New Sticky Note

The new user interface is in preview!

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

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Re: Getting frustrated

By raymattison21
8/09/2017 8:46 am
Booger926 wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
Last year the top sack leaders were not over 260 pounds. All were edge rushers. In league 75 , the top sackers are 276 pounds ......or mlbs who blitz up the middle. It's a different game. The ability of OTs to hold off speed rushers is broke. Favoring blockers and devaluing where actual nfl pressure comes from and what would actually stop anow nfl offense .

Those edge rushers are the key to creating disruption in the passing lanes and pressuring qbs. Here if you put a small edge rushing end vs a tackle you might get a few hurries . This imo was the worst change under the new code. It has really killed any realistic defensive approach .

The value of weight for the players would have been enough but to change the speed vs speed calculations was just too much. 3rd and long is that 3rd and forever to get too the qb.....unless your end is 276 pounds.


Standing at 6"2 and 303#, DT Warren Sapp, being able to run a 4.63 second 40 yard dash, brought fear to opposing QBs coming from the their RIGHT, not Blind, side. In his 12 year HOF career he recorded 96.5 sacks, 435 tackles, and 19 FF while only going to 7 Pro-Bowls and being named by his peers 4x the best at what he does. But of course he would not fit into Ray's team.



Sapp was also quoted saying it is technique that matter most for line play. .....here comes the mud slinging ...

As well, I like a 4.7 fourty for the record and only 17 reps a 225. That's a sub 50 strength dline man here with 100 speed and acceleration . ...really more like he would have to lose 50 pounds to run that fast here
Last edited at 8/09/2017 9:07 am

Re: Getting frustrated

By CCSAHARA
8/09/2017 1:39 pm
My argument has always been across the board in all the leagues I have been in. Is the huge drop off of talent after the third or fourth round of the draft. Not saying that they should all be starters, but with the injury level now what it is. If your team gets a rash of injuries you are pretty much done. This also affects the available FA list IMO. With my current team had 4 DB injured, looking at the FA list it made more sense to just put a WR as a DB because of his speed then to sign a deadbeat worthless 45 rated speed of the best DB available. Just seems to me that this game would be much better if you had to sit and think and strategize over releasing a decent backup RB to sign a DB to fill an injury spot. Instead of just saying screw it the season is over anyway let the RB fill in at DB.

Re: Getting frustrated

By Booger926
8/09/2017 2:41 pm
CCSAHARA wrote:
My argument has always been across the board in all the leagues I have been in. Is the huge drop off of talent after the third or fourth round of the draft. Not saying that they should all be starters, but with the injury level now what it is. If your team gets a rash of injuries you are pretty much done. This also affects the available FA list IMO. With my current team had 4 DB injured, looking at the FA list it made more sense to just put a WR as a DB because of his speed then to sign a deadbeat worthless 45 rated speed of the best DB available. Just seems to me that this game would be much better if you had to sit and think and strategize over releasing a decent backup RB to sign a DB to fill an injury spot. Instead of just saying screw it the season is over anyway let the RB fill in at DB.


CCsahara. In this current seasonal draft in Beta-87, JDB created a unique form of the draft that helped. What he did was create a player that's pre draft rating in abilities was possibly 1-100. The true abilities were hidden and would not be revealed until training camp. All the owners went into camp hoping there wasn't busts. Long story short, https://beta87.myfootballnow.com/player/3166 Mr Irrelletive, #224 picked in the draft, RT Gerald Miera is #2 RT on a team with an improvement of +6/+1. I liked that. Made it worth while.

Re: Getting frustrated

By lellow2011
8/09/2017 8:50 pm
Booger926 wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
Or have 90 plus rated offensive lineman to take advantage of a strong code for blockers . The small pass rushers were nerfed under this code. It was a different story under the old code. You could run a team of dbs on dline and RB/ FB on oline and still win . It has swung completely the other way so far so it is out of whack (only a bit) . That's is why kick returns are off the charts and the only way to stop the run is blitz .


In one of my league's my 5 starting O-Linemen have a 65.6 average rating and I am averaging 409 offensive yards a game while on a 8 game winning streak. But of course everyone shouldn't copy the NFL, which puts huge men on the line, and instead put small guys on the line like Madden. What was I thinking.


409 offensive yards a game doesn't really seem like that much (especially for pass heavy teams).

568.7
644.1
547.8

are what my 3 teams average per game in their most recent season and I put no effort into game planning. Granted my teams are fairly talented and have strong offensive lines for the most part.
Last edited at 8/09/2017 8:50 pm

Re: Getting frustrated

By Wolfkill
8/14/2017 4:42 pm
Never give up, it's been trial and error for me since I joined.
Every team is different and has to be adjusted as such.
I'd suggest you pick up a team to "experiment " with and try new things. Get out of the plays you feel have worked for you in the past and think outside the box. You might need a new perspective in your philosophy.
....and yeah, speed kills

Re: Getting frustrated

By setherick
8/14/2017 9:46 pm
lellow2011 wrote:
Booger926 wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
Or have 90 plus rated offensive lineman to take advantage of a strong code for blockers . The small pass rushers were nerfed under this code. It was a different story under the old code. You could run a team of dbs on dline and RB/ FB on oline and still win . It has swung completely the other way so far so it is out of whack (only a bit) . That's is why kick returns are off the charts and the only way to stop the run is blitz .


In one of my league's my 5 starting O-Linemen have a 65.6 average rating and I am averaging 409 offensive yards a game while on a 8 game winning streak. But of course everyone shouldn't copy the NFL, which puts huge men on the line, and instead put small guys on the line like Madden. What was I thinking.


409 offensive yards a game doesn't really seem like that much (especially for pass heavy teams).

568.7
644.1
547.8

are what my 3 teams average per game in their most recent season and I put no effort into game planning. Granted my teams are fairly talented and have strong offensive lines for the most part.


Depending on how you're getting that 409, it could be plenty. I'm happy with 409 if I'm holding my opponent to 150-200. Defense is the way to win on this game and not offense. It's really easy to shut down most offenses because they over rely on certain plays or they don't vary their playcalling within a set. I learned that lesson the hard way and taught it to others the harder way.

Re: Getting frustrated

By Roadbone
8/19/2017 10:10 am
The logical solution for the "Limited Playbook" situation is for the game system to make it mandatory for 40 plays to be selected for offense and 30 selected for defense. That way, teams may still run the same plays fairly frequently, but the coaches would at least have the option to try something different during the game.

I always have a full playbook and have never gotten a warning about running the same plays too often, but then again, maybe limiting the number of plays is part of the key to a successful strategy.

Personally, I think if an owner doesn't have a complete playbook, the coaches (the game system) should automatically fill in the missing plays, just as it automatically helps manage the salary cap. That would either force the owner to pick some plays that might reflect different aspects of his team, or expose potential weaknesses that would possibly even the playing field.

Re: Getting frustrated

By eyeballll
8/19/2017 5:04 pm
Roadbone wrote:
The logical solution for the "Limited Playbook" situation is for the game system to make it mandatory for 40 plays to be selected for offense and 30 selected for defense. That way, teams may still run the same plays fairly frequently, but the coaches would at least have the option to try something different during the game.

I always have a full playbook and have never gotten a warning about running the same plays too often, but then again, maybe limiting the number of plays is part of the key to a successful strategy.

Personally, I think if an owner doesn't have a complete playbook, the coaches (the game system) should automatically fill in the missing plays, just as it automatically helps manage the salary cap. That would either force the owner to pick some plays that might reflect different aspects of his team, or expose potential weaknesses that would possibly even the playing field.


I agree with this, and this is something that has been suggested in the past. The main (only?) issue with this is that an owner can fill his playbook and then use his matrix and/or rules to only use certain plays. So that is the loophole.

But I do agree with the idea, I wouldn't mind seeing something like this implemented.

Re: Getting frustrated

By lellow2011
8/19/2017 10:27 pm
eyeballll wrote:
Roadbone wrote:
The logical solution for the "Limited Playbook" situation is for the game system to make it mandatory for 40 plays to be selected for offense and 30 selected for defense. That way, teams may still run the same plays fairly frequently, but the coaches would at least have the option to try something different during the game.

I always have a full playbook and have never gotten a warning about running the same plays too often, but then again, maybe limiting the number of plays is part of the key to a successful strategy.

Personally, I think if an owner doesn't have a complete playbook, the coaches (the game system) should automatically fill in the missing plays, just as it automatically helps manage the salary cap. That would either force the owner to pick some plays that might reflect different aspects of his team, or expose potential weaknesses that would possibly even the playing field.


I agree with this, and this is something that has been suggested in the past. The main (only?) issue with this is that an owner can fill his playbook and then use his matrix and/or rules to only use certain plays. So that is the loophole.

But I do agree with the idea, I wouldn't mind seeing something like this implemented.


I think there is a better way to address the issue. First get rid of play knowledge (perhaps if you really want to simulate a guy getting better in a system have a system or play style knowledge instead of individual plays), this would also in theory give owners more of an incentive to hold onto older players longer. Second, when the first thing normalizes perhaps look at why certain plays are so much better than others.

In my opinion the issue isn't the fact that owners can run a limited playbook, **** that should be easy to game plan against, this issue is that play knowledge gives a huge leg up on running a limited playbook and there are seldom good counters to plays that get ran repeatedly. To me this all stems from issues with the sim, not the use of limited plays by owners.

Re: Getting frustrated

By eyeballll
8/20/2017 12:51 am
lellow2011 wrote:

I think there is a better way to address the issue. First get rid of play knowledge (perhaps if you really want to simulate a guy getting better in a system have a system or play style knowledge instead of individual plays), this would also in theory give owners more of an incentive to hold onto older players longer. Second, when the first thing normalizes perhaps look at why certain plays are so much better than others.

In my opinion the issue isn't the fact that owners can run a limited playbook, **** that should be easy to game plan against, this issue is that play knowledge gives a huge leg up on running a limited playbook and there are seldom good counters to plays that get ran repeatedly. To me this all stems from issues with the sim, not the use of limited plays by owners.


Hey Lellow, it's always nice to hear from you...

Say, you remember back in Private75, that year that your DireWolves beat my Kardex twice and then beat them again in the playoffs? Well, in those 3 games you used a grand total of 4 defensive plays. Yep, your defense lined up 191 times and you called 4 plays. And I'm a pretty good owner, but I couldn't do much against your D, because those defensive plays were **** good! And it's no fun losing to a guy who's using the same plays OVER and OVER and OVER, it's frustrating.

Maybe you're right, play knowledge might be a factor. If play knowledge was turned off, maybe I could have scored a little more against your 4 plays. But you could have called more plays. I don't think a guy that clicks on 4 out of 30 plays should be finger pointing at the game code as being the problem.

I get tired of guys taking advantage of the code. That was my original point. Some jackhole is always going to take advantage of the code.
Last edited at 8/20/2017 12:51 am