Snakebitten: A Real-Time MP FOF thread

[QuikSand]

Incidentally, we come up on the draft clock, finally. My top three BPA candidates (fintering for team need and chemistry) are all defensive linemen. So, after we sign five free agents, and have blown our top picks on DL in the last two years anyway, surely was can lay off and skip the doughy defenders here, right?

Nope.

DT Christopher Hancock punched in at 6'5" 328 lbs, too big to play DE presumably, but he looks to my eye like a legit pass-rusher and potentially an every down DL. I am used to playing a rotation of guys, but we have always had Dillon Harmon to rely on at the LDE slot. Now he's retired, and I am pretty hopeful Hancock can step into that role for us.

I tossed out a post about trading out/down, and got a mix of offers (including a laugher offering me a bag-of-shit throwaway QB for this 1.21 pick plus a decent young player of mine) but wasn't moved to deal down (like I did last year, to disastrous effect). Might have still gotten DT Hancock later in the round, but given my track record with picks after round one, I'm better off sitting tight I think.

Have two seconds ahead, will try to do some more legitimate BPA there.

[QuikSand]

And in other interesting news, TE Ricky Maloney turns down our $4.5m/yr offer to sign with Houston ... kind of a recurring theme, as they seem to be actively poaching guys I am targeting (might be coincidence). He'll leave our affinity heaven and immediate be hated by his group leader there, but hell, he's going to make $5.2m per year, and that's a nice step up from the minsal deal he inked with us for the last two seasons.

Maloney was fine, and effective -- basically a bit over 8 ypt in two season as the top guy in a rotation. He's not much of a blocker, nor a special teamer, and my guess is we can replace most of those stats with a fill-in, either a draft pick or a free agent. We should be okay, two seasons helps for cohesion but it's not a nightmare to drop in a fresh face there. Last year's 5th round pick Erick Browne will have a shot at a top-3 TE role this year, and could earn more than his 44 targets from last season.

[QuikSand]

Finally, for today, RB Scottie Kelly. We have seen this story before - Ben drafts or just grabs some young RB, grinds a few monster years out of him, and then moves on to the latest low-cost shiny object, rinse, repeat.

Kelly posted 3,100 yards rushing and 25 TDs in his first two seasons in Atlanta. Yeah yeah, everybody does that. So, now he's a castoff, willing to sign with us for no guaranteed money on what's basically a prove-it contract. Okay. We need that guy, it would seem.

I will keep looking in the draft pool, but for this year, I have every expectation that Kelly will be our RB1 for something like 240 carries, and hopefully for at least 1,200 yards from them. If that works out, we're basically done with our RB position crisis, just like that.

[QuikSand]

By the way... if you haven't gathered...CAP SPACE MEANS SOMETHING. I am making contract offers like mad here, because I can. I will likely cut half these guys, but I'll bid $13m in funny money to lay claim to some guy who might be a rotation help for a year or two, if I have no other purpose for the money. What's the downside...I "draft" my fucking staff a few slots later? Okay. Deal.

More teams should do this, everywhere. This league has discussed implementing a cap crunch to artificially drop the salary cap on our teams. We don't do so. So... it leads to horseshit like this. Don't hate the playa, hate the game, gang. I'm just doing what makes sense in this environment.

[QuikSand]

Draft update:

2.21 RB Hector Schwartz - need position, as detailed, and I think he gives us something to work with... my scout sees max bar in Breakaway, Outside Speed, and Punt Returning, and near-max in Special Teams and the various receiving stats (plus blitz pickup). Bundle all that together, and I'm hoping I can end up using him as a swiss army knife a bit like a guy I love in IHOF. 2nd round might be a reach, especially if those max bars turn into merely good bars, but I didn't love our other options here. Tried to trade out, didn't get serious interest.

2.27 WR Ralph Cote - similar situation, intriguing skill set, the sort of guy I always fall for: scout sees max BPR, max avoid drops, nearmax getting downfield, and then a little more here and there. If he pans out, he could develop into the yang to Kirk Jacobs' yin. On another team, they could be a WR1/WR2 combo... here, they project as WR3/WR4 at best.

3.21 CB Jeremiah Freeney - we have been deep and solid at CB, and he looks the part to keep us that way for a while. Scout sees a max bar in bump, and solid support behind that. Not looking for a CB1 here, just maybe a CB3/4. Good enough to be active for special teams, but not a gunner.

Probably improved over last year's disaster.

[QuikSand]

Okay, in free agency (stages 8-9), it looks like we have come up with our answers at the TE position, at least short term. Nothing really came together in the draft, so this is basically what's on the table for right now:

Raul Paulsen (8th year, 49/49) is a pretty good plug-in -- he was asking for big money, we got him on a one year salary-only deal (correctly sensing nobody else would pay). He's a career 8.4 ypt guy, pretty good. Decent blocker, decent special teamer, definitely good enough to start and be a 100 target guy for us this year. At $14m, he's a one year solution, and then we'd reassess his future.

Cooper O'Neil 10th year, 48/48 - he's a different option in many ways. Older, but cheaper and signed risk-free for 3 years. Better blocker by far, strong special teamer, so he's got several intangibles going for him here. But... a career 5.5 ypt guy. That reeks of poor gameplanning to me, but still he's got key receiving bars in the 40s, so he's not a star there.

I will have to sort out what to do this season and beyond, but this position is no longer in crisis. One or both of these guys will fit in, and likely be just fine.

[QuikSand]

Non-impactful news, but I guess since we're reporting on the team here... our longtime K Kody Hancock has taken a smidge more money to go play for the hated Patriots.

The main reason he has been with us so long is, candidly, that he's landed right in that nice groove where:

-his stats seem fine-to-good
-he's not good enough he asks for big money
-he's not good enough anyone else pays him big money

So, we re-upped a couple times for minsal, and were fine with that. Now he has walked.

I saw it coming, I drafted a kicker in the 5th round of the draft, and he looks, potentially, like the same sort of guy. Fine by me. I am actually paying my punter in this league, I am not seeking ways to double down on that arguable mistake and do so twice... it's a non-cohesion matter, just talent/results/costs. Bring on the cheap kid.

[Squirrel]

Intrigued by the TE.

(If I was less averse to the gameplanning aspects of FOF I would try to figure out what it is that makes your low-rated / cigar butt TEs dominate the world)

[QuikSand]

More impactful news from free agency, we re-signed LB Micah McCarthy. When I originally signed him, I gushed a bit about what this sort of player (good enough to play, super-high personality) means to a team like this:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Free Agency, stages 4-5: One signing, I'm thrilled, you won't be. 5th year LB Micah McCarthy was a 6th round pick for Miami, started out 24/39, developed to 47/47 (my scout says 44/44) and they basically let him walk. We sign him to a 2yr deal, and I'm hopeful this will be a long term signing. He does everything okay - rated 50-ish in lots of stuff, including RunD and ZoneCov. He's got high endurance, and a 95 personality for an Exceptional Affinity. This is the cornerstone of the way I build my rosters. Big signing for us, even if he's merely a 40-tackle guy as our LB5 for the next 6 years.

McCarthy needed some force-fed starts last season to get back to happiness with his playing time. Okay, then. Anyway, now he's back aboard on a 3yr deal.

Ordinarily, a 58-Leadership guy is not a candidate to be a group leader. Too hard to keep him in place.

But, I think this is the best play I have here. So, we're sliding the chemistry setup for our D7 for the future -- McCarthy is a 7-8 guy, with a 98 personality, and he's signed for 3 years. He's our guy now.

Time to assess what we have on hand, and who fits with the new scheme. It will mainly be the guys in his same sign (the 7-8 guys) who fall out of favor during this switch - they connected with the old leader, but will be neutral with him.

Key: POS Name, Exp (Years w our team), Leadership/Personality, Forecast or role

DE Shane Rivers, 7(3), 41/91, rotation guy at end of contract (bubble)
DE Damian Baker, 4(4), 20/50, busted 1st rounder (bubble)
DE Peter Douglas, 9(4), 19/43, fading one-trick pass rusher (unsigned, bubble)
DT Brian Wooden, 6(1), 28/96, solid run stopper great chem (long term asset)
DT Jeremy Lesky, 6(1), 69/92, marginal talent, chem threat to MMc (castoff soon)
DT Marcus Matthews, 8(1), 4/100, pass rusher to play outside (serious rotation guy)
DT Barry Broomfield, 5(5), 36/99, solid do-it-all NT (long term asset)
DT Elliot Lind, 3(3), 22/95, not much here but chem and 6 starts (bubble)
DT Christopher Hancock, 1(1), xx/xx, hoping he develops into all-purpose guy (long term asset)

LB Caden Mathews, 12(11), 6/99, run stopper w pass rush skills (stalwart)
LB Philip Hillenbrand, 9(2), 25/86, solid but in same group as MMc (bubble now)
LB Santiago Richardson, 2(2), 59/87, ST/depth guy needs starts (bubble)
LB Micah McCarthy, 7(3), 58/95, rotation talent now essential (build-around guy)
LB Erick Emerson, 7(7), 22/32, solid run stopper (long term asset)
LB Blaine Haayer, 7(4), 7/100, affinity-only guy in 7/8 group (easy cut now)
LB Jameson Burks, 2(2), 68/19, fairly promising but in 78 group (bubble now)
LB Lance Shapiro, 10(5), 10/62, decent w great coverage bars (stalwart)
LB Gabriel Lincoln, 5(5), 11/89, best overall talent at LB (build-around guy)
LB Robert Lester, 4(4), 70/26, rotation talent but in 7/8 group (bubble now)

So, that's the bottom line. My core for the next three seasons or so, as far as playing in important situations, looks like:

DE Matthews, Hancock
DT Broomfield, Wooden
ILB Emerson, McCarthy
OLB Lincoln

...and those guys are all GREAT with McCarthy as leader. LB Mathews and Shapiro are good enough to start now, and affinity plus guys, so LB is basically fine short term. We're a bit thin at DL, but as a 3-4 team we really only need 5 playable guys, and if Hancock doesn't bust (and hopefully can shed 12 pounds) we're sitting at 4 in hand. And that's before I sort out what to do with any of the low-risk free agent former Raiders we apparently picked up at some sort of Gwar concert.

And THAT, dear readers, is how I build my team. Teams. The whole empire looks like this. And for what it's worth, my teams pretty much all gravitate toward winning two-thirds of their games.

[QuikSand]

Okay, early free agency is over, we get a first look at the rookie class.

Ben's robots rate ours #13 overall, basically commensurate with the draft position at 21. We had to use an extra couple picks to get there, but that's affirmation for me, as I am pretty often down in the dumps with my drafts.

To my eye, now that we get a look:

-RB Hector Schwartz looks like who we thought we were getting there, not much at Hole Recognition, though, so maybe he's useless. On paper, a nice versatile RB2.

-Two receivers look like end-of-bench types, disappointing for picks in rounds 2 and 4

-T Ben Norris might stick if he projects as a chem asset, but likely never earns any starts (he could be a candidate to bump up, I guess)

-K Hayden Cogan looks good enough

-DT Christopher Hancock looks like a solid pure DL...none of these dumb coverage bars, and that stuff, but if he lives up to his bars (and early signs are good there) then he should be a full-duty guy with 70+ pass rush technique and high endurance. Given our needs and planning, happy with this pick.

-other defensive players look marginal

[QuikSand]

There's a super-introguing young free agent, a guy who at first looks like he'd be a perfect fit for what I'd like to do in the D7 planning above. I'm immediately putting up a mental "long term asset" sign by the guy, before I decide not to even bother bidding.

Why?

99 leadership.
01 personality.

I cannot work with a guy like that. Hard pass.

[QuikSand]

In late free agency, the most interesting pickup is a safety, Matthew Knauls. There's a fair bit to like here... great against the run, strong on special teams, and an affinity (albeit pretty mild). So, he gets an invite to camp with a no-risk contract.

Downsides:

-he, uh, seemingly couldn't cover a bed with a blanket
-his limited on-field record backs that up
-he'd need to get starts to click in his chemistry bonus

So...hmm...what do we do with a cat like this? I have a lot of trouble seeing him actually get a season full of starts for us, even if it's just in the 2-WR formation. In this league, I can't pick and choose easy spots to work a guy in, it's the whole regular season in one shot. Should we try to fatten him up and move him to LB? That seems viable, but a longshot. At 222 or so, he'd likely be way too small to start at WILB, my favorite "hide the coverage liability" spot. I don't see him bulking up much past that.

So... likely a kick-the-tires dude we will cut before preseason. Intriguing, though. I really like that FOF has guys like this here and there.

[QuikSand]

S Knauls, it seems to me, is a great case of "Why is this guy on my team?"

On a certain level, he's probably competing against somebody like Shaun Ellison for a roster spot as a reserve-caliber safety.

So, why would Ellison be more likely make the team, and not Knauls?

In order of my importance:

-much higher personality, more worth it to develop affinity
-less need to "hide" him from coverage responsibilities if he takes the field
-ratings moving in the right direction, he could be payable in time

I'm not sure that Ellison makes the cut. Last year he didn't, and that probably spelled the end of his chance with us. But even without two years of experience advantage, he's still a better connection for us... even if I think he's a lesser player overall, which I basically do. (As does FOF... Knauls is rated 52/52, Ellison 30/33) But as a DB7/DB8 special teamer and at best deep reserve... I'd rather have the strong affinity.

[QuikSand]

Today is training camp. Also known in FOFC world as "reality check" in several ways.

Just as you start to lull yourself into thinking this is real football, and real strategy, and all that stuff... the game shows its ass a bit. The transactions in this stage, for a league with a fair number of teams on AI control, is dispiriting... all these guys getting snapped up on one year minsal deals... guy who one stage ago wouldn't even listen to a deal three times that fat. Ugh.

Anyway...no signings for us. I actually do our 60-man cutdown without realizing I was a couple stages too soon, but submitted it anyhow. Very unlikely that Mr. 61 or 63 would have ended up becoming Mr. 51 or 53, I reckon.

[corbes]

Yes, Knauls was an interesting case. He played for us strictly in the short-yardage situations. On one hand, he recorded six tackles and two assists on his 20 running plays. Pretty good! On the other hand, he allowed three catches on his 25 passing plays, and I don't actually know how pass-defense percentage is calculated but I do know that 66.3% is about as low as I've ever seen.

[QuikSand]

Our draft has risen to #3 in Ben's rankings. Go figure, not sure why. Still looks good to me... perhaps moving DL Hancock from DT to DE made a big difference? Regardless, that's nice news.

Cutdown to 53, and this is the set-it-for-the-season stage. Through some combination of bad planning or oversight, I only recently realized that my OL Leader C Rob Adams, has a conflict with starting QB Irving Mathews (and the free agent backup I signed to hopefully be our #2 this year). I have looked for a better option, came away wanting, and have set it aside for now. It takes an odd scenario for me to field a team with conflicts...perhaps here we are.

[QuikSand]

Sorry for the abruptness today, I'm otherwise occupied.

Big results thread is here

Offense ran smoothly, QB Mathews and WR Duran ended up #1/#2 in Ben's custom MVP tally. Duran again unjustly denied his rightful place as king. Below Duran, our other WR targets were solid - Vukmir 868 9.64, Dodge 515 8.62 - but our non-WR targets sucked some life from the offense - TE/FB O'Neil 451 6.83, TE Paulsen 421 7.52. The $14m spent on Paulsen doesn't feel like a great investment, meh. Rushing game was weak again, I wanted carries to be split but must have erred, Kelly was 228-772 for 3.4 ypc, not good enough.

Defensively, not enough pass rush. PR% only 19.0, 13th best, and our DBs are not good enough to do the job without help. We did hold opponents to 7.33 yards per attempt passing, but needed to do better.

11-5, half game out of winning the division (Cleveland, ugh), and we are the #5 seed. We're #6 in the league power rankings, so it's somewhat unjust, but such are the whims of artificially important divisional lines.

Decent season, we might be primed for a bump forward next year, I think. Playoffs should be our usual one and out.

[QuikSand]

Well, two-and-out. We go out guns-a-blazing, at least, losing a 45-38 shootout in New England (pyser).

Washington (squirrel) wins... perhaps he has pulled ahead of me in the build-through-chemistry lane. In this league my teams remain pretty profoundly snakebitten. I really like running this wide open offense and racking up big yardage, this is a good league to do silly stuff in. But it would be nice to, you know, actually win the damned thing from time to time.

Results thread

[QuikSand]

We suffer important retirements from a chemistry perspective - CB Ben Fagundez was, I think, the last guy out there who rallied everyone in our chem group. I will have to sit down and sort things out, whether the best play for us is to clear out anyone ahead of McIntyre (decent leadership, 100 personality) in the leadership queue. It may be our best play at this point.

Also lost our veteran TE rental who joined up just to head chemistry, and same with a veteran add-on OT brought in to override a potential chem conflict between QB Mathews and our longtime C Rob Adams. I'm hopeful that both those will fall back into a better place this season.

[QuikSand]

Wow...it was not long ago, like two offseasons, when I went through a pretty detailed analysis of this team's secondary, and offered my thinking there, coming away really pleased with what I have in those positions.

I just perused the lineup there, and have basically come to the conclusion that it might just be time to blow it all up. These veteran guys all giddy with happiness couldn't cover anyone last season. Why double down on that? McIntyre is rapidly losing his bump skills, CBs Upshaw and Evans are basically replacement-level other than cohesion/chemistry, S Christakes really can't play zone well enough to make this boatload of cash, and Dennis and Shireman and okay but nothing special.

What could be a path forward? I don't know. I have complete liberty, maybe, to just peruse the free agent universe, locate someone to lock in as a young-ish new leader, build some youth around him and let the others fade via attrition. It's on the table. I actually enjoy gathering roster kindling this way.

[QuikSand]

Simplest plan here is probably just to trade S Christakes, let CB Upshaw sign elsewhere. That's enough to vault McIntyre into our leadership role, where he'd be an ace other than having to work to keep him there. We would then want to re-sign our two free agent safeties, and we'd have a decent foursome to build around with excellent chemistry yet again. Then we'd presumably make DB a draft priority, and also look for some depth via free agency or trade.

So, we may not "blow it up" after all.

[QuikSand]

...and the league is taking a apparent weeklong hiatus.

[QuikSand]

Basically in stasis here. We advanced to start the draft, which will apparently wander aimlessly until early next week, when the league nominally gets back on track. All good. Tryna focus on thoughts and prayers here in Annapolis anyhow.

Anyhow, we made a change at DC, which seems fair, honestly. New guy is a standout in scouting (~77) and playcalling (~84), solid everywhere else, and is basically just what we want. Long live the new guy.

[QuikSand]

Pulled off a trade today, to land a new kick returner.

Well, technically he's also a 75/75 running back... but by his stats, he sure doesn't look like a build-around stud. Low endurance, is that the problem? Beats me.

Anyhow... this year's 2nd and 5th rounders and we take on Carpenter and his fat base salary for two years. He'll be a great affinity fit with our RB leadership, and I'll sort out later what we do with our current guys like Kelly (cut?) and Malone (let him walk?). But on the surface, we now have a RB1 in Carpenter and an intriguing RB2 in Schwartz, and some theoretical hope that we can tally 5 ypc again.

[Squirrel]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Washington (squirrel) wins... perhaps he has pulled ahead of me in the build-through-chemistry lane

(Narrator: there is absolutely no chance this is correct)

[QuikSand]

Well, I think there's an open debate there, even within the believer community.

Quick perusal of our rosters in this league, frex:

Baltimore Ravens

Washington Football Team

These are dynamic links, but as I write:

Baltimore is super-orderly, looking at the color groups in the two chemistry columns. QB, RB, RW groups all pure purple, OL pure green, the entire defense green with the only exception on the entire roster being DE Morrison, who will likely account for his mere 4 sacks with a pink slip. Wherever I can, my leaders are very high personality guys, too, so these are often maximum-level affinities. We are clearly super-committed.

Washington, your defending champions and winners of two of the last five seasons, is committed, but has rounded off many more edges. Two TE, two WR, two OL all in non-fitting chem groups. I didn't dig, but I'm presuming these are important and/or promising players...either too good to skip in the draft, or too important to pass up as free agents. From other peeking, I know that he appears less committed to the personality strength than I am, as well.

Bottom line - I make very few exceptions. Squirrel makes more of them. And in this tiny sample size, he's winning out over me. Washington is an ungodly 44-4 the last three seasons, Baltimore is a stout 34-14. He's winning titles, I'm running a dumbass anti-dynasty thread about how I'm "snakebitten."


Post-script. Nothing definitive here, of course. But I am definitely open to the notion that absolute slavery to the chemistry system is sub-optimal, and that merely paying attention to this, and using it as a dominant underbelly for all the marginal players on the roster might be the best lane to occupy. Perhaps something like "draft rounds 1 and 2 BPA, then shift to chemistry-only" or the like.

[QuikSand]

Draft has been inching along, even without stages (including, that means, without interviews). Suits me fine.

At 1(26) we land a guy who seems like a great fit for us. LB Jorge Osborne looks (to my scout) maxed out in RunD, PRTech, and PRStr. That would make for an awesome DE... but he's only 249 lbs. He nominally slots as an ILB, and that might be where we end up playing him (he doesn't have much going for him in the coverage skills) but I reckon we'll roll the dice and try to bulk him up. Worst case he's an overweight SILB, best case he can play effectively at RDE and possibly couple up with last year's top guy Hancock to give us bookends there for a long time. Regardless, he looks to fill in as a top-tier run stopping LB at the very least, looks like a safe "good fit" pick for us. I'm really pleased.

We dealt our 2nd, so it will be a big wait until we're on the clock again. All good.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Squirrel

Intrigued by the TE.

(If I was less averse to the gameplanning aspects of FOF I would try to figure out what it is that makes your low-rated / cigar butt TEs dominate the world)

FWIW, just saw this...I use a different offense in GML and IHOF. I think it's in IHOF where we have tapped into something at the TE position, and seem to just generate big numbers from hoboes there. Here, we're solid, but not eye-popping.

[Squirrel]

I've been on a roll lately in GML Quik but there's loads of luck in that, particularly on the circumstances around player acquisition.

I play a lot stricter for chem in IHOF (mainly because I spend less time on it) and there I'm getting what I consider to be the normal returns to chem...which you surpass routinely.

Way I look at it is: Suppose a median drafter GM who hits rex and doesn't do anything very sub-optimal with cap, position value etc will have an 8-8 run rate long-term. Then that guy starts to do chem, which I view as a cap strategy first and foremost, meaning it's possible to keep more talent on the roster and thereby squeeze out another win or two; so call it 10 wins run rate. That's a playoff team just from that.

Maybe there's then another win available from working the angles experienced MP FOFers know (better than I do) like cohesion, reducing turnovers, run/pass efficiency etc. That's now 11 wins run rate. For me I probably need to take say a win off for having zero interest in gameplanning, playbooks etc which I purposefully neglect. So that leaves a run rate of 10 wins, which means a playoff contender more often than not. That's pretty much where my teams seem to land.

Oh, and in drafting, I'm increasingly coming to the view after much trial and error that drafting non-chem makes sense when scouting is good, and doesn't when it isn't. But that isn't a very data-driven view and it's probably wrong

[QuikSand]

Thanks for the elaboration, squirrel. I rather enjoy having this thread as a back-and-forth, rather than just type-and-read.

[QuikSand]

Just prepared and submitted my file for FA 1:2, and I am definitely leaving open the contingency of switching up my OL chemistry this offseason. I'm reluctant to do this overall, but losing my would-be anchor guy last offseason has left us a bit of a mess in the 7-8/8-9/11-12 groups. There's basically no good leader out there to bring this group together.

I have three quality veteran (all old) OL players, all in that chem group, but really nobody particularly promising behind them. So, in a few seasons we'd be wiped of these guys anyhow. Building some new underbrush mediocre but good-chem players now could have our group connecting perfectly in a few seasons, and presumably with some influx of either quality of free agents or young draftees.

We'll see.. it will probably be halfway through free agency before it's clear what we want to do.

[QuikSand]

Well, a funy thing happened on the way to my new-look OL:

Jules Fields

77/77-rated 5th year OG. $29m/yr contract. In the chem group where we're already invested.

It had been a few days since I prepped this file. I bid intending to win, and did, but kinda forgot about him as I went ahead with my other various OL bids, and had mentally assumed we'd be making the switch. Tougher now.

Seems like a good player, though. Does endurance matter for OL? Beats me. Hope not.

[QuikSand]

He, apparently we overbid:

TRANSACTIONS

2072
FA Stage 2
signed as an unrestricted free agent from Arizona: 4yrs, $112,000,000.

turned down a contract offer: 3yrs, $57,000,000.
turned down a contract offer: 4yrs, $60,000,000.
turned down a contract offer: 4yrs, $58,450,000.
turned down a contract offer: 4yrs, $53,400,000.
turned down a contract offer: 4yrs, $47,850,000.
turned down a contract offer: 4yrs, $64,640,000.
turned down a contract offer: 4yrs, $76,000,000.

Nobody else was even over $20m/yr. Usually, I'm pretty good at sensing the market. Here, I missed pretty badly.

[QuikSand]

In free agency, my desperation at DB is evident - we bid on a non-affinity guy.

Shane Emmons

Well, he's not 100% non-affinity. He's in the same 8/9 group as CB McIntyre, whom we expect to be our leader this season. So there's a dormant chem potential here.

It's a low-risk cut-friendly deal, so we'll see where we are during cutdown phases. He could be good enough to stick and play a good deal for us at CB3, especially as I really can't find much to like in the draft.

[QuikSand]

Round 3 draft pick - I really wanted to find a plug-and-play DB here, but no luck. So, I reached a bit to the guy listed as #2146 overall, but who looks like a really good fit. TE Gino Flowers projects as a max-blocking, no-voids guy...and maybe his combine-skipping is part of why he graded out so poorly. (I confess to really failing to understand how the in-game big board gets built, and how much attention I ought to pay to it)

Anyhow... DB will have to wait. Will try to target somebody in round 4, but could easily end up with another BPA turd-in-the-punchbowl type, per usual.

[QuikSand]

Meaningful note, thought not surprising -- we have extended the contract of QB Irving Mathews. Pretty much had to, decent guys are going for $50m in free agency. He's really only so-so in apparent ratings (48 overall) but he's performed between good and superior in our system, so we'll lock him up for $33m/yr through his 12th season. I'm good with that.

What I'm not good with is that this was my lowball offer, and he took it. So, presumably I could have offered him $28/yr and maybe that would have gotten it done, too. Leaking money... I hate that.

[QuikSand]

Chem stuff in this stage.

Traded with Washington (squirrel) to get back our old OL leader, T Daquan McWilliams. Had to give up a marginal starter in T Scott Wertzler to get him, but it resolves my chemistry worries there for now. McWilliams is a 99-pers leader for us, from the 11-2 group, and should keep the lead for a while. Okay, that's done.

In the secondary, we signed free agent CB Bradley Goodwin who would take the leadership reins and be playable. It's sub-optimal - he's only got a 77 personality, and he would have no connection with the other 7-8 guys in our group - but he'd have a connection with CB McIntyre, recent signing Shane Emmons, and freshly signed youngster Riddick Page Page may not be all that exciting to you, but he's got bars where I like 'em for my system, and I see a possible CB2/3 of the future here. I originally bid real money, but when it became clear nobody else wanted him, I dropped to minsal for 3 years and got him. Both he and Emmons would click with Goodwin as leader, but not with McIntyre. I'm fairly torn, as McIntyre would be a 100-pers leader, but I'd have to let two safeties (Christakes and Dennis) plus CB Upshaw walk to clear his path. Not an easy call.

[QuikSand]

Draft update:

4.26 CB Trent Samuels - he's a zone/pick guy, and can play some special teams. Likely sticks as our CB5 this year, and possibly long term.

5.26 traded in deal for RB

6.26 TE Jackson Mosier - I may have a problem. Don't need a TE, but like his maxed-out combo of Run blocking and getting downfield. If he pans out, an abundance of decent guys, good problem to have.

7.26 CB Gavin DeFazio - need pick, we'll see if he can stick and give us some depth in the DB area. He'd connect with either leader, that's helpful.

[QuikSand]

Well, early free agency wraps up. No holdouts, fortunately.

Quick first look at the rookies -- our 5-man class graded out 15th best by Ben's ratings, that's encouraging. Much due to LB Jorge Osborne, who looks like THE TRUTH. I am really crossing fingers that he can gain weight, because he'd rwelly be tremendous as a DE. At 247, maybe not so much, though.

TE Gino Flowers looks petty good, too. Not a bad class by my standards, at all.

[QuikSand]

Been out of pocket a while, at a conference in Nash Vegas.

Biggest news is that 1st round LB Jorge Osborne only gained 7 lb, to 254. To formally move him to RDE isn't even possible in-game. I will have to decide whether to use him as a bull rush guy there, but I was hoping for a bigger move. He still looks really good, and even had a 96 pers to boot, but that's modestly disappointing - skill set just screams for him to have a hand in the dirt.

[QuikSand]

Well, today's preseason stage seems to have been delayed, and that might ruin my season. I don't know that I will have access to FOF between now and tomorrow, and I might well miss the regular season stage. That likely means my affinity stiffs get cut here and there, and so forth. Not good for a one-shot league.

Real life intrudes sometimes, it's happened to me before. Oddly more at this stage than any other. *shurg*

[QuikSand]

Ok, crisis averted, file is in. Not thrilled with chem management this offseason - CB McIntyre is dying rapidly (can't play bump anymore, we sort of needed that one skill) so I decided to keep the other guy as our chem anchor, it's a weaker setup than I wanted. Have a handful of potential affinities on our inactive roster, which is a waster of time.

The big move here is adding a talented RB. If he gives us the season I want... maybe 240-1200 or so, plus some solid receiving and kick return stats... I think that's actually worth a net win. I'd like to win 12 games this year, and whether that's enough to get us a bye is sorta out of our hands.

[QuikSand]

Hmmm...so we only go 10-6, but we manage to win the division and maybe get a bye. So, yay?

WR Luke Duran slipped to 1800 yards and 2nd team all pro. Crisis for him.

DE Christopher Hancock pops up with 17 sacks, who knew.

RB Brody Carpenter posts 4.3 ypc and might be a huge-bars bum. No joke.

Summary here
GML: Baltimore Ravens 2072

[QuikSand]

Funny thing happened on the way to another one-and-out-postseason-gripe...

Baltimore 39, Houston 13
Baltimore 31, Kansas City 28
Baltimore 37, Washington 6

So, we manage to win our first title in a suitably weird way. We are disappointing in the regular season, as far as I'm concerned, but weird circumstances see the division and conference elite fall back a bit, so our mere 10-6 manages to fill the "well somebody has to get the second bye" slot from a three-way tiebreaker. Then we watch the #1 seed NE get upset at home in their opener (that's usually our gig), so we actually get to host the AFC title game, where we needed every edge we could get against corbes's Chefs, great googly-moogly. We then get an apparently drunk-on-firewater team from Washington in the Beltway Bowl, and make quick work of them, tearing a page from the Raiders playbook of yore.

Fun times.

[Squirrel]

Originally Posted by Squirrel

(Narrator: there is absolutely no chance this is correct)

(Narrator: I fucking told you)

[QuikSand]

Fair enough. Small sample sizes, all that stuff. Happens.

[QuikSand]

Okay turning the page. :flash from ring briefly obscures camera view:

Setup for 2073:

81m in cap, just short of 20%...sounds like a lot but we have some pricey renegs to do

C Rob Adams is our only retirement, and OL is basically set even without him

WR Duran is in a reneg year, but is obviously past his prime, faded to 79/79 last season and more importantly dropped from 10.5 to 7.5 ypt - this is the most important stat for our team (he was 12.3 in the postseason run)

Chemistry setup is remarkably solid, with all groups basically in good shape behind signed leaders - some long term work needed at RB and maybe DB, but no crises

[QuikSand]

Ok, we are underway in earnest. First stage of free agency, and the Baltimore faithful are basically treated to... crickets.

We do sign one guy, a high-chem rotation-caliber receiver in Corey Barber. He will battle for a spot at the bottom of the depth chart, on a $8.2m/yr deal with nothing guaranteed. This is my style, gang. He's a 100-personality affinity, but he's got bars in the wrong places and has fittingly posted a career 6.2 yards per target, which is unacceptable. If we have no place else to spend the cap space, he may stick for a while.

If he ends up as our WR5 (or even inactive) and contributes to chemistry, fine, but on this roster he shouldn't get any/many targets to speak of.

[QuikSand]

Our draft pick...NUMBER 32 BY THE WAY...approaches and I am unimpressed by my options. I'm likely to go off-affinity here, but I really dislike doing so. SO, I post the pick for trade.

I get an interesting offer, with multiple options... and end up taking a trade-out. In exchange, we get two young wide receivers - WR isn't the position where I feel a particularly urgent need, but let's have a look:

Seth Fletcher
Zach Briggs

Okay, so what are we buying here? First, the context here is a team where the owner walked away for a few seasons, and recently returned. These two guys were AI picks, who don't fit the chemistry scheme he has recently decided upon. But...boy oh boy do they fit mine. Both are young, have enough starts to activate chemistry, and have very high personality ratings.

Fletcher looks to me like a FOF counterpart to an NFL guy like WR John Ross, maybe. Early draft pick, some reasons to click him down as an asset, but still looks like a very productive player. My scout rates him 52 overall, but 60+ in both KR/PR, and all around a pretty solid long-term WR3, I'd guess.

Briggs is less exciting, but he's a high-chem asset, with 8 starts under his belt (not sure how they managed that), and enough skill to project as a WR4, I'd think. No standout skills, just a rotation guy - probably more valuable in a league with injuries, to be honest.

Without the affinities, this is not good value for a late 1st. Given the strong chemistry, and the super-cheap bonus-free contracts, maybe it's a closer call. I don't think I make this deal (in the dark of an insomniac night) if I like my options at that pick, bit given my disappointment... it's a go.

This likely means we will cut both WR Corey Barber (FA signee in last stage) and veteran WR Benjamin Wiggins (another cut-friendly signing from this stage). They're surplus at this point, these guys are good enough to boost chemistry and see the field as warranted for the near and long term.

I like this move. And, as I write, my top pick from the draft queue (a chem guy my scouts like, but who doesn't look great to me) is still there as we are 7 picks away, and cold easily end up being our pick at 2.32, rather than at 1.32. That would put the cherry on top.

[QuikSand]

Draft gets to 2.32, and my guy is still there, so why not?

Here's the report on the automated draft thread (A BELCo league feature) showing what the world of scouts see in him:

2073 Draft Thread - Page 9

My scout returned with a "Very Underrated" -- and my scouting is pretty solid, HC 100, DC 82, AHC 85. My in-game view makes his top three ranges top out around 80/65/72... which is really nothing special. If he makes it to that (and that's the top end of his apparent ratings) then he's basically a rotation-caliber DT/DE tweener. Not the worst late-2nd investment, I have certainly done a lot worse. But not exactly a game changer. To be a serious hit, the scouts will have to be right, and he will have to drift upward in ratings.

We are super thin at DL, I don't really like anyone out there in free agency, and my scouts are grooving on this "sociable" affinity-friendly guy, so why not. I mean - I did stress scouting to get these clowns in there to begin with. He likely gets a legitimate shot to play at least 1/3 duty right away, if he's anything but an immediate and colossal bust.