FOF: Anyone else a little sad when a longtime player gets hurt

[Eaglesfan27]

I've been playing this career very slow as I've been poring over data each season. In any case, in McNabb's 15th year, he seriously hurt his MCL. Up to this point he had been an excellent QB who has consistently had about an 80 rating with a VG scout. Well, after the knee injury he is now a 40/40 guy. Not bad, but not close to what he was. I'm actually feeling a little sad about his decline. So much so, that I'm going to continue to start him despite the decline. I'm going to make sure that I get the best line I can around him and the best running back I can get (unfortunately, not many good ones available in free agency) and try to win him his 1st SB before he has to retire. Unfortunately, it is looking like he might not get one as the free agent market is lean this year. The only good thing about his injury is that instead of wanting to resign for 15-20 million per year as he did midway through the year (I decided not to sign him and was going to franchise him before I saw his decline from the injury) I just resigned him for 2 years at 3.5 million per year (very economical in the current year with a 135 million dollar cap) Anyway, I'm hoping he might bounce back and have a surprising good year..

[GoSeahawks]

I feel ya. I drafted QB Bill Sutter in 2010 with the 32nd overall pick. Originally I just wanted a good backup in case my starter got injured. During the first season Sutter got a couple chances and performed pretty well despite mediocre ratings.

His sophomore season was spent starting 10 games because of the starters injuries. This was exactly what Sutter needed to develop. By the next season his ratings rocketed into the low 80's and was one of the top 3 QB’s in the league. This jump in ratings caused me to trade away the original starter for a couple first round picks. (This turned out to be a phenomenal trade as I suddenly had 3 first round picks that eventually turned out to be solid players.)

Fast Forward…

In his 12th season after starting 9 straight seasons without an injury, Sutter finally went down. He missed 4 games in 2021, 2 in 2022 and then 14 in 2023. From there he only played two more seasons where he missed a combined 9 games. His injuries diminished his skills a bit, but I felt a strong sense of loyalty and wouldn't go out and get another QB. In 2025 he injured his knee again which was going to require a second knee surgery. Sutter decided to call it quits.

In all he played 16 seasons in which he won the MVP award once, offensive player of the year once, super bowl mvp twice and went to the pro bowl 6 times.

He retired as the highest rated QB in history with 95.9. He threw for 47,448 yards, 317 touchdowns and just 104 interceptions. Oh, and he was also named Legend of the Game.

Since he left my team has struggled at the QB position. I drafted a couple 1st rounders since Sutter’s retirement, but they both turned out to be flops. I really miss him:(

[astralhaze]

Sort of off-topic, but I have a very loose theory and I wanted to see if anyone else felt the same way.

It seems that I have players who start out their careers very healthy, play 16 games every single season, for 6-7 years. Then they suffer a serious injury (by that I mean out for a year or so). When they come back, whether they lose ratings or not, it seems that their hidden injury tendencies becomes "prone" and they can't make it through a season anymore without getting hurt until they eventually get the killer injury.

Am I alone in seeing this?

[Greyroofoo]

I once had one of my star players get injured on a False Start Penalty!

[amdaily]

Am I alone in seeing this?
No your not. It seems a player is either super-prone, or zero-prone. It's nearly at the point when I just cut a player whenever he suffers an injury longer than 10 games because I know he'll never be capeable of playing a full season again. This is perhaps the biggest issue that needs resolved in a patch. We need to see more players missing a handful of games, and more that can recover from a year long injury and continue with a normal career.

[hukarez]

I had a Center who played in the league for 15 seasons, 14 of them being glorious. He never did got a chance to win the a ring, despite having been named to the 1st squad 5 times over his tenure (1 time to the 2nd squad).

Randall Carl pretty much set the career record for key run blocks, and started practically every game of his career - except his rookie year, when he didn't start 4 of those games. But from that point on, he started every game, and never allowed sacks in the double digits. I think his highest amount he's ever allowed was 9 in a season, but roughly 3-5 each season. He was also a mentor, which was kind of nice.

I had resigned him to a lucrative 3 year deal after his 14th season, and tragedy pretty much struck during the 4th game of the year, when his knee blew out. He ended up going to the Injured Reserve, and my disgruntled backup Center started the rest of the games. My fear was that he'd end up retiring after such, but surprisingly came back for his 15 season. I thought he'd hold up again like he used to, but with 5 games left to go, he ended up having to go on the IR again.

Afterwards, he ended up retiring. Legend of the Game player, with a total of 542 career key run blocks, and a sack percentage of .8, and 218 out of 222 games started throughout his career. Boy, I miss this guy.

[WussGawd]

I once had one of my star players get injured on a False Start Penalty!

Wish I could remember the name of the guy, but there was actually a hall of fame lineman back in the 30's who suffered a career-ending injury walking back to the sidelines from the opening coin flip. Ouch. :D

[Greyroofoo]

I think I remember hearing about that, the guy had never missed a game prior

i think his cleat dug into the grass and didn't turn when his knee did

[timmae]

I've seen some players return from horrible injuries to almost the same ratings as before the injury and I've seen players go to the dumpster. Probably a fair amount of both which would mimic the NFL...

[Easy Mac]

It happens so often I try to block it out.

That being said, I had 21 guys who would be out for the remainder of the season (they wouldn't be back to full strength) by the end of week 14 in the last season I played..

[Honolulu_Blue]

It happens so often I try to block it out.

That being said, I had 21 guys who would be out for the remainder of the season (they wouldn't be back to full strength) by the end of week 14 in the last season I played..

Sounds like the Lions this year.

[Peregrine]

In my current dynasty QB William Priester was a dominant player in the early days of the league. He consistently led teams to championships through strong play. After 12 or 13 years, he suffered a severe injury, and after that was injury prone. What was interesting was the fact that he continued to play through several season-ending injuries without retiring, struggling to play only 3 games in his final season, but it got him over his goal, 50,000 career passing yards. After he reached that mark he retired and is now in the Hall of Fame.

[Ben E Lou]

No your not. It seems a player is either super-prone, or zero-prone. It's nearly at the point when I just cut a player whenever he suffers an injury longer than 10 games because I know he'll never be capeable of playing a full season again. This is perhaps the biggest issue that needs resolved in a patch. We need to see more players missing a handful of games, and more that can recover from a year long injury and continue with a normal career.I've exchanged correspondence with Jim on this issue, and after he gave his thoughts on the matter, I've run some tests, and I've got some news that most of you probably don't want to hear about this matter.

The "zero-prone" factor is in all likelihood because few/none of you play on the realistic injury setting. I've checked with Jim, and done some comparisons on my own, and it turns out that 200 is the most realistic injury setting available to us. Most people don't want to set it that high, as it isn't fun--but in comparing injuries to the real NFL, 200 works--and it brings all of the stats right into line as well.

A few observations, over a 20-year career using 200 as the injury setting...

Upon first serious injury, players appear to become more injury-prone.
It is very possible to come back from a serious injury and have a normal career. QB Randall Barker, for example, played in only one game each in years 12 and 13 of his career, but then started all 16 games in year 14. Justin Winslow played 11 games over three seasons, but then came back to play in 30 over the last 2 years. I can name dozens of examples of this in my current career.
In FOF (and in the NFL), it is rare, but possible, for a RB to come back from a serious injury.
Bumping up training room time in training camp and putting high priority on injury avoidance can make a significant difference.
Nearly all of the noted stats "anomalies" seem to fall right into line when using 200.

[amdaily]

This whole "your low injury settings is the root of all your statistical errors and other anomalies because the FOF engine is immaculate and cannot be possible wrong" has serious problems.

The first being that FOF2K1 had no option to change injury settings. Whatever it was set at was apparently very low, because, as I pointed out on the QB 4,000 yard and rating thread, all but a handful of QB's played every game, every year, and it was rare to see a 100+ rating or 6 guys throwing for 4,000+ yards in the same season. I can imagine that if I compared other positions as well, similar statistical differences would emerge (or maybe not, as like some other suspect, the increased value of the QB – ie. A stud taking a horrible team to a championship and a team of stars failing miserably with "just" **Tom Brady, Jake Delhomme** an adequate QB – could be the root of that problem). But that’s another discussion. A low injury setting cannot lead to greater stats if players are still participating in less games than previous FOF versions

In regards to injuries, tell me how an ACL tear in year 1 will lead to the same players missing 9 games the next season with a severe hamstring pull. Tell me how a rotator cuff injury in year 1 will lead to a player missing half a season with a compound leg fracture the next. Or how about someone that simply strains his triceps missing multiple games the next season with a sprained knee. If I went on to sim another year and another after that, all of these players, who prior to their initial injury had never missed more than 2 games in a season, will likely miss 10 games with a ruptured adductor muscle, 8 games with a high ankle sprain, or who knows what else.

In the end, the zero-prone or super-prone status of players makes this a much less enjoyable and realistic version of football. We need to see a wider range of players being injuried, not just the same old guys you can count on getting injured every season.

[Easy Mac]

I'd say certain players are injury prone, and that takes a lot of the fun out of the game. Here are the current injuries to my team as I enter Week 1 of the season (200 injury setting).
http://fc.furman.edu/%7Echristopher.mason/hurt.jpg

it is like this every year

[Gallifrey]

Wow Easy Mac, that is ugly.

Odd, but I leave my injury settings at the default in my single player career (Browns also), and haven't seen the massive stats nor the odd injury problems mentioned in this thread.

Maybe I've been lucky!

[HornedFrog Purple]

I have quit careers over it. :D

It pains me to see a legend I drafted come up lame and fizzle out due to injury. It's like a thoroughbred that comes up with a bad leg and you know he is going out to pasture. It's just a matter of time. It always starts with a minor injury and then BAM!

[amdaily]

I wouldn't say the problem is the amount of injuries, that is easily adjustable, or their length, but rather who is being injured. Out of your list there, I’ll put money on the inevitable fact that Tony Carlisle will come down with a case of Plantar Fascitis next season and play in only 1 game. The next season he’ll get a Broken Clavicle and miss 12 games. Lastly, he’ll tear his thumb ligament and call it quits after missing an entire season.

There is a huge difference between injury prone and super-prone and unfortunately we have the deal with the latter. And it feels even worse when you see a 16 year QB or a 12 year RB who never missed a single snap during the entire course of his career not even for a broken finger or a sprained ankle.

[Ben E Lou]

A low injury setting cannot lead to greater stats if players are still participating in less games than previous FOF versionsOf course it can. People have complained about too many 4,000-yard passers, for example. Give players more injuries, and guess what? Not as many good QB's are gonna be throwing to good receivers. I just finished a season with 17 16-game QB's, and ZERO 4,000-yard passers. It has ranged from 0 to around 5 throughout this 22-year career. There have been exactly 60 4,000 yard season in my league's 22 years. When I was using 125 for injuries, I was getting around 3-8 per season.

Believe me, this isn't coming from any blind allegiance to FOF2K4, as you implied. I discovered this because I wrote Jim looking for an injury tweak in the next patch, but when he explained how some things worked and I tested myself, I became convinced of this: It sounds like (unfortunately for most), that the most realistic stats in FOF2K4 are generated when using 200 as the injury setting. The stats aren't perfect, but they are much more realistic.

[Ben E Lou]

Easy, how much time are you devoting to the training room at camp, and how good is your coach? I entered last season with two guys Probable, one guy Doubtful, and two guys Out. That's been about my average. I'm at the end of a regular season right now with 5 guys Out, 1 Doubtful, 1 Questionable, 3 Probable.

[amdaily]

Of course it can. People have complained about too many 4,000-yard passers, for example. Give players more injuries, and guess what? Not as many good QB's are gonna be throwing to good receivers.
Not with the example I used. FOF2K1 had 25 QB's play every snap with very few 4,000+ yard passes. Even with an injury setting as low as 125-135 in FOF2K4 fewer than 25 QB's start every game, yet we somehow have more 4,000 yard seasons. This is not possible without some other underlying cause. As I alluded to earlier, I suspect the absurd dependence on a teams QB for success or a fundamental change in stat generation. The stat problems are not in any way injury related.

[Ben E Lou]

Not with the example I used. FOF2K1 had 25 QB's play every snap with very few 4,000+ yard passes. Even with an injury setting as low as 125-135 in FOF2K4 fewer than 25 QB's start every game, yet we somehow have more 4,000 yard seasons. This is not possible without some other underlying cause. As I alluded to earlier, I suspect the absurd dependence on a teams QB for success or a fundamental change in stat generation. The stat problems are not in any way injury related.I'm fairly certain that they are at least somewhat related. In my 30+ year career (with injuries at 125 most of the time), I was getting 4-8 4,000-yard passers every year, and all of a sudden I go up to 200 and the numbers drop to 2.73 per year. Plus, FOF2K1 clearly had far fewer injuries than "realistic." (It was probably more "fun" for more people that way, but that's another discussion entirely. FOF4 approached realistic and people went nuts that there were too many.)

I'll have to load up my 125-injury career (from another universe folder) later today to give more exact numbers on 4,000-yard passers, but I need to get some work done in the yard right now. Be back later with some numbers.

[Ben E Lou]

or a fundamental change in stat generation.Oh...there almost HAS to have been a fundamental change in stat generation (at least for FOF4 if not for this version as well). I guess the question is "is the change for the better or for the worse?" That is debatable. If, as I strongly suspect, the most accurate stats in this game are achieved with injuries at 200, and other settings skew the stats a bit, then it is naturally going to bother the many who don't like injuries that high.

[amdaily]

Getting off that topic for a moment, I ran some tests on injuries vs. training time.

I ran 3 tests on the same game file (reloading the same file each time). One was with 0 time devoted to training, one with the recommended 2 hours, and another with 11:29 devoted to training. The coach was rated Very Good in injuries.

Results: (O=Out, D=Doubtful, Q=Questionable, P=Probable)

Week 1 - 3O, 1D, 1Q, 4P
Week 8 - 5O, 1D, 5P
Week 16 - 5O, 3P

Week 1 - 1O, 2Q, 4P
Week 8 - 5O, 1Q, 3P
Week 16 - 3O, 3Q, 5P

Week 1 - 4O, 1Q, 3P
Week 8 - 2O, 1D, 1Q, 5P
Week 16 - 5O, 2D, 3Q, 5P

Granted, this needs to be run more times (any volunteers :)?) these were quite surprising. Just what effect does training have on injuries?

[Kodos]

I can relate. I was devastated when Chuck Farley went down with a torn ACL.

[Ben E Lou]

Getting off that topic for a moment, I ran some tests on injuries vs. training time.

I ran 3 tests on the same game file (reloading the same file each time). One was with 0 time devoted to training, one with the recommended 2 hours, and another with 11:29 devoted to training. The coach was rated Very Good in injuries.

Results: (O=Out, D=Doubtful, Q=Questionable, P=Probable)

Week 1 - 3O, 1D, 1Q, 4P
Week 8 - 5O, 1D, 5P
Week 16 - 5O, 3P

Week 1 - 1O, 2Q, 4P
Week 8 - 5O, 1Q, 3P
Week 16 - 3O, 3Q, 5P

Week 1 - 4O, 1Q, 3P
Week 8 - 2O, 1D, 1Q, 5P
Week 16 - 5O, 2D, 3Q, 5P

Granted, this needs to be run more times (any volunteers :)?) these were quite surprising. Just what effect does training have on injuries?Yeah, it needs to be run more times, but that is an interesting set of prelim results. (I assume that your first set is 0, second 2 hours, third 11:29.) I'd be curious to see 10 runs each at 0, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours and 4 hours. If this works like TCY, there will come a point of diminishing returns, and I don't think it is realistic to think that anyone would set it much over 4 hours.

Another question: have we determined yet if coordinators' injury ratings have any impact, or is it just head coach?

Back from yard work, but while outside I thought of several other things I need to get done today, so I probably won't have time to run any tests, or post further stats...

[Franklinnoble]

Bah. Let them ride the pine at a reduced salary if you're really that attached. Otherwise, do what's best for the team. ;)

[Eaglesfan27]

This thread and the playoff games lead me to an interesting question (least I think so): Is it better to have a cheap average or below average QB rather then a superstar. I ask because as I mentioned I signed McNabb and have been starting him at a very reasonable rate and I thereby had a LOT of extra cap room. I was able to sign a lot of quality guys along the offensive line and in the linebacking corp that I didn't have before. So far, my team is doing really well having won it's first 4 games this season. If McNabb holds up and lasts the season (a big IF) I think he and his 40/40 ratings might be good enough to finally get it done this year, thanks to the talent around him (the O-line has made the running backs I habe quite a bit more effective). So, is it better in FOF2004 to have a cheap "average" or slightly below average and invest the cap money that is saved in other positions?

[astralhaze]

This thread and the playoff games lead me to an interesting question (least I think so): Is it better to have a cheap average or below average QB rather then a superstar. I ask because as I mentioned I signed McNabb and have been starting him at a very reasonable rate and I thereby had a LOT of extra cap room. I was able to sign a lot of quality guys along the offensive line and in the linebacking corp that I didn't have before. So far, my team is doing really well having won it's first 4 games this season. If McNabb holds up and lasts the season (a big IF) I think he and his 40/40 ratings might be good enough to finally get it done this year, thanks to the talent around him (the O-line has made the running backs I habe quite a bit more effective). So, is it better in FOF2004 to have a cheap "average" or slightly below average and invest the cap money that is saved in other positions?
I think both strategies work. I had a team that was just absolutely awful until I got the proverbial stud quarterback. Without adding too much additional talent, I won three straight Super Bowls. OTOH, I have also won super bowls with cheap quarterbacks. The important thing with the cheap quarterbacks is that they do not throw interceptions in bunches. If you have that and a great team surrounding him, you can win. Just as IRL.

[amdaily]

I've had somewhat of an opposite experience. I'll pay the money for a top flight QB because despite however talented the rest of my team is, I can't seem to win without that stud QB. I save cap room by taking a running back by committee approach with 2-3 former 1st round picks that are now asking for minimum salary.

[Eaglesfan27]

Just a little update... in the Divisional Playoff game, McNabb seperated his shoulder and is out for the NFC championship game :( Fortunately, we have a still decent Carson Palmer as his backup (he also signed cheap coming off of a knee injury which severely reduced his ratings.) Palmer rallied us for 2 TD's to win the divsional playoff game, hopefully he can help McNabb get to the SB (I'm hoping for a miracously fast cure for McNabb so he can start the SB.)

[Eaglesfan27]

Well, another update... McNabb didn't make it to one final Superbowl :( A Tom Brady led Atlanta Team beat us 23-16 as Palmer threw two key interceptions which were both returned for touchdowns. Furthermore despite a 12-4 year, my owner wants to fire me!!! It seems he hasn't liked losing 50 million dollars a year the last two years :( Now, I have to decide if I accept this firing and try to build up whatever franchise is willing to accept me as their GM...