Dumb Question/Rant: FOF LB?

[Buccaneer]

Okay, what the hell is up with all those LB designations? The scouts rate ILB and OLB. But when I go to look for FAs, I see in a search for ILB: MLB, SILB and WILB. Are you telling me that a certain player can only be a MLB but not a SILB or that a SILB can't be a WILB or a MLB in a 4-3? So what happens in a Nickel? You get a SILBR and WILBL in addition to a MLB and the SLB and WLB?? Good grief, all I want is seven LBs on my defense.

[Ben E Lou]

Depends on if you're playing 3-4 or 4-3. Some guys have a little better current value at one or the other (WILB/SILB vs. MLB).

[Ksyrup]

I hate those designations. I'm STILL not sure what I'm supposed to have to meet the minimum roster requirements.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I hate those designations. I'm STILL not sure what I'm supposed to have to meet the minimum roster requirements.

That was what started it for me. I want 7 LBs, I really don't care where they play on the field but I do want to have a roster that is suited for the various defenses it needs.

[CraigSca]

I love FOF2004, but occasionally I still go back to TCY for the joy that is "ILB", "OLB", "G", "T", "DT", "DE".

TOO much granularity wipes out the fun factor for me.

[Icy]

I must agree with you guys, that confuses me a lot too.

[daedalus]

You want 3 of them MLB/SILB/WILB fellas and 3 of them SLB/WLB, if you play 3-4. 2 of the former, if you run 4-3. I just play 'em where I feel their skillset fits best for me. You just need enough of the certain slots for the roster sanity check to let you through.

I kinda dig 'em, personally. Not all inside 'backer necessarily make good middle 'backer. And vice versa. I do wish the game would take into account even more where they're actually best at and offer me more penalty for attempting to play players out of positions. But this is definitely a very nice start.

[Subby]

I don't like the designations much. I think that, at least with linebackers, that their skillset should dictate where they play. Run stuffers in the middle, pass rushers and cover guys on the outside...

[MizzouRah]

Use this:

http://www.explodinghouse.com/FOF/FOFpositiontags2.bmp

..and your problems will be solved.


Thanks to 3ric!


Todd

[Ksyrup]

Me no understand.

[MizzouRah]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Me no understand.


Sorry Ksyrup,

Use reshacker and change the original tag .bmp (they have WILB, SILB, etc..) to this set made by 3ric.

In essence, instead of all different LB's all you will have now is ILB and OLB, same with G and T - no more RG RT, etc.

Like most of you, I don't care if I have a WILB or an MLB, I just want the best one of the two.


If you need help on reshacker, there is a post in the reference thread on how to use it.


Todd

[Darkiller]

Originally posted by CraigSca
I love FOF2004, but occasionally I still go back to TCY for the joy that is "ILB", "OLB", "G", "T", "DT", "DE".

TOO much granularity wipes out the fun factor for me.

Same here, I guess I'll start using 3ric's modification tag as early as tonight.

[Icy]

Cheap and easy solution MizzouRah thx. I was using 3ric's first postions tag version and didn't know about this simpler one. I see he also replaces the RDT/LDT with DT, RT/LT with T, and the same with FL and SE that are both WR. Does this mean that the right/left position doesn't mathers at all for any postion?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Icy
Does this mean that the right/left position doesn't mathers at all for any postion?

No, this is just a graphics patch-over.

The game will still treat a flanker as different from a split end, and will still sort the players by the fashion it deems appropriate. You just won't see all the information that's there - you'll see the simplified version.

I don't think there is very much penalty for playing a flanker as your split end (if there were, I think there would be some discussion to that effect) or any of the other position switches within the groupings made by this graphic patch -- but understand you're not changing the game, you're just changing the screen.

[QuikSand]

And for those who berate this game for not being "realistic" in the aspects where you make your criticisms - please understand that in real football, there is a meaningful difference between playing (for example) nose tackle, and playing left defensive tackle. It's just not the same thing. There are a fair number of players in the NFL today, who would comfortably admit that they are much beter suited to one than the other. The same goes for LILB/RILB/MLB, FS/SS, LT/RT, LG/RG and all the other separated-out position groups that people complain about in this thread. There are not many NFL teams that would just switch people around within all these position groups without a second thought.

There was a good thread somewhere here recently about realism vs. enjoyment. I personally think that either one is a valid thing to ask for. But this happens to be an are where the game currently is very realistic -- but many might argue that it is less enjoyable as a result.

Next time you want to rail against something that doesn't exactly match the real world... keep this handy example in mind.

[Ksyrup]

I don't have any problem other than with the LB designations. It's like I need a cheat sheet handy every time I play, because what I thought I knew has flown out from between my ears. It's just a mental block on my part. Too many "S" and "W", I think. I'll get over it.

[HornedFrog Purple]

You must have 2 inside linebackers, MLB and anything with an I in it. You must have 3 outside linebackers, anything without an I or obviously MLB.

[Icy]

Ok, my mid term, only edited the LB's from 3ric's first version so all the other different positions are there (right/left, FL, SE etc). If any of you want's it just right click on it and "save image as".

http://www.grupox.com/images/151icy.bmp

[Sidhe]

Quicksand is on to something: you guys are missing some important points.. perhaps you haven't noticed, but LDTs and RDTs, for instance, aren't interchangeable. The LDT has more value as a pass rusher, I think. If you didn't know which was which, and you filled your interior line with RDTs, you wouldn't get the pass rush you might have had, and you may wonder what is up with that..

The same is true with most of the other positions. If you have ever tried to switch a RT to a LT, you'll notice most of them can't make the switch. If you fill your tackle roster with RTs and don't know it, you may wonder why you can't keep your QB off the turf. You won't know that it's because you're starting a RT as your LT, because you've lost that information.

I don't draft SILBs or WILBs as MLBs because I can't tell whether they'll make the switch or not. I know they aren't necessarily interchangeable. For whatever reason, I don't find this confusing.

[Darkiller]

Well, I guess I'd rather have only the positions (T, G, DT, DE) on the roster screen to better "see" it with my eyes.
After that, I'll adapt and make the right switches on the Depth Chart screens myself so no big deal.

I just feel it's more comfortable on the roster screen.

[cuervo72]

Hmm, this reminds me of something in the roster screen that I don't particularly like, sorting o-linemen based on C,G,T rather than LT, LG, C, RG, etc. It's taking a little getting used to, I rather liked seeing them how they appear on the line.

But that's just me :)

[Honolulu Blue]

I was one of the ones who complained about the extended position designations. Having played FOF4 and 2004 for awhile, I understand what Jim is doing and have gotten used to them.

I still wish I had a better idea of the penalties involved for moving a player within position groups without attempting to change his position. For example, my scouts are constantly mixing up my O-line backups - my backup C is the backup RT, the backup G is my backup C, and my backup T is the backup LG. It's a little disorienting when it does that, but the scouts know best, I suppose.

[Darkiller]

Originally posted by Honolulu Blue
For example, my scouts are constantly mixing up my O-line backups - my backup C is the backup RT, the backup G is my backup C, and my backup T is the backup LG. It's a little disorienting when it does that, but the scouts know best, I suppose.


Definitely.
For whatever reasons, my backup Center is not "recommended" by my scout/coaches to be the #2 Center on the Depth Chart !
Instead he's a #2 Tackle or Guard and the #2 Guard/Tackly is sloted as the backup Center.
weird.

Good that we can lock them up !

[JonInMiddleGA]

darkiller -- I see the same sort of thing (C at #2 RT, LT at #2 C, etc) quite a bit myself.

And it makes me wonder if:

A) The recommendation is dumber than me -- it isn't taking the out of position penalty into account when making the recommendation

or

B) The recommendation is smarter than me -- it's accounting for the out of position penalty but understands the key skill sets better than I do and is convinced that my LT is better in the middle than my backup C and vice versa.

Anybody got any leanings in one direction or the other?

[Icy]

I have the same as Backup C, always one of my G takes that position.

[Sidhe]

Now I'm thinking this is a bug.

If you have enough linemen to have a backup at every position, you'll see that each position is backed up by the right guy. But when you have to deactivate a couple guys, the backups go screwy.

If the G was really the best backup C, then he'd still backup the C even when all the linemen are available, no? Because I always keep my backup C available when I deactivate guys (I keep one C, one G and one T available) and the G becomes backup C every time ONLY after I deactivate the other dudes.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Sidhe, I disagree. My scout often suggests my starting RG as backup C, even if I have another active C.

[cthomer5000]

Quik really hit the nail on the head. As much as most people here follow football, you can be a pretty big fan and be oblivious to the differences between positions. For instance, there is a world of difference between most DE's in a 4-3 defense and an end in a 3-4. For instance, you wouldn't see Jason Taylor in a 3-4 defense, period. There's no way he would have the size to constantly handle a double team on the interior line.

As a whole, I'm pretty neutral on the detailed position break-ups as they stand.


And I've also seen a lot of strange backup suggestions in my O-line, and some questionable choices in the secondary.

[MizzouRah]

The LB's always messed me up, as well as the nose tackle spot.

With all the complexity to the game, I like simple tags as well.

Icy's might work out best, thanks.

:)


Todd

[Sidhe]

FFF, there may be a slight misunderstanding.. my scouts recommend the guard when I have a C available too, but only after I've deactivated several linemen. When I begin the season, I always hit "recommend" before I've deactivated anyone, and the slots get filled with guys who fit the position. So I speculate, if the G is *really* the best backup to the C, why isn't he in that spot when all linemen are available anyway? By deactivating a couple guys, I really only disturb backups to one guard and one tackle, as the scouts originally had it lined up, but *now* they want to slide the C over to T and put the G in at C..

..that was too confusing, wadn't it?

[MizzouRah]

Update:

Since I just started my FOF 2004 dynasty, using these position tags work extremely well and the color coding makes it MUCH easier in the game to get postions straight, while keeping the different tags (ie, LT, RT, WLB, etc..)

http://www.explodinghouse.com/FOF/FOFpositiontags1.bmp

Thanks again to 3ric!



Todd

[Cringer]

First off, i love the system Jim has set up. Its realistic and i just plain have no problem with it. Sometimes you must watch the little things, like a WILB i had who was too light for me to change to another LB position (i did find that annoying, but maybe he should have been switched to S anyways, being a 215 lb ILB). Anyways, he was my backup MLB and when the starter went down i signed a crap guy for cheap. The "suggested" lineup had the crap MLB starting so i had to lock in the better WILB, who played pretty well.

In most cases (unlike my WILB) if you want to see the penalty for playing a guy in a different position then all you have to do is start to switch him to that position and it will tell you the penalty, then cancel it to leave him at his original position.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Cringer
In most cases (unlike my WILB) if you want to see the penalty for playing a guy in a different position then all you have to do is start to switch him to that position and it will tell you the penalty, then cancel it to leave him at his original position.

I don't think this (emphasized above) has been verified. In fact, I do not believe it to be true at all.

The scout will tell you the expected loss of ratings if the player is permanently switched to the new position, which doesn't necessarily tell you anything about how well the player would perform if he remained in his current position, and just was slotted in the other position. They are not the same thing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Thanks QS, that's how I always interpreted that too.

At least if I'm wrong, I know I'm in good company ;)

[Anthony]

i'm starting to question you, Bucc. you rant a lot of about what you complain to be "micro-management" featrues, when most of the time they are just simply additions to make the game much more realistic and deeper.

i think, given the lack of desire you have to take a much more prominent role in how your team functions, you're better off with the franchise in Madden 2004. it's much more meat and potatoes, and is less intensive than what you require to have fun. just a suggestion.

[Cringer]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I don't think this (emphasized above) has been verified. In fact, I do not believe it to be true at all.

The scout will tell you the expected loss of ratings if the player is permanently switched to the new position, which doesn't necessarily tell you anything about how well the player would perform if he remained in his current position, and just was slotted in the other position. They are not the same thing.

I suppose you could be right, but i think i will still use that as something along the lines of the worst possible ratings in the case of playing a guy out of position.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by Hell Atlantic
i'm starting to question you, Bucc. you rant a lot of about what you complain to be "micro-management" featrues, when most of the time they are just simply additions to make the game much more realistic and deeper.

i think, given the lack of desire you have to take a much more prominent role in how your team functions, you're better off with the franchise in Madden 2004. it's much more meat and potatoes, and is less intensive than what you require to have fun. just a suggestion.

You are very wrong, sir. I have no problems with them being in the game for many folks like them. If you had been paying attention, you would know that I strongly prefer to play a GM NFL sim, a game truly called Front Office football. I think FOF5 is truly a quality product and has a lot of great features but it comes down to personal preferences which is why I can't get into it solo (because it forces you to play its realistic depth). To suggest that I should play an arcade game instead of a game that emphasizes trading, drafting, free agenting, negotiating, team financials, league role management, etc. is an insult. But I know I am in the minority and I can accept that.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Cringer
I suppose you could be right, but i think i will still use that as something along the lines of the worst possible ratings in the case of playing a guy out of position.

Fair enough, I suppose.

What, then, do you do with players like your too-skinny LB above? What if you have a nice OLB who has great-looking pass-rushing skills... do you dare slot him to play some at DE? He certainly couldn't be switched to that position... but would you be willing to play him some at DE? Or by extension of this same logic, would you forceast that he would be a total failure there?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I pretty much ignore left/right, inside/outside designations except to meet the mimimum requirements. Instead, I play strictly according to ratings. If a LB has good run defense, he is playing inside regardless of whether he is an outside guy. It works for me.

I do think it would help a lot if Jim could give us a little more info on position switches and playing players out of position. It would certainly ADD to the strategy if we knew what the heck was going on. I don't think this one is capable of figuring out through trial and error.

Here is my theory (with a little help from QS from prior threads)

1) playing a guy out of position results in small temporary ratings loss during game that will always happen each time he is played out of position (thus a short term solution and one to use also in a pinch where you still plan to use a guy in the future in his correct position)

2) Switching a position resulting in permanent change in ratings (usually a drop) but with the ability to make it up and take advantage of experience to eventually become good in that position in the future (a long term solution, and when you no longer want to use a guy in his original position)

This is probably more of a how I think it should work rather than how it works, but confirmation from Jim would be good.

Jim, can you hear us?

[Cringer]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Fair enough, I suppose.

What, then, do you do with players like your too-skinny LB above? What if you have a nice OLB who has great-looking pass-rushing skills... do you dare slot him to play some at DE? He certainly couldn't be switched to that position... but would you be willing to play him some at DE? Or by extension of this same logic, would you forceast that he would be a total failure there?

Actually, i have never done something like this, playing a good pass rushing OLB at DE. That may be something i try if the right looking personel come along. My 215lb WILB is really the only case i have had like that, and he was an OK backup, best at run stopping actually. Maybe i haven't paid enough attention to this kind of thing. I have done prety well playing the game my way, but if this can add a little something to a team i am willing to explore it more.

LOL, i know i definetly could use a pass rush! Haven't had a good one for years now!

[yabanci]

Originally posted by QuikSand
And for those who berate this game for not being "realistic" in the aspects where you make your criticisms - please understand that in real football, there is a meaningful difference between playing (for example) nose tackle, and playing left defensive tackle. It's just not the same thing. There are a fair number of players in the NFL today, who would comfortably admit that they are much beter suited to one than the other. The same goes for LILB/RILB/MLB, FS/SS, LT/RT, LG/RG and all the other separated-out position groups that people complain about in this thread. There are not many NFL teams that would just switch people around within all these position groups without a second thought.

There was a good thread somewhere here recently about realism vs. enjoyment. I personally think that either one is a valid thing to ask for. But this happens to be an are where the game currently is very realistic -- but many might argue that it is less enjoyable as a result.

Next time you want to rail against something that doesn't exactly match the real world... keep this handy example in mind.

Well said.

This rant always sounds to me like someone saying, "why do you have these left, center, and right fielders in baseball. They're all outfielders!!! They should all just be labeled OF and used interchangably so I don't get confused."

[Peregrine]

I do think it would help a lot if Jim could give us a little more info on position switches and playing players out of position. It would certainly ADD to the strategy if we knew what the heck was going on. I don't think this one is capable of figuring out through trial and error.

I would personally love to see a rating or stat that would indicate "position adaptability" or whatever, that way you'd have an idea (as real NFL coaches/GMs do) whether a player is solid at all positions within their group, playing LT well as well as their listed position of RT, etc. Having some kind of idea of this (through the scout, I would assume) would make this a more interesting part of the game for me. As it is I usually play people out of position when necessary.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Peregrine
I would personally love to see a rating or stat that would indicate "position adaptability" or whatever, that way you'd have an idea (as real NFL coaches/GMs do) whether a player is solid at all positions within their group, playing LT well as well as their listed position of RT, etc. Having some kind of idea of this (through the scout, I would assume) would make this a more interesting part of the game for me.

Just a thought: Maybe this sort of "adaptability" could have been tied to the player's intelligence rating? A player moving from free safety to cornerback has to deal with lots of new schemes and instructions -- presumably at least part of this switch would be connected to his ability to quickly comprehend and understand this new assignemtns, which would connect more to intelligence than his physical skills. First I'd thought of that... it might give the "intelligence" rating some more meaning in the game.

[Darkiller]

congrats on that 12000th post QS.
That's huge lol

[Cringer]

Originally posted by Darkiller
congrats on that 12000th post QS.
That's huge lol

25 more years and i will be there!:D