FOF2k4 Running Backs : Plug and Play?

[Deattribution]

I've got into a few careers but this has been something that has really bothered me about the game. It seems like no matter what, soon as you get a few decent OL players you can put in any running back and get productive stats. For example :

For the past 8 years I've had an outstanding running back, He's still mostly in his prime but he has declined slightly stat wise. He was at one point rated 93/93, now he's at about 83/83. He's had 4 2000 yard seasons during that span, and also won MVP 4 times. This to me is fine, he's been durable only missing a couple games and I've given him enough carries to get to the amount of yards.

One thing about during this span is I've had several games where my backup, who has always been rated about 45/45 (34/34 now after acl injury followed by an ankle injury) has had several games where my starting running back would run for 100-200 yards, and he would also run for 100-150 yards. I thought this was a little unusual considering my starter would get about 20-30 carries and my backup would only end up with 10-15 tops. Ending up with a starter having near or over 2000 yards, and a backup with 700-900. That sounds quite high to me, not even factoring in 3rd string backup which is another 200 yards roughly.

But it wasn't really till this last season that I've really been concerned about the running backs in this game.

I went through the pre-season and my starting running back pulled a calf muscle, he was projected to be out roughly 3 weeks. I figured my running game would suffer considering my former backup was never really that good, and after injury has declined.

To my surprise though, another backup, two year vet stepped in his place going for 184 yards on 28 carries the first game. Okay... maybe just a lucky game, I thought those were more like numbers unique to my starter. The second game, 173 yards/33 carries. Third game, my starter comes in and plays questionable, managing 106 yards on 18 carries playing with a pulled calf. Also re-injuring himself for about 2 weeks. 4th game, 104 yards 20 carries for the backup. The whole season pretty much ends up with him (my starting back) injurying/reinjurying himself, playing about 13 games and ending up with 1386 yards and 288 carries. His replacement, the 35/35 backup rushes for 969 yards on 3 starts and 211 carries.

My gripe about this, is not just this career, but even in others, It seems like you can take any back and get serious numbers with them. I know it's a pretty run heavy offense, but the running game shouldn't always be productive as long as you continue to run the ball. None of my guys, backups included are averaging under 3.8 ypr.

My starting line is only 31/37 - 76/77 - 49/54 - 61/61 and 17/27. So I honestly wouldn't consider that the X factor in all this, it just seems like there isn't much differential between a great running back, and a poor or average back. My starter put up outstanding numbers during his career, but it seems I could have taken 2 average backs and got just as many if not more yardage.

Maybe I'm the only one with this problem?

[Fido]

How good is your scout with RBs? It could be that these good players aren't as good as you think and the bad ones aren't as bad.

[Deattribution]

My scout is rated Very Good w/ RBs.

[Cringer]

I don't think it is TOO far off, exceot the fact that you run the ball a ton, which is your choice. Look at a team like the Packers this year,

Ahman Green 355 car. 1883 yds. 5.3 avg.

Najeh Davenport 77 car. 420 yds. 5.5 avg.

Tony Fisher 40 car. 200 yds. 5.0 avg.

Not much difference going on here, but do you think Fisher would be rated as high as Green by scouts?


I'm not saying you are completely wrong though. But also take into account other stuff. Do you tend to build a line and keep it together? Even keeping most your offense together? This, in my opinion, increases your offensive "output" a noticeable amount.

[3ric]

Consider the Denver Broncos for another real life example. They've have had the same philosophy concerning their running game for years. With a stud offensive line that uses Gibbs' cut-block technique and young backs that excels at cut-back runs they seem to be able to put just about anyone (Davis-Anderson-Gary-Portis-Griffiths) at halfback and run for 100.

[Eaglesfan27]

I used to think this was a problem as well, until I decided to cut back on my running back expenses this year. I've had a lot of great running backs have great seasons like the poster, but this year I went to a bargain back who had 700 yards last year as the 2nd string RB. However, this year he had only 900 yards as the PRIMARY back, and his avg went down from 5.3 ypg to 3.3 ypg. Perhaps, the phenomenon we are seeing is that the great primary back is wearing down the defense allowing the 2nd string running back who is not as highly skilled make big gains agains a tired defense. Or perhaps, I just got unlucky with a running back who couldn't handle the spotlight of being a primary back.

[Peregrine]

I honestly think this is a reflection of the real NFL. If you have a quality OL and a good system, I think that a large number of backs can perform very well. Denver is the best example, though in their case, great RB scouting is obviously helping them out as well just to keep getting the guys on the roster.

[Fonzie]

I suspect this phenomenon may be tied to specific skills. In my experience a running back with good "hole recognition" skills, and little else, can serve as a very productive back. I had a 40/40 rated RB with high hole recognition who ran for over 1000 yards for over 5 seasons. He also had a reasonably good (though not great), stable O-line, which probably maximized the use of that one good skill.

[Fonzie]

Dola-

So, what I was trying to get at is this: Deattribution, did the RBs in question have a particularly good skill, such as hole recognition, that you think may have allowed them to succeed more than you'd expect?

[Deattribution]

Denver really seems to be the exception though, and it isn't just this career. I usually do keep my prime core players (in this case 3 OLs) together for long as it's affordable.

It seems always within a couple years my line is always pretty cohesive, it's just a matter of resigning the players even if they have conflicts. Then i'm able to take even lousey backs and get 1200-1500 yards, not resign that guy because after about 2 years he wants 4-8 mil range in pay, find another washed up back for 1-2 mil, sign him... Let him last two years or so and do it over again.

I really don't think this reflects the NFL at all, especially when i'm taking recycled backs and getting prime numbers. Another example : in one of my careers, LaDanian Tomlinson, I signed him after he blew out his knee 5 years into my career and not a single team would touch him. I don't have his exact skill level at the time.

He retired after 3 years when he wasn't even talented enough to make the roster after 9 years total for his career, 3 with my team. Ended up rushing for 1233 (4.4ypr) the first year, 1295 (3.8ypr) the second year. Then the third year he was replaced by a washed up Larry Johnson.

Johnson ran for 1523, 1397, and 1136. Both averaged about 300 carries per season and both of these guys I could have tried to trade and NO teams would show the slightest interest at all, they both had suffered major injuries and in Johnson's case, he was only a starter for one year before signing with me the year he got injured. Neither of them were anywhere near top or even mid level backs at that time, even with the line they shouldn't be putting up these kind of numbers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

FWIW, my experience in 35+ seasons is that high elusiveness or high hole recognition is enough to create good stats for a starting RB. Other stuff separates the great RB's from the good ones, but either of those skills should produce something around 1000 yds for a primary back.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

[Deattribution]

Originally posted by Fonzie
Dola-

So, what I was trying to get at is this: Deattribution, did the RBs in question have a particularly good skill, such as hole recognition, that you think may have allowed them to succeed more than you'd expect?

In my first case yes, both backups had reasonably high Elusiveness, which is part of the issue but it still doesn't make much sense. The one backup who did do reasonably well in replacing my starter for the 3 games had 100 elusiveness, but only 18 breakaway speed, 22 power Inside, 27 endurance, 31 speed to the outside, the best secondary skill he had was 55 third down running. So I really don't feel ONLY 100 elusive should make him a great back, what's the point of even having the other skills?

[Deattribution]

I guess the biggest issue I have with this is it seems like any other position you'll have highly/well rated players, people who look like superstars on paper and they don't produce. That to me is realistic, plenty of players with huge talent just can't do it.


But with running backs, every guy can produce. Sure the higher rated guys may do a little better, but I've yet to have a highly rated running back just not be able to pull his weight.


I've had several QBs, DEs, CBs ect, that are rated great but they just don't put up the kind of numbers you'd expect from them. That doesn't happen with RBs, you're more likely to see a guy who doesn't look like nothing put up huge numbers.

[Ragone]

I don't see the problem really.. you think Priest holmes would be any good behind detroit's o line? for instance?

A Offensive line makes.. or breaks a Running back, in most every case.. Imagine what Barry sanders would be able to do with Kc's O line :)

[Anthony]

in all my career's there's only been one staple - a dominant offensive line. i always build the line. they lead to both a great passing and running attack, so since their purpose is two-fold i place a greater emphasis on them.

you just may have a good mix of a great OC, a dominant OL, and a great head coach.

also, how different is this than Dick Vermiel's offenses, where you can plug anyone from Trent Green, Kurt Warner and Marc Bulger and succeed? or Bill Belichick's defense's where you can lose a name guy like Lawyer Milloy and still have a dominant d....

[Deattribution]

I seem to be the only one with issues with this but that's okay.

Just for fun though, on my last season I made a seperate save and released my starting running back who was 81/81, and only has had one season below 1500 yards. Chad Morton ended up becoming my starter, rated 29/29 now. He had 13 starts, 311 carries, 1303 yards.


My starter last year ? Also 13 starts 288 carries, 1386 yards.

Despite the huge talent differential, it made little difference on the field. My team even finished with a similiar record.

I guess my offensive line makes all the difference... even if the running back is crap and the other is supposed to be great.

[Ragone]

I mean.. i see what your trying to say dea.. you'd think a better rb would gain more yards after breaking the Line of Scrimmage..

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Ragone you'd think a better rb would gain more yards after breaking the Line of Scrimmage..

Not if his elusiveness is less than that of the "lesser" RB.

[Anthony]

why dont you do the same test, this time using the same RB but with one dominant OL and one shitty one. there should be some difference.

[Ragone]

True Jon.. i'm currently running the arizona cardinals and well.. Marcel Shipp sucks :)

But he's fairly elusive so he's actually not done so bad thus far

[Deattribution]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Not if his elusiveness is less than that of the "lesser" RB.

Actually my starter has 92 elusiveness, along with 84 breakaway, and not a single other skill below 75. Most are in the mid 80's.

Chad Morton, my backup only has 72/80 elusiveness, 50 breakaway, 40 hole recognition. Everything else is 30 or below.


HA, I did half of that test just now. Cutting my starter RB, and my entire starting line. Computer signed another RB, rated 37/37, 8 elusiveness, 32 hole recognition, 21 breakaway speed. He ended up being my starter for some reason over Chad Morton who was the starter in the previous test, he's really worse rated but the comp has controlled the roster for me.

Anyway, he started all 16 games, with my entire line having been cut, ran the ball 454 times for 1746.

Done another just now with my starter rushing for me, and my starting line cut, 445 times for 1995 yards.

Not a whole lot of difference in a 37/37 rated guy's yardage and my 81/81. Not enough to justify the huge difference in pay. One guy making 1 million while the other guy is making 16 million.

Done one last run, cutting ALL my running backs, and ALL my line, dropping my cohesion down to 75 even though I cut the entire line? Don't necessarily get that, but that's it.

Anyway, same backup from the first run got signed, Sammy Gust, He rushed 449 for 1723. That's with not a single linemen being a former starter for me.

I know this isn't the end all be all of test, only working from one career, it just seems like long as you give them the carries, they're gonna get the numbers.

[Leonidas]

I'll take this all a step further and propose the game really stresses OL cohesion. I just finished a season with a 60/60 RB and I swapped a couple new linemen in to start the year. My whole line were all in the 50-60 range of ratings, but we started the year with OL cohesion at 65. And our running just sucked. The RB finished the year with about 700 yards rushing, the team only had 1300 total. But thankfully we had Eli Manning at QB and he smoked us into a wildcard berth.

First playoff game more of the same. No running, good D, and Eli is game MVP. Then the OL cohesion jumps to 75 (first time all year my whole line is healthy). We go from a Coryell offense to the 72 Dolphins. My RB rips off 3 straight 100+ yard games, including 140 in the SB for the win. He hadn't had a single 100 yard game the whole year, until the OL got it's stuff together and cohesion jacked up. Keeping your line together and healthy is paramount to a good running game in this game. Cohesion is way more important in this game than any other version.

[yabanci]

The problem I see is the number of rushes. Nobody has ever ran the ball 450 times in the NFL, not even close. So of course the 1700 total yards is going to look impressive, until you see it was gained on 3.8 ypc, which is crap.

[Deattribution]

Originally posted by yabanci
The problem I see is the number of rushes. Nobody has ever ran the ball 450 times in the NFL, not even close. So of course the 1700 total yards is going to look impressive, until you see it was gained on 3.8 ypc, which is crap.

Huh? You might wanna look into that.

Jamal Lewis just this year ran 387 times. Ricky Williams ran 392 times. Neither is 450 times but it's not that unrealistic.

When Terrel Davis broke 2000 yards, he had ran like 432 carries.

There's been some others around that mark also.

The whole point of the offense is to make up for my lack of franchise QB, and while SuperBowl wise it's not been the best, I haven't missed the playoffs once.

[yabanci]

no, the record is Jamal Anderson in 1998 when he ran 410 times. Running the ball 450 times is not realistic at all by historical standards.


Top single seasons since 1960

J Anderson 1998 410
J Wilder 1984 407
E Dickerson 1986 404
E George 2000 403
G Riggs 1985 397
R Williams 2003 392
T Davis 1998 392
E Dickerson 1983 390
B Foster 1992 390
E Dickerson 1988 388
E James 2000 387
J Lewis 2003 387
R Williams 2002 383
W Payton 1984 381
M Allen 1985 380
E Dickerson 1984 379
G Rogers 1981 378
E Smith 1995 377
J Bettis 1997 375
J Riggins 1983 375
E Smith 1992 373
E Campbell 1980 373
L Tomlinson 2002 372
C Okoye 1989 370
C Martin 1998 369
W Payton 1979 369
T Davis 1997 369
E James 1999 369
E Smith 1994 368
C Martin 1995 368
E Campbell 1979 368
C Martin 1999 367
J Wilder 1985 365
E Smith 1991 365
H Walker 1988 361
E Campbell 1981 361
E George 1997 357
S Davis 2001 356
T Thomas 1993 355
J Bettis 2000 355
A Green 2003 355
G Riggs 1984 353
R Watters 1996 353
D McAllister 2003 351
E George 1998 348
T Allen 1996 347
T Davis 1996 345
F Taylor 2003 345
D Hilliard 1989 344

[pskov]

Pro Football Reference syays something different: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/misc/rsh.htm

And when Davis broke 2000 he had 392 carries.

[pskov]

dola

Beat me too it ;)

[Pacersfan46]

I see both sides of this. I understand the carries are a bit exagerrated, but at the same time I've seen a RB who was rated in the 20/20 range score the NFL rushing title.

While I thought it was rather crazy, it was unpredictable. I think a level of unpredicability is good. I don't like to know that 70 rating = 1700 yards, or 50 rating = 1200 yards, and be right all the time.

[Deattribution]

Originally posted by yabanci
no, the record is Jamal Anderson in 1998 when he ran 410 times. Running the ball 450 times is not realistic at all by historical standards.


You're talking roughly 60 carries more then what is the norm for any 1700+ back. That's a little less then 4 extra per game.

Hardly beyond realistic numbers.I still don't believe any amount of carries even 450 should instantly mean a 1700 yard back, no matter who he is.

[yabanci]

Originally posted by Deattribution
I still don't believe any amount of carries even 450 should instantly mean a 1700 yard back, no matter who he is.

It's all about yards per carry. If you had a back who ran for 950 yards on 250 carries, you wouldn't think anything of it (except maybe that you need an upgrade at running back). The problem IMO is (1) why your running back is not being properly fatigued over the course of the season and/or (2) why the defensive AI isn't doing a better job of shutting down the run happy offense. The real reason NFL running backs can't run 450 times per year is endurance. But I don't think there's anything unsual about a mediocre back running for 3.8 ypc.

[JMoore1]

I think that's about online like they said above you either got good coaching, or your line has cohesion, or you run the ball too much...

[hukarez]

Well, figure this thread would best relate to my situation with RBs in FOF2K4...but I just wrapped up a season, and was looking at the individual statistical scores, and came upon:

Sammie Robbins of Denver rushed for:

346 attempts for 1541 yards, averaging 4.4 yards and 7 rushing TDs, having played and started all 16 games.

Leonard Pilgram of Detroit had:

215 attempts for 815 yards, averaging 3.7 yards and 6 rushing TDs, having also played and started all 16 games.

When I checked out the top leading receivers in my season, it turns out that:

Sammie Robbins had 140 passes targeted to him, with 102 catches for 726 yards and 4 receiving TDs!

Leonard Pilgram had 111 passes targeted to him, with 92 catches for 845 yards and 8 receiving TDs!

The highest total for a WR in my season was 87 catches.

I'm beginning to wonder if my league's filled with virtual LaDainian Tomlinsons...

:eek: