Have you ever had a Starter NOT Starting!?

[graffka]

I've played 14 games this season in a 4-3. My WLB is unhappy at this point, as he has played all 14 games but only started 3. Well, the issue is that he HAS been listed as the starter all year with a play % of 75%. Get this - the backup WLB has played 14 games with 0 starts, and no other LB has picked up these 11 starts. Any thoughts here? Bug?

[graffka]

One other point - my D has dropped quite a bit in this season, and I think it might b/c of the lack of Tackles being picked up from this position - only 28 or 2/game. Playing with only 10 guys on D???

[twothree]

I've played 14 games this season in a 4-3. My WLB is unhappy at this point, as he has played all 14 games but only started 3. Well, the issue is that he HAS been listed as the starter all year with a play % of 75%. Get this - the backup WLB has played 14 games with 0 starts, and no other LB has picked up these 11 starts. Any thoughts here? Bug?

Only the defensive personnel on the field on the first defensive play are credited with a start. You have probably been in a nickel or dime package on your first defensive play and your third CB is picking up those starts, as the WLB is removed and replaced by a Nickel CB (third CB) in the nickel package.

[graffka]

But that wouldn't make sense as to why he'd be unhappy? And to have a nickel or dime start 11 out of 14 games? I don't think that's the case, but could be mistaken. Will look back at my logs.

[graffka]

Well, I was wrong. The nickel issue is what's skewing this.

[michael1123]

Yeah, I really think that should be fixed. The players listed as starters should get credited for starting.

Lots of times you'll also get 3 WRs getting starts, etc.

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah, I really think that should be fixed. The players listed as starters should get credited for starting.

Lots of times you'll also get 3 WRs getting starts, etc.

No. It should not be "fixed," because it is correct. That's the way it is recorded in the NFL. The players on the field for the first play of the game get credit for the start.

[miami_fan]

I've played 14 games this season in a 4-3. My WLB is unhappy at this point, as he has played all 14 games but only started 3. Well, the issue is that he HAS been listed as the starter all year with a play % of 75%. Get this - the backup WLB has played 14 games with 0 starts, and no other LB has picked up these 11 starts. Any thoughts here? Bug?

If it is that important for you to get him on the field at the start of the game, you can always switch him to MLB in the nickel and dime formations.

[Synovia]

No. It should not be "fixed," because it is correct. That's the way it is recorded in the NFL. The players on the field for the first play of the game get credit for the start.

Right, but if its causing players to be disgruntled, it IS a problem. Having players moral being determined by what the first play is, is silly.

[Ben E Lou]

Right, but if its causing players to be disgruntled, it IS a problem. Having players moral being determined by what the first play is, is silly.

It isn't. A *heavy* component of morale is the number of plays in which they participate.

[Synovia]

"My WLB is unhappy at this point, as he has played all 14 games but only started 3"

Sounds like it is to me. A starter should never be unhappy about playing time.

[Ben E Lou]

"My WLB is unhappy at this point, as he has played all 14 games but only started 3"

Sounds like it is to me. A starter should never be unhappy about playing time.

It isn't. I've run some tests in the last few days that have me virtually 100% certain that the heaviest component is playing time, not whether or not he starts. Taking into account everything that guy posted in this thread, it's clear as a bell that his WLB is pissed off because he isn't getting enough playing time.

[QuikSand]

It doesn't sound like there's any issue here -- the original case is clearly that of a nominal starter who isn't getting used in the formations that the team is clearly using very heavily. He's not only not starting most games since they open up with 5DBs and no WLB, presumably he's not getting very much playing time period, and has every right to be upset about playing time.

There's nothing wrong with the assignment of "starts" that clearly follows the NFL convention, nor does this present any evidence there's any problem with the way FOF weighs these factors in determining player contentment over playing time.

[nilodor]

"My WLB is unhappy at this point, as he has played all 14 games but only started 3"

Sounds like it is to me. A starter should never be unhappy about playing time.

If you want to get him more playing time you could always change your gameplan to use the base package more often than the sub packages of nickle and dime.

[Celeval]

"My WLB is unhappy at this point, as he has played all 14 games but only started 3"

Sounds like it is to me. A starter should never be unhappy about playing time.

Except that he's also only averaging 2 tackles/game - we're missing his plays-per-game numbers. If he's the nominal starting WLB but only getting in on 10 plays a game, how is that different than a backup?

[Ben E Lou]

Except that he's also only averaging 2 tackles/game - we're missing his plays-per-game numbers. If he's the nominal starting WLB but only getting in on 10 plays a game, how is that different than a backup?

Taking into account everything that guy posted in this thread, it's clear as a bell that his WLB is pissed off because he isn't getting enough playing time.
Why spell it out for him, Kevin. ;)

[Passacaglia]

No. It should not be "fixed," because it is correct. That's the way it is recorded in the NFL. The players on the field for the first play of the game get credit for the start.

While I see your point, that that is how it is recorded in the NFL, I disagree with the assumption that FOF should record it that way. In FOF, you can never really state who should be in on the first play. I'd much rather know who I had listed as the starter in a game, rather than which guys started the first play.

[Ben E Lou]

I'd much rather know who I had listed as the starter in a game, rather than which guys started the first play.

I wouldn't.

But that wasn't really the point. Some guy was claiming that this needed to be "fixed." If he wants to suggest a change, then that's another discussion entirely.

[digamma]

To me it is more know how many plays a guy was getting and if that number was consistent with my depth chart and formation preferences rather than a guy getting a check-mark in the start column. We're all on the same page there, right?

[Ben E Lou]

To me it is more know how many plays a guy was getting and if that number was consistent with my depth chart and formation preferences rather than a guy getting a check-mark in the start column. We're all on the same page there, right?
I'm there. It's MUCH more important to see that my low-endurance DT (http://www.fof-ihof.com/player/player.php?playerid=7064) only was in on 629 plays all season than to focus on the fact that he got 16 starts.

[Passacaglia]

To me it is more know how many plays a guy was getting and if that number was consistent with my depth chart and formation preferences rather than a guy getting a check-mark in the start column. We're all on the same page there, right?

Of course. When evaluating players on other teams, though, things get dicey.

[MIJB#19]

It isn't. I've run some tests in the last few days that have me virtually 100% certain that the heaviest component is playing time, not whether or not he starts. Taking into account everything that guy posted in this thread, it's clear as a bell that his WLB is pissed off because he isn't getting enough playing time.That doesn't explain how my primairy backup linebacker got disgruntled. He's 3rd in tackles, 6th in passing plays, 8th in running plays played. He basically is a starter, if you facotr in that he started in most of the games due to injuries elsewhere. Even now with all healthy, his playing time is set to be roughly 75% of the plays.

More annoying was my RB situation, my starting RB has higher endurance than the RB2, I kept the playing time setting to 60 or 70%, yet the game keeps reversing the playing time % for RBs, making my starter disgruntled because he was getting only 1/3rd of the carries.

[gstelmack]

More annoying was my RB situation, my starting RB has higher endurance than the RB2, I kept the playing time setting to 60 or 70%, yet the game keeps reversing the playing time % for RBs, making my starter disgruntled because he was getting only 1/3rd of the carries.

How many passing plays is he in for? I keep wondering if starting RBs get fewer carries because of the number of passing plays they are in for.

[Ben E Lou]

User error has a lot to do with those issues, MIJB. I just ran a number of different tests, and I am consistently getting results that look just fine. RB1 has 30 endurance, RB2 has 80. I set RB1 to 100% playing time, and he gets roughly 65% of the carries. Start to lower that playing time, and he gets a lower percentage. While I agree that the timing of substitutions can be annoying, the implementation makes sense on a global level.

Your backup LB is disgruntled because he thinks he's good enough to be a full-time starter, I'm sure. I've seen that a number of times. Some guys aren't satisfied unless they're the clear-cut starter.