Choose My Adventure - FOF Style!

[Ksyrup]

Inspired by SD's Empty Cupboard Challenge and my constant winning ways in my current career, I have decided to try my first Empty Cupboard Challenge. I took Arizona to do my quicksimming with, since Leinhart gives them a good chance of being a decent team and I'm not doing anything to improve the team, I need as much help as I can get to have an many offers from other teams as possible.

In 2011, I check for offers and my choices are the Raiders, Browns, or Bills. Since the Raiders are involved, it's not much of a choice. :) I go with the Bills, who give me the added benefit of having the overall #1 choice in the draft. I hire all new coaches/scouts, cut the entire team, and start reviewing the draft. Obviously, a great QB would be a terrific plus to start with, and I quickly realize that I've got not one, but two potential franchise QBs.

So I'm throwing it open to the board - who should I go with? I know who I am leaning towards, but both guys could be great. I'll be interested in your choice, why, and any discussion that develops. Thanks!

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1204206/Campbell.jpg

Scouted 7.5/8.6




http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1204206/Cochrane.jpg

Scouted 7.0/8.0

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.operationsports.com/fofc/ /><o:lock aspectratio=<v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked=" /><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock>

[Cringer]

Peter. Overall number one pick, I go with the guy who actualy worked out and looked good in his work out. He also is developed more, which makes it a slam dunk for me. Oh, and you scout thinks Tito in very underrated which worries me some.

[Coder]

Whoever you choose, we need to hear about the other's career :)

[Ksyrup]

I think the 'very underrated' tag applies because he did not work out and therefore isn't as highly rated as my scout thinks he is. My scout is rated 'Very Good' for QBs, BTW.

The pros I see for Tito are:

1. His potentials for several key ratings are a bit higher.

2. His volatility is low, and Campbell's is high.

3. He's got higher leadership, intelligence, personality, and Solecismic Test scores.

4. I like that he's a 'Roll-out" QB rather than "Short Passes," which scares me a bit.

Campbell's biggest assets are that he worked out, has the second-highest QB position score in the draft, and is much more developed.

[Chubby]

Tito.

[Hammer]

Campbell. 47% developed is the main reason why.

[Northwood_DK]

I would also go with Tito

[Cringer]

Am I seeing that correct, Peter is 6-6? That's a big boy.

Again am I seeing this correct, is Peter almost two year older then Tito? With your info about your scout and knowing that you like the roll-out style more then short pass, I guess I am leaning more towards Tito now. Just give me Peter for my SP team please. ;)

[Ksyrup]

Campbell. 47% developed is the main reason why.

What do we know about the long-term advantages of percent developed?

I ask because, all things being equal, I'd want the more developed guy, but in this particular scenario, my team is going to suck for the first few years, so does it matter THAT much? If you give both of these guys 4 years as the starter of the team I'm going to build, what will they look like in that 5th year? Will the percent developed have been an advantage to Campbell so that there will be a noticeable difference between the two by the time the team gets half-way decent?

I plan on keeping whomever I choose around for a long, long time, and I expect to lose big early on, so I'm trying to view this choice from that perspective.

[ffguru]

I don't think you could go wrong either way - I'd lean toward the higher developed guy, but since you won't be winning right away, you will have time to develop the ultra intellignet Tito.......

[Cringer]

Is Tito really intelligent though? His test score is high, but the Intelligence rating on the left isn't.

[Ksyrup]

Idiot Savant

[MizzouRah]

Anyone who has a name like "Tito Cochrane" gets my vote.

GO TITO!!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Is that a link to transvestite porn I see on your desktop?

But seriously, I think you have to go with the idea that if they both pan out, they will be awesome. So the key here is to avoid busts (well, just in this game and not real life). For this you got volatility and combines to consider. While Peter's 70 volatility is high it's not off the charts. Meanwhile, Tito has no combines whatsoever. Peter also has a higher scout grade. Thus, I choose Peter Campbell.

[Cringer]

Anyone who has a name like "Tito Cochrane" gets my vote.

GO TITO!!

I try so hard not to let little things like that influence my picks, but I can never help it. I just picked a OLB in my SP game (I am the Packers) in the first round, with the deciding factor being that he was born in Green Bay and went to school at Eastern Washington. Being a Packer fan, born in eastern WA, and running the Packers in this SP I though it was a clear choice. The guy is ok so far.

[Ksyrup]

What does it mean when a QB has a 'Short Passes' style but has pretty darn good ratings for Medium/Long/Deep Passes? Is he more inclined to waste that talent, or could he grow into it?

The choice is a difficult one, for me, which is why I've opened it up to the board. The volatility ratings are big in my mind, but maybe Campbell's combine number should make me feel better.

FWIW, Campbell's combine ratings are stellar - among QBs, he has the highest strength, agility and broad jump ratings, is third in Sol Test and development, and is second in position drill. The only area he is noticeably deficient is his 40 time.

[Ksyrup]

I try so hard not to let little things like that influence my picks, but I can never help it. I just picked a OLB in my SP game (I am the Packers) in the first round, with the deciding factor being that he was born in Green Bay and went to school at Eastern Washington. Being a Packer fan, born in eastern WA, and running the Packers in this SP I though it was a clear choice. The guy is ok so far.

That's OK, I was looking at the schools they attended, and my first thought was, "Nick Saban ain't got a thing on Spurrier in coaching QBs!" And then I realized that was just stupid.

[Cringer]

You know I have never paid enough attention to how a 'short pass' QB does with the long balls, or vice versa....

[Narcizo]

Short pass, long pass and roll-out refers to which formations a quarterback learns fast. If he's short pass he'll learn rubbishy 2TE sets. If he's roll out he'll learn, erm, whatever formations a roll-out QB is likely to want to know. A long pass QB is more likely to learn 3Wr sets first.

I'd take Campbell. Sure Tito might be a stud. But then again he might not. It's up in the air with no-combine guys. His development and Sole test indicate that he'll work out but you can never be 100% sure. I don't think you have to be too worried about the Very Underrated tag at this stage, in fact I think this far up in the draft with a no combine guy it might even be a good thing (getting "very" anything with no combine players is very rare). Development is very important in a quarterback as the nearer they are their potential the less likely it is that something will go wrong on the way to reaching that potential.

Campbell's bars look studly to me. He's easily the safest bet. I wouldn't trade up from #2 to get him but given the choice I think it's wisest to take him. However in an empty cupboard situation it might be an idea to trade down to #2. I'd see it as a bit of an exploit as the AI can't judge drafts like a human and see that there are 2 stud QBs for the taking but that's up to you.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Short pass, long pass and roll-out refers to which formations a quarterback learns fast. If he's short pass he'll learn rubbishy 2TE sets. If he's roll out he'll learn, erm, whatever formations a roll-out QB is likely to want to know. A long pass QB is more likely to learn 3Wr sets first.


Yes, this is how I believe it works too. There is nothing worse than wanting to air it out and being stuck with a short pass QB with low intelligence, even if he has great ratings. He'll still be a good QB but pretty much forget about ever going to the 4-5 WR set.

[Green Caesar]

Tito today.
Tito tomorow.
Tito on Sunday.

[Bonegavel]

Pete.

Neither took any courses but basket weaving, but As Scouted rating is far superior to Very Underrated.

[Ben E Lou]

Yes, this is how I believe it works too. There is nothing worse than wanting to air it out and being stuck with a short pass QB with low intelligence, even if he has great ratings. He'll still be a good QB but pretty much forget about ever going to the 4-5 WR set.

Short pass, long pass and roll-out refers to which formations a quarterback learns fast. If he's short pass he'll learn rubbishy 2TE sets. If he's roll out he'll learn, erm, whatever formations a roll-out QB is likely to want to know. A long pass QB is more likely to learn 3Wr sets first.

Are y'all sure 'bout that???


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

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


I'd say he's doing ok in throwing the deep ball, despite low intelligence and being a short passing QB. ;)

[Emiliano]

Tito all the way!

[Ksyrup]

So what I take from this is that the style/formations limit the number of different plays I could run to maximize a guy's great medium/long/deep pass ratings, but it doesn't mean he won't still be effective, right? So while Campbell might be a 100 short passer and know more plays to run in that style, he still might be a 75+ rated deep passer and be capable of playing the vertical game as well. He just might have so few plays to work with that I couldn't do that often, or else the "very familiar with play" issue could arise, which would, in turn, limit his effectiveness.

How's that sound?

[Ben E Lou]

He just might have so few plays to work with that I couldn't do that often, or else the "very familiar with play" issue could arise, which would, in turn, limit his effectiveness.

How's that sound?I don't think that's even the case, assuming you're spreading out your pass distances and using your formations wisely. I rarely ran into that issue with The Solution.

[Carman Bulldog]

Regarding Skydog's QB, that doesn't really tell the whole story. You need to factor in O-Line, running game and receivers. If he's throwing loads of 9-10 yard passes and the receivers are tagging on monster YAC then it has nothing to do with his long passing.

Furthermore, if the receivers are strong enough you don't have to worry about 4-5 WR sets if they are getting wide open down the field in standard formations.

[Cringer]

SD, I think what Vin for Prez was saying about intelligence is not that it effects his ability to throw the long ball, but effects his ability to learn the formations that are typical formations for throwing the long ball, ie 4 and 5 wr sets.

Not sure I agree 100%, but since I haven't looked into it much then I won't disagree either. Looking over my SP roster, the only real pattern that I see is that Long style QBs tend to start out knowing Single back/4 WR formation much more then the other style QBs. Other then that I don't really notice much of a pattern. Now, which formations they learn first when they develop I couldn't say right now so I will not comment on if they learn certain formations first over others....

[Ben E Lou]

[Ben E Lou]

SD, I think what Vin for Prez was saying about intelligence is not that it effects his ability to throw the long ball, but effects his ability to learn the formations that are typical formations for throwing the long ball, ie 4 and 5 wr sets....but what I'm saying is that

1. The 4WR set is easily learned, even by a short passing QB. Duncan, with only 12 formations, knows it.
2. Those aren't the only formations out of which the long ball can be effective.

[AlexB]

I'd take Peter Campbell:

I like the increased height, the amazing agility & strength, and as both intelligences are low, the extra formation is handy as well.

The 70 volatility is a little cause for concern, but the very high loyalty is a nice counter balance.

But Cochrane looks promising as well: good potential, low volatility and an affinity.

Both look good, but Campbell would have the edge for me

[MartinD]

Looks like you're going to get a pretty darned good QB either way to me - I'd trade down to 1.2, take whoever isn't taken 1st overall and get a few more draft picks...

Martin

[Cringer]

...but what I'm saying is that

1. The 4WR set is easily learned, even by a short passing QB. Duncan, with only 12 formations, knows it.
2. Those aren't the only formations out of which the long ball can be effective.

Agreed. I don't see anything that shows you have to have the 4 and 5 WR sets to throw long. And on the flip side I have two young QBs in my game that are Long style guys, and both of them know 3 of the double TE formations. So as I look into this more I am agreeing less and less with their hypothesis.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I'll check into it more. My part of the hypo was based purely on anecdotal evidence with 2 short passing QBs. And I am not saying the short passing QB cannot be effective throwing the long ball. In the USFL, Tom Brady has really low intelligence and is short passing QB. He knows all the 2 TE sets but no 4-5 WR sets or even all the 3 WR sets. With that said his ratings in all categories are off the charts. And his stats and performance have been awesome, including the long ball.

All I'm saying is that the short passing/low intelligence QB effectiveness is lowered in the deep ball game. By this I mean that instead of Brady throwing for 4,700 yards, he might have hit 5,000 because maybe 2-3 passes per game could have been more effective because the defense would have to deal with the additional formations of 4-5 WR set (I have many good and decent WRs on the team). That's all. It's just one of 99 different variables that go into the calculation. For instance, if the Solution or Brady have very high "sense rush" ratings, then it may probably offset or even have a greater positive effect than the lack of long ball formation.

If this isn't the case, then I have no idea what the hell QB passing style means. Doesn't it have to be this way? I mean this is what the help file says:"Generally, they tend to learn formations more relevant to their style of play before they learn other formations." So it doesn't mean the short passing QB will never learn a 4-5 WR set, but it does mean he will learn it last. And if he is not smart, then he will probably never learn it.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

...but what I'm saying is that

1. The 4WR set is easily learned, even by a short passing QB. Duncan, with only 12 formations, knows it.
2. Those aren't the only formations out of which the long ball can be effective.

To address specifically:

As for #1, I point out that Duncan's intelligence is still 38. Se what happens with the short passing QB whose intelligence is 6. And although he knows the 4 WR formation, he may never learn the 5 WR formation or all the 3 WR sets.

As for #2, I agree. You can be successful with the long ball out of many formations, but the fact your formations are limited, it must mean a slight drop in effectiveness, all other things being equal.

[Raiders Army]

Pete because he has a greater loyalty and will be easier to re-sign and Tito is a midget for a QB.

[kingfc22]

I go with Tito cuz he has the best name.

[devynd]

I'd trade down to 1.2, take whoever isn't taken 1st overall and get a few more draft picks...

In truth, I think Martin's advice is probably best. If you're not sure which guy to take, you might as well punt, drop to #2, and let the computer decide for you.

As for me, I'd lean toward Tito. He's much less Volatile, is 2 1/2 years younger, and appears to have potential for a better Kick Holding rating -- you never know when a kick hold might be the difference-maker. ;)

[Narcizo]

Are y'all sure 'bout that???


Yep. One quarterback hardly proves a rule. I'm pretty sure that my statement is backed up by the help file. If I wasn't a lazy git I'd fish it out. But I am. So I won't.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yep. One quarterback hardly proves a rule. I'm pretty sure that my statement is backed up by the help file. If I wasn't a lazy git I'd fish it out. But I am. So I won't.

I already quoted it above. Bolded below.

"If this isn't the case, then I have no idea what the hell QB passing style means. Doesn't it have to be this way? I mean this is what the help file says:"Generally, they tend to learn formations more relevant to their style of play before they learn other formations." So it doesn't mean the short passing QB will never learn a 4-5 WR set, but it does mean he will learn it last. And if he is not smart, then he will probably never learn it."

[Ben E Lou]

One QB? I've seen it time and again. Duncan's just the obvious one. Yes, they learn those formations for their style better. However, as I've said, the bars still matter a LOT more than they style/formations. I wouldn't want Ksyrup discouraged from Campbell because he won't be able to stretch the field. He will.

[Narcizo]

Well I'm not really arguing with you. The point I made that you asked whether I was sure about was that the quarterback's playing styles is used solely to decide which formations they are likely to learn first. Yes, I am sure about it.

Okay I've added the "solely" bit now but I meant it before as well.

[Ksyrup]

In truth, I think Martin's advice is probably best. If you're not sure which guy to take, you might as well punt, drop to #2, and let the computer decide for you.

Someone earlier suggested that this might be cheating or taking advantage of the AI. What is the consensus on this? Should/would a team give up extra picks to move up 1 spot wen there are 2 QBs at the top of the draft? I haven't looked at the #2 team's needs yet. Obviously, one way to rationalize it is that they are moving up to ensure they get the guy they want, so it's not too far-fetched, I guess. Interested in your thoughts on this issue, too.

At this point, I might create an alternate saved game where I take the other guy and play it out, too, to see what happens. That's a long way down the road, though.

[Ben E Lou]

Ah...I was commenting on your "2TE" comment and VfP's comment about the 4WR set. Even with Duncan's low intelligence and short passing, he knows the 4WR. Lots of short passing QBs learn it early, in my experience. If I recall, most run and shoot teams used the 4WR.

[Narcizo]

Depends how much you get from the AI for the trade. How much would you give up to move from #2 to #1 when feelings are obviously split on who's best?

Um that would be to KSyrup, obviously.

[Cringer]

Someone earlier suggested that this might be cheating or taking advantage of the AI. What is the consensus on this? Should/would a team give up extra picks to move up 1 spot wen there are 2 QBs at the top of the draft? I haven't looked at the #2 team's needs yet. Obviously, one way to rationalize it is that they are moving up to ensure they get the guy they want, so it's not too far-fetched, I guess. Interested in your thoughts on this issue, too.

At this point, I might create an alternate saved game where I take the other guy and play it out, too, to see what happens. That's a long way down the road, though.

Two highly rated QB's......hmmm, Manning and Rivers. Both teams at the top of the draft both got one, but the second team to pick clearly wanted the other guy more (and eventually got him). I don't think it's too far fetched.

[Carman Bulldog]

Not exactly Manning and Rivers as Rivers went 4th overall and by no means were they considered 1a and 1b.

As for what the Giants gave up to flip flop (not technically - remember that Manning was drafted by San Diego and then traded) was a 3rd round pick that year (Nate Kaeding) and a 1st rounder the next (Shawn Merriman).

This could be more like a Ryan Leaf/Peyton Manning situation were the two QB's are clearly head and shoulders above the rest of the class. Let's not forget that some people actually had Leaf above Manning.

The question probably becomes what would be a fair offer. Going by the draft value chart, you could probably land a 3rd, 4th (and maybe 5th) pick this year. It would be difficult to pry away this year's second but you may have a shot at next year's second from them.

Alternatively, you could go your 1st, 4th, and 5th for their 1st and 2nd. That one would probably work best in your favour. While you are not getting more picks for your empty cupboard, you are probably getting more high end guys.

Just for fun, QB's taken in the top 5 in the last ten years:

1998 1 (1) Peyton Manning
1998 1 (2) Ryan Leaf
1999 1 (1) Tim Couch
2000 1 (2) Donovan McNabb
2000 1 (3) Akili Smith
2001 1 (1) Michael Vick
2002 1 (1) David Carr
2002 1 (3) Joey Harrington
2003 1 (1) Carson Palmer
2004 1 (1) Eli Manning
2004 1 (4) Phillip Rivers
2005 1 (1) Alex Smith
2006 1 (3) Vince Young

From 1997 - 2003, you have four busts out of nine picks. That's a pretty high bust ratio (higher than FOF). I think it's still too early to tell from that point forward but the last four look decent.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

One QB? I've seen it time and again. Duncan's just the obvious one. Yes, they learn those formations for their style better. However, as I've said, the bars still matter a LOT more than they style/formations. I wouldn't want Ksyrup discouraged from Campbell because he won't be able to stretch the field. He will.

Yes, I agree with this. I was just saying that the low int/short pass QB is one of many factors to consider. I would agree that the ratings bars trump everything else by a mile. Suffice it to say that is "more likely" that a short pass QB will not learn as many 3-5 WR sets as a long pass QB, and it is also "more likely" to occur when the QB has low intelligence. I think that is accurate and all we were saying. If it didn't come across that way, that's what I meant.

[devynd]

Someone earlier suggested that this might be cheating or taking advantage of the AI. What is the consensus on this? Should/would a team give up extra picks to move up 1 spot [when] there are 2 QBs at the top of the draft?

I wouldn't consider trading down cheating, because your purpose is not to take advantage of the AI but to let the other team get the guy of its choice and then you get the other one. You don't have to extort the AI team with a huge trade offer. If you're really scrupulous about it, you could:

1. Offer a trade that's close to even, maybe for one extra pick (3rd rounder?), or:

2. Keep the #1 overall pick, and just flip a coin to decide which QB to pick. There are two good reasons to do this. One is that if you really don't have a clear preference for one guy over the other, then you don't have much basis to choose one or the other so you might as well just do it randomly ("let fate decide", if you prefer). The other reason is that the outcome of the coin flip and your reaction to it can reveal your true preference to you. If you find yourself hoping for the coin to land a certain way, then you know which player you really want -- take him. If not, then it doesn't much matter which, since you can't be 100% sure which player will have a better career.

[Julio Riddols]

Tito today.
Tito tomorow.
Tito on Sunday.

When Tito's on a bagel, you can have Tito anytime!!

[Ksyrup]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I think I'm going to do two things:

1. Trade down to #2 (held by Oakland, who still - in 2011 - have Aaron Brooks and Andrew Walter as their QBs) and take the guy Oakland doesn't take. And if, for some reason they don't take one of them, I might even trade down to #3, we'll see.

2. Create an alternate universe file where I take the guy I didn't get in the other game and play out the other scenario at some point in the future.

I'm convinced that the trade down isn't unfair to the AI. The AI is getting value because it ensures that it gets the QB it wanted. Maybe, IRL, Oakland would have a little more leverage if they knew which I guy I was leaning toward or if they really didn't have a preference, but assuming they're leaning toward a particular guy and think I might take him, they are paying to make sure they get him.

[Ksyrup]

OK, so I did just what I said I'd do above.

I traded my #1, 4, and 5 for Oakland's #1 and 2. Oakland took Campbell, I took Cochrane. Immediately following the picks, I check their ratings:

Campbell - 38/80
Cochrane - 49/91

BTW, it's completely bizarre to go the trade screen and see nothing listed on your side except draft picks. I've got a LONG way to go...

[Gotee7]

Wow. Tito looks like he is going to turn out better for you. Good luck!

[Ksyrup]

I didn't formal vote in the poll, but he was the one I would have chosen.

[Gotee7]

I would have taken him too. A little riskier, but obviously he has a bigger payoff at this point. It will be interesting to see how the ratings change after Training Camp.

[Green Caesar]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I think I'm going to do two things:

1. Trade down to #2 (held by Oakland, who still - in 2011 - have Aaron Brooks and Andrew Walter as their QBs) and take the guy Oakland doesn't take. And if, for some reason they don't take one of them, I might even trade down to #3, we'll see.

2. Create an alternate universe file where I take the guy I didn't get in the other game and play out the other scenario at some point in the future.

I'm convinced that the trade down isn't unfair to the AI. The AI is getting value because it ensures that it gets the QB it wanted. Maybe, IRL, Oakland would have a little more leverage if they knew which I guy I was leaning toward or if they really didn't have a preference, but assuming they're leaning toward a particular guy and think I might take him, they are paying to make sure they get him.

Please keep us informed as to how this unfolded.
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/popcorn.gifhttp://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/popcorn.gifhttp://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

[AlexB]

I would have taken him too. A little riskier, but obviously he has a bigger payoff at this point. It will be interesting to see how the ratings change after Training Camp.

That's they key - ratings before camp are nice, but post camp is where it's at.

[Ksyrup]

Post-Camp:

Campbell - 38/79
Cochrane - 47/89

So both guys seem pretty solid, and Cochrane appears to have a bit more current ability and potential.

[Narcizo]

I had a feeling Cochrane would turn out better but I don't like to risk my franchise's future on a hunch. I still say Campbell would have been the correct pick. But it looks like you got a great deal, well done.

[Ksyrup]

At the conclusion of Year 1:

Campbell - 55/79
Cochrane - 58/89

Campbell improved at a much quicker pace, although performance-wise, they were both pretty bad. Campbell started 14 games (missed 2 due to injury) and had a 61.4 QB rating. Cochrane started all 16 games for me and lead my team to a 1-15 record with a 61.7 QB rating.

If you look at their individual performances, Campbell had more highs and lows - he was like Rex Grossman. He had a couple sub-30 rating games, but 5 games with a 90 or higher rating. Cochrane never completely sucked that bad in a game, but only had 1 90+ rating game, with a bunch of 50-70s. Not sure what it means, or whether it was influenced by the fact that Cochrane was guiding a team of rookies and Campbell had a semi-decent roster to work with.

[Gotee7]

Maybe Cochrane is Troy Aikmen in disguise