Stud RBs Not Starting

[jvm127]

I've noticed a trend of stud running backs being put behind inferior backs on the depth chart multiple times now. For instance, Ezekiel Elliot and Leveon Bell both get put second on the depth chart very often. They still get stats and start the majority of the games but not all of them. I also drafted a stud RB at #2 overall and he was far and away the best player on the whole team and he was also put at #2 and split carries with a scrub starter.

I even cut the guys ahead of them but the AI will usually just sign another scrub and start him instead of the stud RB.

Has anyone else noticed this? Is there any way to fix this other than manually set the depth chart every week? Sometimes I just want to sim a season and not go through that every game.

[stevew]

I notice this as well and it's really weird.

[rush_27]

The 113 formation is the most commonly used formation on offense. The likelihood is that the second string RB is being used in the 113 instead of the main back

[QuikSand]

"Start" means on the field for the first offensive play. The game's AI tends to slot in second-tier players in some of the lesser-used formations.

If you are using your own gameplan (not having the AI set it) then you can manage this by choosing which play is listed first under the first section (1st and 10, new possession). In 15+ or 16 games, that will be your first play. Lock in the guy you want to be the starter there (in that formation), and he should get credited with the starts, if that's what is important to you.

[jvm127]

It's not just starting though. The backup guys are getting a lot of playing time. For instance Leveon Bell rarely cracks 1k yards and always shows that he starts anywhere from 8 - 12 games a year and his backup always has a heavy workload. I've played as the Steelers and cut every back but Bell just so the team would be forced to sign scrubs to back him up and the scrubs still get a ton of playing time.

[Sharkn20]

Originally Posted by jvm127

It's not just starting though. The backup guys are getting a lot of playing time. For instance Leveon Bell rarely cracks 1k yards and always shows that he starts anywhere from 8 - 12 games a year and his backup always has a heavy workload. I've played as the Steelers and cut every back but Bell just so the team would be forced to sign scrubs to back him up and the scrubs still get a ton of playing time.

What year are you in? Are the scrubs averaging more YPC? Night be that is already too old?

[garion333]

Originally Posted by jvm127

It's not just starting though. The backup guys are getting a lot of playing time. For instance Leveon Bell rarely cracks 1k yards and always shows that he starts anywhere from 8 - 12 games a year and his backup always has a heavy workload. I've played as the Steelers and cut every back but Bell just so the team would be forced to sign scrubs to back him up and the scrubs still get a ton of playing time.

Are you using X-Factor when creating a new game?

Even when X-Factor is turned off there's still a dice roll to determine a player's bars. It's entirely possible you're getting a number of Leveon Bell's with poor endurance. Endurance is very important for RBs to get carries in this version as the AI will constantly sub a starter out without giving us control over when or who it puts in.

[MizzouRah]

Speaking of endurance, does that rating ever change? I'm trying to pay more attention to it now since it matters so much, but I don't recall if it can change by resting a player/playing them more, etc.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by garion333

Are you using X-Factor when creating a new game?

Even when X-Factor is turned off there's still a dice roll to determine a player's bars. It's entirely possible you're getting a number of Leveon Bell's with poor endurance. Endurance is very important for RBs to get carries in this version as the AI will constantly sub a starter out without giving us control over when or who it puts in.

This is the fundamentally game-breaking element of FOF8 to me, despite many improvements.

So much control in some ways, literally none in others.

[jvm127]

This is year 2026. The obvious best RB on the team is Gallop but Hartman is the starter. But at the end of the year you'll see neither is the leading rusher on the team. That distinction goes to Whiting. There were no injuries that would have caused this.

Roster/Depth Chart



Gallop



Hartman



Whiting



Team Summary

[Ben E Lou]

The issue there is his 17 endurance--the lowest of the three. I'm sure the AI is looking at that and assigning him to fewer formations than the others. If you're going to insist on letting the AI handle depth charts, you're going to want a RB1 with enough endurance for the AI to slot him more frequently.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

The issue there is his 17 endurance--the lowest of the three. I'm sure the AI is looking at that and assigning him to fewer formations than the others. If you're going to insist on letting the AI handle depth charts, you're going to want a RB1 with enough endurance for the AI to slot him more frequently.

Beat me too it.. endurance is a huge factor and the reason why your better rated RB is splitting time with other RB's - who all have low endurance. In this version more than ever I'm always looking at the endurance rating for my starting players more than anything else.

[jvm127]

That makes sense. I'll keep an eye on it for other teams. I regularly see Ezekiel Elliott and Leveon Bell having the same thing happening with them. I'm guessing their endurance must be low as well.

[MizzouRah]

Remember the x-factor as well.. rosters always start with some fluctuation even with that turned off.

Elliott has been the best back in the league in career rushing yardage, I'm in 2023.. his endurance is a 93.

[Front Office Midget]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

The issue there is his 17 endurance--the lowest of the three. I'm sure the AI is looking at that and assigning him to fewer formations than the others. If you're going to insist on letting the AI handle depth charts, you're going to want a RB1 with enough endurance for the AI to slot him more frequently.

With FOF8, we've gotten used to saying this.

However, is this really logical? Is this a reflection of the NFL at all?

It seems that FOF8 generates situations that just don't make sense. It's not like Eddie Lacy was magically splitting carries in Green Bay because he had low endurance. It's not like star RBs are ending up with 8-12 carries a game because of "low endurance". FOF8 is just not reflecting the real world.

New players shouldn't have to mess so much with depth charts and playbooks to get realistic results. FOF7 gave much more intuitive results "out of the box" than FOF8 does, where you need to manipulate your depth charts and playbook to get statistics vaguely resembling what we've expected to see in the NFL.

[Jstraub]

I, for one, think this is realistic.

Eddie Lacy did have endurance issues when he was a Packer. He had asthma for one thing and for another he played “overweight”. This deceased his performance and his carries.

Maybe Fof8 magnifies the endurance thing a little bit but I contend The best players should also have the best endurance and this trait exists in the real world.

[MIJB#19]

The occurrence of substitution due to endurance isn't the problem at hand, the real issue is that the AI makes downright ridiculous decisions when it comes to substituting backups in for starters with low endurance.

I've gotten frustrated at times seeing the AI plug in the 10th best receiving option at WR as our SE when the designated starter failed his endurance check. Not just once, but consistently throughout 10 consecutive games for every play that starter went off. In those games, my 4th and 5th best WR got 0 playing time. So either they both also failed their endurance checks (which would be silly given the context, but coding logically acceptable), or the check is repeated with the same die result, directly pushing you to the worst possible option.

Almost as if it's meant to punish you when you try to overplay a low endurance starter, despite having suitable backups, the game will force you to play the worst possible option.

[AlexB]

Agreed, no problem with the endurance idea itself, just the substitution logic. What killed FOF8 for me was a Tackle haring down the flanks as a sub WR instead of.... well anybody else on the roster tbh.