04-22-2003, 09:00 AM | #201 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
I guess starting Cascini was an OK decision, eh? What are the end of season stats on those two and the two RBs?
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
04-22-2003, 09:01 AM | #202 |
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Oops... about Coghill. I guess you can call me Oykib from Sorry Falls.
BTW, how the hell did Sanderson get Player of the Game in both of your games versus Pensacola. He was awful in the first one and I'm generous in saying he was mediocre in the second. And both games his team got blown out! WTF! |
04-22-2003, 09:06 AM | #203 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
A pretty amazing regular season overall. Not only did we finish the season 16-0, but Hawk Mountain finished the season 16-0 also.
We scored 467 points which was #1 in the league. And we only gave up 185 points which is also #1 in the league. Code:
__________________
. |
04-22-2003, 09:18 AM | #204 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
QB Numbers:
Code:
RB Numbers: Code:
|
04-22-2003, 09:24 AM | #205 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
Quote:
The POTG has always seemed poorly implemented to me. I often disagree with the selection. It's not a critical part of the game, but perhaps Jim will address it at some point. |
|
04-22-2003, 09:54 AM | #206 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Defensive Numbers
Code:
Code:
__________________
. |
04-22-2003, 10:00 AM | #207 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Wow... I didn't realize that Cog was having THAT stellar of a year.. 22:1 ?!?!?!?! does he qualify for career QB Rating numbers with his attempts? If so, that's what.. 4 years in a row that he has topped himself? He is absurd.. but then you look at Cascini.. and he was over 100.. wow...
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
04-22-2003, 10:00 AM | #208 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Manhattan (10-7) at Little Rock (16-0)(-9)
Code:
Injuries Otis Coghill, QB - Broken Toe, Questionable, full strength in 1998. Ben Howen, LDE - Pulled Groin, Probable, full strength in about 1 week. Well damn it! What do we want to do? DO we let Coghill play through the pain or do we play Cascini?
__________________
. |
04-22-2003, 10:03 AM | #209 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
I just looked at the defense also.. is that the most team sacks we've ever had?
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
04-22-2003, 10:08 AM | #210 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
Cascini will do fine. But how does the game treat a QB with a broken toe? Does it treat it as if it were a shoulder/hand injury and thus can't throw (in other words, the type of injury is just fluff)?
Last edited by Anrhydeddu : 04-22-2003 at 10:09 AM. |
04-22-2003, 10:14 AM | #211 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
It's my understanding (I could be wrong) that the injuries are related to the players skills. So for example a broken toe shouldn't have much affect on Cogs throwing, but he may not be as mobile etc. A broken toe would be much more serious for say one of our RB's.
However I geuss my main concern would be leaving him in and getting him more injured. I would hate to see Cogs ratings be destroyed. And given our past history, and the fact that he just signed a giant deal it seems possible that would happen.
__________________
. |
04-22-2003, 11:12 AM | #212 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
I'm quite torn here.. but for the future of our team, it seems that a guy who went 7-0 and had a 101 qb rating for us this year might be better than a guy with a broken toe... ???
I'm not sure here, but my gut is telling me we roll with Cascini..
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
04-22-2003, 11:42 AM | #213 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Niagra Falls (13-4) at Little Rock (17-0)(-7)
The Cadcini's have it! We will roll with Cascini as teh starter and make Cog the backup in case Cascini goes down. Code:
Injuries Riddick Finley, RDE - Knee Tendinitis, Probable, full strength in 1998. Otis Coghill, QB - Broken Toe, Probable, full strength in 1998. Ben Howen, LDE - Pulled Groin, Probable, full strength in 1998. Matthew Morrell, FL - Broken Nose, Probable, full strength in 1998.
__________________
. |
04-22-2003, 11:44 AM | #214 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Ok now that Coghill is up to probable my vote says we start him in the championship game. I think Cog should be on the field when we complete our perfect season.
But I will pause and make sure everyone else feels that way too.
__________________
. |
04-22-2003, 11:46 AM | #215 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Hmm... Cascini "struggled" a little bit and Cog is at probable.. and it is the Super Bowl.. I gotta think realistic here and your guy is in the for the Super Bowl if at all possible... so, my vote is for Cog..
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
04-22-2003, 12:14 PM | #216 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Louisiana
|
Quote:
agreed, Cog should get the start. |
|
04-22-2003, 12:17 PM | #217 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Champaign (13-5) at Little Rock (18-0)(-5)
Code:
Move over Miami! There is another undefeated team in football history!!!!
__________________
. |
04-22-2003, 12:21 PM | #218 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Updated File #1
|
04-22-2003, 12:21 PM | #219 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Updated File #2
|
04-22-2003, 12:25 PM | #220 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Time for us all to retire .
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
04-22-2003, 12:34 PM | #221 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
I do think you guys need to play this differently, just to offer variety. This season's read was quite boring with the only tensions being to luck out on a perfect season (not a big deal to me) and to decide whether to start superstar QB #1 or superstar QB #2.
|
04-22-2003, 12:43 PM | #222 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
Quote:
Yep I agree. There's not much interest for me right now in working on the dynasty when we are so much better than the other teams. I really thought the "fan favorite" rule would help to equalize things, but it just didn't do nearly enough. Even if we can figure out some additional rules to implement, with the talent we have right now I don't see us having any problems being the best team in the league for the foreseeable future. Perhaps we can implement a rule that anyone under contract after a Championship season gets either a new contract offer or released? |
|
04-22-2003, 12:45 PM | #223 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Quote:
Heh despite his numbers Cascini is hardly a super star QB. Hell looking at his ratings he isn;t even an average QB. |
|
04-22-2003, 12:56 PM | #224 | |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
Quote:
But that is all that matters, is it not? How many teams could he start for and be a significant improvement over what they have currently? |
|
04-22-2003, 01:00 PM | #225 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Quote:
According to our scout there are 8 teams that don't have a better QB than Cascini. That doesn't seem that unrealistic to me. Cascini's numbers were a product of the talent we have around him. Now I realize you think that is a problem too and I am not arguing that. ia m just saying we weren't trying to decide between which super star QB's to play. The only reason there was a decision to be made is Cascini is a significant drop off from Coghill. |
|
04-22-2003, 04:12 PM | #226 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Are we running out of steam here? Overall people just don't seem as excited this season as we have in the past.
__________________
. |
04-22-2003, 08:01 PM | #227 |
Strategy Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Carolina
|
I think there was a lot less to react to this season. We stayed relatively injury free, and a perfect season gives you little to complain about.
Great job by everyone assembling the team, but now it's time we try to crank up the challenge level. I think we should try to iron out new rules regarding player happiness and/or position leaders before we begin next 1998, |
04-23-2003, 07:48 AM | #228 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Personally, I think the place to make new restrictions (and I agree we need them) is with free agents. Despite our supposedly tough rules (forcing ourselves to only put out offers at the very beginning of free agency) we are routinely finding that nearly every single player we seek signs with us. Over all these seasons, how many guys have we actually lost out on? Just a few superstar players. But all the rank-and-file roster fillers that we think are good bargains are going unpursued by the CPU teams - and we get the free run of the lot.
Where did we get our so-called Superstar QB #2? Right off the free agent pile, and for peanuts. How have we been able to maintain our DL depth, even while letting quality guys go and suffering injury after injury - we fill in from the free agent pile, because the computer teams are nitwits when it comes to spotting capable talent. I'm open to listening to suggestions on team chemistry and so forth, but to me- this is the obvious place to go. I think we should come up with a severe limit on how much we can use free agency for this team. Perhaps we should not use it at all. Regardless, I think limiting our abilty to fill any roster void with a quality cheap free agent would be a meaningful restriction - it would force us to consider some more overpriced contracts, but it would leave the decision-making in our hands. As has been mentioned before, the thing I personally dislike about rules that force your hand (i.e. "you must re-sign this player, because he has a rating of XX in the YY area") is that this leaves you removed from the decision-making. If we can come up with something that involves perosnalities and such without completely handing over the roster management - I can support that. But I don't want all our decision-making to become hard programmed functions of our rules, and we simply become passengers. |
04-23-2003, 09:18 AM | #229 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
I am not very good at coming up with house rules, but I will throw something out there. Maybe we change the rule that says we are allowed to slap the franchise tag on a player to say we must place the franchise tag on one of our players every year. That means every year we will be forced to either work out a long term deal and probably invest some pretty good money into one of our departing players or be forced to use it over and over again on guy or risk losing him.
And we could maybe even say if we tag a guy and he won;t work out a long term deal with us we have to keep using it on him even if we don;t want him anymore. It would add some strategy because we would be forced to think carefully about who we tag, because once they are tagged they are with us for the long haul whether it be a long term deal we work out with them or us being forced to keep slapping the tag on them. Just a thought.
__________________
. |
04-23-2003, 09:31 AM | #230 |
Strategy Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Carolina
|
I think we should have to get rid of all players who are either "demanding trade" or "angry" (that's if I'm recalling correctly that angry follows disgruntled.
In real life these are the locker-room cancer types that you feel you're better off without. EDIT: these players would have to be cut or traded in the off-season.
__________________
Last edited by cthomer5000 : 04-23-2003 at 09:33 AM. |
04-23-2003, 09:40 AM | #231 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
ct,
The problem with that is right now we only have one guy on the entire team that isn't content. And most of the time players only get that way when they aren't being played so it probably wouldn't hurt us much anyway. We could maybe add a rule that says all conflicts on the team have to be resolved. So if a player has a conflict with anotehr player either he has to be released or traded or the other player has to be released or traded. That might make for some interesting desicions. For example right now our backup QB super star Jesse Cascini has a conflict with our starting TE Juan Hatcher. That would be a difficult call on who to move etc.
__________________
. |
04-23-2003, 09:47 AM | #232 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
I think primelord's and homer's suggestions are not in the line of what QS is thinking. Earlier I had asked, how are you able to get superstars at key positions and great depth and place restrictions on limiting that. QS knows better than I exactly how you were able to do and his suggestions focus on not being able to grab good talent cheaply, as well as signing anyone we wish - without reducing decision making which is critical to this groupthink. To me, the tag only effects one player and what homer is suggesting doesn't prevent you from getting good/great players - you just trade one batch for another, the AI is not going to stop you.
Short of building a team solely through the draft and URFA which significantly reduces decision making, I think the focus should be on 1) limiting the number of offers in week 1 of FA and 2) restricting yourself on the types of players you subsequentally grab in URFA. For example, there was no way you should have been able to cheaply grab the so-called superstar QB #2. But there have to be a criteria on who you can sign and cannot sign without getting too technical or silly. Maybe it's Years Pro or some other attribute(s). Not allowing yourself to grab good players cheaply/easily is what will be the difference. |
04-23-2003, 10:01 AM | #233 | |
Strategy Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Carolina
|
Quote:
There's no denying that, but they aren't mutually exclusive either. I think on some level we should implement houserules that mirror reality (getting rid of malcontents, resolving locker-room conflicts) while also adding rules that will make our acquisition of talent more difficult (what QS and you are seeking). Certainly our premier source of cheap "fill-in" talent is the free agent pool. We'll need to change something there. |
|
04-23-2003, 01:16 PM | #234 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
I have some thoughts on this, just been very busy, I'll try to post them up tonight..
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
04-23-2003, 08:32 PM | #235 |
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
You could have the personality conflict thing, but give yourself aa year. When you combine that with the fan favorite rules it could really give you some headaches. You could also ay that in non-fave conficts with the position leader, the one other thatn the leader has to go.
|
04-24-2003, 05:58 AM | #236 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
Quote:
I think this is a very valid point. I'll go ahead and make a suggestion and see what you think. What if we limit our negotiations in free agency to one player at a time (including ours)? So week 1, we pick player X and make an offer. We can't make any other offers until he signs. If he signs in week 6, then we make another offer to another player at that time. That forces us to prioritize the free agents and we risk losing multiple free agents. I think it's critical we would include our own free agents in this as well to increase the challenge. We could also include a rule that we can only sign URFAs after the 20 week process. I think currently we have signed a couple of our own players after the free agency period was over to fill in gaps (usually they were restricted free agents). Last edited by Bee : 04-24-2003 at 06:02 AM. |
|
04-24-2003, 06:52 AM | #237 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
I'd go even stricter. I personally woudl be in favor of a rule where we can never use the FA market, but if there's not support for that, perhaps a rule where we can only acquire one or two free agent players per season.
I think one of the subtle differences with our team is that we have 10-15 decent quality players at any time, who signed with us for piffle deals just because we're smarter than the CPU teams. Cut that out or back, and we'll have to think a lot harder about re-signing some of our marginal players... since our only other option would be to replace then with rookies. A much tougher rule on free agents would have ripple effects throughout the game, I think. We'd be looking at re-signing our own players more not because our rule forces us to, but because practically speaking we'd have fewer good options. We'd also have to make toughher decisions about depth on the team - we'd surely have to go without quality depth at some places, eventually. |
04-24-2003, 06:53 AM | #238 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Personally, I am likely to be away from this afternoon until sometime Saturday. My inclination is to let this discussion settle, and only then get the next season started. So, let's keep talking... I'll plan to launch the next season on Saturday some time, and we'll go from there with some new house rules of some sort.
|
04-24-2003, 07:12 AM | #239 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
I've played without using free agency at all in the past and still found the challenge lacking. What I found was that I could still dominate relatively easily through draft picks, the occasional URFA breakout player and resigning my own players.
What I was angling for with my suggested rule was to increase the likelihood of losing our own free agents, not only limit the pursuit of other free agents. Every year it seems we have 3 or 4 guys that we resign from our team. Doing that under the new rule would generally eat through the first 10 weeks of free agency and also risk the loss of 1 or more of those free agents if one of the guys take a long time to decide. Perhaps what we could do would be limit the pursuit of new free agents through week 10? That would give us the choice of bringing in a new guy and risk losing a couple of our own top free agents or retaining our own guys and not pick up any new guys? |
04-24-2003, 10:44 AM | #240 | ||
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Quote:
Hmm, that's disappointing. Perhaps with that and our existing rules about re-signing fan faves, and perhaps something even tougher in that regard, we might make a game out of this thing yet. Quote:
I don't follow you here, I'm afraid. What do you mean by "limit the pursuit of new free agents through week 10?" We already say that we can only put in offers prior to week 1... do you mean restruct the number of offers we can make? Along similar lines - maybe we should make all our re-signings before week one of free agency, when the demands are highest. That would have the effect of reducing our flexibility a little more. We do benefit by sitting out guys who are restricted, watching their demands drop as the FA process goes on (when that really doesn't make any sense, when you think about it). Last edited by QuikSand : 04-24-2003 at 10:47 AM. |
||
04-24-2003, 10:47 AM | #241 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
One more thing to add to the list of considerations: we have made out pretty well by trading. I might be inclined to tighten up our rules there a good deal more.
I'd consider this: -the only trades we can make are draft day trades involving only draft picks ...and if necessary, broaden to include this: -we may accept a trade offered to us if it passes the standard fairness test (modify it, then see if it gets accepted) |
04-24-2003, 10:54 AM | #242 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alexandria, VA
|
As a casual observer, I agree you've done well on trades, but it seems like you've done exceptionally well on draft day trades. Several times, you've gotten top 10 picks by trading low firsts and scraps for some terrible team's first the next season. That has put several top talents into your team through the draft when you were picking in the very end of the round. Might be something to look at; perhaps limiting draft day deals to trading up and trading down instead of trading out.
|
04-24-2003, 10:58 AM | #243 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
Quote:
What I'm talking about is signing guys one at a time during the 20 step free agent process. That would be the only time we can sign anyone other than rookies. That would also include our free agents. For example, we have 10 free agents. We want to resign 3 of them and there are 2 more guys we are interested in. We pick one of our guys to pursue first. We make him an offer in week 1, but no offers to any of the other guys we want to keep or pursue. Once he signs, we can make our second offer to the next guy if he is still available. At the end of week 10, we can only pursue our own free agents. After week 20, anyone not signed can't be offered a contract. That would increase our chances of losing our own free agents and it would reduce our ability to raid the free agent market. But it wouldn't take away some of the decision making that we would go through. If anything I think it might add some more "tough decisions" into the process. If we have a starting RB and starting DE we want to keep, who do we go after first and who do we risk exposing to the free agent market? If there's someone who's a better deal in free agency, do we go after them and risk losing our guys while he decides if he will accept our contract? I've never tried this before, but it looks like it could be challenging especially if a player or two takes a long time in deciding to sign. |
|
04-24-2003, 10:59 AM | #244 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
Quote:
Good point. Perhaps limiting us to only trading for picks that are for the current year and not future picks. |
|
04-25-2003, 01:45 PM | #245 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Bump, this will not die ..
I actually like Bee's idea.. It seems to have the most effect while retaining the most decision making.. we have to prioritize who we sign and how much we can afford... we would definately lose key guys on our team, and have a much more difficult time picking up those cheap skill players in free agency...
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
04-25-2003, 02:22 PM | #246 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
Just a lurker's thought: How about setting a minimum salary for the cheap free agents? Say 10% over what they're asking? Perhaps incorporate their talent into the equation, saying that player A with X talent gets a higher "minimum" deal than player B who has X-Y talent. The last thing I think you need to do is to build in so many "Tuesday under a full moon when the dog's barking in the backyard" conditions that you're too busy checking rules rather than making decisions.
Then again, I'm not familiar at all with FOF4 so I could be way off base on such an idea. The one hole I can think of with this is if "good" players ask for the same money as "bad" players, which is why I suggested incorporating talent level somehow. Just a thought. |
04-26-2003, 01:14 PM | #247 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Okay, Bee's idea sounds pretty good to me, too. How do we fit that in with our current rules that require us to re-sign players, even when we wouldn't have wanted to? Certainly we don't want things to get easier for us in that regard (at least I don't think so).
Bee, anyone - what do you think? Keep the required offer for the mandated players, and then everything else is "one at a time" under your system? And where do we stop? I don't like the prospect of getting players late in the FA period - there are just too mane bargains there, and that's theoretically what we're trying to slow down. Open to the idea... looking to help flesh it out some more. |
04-27-2003, 11:37 AM | #248 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
Quote:
Here's my suggestion (please feel free to adjust it how you see fit): I say we continue to offer our fan favorites contracts in week 1. We can't sign anyone else until they've all signed (either with us or with someone else). After that we can only sign 1 guy a week. Only make offers to free agents outside our team before week 10 (if our fan favorites haven't signed by then, we can't bring anyone new in). We also have to sign our "restricted" free agents during the 20 week process and they will count as the free agent for that week. Anyone unsigned after the 20 step free agency can't be offered a contract (even restricted free agents). We might want to adjust the last week we can sign "outside" free agents if week 10 allows too much access to those players. Maybe revise it to week 7 or 8? |
|
04-27-2003, 05:11 PM | #249 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Sign one guy a week... meaning make one olffer per week (from within or without), or does that mean we only pursue one guy at a time? Sorry if I'm not comprehending well... just want to get it.
|
04-27-2003, 08:19 PM | #250 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
Bee, I like the way you think, you guys are on the right track.
QS, I read that, as its most restrictive, that you can only pursue on player at a time and no other player until he signs with you or someone else. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|