Morgado's Lab Notes

[Morgado]

Hey all,

The general discussion board seems to be getting cluttered with too many off topic things and I find I don't even read an overwhelming majority of the threads anymore (CM? I thought this was a FOF site... heh). Anyways, I figured it would be easier if I just had one place to collect my thoughts and use as a sounding board for ideas and experiments. Lots of times i'm posting in different threads and vaguely remember saying something about a subject but can't quite recall...

Should be easier if I keep it all in one place and just babble on to myself (with feedback and constructive viewer participation greatly welcome).

Anyway, the experiment for today was to do a little testing on my RB by Committee ideas. So far, my hypotheses on the running game (OL Cohesion unit):

1. RBs do not take as long to develop, nor is it important to keep a RB with the team for a long time. Thus it is acceptable to have extremely high turnaround rates on RBs.

2. The big factor to success in the running game is getting key blocks, not any particular skill of the ball carrier.

3. Running is a pass supplement, not the other way around. "Run for show, pass for dough."

Using all-out empty cupboard with the expansion Riverside Wolves, I have a savegame right after the switch team command is executed - so I can easily jump back to a clean slate. Anyways, this time I drafted primarily offensive linemen and took FB Farazande in the expansion draft. Also picked up a good run blocking TE in the expansion draft. Any good veterans available in the postdraft FA pool were signed to make the OL a fairly good proxy for a veteran unit.

Started a rookie RT but everyone else was a FA signing on the line. So good blocking TE and FB starting. The last step was to pick up four 7 year minimum scrubs with good carrying and breakaway speed so they don't get hit for losses and don't fumble.

Year 1 production for the two top carriers (thrid and fourth guys didn't get many carries) was 1080 yards on 246 carries for an average little under the magic 4 yards a carry and 9 TDs.

Year 2 production for the three top guys (one got injured) was 1249 yards on 290 carries and 7 TDs.

Year 3 production for the two headed monster was 1038 yards on 295 carries and 5 TDs.

I played a very screwed up gameplan that did heavy running on 1st and 3rd downs plus extremely low run percentage on 2nd and short (Lombardi special). But the other two years were scout default more or less. Starter playing time was reduced to 1 or 2 at all times. Now, if this were one player with a 6 or 7 on playing time, those aren't half bad numbers. It's the equivalent of having a 1000 yard rusher each season since the carries a primary back would get are divided among two or three carriers.

Some things I noticed while doing this:
1. Yes, watching the game sim in scoreboard reveals that the bulk of the yardage is picked up on plays where key blocks occur. Even the star opposing backs rarely broke runs longer than 6 yards without a key block occuring. There is something to the comment of color analysts that a runner must be patient and make the cut behind his blocking.

2. The big benefit is not even the fact that you have fresh backs during the entire course of the game (since you're subbing on almost every other run play). The HUGE advantage is that your running game is not dependent on any one stupid money RB - if an RB gets hurt, it really doesn't matter because the next two or three guys in line are nearly carbon copies of him! It's very easy to get 4 7 year min guys who look alike so you can tailor the run directions to whatever your preference is.

3. The run really does set up the pass. Even when I had that messed up gameplan in year 1, it seemed like the computer coach wanted to throw way more often than like the 1/4 I had assigned it in various situations. Even my rookie 3rd round pick QB was doing well with intermediate range strikes - the defenses the opponent called were fairly erratic so it seemed like the play mixing was good... even if it was supposed to have been way run heavy.

We went 9-7, 6-10, 9-7 and made Wild Card in both of the 9-7 years. Not bad considering empty cupboard (well it was all out with cheat FA signings so maybe not that big a deal).

I'm also starting to suspect that cohesion of various units may have something to do with penalty rates and injuries... had a "Right Side" coach who had great playcalling and also motivation and avoid injury. Gotta do more testing with this...

[henry296]

Some comments are key blocks. I too watch everyone of my teams games. I think the result of the run determines if their is a key block and not the other way around. The following situations get key blocks:

1. TD runs even for 1 yard
2. First down runs
3. Runs of 5 yards or more.

Todd

[QuikSand]

Todd, does that make sense (from either a programming or a football standpoint)? We know that Jim is pretty meticulous and scrupulous in his pursuit of reality in his games. We all benefit from that, in the precision with which the game engine works.

Does the notion that key blocks are assigned ex post facto comport with what we know about Jim? I don't think so, unless I'm missing some logic behind that method.

I just seems to make mmuch mor sense to me that a run plan will sometimes call for a KRB opporuntity, which then requires a "check" on the player's attributres to see whether he completes the block, and if so then it adds to the calculation or other determination of the play's final result.

Having the system work the other direction (complete play result is determined, then KRBs are added as fiction afterwards) just doesn't strike me as consistent.

[Kevin]

Sounds like the chicken or the egg debate.
(but not McD's chicken)

[Morgado]

Originally posted by QuikSand:
Does the notion that key blocks are assigned ex post facto comport with what we know about Jim? I don't think so, unless I'm missing some logic behind that method.

I just seems to make much more sense to me that a run plan will sometimes call for a KRB opporuntity, which then requires a "check" on the player's attributres to see whether he completes the block, and if so then it adds to the calculation or other determination of the play's final result.

Having the system work the other direction (complete play result is determined, then KRBs are added as fiction afterwards) just doesn't strike me as consistent.

Quik,

This is also the way I have been looking at it - which is what leads me to believe that the blocking is more important thant the running (the "Torn ACL Effect"). Essentially what i'm thinking is that everything in the game is decided by a bunch of conditional random variable distributions. Jim probably took all the data and constructed either normal or uniform probability distributions of outcomes for each set of circumstances. So Weak I Left vs. 4-3 Run Normal would have a different set of outcomes when Run LG is called than say Shotgun WR to Slot vs. Nickel Pass Normal ith a Run LG call.

How do I think run blocks figure in here? Just the way you describe. For each potential run direction, i'm guessing the game assigns a probability of a KRB Opp. After generating who (if anyone) gets a KRB Opp, it will check if the KRB is completed. If so, the result from the probability distribution from playcall vs. playcall gets modified upwards by some amount (like hole modifier * back's yards per carry or something).

A run plan calling for a KRB from a particular player is like John Madden saying the Cowboys run behind Larry Allen in all directions. They pull him right, they pull him left, they trap with him, they run up the gut behind him... etc...

An even funkier thing might be how short yardage RB/FB stats or Third Down rushing stats figure into key run block effects and/or straight up non-KRB runs. Whatever the case, I think Todd's "key run" outcomes are the result of KRBs and not the other way around.

Maybe for the 1 yard TD runs, the run would have gone for more yardage but the program truncated the result because only 1 yard of field was left (like punt touchbacks). In the case of a first down run, maybe the playcall vs. playcall distribution turned up a negative number but a key run block was completed. Does it make any sense for a key run block to occur when a team loses yardage? By definition it would no longer be a key run block. It might be a band aid fix that any KRB that occurs with a loss of yardage run trumps the playcall vs. playcall outcome and automatically awards a first down regardless of whether the KRB bonus was enough to swamp the loss of yardage or not.

We oughta start a Washington Metro Area Village Challenge... Quik, Todd, Subby and me... haha... http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/ubb/smile.gif

[henry296]

I believe that the # of Key Run Block Opps (KRO) are the same as the number of running plays. The next game I watch probably tomorrow, I will try to track the KRB announced.

I think this does make some sense. Key Run Blocks are awarded for excellent plays. Thus first downs and TD are excellent plays as are long runs.

Here could be my logic. Run behind center. Play gains 5 yards due to line vs line matchup and running back and formation. Based on skills and run direction determine which lineman was responsible. Since centers can get KRB on outside runs, somewhere who gets the KRO is calculated. Also, your RG might get more KROs than % of runs behind RG.

Todd

[ez]

Kevin: nice work; you messed up their attempt at an all-Maryland thread... http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/ubb/wink.gif

FWIW, here's what the help file says: "When a lineman completes a block that results in a successful running play, a key run block is awarded. A key run block opportunity is awarded to a player who puts himself in position to make a key run block on a run play."


[This message has been edited by ez (edited 12-01-2000).]

[Morgado]

Wow. Okay, in year 5 (2006) of my RB by Committee Test file, the Riverside Wolves went 13-3 and annihilated everyone they faced in the playoffs. One particularly sweet win was 30-13 over BUF in the Wild Card round... payback for the 31-10 loss they dealt us in week 1.

Some rather interesting things that came out. I have a solid on all fronts offensive line and play RB by committee with one go to WR and a franchise QB.

QB Jeff Francis is awesome at the deep and long passes, decent accuracy, and great power, scrambling, and carrying. He is average to subpar in all other areas and is a 76/83 in the scout overview. He was a third round pick (!) and has been with the team since I took over (so this was his 5th year).

WR Marvin Harrison is, well, the Marvin we all know and love (or hate if you're a fan of an AFC East team other than Indy). Not too good endurance, but great hands, yards after catch, and third down receiving. He was 1st team all-pro in 2005 with 110-1646 and 13 TDs. Harrison shows up as 70/71 in the scout overview.

The OL:
LT Sean Carlson - Classic LT. Munoz-like pass blocking. 46-90-83 Stats
LG Butch Aniston - Pass blocking G who can also runblock decently. 51-74-59 Stats
C Kevin Long - 9 year vet FA who does it all. - 55-58-82
RG Philip Cossette - Pass blocking specialist. - 41-88-43
T Cary Lachapelle - The Young'un who actually comes in for Shep. - 40-46-88
RT Sammie Shepard - Whining RT. Fits the mold with good drive blocking with fair pass protection. - 52-29-37
G John Spearman - Rookie steal is first off the bench. - 38-23-84 with potentials of 84-53-84

Playing time was 5-4-6-7-1 across the line from left to right. Essentially, Shep starts to avoid the whining and comes out often for Lachapelle's endurance to keep level of play high throughout the game.

All four of my RBs are of the 7 year minimum type. The only guy I actually drafted was the "starter" who was a steal in teh 7th round hehe... Quinn Patton. He had just way too much breakaway plus carrying and endurance to pass on. Plus it was round 7, so what the heck.

Other strengths of the offense was three deep solid at FB and two deep solid at TE. Man it is SO easy to get all-pro caliber TE and FB players, it isn't even funny. WR backups Behrens, Stevens, and Benton are midyear vets who have respectable catching in the 50s and average elewhere. The prime backup is really rookie 2nd rounder Marshall Pagano. He is the traditional WR prospect with low actual catch and frequency with a big yards per catch spike and good third down, carryingm, and endurance. The green of course, is in catch and frequency.

Anyways, so we start out the season 2-3 and it looks like another normal year. WR Harrison goes down for basically the entire regular season and we lose some guys here and there for 3-5 week variety injuries. We get slammed at DE when my big money anchor goes out for 2-3 months.

Incidentally, my defense is anchored by 3 rotating DTs, 3 rotating S and two stud LBs.

We proceed to go on a tear and win out the rest of the way (WTF?!?!) and my backup chumpy WRs get awesome numbers (like 800-900 yards receiving each). In fact, Pagano gets like 895 yards and OffROY. Anyways, we're plugging along and I check the end of regular season team stats:

Rush Offense - 5th
Pass Offense - 5th
Run Defense - 5th
Pass Defense - 10th

WHOA. Without my #1 receiver, and my best DE and half the season without my second best CB? Wow. The thing that has to catch your eye is that 5th in Rush offense. No, my FBs aren't carrying the ball and playing like Alstott. It turns out that 7th round steal had 800 yards and the next guy had 600 yards rushing.

Remember, these guys are huge breakaway speed, decent endurance, decent carrying - everything else absolutely terrible (we're talking single digit, baby). And they combine for like 1400 yards?!?! Wow. The committee is in session. Then looking at passing, QB Francis was unconscious:

307-496 for 3651 yards, 33 TD and just 9 INT. He won the passing title with a 98.9 rating... without his best receiver all year. And I know what you're thinking... lots of dumps to backs and TE, but nope - the five top receivers on the team were all WRs. Even Harrison's 22 catches put him at #5 yardage-wise, ahead of my starting TE.

So what's the lesson? Badass Offensive Line plus Star caliber QB can be dominant even with el cheapo scrub receivers and RBs. Fill all the low cost positions with star players and hey, that's good enough. Go with RB by committee to supplement the pass and you're set.

The big shocker of course, is how we won the Super Bowl. A relatively uninjured Dallas Cowboys faced a relatively uninjured Riverside Wolves. My offense is centered around Francis working the outsides, according to the season stats.

Team Rushing: 35 carries for 323 yards and 9.2 avg.

The backup (Tobin, not Patton) runs for 140 yards including a 83 yard burst and 2 TDs. Meanwhile Francis had a modest 19-25 day for 215 yards, 4 TDs and 1 pick. Proof positive that a RB by Committee can be effective - even in the Super Bowl against a healthy NFC Champion.

As a side note, every one of my expertise ratings was horrible.. about 40-50 in each area. My cohesions were in the 70s. This does not bode well for cohesion making a difference... maybe the FA route is the more effective way to go.

[QuikSand]

MOrgado, what can you tell us about the performance of your lousy WRs? I'm particularly interested in their off-numbers, like the % of passes thrown to them that they caught, and their number of drops.

I've found that often when I have low-ratings WRs who put up "big" numbers thet are often accompanied by relatively low %comp (like under 50%) and high drops (like >10%). Have you seen the same?

[Morgado]

Quik,

Here is a quickie rundown of my "crap corps" heheh...

Stats will be given as Catching, Yards Per Catch, Frequency, 3rd Down Catching, Carrying, Endurance. Performance numbers will be given as Caught/Targeted for x Yards and y TDs with z Drops. (Tpct)

WR Jesse Behrens was drafted in the 5th round of 2004. In 2006: 54, 28, 50, 54, 74, 66.

2006 Performance: 68/116 for 976 and 13 TD with 9 drops. (30.4)

WR Marshall Pagano was drafted in the 2nd round of 2006. In 2006: 29, 91, 36, 78, 76, 47.

2006 Performance: 60/97 for 895 and 9 TD with 5 drops. (29.0)

WR Henry Benton was a 7 year minimum FA signed as a rookie in 2005. In 2006: 24, 28, 42, 70, 72, 65.

2006 Performance: 62/116 for 766 and 4 TD with 8 drops. (27.4)

WR John Stevens was a 4th round pick in 2004. In 2006: 33, 66, 32, 24, 31, 47.

2006 Performance: 28/41 for 280 and 1 TD with 3 drops. (22.0)

For comparison, WR Marvin Harrison's 1st team All-Pro 2005 season was 110/189 for 1646 and 13 TDs with 11 drops. (34.0) Stats in 2005: 68, 71, 82, 48, 48, 51. Based on Harrison's career with the Riverside Wolves, a 10% drop rate is acceptable (my rookie QB was no Peyton Manning at the time).

None of my fearsome foursome "crap corps" WRs had a drop rate of more than 10% of the times they were targeted. Also note all four caught more than half their targeted throws and Pagano was almost 66% (well, he had potential so that's a factor.. he's kickass in 2007).

Now the fun part: I tried simming the 2007 season and Harrison came back with a vengeance, taking 2nd team All-Pro. He went 82/127 for 1324 and 6 TDs with 8 drops. (29.3) Again we went 13-3 and took the Super Bowl... but this time with a twist.

I wanted to see what kind of difference it makes when you put *real* Rbs behind a badass offensive line. So I burned three picks on good Rbs and signed another in FA before camp. The reason Harrison didn't have as many yards and TDs were RB Reese and RB Billy Joe Shannon, who each started 8 games (I swapped them to campare them to each other too):

Reese: 199 carries for 771 yards and 10 TDs
Shannon: 176 carries for 624 yards and 5 TDs

Wow. That's some huge difference from my 1000 yards comined for a committee. My "crap corps" actually pulled down about 60% of balls thrown their way, but the running was so successful it turns out we didn't throw as much! That's why their yardage totals all dropped to around 500 or so with Pagano at 800 and Harrison at 1300 leading the way.

Oh, and QB Francis?

312/511 for 4388 yards (61.0 pct) - 27 TDs, 15 INTs and a 94.0 rating. He again captured 1st Team All-Pro for the second straight year.

This year as Tazz would say, it was "just another victim" from the NFC as a fairly healthy Washington Redskins club came at us with the #1 rushing offense and middle of the pack defense vs. run and pass. We had the #7 Rush Offense and #2 Pass Offense... All-Pro sharpshooter Francis was gonna torch em... or so we thought.

Francis goes down with injury in the FIRST QUARTER and leaves the game. Taking over for him is our Livid backup, K.C. Barnhart, who threw one incompletion and that's it for the entire season. 25, 27, 25, 40, 40, 66, 57, 22, 68, 32 - not exactly wrath of god type stats. The 66 is 3rd Down and the 57 is Accuracy. The question then became... can defense win championships?

We totally shut them down and Barnhart went 17/27 for 158 yards and 1 pick. The real story on offense was Shannon, who had 75 yards on 16 carries for a 4.6 avg and 1 TD. 4 INTs from our Defense and 4 sacks added to the mayhem and we rolled 22-9.

Our scoring drives on offense were like... run play with KRB, run play with KRB, short pass, run play with KRB, run play with KRB... etc...

Now, granted had WR Harrison who caught 7 of 12 targeted (1 drop) for 92 yards, but we had the chump QB in there and still managed to move the ball. More and more I am buying into the idea that winning the battle in the trenches makes stupid money skill position players unnecessary. My Offensive line costs me far more than my skill position players!

So what's the verdict? Either go big moolah skill position players or go big bad offensive line. No need to do both. With the rest of the dough, buy the meanest defense possible and beat the opposition into submission.

[Morgado]

Okay, i'm sold.

Until now, I was never sold on the whole stud QB thing because i'd never seen a dynasty built on a dominant quarterback, but i'm willing to throw my hat in now. In my RB by Committee test file, I just won a third straight Super Bowl and my QB Francis not only got his third straight 1st team All-Pro selection, but he got the quadfecta... the first i've ever had. What's more, for the second season in a row he's tossed for 4000+ yards and had 35 TDs to like 17 INTs.

The running game was pretty good, getting like a combined 1300 yards from my top three guys who rotated all year. The offense ranked 10th in Rushing and 2nd in Passing. A revision to the dominant offensive formula:

1. Pour your $$$ into your offensive line.

2. Get one bad boy QB.

3. When you do your training camp, kick special skills down two notches and reduce FG and Block FG to zero (use it in third and short and third and long).

4. Diversify your formations. Zero out shotgun and go balanced on all the other formations. When setting formation percentages, balance along all formations with *slightly* heavy weights on the pass/run inclined formations.

5. Reduce the screen pass percentage to 10 and pump the extra 5 points so long passes are 12 rather than 7. The bread and butter is still the 0-10 range but the 11-20 and 21-30 should get some shots for your QB to go vertical.

6. RB quality does not seem to be very important. The difference between 1000 and 1300 yards from your committee over 16 games is really not a big deal. Focus on your FB instead to help your passing game.

7. Coach: Excellent Avoid Injury, Very Good+ Discipline and Motivation and Very Good+ playcalling on both sides are a MUST. Screw position ratings. Who cares? My coach has tons of good/fair position ratings and my players are still turning out to be bad ass. I think playcalling is really where it's at (well after avoid injury - sadly, that's the REAL key to this game).

Apparently the variation that coach position ratings have on development is minor - I think it has to do with season to season changes in actual and potentials (not turning green to red). Just having Good at a position rating is fine if you're already drafting well. Any Poor place, just fill with FAs that other teams farm for you.

And Always Remember: Run for show, throw for dough.

I am still puzzled by this little tidbit though...

2006: 13-3, Super Bowl Champs
2007: 13-3, Super Bowl Champs
2008: 12-4, Super Bowl Champs

Each year we started 1-3, 1-3, and 1-4 and then won out the rest of the way. *bog*

One last observation... there seems to be humungous correlation between turnover margin and success. I mean, not even funny kind correlation - Riverside and all the guys we see in the Super Bowl and Conference Championships are *always* the teams with like the +12 turnover margins. Nobody with zero or negative margins even make it past the Wild Card round most seasons (if they even make the playoffs). Not sure if this has something to do with the unreasonably high number of INTs (and fumbles) returned for TD mentioned in the Feedback area (since we KNOW that PF/PA has been proven statistically to correlate with wins... if TOs turn into points then they will correlate).

[Morgado]

Quik,

In case you want to take a look for yourself at all the data, I just posted my Universe folder contents in a ZIP file on my page: http://www.geocities.com/bobkemp01

It's like 6-7 megs, so not too bad even if you're on 56k. Wow... just gotta say that Melissa's powder blue look was... ooo... so nice.

[TroyF]

Morg,

I agree with your assessment, though I have found getting a star calibur running back has helped me get over the hump 2 or 3 different times during my careers.

In my most recent one where this made a difference, I used the RB by committee approach with a stud QB (3 straight years of 1rst team all-pro) and a great O-Line. (Nalen anchored it from the center position, 2 maxed out tackles, 1 maxed out G and an above average gaurd)

with the running back by committee, my team simply couldn't get over the hump. 3 straight years of 9+ wins and the playoffs, but my rushing numbers were always under 4.0 and I always got beat in the playoffs.

With some cap room freed up from some DL retireing, I picked up the best available RB on the market. (a game generated player named Nichols)

I proceeded to win 3 straight bowls and averaged over 4.3 yards per carry every season.

Maybe I would have won three straight bowls with my other backs, but I know the guy running for 1500+ yards and catching another 500 or so yards in passes had a lot to do with me winning the games I did.

A star back can also make up for holes on the O-line. I've rarely seen maxed out healthy runners get under 1000 no matter what line they run behind.

Good observations though. I certainly build my offense around a strong passing game. I rarely grab a big time back through free agency (the example above was the exception to the rule) I also rarely give a back a huge long term deal. It's easier to change them in and out, as you've pointed out above.

TroyF

[Morgado]

Troy,

One thing i'm thinking is that a stud RB with bad boy stats will likely get more yards per key block play than a 7 year minimum deal girly mon. I think that's why a maxed RB can get disgusting yardage even behind a sad offensive line - essentially, it's Barry Sanders. When he breaks one, the entire defense knows it.

On the other hand, a key run block seems to be a key run block like a rose is a rose by any other name. So long as someone is carrying the ball, you get about 5-7 yards per key run block play. Having a star RB probably kicks that up to 7-12 or something like that.

I think what i'm getting at with my RB by Committee approach is that you can either go for Barry Sanders plus the below average Detroit offensive line of the early 90s (frequently hit for loss, but those few KRB turn into 80 yarders) or you can go for John Riggins behind the Joe Gibbs Hog crew (lots of key run blocks but only modest yardage each time).

Personally, i'm all for the stable, 6 yards a pop Riggins game. The Sanders type game might work and be effective at catching the opposing defense off guard, but I don't think the explosiveness is worth the reliability.

Of course, when you get a Barry Sanders type back behind the Hogs... well, there's potential for Jim Brown numbers there...

[TroyF]

That last point is what I'm talking about sir http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/ubb/smile.gif

Sometimes to get a team over the hump, you'll have to go for the gold and grab the stud RB with the stable of stud blockers. Not always, in fact 9 times out of 10 I play by your theory.

Certain teams need the great back to succeed. In the case of the team I mentioned above, it needed that stud back to get it over the hump. I have no idea what was lacking, as I've had seemingly less talented teams win with worse backs than I had... but that team didn't win til I got the premier guy.

This is the single reason I continue to play this game. All of the ways you can go about building your winner. I just wish it were a little tougher to build it. (Jim, if you're listening, if you get to make that patch for the game, go ahead and tighten the screws on Wall St. even more, we can take it) http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/ubb/smile.gif

TroyF

[Morgado]

Originally posted by TroyF:
Certain teams need the great back to succeed. In the case of the team I mentioned above, it needed that stud back to get it over the hump. I have no idea what was lacking, as I've had seemingly less talented teams win with worse backs than I had... but that team didn't win til I got the premier guy.

Any idea if there's a recurring pattern to which teams need the premier back? So far my teams have gone on a tear with just the big moolah offensive line plus one All-World Quarterback and el cheapo skill positions (TE, FB, one WR). RB by committee gets me about 1400 yards for three backs combined and always ranks my rushing offense in the top 10. I have absolutely no idea how this is happening. http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/ubb/smile.gif

But the real story is the quarterbacking. Wow. In a five year span, we've won three Super Bowls, lost one Super Bowl and lost in the second round once. Over that span, my QB has gotten four 1st team All-Pro, one 2nd team All-Pro, a bunch of OffPoY and MVP awards (Including a quadfecta) and is at the 31000 yard mark with 9 seasons in the books.

Judging by the way the pass distribution goes, the TE and FB positions are more important pass catching positions than initially advertised. The FB especially is a HUGE weapon if you don't play Shotgun. In one playoff game, I saw my FB get like three straight 10+ yard passes to key a TD drive. Usually i'm getting 600 yards out of the TE, about 300-500 out of the FB, 1000 out of the go-to WR and 500-600 out of the rest of the posse (most a "crap corps").

This is the single reason I continue to play this game. All of the ways you can go about building your winner. I just wish it were a little tougher to build it. (Jim, if you're listening, if you get to make that patch for the game, go ahead and tighten the screws on Wall St. even more, we can take it)

The one thing that disappointed me with the new FOF2001 was that you can't really set offensive and defensive philosophies. Although I understand that statistically it's hard to say what a hurry up offense's numbers should look like, it would have been nice. Building a team and giving a squad a distinct personality would have been all the cooler if we could build a Triple Option, Run and Shoot, Buffalo Hurry Up or other novelty offense. I certainly hope elements like a "2 minute mode" where QB progressions and receiver/runner priorities to get Out of Bounds changes are in the TCY game. One of the reasons I never call plays is because I can't think the way the FOF system works.

I agree with the sentiment that the game could be a bit harder. But it would have to be harder in specific ways. Simply making players less willing to lower demands and imposing harsher injuries/penalties/whatever probably wouldn't be very interesting. One thing i'd like is if the game's player skill distributions started matching up to realistic distributions, that would be cool. So like you'd have dedicated pass rushers, run stoppers, possession receivers, blocking fullbacks, etc... I still think the all around dominant bad boy players are too common, and that's what really makes the game easier. After all, there wouldn't be a postcamp FA problem if there wasn't any reason to abuse it (no maxed cap casualties sitting around because no maxed players).

[This message has been edited by Morgado (edited 12-05-2000).]

[QuikSand]

I guess I'd jump in with another though here, thinking slightly "bigger."

Right now, we look at the Morgado Lab Notes (MLN) team and say: "this team was very successful; therefore, the success must spring from the areas where this team focused."

It's not a bad theory, but isn't it possible that there's more to it? For instance, what would happen to this team if, for example, the star QB were removed? Or, if the entire OL were replaced with 4th round pick 50/50/50 guys? What would we see then? An 8-8 team? 12-4? 4-12? I don't know.

My underlying fear here is that the truth of the matter may well be something along these lines:

The inner workings of this game are so flawed-- particularly CPU teams paying ridiculous amounts for unproductive players and backup QBs, and otherwise making poor financial and personnel decisions-- that any reasonable amount of judgment used in building an FOF team will eventually lead to a dominant winner.

If that's the case, then the MLN tean doesn't prove anything about OL, RB, or QB. The "formula" for a winning team might well be completely the opposite of Morgado's-- spend all your money on a stable of stud RBs and WRs, and go cheap at OL and QB.

I realize that quality at QB certainly seems essential to success, and that may be the one exception to the above hypothesis. But if we're going to run a lab here, I think we need to consider all the possible explanations that could lead to our observations.

It is certainly possible that the combination of decent human judgment when drafting, signing contracts, creating game plans, setting depth charts, and so forth is just too potent a combination for the CPU opposition, period. If so, then we'll need some other way to determine whether a given "formula" truly works better than another (rather than just seeing if the team wins).

[ShagVT]

Well Morgado, why don't you put this to the test? Trade your QB for a high draft pick, pickup another hog, and let's see what the boys can do?

[Morgado]

Originally posted by ShagVT:
Well Morgado, why don't you put this to the test? Trade your QB for a high draft pick, pickup another hog, and let's see what the boys can do?

Shag, Quik,

Sounds like a good thing to try and test. I think if you have a bad enough QB at the helm, everything is moot - rookies who have low potential and low actuals will end up throwing too many interceptions. A reasonable test might be to plug in a veteran FA backup quality QB. Maybe ratings in the 30s or 40s.

I probably won't draft another lineman though. One thing that's proving itself out is that there are far too many excellent offensive linemen available to the player. Combine that with the fact that linemen tend to have extremely long careers and don't go totally ridiculous on their salary demands (3-4 million per year is nothing compared to QB, RB and WR money...).

Probably the next step in this is to even do away with the possession WR and see if All-World TE plus All-World FB plus All-World Hog Line can win games with a solid defense. I'd say being able to win with a TE, FB and linemen would qualify as validating Quik's fear.

[Morgado]

I went back to the first year I won the Super Bowl and let my future All-World QB go. This was the offseason before the 2006 year. So far, the results are inconclusive.

I had some key injuries in 2006 and although we started like 6-1, we collapsed late and missed the playoffs at 8-8. In 2007, we went 9-7 and made the playoffs as a wild card... advanced to the league championship and lost in the final minutes on an interception. We came back from like 17 points down in the fourth and just lost it.

The strange part is that in 2007, my QBs were getting hurt left and right and at various points in the season my starter would play about a quarter and get hurt. The backup actually had more attempts at the 10 game mark despite starting none of them! In the end, I had nobody on the leader boards for QBs or RBs (leading rusher was like 650 yards and leading passer was the backup with like 2300 yards).

Still have to sim more years to see how big of an impact having no star QB makes...

[ez]

Originally posted by QuikSand:
The inner workings of this game are so flawed-- particularly CPU teams paying ridiculous amounts for unproductive players and backup QBs, and otherwise making poor financial and personnel decisions-- that any reasonable amount of judgment used in building an FOF team will eventually lead to a dominant winner.

glad to see you coming around, QuikSand... http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/ubb/smile.gif

[Morgado]

Okay, it looks like we can rule out the possibility of dominating without a QB, WR, or RB. It appears a dominant offensive line and a kick butt defense can only get you to the playoffs. I went 8-8, 9-7, 8-8, 10-6 and made the playoffs twice (advanced to championship in 2007 after beating up on injured teams and won wild card in 2009).

Just having a dominant TE and FB is not enough firepower, although I managed a few shutouts each season. http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/ubb/smile.gif One thing i've noticed though, is an extreme abundance of very good 7 year minimum salary players before *and* after training camp. One position with an extreme abundance of good players? Offensive Guard... The WRs are not too shabby either, if you already have a dominant go-to guy. One clutch WR, the Three Stooges, and a 100/100 KR/PR guy is a decent WR corps.

Still, is anyone else bothered by the fact I made the playoffs almost every year with only a TE and FB as my offensive threats?

[QuikSand]

glad to see you coming around, QuikSand...

ez, I don't think this represents a new opinion/fear of mine (the selection you quoted was written in the subjunctive, recall), through I admittedly did harbor some fairly lofty hopes after my first season or three in FOF 2001. Those hopes have since dissipated.

At this point, I am pretty much resigned to the same state I found with FOF2-- the game is so easy to "beat" playing all out that I'll spend my time searching for various ways to make it more interesting and challenging. I am cooking up a new challenge idea as we speak...

[This message has been edited by QuikSand (edited 12-08-2000).]

[QuikSand]

Still, is anyone else bothered by the fact I made the playoffs almost every year with only a TE and FB as my offensive threats?

Yup.