2018 Offseason Discussion

[Hoosier]

I'd like to see the coaches tendencies too, but I'd also like a seperate special teams coach with onside kick options... and quick kick options... and fake punt or fake field goal options

all set on the special teams tendencies board....

[Mike17]

I'm not sure how I feel on this one. But if we made that rule I think we would have to say that the rehire would have to be at least 5-10% per year more than the previous contract. Otherwise the temptation to low-ball your own coaches and scouts could occur and should not a coach deserve a raise if he stays with your team instead of going to a place that could pay him more? But then it becomes a policing nightmare.

I disagree with this. I think no policing will be necessary

Lets say the rule is: In stage 1 you can only offer to your own old coach, or an unaffiliated coach. In stage 2-3 everyone is fair game.

If you are a team that doesn't do well, and you luck into having a coach with excellent ratings, you won't be able to afford what they are asking for. Or in another case, if you try to low ball a coach, you risk that he won't accept your offer. In either case, the coach will be up for grabs in the next stage.

In the interest of keeping your coach, teams will likely bid the max they are allowed in order to make sure that he signs in stage 1.

[tarcone]

There is no policing. The commish put up a list of the untouchables. That was a few names a season.

This not only balanced the issue of have and have-nots, it makes the 3 stage coach hire period a little more interesting.

[jeffrey]

In the RNFL I have Jacksonville. This team was one of the worst economic situations to start a team. I lost money year after year, and in turn lost some of my good coaches. It made me look hard at other coaches and young coaches. Eventuallly after winning seasons, I was able to get a new stadium and because of me winning, I was able to draw a crowd. Even today, we are the worst ranked in economy. In the past 5 years we've averaged $71 mil in profit.

In the IFL I was fortunate to be in one of the best starting situations. I'd like to think our success on the field has kept us up on top of that list. Attmitidly, I did not have to try as hard in the "coaching" aspect. Early on however, I was victim of losing my coaches.



At the end of the day there is a strategy involved in this stage. If you know you aren't at the top of the list, make an offer to another coach. The fact that I tried to warn everyone that I was going after Poston, should have scared off all other teams not named Tulsa. Strategically, you should have put your bids elsewhere if you needed a HC. Tulsa was the only other team that had a shot at him. In stead there were 8 offers on the guy. What I did in the RNFL was find a coach that wasn't top notch, but really good. I'd let the other teams fight over their big name dude while I took a very respectable coach at a decent rate.

oh, and Argot brings up some very good points. I'm not against voting on a new rule, I personally just think the in game system is fine.

I agree with Matt, and to be honest, I don't see how adding a rule like this would do any good. What is the difference, exactly? In order to hold on to your own awesome coach you have to acquire said awesome coach. How is it you're going to get him? You'll still be outbid if you have poor revenue. This rule wouldn't narrow the gap in any way.

The only thing I see this doing is making it easier for the wealthy teams to keep their coaches away from the other wealthy teams. I don't know what good that serves.

I like that finances impact the game. They are a part of it, after all. If there were no benefit to high profits, then this aspect would be a waste of time. It's good that a team that has spent time developing a fan base by winning and making judicious financial decisions should be rewarded. I've never understood why people get upset that being better at a game makes you more successful at it.

And before the objection is raised that I have a posh situation, I have the Bills in another league and have been working very hard to develop the market for years. I understand how difficult that can be, but it makes it worthwhile if you're actually rewarded for it in the end.

[SteveBsFan]

I like the financial aspect of coaching, it makes sense the more successful teams can afford the better coaching, that's how it is in the NFL.

I'd like it a lot better if
a) The FOF finances were more accurate

b) Like Jave said, coaches had personalities, and some like to win, some like to rebuild, some have styles, etc.

c) If you could re-sign them, like you can players. Their personality will heavily weigh in their decision to re-sign. For example, if a coach liked rebuilding (like Parcells), he may not even want to re-sign with a winning team.

Also, in the NFL, coaches rarely leave their teams, they're forced out because the team wants someone to blame. So is having a coach stay with a team a bad thing? I dunno, the issue is a tough one, I just wish the game handled it better

[tarcone]

For one, when you bid for a coach in the 2nd stage you are allowed less by the game to spend. Which in itself makes no sense.

Secondly, how often do coaches jump to another team in the NFL? Rarely. If they do, they take a year off and then go to another team.

So, we want realism. But its not real for a top notch coach to jump. Would a coach in his late 50s leave a cushy job (Tulsa) for another cushy job (Newark)?
Maybe Im wrong.

[Matt]

i think that one thing to understand is that this is not the NFL. This is a game that tries to replicate the activities of professional football.
Once you realize that point, you will be more successful playing FOF. Most people can do that for the actual games. staff hiring is the same. It's not the NFL, it's a game. You need to understand how to be successful at the game.


and just for realism, the only big name coaches going to places like Buffalo, Cincinnati, Oakland, etc are top notch offensive and defensive coordinators looking for a chance to run an NFL team. That simply does not happen in FOF. coordinators, for the most part, are coordinators and HC's are HC's.

[tarcone]

What? This game isnt like the NFL? Come on, man. Dont ruin it.

[BuddaKINGII]

Quit bitchin' you got Gunn, now you can payback the rich kid on the block.

[BuddaKINGII]

No, No and No on the coach resigning option...

[tarcone]

Im not complaining. Just stating the complaints about staff hiring that are in every league.

I could care less, really. I just suggested the rule as another layer of immersion. Make the most boring part of the game, fun.

Personally, I like to hire young guys and watch them develop. I just suggested this rule because it makes it more interesting.

[tarcone]

Matt, you just got rid of a coach who is excellent at motivation for one that is very good. Good luck winning that championship. ;-)

[Argot]

I disagree with this. I think no policing will be necessary

Lets say the rule is: In stage 1 you can only offer to your own old coach, or an unaffiliated coach. In stage 2-3 everyone is fair game.

If you are a team that doesn't do well, and you luck into having a coach with excellent ratings, you won't be able to afford what they are asking for. Or in another case, if you try to low ball a coach, you risk that he won't accept your offer. In either case, the coach will be up for grabs in the next stage.

In the interest of keeping your coach, teams will likely bid the max they are allowed in order to make sure that he signs in stage 1.

Your logic is sound Mike. The funny thing about all of this is, for years no one cared about finances. Most owners said as long as I stay under the cap, what does it matter? Who cares if I lose 27 million every year...I just want to put a competitive team together even if I throw bonuses to the wind. Now...it seems like we are experiencing a market correction and everyone wants to make money. Maybe its Ben's article, but In order to do so an owner has to look at everything, which up til now...I doubt some of us were doing...maybe I speak only for myself.

[BOSS]

I still like Tarc's suggestion. You should get first crack at your guys. If they don't sign in stage 1 then its open game.

As far as the OC's and DC's are pretty much just coordinators, i don't buy that at all. My HC was Hartfords DC for a few years and then i brought him in as HC. I'm sure there have been other times this has happened in the league.

You say its a game and not the NFL. Well, to me its a flaw in the game that can somewhat be fixed by us in a easy way.

Whats the big deal in a small rule change when it betters the game we play??

[Matt]

Matt, you just got rid of a coach who is excellent at motivation for one that is very good. Good luck winning that championship. ;-)

we needed change dammit!!!!!