RBs: A Theory

[Hell Atlantic]

Running backs and fullbacks are scouted for their power running the ball
inside, their speed in getting to the outside, their third-down running,
their ability to find an open hole in the defense, their elusiveness (ability
to occasionally break long runs at the expense of sometimes getting
caught behind the line of scrimmage)

the abve is from the player file help manual document from solecismic.com. the part in bold caught my eye. could this mean if you have a RB with high elusiveness they are more likely to break a long run - AND also more likely to get stopped for a loss? so if that's the case - would it not be just as good to have a RB with low elusiveness, so that while you give up the frequent potential for long runs you also minimize the frequency of big losses? to me that means choosing between Barry Sanders and Emmit Smith. Barry Sanders will wiggle and jiggle and try to juke you and break a long one, but everyone knows those jaw-dropping highlight big runs happened once, maybe twice per game and the rest was big losses or minimal runs. Emmit Smith wouldn't juke you out of your jock, but he'd consistently get you solid yardage. no big gains, but no big losses (comparitively speaking).

what do you guys think?

[Kozure]

[Hell Atlantic]

anyone with reading comprehension have a comment or response?

[Kozure]

didn't read your post. Just felt like posting that.

[Hell Atlantic]

i allow it. well played then.

[hawkster]

Depends on preference I would imagine. I like the guy who occasionally breaks the big one because every time he gets the ball it could be a score. I can see the usefulness for both obviously, but really it comes down to what better fits in your offensive scheme.

[JesterBlaze]

If they're gonna have linear attribute/skill bars then as the bar gets higher it should only improve the player.

This is a troublesome design I've seen now in more than one game lately where the designer adds balancing effects to what would seem to be something that should only get positive effects.

It's logical to have what is described in your OP from the help section but if so it shouldn't be an attribute bar, but instead something along the lines of the "long passes, short passes, rollout" styles of the QB.

[Hell Atlantic]

If they're gonna have linear attribute/skill bars then as the bar gets higher it should only improve the player.

This is a troublesome design I've seen now in more than one game lately where the designer adds balancing effects to what would seem to be something that should only get positive effects.

It's logical to have what is described in your OP from the help section but if so it shouldn't be an attribute bar, but instead something along the lines of the "long passes, short passes, rollout" styles of the QB.

exactly. this is what i'm saying. it's not a case where you just automatically want a guy to have a maxed out bar. the bar in this instance pretty much dictates extremes - do you want big gains (and accept the big losses that will also happen) or do you want a more conservative RB who won't lose as much yardage but won't hit a home run. so you're right, it shouldn't be a bar, it should be more of a RB style (North/South runner like Jerome Bettis vs. a juking East/West Marshall Faulk type guy).

i guess what i'm asking is do you think my theory is correct? or is that bar just a modifier for the amount of big gains the guy will get?

[VitoStallion]

exactly. this is what i'm saying. it's not a case where you just automatically want a guy to have a maxed out bar. the bar in this instance pretty much dictates extremes - do you want big gains (and accept the big losses that will also happen) or do you want a more conservative RB who won't lose as much yardage but won't hit a home run. so you're right, it shouldn't be a bar, it should be more of a RB style (North/South runner like Jerome Bettis vs. a juking East/West Marshall Faulk type guy).

i guess what i'm asking is do you think my theory is correct? or is that bar just a modifier for the amount of big gains the guy will get?

There is a good read on RB abilities over on FOF Central

[Hell Atlantic]

i don't need scientific reports or formula talk. i'm asking what do you think, with your guts.

with your balls.


i'm an old school GM. SkyDog and Quiksand are like the Theo Epstein sabremetric GMs, busting out crazy stats and reports. i'm the GM who goes to the game, sits in the stands, buys a hotdog and large beer and use my innards and scrotum to make my decisions with. not to say the other way is wrong or my way is right, but it's worked for me in the past.

guts and balls.

there you have it, the motto for the 2011 California Heroes.

[sovstar]

[Cringer]

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?

[tarcone]

When I watch games on TV, I see plays I read about in a game on solevision. This happens regularly. I think FoF does a very good job of bringing reality to fantasy.

As for specific bars matching up to reality? Not sure about that.

[SkyDog]

could this mean if you have a RB with high elusiveness they are more likely to break a long run - AND also more likely to get stopped for a loss?

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

so if that's the case - would it not be just as good to have a RB with low elusiveness

As others have said, it depends on your offense and how you're using him. I *love* using a good pass-catcher with high elusiveness on 3rd and long situations, so on those rare 3rd and 14 runs, he might just convert it. It's quite effective. On the other hand, that guy isn't in my depth chart in regular running situations.

[Hell Atlantic]

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.