Strategy Discussion: Endurance

[JesterBlaze]

Endurance: If less than a certain amount, you're guy is a back-up.

As you all may know I don't do FOFC calculations of 1000's of games of "count everything even if it logically doesn't fit" data but I do notice things enough to have success in this league/game and it's my belief that players with too low endurance (below 40 or so?) are only good as back-ups or situational status. I think play quality, injuries, and penalties go up logically as a digital player gets "tired".

Situational status: Running down FBs, Nickel/Dime DBs, passing down blitzing LBs, running down LBs, etc...

I could be wrong.

[Mike17]

I do something like this for playing time based on the guy's endurance:

0-10 endurance: 55% playing time
10-25: 65%
25-40: 75%
40-80: 80%
80+: 85-90% (only if the guy is a stud, otherwise 80%)

I rarely see guys being tired

[JesterBlaze]

I've had both my DEs, who have/had 100 endurance, in at 95% or better for a couple/few seasons now with no apparent negative impact. But my 0 endurance "best CB" got "tired" every time I tried to start him. He's the reason I won't even look at a guy with low endurance anymore unless he's fallen heavily in the draft and is a can't pass up specimen.

It makes sense though that "tired" isn't an on/off switch but rather a flag to let us know when a player is below a specific threshold on a spectrum of values. So even players who aren't "tired" on the roster screen might not be at full skill level... is my guess.