QB Drafting House Rules In FOF2K4

[Ben E Lou]

A year or so ago, I was thinking about "house arrest" type rules for FOF2K4. I ended up abandoning that career because it just became no fun not being able to keep any of my best players around for the long haul. However, one rule that I've tweaked and revisited several times since then is the QB drafting rule:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

DRAFTING: A few restrictions on when QB's can be taken. It can be too easy to acquire a solid QB in the draft at times. I want to restrict that as follows:

Round 1: If his future potential is 70 or better, I must trade up into the Top 5 picks to draft him if I want him.
Round 2: Future potential must be <55
Round 3: Future potential must be <50
Rounds 4 and beyond: Future potential must be <45

My thought on doing things this is that, while I'll still be able to consistently acquire solid starting QBs-to-be in round 2-4, I'll at least have to spend decent draft picks to get them. Does anyone have any other ideas for work-arounds to this issue?

[QuikSand]

I dunno... while there are plenty of guys who are good value picks because of their future potential, there are also guys who are pretty good values because of other things, too. (Lots of 8/58 stiffs out there who never pan out to be much, as you well know)

I generally don't get into rules this detailed, but I wonder if you'd eventually need to do something subjective. Alternatively, maybe similar rules as above, but with regard to current ratings and combine scores - if you're willing to get that complicated.

Either that, or else a rule regarding your ability to carry and/or trade QBs. Seems to me that as long as I'm/you're not exploiting the QB harvest with a constant eye toward spinning them into gold after a year or two of development (which we know is possible) then it's not *that* bad.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I dunno... while there are plenty of guys who are good value picks because of their future potential, there are also guys who are pretty good values because of other things, too. (Lots of 8/58 stiffs out there who never pan out to be much, as you well know)

I generally don't get into rules this detailed, but I wonder if you'd eventually need to do something subjective. Alternatively, maybe similar rules as above, but with regard to current ratings and combine scores - if you're willing to get that complicated.

Either that, or else a rule regarding your ability to carry and/or trade QBs. Seems to me that as long as I'm/you're not exploiting the QB harvest with a constant eye toward spinning them into gold after a year or two of development (which we know is possible) then it's not *that* bad.

Maybe subjective is the way to go. All I know is that I want to have something in place that:

1. forces a tougher decision regarding letting good-to-great QB's become free agents because I shouldn't be able to always have 1 or 2 young guys on the bench who are rated in the 30/60 range.
2. forces an earlier pick to be used on a QB, rather than on other positions, thereby from time to time forcing me to dip into the FA pool for a 55-rated QB rather than just grabbing the next 20/50 guy with good combine ratings in the 6th round and developing him.
3. forces me to go with a very risky rookie or a journeyman veteran QB when my top guy goes down, rather than inserting someone from my QB stockpile into the lineup.

Example: In my most recent draft, this guy (rated 21/54 originally with outstanding combine numbers) went undrafted because I didn't have a second round pick to spend on him, and the AI rarely gets guys like him. Without something in place, it would have been too easy to grab him late or as a FA, rather than drafting him near were he should have gone.



To me, QB's are the biggest lingering issue in FOF2K4 that could stand to be fixed in FOF6:

• salary demands of good-not-great players are too high
• franchise or near-franchise QB's rarely go #1 overalls
• solid rookie QB's with 20-25 current, 50-60 future are tremendously undervalued in the draft AI.

No, I don't need to see the 8/58 stiff go in the third round, but I'd say that irl a QB who is considered to have above average potential would at least be a 5th-7th round risk.


As far as trading them for gold, I've just landed on a simple house rule: no trading players away. I can trade picks for picks, but no players. As you know, that isn't that much of a departion from real life.

[Ben E Lou]

This draft looked pretty typical. After training camp, the league has these QB's with future potential of 50 or better on rosters:

1(18): 25/72
2(1): 21/67
5(27): 36/66
7(11): 16/60
2(26): 9/58
7(3): 26/58
FA: 10/57
7(26): 15/55
FA: 26/53

This happens fairly regularly: the best guys take mid-first-round to mid-second round, and then a big ol' gap, sometimes all the way to Round 7 or free agency. In case you're wondering, the 5(27) guy was rated 28/61 pre-draft, had great combine numbers, and knew 13 formations. When I can sit back and grab a guy like that in the 4th or 5th round every year or two, there's little/no need to make tough decisions regarding QB's.

I'm trying to create some tough decisions.

[twothree]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

As far as trading them for gold, I've just landed on a simple house rule: no trading players away. I can trade picks for picks, but no players. As you know, that isn't that much of a departion from real life.

I use almost the exact opposite as my house rule. I can trade a player for a player and draft picks, but I can't trade picks for picks. I found it to easy to trade away my late round picks for higher round picks. I also limit myself to having no more than one first round pick, two second round picks, three third round picks, etc. for a given year at any time.

[QuikSand]

I completely agree with you, incidentally -- there are just too many promising QBs in any draft. Plus, it seems (to me, at least) that the CPU teams do an even worse job drafting the right guys at QB than at other positions, compounding the problem.

It's a big weakness in the solo game, I certainly agree.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by twothree

I use almost the exact opposite as my house rule. I can trade a player for a player and draft picks, but I can't trade picks for picks. I found it to easy to trade away my late round picks for higher round picks. I also limit myself to having no more than one first round pick, two second round picks, three third round picks, etc. for a given year at any time.

As long as you stay within the current year (and not get into acsuiring future year picks, especially from reliably bad teams) I don't think the picks-for-picks engine is a real problem. I think SkyDog agrees with me.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

here are just too many promising QBs in any draft.

That may be it right there.

Plus, it seems (to me, at least) that the CPU teams do an even worse job drafting the right guys at QB than at other positions, compounding the problem.

See the 2(26) pick above, rated 6/65 at the time he was drafted, taken when at least four other guys who were much more promising were still around.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

As long as you stay within the current year (and not get into acsuiring future year picks, especially from reliably bad teams) I don't think the picks-for-picks engine is a real problem. I think SkyDog agrees with me.

Yes. I left that part out. Only current year picks-for-picks. It is too easy to spot a team who's going to stink for the next few seasons.

[stevew]

Case in point, this guy is sitting at the 10th pick in the draft when my turn is up.

I just drafted a fairly good QB prospect the previous year. So I don't really need this guy, and it actually kind of bums me out that this guy is still on the board. He is a 9.5 on the scale out of 10 adjusted value. I'm tempted to take him, and convert him to RB or WR as I have needs at both of those positions. Maybe I'll just take him and trade away the other young(good but inferior to this guy)QB in a year or two.

[Cotton]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I completely agree with you, incidentally -- there are just too many promising QBs in any draft. Plus, it seems (to me, at least) that the CPU teams do an even worse job drafting the right guys at QB than at other positions, compounding the problem.

It is kind of curious that all of the hall of fame/MVP/Legend of the Game QB's are guys I drafted and let go when their demands got too high and/or the guy from the more recent drafts was ready to take the helm. And I rarely ever beat those guys when they come back to play against me. It's almost funny it happens so often.

Your observation adds great insight to mine. It's happening because the CPU teams can't draft (or develop) their own stud QBs as well? Or maybe I only notice the good QBs that used to be mine.

On another note, I don't think that outrageous demands of mediocre players is a weakness of the game. You don't have to sign them. It's absolutely preposterous what top-notch wide receivers want (in RL and in FOF). I usually do just fine without a top ten or even top twenty pass catcher. Especially with all those stud QB's the CPU teams are letting me draft.

[Cotton]

Originally Posted by stevew

Case in point, this guy is sitting at the 10th pick in the draft when my turn is up.

I just drafted a fairly good QB prospect the previous year. So I don't really need this guy, and it actually kind of bums me out that this guy is still on the board. He is a 9.5 on the scale out of 10 adjusted value. I'm tempted to take him, and convert him to RB or WR as I have needs at both of those positions. Maybe I'll just take him and trade away the other young(good but inferior to this guy)QB in a year or two.

If I have a solid team that doesn't need immediate needs or a draft that can't possibly solve my immediate needs, often times I'll take the extra QB - especially if they're good kick holders. They never get disgruntled and after a year or two, if you still aren't playing the guy, he's worth a few good draft picks - and yes, I trade players for picks - and almost never players for players or picks for players in Single Player. You almost have to in Multi Player. The free agent base is MUCH weaker in an MP league.

[Cotton]

I kind of wish you could use that extra QB on special teams, too. A la Joe Theisman returning punts when he was still third on the Redskins' depth chart. (I had that stratomatic team.)

[yabanci]

My house rule is no drafting QBs in the first four rounds of the draft.

[Ryche]

My main rule is that I won't trade QBs. That makes it a bit less enticing to draft a QB when it is not a need. And I won't go for the cheaper option if I have a quarterback that has been doing well and deserves to be with the team.

It doesn't always work though. I had two QBs with 80+ future ratings sitting on my team, one my 10 year starter, another a guy I had drafted in the 4th round to be his backup. I intended to keep the veteran as long as possible and when he came up for free agency, I met his intial demand. But he took an offer immediately from another team that I never had a chance to match. Now I'm 'stuck' with a younger, cheaper QB who should be as good.

Actually, both of these QBs were 4th rounders, so maybe I should revisit my drafting policy. Although I struggled through about a 10 year stretch before them trying to find a decent quarterback.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by yabanci

My house rule is no drafting QBs in the first four rounds of the draft.

To each his own... but to me, this is just reinforcing common sense. Unless a clear standout comes along, I won't spend a top pick on a QB, since I know that the guys I can get with late round picks or as after-draft free agents will develop nicely. I think the real problem with the QB position is that there are too many good guys available late in the draft and afterwards. Forcing yourself to take advntage of that game weakness seems counterintuitive to my notion of house rules.

[Bee]

I'm using the Matt Millen rule. Your QB has to be named Joe, Joey or Joseph and all draft picks have to be used for WRs.

[Capital]

My house rule is that I can only make 1 trade each year. That will definately stop anyone from stockpiling draft picks. It also forces your hand to let some players go via free agency or pay from them during renegotiation.

[stevew]

After 2 years, the guy mentioned in post 10 has the following bars.

[QuikSand]

Crappy kick holder.

[Warhammer]

I don't know why, but I have never run into the problem that everyone complains about. My problem is that I repeatedly find 13/55-esque guys in the 4th or 5th round that boom. In my current SP career, I have drafted only two guys in the first round, one was an 80+ talent in the second year, and the other was a 65+ guy with one of the last picks in the first round (there were a lot of QBs that year). All my other guys have been late rounders that have not just developed, but boomed.

5 of the 26 QBs in the HoF were drafted by me. Three of those QBs were inducted into the Hall due to performance with another team. (Incidentally, 3 were undrafted all together.) Out of the players that I drafted, two were taken in the 6th round, one in the first, one in the seventh, and one in the fifth. Only one computer QB taken outside of the 1st round of any non-allocation draft round has made the HoF, and that was a fifth rounder. All the other players were first rounders (outside of the undrafted guys of course.).

[33sherman]

I'll chime in that there are too many good QB's overall. I never feel the need to be 'fighting' for quality quarterbacks which seems to happen in the NFL. There's always someone available, and some teams have 2 or 3 good to excellent QB's just laying around. There's almost always two or three 7th round or undrafted guys that can be groomed into solid starting quarterbacks.

[stevew]

*sigh*

It begins

My Email box

And the Ransom Note


I'm *really* tempted to franchise this guy for a decade out of spite, and put him on the inactive list unless he shows up to play. I should add that the cap is 133 million at this point, and going up by 4 million a year. At year 6 of that, he would be pretty much 25% or more of the cap. HE must think its the NBA.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I don't know why, but I have never run into the problem that everyone complains about. My problem is that I repeatedly find 13/55-esque guys in the 4th or 5th round that boom. In my current SP career, I have drafted only two guys in the first round, one was an 80+ talent in the second year, and the other was a 65+ guy with one of the last picks in the first round (there were a lot of QBs that year). All my other guys have been late rounders that have not just developed, but boomed.

5 of the 26 QBs in the HoF were drafted by me. Three of those QBs were inducted into the Hall due to performance with another team. (Incidentally, 3 were undrafted all together.) Out of the players that I drafted, two were taken in the 6th round, one in the first, one in the seventh, and one in the fifth. Only one computer QB taken outside of the 1st round of any non-allocation draft round has made the HoF, and that was a fifth rounder. All the other players were first rounders (outside of the undrafted guys of course.).

Actually, that sounds quite a lot like the problems being complained about here.

[Warhammer]

I thought the problem was that 60+ pot guys were slipping through to the later rounds...

I've been taking 45-55 pot guys and watching them boom. Granted, I think there are WAY too many 50-60 pot. guys.