Wilson Whippoorwills - A Partially Participatory Playtesting Dynasty (FOF 6.1) - Page 2

QuikSand · 10-10-2007, 08:56 AM

I admit, I have been guilty of the occasional "hey someone please say something so I feel like someone is reading this" posts in my dynasty reports.

Here, I'm really at a crossroads, and I'm starting to feel kinda selfish. My whole motivation with this effort was to try to "stir up" some interest in playtesting, maybe even to inspire some of the people who complain about how inaccessible testing is to give it a whirl. That effort has very clearly failed, and this is back to my usual one-man show.

That's fine, but it raises for me a crossroads. I'm dicking around and running this pretty slowly, basically trying to follow the original idea to some degree-- I ran the 2011 season 30 or 40 times in tests before actually running it "for real." If I'm the only one getting anything at all out of that effort -- maybe there's no reason to keep it up. If this is just me running a dynasty -- and my main gain from this is going to be learning more about drafting -- then I'm not investing my time wisely to play at this slow a pace. I'll learn more about drafting by running a faster career, not bothering to document results in a silly thread, and going from there.

So... don't get too connected to this team. I am sorta enjoying the testing I'm doing, and I think I'll go ahead and run the coming season, but I confess to losing interest with this team, by and large. I don't see me playing this out year after year until my entire roster is stacked with star-caliber talent and we are going 15-1 no matter what scheme we use. if I'm going to play a long term FOF 6.1 career, I'll start over and play under some seriously confining rules that force me to make use of some more marginal players.

Just FYI -- I'm not begging for input or empathy, just being frank.

QuikSand · 10-10-2007, 10:16 AM

In preparation for testing this year, I am signing a pretty good free agent tight end (outside the EC concept, admittedly). Since I have basically failed to acquire quality at that important position for this offense, I want to test and see whether having a good player there, one who will get lots of targets in the short and medium range passing, will make a good impact on this team’s outcomes. I will bury him as inactive for the main season, but I’ll try him as our starter at TE and see if that makes a difference. Stay tuned there. (TE Roosevelt Treu, 48/64, former 3rd round pick)

Heading into training camp, I let both WR Robert Moungey (high RR, low skills, bad combo) and TE Vernon Deutsch walk away unsigned. Both were bad fits skill-wise for us, and I’m going young in an effort to get guys who seem like better fits.

Training camp results are indicated in the formatted post below.

QuikSand · 10-10-2007, 10:17 AM

Name	Pos	Team	WIL12c Current	WIL12c Future	WIL12d Current	WIL12d Future	Overall Current Change	Overall Future Change
Blaine, Carl	QB	Wilson	12	58	12 (0)	58 (0)	0	0
Borders, Irv	QB	Wilson	19	38	19 (0)	38 (0)	0	0
Branch, Kent	QB	Wilson	7	29	8 (1)	36 (7)	1	7
Mason, Pete	QB	Wilson	26	47	26 (0)	47 (0)	0	0
Logan, B.J.	RB	Wilson	47	57	47 (0)	57 (0)	0	0
Long, Troy	RB	Wilson	24	32	24 (0)	32 (0)	0	0
Marble, Riddick	RB	Wilson	46	54	56 (10)	66 (12)	10	12
Reese, Christian	RB	Wilson	28	48	26 (-2)	44 (-4)	-2	-4
Baldridge, Brant	FB	Wilson	72	72	72 (0)	72 (0)	0	0
Chiasson, Morris	FB	Wilson	23	47	22 (-1)	42 (-5)	-1	-5
Parmely, Gerald	FB	Wilson	32	57	33 (1)	56 (-1)	1	-1
Clements, Dwight	TE	Wilson	21	46	21 (0)	42 (-4)	0	-4
Kiehl, Richie	TE	Wilson	22	48	23 (1)	45 (-3)	1	-3
Pickard, Seth	TE	Wilson	21	55	21 (0)	46 (-9)	0	-9
Preston, O.J.	TE	Wilson	26	50	26 (0)	46 (-4)	0	-4
Rhodes, Rod	TE	Wilson	28	36	28 (0)	35 (-1)	0	-1
Treu, Roosevelt	TE	Wilson	48	64	50 (2)	64 (0)	2	0
Blake, Randal	FL	Wilson	24	26	24 (0)	26 (0)	0	0
Haley, Oliver	FL	Wilson	18	59	19 (1)	51 (-8)	1	-8
Joseph, Matthew	FL	Wilson	21	38	22 (1)	38 (0)	1	0
Kiner, Sherman	FL	Wilson	23	49	26 (3)	55 (6)	3	6
Curtis, Tyrell	SE	Wilson	49	49	48 (-1)	48 (-1)	-1	-1
Dawkins, Emmitt	C	Wilson	81	81	83 (2)	83 (2)	2	2
Fisk, Donnie	C	Wilson	40	51	43 (3)	52 (1)	3	1
Farmer, Otis	LG	Wilson	36	43	37 (1)	42 (-1)	1	-1
Walters, Earnest	LG	Wilson	47	59	49 (2)	58 (-1)	2	-1
Hudson, Casey	RG	Wilson	42	42	41 (-1)	41 (-1)	-1	-1
Chandler, Clarence	LT	Wilson	38	88	37 (-1)	87 (-1)	-1	-1
Raffensperger, Wade	LT	Wilson	19	37	19 (0)	36 (-1)	0	-1
Shea, Derek	LT	Wilson	43	52	42 (-1)	52 (0)	-1	0
Jammer, Andre	RT	Wilson	54	54	53 (-1)	53 (-1)	-1	-1
Jones, Mack	RT	Wilson	33	51	39 (6)	51 (0)	6	0
Sisson, Cornelius	K	Wilson	37	37	39 (2)	39 (2)	2	2
Nolen, Louis	P	Wilson	40	40	38 (-2)	38 (-2)	-2	-2
Duncan, Dexter	LDE	Wilson	16	49	16 (0)	44 (-5)	0	-5
Walton, Bucky	LDE	Wilson	43	49	43 (0)	49 (0)	0	0
Harmon, Ricardo	RDT	Wilson	89	89	89 (0)	89 (0)	0	0
Farr, Kyle	NT	Wilson	22	27	24 (2)	27 (0)	2	0
Alcala, Trent	RDE	Wilson	19	44	19 (0)	40 (-4)	0	-4
Farmer, Stanley	RDE	Wilson	19	29	23 (4)	29 (0)	4	0
Fisk, Craig	RDE	Wilson	72	72	73 (1)	73 (1)	1	1
Leatherwood, Jimmie	RDE	Wilson	42	42	42 (0)	42 (0)	0	0
Sockanathan, Gabe	RDE	Wilson	15	24	17 (2)	24 (0)	2	0
Haynes, Walt	SLB	Wilson	41	41	43 (2)	43 (2)	2	2
Olivarez, B.J.	SLB	Wilson	23	40	24 (1)	40 (0)	1	0
Scarlett, Riddick	SLB	Wilson	18	23	18 (0)	23 (0)	0	0
Dennis, Cornell	SILB	Wilson	41	47	45 (4)	47 (0)	4	0
Knapp, Larry	SILB	Wilson	61	80	68 (7)	80 (0)	7	0
Pierce, Kendall	SILB	Wilson	30	30	30 (0)	30 (0)	0	0
Muhammad, Harris	MLB	Wilson	20	44	22 (2)	43 (-1)	2	-1
Schultz, Rickey	MLB	Wilson	22	47	23 (1)	45 (-2)	1	-2
Bierria, Bart	WLB	Wilson	24	24	24 (0)	24 (0)	0	0
Hoffman, Michael	WLB	Wilson	20	42	21 (1)	37 (-5)	1	-5
McElroy, Dean	WLB	Wilson	19	36	21 (2)	36 (0)	2	0
Atkins, Bobby	LCB	Wilson	14	34	14 (0)	34 (0)	0	0
Burnett, Brock	LCB	Wilson	7	38	7 (0)	30 (-8)	0	-8
Bush, Norbert	LCB	Wilson	57	82	54 (-3)	80 (-2)	-3	-2
Gunn, Nate	LCB	Wilson	75	81	75 (0)	81 (0)	0	0
Lofton, Bart	RCB	Wilson	39	39	38 (-1)	38 (-1)	-1	-1
Mason, Amos	RCB	Wilson	11	26	14 (3)	26 (0)	3	0
Ramsey, J.B.	RCB	Wilson	18	33	20 (2)	31 (-2)	2	-2
Rood, Kim	RCB	Wilson	79	79	74 (-5)	74 (-5)	-5	-5
Borders, Fred	SS	Wilson	17	53	18 (1)	53 (0)	1	0
Ciszek, Lee	SS	Wilson	37	45	38 (1)	45 (0)	1	0
Donovan, Irv	FS	Wilson	18	24	20 (2)	24 (0)	2	0
Milgate, Howard	FS	Wilson	67	80	70 (3)	80 (0)	3	0
Whigham, Ed	FS	Wilson	18	38	19 (1)	35 (-3)	1	-3
Zedalis, Lewis	FS	Wilson	37	37	38 (1)	38 (1)	1	1

QuikSand · 10-10-2007, 12:48 PM

So… obviously headline news from our RB Riddick Marble, who boomed in camp (must be one of those random things – he is a 92 volatility guy) and looks every bit the horse we would like – except that his 33 endurance will probably limit him to time-sharing.

Here’s our rookie summary, with the camp movements:

Code:

Pick Pos Player            Grd Dash ST BP Agil Bjump PS D% Sct PreC  PostC Ch
1.06 LT  Clarence Chandler 6.7 5.11 42 39 7.32  9-01 –- 15 UR  38/88 37/87 -1
1.14 CB  Norbert Bush      6.9 4.40 32 30 6.77  8-11 51 36 AS  57/82 54/80 -2
2.17 WR  Sherman Kiner     5.2 4.37 24 17 6.98  8-11 57 16 VO  23/49 26/55 +6
4.15 ILB Harris Muhammad   4.6 ---- 41 -- ----  ---- 20 40 VU  20/44 22/43 -1
6.18 LDE Dexter Duncan     4.1 4.73 28 22 7.71  8-04 –- 34 na  16/49 16/44 -5
7.17 CB  Amos Mason        3.6 4.63 34  7 7.06  8-08 39 35 na  11/26 14/26 --

So, we get a BIG hit with our WR Kiner, as we ignore the advice of our scout who didn’t like him. A plus six is a pretty big boom, and we will absolutely lock him in at the flanker job. For now, we will keep the SE in our one-WR formations, but in time that could certainly change.

And what do we do with yet another boom rookie QB? I don’t know. Maybe this guy will finally collect the roster spot we’ve been occupying with Blaine (who is just not developing at all without playing time). A +7 in camp seems to say big things ahead, but I’m locked in with Pete as our starter for the long haul.

Oh, and we once again completely whiff at tight end. Picked up several guys, all of them dropped like stones in camp. No surprise. If I continue this longer term, I will definitely go after a TE with a top draft pick, no more leaving this to chance – I liked a guy in the last draft, but he went early in round two, before our second rounder. I could have traded down from the middle first and gotten him at about 2.1 and have been very happy, I suspect.

We get a trade offer for LB Cornell Dennis – he’s settled in as a pretty decent reserve-quality guy at ILB, but this is a no-brainer, we land a 3rd rounder for him and he is gone. Bad pick there, but at least we got some return.

I am through the preseason and ready to start the regular season ahead.

QuikSand · 10-10-2007, 02:25 PM

2012 Season Testing

With a second-year QB finally at the help, I’d hope that our passing game picks up. And with a boomer at RB, I have hopes that we will see a big gain in our running game as well – this could be the year the offense really starts to click. The defense ought to be just fine – I have populated it with so much talent, it would be pretty hard for them not to be at least average this year, likely better than that, even.

I am basically starting the same lineup as last year on offense, but with our top rookies at LT and FL. I have TE Roosevelt Treu signed, but inactive – we will experiment with him in the lineup as our first alternative offensive setup. For now, we have Rod Rhodes – blocking TE with an 8 rating in Route Running, starting at TE.

Okay – first cycle:

Wins: 10.0
YPC: 4.13
Comp: 64%
YPA: 6.18
Turn: 26.7

This is a winning team now – we rush the ball slightly more efficiently than our opponents, and our passing game is roughly as efficient. We are taking fewer risks, though, so while we will lose some games, we won’t likely give too many away. (We’re yielding only 55% completion on passing, but for 6.1 ypa)

Incidentally, here’s what we’re getting from our top TE in these trials – generally he is showing up for 25-30 targets, and maybe 150 yards receiving, but in several of the ten trials he didn’t even make the list of targets in the summary. So, he’s clearly not a major part of the pass attack. My next cycle will be to insert Treu, a pretty good overall TE, in as the starter, and I expect he’ll get maybe 50-60 targets in this offense --- we’ll see how this changes things.

Here’s a pic of the two tight ends being used, for what it’s worth:

Now, here are the isolated stats for TE Treu in the exact same offense:

Code:

Receiving               Pos   Targ  Catch Yards Y/Ctc Y/Tar Drop  TD
1 R. Treu               TE    62    37    355   9.59  5.73  4     2
1 R. Treu               TE    57    42    487   11.60 8.54  4     2
1 R. Treu               TE    65    44    471   10.70 7.25  3     2
1 R. Treu               TE    60    44    483   10.98 8.05  1     4    
1 R. Treu               TE    72    43    443   10.30 6.15  2     2
1 R. Treu               TE    60    42    470   11.19 7.83  2     5   
1 R. Treu               TE    74    52    533   10.25 7.20  2     4  
1 R. Treu               TE    83    59    546   9.25  6.58  2     7  
1 R. Treu               TE    78    60    629   10.48 8.06  2     8
1 R. Treu               TE    68    39    387   9.92  5.69  6     0

So – we clearly created a lot of production from the position, where we had very little before. Even on an efficiency basis, these passes to the TE are clearly averaging better than the 6.2 y/t I was getting in the prior season – which seems like a good sign. So, is that good for the team?

Wins: 9.9 (slightly worse)
YPC: 4.16 (very slightly better)
Comp: 65% (slightly better)
YPA: 6.22 (slightly better)
Turn: 26.9 (slightly worse)

It’s tough to draw any team-wide outcome from this, I’m afraid. It looks to me like Treu probably averaged something like 7 yards per target, but I guess the remaining pass plays became incrementally less effective to bring the team average right back down to the same level as before.

I certainly cannot post that these test results confirm that adding a quality (not a true stud, just a solid) TE into this offense will make the team better – even if it is true that a solid TE will flourish in this offense (pretty clearly true).

QuikSand · 10-10-2007, 02:38 PM

So, here are the Cliff's Notes versions for those catching up:

-Team is now getting good, and is totally stocked with star-caliber talent and solid creepers

-Tests involve spending a bunch of time, and each and every one amounts to nothing but spinning my wheels

That's your summary right there. Whoop dee shit. Big waste of time.

QuikSand · 10-10-2007, 03:17 PM

Here are the summary results for the TE testing from above, just in case anyone is interested.

johnnyshaka · 10-12-2007, 04:32 PM

QS, I don't frequent the Dynasty Forum all that often but following the discussion over in the FOF2007 Forum about a TE focused offense I decided to come on over and check out this thread. Very glad I did.

I'll have some time tonight to do some playing around as I'm always looking for different ways to run an offense/defense especially since I've been struggling as of late to stick to one that I like and that, more importantly, works.

I've breezed through this thread somewhat quickly but the gist of it seems to be that you are struggling to find a way to make the offense more effective with better players than it is with lesser players? Am I right?

Again, mentioned in the other forum, have you tinkered with the gameplan somewhat to increase the passing to take advantage of your new weapon at TE? If not, that may be something I'll try tonight.

Also, one note, maybe moving this to the FOF2007 Forum would garner more interest. I may be in the minority, but I don't regularly check this forum but maybe I might do so more often if I'm going to find threads like this one.

johnnyshaka · 10-12-2007, 09:27 PM

I've downloaded the game files but they are from 2010 and I'm getting "saved game is missing" errors as well. I wouldn't mind goofing around with this if you don't mind uploading the latest saved games.

QuikSand · 10-13-2007, 09:05 AM

Sorry I missed you last night, but I'll work to get you the up-to-date files, Johnny. PM sent.

Oh... and you may be right, this might have been misplaced all along in the Dynasty section - I really hadn't thought about that as a possibility. I tried to give it an inviting and descriptive title, but it may have been more successful over there. *shurg*

Unless you spark me toward getting re-interested, I had basically decided to abandon this as yet another aborted effort. Maybe you can prove me wrong.

johnnyshaka · 10-13-2007, 12:11 PM

If we can't get the files sorted out for sharing I don't mind continuing, or I guess begin contributing, to the discussion if you don't mind doing the testing...it's up to you.

I won't have a ton of time during the day today but this evening, once the little one is in bed, I'll have all the time in the world.

QuikSand · 10-13-2007, 05:35 PM

I have posted a zip file with, I think, everything from my universe directory related to this career, other than old box scores. It is posted here:

http://www.filecrunch.com/file/~py1gfn

I'm not 100% certain this will work correctly, but I'm hopeful it will at the very least allow johnny and anyone else interested to use this team as a sandbox. I don't think I have any interest in spending more time drafting for and developing this team -- but the talent is there to make a pretty decent season in 2012, on both sides of the ball.

Hope it works, and you can enjoy.

QuikSand · 10-13-2007, 05:47 PM

And here is the offensive gameplan I used for my testing, complete with a (very) little tweaking of run direction and so forth, to better suit the team's OL strengths.

http://www.filecrunch.com/file/~ytogoj

johnnyshaka · 10-13-2007, 09:42 PM

Just fired it up and didn't change a thing and the first season saw us go 14-2!! I'd say you've done a great job.

QuikSand · 10-13-2007, 10:45 PM

Well, what was until pretty recently a "building" team got lucky in a few slots (CB, QB, WR) and is now benefiting from seeing a number of high draft picks all developing into top-tier players together. My guess is that without much tinkering, this is a playoff team in 2012, and a title contender starting in 2013, even if the gameplans are not optimal. That threesome at CB is very, very good, and there really isn't a position on the team that's a serious need.

johnnyshaka · 10-13-2007, 11:25 PM

Agreed...solid, young, and cheap team that could be a contender for several years.

After running a couple of seasons "as is" the results were all over the map. There were several seasons with 13 or 14 wins but there were also a few 8 and 9 win seasons, too. I didn't keep any records for these "feeler" sims but it seemed like everything hinged on how they played against the run. The offense was pretty standard across each sim with a rushing offense in the top 3 and a passing attack that was efficient, but nothing to be afraid of.

Then, just because it was the last testing you did, I decided to sit TE Treu and start the other two bums and ran a few sims without touching the gameplan. Ten wins was the most I saw in 5 or 6 sims which saw the offense struggle, particularly the running attack. Not surprising seeing as neither bum TE is any good at run blocking nor are they worth anything in the passing game. Again, I didn't document anything as I'm just trying to get a feeling for how these play.

QS, anything in particular you're still curious about or are you glad to sit on the sidelines for a little while and just observe?

QuikSand · 10-14-2007, 12:28 AM

Nothing in particular here.

In previous seasons, I fiddled with a more downfield-minded offense, and didn't get much (presumably reflecting the piss-poor quality of player we had at QB and FL). I would guess that the team now has the talent to maintain that gameplan if called upon. I guess a test of that sort might be worthwhile.

johnnyshaka · 10-15-2007, 01:17 AM

Well, finally had a little time to run some gameplan tests and was glad to see that a little tweaking here and there did actually make a difference.

The first test was obviously the most effective and all I did was ease off the run on 2nd down a little bit and adjusted the short pass settings to focus more on the 5-8 yard passes and hopefully, in turn, getting Treu more involved. The second test was a bit of a disaster as I tried to run a West Coast sort of offense with lots of short passing. Test number three saw an even worse result as I altered your base offense a little to try and get the ball downfield a little more but the changes obviously weren't beneficial. So, with test number four I tried to air it out more often and they did so and very efficiently, too. The last test saw the best offensive numbers but it did also yield the most points against.

Here's the output:

	More Short Passing	Even More Short Passing	More Long Passing	More Longer Passing
Wins	11.2448	9.5936	9.4944	10.5968
RPG	33.6	28.4	32.44	28.69
Rush Yds	135.4	115.38	135.5	124.8
YPC	4.041	4.083	4.194	4.36

Pass Att.	27.92	32.08	27.98	33.19
Complete	18.33	21.35	18.06	20.44
%	65.67	66.64	64.6	61.57
Yards	177.6	187.2	174.3	213.7
YPA	6.393	5.861	6.248	6.458
YPC	9.727	8.791	9.671	10.468

Tot Yards	303.5	291.5	300.2	325.3
3rd Down	39.6	38.31	36.47	36.71
PPG	21.51	20.94	19.52	21.87
Pass Rush%	17.3	17.52	17.67	18.09
Pass D %	69.18	64.81	69.75	65.95
Turn	24.3	25.8	27.5	28.8
Turn Margin	8.2	5.9	1.5	1.9

RPG	26.18	27.91	26.99	26.95
Rush Yds	103.06	111.43	104.74	106.68
YPC	3.95	4.003	3.897	3.963

Pass Att.	31.75	31.4	31.22	32.5
Complete	17.09	17.41	16.85	17.77
%	53.83	55.54	54.1	54.78
Yards	189.5	190.1	181.7	186.6
YPA	6.003	6.072	5.853	5.761
YPC	11.1	10.91	10.77	10.481

Tot Yards	274.1	283.4	268.8	276.9
3rd Down	34.29	34.06	32.4	31.77
PPG	15.71	16.62	16.01	17.07
Pass Rush	13.09	12.43	12.22	14.24
Pass Def	42.24	39.58	45.76	51.05
Turn	32.5	31.7	29	30.7

10-10-2007, 12:48 PM	#54
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	So… obviously headline news from our RB Riddick Marble, who boomed in camp (must be one of those random things – he is a 92 volatility guy) and looks every bit the horse we would like – except that his 33 endurance will probably limit him to time-sharing. Here’s our rookie summary, with the camp movements: Code: Pick Pos Player Grd Dash ST BP Agil Bjump PS D% Sct PreC PostC Ch 1.06 LT Clarence Chandler 6.7 5.11 42 39 7.32 9-01 –- 15 UR 38/88 37/87 -1 1.14 CB Norbert Bush 6.9 4.40 32 30 6.77 8-11 51 36 AS 57/82 54/80 -2 2.17 WR Sherman Kiner 5.2 4.37 24 17 6.98 8-11 57 16 VO 23/49 26/55 +6 4.15 ILB Harris Muhammad 4.6 ---- 41 -- ---- ---- 20 40 VU 20/44 22/43 -1 6.18 LDE Dexter Duncan 4.1 4.73 28 22 7.71 8-04 –- 34 na 16/49 16/44 -5 7.17 CB Amos Mason 3.6 4.63 34 7 7.06 8-08 39 35 na 11/26 14/26 -- So, we get a BIG hit with our WR Kiner, as we ignore the advice of our scout who didn’t like him. A plus six is a pretty big boom, and we will absolutely lock him in at the flanker job. For now, we will keep the SE in our one-WR formations, but in time that could certainly change. And what do we do with yet another boom rookie QB? I don’t know. Maybe this guy will finally collect the roster spot we’ve been occupying with Blaine (who is just not developing at all without playing time). A +7 in camp seems to say big things ahead, but I’m locked in with Pete as our starter for the long haul. Oh, and we once again completely whiff at tight end. Picked up several guys, all of them dropped like stones in camp. No surprise. If I continue this longer term, I will definitely go after a TE with a top draft pick, no more leaving this to chance – I liked a guy in the last draft, but he went early in round two, before our second rounder. I could have traded down from the middle first and gotten him at about 2.1 and have been very happy, I suspect. We get a trade offer for LB Cornell Dennis – he’s settled in as a pretty decent reserve-quality guy at ILB, but this is a no-brainer, we land a 3rd rounder for him and he is gone. Bad pick there, but at least we got some return. I am through the preseason and ready to start the regular season ahead.

10-10-2007, 02:25 PM	#55
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	2012 Season Testing With a second-year QB finally at the help, I’d hope that our passing game picks up. And with a boomer at RB, I have hopes that we will see a big gain in our running game as well – this could be the year the offense really starts to click. The defense ought to be just fine – I have populated it with so much talent, it would be pretty hard for them not to be at least average this year, likely better than that, even. I am basically starting the same lineup as last year on offense, but with our top rookies at LT and FL. I have TE Roosevelt Treu signed, but inactive – we will experiment with him in the lineup as our first alternative offensive setup. For now, we have Rod Rhodes – blocking TE with an 8 rating in Route Running, starting at TE. Okay – first cycle: Wins: 10.0 YPC: 4.13 Comp: 64% YPA: 6.18 Turn: 26.7 This is a winning team now – we rush the ball slightly more efficiently than our opponents, and our passing game is roughly as efficient. We are taking fewer risks, though, so while we will lose some games, we won’t likely give too many away. (We’re yielding only 55% completion on passing, but for 6.1 ypa) Incidentally, here’s what we’re getting from our top TE in these trials – generally he is showing up for 25-30 targets, and maybe 150 yards receiving, but in several of the ten trials he didn’t even make the list of targets in the summary. So, he’s clearly not a major part of the pass attack. My next cycle will be to insert Treu, a pretty good overall TE, in as the starter, and I expect he’ll get maybe 50-60 targets in this offense --- we’ll see how this changes things. Here’s a pic of the two tight ends being used, for what it’s worth: Now, here are the isolated stats for TE Treu in the exact same offense: Code: Receiving Pos Targ Catch Yards Y/Ctc Y/Tar Drop TD 1 R. Treu TE 62 37 355 9.59 5.73 4 2 1 R. Treu TE 57 42 487 11.60 8.54 4 2 1 R. Treu TE 65 44 471 10.70 7.25 3 2 1 R. Treu TE 60 44 483 10.98 8.05 1 4 1 R. Treu TE 72 43 443 10.30 6.15 2 2 1 R. Treu TE 60 42 470 11.19 7.83 2 5 1 R. Treu TE 74 52 533 10.25 7.20 2 4 1 R. Treu TE 83 59 546 9.25 6.58 2 7 1 R. Treu TE 78 60 629 10.48 8.06 2 8 1 R. Treu TE 68 39 387 9.92 5.69 6 0 So – we clearly created a lot of production from the position, where we had very little before. Even on an efficiency basis, these passes to the TE are clearly averaging better than the 6.2 y/t I was getting in the prior season – which seems like a good sign. So, is that good for the team? Wins: 9.9 (slightly worse) YPC: 4.16 (very slightly better) Comp: 65% (slightly better) YPA: 6.22 (slightly better) Turn: 26.9 (slightly worse) It’s tough to draw any team-wide outcome from this, I’m afraid. It looks to me like Treu probably averaged something like 7 yards per target, but I guess the remaining pass plays became incrementally less effective to bring the team average right back down to the same level as before. I certainly cannot post that these test results confirm that adding a quality (not a true stud, just a solid) TE into this offense will make the team better – even if it is true that a solid TE will flourish in this offense (pretty clearly true).

10-13-2007, 05:47 PM	#63
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	And here is the offensive gameplan I used for my testing, complete with a (very) little tweaking of run direction and so forth, to better suit the team's OL strengths. http://www.filecrunch.com/file/~ytogoj Last edited by QuikSand : 10-13-2007 at 05:48 PM.

10-10-2007, 10:16 AM	#52
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	In preparation for testing this year, I am signing a pretty good free agent tight end (outside the EC concept, admittedly). Since I have basically failed to acquire quality at that important position for this offense, I want to test and see whether having a good player there, one who will get lots of targets in the short and medium range passing, will make a good impact on this team’s outcomes. I will bury him as inactive for the main season, but I’ll try him as our starter at TE and see if that makes a difference. Stay tuned there. (TE Roosevelt Treu, 48/64, former 3rd round pick) Heading into training camp, I let both WR Robert Moungey (high RR, low skills, bad combo) and TE Vernon Deutsch walk away unsigned. Both were bad fits skill-wise for us, and I’m going young in an effort to get guys who seem like better fits. Training camp results are indicated in the formatted post below.

10-10-2007, 02:38 PM	#56
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	So, here are the Cliff's Notes versions for those catching up: -Team is now getting good, and is totally stocked with star-caliber talent and solid creepers -Tests involve spending a bunch of time, and each and every one amounts to nothing but spinning my wheels That's your summary right there. Whoop dee shit. Big waste of time.

10-10-2007, 03:17 PM	#57
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Here are the summary results for the TE testing from above, just in case anyone is interested.

10-12-2007, 04:32 PM	#58
johnnyshaka College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Edmonton, AB	QS, I don't frequent the Dynasty Forum all that often but following the discussion over in the FOF2007 Forum about a TE focused offense I decided to come on over and check out this thread. Very glad I did. I'll have some time tonight to do some playing around as I'm always looking for different ways to run an offense/defense especially since I've been struggling as of late to stick to one that I like and that, more importantly, works. I've breezed through this thread somewhat quickly but the gist of it seems to be that you are struggling to find a way to make the offense more effective with better players than it is with lesser players? Am I right? Again, mentioned in the other forum, have you tinkered with the gameplan somewhat to increase the passing to take advantage of your new weapon at TE? If not, that may be something I'll try tonight. Also, one note, maybe moving this to the FOF2007 Forum would garner more interest. I may be in the minority, but I don't regularly check this forum but maybe I might do so more often if I'm going to find threads like this one.

10-12-2007, 09:27 PM	#59
johnnyshaka College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Edmonton, AB	I've downloaded the game files but they are from 2010 and I'm getting "saved game is missing" errors as well. I wouldn't mind goofing around with this if you don't mind uploading the latest saved games.

10-13-2007, 09:05 AM	#60
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Sorry I missed you last night, but I'll work to get you the up-to-date files, Johnny. PM sent. Oh... and you may be right, this might have been misplaced all along in the Dynasty section - I really hadn't thought about that as a possibility. I tried to give it an inviting and descriptive title, but it may have been more successful over there. shurg Unless you spark me toward getting re-interested, I had basically decided to abandon this as yet another aborted effort. Maybe you can prove me wrong.

10-13-2007, 12:11 PM	#61
johnnyshaka College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Edmonton, AB	If we can't get the files sorted out for sharing I don't mind continuing, or I guess begin contributing, to the discussion if you don't mind doing the testing...it's up to you. I won't have a ton of time during the day today but this evening, once the little one is in bed, I'll have all the time in the world.

10-13-2007, 05:35 PM	#62
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	I have posted a zip file with, I think, everything from my universe directory related to this career, other than old box scores. It is posted here: http://www.filecrunch.com/file/~py1gfn I'm not 100% certain this will work correctly, but I'm hopeful it will at the very least allow johnny and anyone else interested to use this team as a sandbox. I don't think I have any interest in spending more time drafting for and developing this team -- but the talent is there to make a pretty decent season in 2012, on both sides of the ball. Hope it works, and you can enjoy.

10-13-2007, 09:42 PM	#64
johnnyshaka College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Edmonton, AB	Just fired it up and didn't change a thing and the first season saw us go 14-2!! I'd say you've done a great job.

10-13-2007, 10:45 PM	#65
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Well, what was until pretty recently a "building" team got lucky in a few slots (CB, QB, WR) and is now benefiting from seeing a number of high draft picks all developing into top-tier players together. My guess is that without much tinkering, this is a playoff team in 2012, and a title contender starting in 2013, even if the gameplans are not optimal. That threesome at CB is very, very good, and there really isn't a position on the team that's a serious need.

10-13-2007, 11:25 PM	#66
johnnyshaka College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Edmonton, AB	Agreed...solid, young, and cheap team that could be a contender for several years. After running a couple of seasons "as is" the results were all over the map. There were several seasons with 13 or 14 wins but there were also a few 8 and 9 win seasons, too. I didn't keep any records for these "feeler" sims but it seemed like everything hinged on how they played against the run. The offense was pretty standard across each sim with a rushing offense in the top 3 and a passing attack that was efficient, but nothing to be afraid of. Then, just because it was the last testing you did, I decided to sit TE Treu and start the other two bums and ran a few sims without touching the gameplan. Ten wins was the most I saw in 5 or 6 sims which saw the offense struggle, particularly the running attack. Not surprising seeing as neither bum TE is any good at run blocking nor are they worth anything in the passing game. Again, I didn't document anything as I'm just trying to get a feeling for how these play. QS, anything in particular you're still curious about or are you glad to sit on the sidelines for a little while and just observe?

10-14-2007, 12:28 AM	#67
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Nothing in particular here. In previous seasons, I fiddled with a more downfield-minded offense, and didn't get much (presumably reflecting the piss-poor quality of player we had at QB and FL). I would guess that the team now has the talent to maintain that gameplan if called upon. I guess a test of that sort might be worthwhile.

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