GroupThink for FOF4?

[QuikSand]

I wonder if the timing might be good to try to get another FOFC project off the ground - perhasp to try another "GroupThink" franchise here among FOFCers.

By way of background, the "GroupThink" concept has originas back in FOF 2001, when several forum members worked together on one career. Rather than taking turns (a la the so-called Village Challenge), we worked together, sharing the game file at various points, and made our decisions via this forum. There were about 6 or 8 people who assumed formal roles with the organization (Off/Def Coordinator, Scouts, GM, etc) and there were several more who just piped in thoughts along the way. It was, for me, a pretty entertaining experience.

I found it interesting that with several people involved, and enough time between steps - we started really looking closely at verious things in the game - really studying the players we were thinking about signing or drafting, really thinking seriously about contract extensions, etc. We also ended up with a few interesting personalities from our first team (QB Julio Riddols, WR Riddick Fonseca) - and got to celebrate together when we finally won the championship with our Wyoming Wildfire.

It might also be a good way to get a more detailed look at some of the subtle things in FOF4 than we are inclined to on our own (we'd have a base of players to discuss - look at the QB proficiencies, look at various types of players with different skills, look at personality conflicts, agent representation, etc. Who knows?

I'd be willing to play a role in doing something like this again. The way to set it up is pretty wide open - we could again do some sort of role-playing (each person has a particular job), or we could just make it a team that is run by a committee of the whole, with various people taking turns reading and implementing the will of the people. I don't have very strong feelings.

Regardless... just curious... does this sound interesting to anyone here?

[Fritz]

Sign me up sir!
-------
~ The first group think was run at a fast pace during the day. A similar scenario would limit what roles I could play in a future incarnation.

[wade moore]

I wanted to bring this up, however I killed the last group think :(.. I got this new job and my time completely dropped off to be available for it and left the ball hanging..

on that note, I think it was a GREAT thing and would love to see it happen again. I'd love to help, but I do not know that I can handle the time necessary to be the filekeeper for it...

[Anrhydeddu]

Any chance that we could add the flavor of using the historical roster/drafts? Even though most of the players will be unknown (as well as the X factor of the known players), it might add an interesting dynamic to the group synergy.

[strait8]

I'd be interested in this! Please call on me. I do travel a lot with my job but do have a mobile wireless e-mail so I could keep up.

[Bee]

I think it's a good idea to bring it back.

[Easy Mac]

I'd be willing to do some analysis, though I don't think I'll have time to partake in any swapping of files and such, if that occurs.

[primelord]

I'd be interested in getting involved again too. It's a shame the last one we tried died out. Would it be a similar setup where only the file keeper had access to the red and green bar data and everything was done off of stats?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by primelord
I'd be interested in getting involved again too. It's a shame the last one we tried died out. Would it be a similar setup where only the file keeper had access to the red and green bar data and everything was done off of stats?

This is one of those places where a snarfing utility would be handy

[primelord]

Originally posted by Fritz
This is one of those places where a snarfing utility would be handy

Whats a snarfing utility?

[Bee]

Originally posted by primelord
Whats a snarfing utility?

It's a utility that snarfs. :rolleyes:



:D

[McSweeny]

this sounds like fun, i'd be interested. i wouldn't have to won FOF4 would it?

[Fritz]

http://www.pcwebopaedia.com/TERM/S/snarf.html

Initially, in the realm of programming languages, snarf meant to grab a large document or file and use it without the author's permission. Since the development of UNIX, the UNIX community -- since there is not the same sense of proprietary ownership as there is in the commercial computer industry because it is based on an open source idea -- uses the term to mean the acquisition of a file or set of files across a network. It is a command line resource grabber, transferring files through the HTTP, gopher, finger and FTP protocols without user interaction.

----

There are other usages.

In this case I mean to automate the retrieval of selected data. We can <i>snarf</i> the stats and not use the game itself.

I might need to get out of my cube more

[cthomer5000]

I'm definitely interested. not interested in historical files though.

[Doug5984]

I would be interested in being part of something like this.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by primelord
Would it be a similar setup where only the file keeper had access to the red and green bar data and everything was done off of stats?

I'm open to this, but there are trade-offs. If we want to try to play blindly (like the GT2 idea) things go much more slowly, and we really don't end up with the FOF experience, per se. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a different thing. (It's also extremely labor-intensive on the file keeper - everything falls apart of that person cannot keep up)

My vision would be more like the first time. We just work together, and basically play the game. I think the relative dearth of FOF4 dynasties out there make this fairly palatable... I think there is more to be learned about the game itself, even without the clever twists of playing blind or whatever.

[Bee]

What "roles" would need to be filled?

GM - I'd assume Quiksand

Headcoach - someone who will do the playcalling? Input into players.

Off Coord - sets up the offensive gameplan? Input into off players.
Def Coord - sets up the defensive gameplan? Input into def players.

Scouts - Using TCY Imports? Could have college and pro scouts for the draft and free agency.

Filekeeper?

And of course a team astrologer...:D

What other roles would need to be filled?

[primelord]

Originally posted by QuikSand
My vision would be more like the first time. We just work together, and basically play the game. I think the relative dearth of FOF4 dynasties out there make this fairly palatable... I think there is more to be learned about the game itself, even without the clever twists of playing blind or whatever.

That sounds fine to me.

[primelord]

I kind of like Quik's idea of just making all the choices as a group. In GT2 the coordinators and the GM ended up being the ones who did the bulk of the playing. Which was fine for those 3 people (myself included) but it kind of seemed a lot of people got left out for a good portion of each season.

Or maybe as a compromise instead of making one person the DC a group of people handle the defense and group handle the offense etc.

[QuikSand]

Last time we did this (the Wyoming team) we had, by my recollection:

Owner
General Manager
Off Coord
Def Coord
Rookie Scouting
FA Scouting
Financial/Cap Manager
Promotions

... and a few others whose roles I cannot recall off the top of my head. We rotated the management of "the" file so each person had it for a while... GM would manage coach.scout signing, then Rookie scouting would enter in the draft stuff based on collective input, and then the OC/DC would actualy sim the games, and so on.

I don't feel too strongly about any particular role... I really liked chipping in on the rookie draft (those were some of the most fun debates) and in assessing players for new contracts. But I'd be happy to play any role - if we decide that formal positions are needed. (I'm not wedded to steering the ship)

[IMetTrentGreen]

we could have reional scouts and everything

[Grid Iron]

I'm in.

Let me know what to do.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Any chance that we could add the flavor of using the historical roster/drafts? Even though most of the players will be unknown (as well as the X factor of the known players), it might add an interesting dynamic to the group synergy.

I'm a huge fan of the historic rosters, but I would be a little concerned about the edited files causing game balance issues. I wouldn't be completely opposed to it, but I'd lean towards not using them.

[Fritz]

http://www.buffworks.com/bw/fof/pighead.gif

[Bee]

Originally posted by primelord
I kind of like Quik's idea of just making all the choices as a group. In GT2 the coordinators and the GM ended up being the ones who did the bulk of the playing. Which was fine for those 3 people (myself included) but it kind of seemed a lot of people got left out for a good portion of each season.

Or maybe as a compromise instead of making one person the DC a group of people handle the defense and group handle the offense etc.

My concern with group decisions would be it could get a little convoluted (sp?). I'm thinking about the Role playing thing that WSUCougar did with Sol the thief. The idea was solid, but the execution just wasn't organized.

[Fritz]

Bee - the final decision was in one person's hand, but a decision was often preceded by lively conversation.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
Bee - the final decision was in one person's hand, but a decision was often preceded by lively conversation.

That's why I'd lean towards some type of organization. GM/Headcoach/Coordinators/etc. Everyone would have input, but final decisions would be made by whoever was in charge of that portion. I just think "group decisions" generally don't work well.

[cthomer5000]

in GT2 it eventually boiled down to everyone chiming in. I think It was very orderly and people brought different perspectives. I'd like to do everything as a group.

[Bee]

I think everyone should have input and decisions should be discussed, but I think you need to have someone with final say over each area.

[Daimyo]

I don't want a major role or anything official, (I don't even own the game), but if you post screen shots like we did before, I'd try to participate in a very minor role when I could.

[jamesUMD]

Could I be Special Teams coach??????? :D :D

[Bee]

Originally posted by jamesUMD
Could I be Special Teams coach??????? :D :D

Sure. Just make sure the kickers keep their mouth shut and don't do interviews. ;)

[Doug5984]

What about having Off. Coordinators be the guys who had the final say on the offense and then coaches like:
QB Coach
RB Coach
TE Coach
WR Coach
OL Coach
(and the same for D)

These people would rank the players in their positions, move them from L to R, SE to FL and so on...and would tell the Off. Coordinator who they think should start and they % of time they should have. If we wanted we could also have it that the QB coach was in charge of scouting the NFL QBs, and would help in scouting the Rookie QBs? something like this would seem to be much more fun to me and could get more people involved (if not enough people wanted to, we could doulbe on our jobs me be WR & QB Coach...) just an idea...

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Doug5984
What about having Off. Coordinators be the guys who had the final say on the offense and then coaches like:
QB Coach
RB Coach
TE Coach
WR Coach
OL Coach
(and the same for D)

These people would rank the players in their positions, move them from L to R, SE to FL and so on...and would tell the Off. Coordinator who they think should start and they % of time they should have. If we wanted we could also have it that the QB coach was in charge of scouting the NFL QBs, and would help in scouting the Rookie QBs? something like this would seem to be much more fun to me and could get more people involved (if not enough people wanted to, we could doulbe on our jobs me be WR & QB Coach...) just an idea...

If we have a sufficient number of people interested (seems possible) then this sounds like a nice idea to me - definitely the first part, and perhaps even the second part.

[Bee]

As long as people don't feel like they can't comment about players outside their position, I like the idea. It would allow us to concentrate on specific positions, but still be part of the discussion about other positions.

[Fritz]

A possible problem with "position" coaches is that they really don't do that much, but they can be a source of a slowdown.

I think there might be better ways to include people.

[DolaBump]

I think the position coahes is actually a good idea, with Off, Def coords, a Head Coach and a GM (with scouts, cap analyst etc if there are enough interested). Decisoins would be made collectively, but the Head Coach and Coordinators would ahve final say and could step in if any position coach disappeared. there could also be something of a voting system, with possibly the GM, Head Coach and Coords getting more say. I don't think most of us would have a problem contributing input and allowing a few people to have the final say (as long as its more than one person).

[wade moore]

I agree with DB, because keep in mind -- you may be the OL coach.. but you see the offense run, you know where holes are, so you might have something to say about how the running game should be designed.. what passing style should be used, etc.. just as I'm sure it is in the NFL, you are not tied solely to your position..

[QuikSand]

Okay, here's a proposal. I think there is enough interest to make this thing work. I'll suggest we follow a plan like this:

-Someone will start a one-player-universe career back in 1970 or 1980, and sim forward tothe current time - so we can take over in a mature league, with the 2002 expansion team.

-We'll assemble a staff of people similar to the original GT staff... key positions will be assigned, and the key leaders will be responsible for assembling their subsidiary staff (the DC may appoint a DL coach, a LB coach, etc).

-I'm willing to take a role in helping to assemble the original staff... and am open to taking one of the leadership positions if that makes sense.

I think my goal will be to select a few people to help out as the core front office, and then have that group in turn decide on the rest of the staff positions.

So, at this point, I think the next thing to do is start soliciting interest for the various positions to be filled. I'll ask in this thread... should this be an "open" process (like a thread full of inquiries)? Or a closed one - by email or PM? I can work either way.

[wade moore]

I think just make it open?

I would love to either take a position or do rookie scouting.. Due to my time, I don't want to commit to a coordinator position -- plus I believe there are those who know the game better than I.. On that note, My order of preference for the positions would be:

RB
WR
CB
LB

[Alf]

Like last time, and like wade moore this time, I'd like to do some TCY scouting (if the thing goes with TCY draft files).

positions:
QB
TE
P/K

[cthomer5000]

Things I wouldn't mind doing:

TCY scouting
Cap Manager
Pro Scout (scouting potential FA's, our own team, etc...)

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand

-Someone will start a one-player-universe career back in 1970 or 1980, and sim forward tothe current time - so we can take over in a mature league, with the 2002 expansion team.


I'm not sure if I follow about the expansion team. If we start a career in 1970, the actual 2002 expansion team will start in 1970 or are you suggesting something else?

BTW, I like the idea of a mature league. You may want to start in 1986 or so with a salary cap of $5 million +/-. That might put is in 2002 with a salary cap in the ballpark of what we have in the NFL (I haven't tested it out yet, but was planning to when I had time). It should also give us sufficient history (with 15 or 16 years played). I just think it might be a good idea to keep the salary cap in a reasonable ballpark, so that everyone who is playing can adjust easily to understanding the contracts (if that makes sense). That way we aren't dropped into a world where the backup TE is wanting $10 million a year in 2004.

Edit: Just realized you can't have less than 20 mil in salary cap. :(

2nd Edit: If we start in 1986 with 20 mil salcap, we would be around 100 mil in 2002 (I think). As long as we are the Redskins that should be realistic. ;)

[primelord]

Since it is what I wanted to do last time I would like to handle the defensive coordinator duties, but really I am open to just about anything.

[Bee]

I really don't care what my job duty would be as long as I don't have to keep track of the data files. :D

[WebEwbank]

I like the thought. I was a part of the Village Challenge II and loved it.

If I can't get the Cheerleader Coordinator spot, I'll take what's left, possibly something in scouting, either college or free agents.

[QuikSand]

I think there's a divergence here, of sorts.

If we play with TCY files, then we probably don't want to do a truly "fictional" universe - since (I am told) tha TCY draft files create better players than the game itself does - all the young players would be out of balance.

However, using TCY files does add a good deal more background to the scouting process - which I think could add depth to this exercise.

My inclination is to go with TCY draft files, and that probably means dumping the "mature OPU" idea. We'd either play with the NFL players, or else with the original unaltered list of players - I'm pretty indifferent. Do you all concur?

Or are there other consistent options that I'm leaving out?

[DolaBump]

If we have additional positions in the front office beyond GM, I wouldn't mind oneof those positions. Beyond that, I'd like be one of the defensive coaches, preferably working with the secondary.

Also, will we be using TCY to generate our draft classes? Seems like it will add depth, but I've ehard there are a LOT of good players when TCY is used.

[Easy Mac]

I'd do some rookie scouting.

If you do an OPU and mature it, there will always be 32 teams, so it would be hard to take an expansion team.

[wade moore]

Too bad we can't go into the past with TCY..

Jim? you out there? :)...

We could start with a mature league to 2002, then sim up to 2017 or so with TCY files and start fromt here? I know that's really mature and salaries will be all whacky.. but idano... or hell.. why can't we start an OPU in 2002, use TCY files, and go ahead 15 or 20 years?

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I think there's a divergence here, of sorts.

If we play with TCY files, then we probably don't want to do a truly "fictional" universe - since (I am told) tha TCY draft files create better players than the game itself does - all the young players would be out of balance.

However, using TCY files does add a good deal more background to the scouting process - which I think could add depth to this exercise.

My inclination is to go with TCY draft files, and that probably means dumping the "mature OPU" idea. We'd either play with the NFL players, or else with the original unaltered list of players - I'm pretty indifferent. Do you all concur?

Or are there other consistent options that I'm leaving out?

The other possibility would be to use TCY draft files to import into a fictional universe to "mature" it. For example, starting in 1970 with an OPU and every year import a different TCY draft file until 2002. Would that address the balance issue?

[Bee]

Originally posted by wade moore
Too bad we can't go into the past with TCY..

Jim? you out there? :)...

We could start with a mature league to 2002, then sim up to 2017 or so with TCY files and start fromt here? I know that's really mature and salaries will be all whacky.. but idano... or hell.. why can't we start an OPU in 2002, use TCY files, and go ahead 15 or 20 years?

Actually, we can go into the past in a way. You could import directly (although year born would look odd, but it doesn't affect retirements or anything). Or if you wanted to you could edit the year players were born in the TCY draft file with 3ric's editor (not that much work involved - about 5 minutes or so for each year).

[cthomer5000]

Agreed. import nothing but TCY players, either ignoring the year of birth or editing them with 3ric's draft editor.

[Bee]

One other thing I was thinking about. Now that we have the "play calling interface" will we be using it? I'm not interested in calling plays, but if someone who is really dedicated and wants to be the head coach wants to do that, I'd be fine with that. I'd actually be interested in seeing how it affects the game by calling your own plays. Of course, that might slow things down too much. Any opinions?

[wade moore]

I thought retirement WAS based on birth year? Or was that changed in FOF4?

As for play calling.. i'd be worried about the time it takes to do it... i don't want anything to hold us up because someone doesn't have time.. if we're not going blind, we might as well eliminate something time consuming like this.. that's my opinion atleast..

Besides, playcalling leaves too much room for exploiting the AI..

[Bee]

Originally posted by wade moore
I thought retirement WAS based on birth year? Or was that changed in FOF4?


I believe Jim has said it's based on years played in a Q/A or chat recently. I'm not sure about past versions.

[Neel]

I would be interested in playing the role of owner. Watch over all the coaches, wonder where the wins are, and profits.

If the coach calls the plays, it could exploit the AI should the coach look to. Offensive playcalling is one of the best things about FOF4, and I would be willing to coach and call the plays, without exploiting the AI of couse, what would be the fun in that?

[DolaBump]

Well, the question of playcalling brings up another question regarding AI -- what kind of house rules are we talking about? I assume we'll set something up, but we should be careful not to restrict ourselves too much -- basically we have an advatage because we have so many people to look at each situation from so many angles -- and yet, we're at a disadvantage from the AI, because we have so many people to look at everything from different angles.

[Darkiller]

Count me in if I can play the role of :

- A College Scout : going deep into the TCY career and coming back with scouting reports for those who draft in FOF.

Since other members seem to be interested in this "job" as well, I'm very willing to be a "positional scout" and scout all QBs for instance (I'm very good at this).
Another option if we have many scouting volunteers would be "area scouts" where each of us scouts has a bunch of regions to scrutinize and send reports from players of your area only.

- A Consultant : giving my advice and knowledge on current Free Agents available, on those who'll be FA next year and that we should target, on potential trades that could significantly improve the team etc...

Basically, I have no idea up to this point about how much time I'll be able to give to this but I'll do my best.
That's why those "scout" or "football consultant" jobs are kind of free lances and should match well with time on this.

[Bee]

Well, I really think Quiksand should be GM. I seriously doubt anyone would object to that. Perhaps he can start looking at what positions everyone wants and think about filling some of them? That way anyone else wanting in will have an idea of what's still available? Just a thought (trying to prevent 20 people wanting to be QB coach or something and then having to chose one). Perhaps he can PM them and make sure they are ok with whatever position he wants them in and then list them out in the thread?

[DolaBump]

Originally posted by Bee
Well, I really think Quiksand should be GM. I seriously doubt anyone would object to that. Perhaps he can start looking at what positions everyone wants and think about filling some of them? That way anyone else wanting in will have an idea of what's still available? Just a thought (trying to prevent 20 people wanting to be QB coach or something and then having to chose one). Perhaps he can PM them and make sure they are ok with whatever position he wants them in and then list them out in the thread?

Agreed -- not to leach the fun out of this, but lets run it almost like an actual franchise -- Quiksand has been hired as the GM (it was his idea to bring this back after all) - now he gets to start assembling his staff, in basically whatever way he wants (of course he'll probably listen to our input, but he has final say). Whoever ends up as Head Coach is essentially on par with Quiksand -- if we get bogged down because the Off Coordinater disappears for a week, well either one can step in if they feel its necessary and take over those duties or get someone else to. Hopefully that will allow us keep this rolling for awhile.

The only real question I have left is the one I raised about house rules -- the wasy route is to say, "anything goes" but I don't know if we really want to go that way.

[Neel]

That is a great idea. Shouldn't someone named QuickSand be the GM of the Bengals?

[Bee]

Originally posted by Neel
That is a great idea. Shouldn't someone named QuickSand be the GM of the Bengals?

Sadly, no matter what house rules we implement, we can't make a team that bad. :D

[wade moore]

I agree with everything said.. make it like a real franchise to a certain extent, and it will run smoothly..

as for house rules.. I'm a pretty big fan of the ones that SkyDog is using in his latest dynasty, and QS Usually has a good handle on solid house rules...

We need someone to run the seasons and we could start.. and to decide what team...

[QuikSand]

Okay, I'll try to settle into some leadership role here.

I'll make one move - and appoint primelord as the team's defensive coordinator. With that, he will have at least some of the responsibility to actually sim the games and post results.

Right now, we need three volunteers for things:

-someone willing step up and help provide the game's starting point (and maybe some more direction on how we'll do that)

-two people who would be willing to play a fairly hands-on role in running this club: rookie scouting director, and offensive coordinator.

- - -

If we can get that far, then we'll at least have a core of people who are committed to moving this along, and can go from there.

I will consider items sent to me by PM, or those posted in this thread.

[primelord]

Thank you Quik. I am happy to run the sims part or even all of the time. I will also be happy to run the initial sims to get us started. Although I am not sure I feel strongly on whether we use TCY files or not.

I'll be happy to sim the years with TCY files if thats the way we want to go.

[QuikSand]

Is there going to be an easy source to get 20+ years of FOF4 files? (I think I recall someone at FOBL having a set of them... I may even have them in hand myself somewhere... I'll search a bit)

[QuikSand]

The people in this recent thread...

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4865

...seem to think that using TCY draft files over-inflates the talent in the game. Might be too much to overcome in terms of realism - sounds like it really skews the game.

While I'd rather have the ability to look at TCY draft files... I'm leaning toward setting that aside, and sticking with the original game-generated drafts.

[Doug5984]

Originally posted by QuikSand
The people in this recent thread...

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4865

...seem to think that using TCY draft files over-inflates the talent in the game. Might be too much to overcome in terms of realism - sounds like it really skews the game.

While I'd rather have the ability to look at TCY draft files... I'm leaning toward setting that aside, and sticking with the original game-generated drafts.

if we use TCY files for 20 years of simulation to give the league a background...then wouldn't everyones ratings be over-inflated, making it ok...but i can see one problem that is if every player is over-inflated it could make high first round draft picks less valuable in a way.

[QuikSand]

Yeah... it's the latter side I'm worried about. If everyone has ratings of 50 or 60, then the guys with 70 or 90 aren't really worth all that much.

[Bee]

I'm fine with not using TCY files. It takes a little of the fun away from scouting college players, but I think the net gain in the overall challenge is probably worth it.

If primelord can't run the initial setup file for some reason, I'd be happy to do it Sunday.

I did a quicksim today from 1987-2002, testing out salary cap numbers. I ended up with a cap around 97 million and a minsal of 310,000. Not sure if that's important or not, but I wanted to do it for my own curiousity.

[DolaBump]

Originally posted by Bee
I'm fine with not using TCY files. It takes a little of the fun away from scouting college players, but I think the net gain in the overall challenge is probably worth it.

If primelord can't run the initial setup file for some reason, I'd be happy to do it Sunday.

I did a quicksim today from 1987-2002, testing out salary cap numbers. I ended up with a cap around 97 million and a minsal of 310,000. Not sure if that's important or not, but I wanted to do it for my own curiousity.

Thanks Bee, I'd been planning to do that myself, but you've saved me some time. Its a bit of a high cap, but I think 15 years works for a decent history.

As for TCY files, it obviously takes an element of fun out of scouting the college game (something some of us could have spent the entire time working on) but the downside of inflated ratings seems a bit too large -- we could of course (if time permits) run a two test "history" careers and compare to see just how inflated we're talking about.

[primelord]

So are we in agreement then that we should just use the game generated players? If so I will go ahead and start simming the initial file.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by primelord
So are we in agreement then that we should just use the game generated players? If so I will go ahead and start simming the initial file.

I say go for it... thanks, primelord.

[cthomer5000]

If no one else does it, I'd like to volunteer for rookie scout. I'm also interested in being a veteran scout though (scouting the league), and that would probably be my top preference.

[Bee]

I'd like to put forth a possible House Rule.

No players can start out of position.
I mean at all, zero, zilch, nada. A LG can't start as a RG (backup would be ok I think). If you want the LG to start at RG, move him and take the rating hit. A SILB needs to be switched to MLB if you're running a 4-3 (and vice versa).

I think this does 3 important things.

1. It makes the game tougher (lowers ratings when moved, takes out the RB/FB advantage that's often exploited, etc).

2. It adds a little more interest for the position coaches. (Do you move that awesome backup C to LG?, What if the SILB is too small to play MLB and can only move to SS, cut him or move him?)

3. It adds a little more interest for scouts. (If we are running a 4-3 defense and looking for a MLB, do we take a chance on that great but small SILB? It could end up being a blown pick if he can't play MLB in a 4-3.)

I just thought it might add a little more interest to the game and add a little challenge as well.

[duckman]

I love the GroupThink concept. I especially enjoyed the first one with the Wyoming Wildfire. I'll be looking forward to reading the dynasty report. :)

[wade moore]

cthomer --

I saw we just have a "Lead Scout" not just rookie scouting if we don't use TCY files.. without TCY files, the rookie scouting becomes much less of a complex thing... So i say just have a lead scout, which you could do..
--------


I wouldn't mind being OC if no one else steps up to the plate, I just fear that my knowledge of the FOF games are much less than others who could put a better game plan together..

As for sims.. maybe we should rotate that? How detailed are we doing this? Without using TCY less time should be taken up in the off-season, so we could make the season more detailed, giving more jobs? Perhaps have someone who scouts the opposing team and we gameplan each week?

[wade moore]

Originally posted by Bee
I'm fine with not using TCY files. It takes a little of the fun away from scouting college players, but I think the net gain in the overall challenge is probably worth it.

If primelord can't run the initial setup file for some reason, I'd be happy to do it Sunday.

I did a quicksim today from 1987-2002, testing out salary cap numbers. I ended up with a cap around 97 million and a minsal of 310,000. Not sure if that's important or not, but I wanted to do it for my own curiousity.

what did you do for the starting salary cap?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Bee
I'd like to put forth a possible House Rule.

No players can start out of position.
I mean at all, zero, zilch, nada. A LG can't start as a RG (backup would be ok I think). If you want the LG to start at RG, move him and take the rating hit. A SILB needs to be switched to MLB if you're running a 4-3 (and vice versa).

You beat me to the punch, I agree. (Not sure about L/R, but everything else I'm 100% behind)

[Bee]

Originally posted by wade moore
what did you do for the starting salary cap?

$20 million. That's the lowest you can set it.

[cthomer5000]

i think LG should be able to play RG (just an example).

In real life, constantly when a player goes down they'll shuffle the interior line to get the best players out there. I just think we should be honest with ourselves at season start as to what we want these players to be. If a LG is going to start at RG all season long, we should switch positions.

[illinifan999]

I can be the rabid, annoying fan that only wants the best for his team.;)

[Bee]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
i think LG should be able to play RG (just an example).

In real life, constantly when a player goes down they'll shuffle the interior line to get the best players out there. I just think we should be honest with ourselves at season start as to what we want these players to be. If a LG is going to start at RG all season long, we should switch positions.

I basically agree. It's one thing if a guy is just going to be switched for a couple games while the regular starter is out, but long term if they are switching, I think we need to switch their position.

I know a lot of people don't think there's a difference, for example, between LG and RG but I remember an interview this season with one of the Redskin guards (Ross Tucker maybe?) and he had always played RG. When they brought in Tre Johnson, they asked Tucker(?) to switch to LG and he was really struggling. I think they ended up cutting him because he couldn't make the transition. Of course there are some guys who can play all the positions, but sadly that's not really reflected in the game.

But aside from that, I think it adds challenge and more decisions to the game.

[DolaBump]

Originally posted by Bee
I basically agree. It's one thing if a guy is just going to be switched for a couple games while the regular starter is out, but long term if they are switching, I think we need to switch their position.

I know a lot of people don't think there's a difference, for example, between LG and RG but I remember an interview this season with one of the Redskin guards (Ross Tucker maybe?) and he had always played RG. When they brought in Tre Johnson, they asked Tucker(?) to switch to LG and he was really struggling. I think they ended up cutting him because he couldn't make the transition. Of course there are some guys who can play all the positions, but sadly that's not really reflected in the game.

But aside from that, I think it adds challenge and more decisions to the game.

This is a good idea, though I believe that we do have to have a few caveats since ther number of times a players position can be changed is limited. As for the offensive line, at the beginning of the season we should have to decide where each player is playing and which side and set that -- for the most part a guy is either a right tackle or a left tackle, rarely both. That said, in cases of injury, we may need to plug in a RG for a LG, which does happen when necessary in the NFL -- and to switch a players postition for that is going to kill us. I do think that if a G is playing T we should make the switch but if its a fill-in injury situation (i.e. not for the rest of the year) we need a bit of flexibility. I think that this basically should apply across the board, though defesnive lineman are MUCH more flexible at switching sides, so that may be an exception -- also, if we want to have a LB play DE on passing downs, ala Boulware and Arrington in Marving Lewis' system, taht should possibly be another exception (though only in the passing down spot).

[Bee]

I would also add, I definitely think we need to switch SILB/WILB to MLB (or vice versa) and the same for NT and LDT/RDT. That's the difference in playing a 4-3 and 3-4, which should result in a change in ratings IMO.

[DolaBump]

One more possible exception is with back-ups -- often a player is simply "the back up outside linebacker" and to force a position change for backup is probably not necessary -- however, if he moves into a starting role, a change would then be required (again, this saves those changes for when they have an actual impact)

[wade moore]

I agree that this is a good rule with some caveates... Basically, I agree with the idea of not letting them start out of position for game 1... however, it seems silly to have to sign a guy in FA just because we don't have a RG, when we have LG ready to step right in..

[DolaBump]

This is basically just a bump, but I thought I'd ask primelord what initial settings were used for the simming (assuming you've started).

[Bee]

bump for Monday morning.

[Alf]

with the no-use of TCY files, I have to drop out and just be a follower. good luck in your project !

[Bee]

It seems most of us agree that we shouldn't play players out of position (with the exception of backups and "temporary" starters, so what other house rules should we use?

Typically, my experience with these types of careers have been that a majority of the players on the team will be free agents (often restricted free agents) and there will be a lot of cap room available the first season. Can anyone think of a good rule to keep us from coming in and snatching up all the top free agents the first year out, while allowing us some freedom?

[wade moore]

Perhaps a limit on how many offers we can make in the first day, and then nothing until the end?

[primelord]

Originally posted by DolaBump
This is basically just a bump, but I thought I'd ask primelord what initial settings were used for the simming (assuming you've started).

Unfortunately I haven't started yet, but I will have it done this evening. I am going to be simming the years as I work today. I do have a couple of questions about the setup. My plan was to just go with what bee had tested and start with an OPU from 1987 to 2002. Should I start out with the team we want to control? Or do we want to hope we can switch to the team we want after the 15 years?

Also have we decided we are going to just share the universe file for this? Or do we want to try and do most of it through screen shots etc? I think I can get us web space on the same server I hosted the petri dish files on which was pretty quick, but I will have to verify that for certain tonight.

[QuikSand]

My thinking is that we should start our team over, empty cupboard style. So, with that in mind... I really don't care what team you use to start with.

With that in mind... here's another thought. Maybe this league would be a good candidate for a complet facelift - rename all the cities and franchises, ratherthan playing the "NFL" all over again. I'd be in favor of doing this... editing the Dallas Cowboys to be the Fort Worth Blues, calling the Buffalo Bills the Niagara Falls Mutiny, whatever. Might be a way to add some flavor to the leagie, even - we could name franchises after various FOFC people... (the Austin Senators, the Tucker Balladeers, that sort of thing). Wide open possibilities.

[primelord]

Dola,

Also at what point do I want to stop the sim? Should it be in the offseason before the 2002 season? Are we going to play this as an empty cupboard?

[Easy Mac]

I think it should depend on the situation of the team. If its a good team, empty cupboard. If its a bottom dweller, keep the players.

And I say stop it after the 2001 season, before coach signing and stuff like that.

[Bee]

I think we should go with renamed cities and nicknames, but if we don't you will want to start with the team we want (highly unlikely we'll be able to switch after the quicksim).

I agree with Easy Mac that we should start right before the staff hiring phase. I always hate playing through a season with a coach and scout that I didn't pick.

I have no preference as to empty cupboard or not. I see advantages and disadvantages both ways.

[QuikSand]

I agree with Mac on timing... I'd like to start out by hiring a new coach and scout, rather than being stuck with them for the first year.

[Neel]

How often would games be simmed?

[wade moore]

I like the idea of renaming the cities to FOFC relevant names.. as you said, it will add a sense of connection to the game, especially with the group think mentallity, it will tie us all together more..

I agre on starting time.

And I think how often we sim depends on how in depth we want to go -- are we gameplanning game by game, or a chunk of games at a time, or what?

[Bee]

Good question about the pace of the game.

Gameplaning for each game might slow us down, but the advantage would be the ability to address injuries, look at matchups, etc. My instinct tells me that it might slow us down too much and kill the dynasty, but I could be wrong.

I'll throw out a suggestion for discussion (and modification).

Free Agency:
Make offers during week 1. Sim through week 10.
Make offers during week 10 (perhaps only our team?). Sim through week 20.

Draft:
Stop at each pick for rounds 1-3. After that best available at certain positions determined by whoever is running the game?

Must carry 60 players into Training Camp.

Set Lineups.
Play 2 preseason games
Revise Lineups.
Play 2 preseason games
Cut Down to 53. (must carry 53)

Run a block of 4 games at a time.
Perhaps we can get scouting reports on those 4 teams and if we want to make adjustments between games we can figure that out before each block of games?
Post Season run a game at a time.

[Easy Mac]

In terms of rosters I think we have to have the 53 as follows (more or less):

3 QB
4 RB
2 FB (maybe 1 more if only 1 OG/OT)
3 TE
5 WR
3 OT
3 OG
OG or OT (maybe 1 more if only want 1 OG/OT)
2 C
1 K
1 P

3/4 Defense:
3 DE (1 more each if 4/3)
3 DT
4 OLB
4 ILB (1 less each if 4/3)
5 CB
4 S

[DolaBump]

As for the draft, definitely stop for each during the early picks, and I would basically say that our scouting staff develops a draft ranking the players we want and take the highest left on our board each round. Also, we should have some sort of time limit on each draft pick.

As for simming, I'm all for taking it slow, but I'm really open to any speed, as long as we do a bit of gameplanning for each game (we do have a rather large group working on this). not that everyone needs to be involved in the gameplanning, but if there's one or two people who do it for the offense and defense, that could add another level.

[wade moore]

An elaboration on Bruce's Pacing..

Let's sim 4 games at a time, where the OC/DC make a plan for each game by scouting ahead of time... I guess that's basically what he said, but in short they should be submitting 4 gameplans.. this may be a way to involve more people where say we have 4 people, and they each scout an opponent and make recommendations to their coordinator? So we'd have say 4 "lead scouts" and maybe they are also position coaches, so they would have somewhat overlapping roles..

[Bee]

Originally posted by wade moore
An elaboration on Bruce's Pacing..

Let's sim 4 games at a time, where the OC/DC make a plan for each game by scouting ahead of time... I guess that's basically what he said, but in short they should be submitting 4 gameplans.. this may be a way to involve more people where say we have 4 people, and they each scout an opponent and make recommendations to their coordinator? So we'd have say 4 "lead scouts" and maybe they are also position coaches, so they would have somewhat overlapping roles..

Yep. I was thinking about gameplaning for each game and submitting 4 at a time.

I really like the idea of having different people scout each team and make recommendations (if we have enough interest).

[primelord]

Originally posted by Bee
Yep. I was thinking about gameplaning for each game and submitting 4 at a time.

I really like the idea of having different people scout each team and make recommendations (if we have enough interest).

Or even if we don't people can double up on teams etc.

[Bee]

Although I still like the idea, the one negative we'll have with playing in blocks of games will be the accuracy of our scouting and gameplanning.

If we are looking at a team 3 games before we play them, they could have several injuries which would change the makeup of their team. Perhaps their star RB goes out and we have gameplanned to stop him. The computer changes it's strategy every week and may go from a run oriented team to a pass oriented team based on injuries. Our team may have similar concerns.

Just something to think about.

[wade moore]

Bee,

I agree that is a concern. However, in the name of time, I do not believe it is a serious enough of a concern to go day by day instead of 4 days at a time. If we go day by day, I can see a severe, quick bog down that kills interest. I think I deally we need to finish a season of games within a week or two or people will begin to lose interest..

[Bee]

Yep. I think we should still do the games in blocks of 4. I'd hate to see this die after a couple games.

[wade moore]

<b>Proposed Rule:</b>

No simming by anyone at any point besides the official "simmer". No simming ahead to see how a draft pick will do, how a gameplan will do, etc.

<b>Proposed Exception:</b>

If you are scouting game N in the block of 4, you may sim N-1 games ahead. This way you can get more of a feel for the opposing teams tendencies, which is particuraly important during the beginning of the season. You may only do this sim once, so as to not be able to fiddle with our gameplans.


-- This should help to clear up part of the problem Bee was discussing, although it does not help for if the opposing team has an injury, or we have an injury.

[Bee]

Sounds like a good rule to me.

[QuikSand]

I'm open, I guess, to this level of detailed gameplanning... but I think there is a real threat of "loving this to death." I'm not so sure we get a lot more out of the gaming experience by playing it extremely slowly, with detailed management for every single game. But if that's the will of the people... s'okay by me.

[cthomer5000]

im in favor of 4 at a time.

[primelord]

I have some concerns about the distribution of the game files. I hadn't thought about this before, but the game produces a file for each season run. I assume this file is what stores all the stats for the almanac etc. Well each file is 5 megabytes in size. That makes the initial league file a little over 90 megabytes uncompressed. We will gain a little space by zipping that up, but it is still going to be a huge file to transfer back and forth.

[wade moore]

QS,

That's why we are suggesting doing multiple games at a time.. although I can see your point..

When I was doing the simming, this was a fairly time consuming thing..

I'm being fickle here, but I can see where this would be a problem... Maybe we need a vote on a couple of these things? Who will be simming? Will we rotate it or will one person do it?

Maybe we need a tally of how many willing participants we have... Reply to this and let us know if you are definately participating..

[Bee]

We could do a "base" gameplan at the start of the season and based on the opponent modify that (if necessary based on scouting the opponent?).

We need to avoid this bogging down too much in details.


The size of the game file may be a big problem.
Doing things via screenshots and text print outs will end up putting a lot of the work onto one person and that might really slow things down, so I don't think that will be the solution. Anyone have any ideas?

[wade moore]

If we did not scout each game, there would only be a need for file transfers in the off-season, making it more bearable?

I know that would cut down on what people can do.. but maybe we could move through faster, not get bogged down, and not have transfer issues.. we could design it this way:

1) Offseason, gameplan, etc
2) Simmer runs 4 games, posts about it
3) Discuss game plan changes for say.. 2 days? Finalize depth chart and game plan changes (no file transfer necessary)
4) Simmer runs 4 games on the 3rd day, posts about it
season report
5) Discuss game plan changes for say.. 2 days? Finalize depth chart
6) Simmer runs 4 games on the 3rd day, posts about it
7) End of Regular Season Report
8) If playoffs, gameplan for those -- the Simmer can post the scouting report for the opponent, no need for a d/l
9) Sim game, return to 9 until a loss

Then go back to 1

Does that make sense? That would mean a... 10 day turnaround from first sim until the end of the regular season.. that seems like a reasonable time frame. If we did that with d/ling and scouting of each opponent, that may double or triple that time period.

I was in favor of the scouting, but the more i think about the logistics the more i realize it may bog things down too much.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by primelord
I have some concerns about the distribution of the game files. I hadn't thought about this before, but the game produces a file for each season run. I assume this file is what stores all the stats for the almanac etc. Well each file is 5 megabytes in size. That makes the initial league file a little over 90 megabytes uncompressed. We will gain a little space by zipping that up, but it is still going to be a huge file to transfer back and forth.

Let's recall - many of the game's files don't change once they are made. If we send around the file with the 1999 stats to everyone involved, then we're done. We don't need to zip it up again, and keep re-sending it every time we share the file again.

I think by only sharing the needed "updated" files atthe various times of transfer, we can keep this under control.

[QuikSand]

My thinking on sharing effort would be this:

The actual working game file rotates among four people:

-General Manager - starts the season, manages front office and financials, and contract offers/negotiations

-Rookie Scouting - runs the rookie draft

-Off Coord/Def Coord - run training camp and sim the season (split as they see fit)


That's only four people who have to actually open up FOF4 to play the game, though the game files should be posted publicly for anyone else to download and look over (to scout out free agents, etc.).

[primelord]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Let's recall - many of the game's files don't change once they are made. If we send around the file with the 1999 stats to everyone involved, then we're done. We don't need to zip it up again, and keep re-sending it every time we share the file again.

I think by only sharing the needed "updated" files atthe various times of transfer, we can keep this under control.

Thats a very good point. Although we should keep in mind the two save game files and the current year file will still be about 13 meg in size. Not terrible but still considerably bigger than FOF2001 files were. But I think your right. That should be manageable. It will just eb the intial download thats a pain.

If it makes it easier I will be happy to run all the sims that way we cut down the transfers as much as possible.

[wade moore]

I like QS's game plan for who does which job.. maybe the OC and DC switch off each half of the year if they want?

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by QuikSand
...though the game files should be posted publicly for anyone else to download and look over (to scout out free agents, etc.).

that's good. Because I'd like to look at potential free agents. See who's hot and ready to explore free agency.

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
My thinking on sharing effort would be this:

The actual working game file rotates among four people:

-General Manager - starts the season, manages front office and financials, and contract offers/negotiations

-Rookie Scouting - runs the rookie draft

-Off Coord/Def Coord - run training camp and sim the season (split as they see fit)


That's only four people who have to actually open up FOF4 to play the game, though the game files should be posted publicly for anyone else to download and look over (to scout out free agents, etc.).

Looks like a good plan to me.

Depending on who the Off Coord ends up being, they could work out the details with primelord about running the season.

[wade moore]

Btw - if no one else steps up to the plate, I could Off Coord.

[primelord]

The league files are going to have to wait until tonight to get posted. Our firewall blocks most protocols so the only way I could get it to someone or myself to post on a website is through e-mail and I don't want to send such a large attachment through our mail system.

I will resim quickly tonight and try to have everything up this evening.

[Neel]

Do you have everyone you need in place? All coaches and scouts?

[wade moore]

Neel, you are more than welcome.. one of us needs to go through the thread and see what we do have, but i'm sure we can use someone else...

I'll try to go through, but probably can't until atleast tonight.. busy at work today, so if someone else beats me to it, they can go for it..

[Bee]

I think there are probably still plenty of positions open. I'm pretty open to any of the positions, basically just give me whatever's left after everyone else has picked what they want. :D

One thing everyone should agree to is if one of the 4 main guys disappears for an extended period, they can be replaced by one of the position coaches. Might even be a good idea to name someone to cover for them if they aren't able to make it for deadlines, etc. Like if wade is the off coord, then perhaps the QB's coach could also be his asst to cover for him if he goes on a business trip or vacation for a week or something. Each of the 4 main guys could name one of their staff to do that? Just a thought.

[primelord]

Quik - Weren't you going to assign the remaining positions?

[TredWel]

If there's any room left (I came late to the party, sorry), if there's a position open for a position coach, I'll be glad to fill it. Failing that, I would greatly enjoy being the team historian/statistician.

[primelord]

Quik tell me if I am over stepping my bounds here a bit, but maybe to speed things along a little bit I will take "applications" for defensive coaching positions. I am kind of obsessed with LB's so I figured I would fill the role of DC and LB coach which means I would need a DL and DB coach. And if we ended up with people who were left without a spot then I would be happy to relinquish my LB coach role to someone.

I want to implement the ubiquitous Cover 2 defense so for my DL coach we obviously need lineman who can rush the passer as they will create almost all of the pressure on the QB. And for the DB coaches we need CB's who can play the run and have good bump and run skills and safties who are excellent cover guys.

If you are interested in one of those roles let me know and I'd say the job is yours. If you had some other way of assigning positions in mind Quik let me know.

[QuikSand]

I'm saying the word, primelord... go ahead and stock the defensive staff.

At this point, I haven't really had my socks knocked off by anyone wanting to be our Offensive Coordinator. Somebody please step up, take the bull by the horns, make a commitment of your time and efforts, and the job is yours.

[primelord]

Ok Dolabump is going to be my DB's coach which still leaves a DLine coach job available if anyone is interested.

Also I assume the position coaches will double as scouts in the draft for that particular position? I don't know if that was the plan, but it seems to make sense.

[Doug5984]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I'm saying the word, primelord... go ahead and stock the defensive staff.

At this point, I haven't really had my socks knocked off by anyone wanting to be our Offensive Coordinator. Somebody please step up, take the bull by the horns, make a commitment of your time and efforts, and the job is yours.


I would take the job of OC, but I have no experience making gameplans on the new FOF....I have always just let the computer done it....if someone wants to take the job for a little while I can be the assistant get a feal for the job then take over...but currently I am not qualified to do the job.

[Neel]

OC would be fun. Def Backs coach was what I was going to go for, but OC would be very interesting with a team of humans taking the jobs from the AI.

I would assume the OC would make game plans around players provided by the position coaches? Or will Quicksand or Primelord play the GM role of stocking with talent?

I may have missed posts that detail all this, but someone should be the one to perform the real GM duties...signing the talent.
Then the coaches and OC and DC would have to deal with it.

If you need someone to be the OC, I will take it on.

[primelord]

Neel,

While it may not work exactly like this I think the general idea is the position coaches recommend players in their position. The Coordinators take those recommendatons and make recommendations of their own based off those and maybe some of their own ideas. And QuikSand being the GM makes the final call and all players.

It may not work exactly like that, but I think that is the general idea. And the coordinators are responsible for making the game plans probably with some input from their coaches.

[Booj]

I'll take the DLine job, Primelord...

If not, I'll take a offensive position job.

Thanks

[sasquatch]

I wanted to participate in the last Groupthink, and now that it has come back again, I'd like to try to participate again. I'd really like the QB coach position, and if I can't be that, then maybe I'll write some of those humorous posts that give personality to the players on the squad.

[primelord]

Originally posted by Booj
I'll take the DLine job, Primelord...

If not, I'll take a offensive position job.

Thanks

Ok Booj the job is yours. Looks like we have the defensive staff set. Now we just need some offensive guys. :)

[TredWel]

Primelord,

What offensive positions are still open? I'll sign up for one, but don't want to step on anybody's toes.

[Booj]

Originally posted by primelord
Now we just need some offensive guys. :)

Screw the offensive guys. We all know defence wins championships :D

[primelord]

Originally posted by TredWel
Primelord,

What offensive positions are still open? I'll sign up for one, but don't want to step on anybody's toes.

As far as I know all of them are still open. Quik is the one to make the call, but I think he has been waiting for someone to be assertive and say they want the OC job.

[TredWel]

You want assertive? Well, that's something I really can't give you. What I can give you is an option. I'll take the position of Offensive Coordinator, but only if nobody else really wants the job. If somebody else wants to do it, that's fine - I'll be happy with a positional coaching job. But, if nobody else wants it, I'll use my years of FOF training and craft the best damn offense I can.

[primelord]

Heh it seems we are going to have a very passive offense this year. Everyone who has said they will take the OC job has said they will only take it if no one else wants it. :)

[Bee]

I would step up and offer to take the Off. Coord job, but to be honest I never mess around much with the game plans other than to adjust a few numbers in the basic offense and defense. I think someone more detail oriented than I am would be a better fit.

[wade moore]

Screw it..

I'll be OC. I'm detail oriented, just unexperienced with the FOF4 gameplans, but we'll work with it. We'll be run oriented, I'll tell you that now :)..

But I'll take the OC job, i'm geared up for this and don't want the lack of an OC to hold us up.. so if no one has objections, I will do the job. My main concern was time, but if we do 4 games at a time and alternate OC/DC then that would merely mean 4 games every like 6 days.. I could do that no prob..

[Bee]

Did you send your resume to Quiksand? ;)

[Neel]

I thought I was clear in my previous post that I would be happy to take the OC job. If it is gone now, I would take on any position opening there may be, with the RB's, QB's or WR's as a my top choices.

[wade moore]

Neel,

Didn't mean to step on anyone's shoes.. you seemed unsure..

well.. QS, just let us know who will be OC ;).. I'm not trying to take it from someone who asked for it first, i thought that no one had put a firm claim on it though (and that was the prob)...

Either way.. GM decision time.. just pick one and go on our way, i don't think either Neel or I will be upset (i know i won't) if we're not picked, as there are plenty of other roles..

[Neel]

Oh no, I will not be upset at all.

We are all looking for someone who would be interested and I think everyone involved would want others who would find if fun to run a team as a group.

I would be happy to help in at any coaching spot.

[primelord]

Paging GM Quik...

[Doug5984]

I would like to be a position coach on offense, if avialable. Either RB/FB, TE/WR, or O-line...if one is avialable I would like the job...if not then no problem.

[Mike47]

I would be very interested in helping any way I can. I have been playing FOF since FOF2. I did not read each and every post in this thread but if I need to I will. Please contact me at [email protected]

I am willing to take any position that is available at this time.

Mike47

[primelord]

Mike can't we just contact you on the board? :)

[QuikSand]

Okay, sorry I've been away most of the day.

wade - you're our man on offense. I'd like you to get Bee and Doug5984 onto the offensive staff - I'm comfortable that you three will bring us on line effectively.

There have been several people who have expressed interest in being involved with scouting. I'll sort through those posts, and we'll come up with a plan there shortly.

primelord, how are the files coming along? (Or do I need to dig back into the thread more?)

[wade moore]

quick note, about to crash, i'll write more in the morning..

but i think that cthomer was heavily interested in scouting, so i'm thinking he'd be a good man to put in charge of that -- he's shown himself in other dynasty projects..

[Bee]

wade,

You can assign me to whatever position coach that others don't want. Just glancing back, it looks like no one was very interested in the offensive line - but any position is fine with me.

[primelord]

Originally posted by QuikSand
primelord, how are the files coming along? (Or do I need to dig back into the thread more?)

The files are done. I am getting ready to put them up for everyone. The size of the files isn't going to be nearly the problem I thought it was. The files are 80+ megs, but once compressed with WinZip they squashed down to 4.5 meg which is pretty damn impressive.

[QuikSand]

Egg salad.

[wade moore]

If you need space, let me know... Posting coming soon with positions..

[primelord]

Ok I am having problems getting the web space together so to not hold things up any longer than we have to if you have space wade I'd be grateful if we can use it.

[Mike47]

Yeah, you guys can contact me on the board. My internet connection was down for about two days so this is the longest you'll ever wait for me to reply to anything...trust me I'm in college and have spare time up the wah-zoo.

I am willing to do whatever I can to assist. Of course everyone wants to be a GM but I wouldn't mind scouting (pro or college) or working with a particular position group. All of these would be foreign to me in this type of "group thinking" because I, like many others, have never done anything like this before in a group. I'm willing to start small. Just throw me a bone. Whatever makes things easier for you guys. I just love football and love FOF.

Mike

[Doug5984]

I have not seen this posted as of yet...but where do we begin with the file? Do we start at the end of a season, and go through free agency and the draft to get 'our guys' in the game? Or do we start at the beggining of a season and play with the players we are delt?

[Bee]

Originally posted by Doug5984
I have not seen this posted as of yet...but where do we begin with the file? Do we start at the end of a season, and go through free agency and the draft to get 'our guys' in the game? Or do we start at the beggining of a season and play with the players we are delt?

We are starting at the hire staff point.

[QuikSand]

I have a somewhat new idea for "starting" our team.

Rather than go with a *pure* empty cupboard, how about this:

-we will (by necessity) take over an established team, with a full roster

-any players on that team may be kept, but only after we sign them to a new contract

-any other players who we can not or will not re-sign must be released


I think that would get us closer to having a "market value" for any players aboard - withou the artificial penalty of never being able to obtain any players who happened to be on our team to begin with.

This would mean a salary cap hit in our first couple of years, which would also add some temperance to our ability to rapidly stock the team with free agents. Not an altogether bad thing, I don't think.

I like this... a fair balance, I think, between true empty cupboard and just taking over an existing team. Plus, it will give us lots to talk about immediately, once we get files sent around.

[wade moore]

Bully, Bully! I like this idea!

[Bee]

I agree. That's a very good idea IMO.

[wade moore]

Prime, the natives are restless ;)

[Bee]

Maybe we should move forward with finalizing the house rules? Perhaps get the career "officially" started on Monday if the file is available at that time?

[wade moore]

Sounds Like a good plan.. someone (not sure if I'll have time today, I work at a helpdesk and it's hard to write a long message, but because of the snow you all got up there our biggest customer (Patuxent River Naval Base) is not working for the most part so maybe) needs to sum it up on that post, tie in everything, and I guess basically vote on if it's ok.. we can discuss until the cows come home, at some point we have to just make a decision...

[primelord]

I had some problems securing the web space yesterday, but I got it taken care of this morning. However the file is at home so it will have to wait until tonight, but I will get it out for everyone this evening.

Quik,

We aren't going to have to make that many desicisons on people who are already on the roster intially. Since I have been quick simming all of our players are only playing out their rookie contracts. After that they don;t get resigned and the players the AI signs to fill the roster are only signed to one year deals so we only have a handful of guys under contract anyway.

[Bee]

I put together an initial set of house rules in the thread, which I will edit as we finalize it if that's ok with everyone.

[wade moore]

Works for me... The rules seemed goo doverall, make sure we add the ones we discussed in this thread (i.e. not simming ahead)

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by primelord
I had some problems securing the web space yesterday, but I got it taken care of this morning. However the file is at home so it will have to wait until tonight, but I will get it out for everyone this evening.

Itching... will probably miss it tonight, it seems. But it would be great to get a file out and about this weekend - I actually will have some time to dedicate, if we can do so.

[QuikSand]

rats.

just bumping...

[wade moore]

if space is the prob prime, i have space ready and available.. you could e-mail me the file at [email protected] and i could put it up...

[wade moore]

Dola..


Were we going to change the team names, or is it too late for that?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by wade moore
Were we going to change the team names, or is it too late for that?

It's not too late - that can be an adjustment made while we have the first game file. I'm just hoping that can happen fairly soon.

[QuikSand]

ping primelord...

[wade moore]

Not to step on prime's toes, but does someone else need to run a sim up to 2002 so that we can start?

[QuikSand]

Starting to look that way. I don't know how to start a league in an arbitrary year... but I'll check it out, and see what I can do.

[wade moore]

All you do is go to the player editor, create a player file, make it so there is one player in the draft pool and one in the player pool, and then go to the misc options and change the starting year to 1987 and the cap to 200 (20 mil)..

If you need help, let me know, i should be on IM for atleast aqhile..

[QuikSand]

I don't know when I'll get a chance to get to this, but today isn't looking too likely. I had a pocket of time this morning, but now am starting to feel the hot breath of Monday morning on my neck, and have to get back to real work. Alas, I suppose this will happen eventually - but my time availability just isn't very consistent this time of year.

[wade moore]

Urm, if I have time I might be able to do it.. we could use the file I'm using for my Redskins Dynasty, but that's up to you.. if we get that desperate, we can just use that..

[primelord]

Ok we have a bit of a problem here. Everytime I set the year to 1987 and then sim up to 2002 it wipes all the players out of the draft for the 2002 year. I asked Jim about it and he said it is probably a bug in the game that has to do with the expansion draft for 2002 year. Now I know other people have had success with a mature universe before, but I have tried 5 different times now and the same thing happens every time. I am not just asleep at the wheel. :) Although I do apologize it is taking so long.

So with that being said we can go in a couple directions. If someone else wants to generate the file thats ok with me. But I will be happy to do it still. I am thinking I can start the league in 1975 and generate up to 1990. That gives us our 15 years and hopefully should avoid the problem atleast until 2002. At the point if we go that long we can look into maybe just importing a TCY draft for that year.

The other option is I do have a 2002 year file that has had all game generated players to this point, but like I said the draft is empty. So we would have to import a TCY file to get it to work. Whatever you guys want to do is fine with me.

[wade moore]

Prime,

I ran into this just last week.. everyone told me you have to just import a TCY file... that it is a bug in the game..

On that note, that annoys me btw.. I wrote Jim over a week ago about it and he never wrote me back.. sigh.. anyway..

I say just import a TCY file for this year, say it is an outsanding class, and be on our merry way.. that is what i had to do..

[wade moore]

My posts aren't showing up half of the time, this is weird..

This is a bug in the game apparently.. I had the prob about a week ago and everyone told me they know about it and you have to import a TCY draft, so I say let's just do that and call it an outstanding draft class..

That annoys me btw, I wrote Jim about a week ago about this and he never wrote me back..

anyway, i say import and move on..

[wade moore]

Prime, if you use IM -- send me a message at 'wademoore'

[wade moore]

Dola again..

was just chatting with Quik..

What if we started in 2002, even with an opu, salary of 20 mil, and then simmed out 15 years from there? It seems that with me comparing a couple of years this could really throw things out of whack to have this one extraordinarily good draft class.. any thoughts? I don't have time to sim 15 years unfortunately :(

[Doug5984]

Primelord- before we try and re-sim for 15 years...why not try importing a TCY draft file, and just seeing how distorted the player ratings are? If it isn't to bad we could do that but if it is really bad (the entire first round being players w/ ratings in the 90s) then we might need to do something different

[wade moore]

I looked at the class, and there are about twice as many 80's, 70's, and 60's in future potential

[primelord]

Ok sorry guys I was having some trouble getting to the board so I just made an executive desicion. :) I started the universe in 1975 and simmed forward to 1990. I figure the year really doesn't mean much. So I hope that was ok. I am getting ready to upload the file right now.

We have been a pretty mediocre franchise (as expected) over the years and this year we have the #4 pick in the draft. The file should be up within the hour.

[primelord]

Ok I am having real problems posting to the board.

The file is up and you can get it at the following address.

FOFC_GT.zip (http://unixweb1.brick.net/~agency/fofc_gt/FOFC_GT.zip)

Let me know if anyone has any problems.

[wade moore]

This plan works for me, speak up if it doesn't...

[DolaBump]

I say we go with this and work on "toning down" a TCY draft for the 2002 season when we get there. I'm fairly sure its a bug dealing with the ability to draft "real" players in the 2002 draft if electing to start with the expansion draft. Anyway, using a TCY draft does fix this and if we use the draft editor, we should be able to find a way to bring the level of that years draft down -- besides its 12 years away.

Now to get some team names.

[primelord]

Plus Jim told me he will address that bug in the next patch anyway. So hopefully by the time we get to 2002 the new patch will be out.

[Doug5984]

Ok I just had some time to look over the file, and I noticed that our coach was no longer under contract, so I put together a make-shift short of possible candidates (my top 10 rated coaches)...here they are. Also I noticed our scout is really bad, we might want to consider hiring a new one.

(They are not in any order)
Name...Record...Age...Money Wanted (Million)...Worst Attributes...Best Attributes

Ian Bosworth (NED) 45-24...60...3.64...Fair Secondary...Excellent QB / O-line

Skip Brady...0-0...52...5.79...Poor Linebackers...Excellent Young Talent

Rodney Perry...0-0...56...3.72...Fair O-Line...Excellent Linebackers

Lionel Clanton...0-0...65...3.7...Fair O-Line...Excellent Injury / D-Play Call

Dexter Reeves...0-0...55...4.34...Fair O-Line / LBs...Very Good - RB / Motovation

Richard Bedwell (MIN)...27-25...60...4.77...Fair WRs...Excellent O-line / Secondary

Norbert Wilson...0-0...59...4.46...Fair D-line / Motovation...Excellent Secondary

Full Contact Jarvis...0-0...46...4.13...Fair D-line / D-Play Call...Very Good - QB / O-line

Richard Crane (HOU)...22-41...62...3.46...Fair O-Play Call...Excellent Kicker / D-line

J.J. Boles...21-14...50...6...Poor D- Play Call...Excellent LBs


I also had some time to look at our roster and the few remaining players on it are pretty good, I especially like our young RB. If we do decide to use the player designation this year the 3 players that I wouuld really look at are:
SS Donnie Bridgeman, CB Alonzo Armstrong, or RT Casey Ledyard. The RT is not that great and we could probably find a good replacement in FA if we wanted to, but if our Offense is going to be very strong run oriented we might want to try and lock him up.

Also, is there any set timeline as to when things will be run and all that type of stuff?

[strait8]

If there is an offencsive coaches position open or scout I would be willing to do this. Iespecially would like the O-line or OC job.

Thanks
Strait8

[DolaBump]

I went ahead and rated all of the coaches and here's my top ten in order:

Ian Bosworth –
He's 60, probably the best coach and by far the best value, asking only $3.64 mil compared to a high of 6 mil. Not great at developing positions or talent, but a good playcaller, plus VG, G and VG at Motivation, discipline and injury avoidance respectively. Not actually my preference, but he rated out the highest. Also has the 3rd best Winning pct of active coaches and has won a championship. Only 5 years as a Head Coach.

Richard Bedwell –
Also 60, also a solid value, asking $4.77. Probably the best all-around coach, excelling with the O-line and secondary as well as VG at QBs, Off playcalling and Injury Avoidance. Coming off of a 12-4 season with the Vikes, they lost the Super Bowl in only his 3rd year as a Head Coach.

Jonathon Mitchell –
57, but he's got 15 years logged as a Head Coach, including 5 playoff apearances and a championship. Asking $4.4, about what he's worth, possibly on the downcurve of his career. Slightly above average for positions, though excellent with the o-line. Only average w/Young Talent, though, as his strengths lie in Motivation, discipline and playcalling. Very similar to Bosworth, but a longer track record, though San Fran finished just 8-8 last year.

Full Contact Jarvis –
Well, gotta love the name. At 46, he's never been a Head Coach, one of only three such candidates in my top ten. Another good value, asking only $4.13. He's a change of pace, rating good or better at every position except d-line (avg). Only average w/young talent and weak w/discipline and def playcalling. Something of a risk, but he may pay off.

Richard Crane –
Our current Head Coach, though his contract is up. He's 62 and we've been below .500 in all three of his years coaching us (though that may not be his fault considering the lack of stability). He's hit or miss with the positions, though he is excellent w/D-line and Kickers. He also rates Good at Young Talent, Motivation, Discipline and Injury Avoidance. The other positives are a reasonable $3.46 mil salary and that retaining him helps maintain cohesion.

JJ Boles –
He's 50 and has been nothing but successful, coaching SD the past two years (his only two) and making the playoffs both years, losing in the AFC championship last year to eventual champs Tennessee. Good at almost everything, but his playcalling is abysmal, and he's not any better than good, except when dealing with LBs (exc). While he looks good at first glance, his $6 mil pricetag makes me a bit way.

Tyrus Joseph –
Along the lines of Full Contact, he's 49 and has never been a Heach Coach. He's also primarily a position guy, though he's very good at developing young talent, which is nice to see. His major weaknesses lie in his fair Discipline and Def playcalling and Average Off playcalling and Injury avoidance. A better deal than Full Contact at $3.63 mil, but I think I'd be more willing to take a chance on F.C. Jarvis.

Ryan Reeves –
At 53, he's been coaching for 7 years, but has yet to make the playoffs. His main selling point is that he's solid across the board except for Kickers and Motivation. He's VG with the offensive players and excellent w/the D-line. A decent coach, but overpriced at $5.33 mil and still unproven, despite several opportunities.

Walter Keen –
60, w/15 years of experience, he's only made the playoffs 3 times, though he did finish 9-6 w/NO last year. Another guy who might be dropping off, he's developing some Jekyll and Hyde tendencies, either being VG or poor in almost every category. His strength is all offense, both w/position players (minus the O-line) and playcalling -- we're talking Steve Spurrier here. He's also good w/young talent, which helps, as does his pricetag, a modest $3.77 mil. Still, he seems more like a filler coach than anything.

Korey Geather -
A whiz kid, he's only 42, with no Head Coaching experience and decent ratings. A key, though, is that he's VG w/ QBs and LBs, two key positions and is only below avg in the Secondary and at RB. He's a huge risk reward candidate, with massive room for growth coming with a massive salary: $5.7 million.



That's my summary, with
Ronnie Perry
Luther drake
Bernie Johnstone
Tim Perez
Norbert Wilson
Mitchell Bowling
Butch Serman
other candidates I thought might be worth a look, but just didn;t make my top ten. After that I'm not really a fan of the others, they have too much downside.

Incidentally, Stan Durham rated out the worst candidate and Ernest Corzine was BY FAR the worst value out there.

[DolaBump]

Okay, now for the scouting --

first off, our scout, Johnny Kim, rates worse than all but one scout available, the abysmal Brant Hansen. I'm not sure what out House Rules say about this situation, but I believe we said we could bring in our own guys in the first year. I think we might want to consider a limit on what we can spend on a coach/scout, but that's another topic. On to my list --

The top two Scouts stand out pretty obviously:

Neal Terrell-
This is hands down the best guy out there. He's 49, been with Indy for 3 years, they've made the playoffs all three. Good or better across the board, except for RB (avg) and LB (Fair). While I would prefer a better scout at those two positions, he's too good everywhere else, including being Good at Young Talent. He's a bit pricey at $610,000, but he's worth it.

Leslie Bronkow-
9 years as a scout, his teams have made the playoffs 8 times. 57, Very good at Young talent, weak at QB and LB. Asking $590,000, also steep, also worth it. These guys are the best available by far and essentailly equal except for Terrell's age.


The rest of the Top 10:

Lincoln Glenn-
Defensive Scout really, 49, never been a Lead Scout, but he's VG at Young Talent. $570,000. I like this guy, but I'd shell out a few more bucks for one of the top two first.

Frankie Rizzo-
Makes good financial sense, 50 asking $410,000. 15 years in, good or better at every position minus Secondary (Fair). Only Average w/Young Talent or else he's an elite Scout. The money makes him the best value.

Adrian Medzihradsky-
Another newbie, ancient at 70, a stopgap solution. Wants $550,000, overall solid across the board, Good w/Young Talent. Age is obviously a factor, though.

Tony Shields-
Young guy, 38, VG w/QBs and Secondary, Fair w/Kickers and D-Line. Only $410,000 and Good w/Young TAlent, plus his youth will probably mean he gets better in a coupleyears. No experience as a Lead Scout, though.

Louis Burnett-
56, hit or miss as a position scout, but VG at Young Talent gives him a leg up. Pricey, $600,000, probably not worth it, but rates good enough to place here.

Alan Francis-
I prefer Francis to Burnett, younger, 43, his only real weakness is at RB, where he's Poor. Good with Young talent, though, and cheap, $380,000. If we go outside the top 4, I like this guy.

Kris Bridges-
4 seasons as a scout, 2 playoffs appearances, exellecent w/Offensive guys, Average everywhere else. I prefer balanced scouts, especially when he wants $530,000 a year and he's 54.

Frankie Barrett-
52, econo-scout, wants just $330,000 and is good across the board except Fair at QB and AVG at RB and Secondary. Good with Young Talent, a decent option if we're strapped.

Also considered, but not quite up to snuff:
Tyrus Williams
Harris Riti
Claude Brito
Jeffrey Hammond
Larry Ohanian


Everyone else, same thing as the coaches, too much downside.

I think, if its an option, we definitely need to replace Kim, he's horrible.


P.S. Second worst available scout: Freddie Kevorkian
Worst value: (tie) Neil Schulz, Leo Gonzalez

[wade moore]

strait8,

Check out <a href="http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5164&highlight=group+think">This Thread</a> where the positions are discussed, you're on there :)

I'm going to go through and look at staff now..

[QuikSand]

I think we're due for a new thread or two - let's try to keep these discussions going, but easy to track.