QuikSand
03-04-2007, 08:20 PM
A More Robust Vision for Staff in FOF
Two FOF versions deep into the staff and coach hiring system we have, I thought it might be worth it to speculate about what improvements might make sense for this aspect of the game if and when there might be a future version.
My thinking here started with the notion that the current system can be improved, without being eliminated. I’m sure there are plenty of things that one might do from scratch – I’m mostly trying to tinker with the basic building blocks that we already have in place in Front Office Football 2007 and its immediate predecessor.
I also, after giving it a little thought, have decided not to include any sort of wholesale re-invention of the game’s financial system as part of this. I suppose that a more robust financial system might make the ability to bid for and secure highly paid coaches a challenge in itself, as a sort of offset against other spending opportunities – but I’ll leave that bigger picture argument for another day. Or maybe later in this discussion, if this gets going.
I will also volunteer that what I am proposing would make the coaching staff substantially more complex than it is now, so perhaps a toggle for the “expanded coaching staff” would be appropriate. Otherwise, some other shortcut, like auto-hiring of lesser staffers, would seem sensible.
In essence, I would propose that four changes be made to the coach/staff hiring system.
#1 – Expand the coaching staff roles to include several more coaches
#2 – Clarify roles of coaches to better match familiar NFL roles
#3 – Include an “unknown” label for many ratings for many potential coaches
#4 – Create expanded pool of new coach prospects all from ranks of former players
Anecdotally, here’s what I would like to see for a league where I’d want to take this seriously. I’ll use the IHOF multiplayer league as an example.
Fullback (and sometimes tight end) Man Rhea served faithfully with my Chesapeake Chitterlings for many years before being crushed by injuries and retiring. The following season, at age 33, he appears in the pool of possible coaches for the league, with ratings (using the familiar system) that look like this:
Man Rhea
Age 33
Quarterbacks: unknown
Running Backs: good
Receivers: fair
Offensive Linemen: unknown
Kickers/Punters: unknown
Defensive Linemen: unknown
Linebackers: unknown
Secondary: unknown
Young Talent: unknown
Motivation: good
Discipline: unknown
Off Playcalling: unknown
Def Playcalling: unknown
Injury Avoidance: unknown
This would be pretty standard for a young coach right out of the player ranks – mostly he’s an unknown for his actual coaching skills, but he can probably be expected to have some recognizable ability in the area where he used to play himself, perhaps along with a related or opposing position group (a former WR might know QBs, or DBs). Among the more generic coaching skills, one or two might be visible, but most would be unknown. The more off-field skills like intelligence the player showed in playing days, the better bet he would make to show up in the coaching pool with some reasonable skills.
Actually, I think I’d even like for him to first approach the team he is leaving, and inquire about a coaching position – a sort of a “first shot” at him for his years of service on the team. If we pass, then he’d drop into the pool of coach applicants for anyone to try to hire.
Anyway – so my team hires him, and we make him our Running Backs coach. Let’s say he stay in that role for us for five seasons, and over that time, we see more and more of his skills revealed, as well as watch him developing into a more mature coaching prospect. After those five years, maybe here’s what he would look like:
Man Rhea
Age 38
Quarterbacks: good
Running Backs: excellent
Receivers: very good
Offensive Linemen: fair
Kickers/Punters: unknown
Defensive Linemen: unknown
Linebackers: good
Secondary: good
Young Talent: very good
Motivation: very good
Discipline: excellent
Off Playcalling: very good
Def Playcalling: unknown
Injury Avoidance: good
So, after several years with the team’s coaching staff, we are getting a pretty decent sense of what sort of coach he already is. Still a few holes in his resume, but by and large we have a decent idea where he is.
So, over these years, what did we get from him as our RB Coach? In my revised system, position coaches would:
-help refine the scout impressions for players on our team in his position group
-play a primary role in development of players at their position
-add some minor adjustment to the effectiveness of players at their position
So, Man Rhea, who has developed into an “excellent” backs coach, would have become a pretty useful asset to my team by this point. I think the development of coaches ought to be pretty variable, but after a handful of seasons, one ought to have a pretty good idea where guys are going in their roles. This guy works out, but maybe 3 out of 5 guys I hired that year as position coaches would have been replaced by now for lack of improvement or results.
My vision would be that this player would be locked into this job with my team for as long as I wanted him to stay, or until he got a promotion offer from another team. If another team were looking at the pool of possible offensive coordinators, they would see Rhea in the universe of possibles (that list might be best were it searchable screen-able by certain attributes) and if someone thought he looked worthy, they could make him an offer. (Maybe he would only appear to other teams this way after he had served a certain number of years, or had achieved a certain level of coaching attributes—I’m open to having most of these guys just fly under the radar until they receive a certain level of attention league-wide) I think in a ML universe, your staff hiring would need to have only a limited number of stages that include potential “poaching” of this sort, followed by stages for refilling that would only include acquiring unemployed staff. (I believe opening eight or ten coaching positions to wide-open bidding every year could get just too tedious, so a lot of “status quo” ought to prevail in these roles, I’d think)
Anyway, over time, Rhea might develop the skills to become an OC or even a head Coach for my team or for someone else’s. Thus would be the career arc for coaching prospects in the league – lots of guys would get at least an initial shot at a positional coaching job, some would continue to develop more and better skills, and eventually become candidates for higher positions – the roles subject to financial bidding in an open market.
Personally, I don’t think the game gains anything by having random names drawn from a list as new coach prospects, so I’d be in favor of departing from reality a good deal here, and just making all the new coaches come from the ranks of former players. In leagues with a rich enough history and close attention being paid this would be an asset – in leagues where staff details aren’t that important, it would be a non-factor. I’ll sacrifice realism for immersion and intrigue here.
As far as coach and staff roles, here’s how I would assign the affects of each coaching position, more or less:
POS COACH COORDINATOR HEAD COACH SCOUT
Off-team scouting: total
On-team evaluation: secondary primary
On-Field Play: minor minor minor
Player Development: primary secondary
Motivation: total
Discipline: secondary primary
Off Playcalling: primary secondary
Def Playcalling: primary secondary
Injury Avoidance: total
With scouting, my thinking would be that once a player is on the team, goes through training camp, and is art of your team – you ought to have a better sense of what he is capable of doing. I don’t truly see that as a “scouting” function, but rather a function of player assessment. Right now, your scout’s view of a player is altered a bit once he joins your team – I’d like to see that adjustment be a function, at least partially, of the position coach who is working most closely with the player.
For player development, I think the contributions from a given staffer would be related to a combination of his skill with that position, and his skill with young player generally. The appropriate coordinator still would play a role in developing the whole side of the team, but that role falls first and foremost onto the position coach closest to the players.
By “on-field play,” I think the game would basically benefit from having some quiet modifiers in place for players who are essentially being well coached. I wouldn’t suggest that a player with a red bar of 80 right now actually be visibly viewed as something else, but rather that the collective efforts of good coaches to get the player ready to play his position, to recognize blocking schemes, to read coverages, and to otherwise discharge the responsibilities of his position ought to be factored into the game a bit. Whether that collectively turns an 80-rated player into a 78-82 guy, or a 75-85 guy I don’t know – but I’d like to think that good coaching gives players a better chance to succeed, and having that a global (but still pretty minor) effect from all the coaches makes sense to me.
As for playcalling – I don’t claim to know how it works in FOF now, nor do I really know how to implement it in any future version. I will claim ignorance there, to some degree.
What would make sense to me would be for coordinators to develop a certain repertoire over time – maybe like a QB and his formation knowledge. Maybe it would make sense for any coach to have a “preferred” system that he would like to use as his base offense/defense – in theory, that would likely be the system his team used most recently in his role as a position coach, but I’m not sure how I’d set this up. In general, though, I’d like to see a system where you hire a coordinator primarily for the style of play you want form that side of the ball – whether it’s emphasizing certain formations, getting better production from a certain style of playcalling, or whatever – the coordinator should be the primary signature on the offense or defense. In FOF, if you plan to really shift your team, and adjust from a pass-first finesse team to a smash mouth running team – that ought to be accompanied by a change in offensive coordinator, unless your guy is unusually versatile. I would like for the head coach to retain a role in influencing the playcalling, but this should be the purview of the coordinators primarily.
I think this leaves a major role for the head coach, still – in addition to contributing to playcalling on both sides of the ball, he’d basically be the centerpiece for whatever contributions you get from motivation, discipline, and injury avoidance. In theory, you could also have a separate, new rating for “coach development” that might guide underling staff members. In any event, I don’t feel the HC position would be undermined by some shifting of the responsibilities here… he’d only be one of 8-10 total coaches, but he’d easily still be the primary agent of effect on the team’s performance, I’d think.
I’m sure I have more thoughts to add on the general subject, but for now I’ll wrap up. I don’t know where ideas like this fit, really – we’re potentially years away from an FOF update, I understand that. But, I have had some of these ideas flickering for a while, and finally decided to string them together into a fairly coherent idea. Hope it adds something to the community.
Cheers.
Two FOF versions deep into the staff and coach hiring system we have, I thought it might be worth it to speculate about what improvements might make sense for this aspect of the game if and when there might be a future version.
My thinking here started with the notion that the current system can be improved, without being eliminated. I’m sure there are plenty of things that one might do from scratch – I’m mostly trying to tinker with the basic building blocks that we already have in place in Front Office Football 2007 and its immediate predecessor.
I also, after giving it a little thought, have decided not to include any sort of wholesale re-invention of the game’s financial system as part of this. I suppose that a more robust financial system might make the ability to bid for and secure highly paid coaches a challenge in itself, as a sort of offset against other spending opportunities – but I’ll leave that bigger picture argument for another day. Or maybe later in this discussion, if this gets going.
I will also volunteer that what I am proposing would make the coaching staff substantially more complex than it is now, so perhaps a toggle for the “expanded coaching staff” would be appropriate. Otherwise, some other shortcut, like auto-hiring of lesser staffers, would seem sensible.
In essence, I would propose that four changes be made to the coach/staff hiring system.
#1 – Expand the coaching staff roles to include several more coaches
#2 – Clarify roles of coaches to better match familiar NFL roles
#3 – Include an “unknown” label for many ratings for many potential coaches
#4 – Create expanded pool of new coach prospects all from ranks of former players
Anecdotally, here’s what I would like to see for a league where I’d want to take this seriously. I’ll use the IHOF multiplayer league as an example.
Fullback (and sometimes tight end) Man Rhea served faithfully with my Chesapeake Chitterlings for many years before being crushed by injuries and retiring. The following season, at age 33, he appears in the pool of possible coaches for the league, with ratings (using the familiar system) that look like this:
Man Rhea
Age 33
Quarterbacks: unknown
Running Backs: good
Receivers: fair
Offensive Linemen: unknown
Kickers/Punters: unknown
Defensive Linemen: unknown
Linebackers: unknown
Secondary: unknown
Young Talent: unknown
Motivation: good
Discipline: unknown
Off Playcalling: unknown
Def Playcalling: unknown
Injury Avoidance: unknown
This would be pretty standard for a young coach right out of the player ranks – mostly he’s an unknown for his actual coaching skills, but he can probably be expected to have some recognizable ability in the area where he used to play himself, perhaps along with a related or opposing position group (a former WR might know QBs, or DBs). Among the more generic coaching skills, one or two might be visible, but most would be unknown. The more off-field skills like intelligence the player showed in playing days, the better bet he would make to show up in the coaching pool with some reasonable skills.
Actually, I think I’d even like for him to first approach the team he is leaving, and inquire about a coaching position – a sort of a “first shot” at him for his years of service on the team. If we pass, then he’d drop into the pool of coach applicants for anyone to try to hire.
Anyway – so my team hires him, and we make him our Running Backs coach. Let’s say he stay in that role for us for five seasons, and over that time, we see more and more of his skills revealed, as well as watch him developing into a more mature coaching prospect. After those five years, maybe here’s what he would look like:
Man Rhea
Age 38
Quarterbacks: good
Running Backs: excellent
Receivers: very good
Offensive Linemen: fair
Kickers/Punters: unknown
Defensive Linemen: unknown
Linebackers: good
Secondary: good
Young Talent: very good
Motivation: very good
Discipline: excellent
Off Playcalling: very good
Def Playcalling: unknown
Injury Avoidance: good
So, after several years with the team’s coaching staff, we are getting a pretty decent sense of what sort of coach he already is. Still a few holes in his resume, but by and large we have a decent idea where he is.
So, over these years, what did we get from him as our RB Coach? In my revised system, position coaches would:
-help refine the scout impressions for players on our team in his position group
-play a primary role in development of players at their position
-add some minor adjustment to the effectiveness of players at their position
So, Man Rhea, who has developed into an “excellent” backs coach, would have become a pretty useful asset to my team by this point. I think the development of coaches ought to be pretty variable, but after a handful of seasons, one ought to have a pretty good idea where guys are going in their roles. This guy works out, but maybe 3 out of 5 guys I hired that year as position coaches would have been replaced by now for lack of improvement or results.
My vision would be that this player would be locked into this job with my team for as long as I wanted him to stay, or until he got a promotion offer from another team. If another team were looking at the pool of possible offensive coordinators, they would see Rhea in the universe of possibles (that list might be best were it searchable screen-able by certain attributes) and if someone thought he looked worthy, they could make him an offer. (Maybe he would only appear to other teams this way after he had served a certain number of years, or had achieved a certain level of coaching attributes—I’m open to having most of these guys just fly under the radar until they receive a certain level of attention league-wide) I think in a ML universe, your staff hiring would need to have only a limited number of stages that include potential “poaching” of this sort, followed by stages for refilling that would only include acquiring unemployed staff. (I believe opening eight or ten coaching positions to wide-open bidding every year could get just too tedious, so a lot of “status quo” ought to prevail in these roles, I’d think)
Anyway, over time, Rhea might develop the skills to become an OC or even a head Coach for my team or for someone else’s. Thus would be the career arc for coaching prospects in the league – lots of guys would get at least an initial shot at a positional coaching job, some would continue to develop more and better skills, and eventually become candidates for higher positions – the roles subject to financial bidding in an open market.
Personally, I don’t think the game gains anything by having random names drawn from a list as new coach prospects, so I’d be in favor of departing from reality a good deal here, and just making all the new coaches come from the ranks of former players. In leagues with a rich enough history and close attention being paid this would be an asset – in leagues where staff details aren’t that important, it would be a non-factor. I’ll sacrifice realism for immersion and intrigue here.
As far as coach and staff roles, here’s how I would assign the affects of each coaching position, more or less:
POS COACH COORDINATOR HEAD COACH SCOUT
Off-team scouting: total
On-team evaluation: secondary primary
On-Field Play: minor minor minor
Player Development: primary secondary
Motivation: total
Discipline: secondary primary
Off Playcalling: primary secondary
Def Playcalling: primary secondary
Injury Avoidance: total
With scouting, my thinking would be that once a player is on the team, goes through training camp, and is art of your team – you ought to have a better sense of what he is capable of doing. I don’t truly see that as a “scouting” function, but rather a function of player assessment. Right now, your scout’s view of a player is altered a bit once he joins your team – I’d like to see that adjustment be a function, at least partially, of the position coach who is working most closely with the player.
For player development, I think the contributions from a given staffer would be related to a combination of his skill with that position, and his skill with young player generally. The appropriate coordinator still would play a role in developing the whole side of the team, but that role falls first and foremost onto the position coach closest to the players.
By “on-field play,” I think the game would basically benefit from having some quiet modifiers in place for players who are essentially being well coached. I wouldn’t suggest that a player with a red bar of 80 right now actually be visibly viewed as something else, but rather that the collective efforts of good coaches to get the player ready to play his position, to recognize blocking schemes, to read coverages, and to otherwise discharge the responsibilities of his position ought to be factored into the game a bit. Whether that collectively turns an 80-rated player into a 78-82 guy, or a 75-85 guy I don’t know – but I’d like to think that good coaching gives players a better chance to succeed, and having that a global (but still pretty minor) effect from all the coaches makes sense to me.
As for playcalling – I don’t claim to know how it works in FOF now, nor do I really know how to implement it in any future version. I will claim ignorance there, to some degree.
What would make sense to me would be for coordinators to develop a certain repertoire over time – maybe like a QB and his formation knowledge. Maybe it would make sense for any coach to have a “preferred” system that he would like to use as his base offense/defense – in theory, that would likely be the system his team used most recently in his role as a position coach, but I’m not sure how I’d set this up. In general, though, I’d like to see a system where you hire a coordinator primarily for the style of play you want form that side of the ball – whether it’s emphasizing certain formations, getting better production from a certain style of playcalling, or whatever – the coordinator should be the primary signature on the offense or defense. In FOF, if you plan to really shift your team, and adjust from a pass-first finesse team to a smash mouth running team – that ought to be accompanied by a change in offensive coordinator, unless your guy is unusually versatile. I would like for the head coach to retain a role in influencing the playcalling, but this should be the purview of the coordinators primarily.
I think this leaves a major role for the head coach, still – in addition to contributing to playcalling on both sides of the ball, he’d basically be the centerpiece for whatever contributions you get from motivation, discipline, and injury avoidance. In theory, you could also have a separate, new rating for “coach development” that might guide underling staff members. In any event, I don’t feel the HC position would be undermined by some shifting of the responsibilities here… he’d only be one of 8-10 total coaches, but he’d easily still be the primary agent of effect on the team’s performance, I’d think.
I’m sure I have more thoughts to add on the general subject, but for now I’ll wrap up. I don’t know where ideas like this fit, really – we’re potentially years away from an FOF update, I understand that. But, I have had some of these ideas flickering for a while, and finally decided to string them together into a fairly coherent idea. Hope it adds something to the community.
Cheers.