|
Post by Moo on Jul 11, 2006 11:33:31 GMT
It's been a while since you bragged, Narkle, so you're entitled to one. Nice work!
KUTGW! :thumb:
|
|
|
Post by coffers on Jul 11, 2006 11:52:42 GMT
Aye ditto! :thumb:
|
|
|
Post by DC on Jul 11, 2006 23:51:38 GMT
Morale + Pace + Stamina + 100% fitness > Ability.
Works for New England.
|
|
|
Post by Narcizo on Jul 12, 2006 6:05:37 GMT
Luckily I have my fair share of ability as well, not that it did the previous owner any good.
The reason I'm not ever going to win the Stupidbowl though is that my quarterback isn't good enough. He's rated at 56/100 which would be fine at any other position but (for some reason) most quarterbacks in FOF are rated around the 70-80s and unlike real life it's quarterbacks, not defences, that win championships.
|
|
|
Post by Narcizo on Aug 8, 2006 20:20:11 GMT
A Moo-ski-esque plummet threatened my divisional title as I lost three games on the trot after going 9-0, and lost my quarterback to injury, probably for good. Luckily I then won the next three games to assure myself a first week bye before doing an Indianapolis and playing my scrubs to lose the last game of the year to Arizona who, lead my Carson Palmer (I would love to hunt down the Bengal owner who rubber-stamped that little trade), went to 11-5 - sweeping us this year. 12-4 it is as our pass defence stopped defending passes.
So I shall endevear to win my first ever MP play-off game with a total toss at quarterback (instead of the 3/4 toss I had before). So I'm going to be toast. Again. I'm praying one of the divisional champs wins because otherwise I'll have to play one of the wild card teams who will kick my arse. A lot.
Stay tuned for more exciting developments.
|
|
|
Post by Sonic on Aug 8, 2006 23:43:10 GMT
Nice season, there Narkle, and it a possible humbing to look forward too. Always the best way to end a season :thumb:
I guessing that your next attempt at the draft will be for a quarterback?
|
|
|
Post by coffers on Aug 9, 2006 8:37:59 GMT
What Sonic said.
KUTGW! :thumb:
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Aug 9, 2006 8:43:28 GMT
I concur. :humb:
|
|
|
Post by Narcizo on Aug 14, 2006 19:12:57 GMT
You little beauty. Da Bears stomped by an uncompromising defence holding them to 174 total yards and a brace of field goals to our 20 points, and we're onto the Conference Final which is at our place because #6 seed Dallas beat the #1 Giants. Unfortunately Dallas are actually a better team than the Giants so that didn't work our quite as well as one might have hoped. But no #6 team lead by Roethesligbeherharg is going to make it to the Superbowl, it just wouldn't be realistic, so we're as good as lined up to get a total spanking off Miami in the big one. Huzzah! There it is. At the bottom!
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Aug 15, 2006 9:29:37 GMT
Nice, Narkle.
27/32 for 238 yards and two scores is a) very West Coast and b) very nice numbers. Well done. Although I noticed a Dave Carresque six sacks.
Still, good luck with the Conference final - if you lose, you get to be the NFC's coach in the pro-bowl! But you won't lose, of course. You're destined for glory.
Nothing can go wrong™!
|
|
|
Post by coffers on Aug 15, 2006 9:44:50 GMT
Well done Nark.
|
|
|
Post by elth on Aug 15, 2006 11:38:23 GMT
Carr has been sacked over 200 times in his career so far :eek:
|
|
|
Post by Narcizo on Aug 15, 2006 19:05:57 GMT
Nice, Narkle. 27/32 for 238 yards and two scores is a) very West Coast and b) very nice numbers. Well done. Although I noticed a Dave Carresque six sacks. Aye. The sacks are down to a) me losing my stud Right Tackle to injury and them having a pro-bowl left defensive end, and b) me having picked up my quarterback 4 weeks before the end of the regular season and having absolutely no coherence in my pass team as a result. All of which makes it odd that he posted such good numbers. Admittedly a lot of the passes were absolutely rubbish 1 yard efforts to my fullback resulting in completions on third down that failed to make first down, and was really not how I gameplanned. But I takes them where I gets them. Clint Stoerner has been a back up for the woeful Kansas City Chiefs for the last three years or so so it must be a bit of a shock for him to find himself taking the Offensive Player of the Week award in the divisional round of the play-offs. But that's the point were realism takes a back seat to a good story in FOF land.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Aug 16, 2006 8:18:01 GMT
Great stuff, Narkle. :thumb:
|
|
|
Post by Narcizo on Aug 23, 2006 18:22:27 GMT
In true singing when we're winning fashion you can guess that my silence can only mean that we got beaten by Dallas in the NFC finals. We just couldn't overcome the handicap of having a tool of a quarterback. Dallas went on to win the Stupidbowl so we're clearly the second best team in the league. Now our quarterback comes back a bit crocked in the offseason so I have to decide whether to try and replace him.
|
|
|
Post by coffers on Aug 23, 2006 22:13:51 GMT
Sounds like a good plan, get rid of a tool and draft in a power tool. :thumb:
KUTGW!
|
|
|
Post by Sonic on Aug 23, 2006 23:27:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Narcizo on Sept 8, 2006 7:50:08 GMT
So the only move of any consequence so far this off-season has been the trade for Donovan McNabb - for which I gave 1.30, 2.29 & my 1st round pick in 2011. Amazingly I appear to be the only one who had any qualms about this move, everyone else seeming to think it was a smart move - as I didn't have quarterback worthy of the name while the rest of my roster is solid to excellent.
So the draft begins today, I had 1.29, 3.30, and my 5, 6 and 7th picks. With a very deep draft and a lot of diamonds in the rough to be had at the start of the second day I've traded down from 1.29 to 2.1 with a 4.5 in the bargain. Not a fantastic deal but I'm pretty sure I'll be able to get my target at 2.1 and the 4.5 will get me a wide receiver I'm 95% sure will be starter calibre in a couple of years. (unless some other bostord grabs him - they shouldn't because most people seem to go by the in-game rating and only adjusting that a bit by the combine scores - while the combine scores and current rating are, at least, as good determiners as the draft scouting score).
Anyway, my only real need is fullback but I'm not wasting a 2.1 pick on a fullback so some other muppets can have the three ace fullbacks in the draft in the second round. (one of them will go in the first - but at least he can be converted into a starter quality running back).
My defensive ends are getting old (and their skillz are deteriorating even faster) so it would be nice if I could land the boomer DE I have my eye on but I'm not sure he's worth the 3.30 or 4.5 pick and he'll be off the boards by 5.29. I might try to trade up the 5.29 to get him. Otherwise I could really do with another cornerback as one of my current starters is 423 years old (Ahmed Plummer) and suffering from similarly declining skills. There's also a nice little prospect at quarterback with a fantastic combine score but he's a huge gamble because his current ability is the same as a gnat's so I'd wait until 5.29 or later before taking him and following a piece about him on the message boards I don't expect him to last that long.
My plan is a centre with 2.1 (the centre is potential pro-bowl material - probably a reach in real football but in FOF all the offensive line positions are pretty much equivalent apart from left tackle). 3.30 for a cornerback, 4.5 for the wide receiver (there's a 60% chance I could wait until 5.29 and still bag him but I don't want to take that risk), 5.29 for the quarterback or defensive end and the 6.29 and 7.29 for picks hoping for a random post-draft boom (there's about 3 or 4 of those every draft, there's no way to predict the really big booms).
|
|
|
Post by Boony on Sept 8, 2006 8:31:12 GMT
Those with big volatility scores tend to be big booms, but you never know... Good luck with the draft. I got my FOF2K4 working again last night, and loaded up a game I'd had running from when I was playing it ages ago - the Bills are in 2010, with the End of Season button waiting to be pressed. I didn't play any more last night, because I wanted to see if I could win the European Cup with Hamilton Academicals (we did, beating Dortmund 2-1 on golden goal in the final, having gone one down in the first half). But, anyway, this Bills team appear to be pretty good (11-5 last season, can't remember how the playoffs went), with a 95 rated QB Maurice Tinkis, an offensive line with 90+ cohesion, and some solid offensive skills players. The defence are nothing to write home about, but my kicker and punter are both 90+ rated! I'll go into more depth with the team at some point, to work out where are real strengths and weaknesses are, and then proceed with the offseason. Probably next week, since I'm away all weekend.
Anyway, KUTGW Narkle! :thumb:
|
|
|
Post by coffers on Sept 8, 2006 8:40:32 GMT
Boo: Read your PM, the only links I can find to download FOF all go via the shop. Looks like I'll probably give the demo a go and work out whether I want to shell out.
|
|
|
Post by Narcizo on Sept 8, 2006 8:49:00 GMT
High volatility doesn't really work out like you might think Boo. It effects the player's later development (and chance of being better or worse than their potential is). Straight after the draft there's normally 3-4 big booms and 2-3 big busts that are completely random. There's no way to predict them. Then there's moderate booms and busts which aren't actually anything of the sort - they're just the scouts adjusting their perception of players. Generally speaking, if you get a player with a 4-5 increase in potential after the draft he will continue to get a series of increases in his potential for 3 or 4 years, irrespective of his volativity. However there is an increased chance that a player will suffer a post-draft bust if he's supposed to have a high potential, or boom or bust (if he doesn't). So you're best off trying to steer clear of high vol players in the first round.
Quarterbacks are particularly noticeable for this increase in potential, although with them it's usually a case of their potential going up with their current ability hits the potential. For some reason quarterbacks have much better ability ratings than any other position. So, while I'd be very happy to have a 56 rated cornerback or guard, a 56 rated quarterback is a pile of poo.
|
|
|
Post by Boony on Sept 8, 2006 8:56:43 GMT
Gotcha. In the threads I was reading, people were saying they use their 6th and 7th round picks on guys with high volatility and see how they go in the next 4-5 years, but with their 1-3 round picks, stick to guys with low volatility as you're more likely to know what you're getting.
Happy with a 56 cornerback or guard? I'll have to remember that - I keep getting hung up on trying to get 70+ in every position, when perhaps that isn't required in some of the positions. Offensive skills players, maybe, but the rest are probably more than adequate in the 50-60 range.
|
|
|
Post by Narcizo on Sept 8, 2006 9:27:26 GMT
Generally, because of the cap and cohesion, you're better off aiming lower for some positions. Generally you want a cohesive O line with a couple of studs you can aim your runs at rather than all-studs who are going to eat up your cap. Left tackles have particularly outrageous demands (in keeping with reality but not in keeping with their benefit in the game). Also you don't want to ignore the personality thing - which is based on the signs of the zodiac - every birth sign has two affinity signs and one conflict sign. If you dig around on FOFC you'll find it. If you've got a group of 50 odd rated linesmen with good cohesion and a lot of affinities, I suspect they'll do far better than a newly composed line of studs with conflicts. 6 & 7 round picks in SP can normally land you starter quality players if you know what you're about. Generally, in the draft, you want to look for players with high current ability ratings and good combines, as the AI picks based solely on potential. (incidentally the game has a hard on for defensive ends and tackles so it's possible to get a stud quarterback at the low end of the draft - while in MP teams would offer all their draft picks for 3 years to trade up and get the QB). I pretty much ignore volitility outside of the first two rounds. Incidentally if you want to see the draft I'm talking about you can DL the league files from NAFL and load up the MP game. You get a bonus point if you can locate the sure-fire boom wide receiver I've been talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Narcizo on Sept 8, 2006 9:28:42 GMT
Obviously you should pay a stud quarterback whatever the hell he's asking for, as it's nigh on impossible to win the Stupidbowl without a stud quarterback.
|
|
|
Post by Narcizo on Sept 8, 2006 9:30:56 GMT
Oh yeah, and if you create your own gameplans then it's possible to skimp on your secondary as well, as you can play an out-and-out zone defence, and get cornerbacks and safeties with excellent zone but rubbish man to man and BnR. They're overall rating will reflect that, as will their cap demands. It also makes it easier to get starters lower down in the draft as you can look for zone specialist, while the AI is just looking at the overall rating.
|
|