What's the deal with fullbacks & endurance?

[aston217]

This is not something I've noticed previously in FOF7, since I don't carry two FBs very much. Through 7 games in the OSFL, I saw this from my team:

Starting FB: 163 snaps (6 starts, 7 appearances)
Backup FB: 95 snaps (0 starts, 7 appearances)

My starting FB has 8 endurance and my backup FB has 0 endurance.

Here's the thing, though:

Starting C: 435 snaps (7 starts, 7 appearances)

The starting center also has 0 endurance. This is a great fix that comes with FOF7; starting linemen don't just rotate out. But it doesn't apply to fullbacks, which is just as much a blocking position.

Fullbacks are already on the field for much less than OL (unless you avoid Singleback or something). And I don't think I've ever heard of or seen a FB have to take a breather either. Rex typically sticks a backup RB as the FB2 slot. All of this really doesn't make sense.

It just seems odd to have to prioritize endurance for FBs, and to be punished doubly for not doing so (endurance is a rare bar outside of a stud FB). Especially when you also have to prioritize the ST bar, as there doesn't seem to be a way to keep a FB off your special teams units no matter what you do (the same, incidentally, is true for RB and TE and probably LB and CB and S as well)

Shouldn't the fullback position be about blocking?...and receiving, too, if that's your thing.

[garion333]

Sounds like the FB position is classified as a RB or TE when it comes to Endurance rolls.

I agree, though, they rarely get swapped out.

[gstelmack]

OLine is pretty much never subbed, they just get "Tired" during the season (although I don't know that anyone has ever dug into the effects of a Tired player vs a Not Tired player). There is a note about that on the starter's playing time dialog. Backup O-Line is only used for injuries.

[QuikSand]

Especially when you also have to prioritize the ST bar, as there doesn't seem to be a way to keep a FB off your special teams units no matter what you do (the same, incidentally, is true for RB and TE and probably LB and CB and S as well)

Is this conventional wisdom, or "proven" information? Does the encouraged/discouraged stuff no longer have any effect? (did I miss a real conversation on this somewhere)

[aston217]

@gstelmack: yeah, and I would think FBs ought to be considered the same way. They're not fulltime players to begin with.

@QS: it's anecdotal, but try having no ST players active and then going through a log to see ST plays recorded by players at those positions. ST active/disabled always had kind of an unpredictable effect sometimes but I think this is the case.

A long, long time ago I was starting to write something that parsed the sole files so we could see the list of players on the field for each snap and based on the test game I looked at, it also seemed to be the case. I think I posted about this back then, but I can't promise how "proven" it all is.

[QuikSand]

@QS: it's anecdotal, but try having no ST players active and then going through a log to see ST plays recorded by players at those positions. ST active/disabled always had kind of an unpredictable effect sometimes but I think this is the case.

Well, leaving nobody at all encouraged for ST seems like a poor way to assess what happens in a more ordinary case. If on my team, I have, say, 13 active guys "encouraged" for special teams... isn't is pretty safe that my guys at the positions you mention (running backs, for example) are being left out if they are discouraged from playing ST? Maybe not getting zero plays, but not getting 10 a game like the encouraged guys would be?

Sorry I'm entering the conversation without my own data/testing... but your assertion sounded awfully firm for something I don't recall anyone pointing out.

Thanks for your explanation and follow-up.

[MIJB#19]

As far as ST plays goes, here's how my players ranked for the most recent IHOF season:
368 - RB2 encouraged
271 - TE3 encouraged, gunner2
257 - MLB encouraged, gunner1
211 - CB3, not encouraged
209 - LB5, encouraged
207 - FB2, not encouraged
184 - punt returner
171 - kick returner2, encouraged
143 - CB4, encouraged
142 - S4, encouraged
135 - kick returner
131 - C2
131 - LS
131 - G3
118 - FB1, not encouraged
116 - LB4, encouraged
110 - T3
107 - TE1, not encouraged
103 - punter
101 - kicker

Looking at the season before the one above, the same fullbacks, that I definitely did not encourage, had similar numbers of special teams plays.

[gstelmack]

So maybe the only reason to use "not encouraged" is to keep Rec from putthing them in the depth chart as a returner, gunner, or holder, which he won't do if they are "not encouraged"? It has nothing to do with the other special teamers on the field?

[aston217]

Well, leaving nobody at all encouraged for ST seems like a poor way to assess what happens in a more ordinary case.

Yes, you're right. Sorry, I meant to say "no FBs active" -- but enough ST players active otherwise. When I looked at this, I didn't have everyone active, but I had 10-12 guys at other positions, I believe, as is standard.

I think there are good reasons to use encouraged/not encouraged. I wouldn't dispute the accepted conventional wisdom of having 10 ST guys active, for example. I just think there are some positional requirements that seem to supersede this and while I don't understand how it all works exactly, I do try to spread those "10 ST guys" around different positions if I can.

You can easily carry 6 LBs, or 5-6 CBs, or 4-5 safeties, for example, but you have to kind of go out of your way to make sure you have a RB/FB/TE who can play special teams.

Also should mention the #2 KR is on the field, but the #2 PR is not. Although that is probably intuitive.