Strategy Discussion: Resource management, balance, fluidity.

[JesterBlaze]

I wanted to subtitle this one "Why changing the variables won't help those who don't understand the equation as it currently is" but there wasn't enough room. In case the title isn't clear enough, this game is 99% math with a little football thrown in, this is an attempt to get a discussion on how the fundamental math of the game works and how the though the variables may change, the calculations don't.


Since I think education (for all of us including myself who has plenty to learn if you're willing to teach) is a much better equalizer than anything else I'm opening up a few threads for discussion. I'm copy/pasting this 1st entry into all because I'm not going to speak on any subject until others have since this is intended to be a discussion, not a simple 1 to many lesson from someone who doesn't know it all.

[Kobeck]

well this should be interesting as I have almost no clue what you are talking about

[Matt]

Ya, i'm a little stumped myself as to what you're talking about.

[GGill]

Is it "new" math, "old" math or Republican "fuzzy" math? I never did understand the "fuzzy" math thing.

[JesterBlaze]

I think this is one of the most important discussions for being a GM (less important for the Coaching/gameplan part of the game but still relevant) but is a lengthy discussion and I won't have real time until the weekend.

I'll start by pointing out that from a GM side you have only the following resources to work with (unless I'm missing something which I'll add as I remember or hear from others):

Draft choices
Salary
Player rights
Stadium rights
Coaching finances

Using these you're charged with getting the most production out of 11 players every play for up to 20 games every season.

Some GMs go quickly for the "studs" and let the rest fall into place. I prefer to try to pack as much quality into 53 roster spots as I can on a consistent basis. Over a 10 year period I've got 530 spots to fill... using only the resources listed above. A #1 Overall Draft pick, while certainly talented, fills 10 of those over that 10 year period... trade that pick for 5 picks and I've turned it into 50 (estimating a 10 year career for this threads sake). They're not as talented player for player, but 50 goes a long way towards 530 whereas 10 doesn't even get me started.

Let a 37 OVR player go (cut/release/contract up, doesn't matter how) and draft a replacement in the later rounds of the draft and you just gave up that draft pick (and 10 years of a roster spot) basically. You can't always get value for every single resource but you sure should try. Don't draft to replace. Draft to add.


Draft a player at spot X when you could have gotten him later in the draft and you don't receive Y compensation, which if even a 7th round pick is still another 10 years of roster spot coverage (again estimating a 10 year career). Some teams with the roster openings and cap room ignore the later rounds of the draft while trading back and staying focused in those rounds could net them upwards of 100 roster spots over the 10 year period that I've been using as an example... That's only from 1 draft and the later rounds!! Of course they won't all pan out but you'll have roster spots filled and THEN can focus on improving them. Thus my belief that 1st you create a TEAM and then you trade up for the rare elite player to top off the foundation that you've set, not select from that top 5 position when you've got less than 30 quality players on your roster. If I'm starting a team from scratch, while romantic and entertaining, it's hard for me to warrant using a #1 OVR pick on any player. Half his career (at least) is going to be gone before I have an actual team and any cohesion.



I'll have plenty to add later but need to get started on my real life day now...

[Matt]

I'm a firm believer in cohesion. To me I try to draft or acquire players to have them for the long term, understanding that big red bars are going to cost me money. I'm always focusing on drafting that mid 40's to mid 50's guy that has the bars that I like for my system. these guys won't ask for crazy money and I know i can probably keep them around. By the time these guys are in their 8th year, I've hopefully built enough cohesion that things just click and i get dividends for investing in these guys.

example is Jeremy Satre. He's nothign special. he was drafted in the 6th rnd and now in his 10th year with us. He's never going to be a dominant guy, but as a slot receiver I'm going to get great value out of him. In 2019 he avg'd an amazing 17.5 YPT. His career avg is over 8.5 YPT, which I consider a very good WR

[JesterBlaze]

Cohesion is a big part of FOF, but to be clear it's a result not a resource. Whether a GM wants to go the cohesion direction (I do as well) or not they still only have the fundamental resources I've listed to utilize in doing so... and can go in either direction and still shortchange themselves if they're not calculating every unit they're spending on each move.

Jeremy Satre is a great example of someone most would lose out on by not trading back from pick 37ish to 39ish simply to pick up that 6th you used on him. Keeping a 6th round pick for 10 years as you've done is great resource management.

[Matt]

Cohesion is a big part of FOF, but to be clear it's a result not a resource. Whether a GM wants to go the cohesion direction (I do as well) or not they still only have the fundamental resources I've listed to utilize in doing so... and can go in either direction and still shortchange themselves if they're not calculating every unit they're spending on each move.

Jeremy Satre is a great example of someone most would lose out on by not trading back from pick 37ish to 39ish simply to pick up that 6th you used on him. Keeping a 6th round pick for 10 years as you've done is great resource management.

ahh, ok. i think i understand where you're coming from.

[tarcone]

I agree with this. My offensive line is very static. I try and keep it together as long as possible. I will add one or 2 when needed. Or if their bars overcome the cohesion hit.
Trading a first for Gillette, IMO, was great resource use. I kept him for 5 seasons (I think). His big red bars overcame the cohesion hit early (although he did give up a lot of sacks his first season with us). But over time the cohesion came up and he was an anchor.
I fill in the back ups with mid round picks or youngish FA and keep them around. Thus helping the cohesion. Good resource management.

I think this is what you are saying.

[JesterBlaze]

Though you won a Championship with him and thus THAT ended up to be good resource management on the whole since that's the objective of this whole thing, you only got Gillette for 5 seasons. If that's your norm then you'd get 25 years out of 5 1st round picks which is roughly 2 full careers. Being that you should get at least 5 full careers out of 5 1st round picks (probably more if you trade back when appropriate - almost always) I would consider Gillette 40% of what that pick should have done for you... mathematically, not in the real IFL world where, as I already admitted, he was part of a Championship for you.

[JesterBlaze]

I bit off a lot more than one thread should chew with my title. We've only discussed draft picks thus far for resource management and haven't even touched on balance and fluidity yet...

Salary Cap: Use it all! If I've got $40M and the top guy in FA is a 05 OVR but fits my needs then he's getting a $38M payday leaving me with $2M for injury purposes during the season. Don't get caught up in what a player's "worth". Focus on what fictitious monopoly points you have to spend to get the fictitious digital character on your team.

[JesterBlaze]

Excited to find out that after about a year of not being able to post any more screenies Windows actually has a built in virtual keyboard with the Print-Screen function!! So I'm back to copy/paste visuals and the first one is an example of great resource management for this thread. Below is a screeny of a 5.19 pick who is basically as perfect as the real world gets for a MLB in my scheme, which NEVER blitzes the MLB:



Give him some blitzing skills, which I'd NEVER use, and he's a 70+ OVR easily... which would cost me immensely more for skills that are 100% useless for me. As is he's a perfect MLB for my scheme at a peanut's cost of a late 5th rounder.

I also took the screeny to point out his apparent double move to MLB. I don't know if that ever had effect but he was a TC Bump and the reason for the double move is that I exported twice via the same gamefile. I forget how it actually played out.

EDIT: To be clearer I changed his position to MLB during a mid-week export which Matt ran. Then I failed to DL the latest file when I actually made my gameplan so I again changed him to MLB during that export. Not sure if this resulted in a "double bump" to the new position. Could be an FOF bug I've come across.

[JesterBlaze]

J.R. Van Pelt CB, another 5th rounder (5.29) who at 38/38 I feel might be point-for-point one of the best FOF resources ever!!!

[JesterBlaze]

So looking at the list it appears time to talk about player rights.

Every player you let go in the off-season is lost value. They're not game-changers but a penny's not a dollar yet I'd take 101 of them for my dollar every time. We've all heard the term "nickel and dimed to death". In FOF a LOT of GMs commit suicide by nickel and dime every single off-season.

I've had a hard time explaining this to GMs in PMs and other talks but I'm going to try again here. You should only replace via reality. What I mean is don't go down your roster and drop 20 players that you think you're going to replace with better talent in the draft or FA. First off, you probably don't have 20 draft picks. Second, you're not getting all 20 guys you target in FA. So sign the guys you already have to minimal bonus contracts and if/when you get a better one via the draft or FA then you cut the old guy and eat a couple $'s in bonus.

[JesterBlaze]

Time to talk balance... or The Power of 50/50.

Before going any further let's just point out that if a choice is left/right on a % basis and you choose 100% in either direction then your opponent can also go 100% in that direction and stop you. 50/50 rather and your opponent can counter with 50/50 and still be wrong 100% of the time theoretically if all their "lefts" match up with your "rights" regardless of the fact they chose the correct odds to start.

I'll let this one simmer a little before even going further.