kingnebwsu
12-30-2006, 01:19 AM
So I'm in 2012 and the average secondary cohesion rating for the league is around 64. My team is 56 and ranked around 20th in the league. I've been trying to increase this but it seems like this is the slowest to rise cohesion rating (or maybe I'm imagining it). The top team is Chicago with a 100 rating and 2nd is only an 81 (!!!). I look at Chicago's starters and, as of the start of 2012, here is when they joined the team:
LCB: 2004
RCB: 2006
SS: 2000
FS: 2005
This means that the member of the secondary who has been with the team the shortest amount of time is the RCB who's been with the team for six seasons (and started the last 4 of them).
Let's look at the team ranked 2nd with an 81 cohesion, Buffalo. Again, as of 2012, here is where their starters joined the team:
LCB: 2001
RCB: 2006
SS: 2006
FS: 2011
So it looks like 3 of their guys have some solid tenure with the team, with 1 of their guys killing their cohesion rating (there were 2 new FS's who split time in 2011).
My team, Cincinnati, with a 56 rating, looks like this:
LCB: 2006
RCB: 2010
SS: 2010
FS: 2009
I dunno, maybe I'm too jaded, but I think a group of players who have started every game together for 2 years (2010&2011, and they will be starters in 2012) should have a very high cohesion rating. I think expecting all the guys to be on a team for 6+ seasons is kinda crazy. I haven't done any analysis on the other positional groups though...thoughts?
LCB: 2004
RCB: 2006
SS: 2000
FS: 2005
This means that the member of the secondary who has been with the team the shortest amount of time is the RCB who's been with the team for six seasons (and started the last 4 of them).
Let's look at the team ranked 2nd with an 81 cohesion, Buffalo. Again, as of 2012, here is where their starters joined the team:
LCB: 2001
RCB: 2006
SS: 2006
FS: 2011
So it looks like 3 of their guys have some solid tenure with the team, with 1 of their guys killing their cohesion rating (there were 2 new FS's who split time in 2011).
My team, Cincinnati, with a 56 rating, looks like this:
LCB: 2006
RCB: 2010
SS: 2010
FS: 2009
I dunno, maybe I'm too jaded, but I think a group of players who have started every game together for 2 years (2010&2011, and they will be starters in 2012) should have a very high cohesion rating. I think expecting all the guys to be on a team for 6+ seasons is kinda crazy. I haven't done any analysis on the other positional groups though...thoughts?