A word to MP newbs and those struggling.

[Ben E Lou]

There's lots of information out there available to improve. But if you don't understand one overarching key principle to success, then you'll never reach your potential. Live this. Learn this. Love this. Do not argue with it.

1. There is *NO* position more important to success in FOF than Wide Receiver--NONE. And it is WAY more important than any other position.
Not QB. Not RB. Not your offensive line. And certainly not any defensive position. The positions stack up in order something like this:


WR






QB















TE





RB
OL, DL, LB, CB, S
FB






P, K

[Ben E Lou]

There is no single bar in the current version (6.4) more important at any position than Big Play Receiving. None. Period.
Next, look for endurance. Your WR ain't gonna do squat if he's not on the field.
I say again: WR isn't just a little more important than anything else. It's significantly more important than anything else. You're better off drafting a 55/55 WR than a 95/95 LT or CB or DE or RB. You're better off drafting a 70/70 high-BPR WR than a 95/95 QB, even.
This is now as public as it can get. If you are ridiculed in a league for getting all googly-eyed over some 95/95 LT and passing up a solid WR, you deserve that ridicule.

[Hammer]

You're better off drafting a 70/70 high-BPR WR than a 95/95 QB, even

Wow.

[Hammer]

So in yardage terms, what do you think a great WR adds over an average one? Maybe 600 or 700 yards?

How about a great Quarterback over an average one. Maybe half a dozen picks, 15 sacks, 3 or 4 fumbles. A whole bunch of missed passes. Just off the top of my head.

Football outsiders think a pick is worth 60 yards.
Advanced NFL Stats: More on the Cost of Interceptions (http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/more-on-cost-of-interceptions.html)

6x60 = 360 yards

In the NAFL stat study the result was that a zero accuracy bar, compared with a maxed out one netted around 1.2 YPA. Say 600 yards over a year.

Lets say an average QB versus a great QB nets the better guy 300 yards then.

Thats a 660 yard advantage for our better QB already.

Throw in Sacks (sense rush) and fumbles. What thats worth, must be a pretty solid figure.

Throw in all the other bars that a QB has, for whatever they are worth. I am thinking a great QB gives you well in excess of a 1000 yards over an average one. Maybe closer to 1500.

On face value I really can't see where your coming from Ben. Quarterbacks surely have more influence than a Wide Receiver?

But I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise :)

[Sef0r]

I have subscribed to this philosophy and still have not been successful...

/hopes this was enough to steer people in another direction, don't take my WR in the draft fools....mwahahaha - #evilplansuccess/

...so yeah, don't listen to Ben.

[Ben E Lou]

So in yardage terms, what do you think a great WR adds over an average one? Maybe 600 or 700 yards?

How about a great Quarterback over an average one. Maybe half a dozen picks, 15 sacks, 3 or 4 fumbles. A whole bunch of missed passes. Just off the top of my head.

Football outsiders think a pick is worth 60 yards.
Advanced NFL Stats: More on the Cost of Interceptions (http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/more-on-cost-of-interceptions.html)

6x60 = 360 yards

In the NAFL stat study the result was that a zero accuracy bar, compared with a maxed out one netted around 1.2 YPA. Say 600 yards over a year.

Lets say an average QB versus a great QB nets the better guy 300 yards then.

Thats a 660 yard advantage for our better QB already.

Throw in Sacks (sense rush) and fumbles. What thats worth, must be a pretty solid figure.

Throw in all the other bars that a QB has, for whatever they are worth. I am thinking a great QB gives you well in excess of a 1000 yards over an average one. Maybe closer to 1500.

On face value I really can't see where your coming from Ben. Quarterbacks surely have more influence than a Wide Receiver?

But I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise :)

First off, this is FOF, not real football. Much of the Football Outsiders stuff is immaterial. Second, I realize the NAFL relies heavily on Jeffrey's studies. He's good with teh numbers, but every study of his I've read is fundamentally flawed.

I'll put it like this: give me a 40/40 QB and two 70/70 100-BPR WRs, and I'll get 8.5-9.5 ypa just about every time. My IHOF Tucker team and my WOOF LWC team are perfect examples. QBs in the low 40s, WRs not even at 70, but with great BPR. Even the AI will put up big numbers in that setup. Give me a 95/95 QB and a pair of 50/50 WRs, and I'll struggle to get over 8.5ypa. Granted, there's some gain to having the 95/95 QB because he lasts longer than the WRs, but if I'm building a team from scratch and have the choice of the stud QB or the stud WRs, give me the WRs. Period.

[Sef0r]

...but not the WR with a period - important difference hammer.

[Hammer]

First off, this is FOF, not real football. Much of the Football Outsiders stuff is immaterial. Second, I realize the NAFL relies heavily on Jeffrey's studies. He's good with teh numbers, but every study of his I've read is fundamentally flawed.

I'll put it like this: give me a 40/40 QB and two 70/70 100-BPR WRs, and I'll get 8.5-9.5 ypa just about every time. My IHOF Tucker team and my WOOF LWC team are perfect examples. QBs in the low 40s, WRs not even at 70, but with great BPR. Even the AI will put up big numbers in that setup. Give me a 95/95 QB and a pair of 50/50 WRs, and I'll struggle to get over 8.5ypa. Granted, there's some gain to having the 95/95 QB because he lasts longer than the WRs, but if I'm building a team from scratch and have the choice of the stud QB or the stud WRs, give me the WRs. Period.


Now this statement I can agree with. 2x awesome WRs are worth more than 1x awesome QB.

But the initial post read, to me at least, 1x awesome WR is worth more than 1x awesome QB.

[Ben E Lou]

Bah. The one-WR stuff still hasn't really been fully "fixed." If I'm drafting 1.1 with a crap team, I'll grab the monster WR and get him 2,000-2,500 yards and 20-30 TDs a year until we can get another one.

[Hammer]

Also TE over RB, surely not?

A great RB would surely net 500 yards over an average RB in pure rushing yardage. Maybe 4 fumbles, call that 100 yards as a low estimate. Thats 600 yards even if we completely throw out the RBs ability as a receiver.

If a great TE made 300 yards worth of difference, awesome over average, I would of thought he has done well? Maybe 400 yards at a stretch? A quality TE hits 1000 yards IF an offense is geared at him roughly, an average one would should net, what, 650 yards?

Adding to this yardage concept. I noticed the other day an exceptional KR brings around 300 yards to the party over an average one. That surprised me, but the stats just pop out in the league I play in. Fumbles not factored in, just pure return yardage.

[Ben E Lou]

Also TE over RB, surely not?

A great RB would surely net 500 yards over an average RB in pure rushing yardage. Maybe 4 fumbles, call that 100 yards as a low estimate. Thats 600 yards even if we completely throw out the RBs ability as a WR.

If a great TE made 300 yards worth of difference, awesome over average, I would of thought he has done well? Maybe 400 yards at a stretch? An quality TE hits 1000 yards IF offense is geared at him roughly, an average would should net, what, 650 yards?

Adding to this yardage concept. I noticed the other day an exceptional KR brings around 300 yards to the party over an average one. That surprised me, but the stats just pop out in the league I play in. Fumbles not factored in, just pure return yardage.Yards. Bah. Yards per target and Yards per carry. Apart from the very top-tier RBs (many of whom should be switched to WR,) there's little difference there. Give me two or three 45/45 RBs to be a RB-by-committee, and I'll get what I need. I picked this guy (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=26605) up off the street at FOFL, for example, and he did just fine. And honestly, if you're throwing downfield correctly, you don't really *need* good running. Just run it a lot and the engine gives enough bonus to passing to put up silly numbers even in a year (http://108.59.255.76/%7Ebenelou/ccfl/ben/teampage.php?teamid=1&year=2018) where your running game "struggles."

[Hammer]

Yeah, I think what your saying is for your system this works. I can totally respect that, and don't doubt it. But it does depend what type of offense your running.

In my offense in recent years a great back gets 2000 yards. An average one might get 1400 yards. Plus say 4 fumbles difference. My passing game would net about 3300 yards, but usually would be the most efficient in the league in terms of QB rating. My 80/80 rated TE would get around 650 yards total.

So in my system no doubt RB>TE. But in your system TE>RB. Thats my conclusion.

[Nemesis]

Bah. The one-WR stuff still hasn't really been fully "fixed." If I'm drafting 1.1 with a crap team, I'll grab the monster WR and get him 2,000-2,500 yards and 20-30 TDs a year until we can get another one.
Even if you face 100/0 "by WR Covered" DC?

[Ben E Lou]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with this post:

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - STRATEGY: Downfield passing game keys. (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=2534144&postcount=2)

Take a closer look at the Gameplan Analyzer bits I posted. There is one "best" way to gameplan in FOF once again. Whatever your system is may work ok, but it's not optimal.

[Ben E Lou]

Even if you face 100/0 "by WR Covered" DC?
Sure. Or my RBs will run for 5.5 ypc all day long because they're playing nothing but pass defense.

You can't double cover when expecting the run.

[Nemesis]

Sure. Or my RBs will run for 5.5 ypc all day long because they're playing nothing but pass defense.

You can't double cover when expecting the run.
Ok

I should have posted a pass/run ratio for 1st and 8-10 as well, something like 0/50/50/0 along with the 100/0 DC.

[Ben E Lou]

Ok

I should have posted a pass/run ratio for 1st and 8-10 as well, something like 0/50/50/0 along with the 100/0 DC.
That will help marginally, but it won't completely stop it. I don't know if the game is just broken, or if all the "little stuff" that you can do to improve your lot in the passing game is just adding up to too much for the engine to handle. (And to be clear, it's not just "run aggressive" where you can't double. You can't double in "run" defense, either. So on 50% of the 1st and 10 pass plays, (which for me are virtually all way downfield) the stud WR is going to be single covered.

[Nemesis]

(And to be clear, it's not just "run aggressive" where you can't double. You can't double in "run" defense, either. So on 50% of the 1st and 10 pass plays, (which for me are virtually all way downfield) the stud WR is going to be single covered.
Right, you mentioned in FOxL about the fact that you cannot DC when in either run situation after I asked for confirmation.

I guess the part that gets under my skin is when I have a monster QB, and a decent WR, my other WR's suck, and my #1 WR is targeted 14 times, catches 4 balls for 37 yards. Coulda been alot of things though. My QB, even though rated 96/96, doesn't know a whole lot of formations, but Silva in CCFL doesn't either, although Silva has much better WR's, RB's, FB, and TE. :D

[Firefly]

I'm with Hammer on this one. A really bad QB will kill your offense. A really bad starting WR, not really. 2 stud WR vs a stud QB, on the other hand, would be hard to pass.

Then again, I think of Shuler, my vnfl House QB, who has helped a WR like my STer who has never been higher than the 20s to nearly 8 yards per target (in only 71 career targets, I'm not mad) or my 35/35 #3 WR to better than 8.6 yards per target and I don't know what to think.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm with Hammer on this one. A really bad QB will kill your offense. A really bad starting WR, not really. 2 stud WR vs a stud QB, on the other hand, would be hard to pass.

Then again, I think of Shuler, my vnfl House QB, who has helped a WR like my STer who has never been higher than the 20s to nearly 8 yards per target (in only 71 career targets, I'm not mad) or my 35/35 #3 WR to better than 8.6 yards per target and I don't know what to think.You should never, ever have to use a "really bad" QB or WR. In every league there are guys in the 35-45 range in FA every year. And I didn't say anything about putting a "really bad" player in either slot. But hey, believe what you want. Ain't my job to convince people. I'm just putting the correct information out there. Do with it what you will.

[Yoda]

(And to be clear, it's not just "run aggressive" where you can't double. You can't double in "run" defense, either. So on 50% of the 1st and 10 pass plays, (which for me are virtually all way downfield) the stud WR is going to be single covered.

Where do you get this from?

[Ben E Lou]

Where do you get this from?Check the logs or Gameplan Analyzer. There's no such thing as a play where the defense expects the run and there's double coverage.

[stevew]

A really bad performing QB is reflective of improper roster building and inferior gameplanning. You can make FOF Tarvaris Jackson look good if you give him Andre Johnson on one side, and Larry Fitzgerald on the other.

This is FOF moneyball.

[Sef0r]

Check the logs or Gameplan Analyzer. There's no such thing as a play where the defense expects the run and there's double coverage.

Which is pretty sad given that the game tricks you into thinking that you can DC in run situations.

Maybe at one stage pre 6.4 it did, or if it never has then the option should be taken out of the screen or a note put on there to say "NB: No DC in Run stop situations".

[aston217]

Oh FOF, the trickses you play!

[Ben E Lou]

Which is pretty sad given that the game tricks you into thinking that you can DC in run situations.

Maybe at one stage pre 6.4 it did, or if it never has then the option should be taken out of the screen or a note put on there to say "NB: No DC in Run stop situations".I'm pretty sure this has been the case since 6.0.

[Yoda]

Check the logs or Gameplan Analyzer. There's no such thing as a play where the defense expects the run and there's double coverage.

I'll look into it when I get a chance- not that I doubt what you are saying.

[JesterBlaze]

I say again: WR isn't just a little more important than anything else. It's significantly more important than anything else. You're better off drafting a 55/55 WR than a 95/95 LT or CB or DE or RB. You're better off drafting a 70/70 high-BPR WR than a 95/95 QB, even.
This is now as public as it can get. If you are ridiculed in a league for getting all googly-eyed over some 95/95 LT and passing up a solid WR, you deserve that ridicule.

If there's a 95/95 LT, CB, DE, or RB you've got a once in a decade player. You can get 4+ 55/55 WRs or so each draft. Though I understand you're pointing out effectiveness, simple rarity makes the non-WR still the better draft choice since you can come back and get one of the WRs later, even if most leagues start taking WR's at a much improved rate.

I'm definitely not arguing against the value of WRs here. I had 9 on my roster going into this season. If this thread came out earlier maybe I could've gotten the meager 5ths and 6ths I was asking for the ones I dropped.

[stevew]

Lol

[Ben E Lou]

I honestly had no idea that the WR thing was even controversial. I thought it was common knowledge. There have been so many cases in WOOF, IHOF, and FOFL of monster-stud QBs having good-not-great years, and mediocre-to-good QBs having monster years when given great WRs that I just assumed it was happening everywhere. Here's just a quick example of what a *bad* QB can do when inserted into a team that has a great coach, has done the TC stuff I suggest, and has one great WR and one great TE.

[Ben E Lou]

If there's a 95/95 LT, CB, DE, or RB you've got a once in a decade player. You can get 4+ 55/55 WRs or so each draft. Though I understand you're pointing out effectiveness, simple rarity makes the non-WR still the better draft choice since you can come back and get one of the WRs later, even if most leagues start taking WR's at a much improved rate.

I'm definitely not arguing against the value of WRs here. I had 9 on my roster going into this season. If this thread came out earlier maybe I could've gotten the meager 5ths and 6ths I was asking for the ones I dropped.I guess it may also depend on your league. I tend to be in leagues with sharks like Quik, Subby, cuervo, RKG, MalcPow, digamma, etc. who snatch up all the WRs, which causes a chain reaction among others. At the FOFL, for example, where people don't trade a lot, I'm lucky to get a 50/50 guy in the late first these days. This guy (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=27614) has been my best 1st-round WR in that league in nearly a decade.

[Yoda]

Also, I would consider not being able to DC a bug- which might explain a lot of the numbers we are seeing.

[JesterBlaze]

I remember a league forming that was gonna use you guys' FOF techie tricks to limit the ratings on the QBs and WRs. Did that ever come to be?

[Ben E Lou]

I'll look into it when I get a chance- not that I doubt what you are saying.
TBH, that was kind of a tongue-in-cheek response. Don't bother doing the work. I've long known this to be true. Greg removed the double-coverage-versus-run/run aggressive bit from Gameplan Analyzer in one of the early versions for that reason. I double-checked it against 15ish seasons in SP, and I suspect he checked it against the entire WOOF history. It just doesn't happen.

[cuervo72]

I'm with Hammer on this one. A really bad QB will kill your offense. A really bad starting WR, not really. 2 stud WR vs a stud QB, on the other hand, would be hard to pass.

It won't ALWAYS kill you. (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=25687) (Note his awards.)

If there's a 95/95 LT, CB, DE, or RB you've got a once in a decade player. You can get 4+ 55/55 WRs or so each draft. Though I understand you're pointing out effectiveness, simple rarity makes the non-WR still the better draft choice since you can come back and get one of the WRs later, even if most leagues start taking WR's at a much improved rate.

It's not always that easy. Believe me.

[Ben E Lou]

Also, I would consider not being able to DC a bug- which might explain a lot of the numbers we are seeing.Interesting. I suppose it could be. I've never reported it because I just assumed that's how JG intended for it to work. Or maybe I did report it years ago and I heard back from Ethan that it was working as intended, and I've just forgotten that piece. Again, I'm fairly certain this has been the case since at least Fall '06 when FOF2K7 was released. I don't recall if double coverage existed in FOF2K4.

[JesterBlaze]

At the FOFL, for example, where people don't trade a lot, I'm lucky to get a 50/50 guy in the late first these days. This guy (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=27614) has been my best 1st-round WR in that league in nearly a decade.

I think that's reasonable valuation... and that specific dude's pretty good.

A 50+ WR whose bars aren't all high in the wrong spots has to be considered a good 2nd round pick in today's FOF. IFL'ers will rue letting Kelly Whitfield (http://www.imperialfl.us/fof_draft/show_player.php?player_id=104) fall to the end of the 2nd. I thought he was a sure 1st rounder.

[Ben E Lou]

It's not always that easy. Believe me.Hehehe. Yeah, cuerv is also usually drafting near the bottom of the first in the FOFL. He's probably one of the best drafters in all of FOF MP, and he's, uh, had some trouble getting good WRs lately....


<table style="width: 508px; height: 226px;" class="roster" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="playeryear"><td>Julio Orosco (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=26766)</td><td>FL</td><td>4</td><td bgcolor="#97D6E6">33</td><td bgcolor="#97D6E6">33</td><td>2032</td></tr> <tr class="playeryear"><td>Vince Patterson (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=29264)</td><td>FL</td><td>1</td><td bgcolor="#96BDE4">20</td><td bgcolor="#96BDE4">27</td><td>2035</td></tr> <tr class="playeryear"><td>Steve Hagans (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=26696)</td><td>FL</td><td>3</td><td bgcolor="#96BDE4">25</td><td bgcolor="#96BDE4">25</td><td>2033</td></tr> <tr class="playeryear"><td>Roger Otero (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=22578)</td><td>SE</td><td>9</td><td bgcolor="#86E47B">62</td><td bgcolor="#86E47B">62</td><td>2027</td></tr> <tr class="playeryear"><td>Jessie Sidharta (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=28421)</td><td>SE</td><td>2</td><td bgcolor="#97D6E6">32</td><td bgcolor="#97E2E5">40</td><td>2034</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Ben E Lou]

I think that's reasonable valuation... and that specific dude's pretty good.Well, I drafted him before I'd told anyone what I'd noticed about BPR. ;) Pretty sure he doesn't fall that far now...

[JesterBlaze]

It's not always that easy. Believe me.

This may not change your stance but re-reading my post I want to point out that I'm claiming 4+ 55 rated WRs per league draft, not claiming one team could grab 4 if that's how it came out.

Over a 5 year period I figure I'm gonna find a way to grab my WRs. If I can get a super-stud at another position, though not as effective as a WR straight-up, that will tip the balance between me and the other team.

[Nemesis]

It won't ALWAYS kill you. (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=25687) (Note his awards.)



It's not always that easy. Believe me.
Want him??? :D

[cuervo72]

This may not change your stance but re-reading my post I want to point out that I'm claiming 4+ 55 rated WRs per league draft, not claiming one team could grab 4 if that's how it came out.

Over a 5 year period I figure I'm gonna find a way to grab my WRs. If I can get a super-stud at another position, though not as effective as a WR straight-up, that will tip the balance between me and the other team.

No, I know that's what you meant. Still, that's tough with 32 owners.

fof-IHOF.com : 2031 Draft (http://www.fof-ihof.com/league/draft.php?y=2031&p=5)
fof-IHOF.com : 2030 Draft (http://www.fof-ihof.com/league/draft.php?y=2030&p=5)
fof-IHOF.com : 2029 Draft (http://www.fof-ihof.com/league/draft.php?y=2029&p=5) ---> good, but still dry by 1.17
fof-IHOF.com : 2028 Draft (http://www.fof-ihof.com/league/draft.php?y=2028&p=5)
fof-IHOF.com : 2027 Draft (http://www.fof-ihof.com/league/draft.php?y=2027&p=5) ---> the 4th rounders are interesting, though one has no BPR and the other was drafted by...Ben (and this is probably well over a year ago)

I'll admit that if you can wheel and deal you have a better shot -- I'm not a particularly adept trader.

[RedKingGold]

I disagree with everything Ben says and truly hope no one who plays FOF MP listens to him.

[RedKingGold]

...except for me and all his other rivals who are the ONLY ones who will truly pay attention and take notice.

[MalcPow]

If Ben had rivals, he wouldn't be posting this stuff

[Ben E Lou]

If Ben had rivals, he wouldn't be posting this stuffBah. The playoffs still come down to dice rolls quite often. But yeah, my new CCFL QB (http://108.59.255.76/%7Ebenelou/ccfl/ben/playercard.php?playerid=9040) hitting the 60-TD mark in his first year as a starter did kinda play a role in these threads getting posted. This is starting to get a little out of hand.

[RedKingGold]

If Ben had rivals, he wouldn't be posting this stuff

Rivals was a poor choice of word(s), diseased stepchildren is a better charachterization.

[Fritz]

Next, look for endurance. Your WR ain't gonna do squat if he's not on the field.


Preach it Brother. Your last name could be Kinchlow.

[Sef0r]

I think that's reasonable valuation... and that specific dude's pretty good.

A 50+ WR whose bars aren't all high in the wrong spots has to be considered a good 2nd round pick in today's FOF. IFL'ers will rue letting Kelly Whitfield (http://www.imperialfl.us/fof_draft/show_player.php?player_id=104) fall to the end of the 2nd. I thought he was a sure 1st rounder.

Where did Whitfield's BPR bar end up? I like Hawthorne who you took at 1.20.

Don't know how Thorton ended up getting taken @ 1.16, that the anti BPR right there.

[Dutch]

FOF is Al Davis' wet dream.

[aston217]

FOF is Al Davis' wet dream.

Al Davis used to be a good GM. Then Ben gave him some of his MP guides.

I guess Ben isn't a Raiders fan.

[Dutch]

I don't actually doubt it, I think Al Davis has draft the top 40-time combine guy like four years in a row!

[JesterBlaze]

Where did Whitfield's BPR bar end up? I like Hawthorne who you took at 1.20.

Don't know how Thorton ended up getting taken @ 1.16, that the anti BPR right there.

Whitfield's only 4 games into his career so he hasn't had time to end up. It's interesting to read about BPR today since that's actually the one WR stat I don't care about. I like RR and GD on the theory that any play can then be a big play. I assume Skydog's right but I'll keep doing things my way based on the thinking that in a video game anything done for fun is a good move. :)

I like Hawthorne more too but Whitfield is the better pick based on where he was taken.

Hopefully today's threads will adjust the IFLs draft landscape come next season. Unfortunately I feel QBs already slide too far and some might misread into Skydog's info that they are now valueless.

[Sef0r]

Whitfield's only 4 games into his career so he hasn't had time to end up.

Sorry, rephrase - what is Whitfield's Big Play Receiving bar? 63? 58?

And it is a static bar, it does not go up.

[Subby]

Yards. Bah. Yards per target and Yards per carry. Apart from the very top-tier RBs (many of whom should be switched to WR,) there's little difference there. Give me two or three 45/45 RBs to be a RB-by-committee, and I'll get what I need. I picked this guy (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=26605) up off the street at FOFL, for example, and he did just fine. And honestly, if you're throwing downfield correctly, you don't really *need* good running. Just run it a lot and the engine gives enough bonus to passing to put up silly numbers even in a year (http://108.59.255.76/%7Ebenelou/ccfl/ben/teampage.php?teamid=1&year=2018) where your running game "struggles."
This is the absolute truth. I've done it every other way but have come back to this.

[JesterBlaze]

Sorry, rephrase - what is Whitfield's Big Play Receiving bar? 63? 58?

And it is a static bar, it does not go up.

49 for Whitfield, 62 for Hawthorne.

[Sef0r]

49 for Whitfield

At a guess, this is probably why Whitfield dropped to the 2nd, probably could have even dropped to the 3rd.

[gstelmack]

Check the logs or Gameplan Analyzer. There's no such thing as a play where the defense expects the run and there's double coverage.

Well, let's be clear here:

In the FOF Solevision Logs, there's no such thing as a play where the defense expects the run and the file reports a double coverage.

There are fields in there that we don't know about, but most of those are always zero or filled with apparently random junk (by "random junk" I actually mean "the value that was there in the previous play; it does not appear to always reset to zero). I need to get around to posting some of that raw data to get some help on the last few bits. But this may be a case where there is in fact "double coverage", but FOF doesn't care because it's a run play and doesn't affect the result, so it doesn't report it.

[Ben E Lou]

But this may be a case where there is in fact "double coverage", but FOF doesn't care because it's a run play and doesn't affect the result, so it doesn't report it.But it's not a "run play," though. Many of them are pass plays; it's just that the defense expects the run, so there's no doubling (or no doubling reported.)

[aston217]

If the defense is expecting the run, but the play is actually a pass, then we should be able to tell if there is DC going on or not. Unless the QB never throws either into or away from double coverage if the defense expects the run - or he does and it's not reported, which would be odd.

[gstelmack]

But it's not a "run play," though. Many of them are pass plays; it's just that the defense expects the run, so there's no doubling (or no doubling reported.)

Ah yes. Ignore me, it's too early in the morning...

[QuikSand]

Unintentional Comedy GOLD

Glad I stopped in! This thread delivers.

[johnnyshaka]

If DC is in fact not possible on run plays then it should definitely be considered a bug as coverage screens give you the option to set DC percentages for plays you expect there to be a run.

[Ben E Lou]

If DC is in fact not possible on run plays then it should definitely be considered a bug as coverage screens give you the option to set DC percentages for plays you expect there to be a run.Semantics, but it isn't technically a bug if it's working as intended. (And, as stated earlier, I'm not 100% sure that it's working as intended, but for some reason I think it is.) It would be confusing and contradictory, but not a bug. ;) A "bug" is when something doesn't work the way the developer intended/thought it worked.

[Pyser]

if jim would patch the game and turn the wr importance down a good amount, this would be like a brand new game

I've been railing against this for a while in ccfl, but of course, theres nothing that can be done.

also, when a game is out for this long, with this rabid a fan base playing it this often, it's gonna get completely figured out.

and yes, I'm still mad i blew a 38-14 lead against ben with 20 minutes left or so. stupid dominant wrs.

[NawlinsFan]

Your mad!!! I needed his advice a few weeks ago when I selected a stud RB over a stud WR at 1.2.


No wonder I am one of the "struggling" crowd.

[stevew]

Here's advice....convert that RB into a WR as long as he meets positional criteria(weight, etc).

[MIJB#19]

I'm not struggling, I'm in the stubborn crowd.

If there's no WR that pleases me enough, I'll take the upgrade elsewhere on the field and try to get a <4.50 WR later in the draft (and then somehow end up with a BPR-lacking WR). I have yet to see a draft where every WR that runs under 4.5 seconds is gone before the 3rd round.

[Kozure]

I'm not struggling, I'm in the stubborn crowd.

If there's no WR that pleases me enough, I'll take the upgrade elsewhere on the field and try to get a <4.50 WR later in the draft (and then somehow end up with a BPR-lacking WR). I have yet to see a draft where every WR that runs under 4.5 seconds is gone before the 3rd round.

There are currently 8 receivers available in the USFL draft with 40 times between 4.45 and 4.49 at the end of the fifth round. hehe

[Kozure]

if jim would patch the game and turn the wr importance down a good amount, this would be like a brand new game

I've been railing against this for a while in ccfl, but of course, theres nothing that can be done.

also, when a game is out for this long, with this rabid a fan base playing it this often, it's gonna get completely figured out.

and yes, I'm still mad i blew a 38-14 lead against ben with 20 minutes left or so. stupid dominant wrs.

Pyser, I think the problem is more the poor GMs that don't know the value of their picks who trade away future first rounders to elite GMs who end up putting together awesome offenses and statistics which, if not for the poor trading of the poor GMs, would in all likelihood be unattainable.

I was thinking that the game needs rebalanced, but that's the easy way out. I think the game runs fine, for the most part, and Jim can't account for every instance where someone gets ripped off in a trade enabling some GM...cough cough Ben....snags yet another stud receiver at the top of a draft.

the game is built for aggressive GMs to succeed. Most of the time, passive GMs will either get eaten alive or need to get lucky to put a truly dominant team on the field. This is completely relevant to the division/conference/league that a GM is in. Some leagues that GM can do better than in another league.

[aston217]

Well, I think the game is not *that* balanced. It has in the past and probably still does to some extent, significantly overvalued certain skill positions.

[Yoda]

Look at what Brady did when he had Randy Moss. Now, imagine what he would do if he had Moss and like Andre Johnson in their primes?

There are slightly comparable offense in the NFL if you look back at the GSoT Rams or the Vikings when they had Carter/Moss.

You aren't going to see Houston trade Johnson to New England/Green Bay, but in FoF- there goes 3 1st and Johnson is in a new city. So, you are going to have situations which stretch the scope of the game.

[Kozure]

Well, I think the game is not *that* balanced. It has in the past and probably still does to some extent, significantly overvalued certain skill positions.

Look at what yoda just posted. This is what I'm referring to. Bens team he mentions where his qb is threw 60+ TDs is basically that team. And I bet if I look at his other teams they are build very similarly. But his CCFL team is the perfect storm of awesome talent in a league that doesnt value defense very high. This is not criticism. I agree with Ben that big play receivers are the way to go and he is a GM who is ruthless in getting the players he wants. If every GM played that way, the game would be balanced.

[jeffrey]

Second, I realize the NAFL relies heavily on Jeffrey's studies. He's good with teh numbers, but every study of his I've read is fundamentally flawed.

Flawed, eh? How so?

Also, my studies say nothing about whether one position is more important than another. They merely try to tease out what bars have the greatest impact for a given position.

[isaccoubaldi]

Pyser, I think the problem is more the poor GMs that don't know the value of their picks who trade away future first rounders to elite GMs who end up putting together awesome offenses and statistics which, if not for the poor trading of the poor GMs, would in all likelihood be unattainable.

I was thinking that the game needs rebalanced, but that's the easy way out. I think the game runs fine, for the most part, and Jim can't account for every instance where someone gets ripped off in a trade enabling some GM...cough cough Ben....snags yet another stud receiver at the top of a draft.

the game is built for aggressive GMs to succeed. Most of the time, passive GMs will either get eaten alive or need to get lucky to put a truly dominant team on the field. This is completely relevant to the division/conference/league that a GM is in. Some leagues that GM can do better than in another league.

This is the truth.

Ben is the best aggressive GM I see in action but it's not the only one. There are many aggressive GMs in every league. Of course there is nothing wrong, because they don't force other GMs to do a trade, but I like to see implemented a rules (only the test the effects) that forbid GMs to use their future 1st round pick for a trade.

Another solution I found useful to limit the power of the "aggressive GM" is to write many articles (like this http://www.bearsruletheworld.com/vnflcommunity/showthread.php?9130-So-you-want-to-be-a-good-trader) about this topic trying to warn against this type of GMs but I obtained very little effects. :D

[Kozure]

This is the truth.

Ben is the best aggressive GM I see in action but it's not the only one. There are many aggressive GMs in every league. Of course there is nothing wrong, because they don't force other GMs to do a trade, but I like to see implemented a rules (only the test the effects) that forbid GMs to use their future 1st round pick for a trade.

Another solution I found useful to limit the power of the "aggressive GM" is to write many articles (like this http://www.bearsruletheworld.com/vnflcommunity/showthread.php?9130-So-you-want-to-be-a-good-trader) about this topic trying to warn against this type of GMs but I obtained very little effects. :D

you can't do anything about it. many of the GMs that trade away their firsts are convinced that this is the right move.

Here is a little litmus test to try. If someone wants to see how good their team is, ask a guy that you know to be a good GM and see if he would trade his 1.28 to 1.32 to you for your 1st rounder next year. If he says yes immediately, without neither saying he wants to see what kind of offers he can get for his 1.28 to 1.32 nor saying that you have to throw in a 3rd, then you probably have a horrible team and he sees a great opportunity to get a great pick.

If someone does that deal, it is no ones fault but the guy trading away the future first rounder.

[MRL17]

You aren't going to see Houston trade Johnson to New England/Green Bay, but in FoF- there goes 3 1st and Johnson is in a new city. So, you are going to have situations which stretch the scope of the game.

This.

There have been very few teams IRL with 2 elite WRs and when it does happen, those teams destroy everyone just like Ben is doing. The moral of the story is: don't trade your elite offensive weapons, and don't trade your 1sts unless you have been consistently winning

[strickzilla]

its very much like playing online poker. guys will goo all in with $4000 on a 23 off suit and catch a full house.

there are no real ramifications to trading away your future first. you saw what happened to the vikings after the herschiel walker trade and conversely the cowboys or what the saints suffered thru after ricky williams.

[JesterBlaze]

Auctions would allow natural competitiveness to give the high picks the payment they deserve in a given league.

"1.3 on the auction block until Friday"

If a guy's getting ripped off then combine a better package and pony up. "Better" would be in the eyes of the auction poster so there would still be debate where players are involved but it should close the window a lot.

[Nemesis]

its very much like playing online poker. guys will goo all in with $4000 on a 23 off suit

I'd love for someone to do that to me 100 times.

[Hammer]

Where I play there are 3 or 4 teams with 2 great WRs. We have been dominating with a running game for a number of seasons now, and those teams passing attacks really arn't doing so well. We have the highest rated passing game most years, but only just scrape over 3000 yards usually. I did well in the NAFL with a passing team, now I'm doing equally well in the vNFL with a running team.

My guess is that if Ben changed tact and set his team up to do so, he would win with a ground based team also. Maybe the stats wouldn't be as flashy, but he would control the clock, and turn the ball over less which would equal the same result - win a lot.

[Ben E Lou]

Where I play there are 3 or 4 teams with 2 great WRs. We have been dominating with a running game for a number of seasons now, and those teams passing attacks really arn't doing so well.If that is the case, they aren't doing it right. Either they're ignoring chemistry and cohesion, or not using the right game plan, or some other sub-optimal combination. You didn't listen on cohesion. I cannot fathom why you aren't listening now. *shurg*

[MIJB#19]

My guess is that if Ben changed tact and set his team up to do so, he would win with a ground based team also. Maybe the stats wouldn't be as flashy, but he would control the clock, and turn the ball over less which would equal the same result - win a lot.At some point it might pay off to go off the path of copy-catting, but until the majority of FOF players pick on the habit to look at WR first and second, going the WR route will be the optimal strategy. Then, when everybody has a decent or semi-decent WR, the playing field will somewhat even out and other positions will matter again, making a difference between going 6-10 and 10-6.

[Hammer]

If that is the case, they aren't doing it right. Either they're ignoring chemistry and cohesion, or not using the right game plan, or some other sub-optimal combination. You didn't listen on cohesion. I cannot fathom why you aren't listening now. *shurg*

Because I'm winning ;)

You are right about chemistry and cohesion though, they are ignoring it.

[Ben E Lou]

Because I'm winning ;)

You are right about chemistry and cohesion though, they are ignoring it.
Hehehe. Fair enough on the winning part. I'm curious myself to see what happens when I release v2.0 of the game plan library (probably next weekend-ish).

[Hammer]

Do you not think maybe you have perfected this system. If you got all the chemistry and cohesion nailed, you couldn't perfect another system and win consistently.

I used to run a system like yours. I found often I won 30-0. But by the nature of the offense you will get some 3 and outs. Your opponent builds a lead. The pass defense is cranked up as is the deep zone. I guess I am saying you dominate a lot of games and kill people, but then you slip up by the hit and miss nature of the deep passing game.

The more conservative offense can give you a consistant output, more so.

Maybe your system is THE best way to go, maybe it isn't. I will sure have a look into it when you release the gameplan. I guess until you get your ass kicked by it your not going to believe. I have a couple of 85 rated safeties, quality CBs and a good pass rush in the only MP league I play in, and our opposition had a rating of around 60 last year. We never really got lit up.

I had a very nice passing attack in the NAFL built around a 90 rated QB. We had all the chemistry and cohesion going on, but it was built around the short pass and GD bars more so than BPR bars.

[Ben E Lou]

Bah, if I wanted conservative and consistent, I'll just run it an absurd amount, and throw it even deeper, like this:


http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/Ben%20E%20Lou/thisisjustsilly.png


Now, granted, that's with a stud QB, but even with a 40/40 type at QB, the numbers can still get pretty silly.

[Hammer]

Explain something to me. Why do you think the interception tally is so low. We know that interceptions rise sharply the deeper you throw. Without looking its like about 1% rising to about 5% roughly speaking I think. So what gives?

[Ben E Lou]

Explain something to me. Why do you think the interception tally is so low. We know that interceptions rise sharply the deeper you throw. Without looking its like about 1% rising to about 5% roughly speaking I think. So what gives?Play action is "simulated" in FOF. I suspect what that means in algorithm terms is that there's an increase in the likelihood of pass plays being succesful when you run a lot.

Yes, there's an increase in interceptions and sacks with distance. However, without having access to the exact NFL numbers for pass success/failure at particular distances, my sense of smell says that interceptions/sacks don't rise sharply enough as distance is added. Add to that the effect mentioned above of "play action," and you have the essence of why a Run-N-Stun style game plan is overpowered in FOF.

[Hammer]

I'm just trying to work out why my QB was picked 10 times off of 339 attempts. He has maxed AI. The gameplan is pretty solid with nothing crazy going on. He did still have the highest rating in the league, but something doesn't seem quite right.

We have a superb WR with 100 BPR. A quality TE, and a number of decent WRs with 50+ GD and BPR. Our passing game was fairly conservative. We passed deep mainly on 1st and 10. As we were a running team that was usually against 2 deep, and a lot of run defense.

We were fairly conservative on distances. I would guess all interception percentages would be reduced due to the strong running game, but maybe not? Our cohesion was only around 80 for passing as the QB is young. The OL was around 100. We had no positive chemistry due to his lame personality.

Is chemistry really worth that much? I never thoughts it was. Maybe with a strong ground game the distance of the pass simply plays less of a factor in interception percentages? Possible, but it would surprise me. I guess it could just be small sample, and bad luck.

The interception percentages and Avg A are as follows in the league:
Screen 0.9%, 4.64
1-4 0.9%, 4.28
5-8 1.6%, 6.20
9-12 2.9%, 6.85
13-18 4.3%, 8.10
19-27 5.9%, 8.04
28-39 6.0%, 9.06
40+ 7.7%, 4.89

I guess all things being equal the smart distances to throw are 5-8 and 13-18 although 28-39 isn't so bad.

I think there must be something in your approach that keeps the picks down Ben. Not really sure what it is, but I think there is more to it than running the ball a lot.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm just trying to work out why my QB was picked 10 times off of 339 attempts.7, 10, no big deal. Run that season again, and maybe Mr. 28/28 gets 12 picks. If you've ever run seasons over and over, you'll see quickly that there's a fair bit of variance, especially on a stat like interceptions, which are relatively infrequent to the number of plays run in a season anyway.

I think there must be something in your approach that keeps the picks down Ben. Not really sure what it is, but I think there is more to it than running the ball a lot.It's the whole package, I'm sure, all of which I've posted here. Running a lot. Gaming the financial system to get the best coaches in the league. Large numbers of exceptional affinities, especially at TE/WR. (My IHOF team, for example, has 7 Exceptional Affinity TE/WR.) Training camp shenanigans to boost passing and cohesion. BPR. You gotta do all of it, not just some of it, if you want to optimize performance. When you do *all* of that, then you can throw it hella deep without a ton of concern about silly things like QB talent and interceptions. ;)

[strickzilla]

Bah, if I wanted conservative and consistent, I'll just run it an absurd amount, and throw it even deeper, like this:


http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/Ben%20E%20Lou/thisisjustsilly.png


Now, granted, that's with a stud QB, but even with a 40/40 type at QB, the numbers can still get pretty silly.


did anyone notice ben only allowed 16 passing td's?

that means he was up early and often, meaning he was playing against a lot of teams that were behind and blitzing and clearly they werent sacking him

having a great D surely helps the offense passing, being up 21 in the 2nd quarter HAS to lead to more favorable passing situations.

by then whatever gameplan one had has been abandoned to teh AI

[Ben E Lou]

I don't think that 16 is all that impressive or unusual. With 15 games finished, over half the league has allowed 16 or less in the WOOF.

TOTAL DEFENSE (http://108.59.255.76/~benelou/woof/ben/totaldefense.php)


I'll check on the averages there...

[Ben E Lou]

Ah, WOOF is a good league to check. We're one game shy of having completed 10 6.3/6.4 regular seasons. Round numbers ftw! Gimme a bit.

[Ben E Lou]

AVG TD PASSES ALLOWED PER TEAM
WOOF: 18.8
IHOF: 22.3
CCFL: 20.4
SP League: 17.4

[Alf]

IHOF teams can't defend the shit. Or maybe, most of IOHF coaches have adopted Ben tricks of getting stud WRs and sending the ball to them.