without football outsiders, it's not hard to figure out most offensive lineman play the entire game.

As for the other positions, on offense it's fairly easy by adjusting the depth charts for specific packages. On defense, it's tougher and does cause problems on occasion if I want to get a guy more snaps.

[Antmeister]

I understand the other positions, I just don't get the offensive lineman thing. Offensive lineman play the full game and have for years. This isn't even some state secret. Even without football outsiders, it's not hard to figure out most offensive lineman play the entire game.

Yep, I know, but I provided the link so this doesn't become a speculative argument. Looking back at the post, he just may have an issue with the developer in general. If this is the deal then fine, but using this as a reason why the developer doesn't know football is wrong.

As for the other positions, on offense it's fairly easy by adjusting the depth charts for specific packages. On defense, it's tougher and does cause problems on occasion if I want to get a guy more snaps. Hey, we are saying the same thing. Check 2 posts above yours.

[Ruckuz]

What does endurance factor into with OL if they play every snap? What is the best way to build an O line?

[Nataris]

What does endurance factor into with OL if they play every snap? What is the best way to build an O line?
Offensive philosophy will change what a "best ol" consists of. A good starting point is a balanced center, pass blocking tackles and run blocking guards. With the center and guards having good blocking strength.

[jbergey22]

Things like this have dissuaded me from playing FOF thru the years. It seems to me that the developer,seeming to have some knowledge of football,does not have as much as he portends.
I don't have time to check a great many box scores but it is absurd to think that offensive linemen play every snap. I am talking all five starters doing this at the same time. There are so many reasons this is untrue.
To me this reverts to the developer being too convinced that his analysis is always correct. Might be time to rethink some things and maybe consider some thoughts of those using FOF.

Just a random thought.

If you are unaware that the offensive line usually plays 100 percent of the snaps when healthy or effective perhaps you should limit yourself on trying to correct people that are actually aware of how the game works.

[Ruckuz]

Offensive philosophy will change what a "best ol" consists of. A good starting point is a balanced center, pass blocking tackles and run blocking guards. With the center and guards having good blocking strength.

So where does Endurance play a part in this if the OL plays every snap? Should I completely ignore OL depth because of that and just stack up on Pass/Run/BlockStregth?

[Antmeister]

So where does Endurance play a part in this if the OL plays every snap? Should I completely ignore OL depth because of that and just stack up on Pass/Run/BlockStregth?
The Endurance Part determines if they will get the Tired flag on the player card and it happens a lot more often with low Endurance players. Once they have this flag they are much less effective in the next game. So basically you would need to rotate your starters. So no, you would not ignore the depth because that is when it becomes important.

[Ruckuz]

The Endurance Part determines if they will get the Tired flag on the player card and it happens a lot more often with low Endurance players. Once they have this flag they are much less effective in the next game. So basically you would need to rotate your starters. So no, you would not ignore the depth because that is when it becomes important.

Oh thanks alot. Is there a manual I should be reading or a thread to explain ratings. I find I am always guessing what does what. I have an Oline built for pass protection. I have stacked up on the pass blocking bar but neglected run block,strength and endurance.

Now I see. Im usually guessing who to start for my pass block scheme. 4rb/87pb/10s/35end current starter
4rb/50pb/30s/55end backup

What would you recommend?

[Antmeister]

Oh thanks alot. Is there a manual I should be reading or a thread to explain ratings. I find I am always guessing what does what. I have an Oline built for pass protection. I have stacked up on the pass blocking bar but neglected run block,strength and endurance.

Now I see. Im usually guessing who to start for my pass block scheme. 4rb/87pb/10s/35end current starter
4rb/50pb/30s/55end backup

What would you recommend?

In regards to a manual, if you press F1 on any of the screens you are viewing, a help file will pop up giving you more info about that screen. You can also just directly click the help button if you just want the read the entire help file.

Now in regards to your second question, it is a matter of preference but who you have as the current starter is what most people would select because they give you the best past protection. Even though he may get tired later, for the games that he starts will make a difference in the win-loss column. And the backup can replace him when he wears down.

[Vaevictis_386]

Has anyone got a lead on how much tiredness matters? It seems like you can basically ignore it in my experience. I have low endurance guys who get tired some, but they still produce great stats. But I've never studied it -- anyone have any proof as to whether tiredness is significant?

[claystone]

Has anyone got a lead on how much tiredness matters? It seems like you can basically ignore it in my experience. I have low endurance guys who get tired some, but they still produce great stats. But I've never studied it -- anyone have any proof as to whether tiredness is significant?


This i like to know as well. Do players still play well even if tired,and how many games of being tired do they become useless.

[BigPitt]

part of jbergey22 post...

"snaps when healthy or effective"
I guess you mean "and" not "or".

This was never part of the argument on my part.
Of course they play if playing well and are healthy. Why would they not.

My point was they are not ALWAYS healthy and effective. Sometimes they even miss a play when their helmet comes off.

As to the reference to Football Outsiders the figures in the referenced charts are not enough to prove the point. They show the plays the player was in for
on offense (which includes kicks) compared to just his "his plays from scrimmage". It is necessary to compare the teams plays from scrimmage to the players plays from scrimmage.(NFL.com source)

[Antmeister]

part of jbergey22 post...

"snaps when healthy or effective"
I guess you mean "and" not "or".

This was never part of the argument on my part.
Of course they play if playing well and are healthy. Why would they not.

My point was they are not ALWAYS healthy and effective. Sometimes they even miss a play when their helmet comes off.


Huh? The backups do play when the starters are injured or ineffective. Your argument earlier was that all 5 lineman can't play 100% of the snaps in a game. Now that was proven untrue, now you are arguing that OL are not always healthy. Okay, well yeah, and the 2nd post alone tells you a backup will play when injured. Heck just sim a season in-game and check the OL that do not start the game and you will still see games in which they have stats for run and pass blocking. Some of that is not strictly injury related.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4356992/backup_stats.jpg

In week 9 of my single player career, this player was able to participate. This even had 3 backup players involved in the game and only 2 of my starters went down due to injury. The players highlighted in red are my starters. The players in blue are my backup lineman.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4356992/blocking_stats.jpg

As to the reference to Football Outsiders the figures in the referenced charts are not enough to prove the point. They show the plays the player was in for
on offense (which includes kicks) compared to just his "his plays from scrimmage". It is necessary to compare the teams plays from scrimmage to the players plays from scrimmage.(NFL.com source) This whole paragraph puzzles me. First the link shows a separate category for special teams plays. Second, the snap counts are courtesy of the NFL media website. Third, even if the snap counts weren't put in the different categories, if it had shown 100% of both offense and special teams, how would it be any different just because they are now in 2 separate categories?

[mrtourette]

So enduarance doesn't affect a player's performance in his current game, but instead determines his recovery time between games and therefore whether he'll start the next at full strength?

[Antmeister]

So enduarance doesn't affect a player's performance in his current game, but instead determines his recovery time between games and therefore whether he'll start the next at full strength?
Well yes and no actually. Early in the season, you will find a majority of those players participating 100% of the game (barring injury). As time goes on in the season, you start to see the backups get a few snaps in the game. In the above graphic, only 2 of those players got in due to injury. The other player, which is a backup T got some snaps in the game between my 2 starting tackles, one of my starting guards and even had 1 snap as Center. Here is a graphic that may better explain this. This is Week 9 in that particular season:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4356992/starters_backups.jpg

As you can see, 2 of those players immediately took over after the starters went down, but it appears that Juan Rhodes actually covered 4 positions based on the number of snaps he took.

[BigPitt]

Seems pointless to argue with you Antmeister.

Just use your head and learn to read.

[Antmeister]

Seems pointless to argue with you Antmeister.

Just use your head and learn to read.

Okay, well here is your initial comment....

Things like this have dissuaded me from playing FOF thru the years. It seems to me that the developer,seeming to have some knowledge of football,does not have as much as he portends. I don't have time to check a great many box scores but it is absurd to think that offensive linemen play every snap. I am talking all five starters doing this at the same time. There are so many reasons this is untrue. To me this reverts to the developer being too convinced that his analysis is always correct. Might be time to rethink some things and maybe consider some thoughts of those using FOF.
So of course, pointing out the snap count stats wasn't enough to show this is indeed true. In terms of one game, you can have 5 starters play all the snaps. Now check a post above your comment where there are instances in which the backups are playing. So what exactly are you arguing about?

[jbergey22]

Seems pointless to argue with you Antmeister.

Just use your head and learn to read.

Seems as if he is trying to help you understand the working of the game better if you ask me.

Would you like to make the argument that players arent benched for ineffectiveness or injury enough instead?

If you want to have a successful debate and have people listen to your side it rarely works if you start insulting people.

[GridGlory]

Here, here, I'm amazed Antmeister was able to keep his cool and continue to attempt to assist! I'm always hoping to quantify "how much" the tired tag hurts performance. Of course, as with most else, there are just too many moving parts & random events to get a clear picture. This was a good reminder that the tired tag take a toll on the next game, not on the current. Now do I wish my really low EN guys didn't get tired on a bye week? Yes!

[A-Husker-4-Life]

I really wish Jim reconsiders and gives us the old screen back in the next patch.

I'm still hoping for 7.1 to include this screen again. I like to rotate my Olinemen, in the current system it's almost impossible to rotate them.