RBs: A Theory

[sovstar]

That's precisely what it says, and precisely what it means. I'm not sure why there's any confusion whatsoever about this.

8)

[SkyDog]

ok, but i guess the overall point of my question is "it's not necessarily a bad thing to have low elusiveness". if you have low elusiveness you give up big gain potential, but you're less likely to lose yards more often than not. we're all accustomed to searching for the players who have the most red maxed out bars, but i'm just thinking this is one of those things where the game is saying "it's ok if you're guy is only rated 20 in elusiveness, he just won't be very explosive but he'll still rack up yards". this is not like the 3rd down running bar, where either your RB is good enough to be the ballcarrier on 3rd downs or he isn't. my previous interpretation of that rating was just how likely he is to break a long run. but now i realize it means how like he is to break a long run or get stopped for a long loss. so basically it's increasing the odds of both happening, whereas with other ratings it's obviously the higher the better.

Ah. Correct. I can think of at least one other instance where looking for a big red bar isn't the best idea.

[Hell Atlantic]

I admit, my balls don't care much for FOF.


I think I am finally getting to the point that others got to long ago. This game is a good, fun game, and gives me football like statistics. This game is not like football much though, IMO. Too much shit just seems like a random, flip of the coin thing, or is something that has an impact but we are never told how.

I know endurance works nothing like real life, why should I think elusiveness does?

i have no problems with this game. i have problems with it's lack of editability (especially after getting the email today announcing the release of OOTP8 and being reminded at just how much you can edit). otherwise i believe the game shows you just how much in the dark real GMs are concerning what the problems are with their team and what exactly needs to be changed. we (us the FOF players and them the real life football GMs) both have access to different information, but at the end of the day it really is somewhat random why some things work and others don't. why Ryan Leaf is a top 10 all-time bust and 6th round pick Tom Brady is bound for the HOF. with all the things going on in a given play, who do you really place blame on why your RB gets stopped for a loss? is it the RB's fault? has your O-line not been together enough to make up for a lack of talent? was the LB who made the tackle just that much better? no one knows. we're all in the dark. that's why i say my goal is winning, but my bigger, ultimate goal is assembling the best overall roster. that much i have control over. once the season starts i'm at the mercy of game code. they're at the mercy of the football gods.

[Hell Atlantic]

Ah. Correct. I can think of at least one other instance where looking for a big red bar isn't the best idea.

so bust it. what's the 411?

[sovstar]

scrambling frequency. and you have played since the original FOF?

edit: even route running in some instances.

[SkyDog]

Oh...nothing particularly earth-shaking. Just that it's a bad idea to have a receiver whose route running is significantly higher than everything else. You don't want a guy eating up pass targets who sucks.

[SkyDog]

Good point, Jeff. Scrambling can be pretty dicey, too. Hard to tell when those guys are gonna fumble a lot.

[Hell Atlantic]

edit: even route running in some instances.

from the discussion in the FOFC FOF2k7 thread, high route running is bad only when it's like your crappy WR who has the highest route running, or your 4th WR who has a higher route running than your top WR. highest route running (regardless of overall talent) takes targets away from your best receviers. so it's not so much staying away from route running, it's staying away from low quality receivers who have that rating in abundance.

also, someone did research and determined that 2 stud WRs and a stud TE will avg less wins than 1 stud WR and 1 stud TE. maxed out TEs with extremely high route running gobble up underneath passes and steal potential huge receiving plays from your stud WRs. so that's why i targeted a TE with low route running but high 3rd down receiving and high avoid drops. i don't want him taking targets away from Mullin but i want him catching what we throw his way and i want a solid option for my QB on 3rd downs.

[SkyDog]

also, someone did research and determined that 2 stud WRs and a stud TE will avg less wins than 1 stud WR and 1 stud TE.

Wade's methodology was flawed on that one.

[sovstar]

so it's not so much staying away from route running, it's staying away from low quality receivers who have that rating in abundance.

which would be what i was referring to.

[Hell Atlantic]

hold up, so that mothertrucker was wrong? i gotta head back to that thread and reread.

regardless, as i recall posting, i pay my top WRs oodles more than i pay my top TE, so i don't want my stud TE getting an unnecessary amount of receptions at the expense of my WR. i believe this past season was the 1st time since maybe my 1st or 2nd season in IHOF where i was able to have a WR get over 1,000 yards receiving, and that's because i had avg-calibre TEs.

here is the thread from FOFC discussing the value of TEs. for those of us who are banned or can not access the thread, here are some highlights:

That being said, it appears to me that the team and QB performed marginally WORSE with the Stud TE added to the Stud WR and VG #2 WR - which as you said, does not seem logical in football terms.

For easier comparison:

With Stud TE : 11.0752 wins, 99.7 QB Rating, 31.8 Passing TD's, 25.48 PPG
Without Stud TE: 11.7744 wins, 100.0 QB Rating, 33.9 Passing TD's, 25.17 PPG

From your tests and my own experience, i must agree. You either have 2 good WR's or a good WR and good TE, but having all them doesn't make a huge difference.

In FOF, i see the WR's and TE just as possible pass targets. Given a set number of passes to throw, not for having more targets you will do better, you will just spread the receiving yards between those players.

Having more targets could work in real football, opening your passing game a lot more, creating mismatches etc, but in the FOF engine, i doubt that mismatches exist, or that X player is really covering Y player. I think FOF works more with overall formulas than with individual ones (of course i could be wrong, that is just my feeling not knowing how the engine really works).

interesting post from jkat:

Of course it is better to have a player with better receiving skills outside of route running, as you want players that can do as much with each target as possible. You don't want guys that will not do very much with the ball, whether because of their position or poor receiving skills, who have high route running. They'll get more targets and be less effective with them than other players.

from me:

this is how i operate my team as well. i noticed when having a stud TE my WR's overall numbers suffered. i have since switched to seeking TE's with specific skills - good 3rd down catching ability, good big play ability, and good blocking. i don't want a TE with high route running. i pay my WR's signigicantly more than i pay my top TE - i want the majority of my receiving production to come from the guys i'm paying more. all stud TE's serve to do in FOF is steal catches away from your WR's. based on the skills i target in TE's, i just want a guy who gives my QB another solid option on 3rd downs, i want a guy who can maybe snag the occassional 20+ yard catch or two and overall i want him to stay behind and block and generally not get in the way of my WR's numbers.

[Hell Atlantic]

which would be what i was referring to.

you're doing that smarmy thing again. stop.:evil:

[sovstar]

Well, what did you think I was referring to? How else could route running be bad?

[Kobeck]

Ever had to watch the stone handed brigade the Titans run onto the field. Could't catch a cold and apparently can't rember an "out" route from an "in", but who's bitter about the small stuff?

[SkyDog]

HA: I'm not saying that he was categorically wrong...just that his tests aren't as conclusive as one might think. I'd have to go back through my chat logs to remember it all. (He and I had a long AIM chat about the methodology and a couple of issues came up. I *do* remember that part of the issue was that his wasn't an ideal game plan for his personnel.) Anecdotally, though, in the most recent season in the WOOF, I had two stud receivers, a stud TE, and a solid WR3, and my 62/62 QB managed this season:

Passing	Team	GP	GS	Att	Cmp	Pct	Yards	Avg/C	Avg/A	Long	TD	Int	20+P	300+G	Rate
Morris Marrero	LWC	16	16	520	367	70.6	4817	13.13	9.26	91	47	8	60	9	123.2

The TE was tied for third in the league in yards per target, with 10.39--a number I'd be happy with for any WR--and had over 1,000 yards receiving. I just can't support the notion that my passing game could have been any better if I'd gone with my backup TE and only thrown to the WRs.