FOF 2007 GroupThink (season five)

[QuikSand]

Over the years, with various versions of the FOF games, we have had some substantial success with a multi-participant game here at FOFC. A search on terms like "GroupThink" will yield some of this history -- the Wyoming Wildfire team, run by a fair number of us back with FOF 2001, was very entertaining, as I recall.

I know that multiplayer competitive leagues are all the rage. But I'm wondering if there might be some interest in a multi-particpant effort to run one team in a single-player environment. Historically, this has been a matter of dividing up into several different roles to be played -- with various people focusing on drafting, free agency, various position groups, gameplanning, and the like.

SInce we're fairly early in the game's lifespan, maybe this might prove to be an interesting way for some of us to learn more about the new game together.


Anyone interested? I don't have easy access to web space to post game files, so someone with that resource would be needed... past that, I have to imagine we could swing things okay. I'm willing to play nearly any role.


- - -


With things gettiung underway, here are the essentials:

To get the files, log on to Yahoo! mail using this information:

username: groupthink2007
password: godillos

From there, go get THREE files, unzip and overwrite in this order:
-the very first initial file sent
-the file form the start of the latest season (currently 2009)
-whatever is the very latest file sent

Incidentally, by accessing the game files, you implicitly agree to NOT engage in any simming ahead, or any other unsportasmanlike activity contrary to the spirit of the game, whether articulated specifically here or not. This means no simming ahead, no testing out position switches, no conducting rookie interviews, no testing out contract offers, etc. -- that is all going to be done centrally, by the person who is actually conducting the sim. This is an exercise in playing the game collaboratively, not in cheating to demonstrate how clever you are.

[Peregrine]

I'm up for this, it sounds fun, and with all the new features it will add a lot to discuss, like who we interview for the draft, getting the results together, analyzing the new stats, etc

[MalcPow]

I'd definitely be interested as well. A few of the things I've seen lead me to believe that this version is going to be much deeper for multi-player or a slower collaborative game like this. It sounds like scouts are going to be much less dependable at higher levels, and that taking a more active interest in the league's universe, tracking other players' performance and development, and just generally being a bit more thoughtful about things will be a big factor in success. I really love that 'avoid interceptions' is now hidden, it's going to add a whole new layer to trying to guage the development of a young qb.

[JeffW]

I'm down. I like the roster management aspects best, but I am a capable game planner as well. Let me know if there is a spot open for me.

-Jeff

[SunDevil]

They are called succession games in Civ4, and they really do help people learn more about the game, especially if it is in a AAR (After Action Report) format, where you describe what you did and the reasons. I would definitely read the thread.

[SnDvls]

I'd read along as well, but don't think I'm a strong enough FOF player to help.
sounds like an awesome idea though.

[mckerney]

I'd be interested in some role, something along the lines of special teams coach. I do have access to about 20 MBs of webspace I could use for this as well.

[Icy]

Count on me for any free spot open.

[QuikSand]

Glad to hear there is interest. I know that if I play, I will want to be involved in the discussion for most things -- which was really fun all along. Ideally, we have one person who is ultimately in charge of, say, the rookie draft (presumably that won't be me) but I'd still want to be part of discussing whether we take the WR or the LB, for example. So, even if we have jobs, a lot of the fun comes from doing stuff collaboratively.

I am going to be intermittenly available the next few days, but by around Wednesday ought to be back available regularly. By then, maybe we can start appointing a staff and getting things started.

[wade moore]

I'd likely want to be involved. I just feel guilty because I think I completely killed one fo the Grou pThinks when I left for my like year or so long time away from the board with no notice or warning.

Anyway, I'll help any way I can.

[RedKingGold]

This sounds like a good way to get a feel of the mechanics of the game.

I'd like to give it a try if at all possible.

[TRO]

Ah, memories.

I think I would like to be involved in the draft / draft scouting side of things.

[Ragone]

I'd like to join in as well.. something to do with drafting as well..

[Vince]

I wouldn't mind participating at all -- but I'd be just as happy following along from the outside.

[yabanci]

...I know that if I play, I will want to be involved in the discussion for most things -- which was really fun all along. Ideally, we have one person who is ultimately in charge of, say, the rookie draft (presumably that won't be me) but I'd still want to be part of discussing whether we take the WR or the LB, for example. So, even if we have jobs, a lot of the fun comes from doing stuff collaboratively....

If it goes in this direction, I'd be interested in joining the discussions, though I don't want a particular job.

[Eaglesfan27]

I've never been involved in one of these, but I'm highly intrigued.

[QuikSand]

It's probably best to let people plow through the game a bit, but my plan will be to start something up probably on Wednesday of next week. If you're interested in a specific role, drop me a line by PM. If you have any specifics -- like "here's what I'd like to do as defensive coordinator" or somesuch, that would be great but not necessary. By far the most valuable contribution is a willingness to stay involved with the project - we'll let overall talent take care of itself.

Last time we did this, we gave actual roles to everyone, but allowed anyone who wanted to chime in in basically every decision. So, even if your job is special teams coach, you can certainly be part of discussions about drafting CB or OL, or about who ought to be starting at QB, or whatever the issue of the day happens to be.

My goal will be to have game files ready to go out on Wednesday, and we can start with an empty cupboard team in year two of a brand new career. I'm assuming that fictional rosters would be preferred here, and that we will take over (and presumably relocate) an NFL team.

We'll gin up the engines mid-week next week, so if you're interested, give some thought to a role you might want to stake out, and let me know. I'll do my best to pull things together as best I can and get it rolling.

[Mike D]

No way I have time since I get to start back up at school on Tuesday.

But I'll be following along, always trying to pick up whatever knowledge I can about the inner workings of FOF.

[Vince]

My last day at the restaurant is the 10th of November, so I'm probably out until then -- but after that, I'd love to jump in.

[QuikSand]

Casual respone in the thread has been fine, but follow-up has been... uh... less so. That's okay, maybe we're all too deep into home testing games to commit to something like this.

I'll try to get this started soon, maybe today. I'm thinking that to start, we'll just run season one of a league, and at its end release all the players -- then "take control" in year two with an empty roster and a severe cap problem for the initial year. That ought to phase-in any action a bit, which I think would be wise.

For those interested... does that seem sensible?

[wade moore]

Casual respone in the thread has been fine, but follow-up has been... uh... less so. That's okay, maybe we're all too deep into home testing games to commit to something like this.

I'll try to get this started soon, maybe today. I'm thinking that to start, we'll just run season one of a league, and at its end release all the players -- then "take control" in year two with an empty roster and a severe cap problem for the initial year. That ought to phase-in any action a bit, which I think would be wise.

For those interested... does that seem sensible?

Definitely.

I'm having a hard time getting into testing as the SP feel is just not for me, so this should help me to gear up some interest.

At this point, I'm pretty willing to take on whatever is needed to make things move. With my job right now, I should be pretty able to take on some responsibility since I work from home, although some days are pretty busy.

Maybe we need to start actually assigning roles?

[Icy]

I'm still interested, but shouldn't we wait until the patch? There are some important bugs like FA negotiations. Anyway i'm up to this.

[lcjjdnh]

Didn't see this the first time around, but I would be interested in this.

[RedKingGold]

Still up to it

[Sublime 2]

I'd be up for a scouting/drafting role.

[QuikSand]

Okay, I have started a new FOF 2007 career, have QuikSimmed through year one, and after the disastrous 0-16 season from the Houston Texans, they have been folded and replaced.

Welcome to the NFL, Texarkana Armadillos. Zero players, a lingering cap disaster, and starting basically from scratch.

I have already hired a front office staff, all pretty young, on 1- and 2-year contracts (the shortest they would accept), so we will have to make decisions there soon. I just thought that the best way to get ourselves truly immersed would be by starting off at the hottest time of the offseason -- the start of free agency. So from right here, we can already see the free agents, and the rookie draft class. It's time to get to work.

I have set up a Yahoo! email account for use with the game files, which I hope will do for now at least. For anyone who is game for getting into this exercise, we'll hold off on the idea of formal roles for right now... most people just expressed a generic interest in being involved, so we'll run it without roles and titles for the moment.

To get the files, log on to Yahoo! mail using this information:

username: groupthink2007
password: godillos

There should be one huge zipped file in there, about 5 MB in size. I believe that all yolu newed to do is frop its contents into your "universe" directory, but it's been a while since I dealt with these various files, so it's possible that there's more work to be done. If you have trouble with this, please post it here, and we'll get it cleared up.

With that... load up the files, and we'll use this thread for discussion on what to do. If you did a seaqrch on the term "GroupThink" you may have noticed that at one point the multiple GT threads offended some users, so we'll need to be responsible about this -- no need to start 20 different threads to debate every single issues with the team. Let's try to keep it in this thread for now... if we need to branch out, we can discuss how to do that later.

[QuikSand]

Incidentally, by accessing the game files, you implicitly agree to NOT engage in any simming ahead, or any other unsportasmanlike activity contrary to the spirit of the game, whether articulated specifically here or not. This means no simming ahead, no testing out position switches, no conducting rookie interviews, no testing out contract offers, etc. -- that is all going to be done centrally, by the person who is actually conducting the sim. This is an exercise in playing the game collaboratively, not in cheating to demonstrate how clever you are.

[wade moore]

I will d/l these as soon as work settles down today (if?)

[QuikSand]

Chemistry Leaders

So, I think that if we want to make an effort to build some chemistry on this team, one way to do so is to take advantage of the “blank slate” beginning, and to go out and get some players who could be effective team leaders, just for chemistry purposes. So, I’m looking for five guys who are all in the same affinity group – that way we might all be able to easily spot affinities and conflicts, without having to do too much work to do so. We’d also have the opportunity for multiple affinities at QB.

So far, here’s the best lot I can find:

DT Corwin Burks, 11th year, 8-9, Ldr 100, Pers 99
CB Howie Gerak, 9th year, 8-9, Ldr 100, Pers 83
WR Grady Woodson, 9th year, 8-9, Ldr 98, Pers 90
RB Marc Aranda, 7th year, 8-9, Ldr 60, Pers 86
RT Bruce Cote, 8th year, 8-9, Ldr 90, Pers 60

If we go out and sign all five of these guys, then in theory we could completely organize all our chemistry planning. If things are set up as they were in FOF 2004 (which I have heard, but not confirmed) then we could target players in the 7-8 and 11-12 groups to try to build affinities. And, we could pretty easily keep that in mind when evaluating rookies as well, a nice bonus.

From this lot, I suspect that RB Aranda and DT Burks are probably good enough to actually contribute, and maybe even start. But the main focus is getting chemistry foundations, any on-field contributions would just be gravy.

[Eaglesfan27]

I'll be downloading after work today or tomorrow at the latest.

[RedKingGold]

I've d/led the files and will have a lot of time this afternoon to have a good look at everything.

[KWhit]

Downloaded. Should be fun.

[KWhit]

Chemistry Leaders

So, I think that if we want to make an effort to build some chemistry on this team, one way to do so is to take advantage of the “blank slate” beginning, and to go out and get some players who could be effective team leaders, just for chemistry purposes. So, I’m looking for five guys who are all in the same affinity group – that way we might all be able to easily spot affinities and conflicts, without having to do too much work to do so. We’d also have the opportunity for multiple affinities at QB.

So far, here’s the best lot I can find:

DT Corwin Burks, 11th year, 8-9, Ldr 100, Pers 99
CB Howie Gerak, 9th year, 8-9, Ldr 100, Pers 83
WR Grady Woodson, 9th year, 8-9, Ldr 98, Pers 90
RB Marc Aranda, 7th year, 8-9, Ldr 60, Pers 86
RT Bruce Cote, 8th year, 8-9, Ldr 90, Pers 60

If we go out and sign all five of these guys, then in theory we could completely organize all our chemistry planning. If things are set up as they were in FOF 2004 (which I have heard, but not confirmed) then we could target players in the 7-8 and 11-12 groups to try to build affinities. And, we could pretty easily keep that in mind when evaluating rookies as well, a nice bonus.

From this lot, I suspect that RB Aranda and DT Burks are probably good enough to actually contribute, and maybe even start. But the main focus is getting chemistry foundations, any on-field contributions would just be gravy.


We should also keep in mind who we will be targeting in the draft. If we decide to actually use the 1.1, we want to make sure he fits in with our chemistry structure.

[MalcPow]

Downloaded also. I like the idea of locking up some good leaders as well, will add a layer of analysis for us as we're evaluating players and give us some more decisions to make.

Looks like we'll have a tough draft day decision to make between a good young qb or a stud LT. There look to be some very attractive options to trade down as well though, CB Lochner, OLB Tucker, and ILB Rockwell all have some pretty good 'measurables.' I think our next steps are interviewing everyone at the top of the board and trying to get a feel for how far down we can trade and still pick up an impact player. From what I've been seeing I'd be very surprised if QB McCartney did not go #1, but his blue bars don't set him apart from the two QB's rated beneath him, so even if we decide to focus on a QB with our first pick I think we'd get more value by moving down.

Good stuff, should be fun to have these discussions. Should we be targeting guys for interviews right now? Are we going to be signing free agents other than our leaders, or are we going to build through the draft and undrafted rookies?

[QuikSand]

WARNING -- it appears that we have a problem, and doing a rookie interview (with at least one player, the top QB) causes a crash. It's possible that the game file is corrupted somehow. Just be warned, before investing too much time into this game. I don't know what to do about it... but FYI.

[RedKingGold]

After we have our affinity structure set, perhaps we should try and determine what type of system we will run in terms of offense and defense?

That would guide us through determining what personnel we need through FA and the draft to build this team.

[QuikSand]

Good stuff, should be fun to have these discussions. Should we be targeting guys for interviews right now? Are we going to be signing free agents other than our leaders, or are we going to build through the draft and undrafted rookies?

Without any overall agreement that we shoudl restrict ourselves in any general way, I figure we'll play withotu house rules, but with common sense restraint. So yes, we can be looking at vetreran players as well -- but we do need to keep in mind that we have a seriosu cap problem this year, with more than 40% of our cap space dead from last year's cuts.

[KWhit]

WARNING -- it appears that we have a problem, and doing a rookie interview (with at least one player, the top QB) causes a crash. It's possible that the game file is corrupted somehow. Just be warned, before investing too much time into this game. I don't know what to do about it... but FYI.

Hmmm.... Yes, I'm getting the same thing.

[QuikSand]

So, assuming we go with the 8-9 group as our leaders… here are some affinity-positive free agents who look like they might be worth pursuing:

Birthdays 7/24 – 8/23 and 11/23 – 12/22:

QB Donald Morrill – 2nd year, probably a future mentor, pretty lousy skills
CB Maurice Sellers – 7th year, 38/38, solid in bump, decent cover man
WR Frankie Kramer – 10th year, 36/36, decent receiver, surplus mentor, ST+
SS Shannon Wolfe – 5th year, 45/55, great in zone, solid all around, PR, ST+
LG Allen Coffey – 12th year, 44/44, decent run blocker, 94 personality
DE Wade Bullock – 12th year, 43/43, void in run D, 84PRTech, 9.3 PR% in 06
DT Julio Forbes – 6th year, 31/31, run stopper (55) with little else to offer
WILB Lamont Samuels – 7th year, 37/39, decent all around
CB Percy Schiller – 11th year, 38/44, good play D and interceptions

Nobody here is a standout star player, but all (except QB Morrill) are worthy of putting on the field, at least as a stopgap, if need be, and none are likely to be very expensive.

[SunDevil]

Chemistry Leaders

So, I think that if we want to make an effort to build some chemistry on this team, one way to do so is to take advantage of the “blank slate” beginning, and to go out and get some players who could be effective team leaders, just for chemistry purposes. So, I’m looking for five guys who are all in the same affinity group – that way we might all be able to easily spot affinities and conflicts, without having to do too much work to do so. We’d also have the opportunity for multiple affinities at QB.

So far, here’s the best lot I can find:

DT Corwin Burks, 11th year, 8-9, Ldr 100, Pers 99
CB Howie Gerak, 9th year, 8-9, Ldr 100, Pers 83
WR Grady Woodson, 9th year, 8-9, Ldr 98, Pers 90
RB Marc Aranda, 7th year, 8-9, Ldr 60, Pers 86
RT Bruce Cote, 8th year, 8-9, Ldr 90, Pers 60

If we go out and sign all five of these guys, then in theory we could completely organize all our chemistry planning. If things are set up as they were in FOF 2004 (which I have heard, but not confirmed) then we could target players in the 7-8 and 11-12 groups to try to build affinities. And, we could pretty easily keep that in mind when evaluating rookies as well, a nice bonus.

From this lot, I suspect that RB Aranda and DT Burks are probably good enough to actually contribute, and maybe even start. But the main focus is getting chemistry foundations, any on-field contributions would just be gravy.


A couple of questions about chemistry.
1. How important is it to have team chemistry? Does it play that big of a role?

2. Are there certain birthdates to pick, or whatever grouping you can find?
3. Why 5? Why 3 offensive players and 2 defensive players?
4. Do certain positions have more of an impact on leadership and chemistry?

Thanks.

[QuikSand]

From the game help file:

Team chemistry is fairly simple in nature. The team is broken into five leadership groups (backfield, receivers, offensive line, defensive front and secondary). Each group has a leader, which can be any player on the roster. Every other player in the group may have a conflict or affinity with that leader. Conflicts or affinities can affect the performance of every player in that group. Quarterbacks may have conflicts or affinities with all of the other leaders on the team.

I believe that the mention of QBs interacting with defensive leaders has since been discredited, but this apparebntly still defines how the system works -- same as in FOF 2004.

As for how important it is... nobody really knows. There are some studies in the Strategy folder that might be interesting to read, but it's largely unknown how big a deal it is.

[QuikSand]

A graphic to replace the generic "Little Rock" might be nice, at some point, for those whose contributions might be something outside the game itself.

[QuikSand]

After we have our affinity structure set, perhaps we should try and determine what type of system we will run in terms of offense and defense?

That would guide us through determining what personnel we need through FA and the draft to build this team.

I like that idea in general.

Here's a thought -- maybe we could try to build a style that is essentially something new to the game in FOF 2007, compared to what was available in FOF 2004? The obvious thing that I can think of is either a true West Coast offense (heavy focus on the short pass) or perhaps even a run-and-shoot style offense. On defense, I'm not sure what might make sense -- perhaps a 3-4 setup with more LB specializtion, enabled by the more detailed depth chart setting?

Any specific thoughts along these lines? I'm game for most anything, and I do like the notion of coming up with a style of play and them seeking out players who will fit well with it... at least to the extent that we plan to do anything but a generic gameplan, that is.

[Eaglesfan27]

I've developed a true West Coast Style Offense that has worked very well in one of my test leagues. I'd be glad to share it for the project if we wanted to go that route. Of course, it helps in that league that I have a great running back who is very dangerous with the short passes.

[QuikSand]

Chemistry Effects on Drafting

If we go ahead and adopt the 8-9 group from above as our deliberate chemistry leaders, then here are some top rookies who would be potential affinities:

RT Jonathan Bickler
CB Bryant Nissly
QB Floyd Carlisle
QB Ricardo McConnell


…and perhaps more importantly some potential conflicts (birthdays from 5/22 to 6/21):

LT Courtney Free (the #1 ranked player overall)
RT Jumbo Rogers
RT Deion Jennings
DT Kenneth Cassidy
LG Frankie Hawkins
DE Derek Cordie
DT Tony Testa
FL Bobby Herod
RB Antonio Caniff
SE Ellis Kurtz
CB Aaron Noe
RB Leonard Martin
LT Mitch Collado
RB Rich Anthony
SLB Quentin Matthews – superfast LB, ran a 4.39

[QuikSand]

I've developed a true West Coast Style Offense that has worked very well in one of my test leagues. I'd be glad to share it for the project if we wanted to go that route. Of course, it helps in that league that I have a great running back who is very dangerous with the short passes.

I like that approach, and if you've got a gameplan already sketched out, I'm perfectly fine going with it. So, presumably, we would want to find "good fit" players. So, in addition to the things we usually would look for... we'd want:

QB - short passing, accuracy, screen passing
FB - good receiving skills, blitz bickup
WR - getting downfield, courage
OL and TE - emphasis on pass blocking skills

Anything else I'm leaving out?

[RedKingGold]

I like that approach, and if you've got a gameplan already sketched out, I'm perfectly fine going with it. So, presumably, we would want to find "good fit" players. So, in addition to the things we usually would look for... we'd want:

QB - short passing, accuracy, screen passing
FB - good receiving skills, blitz bickup
WR - getting downfield, courage
OL and TE - emphasis on pass blocking skills

Anything else I'm leaving out?

RB with good receiving skills and blitz pickup as well.

Also, route running should be at a premium with all our receivers in a West Coast offense (or at least our primary guys).

Draft wise, we should likely aim for high intelligence guys if we plan on running a "West Coast" offense.

As for defense, any ideas about what coverages we're planning to run? I was thinking base 3-4 bump and run with high blitz tendencies from our linebackers.

Also, reading the help file, it appears that free safety will become one of the more important positions on defense.

Thoughts?

[QuikSand]

Chemistry Effects on Drafting

If we go ahead and adopt the 8-9 group from above as our deliberate chemistry leaders, then here are some top rookies who would be potential affinities:

QB Ricardo McConnell

I find it very hard to "read" a FOF 2007 draft, so I have no idea where this guy would likely be selected. But in my view - he'd be a wonderful choice for the team we are envisioning thus far -- his strong suit si mostly with the shorter passes, he has all the secondary skills we'd be looking for, plus he's fleet of foot to scramble as need be. he graded out well in teh combine, and is among the more developed QBs in the draft.

I can't imagine taking him at 1.1, but if he were there for us in round two, I think I'd be very tempted. If he's a mid-1st guy, then I don't know what's best.

My general instinct would be not to take a QB early and to get a "good enough" guy in free agency...but the FA crop is dreadsfully weak, and I may biased toward what has tended to work well in FOF 2004, which may no longer be the case. My drafting of QBs in '07 thus far has yielded far more rocks than diamonds.

[Eaglesfan27]

RB with good receiving skills and blitz pickup as well.


Thoughts?

Absolutely agree. Ideally, the back will have good elusiveness which I *think* helps with turning the screen passes into decent gains at times.

[QuikSand]

Given a full day and night for input, I am going to make a few offers to key free agents, including the affinity leaders previously identified, and go from there. I won't be making any really binding FA offers -- nothing with a meaningful bonus that would keep us from reversing course if we eventually decide to do so. But I want to get the ball rolling a little bit, and it seems that with a few free agent players in place, we'll have a decent starting point for that. I'll probably sim through the first three or four weeks of free agency, until the inititl round of bids are resolved -- I expect we'll get all the players we target here.

New file coming soon...

[QuikSand]

First wave of free agency complete…

Here are your first eleven ‘Dillos, sports fans:


Texarkana Armadillos Roster, Scout Overview

Player # Pos Start Exp Current Estimate Future Estimate Cntrct
Schultz, Leslie 19 QB 6 17 31 3 yrs
Aranda, Marc 41 RB 7 33 33 2 yrs
Woodson, Grady 84 SE 9 29 29 3 yrs
Cote, Bruce 76 RT 8 12 12 3 yrs
Bullock, Wade 75 LDE 12 42 42 2 yrs
Burks, Corwin 94 LDT 11 44 44 3 yrs
Forbes, Julio 70 LDT 6 31 31 2 yrs
Samuels, Lamont 54 WILB 7 38 39 2 yrs
Gerak, Howie 26 LCB 9 41 41 3 yrs
Wolfe, Shannon 42 SS 5 46 56 3 yrs

Player # Pos Start Noted Playing Time Chemistry
Schultz, Leslie 19 QB MN Content
Aranda, Marc 41 RB Content
Woodson, Grady 84 SE MN Content
Cote, Bruce 76 RT Content
Bullock, Wade 75 LDE Content
Burks, Corwin 94 LDT MN Content
Forbes, Julio 70 LDT Content
Samuels, Lamont 54 WILB Content
Gerak, Howie 26 LCB Content
Wolfe, Shannon 42 SS Content


Hmmm… the chemistry stuff isn’t printing out correctly, but you will see in game that every player here is an affinity guy with a group leader, with the exception of QB Schultz, who was brought aboard as a decent reserve and position mentor.

[QuikSand]

While these signings took a bit longer (in stages) than I had expected, I am not panicked. From here, I think that pretty much any offer will be accepted immdeiately, so we can essentially do the next 4 stages one at a time, pretty easily.

Right now, I think we need to focus on two things:

-Rookies to interview (I think we need to stay out of the QB position, sadly)
-Further free agent signings to lock up prior to the draft

Remember, all the currently restricted free agents who remain unsigned will become unrestricted after the draft -- meaning we will get an orderly shot at them. These are likely to be more attractive players for us to try to build with, if they are at all talented -- 3rd and 4th year guys with some future for development seems more attractive than 11th year fossils, all things being equal.

With that... let's keep the discussion going for now.

[QuikSand]

Further Free Agent Targets

Now that we have the colorized scouting reports, it’s much easier to see players who fit with our chemistry setup…plus I’m looking at offensive players who would fit fairly well into a short passing offense.

LG Gus Jaffe is one of the best pass protection OL remaining in free agency (scouted at 70 there), and would be a weak affinity with our leader on the OL. Jaffe is also a G mentor, which may be useful down the road as well – he could be a long term investment for us, as he’s only an 8th year player. I declined to make a big investment in one of the expensive players (mostly at center) so we don’t have any playable OL on the roster yet – Jaffe would be one, and he’s asking for $1.4/yr. I’m assuming that we could lock him up for two or three years fairly easily with a deal that meets his requirements.

WLB Kyle Schifino looks like a backup-caliber player, but he’d be an exceptional affinity (I think) for us, and has decent-enough skills to see some action if needed. Rated 24/36 overall, but a 93 personality makes him a good locker room influence for now – and high leadership and intelligence make him a likely mentor down the road.

RB Brant Roberson might be a wonderful fit for our style of play – he’s a versatile RB with pretty decent skills in both straight-ahead running and in receiving from the backfield. He’s also a standout punt returner (2 TDs last season), and has kick return skills as well. RB mentor, too.

WR Andy Kinney may be the best receiver left in the FA market for our team – 37/42 overall, decent receiving ratings generally, void id in BPOR, which shouldn’t matter too much. Possible starter for our team, I think, and an affinity guy.

WR Frankie Kramer is not as good nor as targeted in his skills as Kinney, but he is also an affinity guy, and he’d be a special teams standout for us as well.

[QuikSand]

Offensive line interview candidates

(I’m deliberately trying to take one of the less sexy position groups)

My general thinking is that we don’t want to use an early pick on an OL, but if a decent prospect slips, a middle round pick might be fine. With that, I propose to target these OL players for rookie interviews:

RT Jumbo Rogers
RT Deion Jennings
LG Gabe Godzik
C Spencer Suckle
C Adrian Hansen
RG Zack Newsome

[TRO]

Both WR are no brainers I think.

WR Aaron Williamson isn't a bad target either, fits the system and is a Mentor.

WLB Grady Belanger would be a solid target, I like him better than Schifino personally.

SLB Kirk Franz could be a playmaker for us.

LG Jaffe and RB Roberson are good choices too.

TE Diaz - is he off limits since we had him in 2006?

[RedKingGold]

I will focus in on evaluating linebackers in FA and the draft.

I believe that we agree to focus in on 3-4; therefore I will look for players high in the following attributes (in preferred order):

ILB: Run defense, bump and run defense, play diagnosis
OLB: Pass rush technique, run defense, bump and run, punishing hitter.

Any thoughts to this?

I will look at the file a little later and post my thoughts about specific players:

[QuikSand]

TE Diaz - is he off limits since we had him in 2006?

I made all the cuts last season, so everyone out there is willing to listen to us, at least.

[TRO]

#1 Options:

With McCartney and Free both likely non-targets for us, I think our best option might be trading down.

My targets for the top of the draft would be:

CB Percy Lochner
WLB OJ Tucker

I would really be happy to acquire either. Lochner may be the #2 pick in the draft after McCartney. I would be shocked if he slipped past 4-5. I don't have a strong feel of where a top LB would go.

Scenarios:
Keep #1 - Draft Lochner
Trade down to #2 - Draft Lochner
Trade down to 4 or 5 - Draft Lochner or Tucker. If both are gone - Trade down again???

[TRO]

bump and run:

I do think we were pointed in the 3-4 direction.

Did we discuss the primary pass coverage though? Thoughts?

[Vince]

I will focus in on evaluating linebackers in FA and the draft.

I believe that we agree to focus in on 3-4; therefore I will look for players high in the following attributes (in preferred order):

ILB: Run defense, bump and run defense, play diagnosis
OLB: Pass rush technique, run defense, bump and run, punishing hitter.

Any thoughts to this?

I will look at the file a little later and post my thoughts about specific players:

I think Run defense should still be a higher priority than PR Technique for OLB's, but otherwise I like the line of thought here.

[QuikSand]

As for defense, any ideas about what coverages we're planning to run? I was thinking base 3-4 bump and run with high blitz tendencies from our linebackers.

Also, reading the help file, it appears that free safety will become one of the more important positions on defense.

Thoughts?

This is the only post so far that gets into defensive philosophy. So far, no real support, nor any real opposition. So far, I just went with generic DBs, in the absence of any particular coverage system.

I tend to play a lot of BNR in FOF 2004, so my inclination would probably be to try something else... but I'm oipen to most anything. A heavy-blitzing 3-4 sounds interesting to me.

[QuikSand]

Thinking overall --

Here's how I envision our eventual roster of 53 players for this season:

~15-20 veteran players, mostly position leaders and affinity guys (mostly on board already)

~5-10 younger free agents, 3rd and 4th year guys whose contracts were no picked up (sign in late FA period)

~7-10 rookie draftees

~15-25 undrafted rookie free agents


Does that sound about right to you all? We build a little infrastructure with "good fit" free agent players this year, but generally will be fielding a pretty young team, and will be very lean as we enter next year's FA market where we might have a beter sense of where we might want to make a major cap commitment.

[Vince]

I work another double today (woohoo for 18 hour days), but I'm free this weekend, and I only have two shifts left at the restaurant. This weekend, I should have some time to look things over -- I'll just grab a position group that hasn't been picked up, and analyze them in the draft.

[MalcPow]

#1 Options:

With McCartney and Free both likely non-targets for us, I think our best option might be trading down.

My targets for the top of the draft would be:

CB Percy Lochner
WLB OJ Tucker

I would really be happy to acquire either. Lochner may be the #2 pick in the draft after McCartney. I would be shocked if he slipped past 4-5. I don't have a strong feel of where a top LB would go.

Scenarios:
Keep #1 - Draft Lochner
Trade down to #2 - Draft Lochner
Trade down to 4 or 5 - Draft Lochner or Tucker. If both are gone - Trade down again???

I like Lochner a lot as well, hopefully an interview will back up some nice looking bars. I also think he could fall to 4 or 5, I'd even be a little surprised if he didn't. Jim has definitely fixed the issue of Qb's not going as high, to the point where there's at least one Joey Harrington in most drafts I've seen, sort of a guy who is a reach that a bad team takes in the top 5. I think with that LT there, it's probably safe to drop to 4 if we want to target Lochner.

[QuikSand]

I like Lochner too as a potential top pick... but have no feel at all for where we could drop to get him. If we drop from 1.1 to 1.3, we can probably extract a pretty good price for doing so, and our risk would be lessened (compared to dropping down to 4 or 5 overall). I'm guessing we could get a 2nd and a 3rd, at least, for that drop.

[RedKingGold]

I like Lochner too as a potential top pick... but have no feel at all for where we could drop to get him. If we drop from 1.1 to 1.3, we can probably extract a pretty good price for doing so, and our risk would be lessened (compared to dropping down to 4 or 5 overall). I'm guessing we could get a 2nd and a 3rd, at least, for that drop.

I think the DT's would probably go ahead of Lochner. Plus, worst case scenario, is that we would take OLB Tucker who looks like an instant impact freak as a linebacker.

[QuikSand]

So, let's say that Denver would give us their 1st round picks both this year 1(5) and next year for the pick at 1(1). Are we willing to do that, and take either the top CB or LB as discussed, based on availability? Or woudl we rather get a package of picks this year, to try to get a quicker start? I generally value 1st round picks far more highly, but we might get their 2, 3, and 4 this year or something like that.

On this team, that LB has DROY written all over him.

[Eaglesfan27]

I also value 1st round picks highly and would go for the 1st rounder next year over a package of lower round picks this year, if we can make that deal.

[Sublime 2]

I like the idea of grabbing a first rounder next year as well as opposed to getting a package this year.


Now i'm not great w/ the gameplanning kind of thing, but isn't a good to great DT valuable in a 3-4 defense (correct me if i'm wrong). I admit that I haven't had a chance to download the file at home yet, and can't remember if there were any great DT's available.

[QuikSand]

Current working list of veteran FA offers to make:

LG Gus Jaffe
RB Brant Roberson
WR Andy Kinney
WR Frankie Kramer
WLB Grady Belanger
SLB Kirk Franz
TE Eric Diaz

Where do we think we can go with this next stage? If it only looks like our real effort remaining will be with rookie interviews, then maybe we can load this up a bit, get most of them out of the way, and get to the draft in maybe two more stages?

[TRO]

I like the idea of grabbing a first rounder next year as well as opposed to getting a package this year.


Now i'm not great w/ the gameplanning kind of thing, but isn't a good to great DT valuable in a 3-4 defense (correct me if i'm wrong). I admit that I haven't had a chance to download the file at home yet, and can't remember if there were any great DT's available.

I agree that a great DT is essential. While I think the top DTs are good picks, they don't stand out to me (to be fair, I only gave them a cursory look). Tucker on the other hand looks studly.

[TRO]

Where do we think we can go with this next stage? If it only looks like our real effort remaining will be with rookie interviews, then maybe we can load this up a bit, get most of them out of the way, and get to the draft in maybe two more stages?

Sounds like a reasonable plan.

[QuikSand]

I will plan to run another stage tomorrow morning, assuming I'm up early enough to do so. Any further input on rookie interviews, etc will eb factored into that stage.

[QuikSand]

FAA Update

So, we have signed several more free agents… and have made some rookie interviews. Here’s an updated roster, according to our scout:


Texarkana Armadillos Roster, Scout Overview

Player # Pos Start Exp Current Estimate Future Estimate Cntrct
Schultz, Leslie 19 QB 6 17 31 3 yrs
Roberson, Brant 28 RB 8 36 38 3 yrs
Aranda, Marc 41 RB 7 33 33 2 yrs
Diaz, Eric 87 TE 4 53 60 3 yrs
Williamson, Aaron 88 FL 12 43 43 2 yrs
Kramer, Frankie 83 FL 10 37 37 3 yrs
Kinney, Andy 86 SE 8 39 41 3 yrs
Woodson, Grady 84 SE 9 29 29 3 yrs
El Nino, Leland 50 C 8 51 51 1 yr.
Aiston, Sherman 69 RG 5 33 46 2 yrs
Cote, Bruce 76 RT 8 12 12 3 yrs
Bullock, Wade 75 LDE 12 42 42 2 yrs
Burks, Corwin 94 LDT 11 44 44 3 yrs
Forbes, Julio 70 LDT 6 31 31 2 yrs
Samuels, Lamont 54 WILB 7 38 39 2 yrs
Franz, Kirk 95 SLB 10 41 41 3 yrs
Belanger, Grady 59 WLB 7 34 39 3 yrs
Gerak, Howie 26 LCB 9 41 41 3 yrs
Rogers, Phil 37 LCB 5 41 41 1 yr.
Schiller, Percy 21 RCB 11 39 42 3 yrs
Wolfe, Shannon 42 SS 5 46 56 3 yrs


Now, a few scattered notes… we’ll start with the bad news first:

RB Roberson has claimed the group leadership role, upending the chemistry effort there (I must have missed the message to this effect). He’s a good fit, but my thinking is that we want to make the investment in chemistry simplicity… I feel confident we will find solid, playable receiving backs elsewhere, so I advocate cutting him.

LG Jaffe would have done the same, so I didn’t pursue him. Instead, I went after a couple of veteran interior linemen who looked decent enough, on the cheapest possible contracts. Neither is an affinity, but they look solid for right now.

Our OL premium is on tackles, where I botched the rookie scouting – I tagged for interviews two conflict guys, rather than affinities. Sorry.

Finally, I interviewed the stud LB we liked, OJ Tucker, and it looks like he had some ratings erosion. For those who still have his old ranges visible, have a look before seeing the revised version. He is now labeled as “Very Overrated” which makes me wonder what to do there. (more to come on this)


On brighter notes:

Denver was very excited to grab the top pick, and accepted my initial offer – giving us not only next year’s 1st rounder, but also their pick at 2(4) this year to make the swap. I’m thrilled, and didn’t want to mess things up by bickering… so it’s a done deal. I think this means we can focus a little bit on some rookie interviews of second-tier players, who might be there in the early second round, where we have two picks now. w00t!

One OL we interviewed, RG Zack Newsome from Penn State, looks like a nice draft sleeper. He’s about 25 deep at the OG listings, whatever that means, but he is well developed, a pass blocker mainly, and our interview tags him as “Very Underrated.” Right now, I’d love to think we could land him at 3(1), or maybe even later. Looks like a great fit for our pass-heavy system. At 289, probably can’t move to tackle, though.

I signed a couple of cornerbacks, including Phil Rogers, who looks pretty good in both zone and man schemes. With the veteran FA talent pool getting so thin, I just didn’t want to see us end up with no options there, so I signed a couple guys as cheaply and risk-free as possible. While I wouldn’t want to see these guys dictate what we do long term, we now have three playable guys who can hold their own pretty well in a zone system.

CB Percy Lochner held his ratings with his interview, and is labeled as “As Scouted.” He has projections that remain topped out for run D, man and bump coverage, and play diagnosis – looks awfully solid to me. Even though he’s a modest mismatch with the corps of veterans we have back there, I would be happier to build around Lochner than them. I’m now hopping for him to be our top pick, and don’t know what to do if we’re looking at LB Tucker at 1(5).


Some good progress, and a few disappointments. New file is up in the email address.

[QuikSand]

Affinity Rookie QBs

Since we are building so much potential affinity, I thought I’d look for rookie QBs who would cash in on our triple-affinity potential, and who have some reason for optimism.

Ricardo McConnell (5.5) – 1st 40 time, 4th test, 3rd agil, 5th pos test, 39% developed
Edward Caldwell (4.6) – t4th strength, 1st agil, 31% developed
Rodney Lichtenberger (4.1) – 2nd 40 time, 40% developed
Aaron Matthews (3.9) – 8th agil, 7th jump, 7th pos test, 44% developed
Alex Hickman (3.8) – 5th agil, t4th jump, 12% developed

Since we won’t be able to do interviews at the QB position (crashing issues) we have fairly little to go on past this.

Just looking at the blue ratings ranges, I’d spot these guys as good “system fits” for us:

Howard Burks
Chuck Hall

I’m seeing a positively alarming scarcity of QBs who seem to have good ratings in the short passing categories… enough so that it makes me wonder if something seems wrong there.

[QuikSand]

Anyone else feel up to running another stage, either tonight or tomorrow morning? I don't want this to turn into my game, just with assorted hangers-on.

[KWhit]

New file is up in the email address.


I downloaded the latest file (FAweek10.zip) and we're still listed as having the 1.1. Didn't you trade that?

[QuikSand]

Ugh, it's possible that I didn't save after making the trade. Sorry.

Regardless, Denver will do the deal and send us 1.5, 2.4 and their 2008 1st for it, so let's consider that a done deal.

[QuikSand]

What would be helpful to have for the next sim (tonight or tomorrow morning) would be a list of 5-10 target rookies to interview in each position group:

RB/FB

WR

DL

LB

DB


Also, there's a very good FB sitting in free agency (from Miami) still, who is looking for a pretty fat contract. Any thoughts on him? He looks like a very good fit - do we want to go get him? One year deal? Multi year deal? I'm open to anything, but I didn't want to commit a big bonus without getting some group sense of things.

[KWhit]

Also, there's a very good FB sitting in free agency (from Miami) still, who is looking for a pretty fat contract. Any thoughts on him? He looks like a very good fit - do we want to go get him? One year deal? Multi year deal? I'm open to anything, but I didn't want to commit a big bonus without getting some group sense of things.

I like him a lot for our offense. I say we go after him. Multi-year deal is fine, but I'd probably drop the salary a bit from his asking price to try to keep his cap cost at 2mil or below for the length of the contract. He doesn't have any others offers to him right now, so we can give it a shot.

[KWhit]

I'm not quite as excited about Lochner as you guys are. I think if we're to spend a top five pick for a CB, he should be a triple threat. It worries me that he has NO zone skills. That said, he's a combine beast, so he'll be a solid player for us, I just wonder if we'll be able to get away with playing basically no zone in FOF2007 or if we'll need to mix it up a bit more.

I don't have a great alternative yet to go after at #1.5. I like that WR Anderko. I don't know if we need to go that route, but he looks great. The LB Tucker scares me a bit with the "Very Overrated" tag.

I also like the MLB's combine scores a lot (but wish his Run Defense was higher). We could trade down again and still get him - maybe even pick up another 1st rounder.

[Barkeep49]

KWHit: Wouldn't it be possible to just remove him from Zone Coverage situations? I know that I have focused on getting guys in my SP career who have Bump and Run and Man-to-Man skills and with just the scout recommends run very very little zone. With this group taking a more indepth look at things it seems like having a DB with a complete deficiency at Zone could easily be worked around as long as zone isn't a focus of the team (as it does not appear to be).

[KWhit]

Well, we could put him on one side of the field in M2M or BnR and play zone on the other side of the field, I suppose. My point mainly was just that I'd be hesitant to pick a guy that highly that has that big a deficiency - basically forcing our hand in the coverages we can run. Also, if you look at our current roster, many / most of our secondary are best in zone coverage.

I just wanted to raise the points since it sounded like we had a lfew guys that seemed ready to pull the trigger on Lochner.

[Sublime 2]

Some possible DT's to interview - looked for guys with blue bars high in run defense, as I think that's important in a 3-4, though not sure.

Robert Renfro
Donovan Shipley
Kevin Korinek
Kenneth Cassidy
Artie Bobo
Zack Beale
Leland Kisbany
Nathan Patterson

[QuikSand]

Update…

We offered FB Harvey Holmes a two year deal at basically $2m.yr, and he has accepted. Risk free, basically, but he looks like an obvious addition for a team that probably will be struggling on offense.


We have interviewed the several top DTs indicated by Sublime2, plus a couple more. From the results, which you can view in game, we might have a couple of leads there:

-DT Leland Howard rates as "very underrated" and is the most developed DT in the draft. I'd possibly be tempted to move him to DE.

-NT Artie Bobo is a true nose tackle (no pos switch needed for him to play in the middle) and is also “very underrated,” plus he’s an affinity guy for us. Run D looks like it projects to around 75, not bad. Not a superstar, but another intriguing later round pick, perhaps. Poor combine, but pretty well developed.


I went ahead and ran some interviews with wide receivers who looked like they had some skill matches and decent combines. We have four veterans around already, but certainly good young WRs will be a staple for a team like this. Highlights:

Billy Joe Anderko, the top rated guy and a combine stud, graded as “overrated” but he still fits into my thinking as a possible #1 pick for us if he falls

-Anthony Brennan is 10th on the WR overall board, but is a pretty good skill match for us (very high in the top three ratings) and graded out “as scouted” – maybe round two or three?

-Dennis Fabbrizzi is a deep sleeper, but had some good combine numbers (str) and graded as “underrated” – late round guy perhaps


At RB, I don’t usually look early in the draft, but took a look at a couple of guys:

-Autsin Hagglund might be a nice pickup as a receiving-focused RB – only real demeirt in his apparent ratings is fairly low “getting downfield.” Graded as “underrated” and a couple of high combine results.

-Leonard Martin is a pretty good skills match also, and graded “as scouted.”

-Anthony Greene looks like he’d make a fine utility back – underrated, receiving skills, returns both kicks and punts, might even play some straight-ahead HB if called upon. He’s pretty far down the list of RBs, might be a nice later round pick.


I also interviewed the #2 rated offensive tackle Bickler, as his name has come up as a possible top pick. He looks outstanding. Probably needs to be in the discussion.

[QuikSand]

A few rookie targets – these are players who came out in a “% developed” sort, who looked like decent skill fits. Mostly looking for late round fliers here:

CB Emmitt Gardner
SLB Allen Munro
CB Pat Gust
NT Alan Honaker (to DE)
DT Seth Keith
NT Kris Grant (to DE)

Both of these defensive tackles are almost pure pass rushers – if they interview well, both probably would switch well to play DE, they are both in the 290s in weight.

SLB Allen Munro is an interesting guy – ranked 4th among OLB, very well developed, pretty good run stopper, but no pass rush technique. At 219 lbs, he might not switch well from OLB to ILB, where I suspect he would be a better fit. Dunno… I suspect he isn’t worth the fairly early pick that it would require to get him, but if he slides, maybe a 3rd rounder?

[QuikSand]

I haven't been following the various discussions about FOF 2007 -- but is there some consensus emerging that a team really needs to use all three coverages in order to be effective? I'm skeptical if there is... but if not, I'm confused by some of the discussion above (basically about whether Lochner and his void in zone skills is a serious problem).

I agree that drafting Lochner, barring a bust, locks us into at most using two coverage setups for the foreseeable future. I basically dismiss the skills of the veteran guys we have on hand -- we're dealing with a range of skills that isn't all that broad, and with guys who we wouldn't expect to be around all that long anyway, in most cases.

I'm still putting Lochner atop my hope list for the pick at 1.5, with the WR and RT as my other contenders, and LB Tucker now down a notch from them.

[Barkeep49]

Has Lochner been interviewed? Also could our scout's ratings be posted? I'm following this along and want to contribute, but I haven't downloaded the game files, which maybe is just what I need to do.

[Galaxy]

With a 3-4 Blitz-focus defense, what type of players will be needed in the front seven?

Will this force a bigger emphasis on top-tier man-to-man corners. How will the safeties work and what type of players will be needed?

[QuikSand]

I don't think we have really decided what style of coverage we are going to use. Some people seem to be convinced that the new game will force teams to use multiple coverages, or even all of them, and will minimize the value of players who specialize in one style of coverage. We haven't had anything even approaching conclusive here... if there is strategic discussion on this elsewhere, I haven't seen it.


I'm going to wait for a bit today before doing a stage... haven't had much input since the last one. We have a lot of rookie interview slots still available... anyone want to offer some (any) guidance there? Or are we finding this process too tedious to spend time with? I'm willing to just scatter around a ton of interviews and move to the draft if that's what we want... but I don't want to step on anyone's toes by doing so.

We've had people volunteer to do certain things, but not all these things have gotten done. I wonder if the lack of assigned roles is what's making this a single-centered exercise. *shurg*

Anyway -- get word in this morning if you'd like to see anything in particular done before we head into the draft. We've got 3 picks in the top 40 slots, so we have a chance to cast the mold for this team right away. Let's not fritter it away.

[QuikSand]

RB Roberson has claimed the group leadership role, upending the chemistry effort there (I must have missed the message to this effect). He’s a good fit, but my thinking is that we want to make the investment in chemistry simplicity… I feel confident we will find solid, playable receiving backs elsewhere, so I advocate cutting him.

Any thoughts on this? I'd at least prefer a second before cutting him.

[Barkeep49]

I think building around chemistry is great and wholely support cutting Robertson.

[QuikSand]

Another update…


Well, we haven’t looked much at DBs in the draft, so I will do some looking. Since we haven’t really isolated a certain coverage focus, I won’t do any filtering in that regard.

Here are some guys I’ll plan to interview:

CB Bryant Nissly
CB Emmitt Gardner
CB Clifton Shephard
CB Aaron Noe
CB Arnold Norris
S Vernon Swift
S Kerry Ward
S Kerry Fabian
S Omar Hathaway
S Seth Jackson

[QuikSand]

I'm not sure what would be best here. If the draft would be the necessary draw to get us more momentum, I'm glad to basically zip through a bunch of scattered rookie interviews, and get us there to make our fisrt pick today. But I don't want to do so at the expense of anyone who actually wants to be involved in the pre-draft processes.

My inclination is that the relative silence in these stages is an indication that the interviewing process just isn't that compelling... and that we'd be better off zipping ahead to the draft.

If there's anyone who would like to make a contribution before I do so... please make it known soon. Otherwise, I'll go ahead, interview a bunch of linebackers (which I have deliberately stayed away from) and other guys mentioned in this thread and otherwise, and sim up to our pick at 1.5 in the draft, where we can start the first BIG debate for this team.

[Sublime 2]

I'm not sure what would be best here. If the draft would be the necessary draw to get us more momentum, I'm glad to basically zip through a bunch of scattered rookie interviews, and get us there to make our fisrt pick today. But I don't want to do so at the expense of anyone who actually wants to be involved in the pre-draft processes.

My inclination is that the relative silence in these stages is an indication that the interviewing process just isn't that compelling... and that we'd be better off zipping ahead to the draft.

If there's anyone who would like to make a contribution before I do so... please make it known soon. Otherwise, I'll go ahead, interview a bunch of linebackers (which I have deliberately stayed away from) and other guys mentioned in this thread and otherwise, and sim up to our pick at 1.5 in the draft, where we can start the first BIG debate for this team.

I agree with just heading right to the draft. If anyone wanted to get some major input onto the interviews, I imagine they would have by now.

[QuikSand]

Free Agency Concludes

Okay, I have finished up our rookie interviews, and have advanced us to the draft. Feel free to look in-game to see the results of the interviews… I did some scattershotting of players who looked to have good skill matches, guys who had notable combine results, and well-developed players. A fair number of guys came through the interviews looking attractive, I think.

Into the draft – we sit at pick 1(5), and I have gone ahead and simmed the picks leading up to ours. Without further ado – here’s the top of the draft:


1. Denver - Lochner, Percy, CB, Kansas State
2. Kansas City - McCartney, Aaron, QB, Notre Dame
3. Detroit - Groza, James, QB, Morgan State
4. Green Bay - Rockwell, Rodney, ILB, Colorado


A bit surprising on the early end of things…

So, our internal mini-debate over CB Lochner has been rendered moot. For what it’s worth, trading down isn’t much of an option – just to test the waters, I fished a bit with the Giants, and found that they wouldn’t even give us their 2nd round pick to move up from 1(10) to 1(5) – so I’m thinking we just used this pick, as I don’t value mid-round selections all that much, myself.

Carry on, gentlemen…

[QuikSand]

PRO: With the top CB off the board, I would submit that the most nearly perfect draft pick for our team is probably the offensive tackle, Jonathan Bickler. He had a very good combine in several key areas, and our interview upped his apparent ratings pretty nicely, if he has a skill skew it's modestly toward poass protection which fits well, and we have tagged him as "Underrated." He is also an affinity guy with our current position leader, and our current roster doesn't have anyone we want on the field playing LT, to which I'm sure he would switch easily.

CON: OT isn't exactly a huge impact position, and with a team that looks to be pretty weak on offense, we'll be investing a lot of money and capital into a guy who probably won't translate to many wins anytime soon. He is also not very well developed, which is always a red flag at any position, so we'd be paying a lot for a guy with fairly lousy current ratings, at least for a substantial share of his first contract.

[Galaxy]

With the Giants not wanting to give up even a second rounder, I wonder how the trading works. Does trade value drop off after a certain point? Is the AI smart enough to determine a trade up does not suit it needs (basically, they would need a reason to want to do a deal)?

[QuikSand]

I suspect the trading AI is pretty generic. I think by most "draft value charts" from the NFL (not necessarily suitable for use with FOF, but an obvious place to start) probably says that the drop in value between 1.5 and 1.10 is somewhere in the middle to late the second round, so NYG being unwilling to send us 2.9 for the move up isn't absurd, necessarily.

[Galaxy]

I suspect the trading AI is pretty generic. I think by most "draft value charts" from the NFL (not necessarily suitable for use with FOF, but an obvious place to start) probably says that the drop in value between 1.5 and 1.10 is somewhere in the middle to late the second round, so NYG being unwilling to send us 2.9 for the move up isn't absurd, necessarily.

I agree with you it not being absurd. I like that it makes you have to work the draft. I was curious that if a player the Giants want, would they be willing to pay more than it's "valued"? Also, I wonder if the deep of the draft, both position-wise and overall, plays a factor. Also, do teams have certain players they want.

[Sublime 2]

PRO: With the top CB off the board, I would submit that the most nearly perfect draft pick for our team is probably the offensive tackle, Jonathan Bickler. He had a very good combine in several key areas, and our interview upped his apparent ratings pretty nicely, if he has a skill skew it's modestly toward poass protection which fits well, and we have tagged him as "Underrated." He is also an affinity guy with our current position leader, and our current roster doesn't have anyone we want on the field playing LT, to which I'm sure he would switch easily.

CON: OT isn't exactly a huge impact position, and with a team that looks to be pretty weak on offense, we'll be investing a lot of money and capital into a guy who probably won't translate to many wins anytime soon. He is also not very well developed, which is always a red flag at any position, so we'd be paying a lot for a guy with fairly lousy current ratings, at least for a substantial share of his first contract.

After looking at the other options, I think Bickler is the best choice. The affinity is a plus, and I think at the 5th pick he's the best guy for us.

[QuikSand]

If you are dropping in and catching up, here are two things that would be good to hear:

-who do you like with the 1.5 pick?

-is there anyone worth moving up to try to get if they slide into late round one?

We have two early round two picks, and I'd hate just just quick-sim through pick 1.32, and only then hear from people "well, if we'd known that HE was going to be there at 1.25, I would have wanted to trade up..." If there's anyone who attracts you that way, make it known.


I'll volunteer that if we get to about pick 15, and the top WR is still sitting around, I would be tempted to stop things, and at least explore a possible trade. I don't think we'd want to deal away a ton, but if we could send those two early seconds and get a guy who was on our short list for the 1.5, I'd want to consider that.

[MalcPow]

PRO: With the top CB off the board, I would submit that the most nearly perfect draft pick for our team is probably the offensive tackle, Jonathan Bickler. He had a very good combine in several key areas, and our interview upped his apparent ratings pretty nicely, if he has a skill skew it's modestly toward poass protection which fits well, and we have tagged him as "Underrated." He is also an affinity guy with our current position leader, and our current roster doesn't have anyone we want on the field playing LT, to which I'm sure he would switch easily.

CON: OT isn't exactly a huge impact position, and with a team that looks to be pretty weak on offense, we'll be investing a lot of money and capital into a guy who probably won't translate to many wins anytime soon. He is also not very well developed, which is always a red flag at any position, so we'd be paying a lot for a guy with fairly lousy current ratings, at least for a substantial share of his first contract.

Quik, and others, what don't we like about LT Courtney Free. He seems to be rated significantly higher than the other tackle by the consensus of the other scouts, he's twice as developed, and we wouldn't have to worry about the skill loss from switching (I've never seen an RT to LT switch that didn't force a decent loss, this isn't like switching between SE and FL). Free looks like a stud, if we go tackle, and I think that's a pretty good idea, I think we should go with him.

[Icy]

RT Bickler looks a beast and he even looks underated, if we can move him to LT we could have a monster there for 5 season.

I like also SS Vernon Swift, he could lead our secondary for years as he is awesome at everything but Intercepting. Also our current secondary sucks.

FL Anderko looks good, but only 20% developed, not sure what to think.

I would pick the RT or SS.

[Icy]

What about LT Courtney Free? he is 43% developed and could be also a great LT. I missed him n the first look but I'm leaning towards him now as we need players that can make something now.

[Eaglesfan27]

Count me among those who thinks that Lt Courtney Free might be the guy to take here. I'd be interested in hearing the negatives from those who are against taking him.

[Narcizo]

I suspect the trading AI is pretty generic. I think by most "draft value charts" from the NFL (not necessarily suitable for use with FOF, but an obvious place to start) probably says that the drop in value between 1.5 and 1.10 is somewhere in the middle to late the second round, so NYG being unwilling to send us 2.9 for the move up isn't absurd, necessarily.

Generally when trading picks with the AI you have to offer more than the draft chart says. I guess this is to stop exploits and to it can be argued that you are the one wanting to make a trade so you should be willing to give up more.

Personally given the empty nature of the roster I'd say that you should trade down anyway.

People asking about Courtney Free. I guess the problem is that he will have a conflict with the team leader. Personally though, as he has no affinities attached to him yet I don't see a problem with taking Free and then getting a new leader. If you're set on using the pick I can't see the logic in willingly taking such a drop off in talent just because of a conflict with a replaceable team leader. Sorry if I've missed something though.

[QuikSand]

Okay, on T Courtney Free. To catch you all up on the conversation thus far (from eralier in this thread), we decided fairly early that we wanted chemistry to be both (a) important and (b) easy to manage for this team. We agreed, admittedly under my leadership, that the best way to do this was to secure five group leaders all in the same affinity group, and to use them to build around. Making this commitmnet brings two benefits: it makes it really easy to quickly spot affinity guys (the 7-8 and 11-12 birthsign groups) and conflicts (the 5-6 group), and it makes it fairly easy for us to build mega-chemistry at the QB position, where 1/6 of the players out there will be triple affinities for us.

So, some time ago, we cast our lot in that direction. At the time, we knew that it basically meant ruling out certain players who might have been attractive draft picks, notably (as I recall) the top QB and the top offensive tackle, Courtney Free, both of whom would be chemistry conflicts.

So -- in case you missed the earlier discussion, Free is not just "a conflict with our current leader," he is complete anathema to a stated team objective. If we wanted Free so badly that we wanted to use our top pick on him... the time to make that decision was probably quite a while back. If we selected Free, I guess the thing to do would be to abandon the multi-affinity system, find another leader for our OL group, presumably cut the three OL that we have already selected to work with the system we have in place, give up on the triple-affinity potential for the QB position, and basically start over at the entire position group. it's more involved than just findong one more leader type guy out there.


So, if we really, really love Free that much, it's probably worth it to do all this. Since up until now there was a pretty clear consensus to try to avoid conflicts (I made an error or four when doing interviews, but generally tried to stay away fron conflict guys), I never interviewed Free, so we have sketchy info to go on. But we *know* that Bickler is underrated, and has nearly maed-oud essential ratings. What we know about Free is that he might end up rated anywhere from about 65 to 100 in the key areas, and that he presumably comes more ready to play.

In the combine, these two were clearly the top two standouts. The two elements I watch most closely are the dash (Bickler 1st, Free 2nd) and the agility drill (Free 1st by a good margin, Bickler 3rd), while Free has a solid edge in the weight reps as well. On combine alone, I'd say Free looks better, but it's not night and day better. Plus, we don't have the affirmation from an interview to tell where the ratings bars are going to land.


So, in short -- I guess I apologize for the chemistry conundrum that we face. Perhaps my decision not to assign anyone specific roles has backfired -- since nobody feels they are actually responsible for anything in particular, nobody feels any sense that they have to contribute, and the whole things just sits around most of the time. When it does, I have felt like I need to move it along, otherwise it will just die on the vine and slide to page two of the forum, never to be heard from again.

[QuikSand]

Chemistry Effects on Drafting

If we go ahead and adopt the 8-9 group from above as our deliberate chemistry leaders, then here are some top rookies who would be potential affinities:

RT Jonathan Bickler
CB Bryant Nissly
QB Floyd Carlisle
QB Ricardo McConnell


…and perhaps more importantly some potential conflicts (birthdays from 5/22 to 6/21):

LT Courtney Free (the #1 ranked player overall)
RT Jumbo Rogers
RT Deion Jennings
DT Kenneth Cassidy
LG Frankie Hawkins
DE Derek Cordie
DT Tony Testa
FL Bobby Herod
RB Antonio Caniff
SE Ellis Kurtz
CB Aaron Noe
RB Leonard Martin
LT Mitch Collado
RB Rich Anthony
SLB Quentin Matthews – superfast LB, ran a 4.39


This (posted 11-02-2006, 03:09 PM) would have been a really good time for someone, anyone, to step up and sing the praises of Courtney Free.

[Icy]

Quick, i agree with you that we need to take this more seriously. A lot of us wanted to be part of this but most of us including myself didn't really get into it as nobody had a real job in this team management. In the past groupthinks i had the pleasure to read (not to enter i was a new member those days) everybody had a job and it looked like a real dynasty between a few guys, while this looks more like a dynasty where everybody from FOF can post his thoughts once in a while but only you and a couple more take it seriously enought (I blame myself too for not posting before).

From now and after downloading the file and studing the team, draft etc, i'm going to commit to post on every decission as i'm pretty sure i'm going to enjoy this and to learn from it, but maybe we need to make sure who is up for this now and who is only going to chime in from time to time.

Maybe this should be also moved to the dynasties forum where it won't go down as fast and wont' get lost in the mix of general threads.


Just my thoughts, but count on me from now.

[QuikSand]

I understand the usual dynamic of any online league/project. Lots of volunteers, lots of dropoff. That's to be expected, and I am neither surprised nor upset about it.

My bigger concern is that, unfortunately, we didn't have very broad participation early on when we made the chemistry decision -- and now we are (in my view) pretty much bound by it. That kinda stinks for people who are now interested enough to contribute, especially since so many suddenly love the guy that we basically took off the table earlier. I'd hate for this to become an unraveling moment for the whole thing.

[Icy]

After your explanation of the chemistry issue, i'd go for:

RT Bickler and try to move him to LT or SS Vernon Swift to lead our secondary for a few years.

[Narcizo]

My apologies for not reading that post and being a johnny-come-lately.

Bickler could probably be just as good a pick.

[QuikSand]

Maybe it will be an ongoing matter of intrigue - if we take Bickler here, we could definitely keep an eye on both him and Free for their careers, to see if we ended up with the better guy. Heh.

[mrsimperless]

I've just been a spectator so far, but I'm enjoying following along. I'd hate to see you completely abandon your initial strategy so soon. I'm interested to see the effects of the ultra mega affinity power.

[QuikSand]

The draft continues…

So, after a bit of hand-wringing, we select our left tackle of the present and future, we hope…


5. Texarkana - Bickler, Jonathan, T, Missouri - Rolla
6. Oakland - Free, Courtney, T, Tennessee
7. Dallas - Tucker, O.J., OLB, West Virginia
8. San Francisco - Shipley, Donovan, DT, Maryland
9. New Orleans - Nissly, Bryant, CB, Colorado
10. New York - Renfro, Robert, DT, North Carolina State
11. Tampa Bay - Carlisle, Floyd, QB, Notre Dame
12. Washington - Swift, Vernon, S, West Virginia
13. Baltimore - McConnell, Ricardo, QB, Fresno State
14. Carolina - Anderko, Billy Joe, WR, Harding
15. Cincinnati - Korinek, Kevin, DT, Oklahoma State
16. New York - Ward, Kerry, S, West Virginia
17. Jacksonville - Copeland, Pete, RB, Wake Forest
18. Miami - Brennan, Tyrone, WR, Texas - El Paso


I was really hoping we’d see QB McConnell drop to us at 2(1), but no dice – he’s grabbed with pick 13. WR Billy Joe Anderko went one notch before I had pledged to pause for a possible move-up, with pick 14.


I thought it would be worthwhile stopping here, for a couple of reasons…

I have found myself tantalized by the blue bars of DE Tito Martin – apparently I wasn’t moved to interview him before the draft started, but was we are approaching our second round pick, I can’t help but think this guy will go soon. He skipped the combine, so there’s little to go on – but he does look rather alluring.

We also had some discussion about ILB Doug Booker, who impressed in his interview, and is still sitting there. I thought it would be worth discussing whether he’s enticing enough to warrant a move-up… I honestly didn’t think he’d make it out of the first 10-12 picks.

(ignore this part, please)DT Kenneth Cassidy is also an impressive prospect, more pass rusher than run stopper, but still looks impressive at both. I think I like him more at DE than DT, but he’s definitely a guy worth a look.(you can stop ignoring now) I like DT Leland Howard as well, and he too is still around.


This seemed like a fair point to stop and take stock. Anyone feel like trying to work out a deal to move up here? Particular guy to target?

[QuikSand]

Also... our scout says that T Bickler will switch to LT with a 96% switch. I'm sold, and willing to do it - would anyone object to doing so?

[MalcPow]

This (posted 11-02-2006, 03:09 PM) would have been a really good time for someone, anyone, to step up and sing the praises of Courtney Free.

Gotcha, that makes sense. I think we were moving toward trading down at that point, and I don't think any of us expected Free to fall this far. But now we are where we are, and I definitely don't think we should throw out the affinity system we've built. Maybe we should consider dropping again though to the 8-10 range, even if it's just for an extra 3rd or 4th rounder. If we can drop to 10 and get either a 3rd or 4th, or anything really, we'll be able to draft one of the DT's, one of the T's, or FL Anderko (who I'm starting to like a lot as well). I'm liking SS Vernon Swift a lot now as well despite his low interceptions rating, especially as a guy who might fall to the 10-13 range or further. We know we can't get another 2nd by dropping, but I've been getting some nice players in round 4 in my SP seasons, I think it'd be worth dropping to pick up another player.

All that said, I like Bickler but his low development and our essentially universal need areas make me think we can get an equally talented player at another position, and pick up a 4th rounder who has a good chance to be a starter on this team. I'm also wary of investing a top pick in an undeveloped player at our scout's weakest area. I don't have any reason to believe that the interview doesn't do anything more than narrow the range of your scout's blue bar assessment, meaning you get a more precise view of your scout's flawed assessment, not necessarily a "better" assessment. Just something to think about.

Edit: Too late, no biggie. This is just as well as it'll focus us on following Bickler with these thoughts in mind, and help us learn a little something, which is what we're all here for.

[mrsimperless]

Alright, I haven't seen the game file (haven't even bought the game yet as I'm waiting for the patch first) so take my comments lightly.

If we're running a blitzing 3-4 D probably our greatest need on D is a monster NT to stuff up that middle. And it doesn't sound like there is really one out there at this point worth trading up for since you like Cassidy more as a DE anyway.

It sounds to me like there are enough decent guys we like left at this point that we should wait a bit more and see what happens. Maybe try going a few picks at a time, or until one of "our guys" gets taken. If the pickings start to get slim long before our pick comes then maybe we should start seriously considering trading up at that point.

[TRO]

I think Bickler was the right pick and am glad to see we stuck with the affinity system.

We should make the switch to LT.

I'm not that high on Martin that I'd want to jump to grab him. Low development, short, no combine, no interview. He could very well end up a nice player, but I don't see any reason to trade up for him.

[TRO]

Dola, am disappointed that Lochler went THAT fast, but not shocked.

[TRO]

Howard would be a nice pure run stopper. Big enough to switch to NT?

Cassidy is a conflict, no?

[QuikSand]

I think I would rate the top guys left like this, with spacing intended to show my relative feelings (I'm cooling on Martin, just too wary of drafting based on blue ranges):


ILB Booker
.
.
DE Martin
.
DT Howard (to DE)

[QuikSand]

Cassidy is a conflict, no?

D'oh! I knew there was a reason why we hadn't been talking about him. Sorry about that.

[TRO]

Right now, I'm torn between Booker and Howard. I think both could be solid contributors.

I wish Booker hit harder, but at this point in the draft, I think he's a great pick.

Howard is very one dimensional, all hinges on if he's big enough for NT.

[TRO]

Ah, Howard as a DE...hmm. That makes a bit more sense probably.

Still, Booker is the guy I think. I'd be tempted to move on him.

[QuikSand]

Booker looks to me like a great pick here... he's well developed, he stayed maxed-out at run defense after the interview, and he's strong in two coverages as well. Very strong combine, and we tagged him as "underrated" is that matters.

[TRO]

I think I'd be disappointed with getting anybody else at this point. I think we move up for him.

[QuikSand]

We have heard from the Jets. They are willing to swing the following deal, all within this year's draft:

Jets receive 2(1) and 2(4)

Dillos receive 1(19) and 3(17)


This gets us LB Booker, or any of the other players there that we want, and we still have an "extra" pick a bit later on.

[MalcPow]

I think I would rate the top guys left like this, with spacing intended to show my relative feelings (I'm cooling on Martin, just too wary of drafting based on blue ranges):


ILB Booker
.
.
DE Martin
.
DT Howard (to DE)

I think that makes sense. Cassidy looks like he might be worth moving up for, and Booker looks great but is his size going to make him lose some skill in a switch to WILB or SILB? Or would we just play him out of position?

Cassidy I think we definitely have to move up for asap, whereas Booker might fall into the mid 20's. And Martin just seems like too much of an unknown for us.

[mrsimperless]

I think that makes sense. Cassidy looks like he might be worth moving up for, and Booker looks great but is his size going to make him lose some skill in a switch to WILB or SILB? Or would we just play him out of position?

Cassidy I think we definitely have to move up for asap, whereas Booker might fall into the mid 20's. And Martin just seems like too much of an unknown for us.

Cassidy is a conflict.

[MalcPow]

We have heard from the Jets. They are willing to swing the following deal, all within this year's draft:

Jets receive 2(1) and 2(4)

Dillos receive 1(19) and 3(17)


This gets us LB Booker, or any of the other players there that we want, and we still have an "extra" pick a bit later on.

I like that deal. I like Cassidy better (edit: I'm an idiot, nevermind), but Booker looks set to have a great career with us. I'd support the move.

[QuikSand]

I don't have any feel at all for how far Booker might fall. Before the draft, I would have said he'd go at about pick 1.10... since he has already lasted past my expectation, I'm out of guesses.

And sorry again for the head fake on Cassidy. I should have filtered more closely when following the posted list of DT interviews, and just skipped him to help avoid all this.

[TRO]

Good point made regarding the switch to ILB from MLB. Do we have any reservations on this?

I think we made the trade and the pick personally and worry about possible switch or not later. We still could end up in a 4-3 (though I'd prefer to go 3-4 myself).

[QuikSand]

If position switches work in FOF 2007 like they did in FOF 2004, 227 is too light to make the switch, I believe (230 is the floor). I don't have any verification this is true, but I have another SP career I can use as a test.

[Icy]

I say we trade and get ILB Booker. Good run stopping ILBs are a must for the 3-4, i have them in the NAFL and even having a rookie underdeveloped NT my team is one of the best vs the run.

[mrsimperless]

Alright, when I posted above I had assumed we had 4 or 5 guys on our board who we all felt were fairly equal. If the thought is that Booker is head and shoulders above the rest then I agree and say pull the trigger on the trade.

That is unless we have a handful of guys who we think might go in the 2.1 and 2.5 who could be starters (say a lower quality LB and a DE or CB) but I haven't heard mention of anything really. Again, sorry but I don't have the game yet to pull up the draftees.

And is going from MLB to ILB really a switch? Doesn't seem like it should be really. At least as far as weight requirements go I can't see why there would be a difference.

Also, I have been posting assuming that the decision has already been made to build a team around a blitzing 3-4 style defense. Is this true or is it still up in the air?

[QuikSand]

Also, I have been posting assuming that the decision has already been made to build a team around a blitzing 3-4 style defense. Is this true or is it still up in the air?

I'm basically taking that assumption as well, but I think we are still undecided on what style(s) of coverages we will focus on.

[Warhammer]

A top quality ILB is a must for a 3-4. I would focus on the zone and man to man coverage schemes so you could run the weak/strong side M2M with strong/weak side zones.

EDIT: Also, based upon the descriptions of the coverages now, it does not appear that the LBs will be in a bump and run situation at all, does anyone have any info on this?

[QuikSand]

Seems like a consensus to move up for Booker, and I'm definitely in support of that. If he can't switch to WILB/SILB, then we can decide whether to just play him out of position, or to revert to a 4-3 front to better use his talents. Either way, I think he's a great value at this point in the draft.

I won't get to run it right away... when I do, shoudl I just quick sim the draft to our next pick at 3.1, or is there anyone else who is worth stopping for if still around at, say, 2.10 or so? We have two third rounders, so we could potentially deal up a bit to get a target guy. My inclination wil be to just zip to 3.1, unless anyone has a particular guy to be watching for.

[TRO]

I didn't see anybody else left that I would absolutely have to have.I suppose if Howard managed to fall into the mid 2nd, we should stop to consider moving for him.

[QuikSand]

Maybe I will stop somewhere in the mid-2nd, just to have a quick look. Seems like that's a fairly easy way to promote some discussion -- wound't necessarily even have to do a new file, I could just post the draft progress.

[TRO]

I certainly don't need a new file myself.

[MalcPow]

Sounds good to me

[QuikSand]

Draft Progress

19. Texarkana - Booker, Doug, ILB, Temple
20. Cleveland - Hooker, Les, RB, Sam Houston State
21. Dallas - Rogers, Jumbo, T, South Carolina
22. Seattle - Brookshire, Louie, QB, Texas - El Paso
23. St. Louis - Martin, Tito, DE, Baylor
24. Pittsburgh - Cordie, Derek, DE, Purdue
25. San Diego - Fabian, Kerry, S, Lehigh
26. Indianapolis - Cassidy, Kenneth, DT, Missouri
27. Philadelphia - Howard, Leland, DT, Alabama
28. Buffalo - Hawkins, Frankie, G, Michigan
29. Tennessee - Bernstein, Drew, TE, Cal. - Sacramento
30. Atlanta - Flannery, Roderick, T, Kansas
31. Arizona - Honaker, Alan, DT, Mississippi State
32. New England - Testa, Tony, DT, Rutgers
33. New Jersey - Gardner, Emmitt, CB, Mississippi State
34. Detroit - Monroe, Korey, T, Nebraska
35. Kansas City - Waddington, Kerry, DE, Washington State
36. New Jersey - Hirsch, Hunter, RB, Akron
37. Dallas - Price, Roger, TE, Northeastern
38. Minnesota - Jennings, Deion, T, Arizona State
39. San Francisco - Norris, Arnold, CB, Oregon State
40. New Orleans - Noe, Aaron, CB, Notre Dame
41. New York - Keith, Seth, DT, Florida
42. Tampa Bay - Glover, Amos, DE, Washington State
43. Oakland - Nixon, Maurice, G, Temple

Well, our other top targets from late round one went quickly, including DT Howard at 1(27). I’ll do a little looking around and see if anyone stands out among the remaining lot…

[QuikSand]

RB Austin Hagglund is a good skills match and came up underrated – he’s listed 4th overall on the big board. I’m not sure he looks like round two talent, but maybe I’m wrong there.

DT Casey Goguen looks good – I don’t know why we didn’t interview him. Preliminarily maxed-out in Run D and Play D, both of which would be important. Intriguing. Skipped the combine, so tough to say much more either way. Only 24% developed, though.

I like CB Clifton Shephard, three-coverage guy (all project over 50), affinty, and underrated. He’s the 3rd-rated CB left… so do we have time to wait him out? Will he be there at 3.1?

ILB Brett Dux looks awfully good, and graded as very underrated. But he is only 22% developed. Not a pass rusher at all, though.

SLB Sammie Lake looks like a solid contributor, and had a good combine. No interview.

[QuikSand]

Does anyone have a decent sense how to project the upcoming opicks of the draft? I ask because ILB Brett Dux, the guy who I believe I'd select if I had this pick, is buried at the bottom of page three of the overall "adjusted" sort. However, he's pretty clearly the top ILB remaining.

My general sense is that teams tend to do more "best at position" picks in FOF 2007, and I wouldn't be surprised if Dux were to be taken at any point, even with 50 or more players listed ahead of him on the big board.

Anyone have any insight?

[QuikSand]

Just an aside... let's make an effort to watch DT Billy Joe Hicks. He's among the top-rated players left on the big board right now, and it's fascinating to me -- he had an okay combine in a couple areas, he's well develope,d but his projected blue ranges are just dreadful -- it looks like all his projected skill will end up being in the ever-critical endurance skill. Great - a player who can't do shit for your team, but he can do it all day long if you need him to.

He's the #3 guy left on the overall adjusted sort, and I can't fathom why -- but I do see guys like this *a lot* in FOF 2007, and maybe watching what happens to him will be illustrative. Does he suddenly develop decent skills after the draft is over? Would he have been a "very underrated" had we interviewed him? I'm at a loss. Let's watch.

[Icy]

- ILB Brett Dux too, his has zero skills as pass rusher but he is very good at all coverages and also vs the run, the perfect ILB imho.

- DT Casey Goguen, i like him as run stopper and maybe could be moved to NT.

- LG Shawn Wolfe, no endurance, but good creating holes and good protecting too. 47% developed.

- FS Kirk Blackwell, so good vs the run, v.good also in zone defense and so good intercepting too, he could be a very good player for us. 42% developed, his dash numbers were bad but his agillity is good

- LCB Sephard, i don't like his zero at run stopping, but his coverage and play diags are v.good, not so bad on ints either, but i like more the other guys i posted above.

[Narcizo]

Booker was the one player I noticed in the draft class who I thought was worth moving up to get, he looks a great prospect. Great job taking him there.

Outside of the first round I think teams are very "needs-first" oriented and will reach down low to get a player they need. In my current game there seems to be a dearth of linebackers and teams will reach into projected 7th round area with their 3rd round picks to get a player that I've been targeting (ie scouted well and good interview). I think it pays off to adopt a more MP approach to the draft than you could get away with doing in FOF2004 (rely on a player to hang around till the bottom end of the draft). Which is just one of the areas where the game has improved for SP.

The feeling I get is that players that are deemed very underrated are ones that have great blue bars in comparison to their draft rating. I was thinking that players considered over-rated but with a good combine might be worth tracking to see if they improve afterwards.

In terms of the 'dillos; I think it's time to start thinking about filling out the roster and not trading up much more.

[KWhit]

All right! Nice job getting Booker.

Also, it sounds like a no brainer to move Bickler to LT.

[SunDevil]

I agree that this thread should be moved to the dynasty section of the forum.

[QuikSand]

My thinking was that the opwerations stuff would remain in this thread, while we'd eventually post an actual dynasty thread that includes actual results and so forth.

We're honestly having plenty of trouble just keeping people's attention as it is here... mocing this to an even less-traveled segment of this forum seems like it's premature, at the very least.

[QuikSand]

LT Jonathan Bickler grades out at 32/85 by our scout. Nice.

[Icy]

LT Jonathan Bickler grades out at 32/85 by our scout. Nice.


WOW if he reaches his 85 potential he would be one of the best T in the league for sure.

[TRO]

Nice addition to the watch list in Wolfe. Good fit.

I'd rank the list as:

Dux
Shephard
-
Wolfe

[Icy]

Nice addition to the watch list in Wolfe. Good fit.

I'd rank the list as:

Dux
Shephard
-
Wolfe

It could mean putting a lot of eggs on the same basket, but with Bicker and Wolfe we would have a great offensive line for years with a great cohesion.

[QuikSand]

I'm wary of Wolfe a bit. he's certainly among the better fit players left, but the single most attractive thing about him by far is the blue ranges -- which seem to be very un-trustworthy. he didn't exactly smash the combine - nothing there to suggest he'd actually live up to the high end of those ranges. If he eventually projects to ratings of, say, 65 in both run blocking and pass protection, he's a solid contributor. I like him okay... but I'm not sure I'm looking to deal way up to get him, just to see him very possible shrivel up to become a replacement-level player in a couple years.

[QuikSand]

We have talked to Baltimore about the 2.12 pick, currently on the clock. They want our two thirds, plus our seventh, for the selection.

I think if we are sold on exactly one guy here, it's probably worth it... if not, then we might be wise to listen to Narcizio here, and be thinking quantity rather than quality.

[SunDevil]

RB Austin Hagglund is a good skills match and came up underrated – he’s listed 4th overall on the big board. I’m not sure he looks like round two talent, but maybe I’m wrong there.

DT Casey Goguen looks good – I don’t know why we didn’t interview him. Preliminarily maxed-out in Run D and Play D, both of which would be important. Intriguing. Skipped the combine, so tough to say much more either way. Only 24% developed, though.

I like CB Clifton Shephard, three-coverage guy (all project over 50), affinty, and underrated. He’s the 3rd-rated CB left… so do we have time to wait him out? Will he be there at 3.1?

ILB Brett Dux looks awfully good, and graded as very underrated. But he is only 22% developed. Not a pass rusher at all, though.

SLB Sammie Lake looks like a solid contributor, and had a good combine. No interview.


- ILB Brett Dux too, his has zero skills as pass rusher but he is very good at all coverages and also vs the run, the perfect ILB imho.

- DT Casey Goguen, i like him as run stopper and maybe could be moved to NT.

- LG Shawn Wolfe, no endurance, but good creating holes and good protecting too. 47% developed.

- FS Kirk Blackwell, so good vs the run, v.good also in zone defense and so good intercepting too, he could be a very good player for us. 42% developed, his dash numbers were bad but his agillity is good

- LCB Sephard, i don't like his zero at run stopping, but his coverage and play diags are v.good, not so bad on ints either, but i like more the other guys i posted above.


Are any of these guys worth moving up for? If not, I say we go after quanity.

[SunDevil]

dola

Just wanted to add that I am leaning toward staying where we are, and just getting solid guys that are available.

[QuikSand]

It sounds like the top guy on every list right now is ILB Dux. We'd potentially be pairing up two pretty promising inside linebackers right away, and I really don't mind the lack of pass rushing skills with Dux - he has what I value in an ILB.

I'll cast my vote -- I say we deal up and take him. I don't value the 7th round pick at all, and I'm not too wild about the next tier of players we are likely to see after another 20-40 picks, assuming all the guys we like would be gone by then. I can live with a stud left tackle and two foundation linebackers from our first draft, if it works out that way.

[QuikSand]

I'm sendsing a new file now, and I will be away from the game until tomorrow morning. Now is the time for bold leadership. Step up. Run a stage. Be a hero.

[mrsimperless]

I'll 2nd moving up for Dux. Since we don't have anyone of note in the critical NT spot yet at this point our ILB play is going to be critical. Having two solid contributers here should provide our D the biggest bang for the buck right now.

[Icy]

Ok, let's take Dux and our running defense should be good for some years.

[KWhit]

Ok. I'll run a stage tonight unless someone else has already started.

Speak up now, or I'll have a stage done in about an hour.

[KWhit]

I agree with everyone's assessment of Dux. I really like the way his bars look and the "Very Underrated" scout impression makes me even happier.

I pull the trigger and move up to get him at 2.12, trading away our 3.1, 3.17, and 7.1 for Baltimore's second rounder.

Taking a look at him on our roster screen, he turns out to be a 19/70. Nice! I wish he was a bit more polished (19?), but he's got nice potential in all the right places.

[KWhit]

So since we have 2 young ILBs, we will definitely want to get a mentor for them once FA2 rolls around. I thought I would go ahead and look at the ones available to us while it was top of mind, so:

ILB Mentors:

SILB Sam Floyd - No affinity or conflict. Will not become a positional leader. Also no real football talent left. Will be a mentor only.
WILB Norm Hardy - Decent bars for a mentor. But he'd be a conflict. I was hoping he'd work out so we could all yell "Norm!" when he got in the boxscore.
WILB MIke Winn - No affinity or conflict. Looks like he could take over the leadership role if we signed him, so that's no good.
MLB Kevin Polko - No affinity or conflict. Young for a mentor, so he'd be around a while. Bars aren't horrible, but they're not in the right places, unfortunately. I think he's the best of the bunch, however.What's funny is that Polko was a pretty good player for Texarkana last year until we released him in The Great Purge. I suggest we try to get him back once we hit FA2 as he looks to be the best option for a MLB mentor. Floyd would be the #2 option.

Okay... Sidetrack ended. Back to the draft.

[Galaxy]

What type of roles will the ILBs have?

[KWhit]

Draft Progress:

44. Texarkana - Dux, Brett, ILB, Washington State
45. Carolina - Hagglund, Austin, RB, St. Peter's, NJ.
46. Cincinnati - Herod, Bobby, WR, Kansas State
47. Dallas - Pearson, Vernon, S, Temple
48. Washington - Shephard, Clifton, CB, Purdue
49. Miami - McDougal, Norman, CB, Michigan State
50. New Jersey - Lepore, Tracy, WR, Waynesburg
51. Jacksonville - Pringley, Mack, CB, Rice
52. Dallas - Finch, Grady, ILB, Penn State
53. Cleveland - Fitzgerald, Pierson, WR, Georgia Tech
54. St. Louis - Saul, Ricky, DE, Maine
55. Pittsburgh - Matthews, Geoff, RB, Kentucky
56. San Diego - Dewit, Clyde, CB, Drake
57. Seattle - Hathaway, Omar, S, Wake Forest
58. Philadelphia - Blackwell, Kirk, S, Minnesota
59. Indianapolis - Goguen, Casey, DT, Duke
60. Tennessee - Wolfe, Shawn, G, Texas A&M
61. Buffalo - McNamee, Norm, S, Rutgers
62. Atlanta - Woodyshek, Russell, C, Mercyhurst
63. Arizona - Hicks, Billy Joe, DT, Michigan State
64. New England - Lake, Sammie, OLB, Air Force
65. Baltimore - Gust, Pat, CB, Pittsburgh
66. Kansas City - Coster, Drew, WR, Kentucky
67. Detroit - Gonzalez, Lawrence, CB, Rutgers
68. Green Bay - Suckle, Spencer, C, Florida A&M
69. Denver - Coffey, Nick, DE, UCLA
70. San Francisco - Gunn, Trent, DT, UCLA
71. New Orleans - Adair, Antonio, S, Texas
72. Dallas - Turnbull, Donovan, G, Charleston Southern
73. Tampa Bay - King, Leonard, WR, Indiana
74. Oakland - Tyler, Cornelius, P, Kansas State
75. Minnesota - Munro, Allen, OLB, Georgia Tech
76. Carolina - Tautuaa, Jessie, FB, Northwestern
77. Cincinnati - Hoffman, Robbie, ILB, Kansas State
78. Chicago - Kelly, Dwayne, C, Eastern Washington
79. Washington - Martin, Leonard, RB, Maine
80. Baltimore - Reilly, Matt, CB, Pittsburgh
81. Baltimore - Millard, Marco, S, Oregon State
82. Jacksonville - Jackson, Seth, S, Oklahoma State
83. Miami - Kamm, Winston, G, Iowa
84. New York - Monds, Marco, WR, Arkansas
85. Dallas - Bensen, Orlando, DE, Stanford
86. Pittsburgh - Branch, Kevin, S, San Jose State
87. San Diego - Schmadl, Tony, CB, Michigan State
88. Seattle - Caniff, Antonio, RB, Florida
89. St. Louis - Turnbull, Deon, T, Oregon
90. Indianapolis - Gellings, Roosevelt, OLB, Morgan State
91. Philadelphia - Kurtz, Ellis, WR, Stanford
92. Buffalo - Ashraf, Ricardo, WR, Washington State
93. Tennessee - Mann, Maurice, S, North Carolina
94. Atlanta - Arnold, Nolan, OLB, Washington State
95. Arizona - Brennan, Anthony, WR, Rutgers
96. New England - Bromell, Adrian, OLB, Clemson

We didn't have much ammunition to trade up to get anybody, so I went ahead and let the draft do its thing until it came to our pick at 4.1.

And it's gonna sound crazy, but I think we should go middle defensive front yet again. I have had my eye on NT Artie Bobo for a few picks now. His potential bars look great for a DT - especially at this point in the draft. He's also tagged as Very Underrated by our scout which is nice. No affinity or conflict, but his run defense, pass rush technique, and play diagnosis are all high. What do you guys think of him?

[TRO]

Not much of a combine performer, but he does intriguing for a 4th round guy.

[KWhit]

New file up.

[KWhit]

Not much of a combine performer, but he does intriguing for a 4th round guy.

True. I meant to note that.

[Sublime 2]

When I ran through the DT's, Bobo popped out as, what I though would be a good middle round selection. If his run defense ends up being where we think it will, he could be a huge help in the middle!

[Narcizo]

I don't know if this has been noticed but the fullback we signed is the new team leader for running backs - I can't find a free agent who will take over the leadership role from him when he's on the team.

Polko looks good, as long as he will sign with us after we cut him. He played very well last year and might feel badly treated after being cut. My other worry about him is whether he will play well in a 3-4 system - he looks low in experience at S and W ILB. Still the best inside linebacker mentor available though and not a player you would mind having in the depth chart, even out of position.

Does anyone know if the combine scores can be used to predict specific ratings as was possible in 2004? If so I'd be worried about Bobo's agility score, which really suggests that his run stopping isn't as great as our scout is seeing it. However my only alternative to Bobo would be the defensive end Cory Baumann. I believe run-stopping defensive ends are important in a 3-4 set and Baumann's agility score seems to back up the fact that he is a great run-stopper and has decent pass rushing technique as well. His (lack of) strength is a worry but so is Bobo's. I think he will have an affinity on our team and he is quite well developed (which could mean that his potential isn't very high admittedly). I think that there's also a chance that Bobo will fall to the 5th round, while chances are that Baumann won't make it there.

I'd be interested in tracking SS Kenneth Kirk as well. His scouted rating look horrible but he has had a great combine. I still haven't got to grips with how the combine scores and scouted ratings should be read so I think it might be interesting to see what becomes of Kirk. I'm pretty certain he would have been considered "Very Overrated" in an interview. He looks like he could be a great cornerback, and seems to have more experience there than at safety.

Overall I'd probably still vote for Bobo but I definitely think Baumann is worth considering.

[Narcizo]

DOLA

Before I forget we should probably get Doug Booker to beef up in the weights room (if possible) before converting him to SILB or WILB.

[QuikSand]

I don't know if this has been noticed but the fullback we signed is the new team leader for running backs - I can't find a free agent who will take over the leadership role from him when he's on the team.

This is going to be an ongoing problem at the RB/FB group... our current leader there is pretty weak in leadership. I guess we didn't get the message about the FB taking the reinas because at the moment we had Roberson in, and he had taken the leadership role. *sigh*

This kinda stinks, especially since the top FB in the rookie draft fell an awfully long way, and might have been a nice add for us. So it goes. I won't mind just getting a decent-enough guy there, but in the interestes of our chemistry effort, I think we probably would be better off dropping the veteran. It might be a close call, though - he's pretty solid, and we are simply not going to have much talen in the backfield this year, it seems. (Though if the difference is between winning two and four games, I guess I don't care too much)

[QuikSand]

MLB Kevin Polko - No affinity or conflict. Young for a mentor, so he'd be around a while. Bars aren't horrible, but they're not in the right places, unfortunately. I think he's the best of the bunch, however.

What's funny is that Polko was a pretty good player for Texarkana last year until we released him in The Great Purge. I suggest we try to get him back once we hit FA2 as he looks to be the best option for a MLB mentor. Floyd would be the #2 option.

Agreed - I say wo go after Polko after the draft, for a three-year cheap deal.

[Icy]

Agreed - I say wo go after Polko after the draft, for a three-year cheap deal.

Agree too, we need a mentor to max those ILB's soon.

[albionmoonlight]

Hmmm. . . running a west coast offense with a poor fullback is not really good cooking.

That said, I think that it would be a real shame for y'all to lose the chemistry experiment before it even started. You've already made some sacrifices for it. It would be strange in some ways to shift course now.

Perhaps an idea would be to trade your fullback and a mid-round choice for another comparable fullback? I don't know if you have house rules about trading, but this wouldn't really be to take advantage of the trade AI as it would be to fix a chemistry mistake.

[Warhammer]

In a 3-4, the way I like to run it, you have two guys at the ends that are monster run stoppers. The stud on the line needs to be the NT. I would opt for Baumann for that reason. We're probably going to have a bad year anyway so we should be able to get a stud NT in the draft next year.

[QuikSand]

Perhaps an idea would be to trade your fullback and a mid-round choice for another comparable fullback? I don't know if you have house rules about trading, but this wouldn't really be to take advantage of the trade AI as it would be to fix a chemistry mistake.

Your opponent is unwilling to trade for somebody you just signed.

[QuikSand]

QB Howard Burks looks a bit interesting. I'[m not looking to upend a promising draft pick elsewhere, but Burks is one of the most developed QBs left, and isn't a terrible fit with our proposed system. Very unlikely to be a long-term answer, but at some point he might be worth a shot.

[QuikSand]

Hmmm. . . running a west coast offense with a poor fullback is not really good cooking.

That said, I think that it would be a real shame for y'all to lose the chemistry experiment before it even started. You've already made some sacrifices for it. It would be strange in some ways to shift course now.

I think the guy to go after is Kansas City's FB Steve Rockne. He'd be an affinity guy, I think, and he looks pretty solid. I wouldn't mind seeking a trade for him after the draft (or during) and seeing if we can bring him aboard -- even without the ability to send away the guy we already signed.

[Narcizo]

QB Howard Burks looks a bit interesting. I'[m not looking to upend a promising draft pick elsewhere, but Burks is one of the most developed QBs left, and isn't a terrible fit with our proposed system. Very unlikely to be a long-term answer, but at some point he might be worth a shot.

I'd opt for Baumann or Bobo ahead of him if only because both of them probably will be a long-term solution. With the roster in the state it is I think it might be a waste to use a 4th round pick on a QB who doesn't have much of a long-term future on the team.

[QuikSand]

I don't think I will win this battle, but I would like to see us look at CB Nicky Spearman. He's an affinty guy, a punt returner, and he has two standout (top-rated) combine results.

To me, this guy represents the opposite view of rookie drafting -- if DE Cory Baumann is a guy who is intriguing almost exclusivly because of his impressive-looking blue bars, then CB SPearman is the reverse -- he's intriguing in spite of his bars.

I realize that I'm not going to win this battle, and since CB Spearman is liatsed as the #2 CB remaining, he's fairly likely to be gone before we pick again. I'll live with that. But if one of our goals here is to learn a thing or two about the game -- let's try to keep an eye on Spearman down the line. Maybe even as a running contrast With Baumann. *shurg*

[QuikSand]

There doesn't seem to be consensus, but DT Artie Bobo is probably the closest thing we have at this point. Do we have more lobbying to do here, or are we ready to make the pick that is the most popular?

[SunDevil]

In a 3-4, the way I like to run it, you have two guys at the ends that are monster run stoppers. The stud on the line needs to be the NT. I would opt for Baumann for that reason. We're probably going to have a bad year anyway so we should be able to get a stud NT in the draft next year.

I agree we should go for Baumann.

[mrsimperless]

I would rather see us go the Baumann route. I still think we eventually need an absolute monster at DT and I don't see Bobo being that guy. This means he would likely end a backup or traded/released. Baumann represents a potential long term answer at a need position.

[johnnyshaka]

Hey guys...been following along and would love to take part at some point. I haven't bought the game yet and may not for a little while...but, I was wondering if anybody would be able to put the HTML files online so guys like me could have an understanding of who this Bobo fella is?!?!

If not, no worries.

[mrsimperless]

I'm right there with ya johnny. I don't have a complete picture of Bobo, but Quick labelled him as a solid mid-round NT. Maybe I'm wrong and he could develop into what I think we're looking for, but I was hoping we would eventually draft a high round NT or signa nice free agent.

I'm tempted to buy the game so I can follow along in the dynasty better even though I'm not starting a career until the patch comes out.

And I won't be heart broken if we opt for Bobo. His name is awesome.

[QuikSand]

Generally, I think the in-game method is best for communicating most everything, but since we're at something of a lull anyway...

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/bobo.jpg

[Icy]

Umm i like DT Bobo more that Baumann (who i like too but as second choice) and except on pass rushing he is a NT good enought for a 3-4 as anyway who will put the pressure are the LB's. I like that he is underated and his 56% development.

[johnnyshaka]

Thanks, QS...and Bauman??

[QuikSand]

Personally, I like Bobo fine, but I don't see him as a long-term solution either, absent some massive breakout. We have a DT on the roster right now who rates 54 in Run D (and another at 42) and my inclination would probably be to patch by until we find a true monster -- very possibly in next year's draft.

However, I will also agree that Bobo is probably the best overall player left in the draft, combining basic skills we're looking for, combine results, and interview impression. So I have no real problem taking him.


The notion that the 4th round is still a zone to be looking for long-term starters is, I think, pure folly -- at least at this point with our (my?) understanding of the draft. But that's what this exercise is, in large part -- a chance to learn together.

[QuikSand]

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/baumann.jpg

[QuikSand]

Incidentally, it appears that LB Booker can make a switch to any LB position (or to safety, which would make no sense). Our scout says moving to SILB (beside Dux if we keep him slotted at WILB) is with no change, and that a switch to SLB would possibly increase his ratings. I'm game for anything there - but at least we don't have to panic about him being locked into MLB on a committed 3-4 team.

[Sublime 2]

I'm still going to have to say Bobo, but like others, have Baumann right behind him. So either way, I'd be happy, but Bobo is the guy I'd be taking here. I understand the reasoning behind not taking him as well though.

[johnnyshaka]

What about a position change for Bobo?? Anybody like a move to DE for him??

[SunDevil]

I think that I might be outnumbered with this draft choice and that is ok, but if we could just track Baumann to see how he turns out, it will be interesting to see what happens.

I am also glad to see more people chime in and offer their opinions. I hope this continues and we can all learn more about this game.

[QuikSand]

Well, I will use my mad grafix skillz to pimp the other guys I have mentioned, since that's what the kids are doing these days...

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/burks.jpg

[QuikSand]

What about a position change for Bobo?? Anybody like a move to DE for him??

Personally, I like pass rushers at DE, far more than run stoppers. I realize from above this is not a universal position.

To me, I would be asking the reverse question - could Baumann be moved to DT? (answer : no way, he's far too light)

[Sublime 2]

I guess the other thing I'm looking at, is that we did do the interview on Bobo and it came back very underrated and we never did interview Baumann. It atleast gives us a little bit better idea what we're getting back in Bobo.

[Icy]

What about a position change for Bobo?? Anybody like a move to DE for him??

We can always try if in the future we find a better NT.

[KWhit]

Of the two options, I prefer Bobo.

[QuikSand]

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/spearman.jpg

Spearman - affinity, punt returner, well-developed... this is a guy who makes the team for three years and contributes something. He does come with the highest strength combine workout (18 reps, far more than anyone else left at CB) and the best broad jump of any CB left at 10 feet even.

Is he a guy we want to suit up and start at CB? Not without a big breakout. Is there a sign that this guy might be a slight "creeper" and get incrementally better with time? I think it's possible. Is there a chance that this guy ends up being a productive player longer that mister-blue-bars Baumann? I definitely think so.

[KWhit]

Of the two options, I prefer Bobo.

Didn't mean to ignore your QB and CB options, QS... But it looks like the group is leaning toward the DT or DE.

[Icy]

Btw, do you guys know what "bobo" mean in Spanish?

bobo=retard or stupid

I hope it doesn't have anything to do with his real ratings :D

[QuikSand]

Didn't mean to ignore your QB and CB options, QS... But it looks like the group is leaning toward the DT or DE.

I'm mostly interested in documenting a bit of this discussion -- it's this point of the draft that I find generally baffling, and it wouyld be worth the effort is down thr road some of these players turn out to be really good ro totally worthless. I suspect we'll have some of the latter... not sure about the former. I think we might just be spinning our wheels with a bunch of stiffs, to be honest.

[QuikSand]

I propose we take the safest pick in DT Bobo, and see what's left at 5.1 -- if any of these guys fall another round, we can renew the debate.

[Icy]

I'm sorry to disagree Quik, but that CB is not a 4th rounder player imho. If he is still available later we could give him a shoot but too soon right now as he is only good at returning unless he ends being a boom.

[Sublime 2]

I think if he (the CB) doesn't fall to the 5th, he's certainly a guy to look at post-draft. I'm interested in the combine over blue bars theory. And he's probably one of the best guys to study.

[TRO]

I do find taking a Punt Returner here insteresting.

I'm ok with the Bobo pick but from a learning perspective, doesn't do much for us.

If Spearman or Burks is there at 5.1, I'd love to grab one of them. Burks probably isn't a long term solution but the fact that he takes advantage of our affinity plan is a big plus.

[johnnyshaka]

Personally, I like pass rushers at DE, far more than run stoppers. I realize from above this is not a universal position.

To me, I would be asking the reverse question - could Baumann be moved to DT? (answer : no way, he's far too light)

In a 4-3 defense, I would aggree with you completely. But, in a 3-4 defense, I find the most effective pass push will come from your OLBs.

I'm not saying that moving Bobo is the best option, but if we plan to grab a stud NT next year, Bobo could easily be a decent end and if you have to, sub him out during pass situations.

[johnnyshaka]

DOLA...at this point in the draft, taking the best player available makes sense especially with so many holes to fill.

[QuikSand]

In a 4-3 defense, I would aggree with you completely. But, in a 3-4 defense, I find the most effective pass push will come from your OLBs.

Interesting argument...

I haven't bought the game yet and may not for a
little while...

...so your thoughts are based on the FOF 2004 game. Certainly a good start, but I'm not sure we can take for granted that everything is going to be the same in FOF 2007.

[SunDevil]

Um no, that is called basic football knowledge. And if the game does not simulate the 3-4 formation correctly, then well, Jim we have another big bug to fix. :D

[johnnyshaka]

Good point, QS.

[QuikSand]

Draft Update

97. Texarkana - Bobo, Artie, DT, Penn State
98. Detroit - Freedman, Jesse, CB, Stony Brook
99. Kansas City - Jordan, Buddy, WR, Wisconsin
100. Denver - Newman, Arnold, RB, Concordia, Ill.
101. Green Bay - Mills, Kirk, OLB, Oregon
102. Dallas - Garrett, Dwayne, C, Central Florida
103. New York - Cole, Shannon, TE, Southern California
104. Tampa Bay - Fitzgerald, Quinn, DT, East Carolina
105. Oakland - Davidson, Terrance, S, Vanderbilt
106. Minnesota - Dawson, Victor, TE, Arkansas
107. San Francisco - Groce, Troy, C, Wake Forest
108. Cincinnati - Knight, Monty, C, West Virginia
109. Chicago - Etten, Brenden, ILB, Midwestern State
110. Washington - Watkins, Sammy, K, Tennessee
111. Baltimore - Sellers, Wes, K, Marist
112. Carolina - Talbert, Harold, K, West Virginia
113. Jacksonville - Kinsella, Roger, S, San Jose State
114. Miami - Baumann, Cory, DE, San Diego State
115. New Jersey - Lengfelder, Marshall, P, Virginia
116. New York - Foote, Wayne, P, Georgia Tech
117. Cleveland - Summers, Donnell, S, St. Francis (Ill.)
118. San Diego - Panehal, Omar, P, Wisc. - Oshkosh
119. Seattle - Kirk, Kenneth, S, Syracuse
120. St. Louis - Lowrey, Pat, S, Oklahoma State
121. Pittsburgh - Becker, Ed, S, Iowa
122. New York - Bonnette, Josh, FB, Oregon
123. Indianapolis - Paolillo, Todd, P, S. Connecticut St.
124. Tennessee - Solik, Cornelius, FB, Arkansas
125. Buffalo - Cortez, Edgar, OLB, Oklahoma
126. Atlanta - Meadows, Andrew, S, Miami, Florida
127. Arizona - Schmidgall, Bill, S, Iona
128. New England - Wilcox, Nolan, S, Temple


So, we take DT Bobo, as the near-consensus BPA. We can slot him wherever we like in our system, I suspect. On our roster, our scout grades Bobo at 18/52 slotted as a NT.

When the top CB left was taken off the board, I wanted to stop the draft… and then I kept watching, waiting to see CB Spearman go, and waiting, and waiting… I restrained myself, and he’s still there at 5.1. So is QB Howard Burks – who, incidentally, is in the 8-9 affinity group – the same as our group leaders, but not himself an affinty, I don’t believe.


We’ll rest it here for a bit. A couple of interesting choices here to consider, I guess. Maybe the “opportunity cost” of taking a somewhat non-traditional guy like CB Spearman has dropped sufficiently to make him worth a look.

[QuikSand]

Um no, that is called basic football knowledge. And if the game does not simulate the 3-4 formation correctly, then well, Jim we have another big bug to fix.

I have a pretty good deal of experience both with "basic football' and with every version of Front Office Football, this computer game. In general, I think it wise to play this computer game based on how the computer game works, and I think people who get caught up in trying to overlay real life onto the computer game are following an unwise path.

If you believe that defensive ends no longer serve as primary pass rushers in an FOF 2004 3-4 defense, you are making a very unsupported assumption. As for FOF 2007 -- for me at least, it's just too soon to tell.

[QuikSand]

Incidentally -- our scout grades Cory Baumann, on the Miami roster now, at 21/50.

[Sublime 2]

They couldn't have made it easy on us by leaving just one of the CB, QB pair, they had to make us choose. For me it's a tough decision, I would really like to see what the CB turns out as, but at the same time, Burks seems to fit into our system (WC and chemistry) quite well.

[QuikSand]

Our scout says to switch Bobo to RDE would work at 97%, with a slight experience reduction. So it looks like a fairly painless switch if we decided to go that way. If he lost a little weight, maybe even more smoothly.

[MalcPow]

I like Bobo, nice pick guys.

[KWhit]

I'm mostly interested in documenting a bit of this discussion -- it's this point of the draft that I find generally baffling, and it wouyld be worth the effort is down thr road some of these players turn out to be really good ro totally worthless. I suspect we'll have some of the latter... not sure about the former. I think we might just be spinning our wheels with a bunch of stiffs, to be honest.


I agree that it is good practice to closely document our thoughts as we go so that after a couple of seasons we can come back and compare the players we were considering.

[QuikSand]

Ok, with all the grafiz wiardry at hand, I thought I'd do a quick side-by-side of Bobo, how we scouted him in-draft and on-roster:

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/bobo.jpg

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/bobo2.jpg

Personally, I'm looking at the Run D rating, and I'm seeing some slight erosion there -- his range there had been centered on about 78 or so, now it's probably centered on 71 or so, just by my eyeball estaimation.

My guess is that in FOF 2004, this would have been a player who looked something like 19/55 in the draft, and now that he's on our team, he dropped a couple of points to 18/52. In FOF 2004, I would be bemoaning this as a serious omen of bad things to come, and that the player woudl never see his apparent upside.

I'm open to learning otherwise, but my inclination is now to believe that Bobo will turn out to be worth anything at all.

[QuikSand]

And we thus highlight the need for a replacement graphic for the "Little Rock" logo.

[TRO]

I was thinking Burks was an affinity. Since he's not, I'm not as high on him.

We're certainly at the point in the draft where taking risks is part of the fun. Let's take Spearman.

[johnnyshaka]

I like the Spearman pick as well. A gamble, but at worst he's our punt returner for a couple of years who will only help the chemistry of the team.

Any other guys on the board that have an affinity and who look to be intriguing??

[mrsimperless]

I'll chime in and throw my lot in with Spearman as well. I think our affinity strategy is really one of the key components of this group think and we should try to enhance the effects of it.

[QuikSand]

Other potential picks while we’re down here…

DE Conrad Deighton, another blue-bars specialist, affinity, second best agility

FB Philip McDaniel, can pass block, decent receiving skills, affinity, lousy combine

WR Lenny Strong, impressive blue ranges esp. RR, affinity guy

WR Dennis Fabbrizzi, modest orange bars, standout STR combine

[SunDevil]

FB Philip McDaniel, can pass block, decent receiving skills, affinity, lousy combine

This guy would be interesting just as a test to see if a lousy combine really has any effect.

WR Lenny Strong, impressive blue ranges esp. RR, affinity guy

Overall I would have to pick this guy. If we are using a west-coast offense this guy would help.

In terms of CB Spearman, I would wait until the 6th round with our last pick, if he makes it that far.

[QuikSand]

Draft Update

With a fair-enough consensus on the 5th round pick (and I thank you for indulging me here, to some degree) we grab the affinity punt returner…

129. Texarkana - Spearman, Nicky, CB, Buffalo
130. Kansas City - Farley, Sean, S, UAB
131. Detroit - Sword, Curtis, S, UCLA
132. Green Bay - Grant, Kris, DT, Oklahoma State
133. Denver - Armstrong, Billy, OLB, Tennessee
134. New York - Godzik, Gabe, G, Kentucky
135. Tampa Bay - Schroeder, Darrell, OLB, Findlay
136. Oakland - Wallace, Norbert, DE, Oklahoma
137. Minnesota - Blank, Korey, G, Northern Michigan
138. San Francisco - Small, Ronald, OLB, Glenville State
139. New Orleans - Cooper, Ellis, T, Ark. - Pine Bluff
140. Chicago - Lane, Carlos, G, New Mexico State
141. Washington - Manning, Reggie, CB, Auburn
142. Baltimore - Dunlap, Geoff, G, Texas Christian
143. Carolina - Collado, Mitch, T, Georgia
144. Cincinnati - Newsome, Gary, CB, Vanderbilt
145. Miami - Boyer, Joseph, T, Southern California
146. New Jersey - Reeg, Maurice, ILB, Baylor
147. New York - Mimick, Ray, T, Tulsa
148. Cleveland - Murry, Roderick, CB, Mississippi
149. Dallas - Small, Harvey, DE, Kansas
150. Seattle - Blackwell, Moe, DT, Florida State
151. St. Louis - McCreery, Leslie, DT, Arkansas
152. Pittsburgh - Schulz, Bob, DE, Stanford
153. San Diego - Buchans, Percy, G, Washington
154. Indianapolis - Guthrie, Keith, CB, Clemson
155. Philadelphia - Dakota, Ernie, RB, Fresno State
156. Buffalo - Inmon, Bobby, WR, Texas
157. Tennessee - Durham, Ike, ILB, Arkansas
158. Atlanta - Rayburn, Gary, CB, Troy State
159. Arizona - Deighton, Conrad, DE, Howard
160. New England - Meier, Cornelius, WR, Ohio State

QB Howard Burks still sits atop the big board…,. and I don't think we lost out on any of the other potential target guys listed above, either.

[TRO]

I like Lenny Strong too but realize he'll be very very green. I don't think I'd want to invest in him at this point.

[Narcizo]

My impression is that a bit of rating erosion post-draft isn't quite as bad an omen as it is in 2004. I think almost all players seem to suffer from some degree of it after the draft.

Doesn't look like we missed out on much with Baumann (apart from an affinity). I suspect he won't last long on his team unless the AI has improved with regards to building up young players.

At the moment I guess that both players will max out at around 40 if they get the playing time necessary. In terms of FOF2007 (or MP 2004) that really isn't so bad and is a borderline starter (I've seem players with less rating perform very solidly). The situation with our roster means that they will be able to get the playing time so I think we should, still, be thinking in terms of getting starters in the mid-rounds.

I don't like taking Spearman in some sort of combine over scouted ratings move, as his combines are very patchy. Unless we commited to solely playing BnR (I'm not sure what was decided there but I got the impression that we don't want to limit the team) I really don't think he'll ever be useable for anything except punt returns. I lean towards Burks at the moment and don't have the time to look for other prospects.

Ps the 4th round really seems to be the round for taking kickers in 2007.

PPS Does anyone have any idea of how the position drill numbers are reflected in the player's skill set? And BJump?

PPS I'm really enjoying these discussions, thanks to QS for starting this thread.

[QuikSand]

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/spearman.jpg

Spearman - affinity, punt returner, well-developed... this is a guy who makes the team for three years and contributes something. He does come with the highest strength combine workout (18 reps, far more than anyone else left at CB) and the best broad jump of any CB left at 10 feet even.

Is he a guy we want to suit up and start at CB? Not without a big breakout. Is there a sign that this guy might be a slight "creeper" and get incrementally better with time? I think it's possible. Is there a chance that this guy ends up being a productive player longer that mister-blue-bars Baumann? I definitely think so.

On the roster update:

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/QuikSand/spearman2.jpg

[Narcizo]

D'oh! Missed the boat with a long post.

[QuikSand]

For what it's worth... I love the contrast between the two receivers Strong and Fabbrizzi. To me it's the classic confrontation, in a late-round setting, between "a guy who might livbe up to the hype and be really useful" versus "a guy who has a chance to be far better than he appears."

So far, the votes are pouring in for the former. I prefer the latter. However, I suspect we might be able to get Fabbrizzi after the draft concludes as a free agent, so I'm not all that worried about picking him.

[QuikSand]

Once we make this last draft pick, i will zip through the rest of the draft and we'll have a whole universe of free agents, rookies and otherwise, to start disucssing. In late free ageny, we will really be able to start filling out this team's roster.

Would someone like to volunteer to start a collection of data in ChangeTracker? I think it would be really useful to have - to help us follow along with player's overall movement in scouted ratings.

[QuikSand]

I think the guy to go after is Kansas City's FB Steve Rockne. He'd be an affinity guy, I think, and he looks pretty solid. I wouldn't mind seeking a trade for him after the draft (or during) and seeing if we can bring him aboard -- even without the ability to send away the guy we already signed.

Just FYI -- we have approached KC about this FB, and they are not budging. Not even for next year's 2nd round pick, which I think is clearly excessive.

We're going to have to make a call abotu chemistry at the FB position, and probably either bit ethe bullet and disrupt things, or else dump the decent FA we signed and go with a far lesser player. For year one or two of this, i doubt that the quality of our FB will translate to much anyway, so I'd vote for the latter... but I wanted to get all the cards on the table.

[TRO]

Spearman shows a bit of growth. Nice.

[SunDevil]

Maybe I am still comparing the real world to the FOF world, but why would we use a draft pick on someone who would just be returning punts? Are there not enough options to find someone to do this after the draft as a free agent?

Could someone please elaborate why everyone sees in this guy? Thanks.

[QuikSand]

Side idea... we could convert the FB on our roster to play TE, rather than just cutting him outright. He would not be the position leader in the WR/TE group, I'm quite certain.

[TRO]

Dump the FB.

[QuikSand]

Maybe I am still comparing the real world to the FOF world, but why would we use a draft pick on someone who would just be returning punts? Are there not enough options to find someone to do this after the draft as a free agent?

Could someone please elaborate why everyone sees in this guy? Thanks.

I've been doing most of the talking about him so far - but it's basically a matter of whether you value the projected ratings, or whether you look for guys who have a sign of a possible breakout, mostly tipped off by combine results.

I have found, definitely in FOF 2004 and so far also in FOF 2007, that making draft picks -- especially in the later rounds -- based on the blue/orange ratings and what potential seems to lie in there, is a quick way to end up with a whole lot of complete junk in your draft. I think that middle to late round picks, which I don't value much anyway, are better used on guys who have some reaosn for optimism. There are plenty of CBs left in this draft who have blue bars that suggest they might someday have ratings of 50 or so in skills we like. And, in my judgment, hardly any of them will actually turn out that way - they are fool's gold.

In Spearman, I see a guy who at very worst will be a contributor on special teams and in chemistry... and becvause of one outstanding combione result, I think there's at leats some hope that he's a player who evolves to being useful beyond that. I'm not claiming he's a future superstar, I'm claiming he's the right "type" of player for us to be watching in these late rounds, rather than falling for player after player with illusory blue skill ranges.

[TRO]

Side idea... we could convert the FB on our roster to play TE, rather than just cutting him outright. He would not be the position leader in the WR/TE group, I'm quite certain.

That's a quality idea.

[QuikSand]

That's a quality idea.

We could probably even play him at FB if need be.

[Warhammer]

Just a note, I have seen some players that saw a slow rating slide eventually boom in their 4th or 5th year. Jerome Mueller in the Imperial Football League is a guy who did that. I drafted him as an X/58 player, he slid to X/54 for me, got traded and boomed to a X/62 player after 2-3 years with his new team.

[QuikSand]

In the absence of any clear consensus on what to do here at 6.1, I am sending a new file for distribution. I don't know whether I will have access this evening, so I'd encourage discussion and progress as we see fit.

I do think it would be worthwihle for a roster summary to be printed out in .txt format prior to concluding the draft. The end draft/start late FA stage is a pivot point in FOF 2004 -- I don't know whether it remains on in FOF 2007, but if so, I'd like to be aware of the various +/- we see at that stage.

If we don't make any progress this afternoon/evening, I will wrap up the draft and get us to late free agency tomorrow morning.

[Tasan]

I've been following this but not commenting, since I had yet to download the files. Now that I have them, I've been combing the remaining draftees and upcoming free agents. One question I have is what birthdays do we have to avoid? I'm not used to playing with affinities and conflicts, so I'm finding it a little odd/hard.