FoF - RB / backup RB nearly equal time?

[Stevebsfan]

I was wondering if I could get some help with this issue.

I have one of the better backs in the league on my team (68/86) and every time I watch one of my games play out, the backup running back gets nearly 40% of the carries some games. For example, this week I had my main back obviously #1 on my depth chart for regular, and both passing downs (my FB was #1 was third and short). Playing time was set at 8 for the RB, and my backs endurance is 78/98, so fatigue shouldn't be an issue.

However, shortly after the game started, my first backup RB went down, and my 3rd back was acting as the backup and got 11 carries compared to 14 for my main back. I don't understand it. My only thought is the game made 'in game' adjustments because on the 2nd drive of the game (1st drive after backup RB got injured), he ran 11 yards, then a few plays later a 25 yard gain.

Next drive, he got a 1st and 10 carry (2 yards). 6 total plays in the drive, my main back had 0 touches.

Next drive, he got the 1st two carries for a total of 0 yards. My main back finally makes an appearance for a screen pass. My QB then went pass wacky and no more rushes that drive.

Next drive, three pass attempts to my RB, and the one rush again goes to my backup.

(this is currently three straight drives where my main RB didn't get a carry.)

Next drive, first two plays were runs by my backup again for a total of 6 yards. QB picked up the first, then *finally* my main RB got his 2nd rush of the half.

End of half -
Main RB - 2 rushes
3rd back - 9 rushes (1 was called back as a penalty)

Now, obviously the 3rd back was used as a backup in the 2nd half and picked up only 3 carries, but I just don't understand the first half play calling. Can someone explain why my backup got so many carries? Was it because my main RB went out for passes more than usual? Does that make RB's more tired than usual? My QB was still throwing the ball to my RB in the 2nd half, although it did seem like he was using the WRs more than in the 1st half.

Thanks for any help!

[jbmagic]

was this preseason?

[Stevebsfan]

Nope, regular season

[Fonzie]

Was the game a blowout? Backups are supposed to be brought in under those circumstances.

I've also had some problems with this in my MP league (The CFL) - the only solution has been to crank my starting RB's PT up to 9. That seems to do the trick.

[Cringer]

Steve, it is actually something we talked about a little in week one over there. roadrash and the problem last week and wondered what would have caused it. I then mentioned that I have had several games in which Dixon, despite having a good game, would not get the majority of carries or barely get the majority of them.

One thing I noticed was that there are games when McKelvey (backup RB) would get the first carry on several drives in a game, and then maybe the first 2 or 3 of a drive. Dixon (my starter) should not be tired, he has not been on the field. I never drop my RB play time below 5, but usually have it at 6 or 7. His endurance is fine.

Make this short, I haven't figured it out really. I don't see how it is something in my gameplan, because I can use the same one the next week and Dixon will get 90% of the carries.

[Cringer]

Was the game a blowout? Backups are supposed to be brought in under those circumstances.

I've also had some problems with this in my MP league (The CFL) - the only solution has been to crank my starting RB's PT up to 9. That seems to do the trick.

His game went to overtime.

[Stevebsfan]

Was the game a blowout? Backups are supposed to be brought in under those circumstances.

I've also had some problems with this in my MP league (The CFL) - the only solution has been to crank my starting RB's PT up to 9. That seems to do the trick.

No, very close all game long. Thanks for the tip, I may try that next game. My RB has the endurance to handle a 9

[stevew]

The back isn't returning Kickoffs or punts is he? Cause that shit makes the guy way too fatigued and keeps him off the field.

[QuikSand]

I've had this trouble, too, sometimes... and am at a loss to know what can be done. My IHOF team drafted a solid starting RB, and for the whole year he had a playing time setting of 7 or more (up to 8 then 9 after this befell him in the early few games), and was always slotted for all three special duty slots. Still, at season's end, he probably ended up with no more than 60% of our team's carries -- not sure what else we could have done there. If I had my druthers, he'd get 80% of the carries -- it's not like this team runs so much that he's getting worn down, either... our offense is definitely pass-first. My main-duty RB saw 20 carries only 2-3 times all year.

[QuikSand]

The back isn't returning Kickoffs or punts is he? Cause that shit makes the guy way too fatigued and keeps him off the field.

Any evidence this is true in FOF? I know there's something to it in real football... but I don't know if it holds true in FOF at all.

[Stevebsfan]

Steve, it is actually something we talked about a little in week one over there. roadrash and the problem last week and wondered what would have caused it. I then mentioned that I have had several games in which Dixon, despite having a good game, would not get the majority of carries or barely get the majority of them.

One thing I noticed was that there are games when McKelvey (backup RB) would get the first carry on several drives in a game, and then maybe the first 2 or 3 of a drive. Dixon (my starter) should not be tired, he has not been on the field. I never drop my RB play time below 5, but usually have it at 6 or 7. His endurance is fine.

Yea, that was the puzzling part, a good portion of his carries were on first down. I think every time he carried 1st then 2nd down, it was to open a drive. Very odd. Last year I had the same issues, but last week it was better (23 carries to 5), but this week it just randomly decided to rush with my backup.

[Stevebsfan]

The back isn't returning Kickoffs or punts is he? Cause that shit makes the guy way too fatigued and keeps him off the field.

No, and actually the backup RB who got all those carries is 2nd in the depth chart for KR's, although there weren't many kickoffs that game.

[Stevebsfan]

I've had this trouble, too, sometimes... and am at a loss to know what can be done.

At least i'm not alone in this issue. The only thing I can think of was the coach for some reason adjusted the depth chart in game after he ran for 36 yards in his first 2 carries, but I would hope if that is true, he would have adjusted it back sometime sooner during his next 9 carries for 22 yards.

To back that up, he did sit on the bench more in the 2nd half after he really struggled, so maybe that really is in the code, who really knows at this point :confused:

[stevew]

Any evidence this is true in FOF? I know there's something to it in real football... but I don't know if it holds true in FOF at all.
I'll run some tests on it.

[Celeval]

Make sure that the formation settings have RB1 as the starter everywhere.

[QuikSand]

For what it's worth, I can attest that in my case (IHOF, Dwight Foreman) I checked all the fairly obvious things:

-high (even maxed) playing time setting
-was listed to be used in short yardage and both passing situations
-RB1 was listed as the primary back in all formations
-was not being used as a return man or gunner
-has a high endurance rating
-he was very effective when playing (4.7 ypc on the year), so he's not getting benched

...and even on a pass-intensive team, I could get my top RB to get more than about 2/3 of the carries on the season. It's not a disaster - my backup is pretty decent, but I wanted the star out there as much as possible.

[Cringer]

I am in the same boat as Quiksand, everything has been checked.

[jbmagic]

i wish instead of playing time setting. we can set a % we want the player to be on the field.


the play time setting doesnt work properly. it seems like every position is different for playing time.

[Stevebsfan]

I am in the same boat as Quiksand, everything has been checked.

Yup, same here.

My Off-Co is rated 'Average' for RB's, but I just checked yours and he is 'Very Good', so that probably scraps that theory.

[cthomer5000]

what is your backup RBs endurance rating?

[Stevebsfan]

what is your backup RBs endurance rating?

My 3rd back is 50/60, but this happened a lot last year with my 2nd back who has 26/29 rating.

[Ben E Lou]

What's the high end of percentage of carries that a #1 back gets in real life?

[jbmagic]

but there should be a big difference setting the playing time to 1, 5, 9 for RB and we not seeing it.

[cthomer5000]

What's the high end of percentage of carries that a #1 back gets in real life?
Probably in the 85-90% range.

Larry Johnson had 27 of 32 runs for KC today (this includes 1 QB run)

Tiki Barber had 23 of 29 runs for Giants (this includes 2 QB runs)

Curtis Martin had 21 of 25 runs last week (including 2 QB runs)

[jbmagic]

and it doesnt matter if you want to run 100% of the time in the gameplan, because the backup should not be getting alot of carries if you have the playing time set to 9 for the starter.

[cthomer5000]

but there should be a big difference setting the playing time to 1, 5, 9 for RB and we not seeing it.
there is a huge difference between 1 and 9.

[Ben E Lou]

but there should be a big difference setting the playing time to 1, 5, 9 for RB and we not seeing it.Then we not looking.

[Cringer]

what is your backup RBs endurance rating?

My backup the last couple season's in this league has had endurance of 56. Now he just went down for the next 6 weeks and the guy to step up into the #2 slot is at only 7 for endurance. If things change I will be surprised though.

I will even add to this the fact I have had games where my backup carries more then my starter, and no injuries involved. This is from a couple posts I made last week on the Imperial board...

Last year at PIT, McKelvey had 19, Dixon 14.
vs. BOS, McKelvey had 11, Dixon 10.

In both those game I listed, McKelvey seemed to get he first carry on a drive more often then not. Even the first carry of the game each time, although Dixon was the starter. The first carry came on the second drive against PIT, and after several plays against BOS. I don't see how Dixon didn't play well at all, just seemed that McKelvey was favored by the coach. I also do not see any pattern with the formations.

My conclusion: The coach has a crush on him.

[DaddyTorgo]

this is just one of those "things" i've long since come to accept as an anomoly in FOF. And it's why I refuse to pay big $$ for one running back rather than playing small money for two or three to run "by committee" since that's what the game will end up doing anyways more often than not.

[Eaglesfan27]

this is just one of those "things" i've long since come to accept as an anomoly in FOF. And it's why I refuse to pay big $$ for one running back rather than playing small money for two or three to run "by committee" since that's what the game will end up doing anyways more often than not.
This is my philosophy as well.

[gstelmack]

How are you set for "Third Down" back, "Passing Down", "Sure Pass", etc (or whatever they're all called) on the depth chart screen? I know my backup gets a fair number of carries, but he's also my short-yardage back and so comes in for a lot of those plays. My starter is set for the passing stuff and catches far more passes, so I'm sure that plays in. Or in other words, my starter DEFINITELY gets more touches than the backup, just not necessarily more rushes.

[Stevebsfan]

How are you set for "Third Down" back, "Passing Down", "Sure Pass", etc (or whatever they're all called) on the depth chart screen? I know my backup gets a fair number of carries, but he's also my short-yardage back and so comes in for a lot of those plays. My starter is set for the passing stuff and catches far more passes, so I'm sure that plays in. Or in other words, my starter DEFINITELY gets more touches than the backup, just not necessarily more rushes.

Everything is set to #1 except 3rd down which is set to my FB.

[Ben E Lou]

TEST
Injuries off
No FB runs
FB set as short, pass, extreme pass back
RB1 nowhere else on depth chart but RB1
Recommended game plans on every screen

RB1's endurance is 39

TRIAL ONE: RB1 PLAYING TIME AT NINE
RB1: 300 carries, 1369 yards
RB2: 8 carries, 44 yards
FB1: 35 carries, 150 yards
No other backs got carries.

TRIAL TWO: RB1 PLAYING TIME AT FIVE
RB1: 349 carries, 1680 yards
rB2: 52 carries, 228 yards
FB1: 23 carries, 91 yarrds
No other backs got carries

TRIAL THREE: RB1 PLYAING TIME AT ONE
RB1: 300 carries, 1492 yards
RB2: 113 carries, 653 yards
FB1: 43 carries, 142 yards

[Ben E Lou]

OH...RB2 had endurance of 41/44.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm wondering if this is tied to injuries, by the way (as in maybe minor ones that we don't see but that impact playing time. Running a few tests with injuries at 100 and playing time at 9. Once RB1 gets 16 starts, I'll give a report.

[Ben E Lou]

On my first trial, with injuries at 100, he started all 16 games, with playing time set at 9....

RB1: 322 carries, 1629 yards
RB2: 53 carries, 354 yards
FB1: 23 carris, 70 yards
RB3: 6 carries, 43 yards

[Stevebsfan]

Good stuff SkyDog, thanks for the tests

[QuikSand]

On my first trial, with injuries at 100, he started all 16 games, with playing time set at 9....

RB1: 322 carries, 1629 yards
RB2: 53 carries, 354 yards
FB1: 23 carris, 70 yards
RB3: 6 carries, 43 yards

Assuming everyone stayed healthy all season long, this would seem to me a very reasonable split for a fully intended "full time #1 RB" workload. Close to 90% of the handoffs, in a reasonably balanced offense.

[Cringer]

My Imperial League team last year, both #1 Dixon and #2 McKelvey healthy all 16 games.

Dixon - 288 carries, 1255 yards, 4.35 avg.
McKelvey - 135 carries, 439 yards, 3.25 avg.
FB Leigh - 43 carries, 215 yards, 5.0 avg.


Injuries at 110. RB playing time for Dixon was at 6 and 7 all season.

[QuikSand]

TEST
FB set as short, pass, extreme pass back


Maybe this is the key underlying decision?

For my guy, at least, I have him as the #1 RB all the time, including all these formations. Maybe that is what is tiring him out? For my team, we end up in the passing situations an awful lot of the time, so I'm not sure I have a lot of choice in the matter (assuming I don't want my franchise back to be sitting down for 2/3 of our plays) but perhaps this is the big issue here -- using RB1 as the passing down back and short yardage back might mean he comes out sooner in ordinary situations.

[Ben E Lou]

Assuming everyone stayed healthy all season long, this would seem to me a very reasonable split for a fully intended "full time #1 RB" workload. Close to 90% of the handoffs, in a reasonably balanced offense.What's interesting about that split, though, is that it looks very similar to the split with no injuries when playing time was set at 5. Two comments at this point:

1. I wonder if the fact that I didn't use RB1 in short yardage or passing situations kept him much less tired than in the situations reported in this thread up to this point. My next test will be with playing time set to 9 but with RB1 in all three situational slots.

2. I can't help but continue to postulate that increasing injuries also increases fatigue.

[Ben E Lou]

Maybe this is the key underlying decision?

For my guy, at least, I have him as the #1 RB all the time, including all these formations. Maybe that is what is tiring him out? For my team, we end up in the passing situations an awful lot of the time, so I'm not sure I have a lot of choice in the matter (assuming I don't want my franchise back to be sitting down for 2/3 of our plays) but perhaps this is the big issue here -- using RB1 as the passing down back and short yardage back might mean he comes out sooner in ordinary situations.Cross-post there.

Yes, that was my theory going in. I'm going to do the 0-injury test again with him in at all three situations right now. Back in a moment...

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah, big difference:

TRIAL ONE: RB1 PLAYING TIME AT NINE
RB1: 300 carries, 1369 yards
RB2: 8 carries, 44 yards
FB1: 35 carries, 150 yards
No other backs got carries.
But this time, with him as the guy in passing/third down situations, and playing time set at 9:

RB1: 335 carries
RB2: 81 carries
FB1: 33 carries

The fullback carries remained very close, but RB2 got the ball a LOT more this time. I want to run this again, because despite the identical default game plan being used, we ran a good bit more. Of course, this is probably related to the fact that the better back was in there in key situations and we kept the ball, won more, etc. (The team went 14-2. I didn't pay attention to how well they'd done in previous trials.) I'll run this trial again...

[QuikSand]

So... if this bears out, is there anything you can do to get your RB1 the sizable majority of your carries if your team is *frequently* in the passing situations? If your team is in that zone of run% most of the time, and you sub out your starter in all those situations, won't that undermine your intentions to get him most of the work?

[Ben E Lou]

Ran it again, virtually identical results: 332 carries vs. 85 for RB2

[Ben E Lou]

So... if this bears out, is there anything you can do to get your RB1 the sizable majority of your carries if your team is *frequently* in the passing situations? If your team is in that zone of run% most of the time, and you sub out your starter in all those situations, won't that undermine your intentions to get him most of the work?Yeah, I'd think so....although getting 80% of the carries with PT=9 isn't bad at all, is it?

[QuikSand]

Yeah, I'd think so....although getting 80% of the carries with PT=9 isn't bad at all, is it?

Maybe I'm not following... but the 80% number comes from a standard gameplan, right? If my gameplan goes to "passing situations" all the time, then I'm not going to see my RB1 get 80% of the carries, don't you think? If 2/3 of my plays come from "passing situations" according to my gameplan, then probably close to half of my my team's running plays will be run when RB1 isn't even on the field... or so I'd expect.

[Ben E Lou]

Maybe I'm not following... but the 80% number comes from a standard gameplan, right? If my gameplan goes to "passing situations" all the time, then I'm not going to see my RB1 get 80% of the carries, don't you think? If 2/3 of my plays come from "passing situations" according to my gameplan, then probably close to half of my my team's running plays will be run when RB1 isn't even on the field... or so I'd expect.Hmmmm...interesting thought. The 80% came with RB1 set to be in on passing and short yardage situations. My thought is that he's on the field for, say, 500 plays that way, as opposed to only, say, 350 in the first trials, and that it doesn't matter whether the 500 are running or passing plays in terms of how much he fatigues.

[jbmagic]

Maybe I'm not following... but the 80% number comes from a standard gameplan, right? If my gameplan goes to "passing situations" all the time, then I'm not going to see my RB1 get 80% of the carries, don't you think? If 2/3 of my plays come from "passing situations" according to my gameplan, then probably close to half of my my team's running plays will be run when RB1 isn't even on the field... or so I'd expect.


80% is from rb1

20% is from FB and backup RB


so every 10 carries running the ball, rb1 will run it approx 8 times and 2 times for backup rb and fb

[Ben E Lou]

Quik:

I just tested, using the same team, but I changed the game plan to 25% run in all situations. I put RB1 in all situations, with playing time cranked up to 9, injuries still at zero. Interesting results...



We ran 327 times, threw 723.
RB1 had 275 carries. QB had 44. RB2 only had 5.
RB1 was on the field for 745 pass plays, 321 run plays.
RB2 only saw the field for 8 pass plays and 6 run plays all year long.
So RB1 got virtually every carry from the backs. Hmmmm...

[DaddyTorgo]

so all these tests are interesting. I just hope when they're all done we can get some kind of conclusive...summation of all of the results, cuz my head is already swimming trying to puzzle it all out.

[QuikSand]

80% is from rb1

20% is from FB and backup RB


so every 10 carries running the ball, rb1 will run it approx 8 times and 2 times for backup rb and fb

Thanks. I think I'm clear on what 80% means now.

[Cringer]

One thing that has come up with Steve's team and mine in the Imperial League though, is that when these games come up out of nowhere, something that seems to be happening is RB2 starting off a drive, then later in the drive (maybe a few plays or a little more) RB1 comes in.

This is the one thing that baffles me about it. Personally I would want my RB1 to start off a drive after resting while the defense is on the field. If the drive gets going, bring in RB2 for a few plays to give RB1 a breather. Then go back to RB1. This is how it is usually done in the NFL.

The opposite seems to be happening in some of these games though.

[QuikSand]

Quik:

I just tested, using the same team, but I changed the game plan to 25% run in all situations. I put RB1 in all situations, with playing time cranked up to 9, injuries still at zero. Interesting results...



We ran 327 times, threw 723.
RB1 had 275 carries. QB had 44. RB2 only had 5.
RB1 was on the field for 745 pass plays, 321 run plays.
RB2 only saw the field for 8 pass plays and 6 run plays all year long.
So RB1 got virtually every carry from the backs. Hmmmm...

Well, this isn't too far removed from my IHOF setup... and my RB1 didn't get anywhere close to this. I don't have the stats handy, but he got maybe 60-65% of the carries on the season, I think.

Maybe it's the injury setting?

[Ben E Lou]

One thing that has come up with Steve's team and mine in the Imperial League though, is that when these games come up out of nowhere, something that seems to be happening is RB2 starting off a drive, then later in the drive (maybe a few plays or a little more) RB1 comes in.

This is the one thing that baffles me about it. Personally I would want my RB1 to start off a drive after resting while the defense is on the field. If the drive gets going, bring in RB2 for a few plays to give RB1 a breather. Then go back to RB1. This is how it is usually done in the NFL.

The opposite seems to be happening in some of these games though.Yeah, I've seen that, too. That almost has to be some sort of injury-related fatigue.

[QuikSand]

That almost has to be some sort of injury-related fatigue.

I guess so. Thanks for all your stat-churning, Ben.

[Ben E Lou]

Maybe it's the injury setting?It almost has to be. I feel like everything else has been isolated in these trials. (I'm running some more to correct a pretty big mistake I made earlier, by the way, but the basic premise isn't going to change...)

[Cringer]

Yeah, I've seen that, too. That almost has to be some sort of injury-related fatigue.

Where is the injury though? Minor, unrevieled injuries that can have an effect for a large chunk of a game? Are these kind of injuries 'confirmed' that I have not heard about?

If that is the case then I am fine with that and could live with it.

My other thought was offenses that lean towards the pass more and that causing this in some way, which I have done with this team over the last two seasons. But your one test shows that may not be it.

Thanks for running some tests though.

[Ben E Lou]

FWIW, I need to redo some of the tests earlier in this thread (not the last one, though) because when I set the depth chart to be automatically reset on injuries at some point, completely forgetting that it would upset playing time. Below are correct results:

FIRST TEST SET



Injuries off
No FB runs
RB4 set as short, pass, extreme pass back (to get better picture of FB use, too)
RB1 nowhere else on depth chart but RB1
Recommended offensive game plans on every screen
RB1's endurance is 39

TRIAL ONE: RB1 PLAYING TIME AT NINE
RB1: 372 carries
RB2: 21 carries
FB1: 3 carries
RB4: 44 carrries (pass situations and short yardage situations)
No other backs got carries.

TRIAL TWO: RB1 PLAYING TIME AT FIVE
RB1: 346 carries
RB2: 52 carries
FB1: 5 carries
RB4: 37 carries

TRIAL THREE: RB1 PLYAING TIME AT ONE
RB1: 271 carries
RB2: 100 carries
FB1: 3 carries
RB4: 32 carries

FWIW, I need to redo some of the tests earlier in this thread (not the last one, though) because when I set the depth chart to be automatically reset on injuries at some point, completely forgetting that it would upset playing time. Below are correct results:

SECOND TEST SET



Injuries off
No FB runs
RB1 set as short, pass, extreme pass back
Recommended offensive game plans on every screen
RB1's endurance is 39

TRIAL ONE: RB1 PLAYING TIME AT NINE
RB1: 393 carries
RB2: 0 (count 'em), yes, zero carries. He was #2 on the depth chart, and was on the field for 3 pass plays and 0 run plays
FB1: 3 carries

TRIAL TWO: RB1 PLAYING TIME AT FIVE
RB1: 396 carries
RB2: 37 carries
FB1: 1 carry


TRIAL THREE: RB1 PLAYING TIME AT ONE
RB1: 309 carries
RB2: 127 carries
RB3: 1 carry
FB1: 2 carries


CONCLUSIONS FROM THESE TWO TESTS:
1. Playing time does make a difference. With injuries off, RB1 can get virtually every carry for the team.
2. With injuries set at zero, fatigue does not appear to be much of a factor.


Now, I want to see what happens with injuries on...

[Stevebsfan]

Yeah, I've seen that, too. That almost has to be some sort of injury-related fatigue.

I noticed a dramatic difference today in the running back ratio after the half, and in the 2nd half my BU got 1 carry on one drive, and started a second drive later on, so perhaps there were hidden injuries that were not reported on the log that required him to sit out a few drives, or a half.

[Ben E Lou]

So I turned up injuries to 200, with RB1 set to 9 playing time and as the speciality back in all three situations, too. I fully expected to see others get playing time due to some sort of fatigue.

Nope.

Not even a little.

RB1: 35 carries
QB: 3 carries

No one else had any carries. RB1 was on the field for 38 run plays and 30 pass plays. A look at the box score reveals that we ran it 38 times, threw it 28, and were sacked twice.

So, uh, tell me again about not beign able to get RB1 enough carries... :confused:

The only thing I can think that might be going on here is that when I set up this test career, it just so happened that my team go the most durable RB FOF has ever seen, but that he only has endurance of 39.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Ben E Lou]

Game two, with injuries at 200, more of the same. 32 carries. FB1 gets 2 carries.

Game three, injuries still at 200, 39 carries for 202 yards. QB carries 4 times for 3 yards, FB1 gets one carry. RB2 does not see the field on offense for the third week in a row. There's no need to keep this up at this point, ya think???

[Ben E Lou]

On second thought, this mofo is insane. He's getting 30+ carries a game with a default game plan. I'm going to go through this season, just replacing injured guys in the depth chart, to see how he does....

More in a bit, and then I'll start a new career and run a couple of these tests again to see if there's a big difference.

[Ben E Lou]

After 8 games: 246 carries, 1092 yards, 10 TD's--on a team that is running 49% of the time on first down in normal situations.

[Ben E Lou]

He tore his patellar tendon early in Game 15, but only after 432 carries, 2074 yards, 16 TD's. RB2 got 24 carries in that game, giving him a whopping 29 for the year. :eek:

[Ben E Lou]

Well, it definitely was not related to some uber-endurance that my RB1 had...unless you believe that RB2 has it also. He was on the field for every play in the next game.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm at a loss as to where to go from here, by the way. I can't find anything that indicates what has been mentioned in this thread. :confused:

[Cringer]

So, uh, tell me again about not beign able to get RB1 enough carries... :confused:



I don't think anyone ever said this was every game. If Steve did then I may be mistaken but I do not believe he did and I know I didn't. He brought it up, and I got into it because I was talking with a couple other guys about it last week, because it is something that is popping up every few games or so and we do not know for what reason.

As I think I said before, I can use the same gameplan two games in a row, and week one RB1 gets 30 carries and RB2 5 or 6. Then the next week RB1 will get 18 and RB2 15 carries. Not to mention that RB2 starts getting a lot of first down runs at the begining of a drive. I find it odd this would happen when nothing has changed except the opponent and wondered if anyone had some insite.

Now I have not heard of injuries that go unannounced by the game. If this happens and I just missed hearing this at some point I can understand that effecting things and accept it. That still does not explain a RB going into a game uninjured and then RB2 getting the first few carries of the game after RB1 ran a route for the first play or two.

I never doubted the playing time setting having any effect, but I am a sucker for tests so I appreciate those. Still does not answer my questions really though. In the end I am not sure if there is a real anwser that would satisfy me, not even Jim may know. Interesting discussion though.

[DaddyTorgo]

so the conclusion is to set your RB1 to 9 or 8 for playing time and what...have him on the field for passing/third down/whatever or to NOT ?

[Cringer]

I'm at a loss as to where to go from here, by the way. I can't find anything that indicates what has been mentioned in this thread. :confused:

Maybe this only happens in MP and not olo play? To be honest I have never noticed this in solo play. I have no idea why MP would make a difference in this area though. The only reason I say it is that Steve, myself, and the couple others who have mentioned it have all been talking about thier MP teams.

[st.cronin]

Maybe this only happens in MP and not olo play? To be honest I have never noticed this in solo play. I have no idea why MP would make a difference in this area though. The only reason I say it is that Steve, myself, and the couple others who have mentioned it have all been talking about thier MP teams.

If so, then I think maybe we need to look at the opposing defensive plan for the answer. Perhaps there is something there that triggers this?

[Cringer]

If so, then I think maybe we need to look at the opposing defensive plan for the answer. Perhaps there is something there that triggers this?

Once again, something that popped into my head but I let go of it. I am not saying no to this, I just am not sure what would be happening in this area to cause it. Something along the lines of your AI coach seeing a certain tendency from the opposing defense and using the backup RB because of some ratings related issue?

[Ben E Lou]

There does appear to be a difference from back to back. I opened up an old career, with a RB1 with endurance of 93. Using the exact same settings that got my other RB1 nearly 100% of the carries, this RB1 got 319 carries vs. 95 for RB2. That's with PT=9 and RB1 in short yardage and passing situations.

Then, I put him as a PT=1 and RB in short yardage and passing, and he got only 180 carries. Rb2 got 110, and RB3 got 82. There's clearly a LARGE variance from back to back.

Heading to bed now, but I want to play with this some more in the morning. This is fascinating.

[Ben E Lou]

He tore his patellar tendon early in Game 15, but only after 432 carries, 2074 yards, 16 TD's. Oh, and by the way: dat boy run so good...

[Cringer]

There does appear to be a difference from back to back. I opened up an old career, with a RB1 with endurance of 93. Using the exact same settings that got my other RB1 nearly 100% of the carries, this RB1 got 319 carries vs. 95 for RB2. That's with PT=9 and RB1 in short yardage and passing situations.

Then, I put him as a PT=1 and RB in short yardage and passing, and he got only 180 carries. Rb2 got 110, and RB3 got 82. There's clearly a LARGE variance from back to back.

Heading to bed now, but I want to play with this some more in the morning. This is fascinating.

Well, atleast you don't think it is just us now. Of course it may not just be a difference in RB. You said older career so I am assuming a completely different team with different coaches (if those have enough effect which I am not convinced of).

Going off of your latest numbers quoted here, my Toad's numbers from last season would fall into those pretty well with the RB playing time set at 6 and 7 all season.

[jbmagic]

whats weird from the test.

low endurance RB1 get more carries and high endurance gets less carries.

you would think it will be the opposite.

its interesting that rb1 with high endurance than rb2 is being sub more for rb2.

and rb1 with less endurance than rb2 is getting more carries


also i wonder if rb1 experience vs rb2 expereince.

if rb2 has more experience than rb1,( especially if rb1 is a rookie), i wonder if rb2 will get more carries regardless of the playing time setting?

[Stevebsfan]

I don't think anyone ever said this was every game. If Steve did then I may be mistaken but I do not believe he did and I know I didn't.

Yea, it hasn't happened every week. I noticed it a bit last season, but I thought the problem was going away this season as I really worked on my gameplan. In week 1 it was RB1 - 23, RB2 - 5 which was very normal.

Until further research, i'm going to try and convince myself there is a hidden injury thing that happens but doesn't get reported because it's a minor thing. Like maybe my RB1 was bothered by a bruise in the first half that wasn't serious enough to report 'Timmerman is injured on the play', but serious enough to sit him a few downs.

Hopefully thats the way it is and it's not just a bug that only happens to certain backs under certain situations. I've noticed my opponent this week who runs a lot rarely seems to have this issue.

[jbmagic]

also from the help file


Substitution frequency varies based on the stage of the season.
Players will also substitute more frequently during blowout games.

[Cringer]

also from the help file

But this is happening from the begining of a game all the way through in some cases, so being a blowout is not having much effect. The original poster was using an overtime game as his example.

[Stevebsfan]

But this is happening from the begining of a game all the way through in some cases, so being a blowout is not having much effect. The original poster was using an overtime game as his example.

To end the blowout speculation, here is how the game went in the 1st half when I had the most trouble

3-0 lead
10-0 lead -- end 1st
10-7 lead (early 2nd)
10-10 (late 2nd - end half)

I'm not sure a 10-0 lead is considered a blowout by the game, especially in the 1st qtr, but if it is, they may need to adjust their code.

[Ben E Lou]

I started a few more new careers this morning with a preference draft. I moved the slider around to different places for RB's, just to see if talent level made a difference. As best as I can tell, it does not. I'm ready to make these conclusions.

1. Barring injuries, in most cases setting playing time to 9 and putting RB1 in all three situational options and a normal gameplan will result in him getting virtually every carry for a full season.

but also...

2. In SOME cases (and I'm not sure if this varies by back, coach, endurance, hidden-grassy-knoll-rating or what), using the same game plan and same settings mentioned above, RB1 will get as few as 70-75% of the carries.

and finally

3. Changing the injury setting does not introduce a "fatigue factor" of some sort.


For a final look, I decided to to test the outer limits of all of this: I used a 100%-run-in-all-situations game plan, maximized RB1's playing time, set injuries to 200, and used the crappiest RB I could find in the FA pool (10/17 overall, endurance 0, rookie). I did this in four consecutive games. He got all but three carries given to backs in those four games: 47, 59, 56, and 54.

[QuikSand]

We've been told that there is a hidden "injury prone-ness" rating in the game (separate from the visible endurance rating)- maybe that hidden rating, and not endurance, also guides whether a given guy suffers minor dings and dents through the course of a game that might cause him to sit down more often.

Tough to come up with another explanation of the seasons that some of us are seeing, despite our best efforts.

[DaddyTorgo]

bump

the question that i have that is related to this is why if I set my coach to handle my depth chart would he have my starting RB (who is far and away better than my backup) let alone all my other starting players set to "2" or "3" for playing time instead of AT LEAST "7" or "8" ??

seems quite unrealistic

[Icy]

I see the opposite in my NAFL games, here are the 6 games we have played so far this season with this settings;
- RB1 is my rookie RB Austin Fry, his playing time has been set to 3
- Third and short RB is my FB1 Rob Konrad
- Passing down and near certain pass, is set to RB1 Fry
- FB running is set to 20
- RB1 Austin Fry endurance is 59/59
- RB 2 Suggs endurance is 18/20
- FB 1 Konrad endurance is 41/50

Game 1:
Rushing Att Yards Avg Long TD
21 Fry 23 78 3.3 15 1
44 Konrad 1 10 10.0 10 0
42 Suggs 1 39 39.0 39 0
Game 2:

Rushing Att Yards Avg Long TD
21 Fry 9 8 0.8 5 0
42 Suggs 2 9 4.5 7 0

Game 3:
Rushing Att Yards Avg Long TD
21 Fry 21 60 2.8 13 0
42 Suggs 2 7 3.5 4 0
44 Konrad 1 6 6.0 6 0

Game 4:
Rushing Att Yards Avg Long TD
21 Fry 32 117 3.6 13 0
42 Suggs 5 14 2.8 8 0
44 Konrad 3 14 4.6 8 1

Game 5:
Rushing Att Yards Avg Long TD
21 Fry 34 161 4.7 32 1
44 Konrad 3 6 2.0 4 1
42 Suggs 2 11 5.5 11 0

Game 6:
Rushing Att Yards Avg Long TD
21 Fry 20 101 5.0 22 1
42 Suggs 3 24 8.0 13 0


Totals for the last 6 games:
Player Pos Team GP GS Att Yards Avg Lg TD
Fry, Austin RB MIA 6 6 139 525 3.77 32 3
Suggs, Lee RB MIA 6 0 15 104 6.93 39 0
Konrad, Rob FB MIA 6 5 8 36 4.50 10 2




As you can see, My RB1 Austin Fry is getting most of the runs (85%) with his playing time set to only 3 and with FB1 set as 3rd and short.

[Stevebsfan]

Very interesting, Icy. With playing time set to 3 there should be no way he gets that type of carry ratio. There are either some bugs going on, or a lot of in-game and hidden stuff we don't see that happens.

[Fonzie]

Very interesting, Icy. With playing time set to 3 there should be no way he gets that type of carry ratio. There are either some bugs going on, or a lot of in-game and hidden stuff we don't see that happens.
The shame of it is that none of this should be guesswork. If we want our feature back to get 90% of our team's carries, we ought to be able to figure out how to do that. I understand Jim wanting to be vague on how some aspects of his game work, but this shouldn't be one of them. It would really be nice if you'd chime in here, Jim.

[Fonzie]

Dola-

My guess: there's a hidden Ahman Green-style "Asthma" rating for each player. When their asthma acts up, they sit for a spell.

Okay, not likely to be the right answer, but at least I've provided a scenario that makes sense of this weirdness.

[ScottVib]

Out of curiousity any chance it has something to do with the city the games are played in? High temperature/humidity cities perhaps having an increased fatigue (or elevation for that matter)?

[DaddyTorgo]

The shame of it is that none of this should be guesswork. If we want our feature back to get 90% of our team's carries, we ought to be able to figure out how to do that. I understand Jim wanting to be vague on how some aspects of his game work, but this shouldn't be one of them. It would really be nice if you'd chime in here, Jim.
agree. i mean this isn't something where there should be murkiness. If an NFL Head Coach wants their feature back to get ~90% of their team carries they just go to their OC and say "Hey I want him to get the ball around 90% of the time." And it's done for them. There's no murkiness there, so I don't understand why FOF has the added murkiness.

[QuikSand]

What an interesting thread. I am still having real troubles with my feature RB in the IHOF league, and at this point I am pretty much shrugging my shoulders and resigning myself to having spent huge draft cpaital to get a part-time running back, who is unfortunately cursed with very high endurance rating (which I naively believed to be an asset at the time).

Well, at least I got a lesson in math along the way.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, at least I got a lesson in math along the way.Whatever would we do without jbmagic?

[WSUCougar]

Just a thought, but could the presence of "punishing hitters" on the defense have any bearing?

[stevew]

Just curious, but did you ever go in and set up like half the formations to feature RB #1, and the other half to feature like, say, fullback #2? Set your #1 RB as FB #2 also, make the starting FB have an endurance factor of 9. Might get your guy on the field more, as it would likely cut out any option for anyone else to get the carries in most situations.

[QuikSand]

Just a thought, but could the presence of "punishing hitters" on the defense have any bearing?

I'd have to think that anything on the defensive side would just wash out over time and trials.

[WSUCougar]

I'd have to think that anything on the defensive side would just wash out over time and trials.
I was pondering this a bit more, and am curious if there is a hidden "carries" endurance (influenced by defensive hitting) as well as the simple playing time endurance. Having played some football in my day, there's much more wear and tear on you as a ball-carrier than simply being on the field. That's obvious to everyone, I'm sure, but it seems reasonable that there are two different factors at work. The difference between, say, Earl Campbell and a typical "3rd down back" type. An athlete of the latter variety can run around the field all day, but taking the punishment is what separates them from the "feature backs" and what often drags down many of the premier college backs once they reach the NFL.

[primelord]

What an interesting thread. I am still having real troubles with my feature RB in the IHOF league, and at this point I am pretty much shrugging my shoulders and resigning myself to having spent huge draft cpaital to get a part-time running back, who is unfortunately cursed with very high endurance rating (which I naively believed to be an asset at the time).

Well, at least I got a lesson in math along the way.
I wonder if it may not just be a false endurance rating. My RB is famous for fumbling the football now despite having a very solid avoid fumble rating. It seems like there are really only two explinations for something like what we are seeing. Either the ratings being presented are just false. Or there are more hidden ratings that are contributing here that we are unaware of.

[QuikSand]

I wonder if it may not just be a false endurance rating. My RB is famous for fumbling the football now despite having a very solid avoid fumble rating. It seems like there are really only two explinations for something like what we are seeing. Either the ratings being presented are just false. Or there are more hidden ratings that are contributing here that we are unaware of.

From the evidence here, I don't think my own guy is an exceptional case (suggesting just an aberration to an overall rule). It seems, from reading some of these studies that make sense to me, that a guy with middling endurance can be expected to carry the ball all day long and get pretty much all your team's carries... but a guy with very high endurance will pretty much find himself splitting time, no matter what you do. Exactly the opposite of what I'd have expected... but that certainly backs up my own case (a feature back with 100 endurance rating who gets no more than 2/3 of our carries).

[Ben E Lou]

From the evidence here, I don't think my own guy is an exceptional case (suggesting just an aberration to an overall rule).i don't think you can conclude that from the evidence here.

[QuikSand]

I was just following jbmagic.

[QuikSand]

FWIW, I need to redo some of the tests earlier in this thread (not the last one, though) because when I set the depth chart to be automatically reset on injuries at some point, completely forgetting that it would upset playing time. Below are correct results:

FIRST TEST SET



Injuries off
No FB runs
RB4 set as short, pass, extreme pass back (to get better picture of FB use, too)
RB1 nowhere else on depth chart but RB1
Recommended offensive game plans on every screen
RB1's endurance is 39

TRIAL ONE: RB1 PLAYING TIME AT NINE
RB1: 372 carries
RB2: 21 carries
FB1: 3 carries
RB4: 44 carrries (pass situations and short yardage situations)
No other backs got carries.

TRIAL TWO: RB1 PLAYING TIME AT FIVE
RB1: 346 carries
RB2: 52 carries
FB1: 5 carries
RB4: 37 carries

TRIAL THREE: RB1 PLYAING TIME AT ONE
RB1: 271 carries
RB2: 100 carries
FB1: 3 carries
RB4: 32 carries

FWIW, I need to redo some of the tests earlier in this thread (not the last one, though) because when I set the depth chart to be automatically reset on injuries at some point, completely forgetting that it would upset playing time. Below are correct results:

SECOND TEST SET



Injuries off
No FB runs
RB1 set as short, pass, extreme pass back
Recommended offensive game plans on every screen
RB1's endurance is 39

TRIAL ONE: RB1 PLAYING TIME AT NINE
RB1: 393 carries
RB2: 0 (count 'em), yes, zero carries. He was #2 on the depth chart, and was on the field for 3 pass plays and 0 run plays
FB1: 3 carries

TRIAL TWO: RB1 PLAYING TIME AT FIVE
RB1: 396 carries
RB2: 37 carries
FB1: 1 carry


TRIAL THREE: RB1 PLAYING TIME AT ONE
RB1: 309 carries
RB2: 127 carries
RB3: 1 carry
FB1: 2 carries


CONCLUSIONS FROM THESE TWO TESTS:
1. Playing time does make a difference. With injuries off, RB1 can get virtually every carry for the team.
2. With injuries set at zero, fatigue does not appear to be much of a factor.


Now, I want to see what happens with injuries on...


There does appear to be a difference from back to back. I opened up an old career, with a RB1 with endurance of 93. Using the exact same settings that got my other RB1 nearly 100% of the carries, this RB1 got 319 carries vs. 95 for RB2. That's with PT=9 and RB1 in short yardage and passing situations.

Then, I put him as a PT=1 and RB in short yardage and passing, and he got only 180 carries. Rb2 got 110, and RB3 got 82. There's clearly a LARGE variance from back to back.

Heading to bed now, but I want to play with this some more in the morning. This is fascinating.

This is what, basically, led me to thionk that there's something odd about RB endurance -- your guys with middling endurance are playing like Superman, and your guy with high endurance is a time-splitter, just like mine is.

[Ben E Lou]

This is what, basically, led me to thionk that there's something odd about RB endurance -- your guys with middling endurance are playing like Superman, and your guy with high endurance is a time-splitter, just like mine is.Oh, I hear ya. It's just that I only posted one guy in this thread. ;)

[QuikSand]

Oh, I hear ya. It's just that I only posted one guy in this thread.

But then you followed up with:

Well, it definitely was not related to some uber-endurance that my RB1 had...unless you believe that RB2 has it also. He was on the field for every play in the next game.

...making me notice that the guys getting all the crazy stats had that in common -- low to average endurance ratings.

[Ben E Lou]

But then you followed up with:



...making me notice that the guys getting all the crazy stats had that in common -- low to average endurance ratings.Ah....I gotcha.

[revrew]

Just read this whole thread for first time. 2 Contributions:

1. I've never had this problem, but (as I like a short-passing game) I have always had a strong receiving FB who I like to put in on passing downs and certain passing downs. Didn't SkyDog's research back up the idea that putting your RB1 in on passing downs wears him out? And didn't Quik say he likes a heavy passing O?

2. There's a setting I haven't heard you experiment with yet: The "use of injured players" setting on the miscellaneous settings screen. Could it be that setting that too low keeps a RB out after he takes a big hit, or that it keeps him out with too minor of an injury?

[Stevebsfan]

Here is an update from my past few weeks

(gameplan changes slightly week to week, but RB playing time never goes lower than 8. Still the same RB with 82/98 END)

W15-9 -- RB1 21 - RB2 4 -- 84%
L23-24 -- RB1 26 - RB2 8 -- 76%
W23-13 -- RB1 19 - Rb2 7 -- 73%
L 9-27 -- RB1 10 - RB1 8 -- 55%
L 9-34 -- RB1 6 - RB2 10 -- 37%
L16-19 -- RB1 23 -- Rb2 16 -- 59%
W27-16 -- RB1 28 -- RB2 8 -- 77%

So it's been actually fairly good until my last loss which had me confused again. The first 3 games were either wins or close, and i'll take around 75% of the carries, that's a pretty expected number.

The blowouts were a little confusing. I mean I wouldn't expect my #1 to get a lot of carries later in the game when i'm getting blown out, however in the first one, here is how the scoring, carry % went..

(score - rb1 carries - rb2 carries - rb1 carry total carry %)
0-7 -- 4 - 4 - 50%
0-14 -- 7 - 4 - 63%
0-17 -- 8 - 5 - 61%
the score started to get out of hand at this point so naturally my RB2 picked up a few more carries, but what was odd was at the point of only down a TD, my RB1 and RB2 were splitting the carries.

Now, let's look at the second blowout

0-3 -- 1 - 0 - 100%
0-10 -- 2 - 2 - 50%
It was 0-27 before I got another carry (^%&# turnovers), so looking back this log isn't much to look at because I only had 4 carries before it was a blowout.

Now, what really had me puzzled was my last loss. The game was close the entire game, I don't think I dropped under 10 points at any point, and with the score 10-6 to open the second half, my backup RB got 5 straight carries on 5 straight plays. Then, out of nowhere my RB1 comes in and starts carrying the ball again on the same drive. So I don't understand it.

Oh well, aside that, it's been improved over the game that caused this thread, but there are still a few blips here and there which leave me scratching my head