FOF2K7 receiving yards issue

[Peregrine]

I know there has been a thread about the run to pass ratio, which I think is a bit off, but I've discovered another issue that seems even more off from real football. Basically I was running my draft pick dynasty and I was trying to find out why it seemed that so many of even the best WRs seemed to have mediocre careers where they would string along mostly under 1000 yard seasons. Now of course 1000 yards as a receiver is a good season, but even the best receivers in my career league, in the year 2033, were only showing 3, 4 ,maybe 6 1000 yard seasons in their careers, this didn't seem right.

So I went back and checked how many receivers had 1000 yards or more receiving in each season, this is really easy in 2K7 with the great new season drop-down on the individual statistics. Anyway, the numbers shocked me, and seemed way too low. Basically I checked 11 years of real NFL statistics in this area, 11 years of my 2K7 career, and just to make sure, I quick-simmed 11 years of a new fictional player file in 2K4.

Keep in mind this isn't receiving yardage as a whole, this is just the number of receivers in any year who had 1000+ receiving yards.

Real NFL

2005 - 20 over 1000
2004 - 24 over 1000
2003 - 14 over 1000
2002 - 22 over 1000
2001 - 24 over 1000
2000 - 18 over 1000
1999 - 26 over 1000
1998 - 21 over 1000
1997 - 19 over 1000
1996 - 21 over 1000
1995 - 23 over 1000

average 21.1


FOF 2K4

2004 - 10 over 1000
2005 - 9 over 1000
2006 - 17 over 1000
2007 - 18 over 1000
2008 - 15 over 1000
2009 - 20 over 1000
2010 - 14 over 1000
2011 - 19 over 1000
2012 - 16 over 1000
2012 - 15 over 1000
2013 - 15 over 1000

average 15.3


FOF 2K7

2033 - 10 over 1000
2032 - 5 over 1000
2031 - 8 over 1000
2030 - 8 over 1000
2029 - 8 over 1000
2028 - 6 over 1000
2027 - 4 over 1000
2026 - 5 over 1000
2025 - 6 over 1000
2024 - 3 over 1000
2023 - 7 over 1000

average 6.3


Obviously I'm not seeking NFL level realism, the level this was at in 2K4 seems about right to me, but obviously there's been a huge falloff in 2K7 to what I consider unreasonable levels. Could there be something about my career that is throwing this off? If someone else can try to track this in their 2K7 career I'd appreciate it.

Ideas on what's causing this? My theory right now is either there's a problem in the gameplanning or the AI that's causing passes not to be distributed properly, being scattered over many lesser receivers even when a better receiver is available. Also this could be related to the thinning of the talent pool in this version, maybe something to do with the route running skill levels.

I'd love to hear your ideas, this is something that needs to be addressed.

[larrymcg421]

I've noticed this too. The problem seems to be with the new playing time screen. When I let the AI select playing time, I often see it giving a top notch receiver only 50% or so. I had one receiver with about 200 yards through the first 8 games. I finally went in and manually changed the playing time to 80% and he got over 600 yards in the last 8 games.

[Peregrine]

That's a good point Larry, I checked one of the players in question, basically Washington has an all world receiver rated 79/79, and three dime-a-dozen chumps with current ratings of 23 or less. But yet when I check the passing stats, all four are getting around the same number of targets, 81, 80, 73, 71, with the 80 being the star. He should be getting FAR more targets, but due to the playing time issue, he isn't.

[Mestor]

I've noticed this too. The problem seems to be with the new playing time screen. When I let the AI select playing time, I often see it giving a top notch receiver only 50% or so. I had one receiver with about 200 yards through the first 8 games. I finally went in and manually changed the playing time to 80% and he got over 600 yards in the last 8 games.

A good way to check this is to compare QB passing yards

if recievers yards are low but qbs are ~average then the problem lies in too many 3rd and 4th wrs playing too many plays / getting too many targets

[Peregrine]

A good way to check this is to compare QB passing yards

if recievers yards are low but qbs are ~average then the problem lies in too many 3rd and 4th wrs playing too many plays / getting too many targets

I think this is definitely the case, in the run/pass ratio thread people were complaining, with cause, that QBs seem to be racking up too many yards, maybe less than before, but still a lot. I think they're just unrealistically scattering them across all their targets instead of going for the best guys.

[Peregrine]

Here's what Washington looks like, you can see their receivers and see how good Prescott is compared to the rest (he's scouted as the 2nd best WR in the league.)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/krm123/washington.jpg


But here's the passing stats on the year. Why are Enloe and Astley getting so many targets? Why do the targets seem so evenly distributed?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/krm123/washstats.jpg

[larrymcg421]

The most telling number there is the number of Pass Plays involved. Of the WR's, Prescott was involved in fewer pass plays than both Enloe and Sims, eventhough he started the whole year and they only started 4 games each.

[cuervo72]

Dang, that team has a lot of rookies. No way Joe Gibbs would stand for that!

[Peregrine]

Dang, that team has a lot of rookies. No way Joe Gibbs would stand for that!

Yeah it's definitely a team that must have had a salary cap explosion and had to sign a ton of rookies just to fill space.

[Eaglesfan27]

Yeah. Just looked at my various test leagues and I'm seeing an average of 6.6 1,000 yard receivers in the first season. Doesn't seem to matter if they are fictional players or real players.

[Eaglesfan27]

Dola -


In my main league, Steve Smith who is rated 68/68 and is the best Panther's receiver only was in on 331 of their pass plays despite having no injuries. Despite this, he had 726 yards on 53 catches. Their #2 receiver was in on 352 plays (Rated 58/58.) Their #3 receiver was in on 322 plays (rated 45/45.) Their #4 receiver was in 246 times despite only being rated 24/50. Their #5 receiver was in 101 times despite being rated 19/48.

They passed it 499 times.

[Caratacus]

I've noticed this too. The problem seems to be with the new playing time screen. When I let the AI select playing time, I often see it giving a top notch receiver only 50% or so. I had one receiver with about 200 yards through the first 8 games. I finally went in and manually changed the playing time to 80% and he got over 600 yards in the last 8 games.

I had an excellent RDE with high stamina and a poor LDE with no stamina, neither had a back up of any note and it set the playing time at 80% for the LDE and 40% for the RDE :eek:

[Peregrine]

I think the problem with the playing time is probably not limited to just receivers, it could also very well be behind the lack of dominant rushers, I've been noticing a lot of star RBs seem to be sharing far too many carries with backups that are tons worse than them, also.

[Deattribution]

I think the problem with the playing time is probably not limited to just receivers, it could also very well be behind the lack of dominant rushers, I've been noticing a lot of star RBs seem to be sharing far too many carries with backups that are tons worse than them, also.

I thought the same thing in my first career, I never had a guy go over 1000 yards, always 900 on one and 300 or 400 yards on another.... Different career had 3 or 4 guys break 1400+ yards consistently.. I think where the problem starts is that even when you upgrade your position, or down grade it, I'm not sure the playtime is being adjusted for the new players.

[Solecismic]

I've taken a long look at this over the last couple of hours, setting breakpoints in the code, etc... I don't like the implementation and it's going to get some work.

My theory here is to have the playing time setting based on the skill difference between a player and his backup. That is then capped based on the endurance level of the starter. There are some position variations - caps for offensive linemen, for instance, are higher than any other position.

[Peregrine]

Thanks Jim!

[Caratacus]

My theory here is to have the playing time setting based on the skill difference between a player and his backup. That is then capped based on the endurance level of the starter. There are some position variations - caps for offensive linemen, for instance, are higher than any other position.

Sounds good to me, thank you.

[SunDevil]

Thanks Jim

[Ben E Lou]

16 in my first year with 6.0a.

[Peregrine]

16 in my first year with 6.0a.

Excellent! This being fixed will take a load off my mind.

[Ben E Lou]

....and in my long test career (in 2031), the first season produced 21 1,000-yard receivers.

[JeffW]

What kind of league Yards/Attempt numbers are you guys seeing? In the initial release, the league average is often around 5.9, which is very low compared to the NFL.

[Ben E Lou]

What kind of league Yards/Attempt numbers are you guys seeing? In the initial release, the league average is often around 5.9, which is very low compared to the NFL.First season...

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/yardsperattempt.jpg

[SunDevil]

Thanks Jim.

[Ben E Lou]

Just checked another season with 6.0a:

RUSHING YPC: 4.17
PASSING YARDS PER ATTEMPT: 6.61
SCORING: 20.3ppg

19 1,000-yard receivers (and three others >980 yards)

3 4,000-yard passers
6 1,500-yard rushers

[aran]

I found that I could easily dominate the league in offense (1972-1975 using real draft files, i went 14-2, 15-1, 15-1) by having 4 WRs that were rated above 40, Two HBs above 50 (Franco Harris being one of them), and a "Good" quarterback. We averaged 360 YPG passing and 120+ rushing. My OL wasn't even particularly good: I had one the best LT in the league and average players everywhere else accept for a Good at center.

My defense is slightly above average in terms of skill, but they perform better than that.

As long as I hang on to these offensive players (most of which aren't particularly amazing), I can remain a juggernaut for some time.