FOF2007: Third RBs

[SlyBelle1]

Seems like anytime I sim a season, only my top two RBs ever seem to get carries. I know weekly I could keep moving the depth chart to rotate the others into the 2nd slot, but shouldn't there be a way to make this happen without doing that? I know not all teams use 2+ backs every week, but over the course of a year I'm sure they get involved somewhat. Some teams like the Steelers, do a decent job in usually getting 3-4 backs in a game at least with a touch or two.

I don't believe changing the player usage item would do much since I think it would just get more carries for my 2nd string back. Also, I don't think this is a fatigue thing because some teams (i.e. Steelers) just plain like to get more than one RB involved in the game, and it has nothing to do with fatigue. Just their style.

Any help would be appreciated. Just seems very odd to go into the RB statistics and see only two RBs always listed (sometimes QBs listed for scrambles).

[wbatl1]

You could set your 3rd back in a certain personell group if you want him to fill a specific role. Other than that, I don't know...

[jbmagic]

Seems like anytime I sim a season, only my top two RBs ever seem to get carries. I know weekly I could keep moving the depth chart to rotate the others into the 2nd slot, but shouldn't there be a way to make this happen without doing that? I know not all teams use 2+ backs every week, but over the course of a year I'm sure they get involved somewhat. Some teams like the Steelers, do a decent job in usually getting 3-4 backs in a game at least with a touch or two.

I don't believe changing the player usage item would do much since I think it would just get more carries for my 2nd string back. Also, I don't think this is a fatigue thing because some teams (i.e. Steelers) just plain like to get more than one RB involved in the game, and it has nothing to do with fatigue. Just their style.

Any help would be appreciated. Just seems very odd to go into the RB statistics and see only two RBs always listed (sometimes QBs listed for scrambles).

Set your formations. Put your backup to start in some formations.

[SlyBelle1]

But I don't think that will still get the other 3rd or 4th RB inot the game, just the 2nd. Not sure that will take care of it.

[yabanci]

and it's odd because the AI teams like to carry 4 active RBs and only 1 FB, yet only the first two RBs get action unless there's an injury while the FB doesn't have a FB to spell him (not that a FB needs much spelling).

[dbd1963]

I see a lot of injuries at HB, and my 3rd RB is my backup FB, so he does get a few touches (usually pass attempts).

[SlyBelle1]

Yeah, this is a little disappointing....there really should be a way to get other players touches besides just the 1 and 2 backs. Unfortuantely, probably nothing can be done with this version, but hopefully in the future.

[SlyBelle1]

I just looked at every team's rushing throughout my league and every team is just like mine. Just the top two guys getting the touches, unless there are injuries.

[QuikSand]

Just curious... is it confirmed that if you (1) manually place your 3rd RB into the starting RB slot in a certain formation, and (2) set up your offense to use that formation liberally... then he still won't get the action you want to see for him? Or was that rejected out of speculation?

I agree that if this is a general issue for teams using vanilla game plans, it's a bit disappointing... but if there's literally no way to account for it on your own team, it's a significant bug rather than just an oddity/annoyance.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I agree that if you have a crappy running/great receiving 3rd string back, you ought to be able to put the 3rd stringer in passing formations, and if you can't then it is a bug.

[henry296]

I agree that if you have a crappy running/great receiving 3rd string back, you ought to be able to put the 3rd stringer in passing formations, and if you can't then it is a bug.

You can set your running back for Passing Down and Near Certain Pass.

[SlyBelle1]

Just curious... is it confirmed that if you (1) manually place your 3rd RB into the starting RB slot in a certain formation, and (2) set up your offense to use that formation liberally... then he still won't get the action you want to see for him? Or was that rejected out of speculation?

I agree that if this is a general issue for teams using vanilla game plans, it's a bit disappointing... but if there's literally no way to account for it on your own team, it's a significant bug rather than just an oddity/annoyance.

As best I can see, you do have options to place them in a slot under certain pass conditions or short yardage, but as best I can see, you can't put them in a spot for normal running situations. However, this is done by the formations. I can't imagine why this would be tied to a formation. I would think the subbing of my RB would really have to do very little with the formation you are in. If I want the back in, they should sub in unless I'm looking at this whole thing wrong.

[QuikSand]

Okay. Well, whether you like it or not, that is indeed the way to do what you're asking how to do.

Pick a formation... like maybe Weak Formation, TE Pairs. On the "Personnel" screen, insert your #3 RB as the RB for that formation. Then in your gameplan, deliberately use the Weak2TE formation one that you use with some regularity in suitable running situations. There you go -- your guy will see his share of playing time.

Quite a lot of situation specialists in football do, indeed, play in certain formations. It's probably less common for running backs than for the other skill positions, but it's not exactly a ridiculouus concept. And in FOF 2007, if you set your gameplan with some care, you can pretty muct detail the exact circumstances when a specialist like this will see the field.

[SlyBelle1]

Okay. Well, whether you like it or not, that is indeed the way to do what you're asking how to do.

Pick a formation... like maybe Weak Formation, TE Pairs. On the "Personnel" screen, insert your #3 RB as the RB for that formation. Then in your gameplan, deliberately use the Weak2TE formation one that you use with some regularity in suitable running situations. There you go -- your guy will see his share of playing time.

Quite a lot of situation specialists in football do, indeed, play in certain formations. It's probably less common for running backs than for the other skill positions, but it's not exactly a ridiculouus concept. And in FOF 2007, if you set your gameplan with some care, you can pretty muct detail the exact circumstances when a specialist like this will see the field.

Although I could do that for my team, that won't change what the AI does with the rest of the teams in the league. I understand this is how the game was designed, so I know I will have to live with it. I was just hoping there was an easy way to handle it differently.

[yabanci]

... And in FOF 2007, if you set your gameplan with some care, you can pretty muct detail the exact circumstances when a specialist like this will see the field.

sure, YOU can do that, but the AI teams can't. What do you suggest for them?

[QuikSand]

sure, YOU can do that, but the AI teams can't. What do you suggest for them?

I agree with this guy who posted earlier on this exact topic:

I agree that if this is a general issue for teams using vanilla game plans, it's a bit disappointing... but if there's literally no way to account for it on your own team, it's a significant bug rather than just an oddity/annoyance.

[SlyBelle1]

I agree with this guy who posted earlier on this exact topic:

I guess we will all have to agree to disagree on this topic. Certainly, it's nice I can make the necessary changes (although quite a bit of work just to make this work), I find it more than midly disappointing the rest of the league will continue to have this issue. Doesn't appear to put things on an even level that I can do things the AI can't.

Oh well, time to move on. I think we all know how it works and we'll have to live with it. There is certainly much more to enjoy about the game, so I'm not going to let this issue drag me down. Who knows, maybe the patch will address some of the player utilization stuff:)

[MizzouRah]

I don't really know if you're actually "cheating" the AI if you use your 3rd string HB. I mean, I watch all Rams games and I think their 3rd stringer has like 6 carries this year.. so it doesn't happen much at all. If fact, those might have came when Jackson was shaken up or I think when Davis was injured this year.

[wbatl1]

I don't really know if you're actually "cheating" the AI if you use your 3rd string HB. I mean, I watch all Rams games and I think their 3rd stringer has like 6 carries this year.. so it doesn't happen much at all. If fact, those might have came when Jackson was shaken up or I think when Davis was injured this year.

I agree. I don't think that a third back gets many carries on most teams around the league. Sure there may be some exceptions, but I think that if you want to get your third back carries, put him in manually. I wouldn't worry about the AI not being able to do it, because I don't think it is giving you any unfair advantage.

[yabanci]

I agree with this guy who posted earlier on this exact topic:

well, he is certainly a very wise man and you'd be doing yourself a favor to learn a thing or two from him :)

[MizzouRah]

I agree. I don't think that a third back gets many carries on most teams around the league. Sure there may be some exceptions, but I think that if you want to get your third back carries, put him in manually. I wouldn't worry about the AI not being able to do it, because I don't think it is giving you any unfair advantage.

I can only think of Denver some years ago using 3 backs... I think?

[MIJB#19]

NFL 2006 running tendencies (after 255 of 512 games)

222 carries per team so far (8-game average), broken down by:
138 running back 1
46 running back 2
21 quarterback (incl. backup quarterbacks and knee drops)
8 running back 3
4 fullback (incl. 4 by backup fullbacks)
4 wide receivers, fumbling punters
1 running back 4

6 teams used only 2 running backs (incl. Tennessee)
7 teams used more than 3 running backs (not incl. Green Bay and Houston)
9 teams give the #3 running back 1 or more carries per game

teams who used 3 RBs:
Baltimore (#1 Jamal Lewis, #2/3 Mike Anderson and Musa Smith)
Cleveland (only 1 game where all 3 RBs had at least 1 carry)
Green Bay (more than 1 carry to 3 RBs in only 2 games)
Houston (gave carries to only 2 RBs in each game)
New England (#1/2 Corey Dillon and Laurence Maroney, #3 Kevin Faulk)
NY Jets (only 1 game where all 3 RBs had at least 1 carry *)
Philadelphia (#3 Ryan Moats received 4 carries in 7 games as the #3)
Pittsburgh (in only 1 game the 3rd most carrying RB had more than 1 carry)

* not including WR Brad Smith, who has 12 carries and only 3 catches, technically making him the Jets' 3rd RB in most games

[OldGiants]

Okay. Well, whether you like it or not, that is indeed the way to do what you're asking how to do.

Pick a formation... like maybe Weak Formation, TE Pairs. On the "Personnel" screen, insert your #3 RB as the RB for that formation. Then in your gameplan, deliberately use the Weak2TE formation one that you use with some regularity in suitable running situations. There you go -- your guy will see his share of playing time.

Quite a lot of situation specialists in football do, indeed, play in certain formations. It's probably less common for running backs than for the other skill positions, but it's not exactly a ridiculouus concept. And in FOF 2007, if you set your gameplan with some care, you can pretty muct detail the exact circumstances when a specialist like this will see the field.

If your QB doesn't know that formation, then it will never get picked and the RB won't get into the game. That would be the 'care' part.

[QuikSand]

I guess we will all have to agree to disagree on this topic. Certainly, it's nice I can make the necessary changes (although quite a bit of work just to make this work), I find it more than midly disappointing the rest of the league will continue to have this issue. Doesn't appear to put things on an even level that I can do things the AI can't.

Oh well, time to move on. I think we all know how it works and we'll have to live with it. There is certainly much more to enjoy about the game, so I'm not going to let this issue drag me down. Who knows, maybe the patch will address some of the player utilization stuff

Fine by me. Personally, when playing single player, I do worry about how the AI teams are making meaningful decisions -- are they re-signing their top players, are they using the salary cap sensibly, are they making draft picks that make sense for their team, do they run a gameplan that at least makes general sense ... that sort of thing. I don't really invest much time in worrying about this level of detail -- whether the AI teams are managing to squeeze out a couple carries a game for their 3rd RB or just using two guys... it just doesn't seem like a high priority to me. It can't possibly make a meaningful difference in things that clearly matter like wins and losses, so to me it's basically cosmetic. But to each his own.

That's essentially my point from above. When you started the thread complaining that there was no way to do this for your own team, and actually were refuting the suggestion that you could indeed do this, I was pretty concerned -- that seems to me like a prety meaningful bug/issue if true. Now that you've shifted your concern to worrying about how many carries some computer-run team gives their third-string 23/34 rookie halfback compared to the 32/32 third-year backup... I'm a good deal less concerned.

To me, one is central to game play, and the other... well... isn't.

[lighthousekeeper]

NFL 2006 running tendencies (after 255 of 512 games)

222 carries per team so far (8-game average), broken down by:
138 running back 1
46 running back 2
21 quarterback (incl. backup quarterbacks and knee drops)
8 running back 3
4 fullback (incl. 4 by backup fullbacks)
4 wide receivers, fumbling punters
1 running back 4


wow - i am utterly shocked that FB's only average 0.5 carries per game (if I'm reading this correctly)

[Galaril]

I know Jim is busy and he is just one guy BUT.............couldn't he chime here once and while andsay whether something like a 3rd RB getting carries is possible instead of customers having to offer conjecture on it?

[Eaglesfan27]

I know Jim is busy and he is just one guy BUT.............couldn't he chime here once and while andsay whether something like a 3rd RB getting carries is possible instead of customers having to offer conjecture on it?


It's my impression that he is dedicating all of his time to getting the first patch out. I imagine if I were triaging issues this would be low priority in relationship to other known bugs out there.

[Ben E Lou]

What EF said.

[Northwood_DK]

It's my impression that he is dedicating all of his time to getting the first patch out.

I’m not sure about that. I’m pretty sure he is dedicating all of his time to gameplan for the IHOF Bowl later today.<O:p</O:p

[Galaril]

It's my impression that he is dedicating all of his time to getting the first patch out. I imagine if I were triaging issues this would be low priority in relationship to other known bugs out there.

No, I am sure that he is trying to take care of the patch and this is pretty low hanging fruit. Just a little frustrating.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Interestingly, being out west, I was online at about 1:30 pst, when Jim responded to a thread. Man, he's getting up early to work on this.

[MIJB#19]

wow - i am utterly shocked that FB's only average 0.5 carries per game (if I'm reading this correctly)You read that right, 0.51 per game per team to my research. It surprised me too, really. I guess Mike Alstott's slowing down has toned down the league average significantly.