Fullback as featured back?

[Scruff]

Is the game smart enough to take a guy like William Andrews, Pete Johnson or John Riggins and make him a featured back, get him the majority of the carries, etc.?

Or do we have to work around the game by making them RBs even though we know they were FBs?

[perez24]

Everything I've seen says you list them as RB's.

Don't count on dialing up the FB carry percentage to 40 and expect a lot of carries. I've done that before and, even on 35-40, they don't get more than 5-7 carries per game.

[FBPro]

Yep just list them in the RB1 slot.

[Scruff]

I'm actually thinking about the AI. If a Riggins/Johnson/Andrews type ends up on an AI team, will the AI be smart enough to list him at RB?

[perez24]

I'm thinking it's not smart enough.

Of course, I don't know that any NFL coaches are smart enough either.

What was the thinking behind devolving the FB position into a backfield lineman and short pass catcher? I remember when those guys were often the feature back or at least a guy you couldn't ignore. Besides the guys who've been mentioned I think of Marv Hubbard, Mark van Eeghen, Jim Otis etc.

[Landshark44]

larry csonka....

[Raiders Army]

Heh. I liked it a few years ago when people said that Mike Alstott wasn't really a Fullback.

As it is now, Lorenzo Neal is considered one of the best Fullbacks because he blocks well. I think the evolution of the game, particularly the West Coast Offense, has made it necessary for the blocking skills vice running skills of the Fullback.

[dj_morton]

Alstott is da man...

[laser]

I wish we had the option to have 2 running backs instead of a running back and a fullback. Then they could both get their carries. I would prefer this for solo leagues because I used to enjoy it more watching backfields containing Harris-Bleier, Csonka-Morris, etc.

[Celeval]

Keep FB carries at 40, then stick the FB into the single-back RB slot. Best of both worlds.

[Celeval]

I wish we had the option to have 2 running backs instead of a running back and a fullback. Then they could both get their carries. I would prefer this for solo leagues because I used to enjoy it more watching backfields containing Harris-Bleier, Csonka-Morris, etc.

You can do this with the positional adjustments - instead of the FB slot, use RB1 and RB2, then swap them back and forth in various formations. Pro Normal = RB1/RB2, Pro 2 TE = RB2/RB1, etc.

[jzicc]

Keep FB carries at 40,


The max is 25 in '07 and you can't type any higher.... (unless I'm missing something)

[DougWyatt]

I'm actually thinking about the AI. If a Riggins/Johnson/Andrews type ends up on an AI team, will the AI be smart enough to list him at RB?

No. The AI doesn't feature Andrews, Riggins, Johnson, van Eeghen etc. as primary running threats in historical leagues.

[Celeval]

The max is 25 in '07 and you can't type any higher.... (unless I'm missing something)

No, 25... my bad, answering without the game open.

[Leonidas]

Gotta get him in an RB slot, the FB run rating is useless. I wish Jim had an "old school" option.

[jzicc]

Gotta get him in an RB slot, the FB run rating is useless. I wish Jim had an "old school" option.

Running a full-house backfield offense would be cool....

[cjnst2]

I just drafted Larry Czonka in my historical league and want to find a way to get him the ball. I realize I can put him in the RB slots but that seems a little off. It seems he wont get alot of carries from the FB slot in Iformations but what happens if you do this....

Change his position for FB to RB but still keep him in the FB slot.

Will this make the AI give him the ball more based on the new RB ratings?

[Celeval]

I just drafted Larry Czonka in my historical league and want to find a way to get him the ball. I realize I can put him in the RB slots but that seems a little off. It seems he wont get alot of carries from the FB slot in Iformations but what happens if you do this....

Change his position for FB to RB but still keep him in the FB slot.

Will this make the AI give him the ball more based on the new RB ratings?

That's pretty much the opposite of what you want to do. :) Changing his position to RB will likely hurt his ratings significantly. That said, playing a RB at FB won' lead to him rushing any more.

[Subby]

You can do this with the positional adjustments - instead of the FB slot, use RB1 and RB2, then swap them back and forth in various formations. Pro Normal = RB1/RB2, Pro 2 TE = RB2/RB1, etc.
Just do what Celeval says. He knows of what he speaks :)

[SchrodingersDog]

I think the thing all the guys you've mentioned have in common is that they're all at least "running backs". There's no definition of the fullback position in the NFL rulebook, so all of us probably have a different idea in our head when we hear it.

For me, I see the FB and RB (or rightly HB) positions as interchangeable, like FL and SE. We differentiate between the two only based on where they line up before the snap. When the ball is hiked we've seen enough offensive plans over the years that the FB/HB now fulfills all sorts of different roles, whatever the play calls for.

The NFL has been around so long that every position has by now had it's time to shine in some offense or another. If you watched a lot of NFL in the 1970s there's probably a personal idea of what a FB is to you. As far as game mechanics, I think Jim is modeling what is currently the norm in the NFL. The AI being able to feature the FB might not be that easy, like a baseball simmer asking why his starter doesn't get 30 CG a year like they did during WWI.

[liquid_zen01]

I think the thing all the guys you've mentioned have in common is that they're all at least "running backs". There's no definition of the fullback position in the NFL rulebook, so all of us probably have a different idea in our head when we hear it.

For me, I see the FB and RB (or rightly HB) positions as interchangeable, like FL and SE. We differentiate between the two only based on where they line up before the snap. When the ball is hiked we've seen enough offensive plans over the years that the FB/HB now fulfills all sorts of different roles, whatever the play calls for.

The NFL has been around so long that every position has by now had it's time to shine in some offense or another. If you watched a lot of NFL in the 1970s there's probably a personal idea of what a FB is to you. As far as game mechanics, I think Jim is modeling what is currently the norm in the NFL. The AI being able to feature the FB might not be that easy, like a baseball simmer asking why his starter doesn't get 30 CG a year like they did during WWI.

It would be nice if we had the option to run the FB more though, and by more I mean 10-20 times per game. Why do they even have running ratings when they'll only get the ball maybe 5 times per year? And why are there so many running plays you can call for them relative to the amount of times they'll carry the ball?

It sucks to have a guy with almost maxed out power inside, third down running, and hole recognition, and never use him to carry the ball. I only GM my team, so it just seems like a waste to have such a good player and not utilize him properly.

[cthomer5000]

In my opinion FOF2007 has marginalized the FB to the point of absurdity.

[cuervo72]

Well...it could be said that the NFL has marginalized the FB to the point of absurdity too - and Jim tends to model the NFL. I was just thinking about this today, figuring out what to do with my FB's in FOFL. Even though mine stink - and before the draft the two I had were both in the top 20 for future ratings in he league - I'm not going to sweat it. In fact, I just converted a TE to FB, and all he really has is hole rec, third down running, and blitz pickup. That will probably be enough for me.

[cuervo72]

Dola - of course, I might have figured this out before drafting a FB with a 2nd rounder in IHOF. :)

[Sgt Tomorrow]

FBs are a way to get decent TEs.... they are cheap in the draft and dont lose too much in the ratings when converted...