Best and Worst Run Franchises in HC09

[Skarecrow]

I'm surprised at how low the steelers and packers are. packers because I think they won the SB like 2 or 3 years later didn't they? and steelers cause they won the SB THAT year (2008-2009) if I recall correctly.

I'm surprised how high the ravens are on that list compared to how they do in my franchises. maybe they turn around well...

[burnum]

Quote: Originally Posted by Skarecrow

I'm surprised at how low the steelers and packers are. packers because I think they won the SB like 2 or 3 years later didn't they? and steelers cause they won the SB THAT year (2008-2009) if I recall correctly. I'm surprised how high the ravens are on that list compared to how they do in my franchises. maybe they turn around well...

Packers & Steelers are bad in the game because of bad playbooks. Ravens were inflated by Gary Hammermill as HC in that list, as explained above.

[thoro_headz]

Quote: Originally Posted by burnum

Packers & Steelers are bad in the game because of bad playbooks. Ravens were inflated by Gary Hammermill as HC in that list, as explained above.

The Steelers playbooks aren't bad. I've dominated with the Steelers using the default playbooks and letting my coordinators call the plays. What dooms the Steelers is Tomlin calling the defense instead of LeBeau. I don't like that this game doesn't take into account head coaches that don't call plays. All head coaches in HC09 call plays on one side of the ball. Tomlin's playcalling ability is level 1 or 2. I also think that they're default offensive scheme is spread instead of power running.

It's going to be tough watching them struggle in my Ravens dynasty. Luckily, I have them in their second straight Super Bowl against the Eagles in another career.

[Shamhat1915]

Yes, the Ravens were inflated by Hammermill. However, career three, which had Hammermill go to the Lions, still saw the Ravens with 5 playoff appearances. As for the Steelers, the had some good seasons, but all those came after Tomlin was fired. So it appears to be more of Tomlin being bad, and not bad playbooks.

The Packers, however, just never seem to solve the quarterback position. They switched quarterbacks almost every year. Oh, and the Lions won the Super Bowl one year. Yes, the Lions. And this was in a career when they didn't have Hammermill as head coach.

[Skarecrow]

Did you keep track of super bowl appearances?

Did the colts play in less than half of them? Cause roughly 50% sounds like my estimate for the colts.

As for the steelers, I've played two franchises with them, one as a power running philosophy using their default playbook, one as a spread philosophy, although I don't remember what playbook I used. Patriots perhaps. I got to the SB within 3 years both times. Big Ben makes a fairly versatile QB.

I agree it's gotta be Tomlin.

[revan615]

Wow, this thread is really picking up steam. I've never ran with my Jets for an entire career. Maybe I'll finally get into that. I have done the Steelers, and I've never used anything but a created coach. So I've always thought Tomlin holds them back. And with Rodgers being so severely underrated, the Pack was never really a threat.

[Shamhat1915]

Quote: Originally Posted by Skarecrow

Did you keep track of super bowl appearances? Did the colts play in less than half of them? Cause roughly 50% sounds like my estimate for the colts. As for the steelers, I've played two franchises with them, one as a power running philosophy using their default playbook, one as a spread philosophy, although I don't remember what playbook I used. Patriots perhaps. I got to the SB within 3 years both times. Big Ben makes a fairly versatile QB. I agree it's gotta be Tomlin.

I didn't keep as complete track of the playoffs/super bowl as I would have liked as that wasn't my main goal, but I can say that it did seem that the Colts were in the Super Bowl at least half the time.

I was actually thinking of starting a new franchise as the Steelers, and after seeing this data, it makes it seem an easier choice to run with them. But it must be Tomlin. They always improved after Tomlin left, so that's the only conclusion I can come to.

Quote: Originally Posted by revan615

Wow, this thread is really picking up steam. I've never ran with my Jets for an entire career. Maybe I'll finally get into that. I have done the Steelers, and I've never used anything but a created coach. So I've always thought Tomlin holds them back. And with Rodgers being so severely underrated, the Pack was never really a threat.

Yes, it is. In all honesty, I never expected it to pick up steam like this. I just wanted it for myself, and to see if anyone else was interested in this kind of data. It excites me that others seem interested in this, and to see what other patterns everyone else has noticed.

The Jets need the help badly. Not as bad as the Panthers, but not too far off. The Jets and the Panthers wre the only team on the list who didn't have a single winning season in all thirty years.

Now, about Rodgers: while he is severely underrated compared to what we know about him now, I don't think he's too underrated for the game. While the CPU doesn't have him putting up amazing numbers or anything, I've only noticed that it's because he doesn't get played. When I've used him in a Packers franchise before, and traded him in other careers, he always puts up good numbers and plays above his rating. He was consistently putting up over 4200 yards and 35+ touchdowns for my teams.

[revan615]

How often did the Jets Panthers and Dolphins switch coaches? I think some of it also has to do with who the cpu is willing to put on the field as well. Like you mentioned with Rodgers, they wont play him, while the Jets seem most times content with rolling with Clemens.