FOF2K4: Franchise Player Quality

[sachmo71]

Has anyone else noticed the AI franchising some rather questionable players? I'll use the current dynasty as an example. Here are the players that were franchised:

Wali Ranier, LB Cleveland
Steve Heiden, TE Kansas City
Christian Fauria, TE New England
James Hall, DE New Orleans
Quincy Morgan, WR, Tampa Bay
Derrick Blaylock, RB, Tennessee

The only players in this list to start more than half of their games were Fauria and Morgan. Here are their ratings, according to my scout...

Ranier- 57/57
Heiden- 37/37
Fauria- 64/64
Hall- 43/47
Morgan- 52/52
Blaylock- 28/32

None of these players are the best at their position on their team, except for Fauria.

Now, while I would not agree with these choices, maybe the AI knows something about these players that I dont?

Here is the answer that I received from Solecismic:

"For a team to choose someone
as the franchise player, they must believe that he will become a solid
starter."


I'll buy that. I really will, but I really want to know if the computer is doing the best job that it can at evaluating talent, or if the stats I see can be chalked up to scout variation or something else. So...is anyone else seeing results like this? Granted, it doesn't seem to be a huge problem, where every team is signing some scrub as a franchise player, but when one looks to the players a few of these teams let walk instead of these players, it's a bit disconcerting.

[Primal]

Maybe that was the best of the FA's they had...

I know when I put the Franchise Tag on someone I can sign them to a multi year deal less then the avg. top 5 salaries. They could be doing the same thing.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Primal
Maybe that was the best of the FA's they had...

I know when I put the Franchise Tag on someone I can sign them to a multi year deal less then the avg. top 5 salaries. They could be doing the same thing.

Let's look at that...

Kansas City Free Agents better than Heiden (all were lost to other teams):
Keith Bullock- 70/70
Tommy Polley- 63/64
Aeneas Williams- 67/67


New Orleans free agents better than Hall (also lost to free agency):
Chris Jenkins- 80/82
Rob Morris- 74/74
Corey Simon- 63/63
Chris Hovan- 73/76

Note that KC still had Tony Gonzales, and Hall is the lowest rated DE on the Saints roster. In Tennesee's case, it was basically the same, but at running back, I would think the decision would be simpler. The Titans already have one of best backs in the game, Christopher Brown, who is rated 63/63, and has not missed a game due to injury.

[yabanci]

I noticed this too after seeing some questionable franchise players, like backups to starters already under contract. I think something has changed from FOF4 in how the game handles franchise players. It seems that -- at least in my career -- the questionable franchise players usually are leaders at their position, so maybe the game is putting more emphasis on leadership skills. But I don't sim enough seasons to analyze it.

[sachmo71]

Interesting, yabanci. I didn't think to look at the leadership of these players. Thanks for the tip.

[yabanci]

I took a look at my solo career, which is in free agency after the 2003 season (using the second patch). There are seven franchise players, four of them backups. Two backups are both leaders and mentors at their positions, one is just a leader, and the other didn't seem to fit any mold (Mike Green of Chicago (rated 31/45), backup to SS Mick Brown (rated 66/69 and a fan favorite under contract for another five years at ~$3.2m/yr). So maybe you can justify the first three, but I can't think of a reason the Bears would franchise Green.

Another thing I found interesting is none of the seven players was popular. One was "recognized"; the other six were "need scorecard."

Also, five of the seven franchise players had either zero or very low loyalty. I don't know whether teams franchised them knowing the player would not resign or whether the players get pissed after being franchised and lose whatever loyalty they had.

Again, this is just one season so it's purely anecdotal. It would be nice if someone who quick sims could study this a little more.

[oykib]

If there are only one or two glaring errors, we might be able to chalk them up to bad personnel decisions. Maybe the temas have bad scouts for those positions. Also it's possible that htey are going on a combination of ratings/production. I fairly regularly have guys on my team that either over or under perform their ratings.

[sachmo71]

Well, it can't be production, since 5 out of 7 players haven't started half of their teams games in their career, and some have started less than 5 games in three years.

[NevStar]

Originally posted by yabanci

...and the other didn't seem to fit any mold (Mike Green of Chicago (rated 31/45), backup to SS Mick Brown (rated 66/69 and a fan favorite under contract for another five years at ~$3.2m/yr). So maybe you can justify the first three, but I can't think of a reason the Bears would franchise Green.

I have an answer for this. FOF is obviously simulating the ineptness of the Bears' front office. The virtual Jerry Angelo probably forgot to check a box on the free agent papers or something. Wow, this game is realistic!

bump

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by yabanci
...or whether the players get pissed after being franchised and lose whatever loyalty they had.

Ding ding ding. I've seen this happen all three times I've used my franchise tag, where the loyalty takes an immediate, and permanent (at least where my team is concerned) hit.

What I'd be REALLY interested to see would be if the loyalty rating is an overall thing, like, stays 0 no matter who he signs with in the future, or if it's tied to a specific team.

[yabanci]

another thing I noticed as I was looking at the franchised players who had been backups is that in addition to AI teams franchising mediocre backups, the AI went out and signed a free agent at the same position, so the franchised player will be backing up again (albiety much more expensively).

Also, don't nfl teams tend to franchise their popular players? It just seemed a little strange that all of the franchised players in my career were rated "need scorecard."

[Bonegavel]

Doesn't franchising a player piss them off?

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
Doesn't franchising a player piss them off?

Yes.

[Bonegavel]

Because of NoMyths answer, I don't do this to players to which i have an affinity. I always feel that if I slap it on one of my good dudes, there will be no way in hell he will resign with me when I free up some money to pay for him.

[yabanci]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
Because of NoMyths answer, I don't do this to players to which i have an affinity. I always feel that if I slap it on one of my good dudes, there will be no way in hell he will resign with me when I free up some money to pay for him.

It's a good feature then, because in previous versions you could always franchise your best player to make sure you don't lose him and then negotiate a multi-year contract with him at a lower rate in the preseason. I used to have a house rule against franchise players, but I think now I'll do it when appropriate.

I am more concerned about a serious problem here- the caliber of players getting tagged.