It takes ??? to win...

[JesterBlaze]

We talk a lot about "You need X and/or O to win in FOF" but honestly I spend a lot of time sorting every category that FOF has and I've yet to see any one of them, when sorted from best to worst, really separate the league in terms of winning teams and losing teams. There's been a few times where there seemed to be a correlation as the top 3-4 would be playoff teams but then #5 or so would be a team with a much less than .500 winning %.

I realize that this is the type of info that someone might want to keep to themselves but for discussion I throw it out there anyway. Anyone notice any 1 key stat that correlates well to a winning team? I think FOF is actually very balanced in this regard, despite the fact that as a whole the game seems offensively biased.

[tarcone]

I think an important stat is to not be based in Oakland. Beyond that, who knows.

[Jave]

I think an important stat is to not be based in Oakland. Beyond that, who knows.

I'm so feeling the love here


I see a correlation between owners and winning teams. Taking a quick look at the top winning teams in the league:

Nfk
Law
Anc
Mad
LR
Por
Cle
StL

Now, not disrespecting any other owner in this league by not including them in the list, it's just an example. Now take the bottom:

Mont
Van
Dak
Bos
and me, Oak

The most active owners appear to be the ones who win the most games. Also the teams who have a difficult time keeping owners struggle the most. Van is a prime example. I know why I am at the bottom of the list. My decision in 03' to go all rookies put be 3 years behind, and then when I traded Hamilton and Martinez and started to rebuild again in 2011. Add to the fact that until last season I was unwilling to invest the time to figure out gameplanning and just REX'ed everything....I was lazy, therefore the owners who invest the most time in their teams, are the ones who win.

This is not a sweeping statement, I am saying if your team has not been consistently winning your a lazy owner, but for the most part, the more time you invest in your team, the more games you win.

We could do a poll. Each owner posts 1. Do you gameplan every single week? 2. How long have you been gameplanning? 3. How many hours a week do you spend on FOF preparing for games? Etc...

I may post one today, maybe a simple 5-7 question poll, very basic just to get an idea of what seperates the NFK's from the Oak's...so to speak.

[TimG]

I'm not to sure about Texas as far as how many other GM's were before me. I do know that there were atleast 2. So I cant say how active they were. I try to be active but I don't post all that much. I agree with your take on it Jave. Texas looks like a different team sence 2010 when I took over. I gameplan every game and think that it has made a difference for Texas.

[Matt]

good points Jave.

I still think roster strength of QB - WR - WR - WR is the key to success. I don't believe it's possible to build around a RB anymore. As long as you have a QB, you can cover up almost any deficient area.
It's also important to gameplan and be involved. Obviously you need to acquire the right talent during offseason's and drafts. Pull the right strings.
I'll use Tarcone as an example. The current reining exec of the year.

He's drafted good young talent. He's traded for players to fill key voids. He's involved and gameplans for every game. The Tigerhawks will be competitive for as long as Sanford and Andrews are there....and beyond.

Look at Jester.

Built a roster with great players through the draft and some key trades. He's also done something that I've taken note to. He'll trade forward. He's not afraid to trade current draft picks for future draft picks. These future draft picks are rolled into more draft picks and higher draft picks. He is at a point where he has so many options to keep his roster healthy. trade for a good young player......no problem. Use the picks to draft good young players.........no problem. Invest the draft picks for the future................no problem..

I could go on about so many guys on how they run their teams. I take note to this stuff because I try to learn what works.

Obviously I'm stubborn.

[Jave]

good points Jave.

I still think roster strength of QB - WR - WR - WR is the key to success. I don't believe it's possible to build around a RB anymore. As long as you have a QB, you can cover up almost any deficient area.
It's also important to gameplan and be involved. Obviously you need to acquire the right talent during offseason's and drafts. Pull the right strings.
I'll use Tarcone as an example. The current reining exec of the year.

He's drafted good young talent. He's traded for players to fill key voids. He's involved and gameplans for every game. The Tigerhawks will be competitive for as long as Sanford and Andrews are there....and beyond.

Look at Jester.

Built a roster with great players through the draft and some key trades. He's also done something that I've taken note to. He'll trade forward. He's not afraid to trade current draft picks for future draft picks. These future draft picks are rolled into more draft picks and higher draft picks. He is at a point where he has so many options to keep his roster healthy. trade for a good young player......no problem. Use the picks to draft good young players.........no problem. Invest the draft picks for the future................no problem..

I could go on about so many guys on how they run their teams. I take note to this stuff because I try to learn what works.

Obviously I'm stubborn.

I would agree with Jesters drafting idea. But that only works if your consistently winning games. I remember when I was winning it was much easier to negotiate draft picks because...I didn't need em. My team was set, winning and everyone was signed. When your losing, your in desperate mode. You NEED those high end draft picks so walking away while negotiating is alot tougher!

And while I agree with you for the most part, I STILL think you CAN win games, and go deep in the playoffs with a primarily strong running game. You can't go "3 yards and a cloud of dust" anymore, however if you have a strong balance between run/pass, and a complete MONSTER at RB, much like Wilson, I still believe it's possible. Obviously, or I wouldn't have drafted him I should add.The key is a strong defense. Not saying I can pull it off, but I'm sure gonna try.
You take a team that has invested millions of dollars and countless hours perfecting the pass, and shut it down...their toast. It's not a trade secret, I drafted Wilson and I plan to use him, it's up to the other teams to stop me and PRAY they can out pass my defense with Doyle and Farley and a few more key players I plan to add.

It may be a complete failure, but it's better then tearing my team apart and spending 30 million a year on a stud QB, and 3 stud receivers.

[Beeznik]

I would agree with Jesters drafting idea. But that only works if your consistently winning games. I remember when I was winning it was much easier to negotiate draft picks because...I didn't need em. My team was set, winning and everyone was signed. When your losing, your in desperate mode. You NEED those high end draft picks so walking away while negotiating is alot tougher!

And while I agree with you for the most part, I STILL think you CAN win games, and go deep in the playoffs with a primarily strong running game. You can't go "3 yards and a cloud of dust" anymore, however if you have a strong balance between run/pass, and a complete MONSTER at RB, much like Wilson, I still believe it's possible. Obviously, or I wouldn't have drafted him I should add.The key is a strong defense. Not saying I can pull it off, but I'm sure gonna try.
You take a team that has invested millions of dollars and countless hours perfecting the pass, and shut it down...their toast. It's not a trade secret, I drafted Wilson and I plan to use him, it's up to the other teams to stop me and PRAY they can out pass my defense with Doyle and Farley and a few more key players I plan to add.

It may be a complete failure, but it's better then tearing my team apart and spending 30 million a year on a stud QB, and 3 stud receivers.

I agree with you. Elite running backs do make a difference. But there aren't many players who fall under that category and you still need a passing game to go along with your elite running back in order to be successful.

However, you can have a strong passing game and average or poorly rated running backs and you can still be impossible to stop.

In the end, it still comes down to your QB and receivers, IMO.

[tarcone]

I know for a fact you cannot win with a stud running back alone. Take the 2012 TigerHawks as an example. DH Singleton set some single season rushing records, including yards (2258) and TDs (21). We finished 8-8. We had Sanford and Albriktsen on that team.
The next season we drafted WR Chris Andrews and opened up the offense. We finished 13-3.
Last season I went more balanced and ended up 12-4.
If i remeber correctly, Jave, you were one of the GMs saying I was running too much. And you were right, but I wanted to see if The RB could carry me.

[Kobeck]

I would agree with Jesters drafting idea. But that only works if your consistently winning games. I remember when I was winning it was much easier to negotiate draft picks because...I didn't need em. My team was set, winning and everyone was signed. When your losing, your in desperate mode. You NEED those high end draft picks so walking away while negotiating is alot tougher!

And while I agree with you for the most part, I STILL think you CAN win games, and go deep in the playoffs with a primarily strong running game. You can't go "3 yards and a cloud of dust" anymore, however if you have a strong balance between run/pass, and a complete MONSTER at RB, much like Wilson, I still believe it's possible. Obviously, or I wouldn't have drafted him I should add.The key is a strong defense. Not saying I can pull it off, but I'm sure gonna try.
You take a team that has invested millions of dollars and countless hours perfecting the pass, and shut it down...their toast. It's not a trade secret, I drafted Wilson and I plan to use him, it's up to the other teams to stop me and PRAY they can out pass my defense with Doyle and Farley and a few more key players I plan to add.

IMO you hit on the key point. HAVE A PLAN

when I started the Mules I had zero clue, and it was only after a couple of seasons that I realized how deep a hole I had dug. So I made a plan to rebuild thru the draft realizing it would take 3 seasons to be a good team and luck to get beyond that. Still better than flailing about with a different plan every season as I had been doing.

Not to rip on HA, but look at the career QB stats for California. When Schwartz completes his second season he will be second all time in Fresno QB starts, week 2 season 3 he will be all time leader. You can't win if you keep changing QBs every season - as an example.

I say any plan can work

[Jave]

I know for a fact you cannot win with a stud running back alone. Take the 2012 TigerHawks as an example. DH Singleton set some single season rushing records, including yards (2258) and TDs (21). We finished 8-8. We had Sanford and Albriktsen on that team.
The next season we drafted WR Chris Andrews and opened up the offense. We finished 13-3.
Last season I went more balanced and ended up 12-4.
If i remeber correctly, Jave, you were one of the GMs saying I was running too much. And you were right, but I wanted to see if The RB could carry me.

Oh no, I totally agree with both you and Beez....My best days rushing for the most part I got crushed..but when Donovan had a good day, and Wilson average, I usually won, or was at least competitive.
And yes, an average passing game will almost ALWAYS beat a good running game. This is FOF 07'. It's not fair, or an accurate representation of the NFL, but it is what it is.
Also to notice what many of us did during last season....usually a fair or even below average WR will nearly always beat even a GREAT CB or S. Add to that the sheer MASSIVE number of times I witnessed great, average, or even below average QB's throw SUCCESSFULLY into double coverage time and time and time again for HUGE gains...yea...not that accurate.

[Matt]

you have Donovan, Jave.
you'll be just fine.

[Jave]

you have Donovan, Jave.
you'll be just fine.

Ohh I'm not worried about me, this thread is about how to win games, what it takes. Donovan is a very good QB, very accurate and can take off and run if he has to. My receivers, not so hot, but they are just good enough to still have to worry about covering them. RB...top 5 in the league. It's my defense that needs alot of work. If I am to stop the pass, I will need alot more firepower then I currently have. But that's not the point...

These are the kinda of responses I give when we have a week with nothing to do! LOL

[JesterBlaze]

Good conversation as I'd hoped.

I think a running game in FOF is hurt by the fact that too many punts go into the endzone. A rushing philosophy in football is really a subset of an overall field position philosophy. Scoring sometimes takes two offensive possessions and ends up being a FG, which is cool if you've got a great defense and expect to win a lot of games by scoring 17 points or so. In FOF 2K7 Team "A" can get to the opponent's 45 or so on one possession then punt... and it's in the endzone and coming back to the 20 which even if Team "B" punts on 1st down the ball's going to the Team "A" 35 or so. In the NFL teams get pinned back more which puts pressure on Team "B" to get THEIR punter enough room to work with... sometimes ending in a 3 and out. Team "A" now gets the ball back starting at midfield or so and after 1 first down and some additional yardage Team "A" is in FG range... if they've got a good kicker which is another standard piece of a rushing oriented team.

[Jave]

Good conversation as I'd hoped.

I think a running game in FOF is hurt by the fact that too many punts go into the endzone. A rushing philosophy in football is really a subset of an overall field position philosophy. Scoring sometimes takes two offensive possessions and ends up being a FG, which is cool if you've got a great defense and expect to win a lot of games by scoring 17 points or so. In FOF 2K7 Team "A" can get to the opponent's 45 or so on one possession then punt... and it's in the endzone and coming back to the 20 which even if Team "B" punts on 1st down the ball's going to the Team "A" 35 or so. In the NFL teams get pinned back more which puts pressure on Team "B" to get THEIR punter enough room to work with... sometimes ending in a 3 and out. Team "A" now gets the ball back starting at midfield or so and after 1 first down and some additional yardage Team "A" is in FG range... if they've got a good kicker which is another standard piece of a rushing oriented team.

Naa, if anything a strong running game favors poor field position. A great RB can get him team out of trouble quickly with a few 4-6 yd runs. The PURE passing team is gonna be in serious trouble trapped at the 2yd line with a crap RB. The chance of an INT or safety it to high a risk to put the ball in the air from that hash mark.

[Cringer]

It takes not having a crappy avatar, so I am thinking Tulsa and Texas start to fade back to their old selves now.