Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Main Forums > FOF9, FOF8, and TCY Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-28-2018, 10:10 AM   #1
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
ROSTER-BUILDING PHILOSOPHY: What's your cohesion threshold?

This has come up a couple of times for me recently, and thought I'd throw it out there, as it could be an interesting philosophy discussion. Here are a few specific scenarios to think about:

(For the sake of all of these scenarios, let's pretend that they all have flat bars--nothing extra-good in one category or extra-bad in another.)

1. You have a couple of 48/48 type starting safeties. Both have been with the team 5 years. They're making starter money, but not premium. (Let's say top 20 salaries, but not in the top 8 or so.) How good does a FA or trade prospect need to be to get you to replace one of your starters with a year-one cohesion guy?

2. You have a year 8-12 QB who has been on your squad since his rookie season He's an upper 40s kinda guy who has pretty consistently put up solid-but-not-stellar numbers. I'm specifically thinking right now about a guy like this, with passing numbers rated #12/#19/#7/#10/#6 over the last five years. How highly-rated does a FA QB need to be for you to pursue him? 60? 65?

3. Your RB is in year 4, the final year of his rookie contract. He has put up 4.8 ypc and ~1300 yards per year. He's also a 48/48 kinda guy. What's it take to make you decide to move in a different direction?

I'm not necessarily looking for an answer to each one, but more the overall thought of "for you, how much better does the new guy need to be to get you to replace the old guy?"
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2018, 11:39 AM   #2
Squirrel
Mascot
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
I'll bite Ben. Interesting question.

I'll assume no chem impact.

For simplicity I'll also assume no cap pressure, but I think the main challenge with cohesion is the cap pressure it can create. Cohesion is pretty expensive, in my view, based on my not very good understanding of the contract $ ask mechanics. It seems to me that pretty mediocre players, when put in a position to succeed and thereby get good stats, can quickly develop unduly expensive contract demands.

(Anecdotally, with a very stacked roster I find this impact abates i.e. if there's a good rookie backup waiting the mediocre guy doesn't ask for $$$. If that is indeed true then very good drafters would find cohesion less expensive and easier to implement. Also, if it's true, then cohesion and chemistry are in some respect opposites, because it's very difficult to be a plus-plus drafter when you're drafting to chemistry and therefore working with one-twelfth or less of the player pool)

Anyway

1. About 5 points better, so 53

2. Almost never going to replace the QB if he is serviceable

3. Wouldn't think about cohesion here, just late-round RB availablity and cap space. I may be labouring under a misapprehension but I didn't think cohesion mattered / was a thing for the RB part of the rushing game. Clearly it matters a lot for the OL. Seen too many marginal year 1 UDFAs do well to value RB cohesion that highly
Squirrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2018, 01:21 PM   #3
Ushikawa
H.S. Freshman Team
 
Join Date: May 2015
Really I tend to start with answering am I rebuilding or contending and then look at cap considerations with cohesion as a final consideration but let's assume I just want to go 10-6 each year and am cap neutral.

1. I guess I agree that a 5 point increase is significant but once I get that cohesion above 90 or so I might not want to eff with it.
2. If the QB is 30yo and has been top 15 I probably wouldn't pay over market price or trade up to replace him, is he is 34 then it is time to start drafting prospects or acquire another guy hopefully keeping the vet on the roster.
3. Agree on RB cohesion. Having 5 stable OL guys will likely outweigh any changes at RB.
Ushikawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2018, 03:14 PM   #4
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Mostly with Squirrel.

It gets super expensive to maintain cohesion at all costs - just too many marginal guys who ask for "starter money." But it is undeniably a powerful force in this game - if you're in doubt about that, look at the hobo-laden teams that were pulling down titles in the old One-and-Done Challenge careers. That leaves no possible doubt for interpretation.

Toughest thing for me is guessing how it's measured. Linear? Or maybe a cap (sort of like the experience effects for position leaders)? Is there a point after which there are only minor benefits? Beats me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel View Post
I'll bite Ben.

Do not pass Go.
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 03:03 AM   #5
Squirrel
Mascot
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Comma police

arrest this man he talks in maths
Squirrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 06:13 AM   #6
Julio Riddols
College Prospect
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bryson Shitty, NC
1. You have a couple of 48/48 type starting safeties. Both have been with the team 5 years. They're making starter money, but not premium. (Let's say top 20 salaries, but not in the top 8 or so.) How good does a FA or trade prospect need to be to get you to replace one of your starters with a year-one cohesion guy?

I feel like 48/48 guys are solid at safety most of the time. Might upgrade if I could get a younger guy at 65 or above, but would probably try to draft a better guy in round 3 or 4 instead.

2. You have a year 8-12 QB who has been on your squad since his rookie season He's an upper 40s kinda guy who has pretty consistently put up solid-but-not-stellar numbers. I'm specifically thinking right now about a guy like this, with passing numbers rated #12/#19/#7/#10/#6 over the last five years. How highly-rated does a FA QB need to be for you to pursue him? 60? 65?

I feel like a top 10-15 type QB is plenty. I'd rather have a guy who costs about 2/3 or half of what the top tier guys get and produces similar numbers. Probably wouldn't worry about upgrading here unless I saw a significant decline in production or had an obvious stud fall in my lap in the draft.

3. Your RB is in year 4, the final year of his rookie contract. He has put up 4.8 ypc and ~1300 yards per year. He's also a 48/48 kinda guy. What's it take to make you decide to move in a different direction?

I'd probably look for a RB by committee situation here, but I'd need a guy who was 26 or younger and a solid 60 or so in order to try and "upgrade" the spot. Chances are I would try to draft a guy pretty high instead.

I'll usually only overpay for a young top tier WR or a well rounded (and intelligent) young OL. If I'm gonna blow that kind of cash, the guy has to be a long term solution who can do everything we want a player to do at one of those positions. Those guys rarely hit FA. Signings at other positions are usually bargain types who didn't play much for their prior team or rent-a-veterans who are too old to get top end money anymore.. Or middle tier QB's.
__________________
Recklessly enthused, stubbornly amused.

FUCK EA

Last edited by Julio Riddols : 03-01-2018 at 06:17 AM.
Julio Riddols is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 07:07 AM   #7
tzach
High School JV
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
I mostly agree with squirrel and quiksand.

one aspect to have in mind is that cohesion is relative, so it's worth looking at what other teams are doing. ignoring cap/chemistry/age/FA availability/uneven bars and other complicating effects, here's my anecdotal take on this interesting discussion.

1. I wouldn't touch my DB cohesion for less than a 10 point increase.
2. If the QB is serviceable like Loera, I'd only consider a change for a 20-25 point increase or so (assuming no change in avoid INT, etc).
3. I'd let him walk, and only resign if he takes <1.5 % of the cap. As Ushikawa mentioned, the OL starters will dominate over the RBs in OL cohesion, as few teams tend to keep RBs for more than 6-7 years.

my opinions above are anecdotal since I have little quantitative information on how ratings are related to performance, and what a 5 or 10 point increase should mean in terms of performance. To have a better feeling on this aspect, I still have a long-term goal of simulating multiple 100-year seasons, track player ratings and performance, and do some advanced statistics on that database.

regarding the effects of cohesion, I don't think there's any doubt that it is a strong modifier and will likely win some games. in the end, the triad of player ratings, cohesion, and chemistry will affect the game outcome. Each of the three items will usually make the other two worse, and the right balance between them is what makes FOF a deep simulation.

(double-checking the grammar before submitting)
tzach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 07:13 PM   #8
Elijin
n00b
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
I have always constructed my rosters based on the best talent available (although that has begun to change somewhat recently.) The talent must fit within the confines of my salary structure.

In the case of the 48 rated safeties, if they are asking for more than 2-3 percent of my cap, then they will become URFAs. A 48 rated player is emmently replaceable and one bad PS2 from becoming a 35.

The only way I'm *not* upgrading from a 48 QB is if he has the magical distribution of stats (like short passing, sense rush, read defense, accuracy, etc) that allows him to play above his talent level. Even then, if a 60+ comes along--who isn't fool's gold, of course--then the 48 is gone.

I've never liked investing in RBs. They cost too much and the production is replaceable. With a good offensive line, a late round pick or an UDFA or two can put up similar numbers.

In conclusion, it seems I don't like 48s unless the price is right. They are one step away from becoming below average. Cohesion is a proven force, as well as affinities, but for me talent trumps both especially when factoring salary structure.
Elijin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2018, 11:31 AM   #9
garion333
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Near Cleveland
Julio hit pretty hard on how I see things. That said:

1. Probably 60+, unless we're talking in the 50's but with statistically proven Interception ability.

2. Loera throws too many INTs and because of that I'd trade him away and try and replace him with someone better at throwing to the correct players. Based on his ratings he's clearly good at avoiding sacks, but not INTs. I'd be concerned that he'll take even a small ratings dump and become worthless before he's 35. Trade, trade, trade. Forget cohesion,

3. Receiving ability. Or return ability. If there are guys who will get me the same yardage on the ground then I'd rather have a guy who can catch and/or return. I try and let my OL do most of the heavy lifting anyway.
garion333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2018, 01:44 PM   #10
MIJB#19
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maassluis, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou View Post
1. You have a couple of 48/48 type starting safeties. Both have been with the team 5 years. They're making starter money, but not premium. (Let's say top 20 salaries, but not in the top 8 or so.) How good does a FA or trade prospect need to be to get you to replace one of your starters with a year-one cohesion guy?
The FA would have to be at least 60/60 to even consider replacing that 48/48 player, assuming the FA might become more expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou View Post
2. You have a year 8-12 QB who has been on your squad since his rookie season He's an upper 40s kinda guy who has pretty consistently put up solid-but-not-stellar numbers. I'm specifically thinking right now about a guy like this, with passing numbers rated #12/#19/#7/#10/#6 over the last five years. How highly-rated does a FA QB need to be for you to pursue him? 60? 65?
To my own surprise, at least 3 times in my MP lifespan at IHOF have I sacrificed the QB to save cap space and sign/acquire a similar or even lower rated QB. Which doesn't really answer the question...
If we're talking about a same cap situation, I'm thinking the same thing as with question #1, the new QB would have to be a 15ish point upgrade to be worth considering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou View Post
3. Your RB is in year 4, the final year of his rookie contract. He has put up 4.8 ypc and ~1300 yards per year. He's also a 48/48 kinda guy. What's it take to make you decide to move in a different direction?
If my OL has been on the team for a long time, the RB can be expendable. If cap space is tight, RB is a position where I'm even willing to downgrade, or sign a similar RB for much less, providing I can keep the OL together.
__________________
* 2005 Golden Scribe winner for best FOF Dynasty about IHOF's Maassluis Merchantmen
* Former GM of GEFL's Houston Oilers and WOOF's Curacao Cocktail
MIJB#19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2018, 10:05 PM   #11
bdubbs
n00b
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou View Post

1. You have a couple of 48/48 type starting safeties. Both have been with the team 5 years. They're making starter money, but not premium. (Let's say top 20 salaries, but not in the top 8 or so.) How good does a FA or trade prospect need to be to get you to replace one of your starters with a year-one cohesion guy?

Personally I value production over ratings in a lot of scenarios, especially when it comes to veterans with a consistent track record. If they are playing well then it would be very unlikely I'd replace either of them in FA or a trade because you typically have to overpay in FA or give up draft picks to acquire a good player in a trade. If either of the safeties have underwhelming production though I might look to replace them with anyone 55+ who is still reasonably young / looks like they will be an improvement as long as the extra cap hit is reasonable

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou View Post
2. You have a year 8-12 QB who has been on your squad since his rookie season He's an upper 40s kinda guy who has pretty consistently put up solid-but-not-stellar numbers. I'm specifically thinking right now about a guy like this, with passing numbers rated #12/#19/#7/#10/#6 over the last five years. How highly-rated does a FA QB need to be for you to pursue him? 60? 65?
I'd be very unlikely to let go of this guy as an 8 year QB, but maybe as a 12. Cap space and recent success of my team would have a pretty big impact on this decision too, but discounting those it would have to be a 60+ QB who has either been very productive or is coming off his rookie deal. Odds are pretty strongly in favor that the 48/48 QB is going to be the starter until he's over the hill or a great draft prospect falls to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou View Post
3. Your RB is in year 4, the final year of his rookie contract. He has put up 4.8 ypc and ~1300 yards per year. He's also a 48/48 kinda guy. What's it take to make you decide to move in a different direction?

Money! That's pretty solid production but if I think I can save a meaningful amount of money by letting him hit UFA then that's fine. Like many people I try to avoid big money RB's unless it's a guy I drafted myself and his renegs are fair

Last edited by bdubbs : 03-23-2018 at 10:06 PM.
bdubbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2018, 02:50 AM   #12
Squirrel
Mascot
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
(your thoughts, Ben? Just realised you didn't answer your own questions)
Squirrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2019, 01:31 PM   #13
TeamBills59
n00b
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdubbs View Post
Personally I value production over ratings in a lot of scenarios,

It seems to me that overall player ratings lie more than people realize. I've seen players consistenly underperform their overrall rating year after year sometimes by a good amount and vice versa.

In this game everyone has similar scouting information on player ratings so it can't be because of bad scouting.
TeamBills59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2019, 12:47 PM   #14
Dawgfan19
High School JV
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamBills59 View Post
It seems to me that overall player ratings lie more than people realize. I've seen players consistenly underperform their overrall rating year after year sometimes by a good amount and vice versa.

In this game everyone has similar scouting information on player ratings so it can't be because of bad scouting.

I highly doubt the big, red bars lie. More likely, it's poor game planning, poor supporting cast, poor cohesion, etc.
Dawgfan19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2019, 04:40 PM   #15
MIJB#19
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maassluis, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgfan19 View Post
I highly doubt the big, red bars lie. More likely, it's poor game planning, poor supporting cast, poor cohesion, etc.
And luck of the dice.
__________________
* 2005 Golden Scribe winner for best FOF Dynasty about IHOF's Maassluis Merchantmen
* Former GM of GEFL's Houston Oilers and WOOF's Curacao Cocktail
MIJB#19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 12:30 PM   #16
TeamBills59
n00b
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgfan19 View Post
I highly doubt the big, red bars lie. More likely, it's poor game planning, poor supporting cast, poor cohesion, etc.

I looked at that stuff as well.

Quote:
And luck of the dice.

This might be it. Based on the logic of odds some people are going to get lucky with many strong or weak dice rolls.
TeamBills59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2019, 09:45 AM   #17
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamBills59 View Post
It seems to me that overall player ratings lie more than people realize. I've seen players consistenly underperform their overrall rating year after year sometimes by a good amount and vice versa.

In this game everyone has similar scouting information on player ratings so it can't be because of bad scouting.

On the notion of "big bars lie." Let's see how, as a computer game, this might seem to be what's going on, when it really isn't...

How about a WR, whose overall rating in-game is 50/50 as some blend of his various apparent ratings. But maybe he's a guy whose skills are driven by certain big bars - big play receiving, avoid drops, and maybe return or special teams skills. Maybe he's weak in getting downfield and courage, in this example.

The AI team, or a naive human GM, might see him as the 3rd best WR on the team, ranked by overall ratings. That probably means he gets slotted as the third WR, in the slot, on lots of plays from the 11 formation. So, what then? Lots of short passes over the middle, in a generic gameplan - exactly what this guy stinks at. He doesn't generate YAC, he suffers a penalty for his low courage, and he ends up being a 5.5 yards per target albatross to his team. So, he walks into free agency, unwanted.

You do your sort on available free agent receivers, and his 50/50 makes him one of the most attractive guys sorted by overall ratings. You look at those stats: 80 targets, 50 catches, 440 yards, 2 TD and you understandably say - this guy stinks. And see enough of these guys with "high ratings, bad production" and you might well come away with the impression that the game lies. You might be looking at zone-first CBs being asked to cover in man-to-man too much, for run-stopping LBs dropping into coverage too much, and so forth. These guys may indeed be every bit as good as their "overall" skill would suggest... but if they are not being used ideally, they might well underperform - not as a result of the game lying to us about the ratings, but rather that the game (or some of its human players) just fail to employ these mixed-skill players wisely.

I think this mindset is worth maintaining as we think about whether the ratings, setting aside the relatively minor scout error, are reliable in the game.
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2019, 12:48 PM   #18
Sharkn20
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuikSand View Post
On the notion of "big bars lie." Let's see how, as a computer game, this might seem to be what's going on, when it really isn't...

How about a WR, whose overall rating in-game is 50/50 as some blend of his various apparent ratings. But maybe he's a guy whose skills are driven by certain big bars - big play receiving, avoid drops, and maybe return or special teams skills. Maybe he's weak in getting downfield and courage, in this example.

The AI team, or a naive human GM, might see him as the 3rd best WR on the team, ranked by overall ratings. That probably means he gets slotted as the third WR, in the slot, on lots of plays from the 11 formation. So, what then? Lots of short passes over the middle, in a generic gameplan - exactly what this guy stinks at. He doesn't generate YAC, he suffers a penalty for his low courage, and he ends up being a 5.5 yards per target albatross to his team. So, he walks into free agency, unwanted.

You do your sort on available free agent receivers, and his 50/50 makes him one of the most attractive guys sorted by overall ratings. You look at those stats: 80 targets, 50 catches, 440 yards, 2 TD and you understandably say - this guy stinks. And see enough of these guys with "high ratings, bad production" and you might well come away with the impression that the game lies. You might be looking at zone-first CBs being asked to cover in man-to-man too much, for run-stopping LBs dropping into coverage too much, and so forth. These guys may indeed be every bit as good as their "overall" skill would suggest... but if they are not being used ideally, they might well underperform - not as a result of the game lying to us about the ratings, but rather that the game (or some of its human players) just fail to employ these mixed-skill players wisely.

I think this mindset is worth maintaining as we think about whether the ratings, setting aside the relatively minor scout error, are reliable in the game.

This is absolutely on point.
Sharkn20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:59 AM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.