FOF2K4: OK we know that, but still...

[Darkiller]

I know it's been said, said again, and repeated all over but still: it annoys me.
My FOF2004 career is now matured (with 6 full seasons completed) and on the very last season, I had 11 QBs with 4000+ yards and 1 QB with 5200+ yards.
Also, 29 starting QBs (out of 32 obviously), had a full 16 starts on the year under their belts.

I don't buy that theory that 4000+ yards passers are becoming more and more frequent and that we're bound to see 1/3 of the league's QBs throw for that much anytime soon.
Jim has tweaked this issue in the latest patch but it definitely needs ANOTHER TWEAKING because this is really out of realistic proportions (patch to version 5.1 next July ?).

Other issues :
- backup offensive players barrely contribute (as far as their statistics go) : RB, FB, TE.
- the All-League selections are a joke (especially the QB position).
example : in my last year, Brian Griese of the Raider trew for 4200+ yards (2nd NFL), 36 TDs (2nd), 3 INTs (1st) and an amazine 114.2 rating (1st NFL, with the #2 rated passer at 103 !). And guess what ? he didn't even receive All-League 2nd team honors...there's something wrong here. Especially when you look closely to what the two winning QBs accomplished...

Just a few thoughts after playing last night.

[Bee]

Where do you have the injury frequency set? I've never had that many starting QBs make it through a full season uninjured.

[Darkiller]

haven't touched that at all from the original setting.

[Samdari]

If you started with the default or "real" player file, this will happen with the inordinately high number of highly rated QBs. Using randomly generated players, or simming far enough in that all current players are out, the "average" passing numbers, as well as the number of superstar QBs, tends to approach current NFL distributions.

Nobody has, to this point, figured out how to have realistic passing numbers as well as familiar names, in a starting player file.

Funny that you mention backups not contributing. I cannot get the distribution of carries the way I would like it for my backs, but I cannot get it heavily weighted enough towards the starter. I have a stud back, with 100 endurance rating, a 9 PT setting, and "play injured players" at 99, and a typical carry distribution is 25 for him. 10 for the backup. I'd like to have that be 30-5, but can't figure out a way to make that happen.

I agree though about QB. Even with the starter setting at 1, the backup is lucky to get 5% of the season snaps.

[Bee]

That's incredible. I'll have to go back and check my careers and see if I've ever had anything approaching that. The number of QBs that start every game over the season has been something I've watched to some extent (I was trying to tweak the injury rating to get something I was happy with) and found it to be slightly high on the original setting but not this far off.

I'd suggest tweaking the injury frequency and see if that helps.

[Darkiller]

Well tough to do for me, in the middle of a "serious" career.
Although that's probably the one thing to try.

Stange that "stats realism" used to be the "forte" of the FOF series (remember FOF2 ? most accurate stats I ever saw)..and then, a few year later, we have some issues trying to find realistic figures, having to tweak sliders (ala Madden) while it was all set and perfect right off the box in some previous versions of the series.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally posted by Samdari
Funny that you mention backups not contributing. I cannot get the distribution of carries the way I would like it for my backs, but I cannot get it heavily weighted enough towards the starter. I have a stud back, with 100 endurance rating, a 9 PT setting, and "play injured players" at 99, and a typical carry distribution is 25 for him. 10 for the backup. I'd like to have that be 30-5, but can't figure out a way to make that happen.

Make sure that he is set as your short yardage RB, passing down RB, etc. I find that, even if I do not use those designations when I am setting up those formations, that the RB who is listed in those positions will pick up some carries. I think that the game substitutes based on that whether you tell it to or not.

[albionmoonlight]

Dola--

FWIW, I am finding the stats pretty good post patch.

[Suicane75]

Originally posted by Darkiller
Brian Griese of the Raider trew for 4200+ yards (2nd NFL)

Was I the only one who read that out loud in Andrew Dice Clays voice?

[Peregrine]

Make sure that he is set as your short yardage RB, passing down RB, etc. I find that, even if I do not use those designations when I am setting up those formations, that the RB who is listed in those positions will pick up some carries. I think that the game substitutes based on that whether you tell it to or not.

Having the RB set as the passing down RB does definitely boost their carries. I'd be a bit careful with setting them your short-yardage RB if he has a low 3rd down running rating, etc. I found when doing that that I missed quite a few key 3rd and 1-2s. I usually have a power fullback or a good short yardage guy for those situations.

[Cringer]

Having the injury rating at the defualt 100 (to make people happy who don't like the "realism" of more injuries) definetly has an effect on the QB stats. I have the injury rating at 150, which not only increases the QB injuries so you don't have almost all the QB's playing 16 games, but also increases the injuries of other players. When you have some lineman banged up, maybe your top WR for a few games, and that RB you depend on taking the presure off your QB is banged up and not as effective, it has an impact on your QB's stats.

I say raise your injury setting to 150, but thats just me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: RB carry distribution -- check to see who's listed as your single-back RB. And then see how often you're using one-back sets across the various situations.

I'd bet at least $0.25 that your reserve is picking up the extra carries/ your starting is losing carries via some formation+personnel combination, not through the starter being subbed out for fatigue, etc.

That's how my #3 RB keeps ending up with more carries than my #2 RB.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Year 2028
Injury

Top QB's by career passing yds still active through 2028
# of games played last 5 seasons
Quinn - 16-16-4-12-13
Sanderson - 5-13-7-1-5
West - 16-16-16-16-16 (192 consecutive starts)
Bielby - 16-16-16-16-16 (96 straight starts)
Newhart - 15-16-16-16-16- (last game broke string of 144 straight)
Norton - 16-16-16-16-16 (176 straight & counting)
Crabtree - 4-16-4-16-3
Garcia - 16-16-16-16-16 (176 straight)
Stanton - 4-11-16-14-4
Badalyan - 13-16-16-16-16
Goodwin - 10-16-16-16-16

Might be a little on the high side, but I think it's largely a function of some QB's being incredibly durable & others quite brittle (some sort of hidden injury rating I assume).

IMO, it doesn't seem to be so much that there aren't enough QB injuries but rather than the best QB's are tougher than nails. Which, if playing time makes as big a difference as it appears, kinda makes sense -- they're putting up the big numbers because they're playing so much that they're maxing out their ratings.

[QuikSand]

I have a general sense that the "injury prone" rating in this game acts perhaps to an unrealistic extreme. Players who get injured seem to get re-injured at ridiculous levels, while those who manage to get by without a major injury continue with that good fortune.

I think what is missing from the analysis of stat leaders (who by definition are halthy enough to play) are the many talented players who can just never seem to stay on the field.

In my FFO 2004 career, I have plenty of players (past and present) whom I know won't make it through any season. I have a 4th year QB who has been good enough to start, but missed at least half of each season - and I fully expect that he will never be a full-time guy. Seems a little bit extreme.

Point being that it's possible that the overall number of injuries is about right, but that the injuries are too densely distributed among the "injury-prone" players, leaving too many other players who are not injury-prone to be onscathed by injures, year after year.

[RPI-Fan]

I did an exhaustive study on this.

If you were reporting results like this 30 years down the line, I'd be concerned. With what you have reported, I'm not worried whatsoever.

Additionally, the concensus seems to be that an injury setting of 150 provides results closest to the real NFL. 100 seems a bit more playable for some people, but isn't quite realistic.

Also, I know this is very anecdotal, but I have had two RB's go for 1k yards in the same season. Maybe tweaking some settings would help a little bit.

My $.02...
~kyle

[JonInMiddleGA]

Quik -- I could tell the same story several times over my one & only career so far.

A really good but "I know he's gonna get hurt" QB is what started my Spurrier-esque QB rotation system many seasons ago.

Out of curiosity, I take a quick look at the top-rated (overall) QB's at the start of 2029

Goodwin - 78 rtg - 106 starts / 112 games possible
Allen -75 rtg - 80/80
Norton - 71 - 176/176
Stevens - 71 - 48/48
Abrams - 70- 80/80
Bielby - 66 - 171/176
Madison - 66 - 90/96
West - 64- 192/192
(was UNDRAFTED, never played as a back-up, has started every game for 12 seasons after sitting two years inactive)
Einard - 64 - 48/48
Garcia - 63 - 176/176
Stanton - 18- 145/176

Again, it looks to me like some sort of function of "healthy QB's become good QB's" more than "good QB's never get hurt".