New Sticky Note

NOTICE: This league is using the BLEEDING EDGE game engine. For more information, click here.

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

League Forums

Main - Community Help Forum

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By jhartshorn
10/28/2016 3:49 pm
Interesting to see whether people still think Int should be top of Qb's weighting after this thread's discussion...no one has even mentioned that.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By lellow2011
10/28/2016 3:51 pm
jhartshorn wrote:
Interesting to see whether people still think Int should be top of Qb's weighting after this thread's discussion...no one has even mentioned that.


I've seen little evidence that it matters a great deal. This is most likely the reason nobody really talks about it, it seems to have very little on field impact.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By WarEagle
10/28/2016 3:55 pm
lellow2011 wrote:
jhartshorn wrote:
Interesting to see whether people still think Int should be top of Qb's weighting after this thread's discussion...no one has even mentioned that.


I've seen little evidence that it matters a great deal. This is most likely the reason nobody really talks about it, it seems to have very little on field impact.


IRL this is often the difference maker between an average player and a HOF caliber player, especially for QBs.

In MFN it is irrelevant. I don't think I have any positions with INT weighted more than 20 as I don't see it having ANY on field impact.

And don't give me that junk about play knowledge having an on-field impact. Even if it does, you'd have to run the same plays over and over in order to get enough knowledge for all of your players for it to make a difference.

I like to have a full playbook, so I'm destined to never have a team that "knows" the plays by MFN standards so why bother with INT.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By lellow2011
10/28/2016 4:03 pm
WarEagle wrote:
lellow2011 wrote:
jhartshorn wrote:
Interesting to see whether people still think Int should be top of Qb's weighting after this thread's discussion...no one has even mentioned that.


I've seen little evidence that it matters a great deal. This is most likely the reason nobody really talks about it, it seems to have very little on field impact.


IRL this is often the difference maker between an average player and a HOF caliber player, especially for QBs.

In MFN it is irrelevant. I don't think I have any positions with INT weighted more than 20 as I don't see it having ANY on field impact.

And don't give me that junk about play knowledge having an on-field impact. Even if it does, you'd have to run the same plays over and over in order to get enough knowledge for all of your players for it to make a difference.

I like to have a full playbook, so I'm destined to never have a team that "knows" the plays by MFN standards so why bother with INT.


To me the entire concept of play knowledge in this game is just silly, I'm not sure why it's really even in there. I can maybe see the argument of guys that spend many seasons in the same system should be more proficient at it, in this game it takes such an insane amount of times running the plays that it actually creates an incentive to cheese the game by limiting play calls to a very few number of plays to quickly gain play knowledge. This also hampers your ability to adjust to your opponent from game to game if you'd like to drastically change up your play calling because your team will most likely play like **** due to know knowing the plays.


Do you know what happens to guys in professional football that can't learn the plays? They don't see the field.... And professional players are expected to learn several hundred plays or at least tweaks a week depending on the complexity of the system they are running. To a WR a 5 yard slant is going to be the same to them regardless of what the name of the play call is, a post is a post, a dig is a dig and so on. A WR is not going to all of a sudden forget how to run a route because the play is called something different.

I can see an argument for experience based on seasons or games played or something like that, but play knowledge needs a very minimal impact or just to be removed entirely imo.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By parsh
10/28/2016 4:08 pm
jhartshorn wrote:
Quote from previous post:

Re: Custom Player Weights (Need Explanation)
By parsh
9/02/2016 7:30 pm
Someone posted this awhile back in the forums, so I feel it's okay to repost .. I saved it because I think it has a bunch of good info. Whoever originally posted this .. thank you
-------------------------------
"Top Attributes (in order)

QBs -- Intelligence, Scramble, Arm, Accuracy, Lookoff, Release
Analysis: Intelligence helps the QB learn plays, which is essential. Scramble affects accuracy on the move. You can expect your QB to be on the move 70-80% of the time regardless of how good your OL is until changes are made to the passing game.


This game changes so much probably half that stuff is nullified now ... lol

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By jhartshorn
10/28/2016 4:10 pm
Interesting...

Going back a few posts about the importance of QB's having speed - I've just trawled some of the top QB's in stats last season and quite a few have very very low Speed!

Ah - it's lucky I'm going away this weekend to have a break from this as I think I'm more tied up in knots than I could ever imagine I'd be:

still, all been very enjoyable analysing the game.

Clearly, there's so many factors that even if you're poor in one area you could overcome in another and vice versa.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By jhartshorn
10/28/2016 4:11 pm
parsh wrote:


This game changes so much probably half that stuff is nullified now ... lol


Wish I'd known that before I set my weightings using it!! :O

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By lellow2011
10/28/2016 4:12 pm
jhartshorn wrote:
Interesting...

Going back a few posts about the importance of QB's having speed - I've just trawled some of the top QB's in stats last season and quite a few have very very low Speed!

Ah - it's lucky I'm going away this weekend to have a break from this as I think I'm more tied up in knots than I could ever imagine I'd be:

still, all been very enjoyable analysing the game.

Clearly, there's so many factors that even if you're poor in one area you could overcome in another and vice versa.


With QBs I don't concern myself as much with the yards they put up. Some things to consider...
-How many INTs do they throw?
-What is their completion percentage?
-How many Sacks do they take?
-QBs that can run can be dangerous when scrambling for a first down.
-How many yards per attempt do they average? I don't care about a guy completing 65-70% if he's averaging like 5 yards per attempt

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By jhartshorn
10/28/2016 4:14 pm
This guys:

Conditioning 41
Position Exp 100
Volatility 78
Max Speed 11
Intelligence 79
Pass Accuracy 74
Arm Strength 14
Passing Release 38
Look Off Def 36
Scrambling skill 56
Field of Vision 22

looks awful...

yet has the best YPA (14.33) and 100% completion rate; inc 1 TD....off 3 attempts admittedly - but you can't fault the guy :)

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By lellow2011
10/28/2016 4:15 pm
jhartshorn wrote:
This guys:

Conditioning 41
Position Exp 100
Volatility 78
Max Speed 11
Intelligence 79
Pass Accuracy 74
Arm Strength 14
Passing Release 38
Look Off Def 36
Scrambling skill 56
Field of Vision 22

looks awful...

yet has the best YPA (14.33) and 100% completion rate; inc 1 TD....off 3 attempts admittedly - but you can't fault the guy :)


3 attempts?..........
a player actually needs a decent sample size to consider it more than a possible couple of lucky dice rolls.
Last edited at 10/28/2016 4:16 pm