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: Underweight DEs

By lellow2011
10/20/2016 4:47 pm
setherick wrote:
Bryson10 wrote:
while the oline was ramped up to match their ratings better i find that it has enhanced DT's ability to sack the QB. I'm seeing a lot of double digit sack production from interior Dlineman. This must correlate with a lot of bad interior offensive lineman that were playing better than their ratings on the previous engine? i think qb's should be quicker to throw the ball away and we would see a dramatic decrease in sack numbers. If your qb is scrambling and there's no where to go chuck it out of bounds.


My interior OL have given up 5 combined sacks in 11 and 10 starts respectively: https://private75.myfootballnow.com/team/view/2

But, as Ray said above, I drafted all of the best OL I could I just didn't draft two TEs to play as bookend tackles like I would have done if I had known that SP was more important that ST at tackle.


In 75 I spent a lot of high picks on offensive line as well just to test it out, turns out that was a bad call...

Re: Underweight DEs

By Alpine
10/21/2016 2:44 am
Making speed important for tackles just seem like an error. I just don't understand how it relates to real life football? Getting into position is certainly important, but that is all first step, agility and acceleration (and we already have an attribute for that). It has nothing to do with top end speed.

Why not at least try to make a quick fix where the acceleration attribute is swapped for speed in the blocking code? That would at least make it logical.

The suggestion that this would fix itself with new draft classes is just wrong. The blocking code would still be totally unrelated to football and teams that have invested heavily in o-line players with attributes you logically would expect to be important would be totally screwed.

Re: Underweight DEs

By Brrexkl
10/21/2016 3:55 am
I like the idea of Universal Grades.

Although I probably like it for other reasons.

Here's my deal. Some guys are just on another level, defying Physics. Take Randy Moss. He was 6'4", 210 Pounds and ran a 4.25 40... which blows the 'smaller guys are faster' thing out of the water, since he was one of the fastest players in the History of the NFL at 210 Pounds and 6'4". He was faster than Travis Benjamin, who is a short and light weight shrimp who runs a Sub 4.4.

Now, should EVERYONE be Randy Moss? Of course not. But a 6'4" 240 TE IF he has 100/100 on SPD and ACC SHOULD be able to be one of the fastest players in the game.

Which might lead one to suggest not so many TEs have 100/100... that should be a really rare TE, ESPECIALLY if he has any value Blocking or Catching.

For that matter, the guy is 6'4" and 240... with 100/100 on SPD/ACC he would have potential at OLB or DE (as a 43 Pass Rusher), or due to his incredible speed at FS... IF he has the other skills to justify it (TKL, Pass Rush, for FS the Coverages, etc.).

So it would be a process of figuring out his Strengths, to see if you have a Sterling Sharpe at TE, or if you have a Randy Moss at WR, or maybe you have a project who is a Big RB (Christian Okoye) or maybe even a Defender.

But it would make sense because putting him some place where his Abilities **** only gives you a sucky fast dude. If he can't Tackle, he's going to fail at DE. If he can't cover, he's not going to be a FS. If he doesn't have Ball Carrying, he's not going to be a RB. If he can't catch, he's not going to be a WR. If he can't block... well, most wouldn't use him at TE.

Height/Weight should not be the end all of Speed/Strength ranges, because despite Physics that isn't how it really works. You have different kinds of Fast Guys. And Weight doesn't equal Functional Strength.

So if we had Universal Ratings we could have more flexibility in putting a guy in a position he actual fits BECAUSE of his Ability.

Re: Underweight DEs

By setherick
10/21/2016 5:52 am
Alpine wrote:
Making speed important for tackles just seem like an error. I just don't understand how it relates to real life football? Getting into position is certainly important, but that is all first step, agility and acceleration (and we already have an attribute for that). It has nothing to do with top end speed.

Why not at least try to make a quick fix where the acceleration attribute is swapped for speed in the blocking code? That would at least make it logical.

The suggestion that this would fix itself with new draft classes is just wrong. The blocking code would still be totally unrelated to football and teams that have invested heavily in o-line players with attributes you logically would expect to be important would be totally screwed.


+1 -- The idea of a problem fixing itself is an amateurish excuse for bad project planning, lack of testing, and no clear resolution path.

Re: Underweight DEs

By WarEagle
10/21/2016 5:57 am
Brrexkl wrote:
I like the idea of Universal Grades.

Although I probably like it for other reasons.

Here's my deal. Some guys are just on another level, defying Physics. Take Randy Moss. He was 6'4", 210 Pounds and ran a 4.25 40... which blows the 'smaller guys are faster' thing out of the water, since he was one of the fastest players in the History of the NFL at 210 Pounds and 6'4". He was faster than Travis Benjamin, who is a short and light weight shrimp who runs a Sub 4.4.

Now, should EVERYONE be Randy Moss? Of course not. But a 6'4" 240 TE IF he has 100/100 on SPD and ACC SHOULD be able to be one of the fastest players in the game.

Which might lead one to suggest not so many TEs have 100/100... that should be a really rare TE, ESPECIALLY if he has any value Blocking or Catching.

For that matter, the guy is 6'4" and 240... with 100/100 on SPD/ACC he would have potential at OLB or DE (as a 43 Pass Rusher), or due to his incredible speed at FS... IF he has the other skills to justify it (TKL, Pass Rush, for FS the Coverages, etc.).

So it would be a process of figuring out his Strengths, to see if you have a Sterling Sharpe at TE, or if you have a Randy Moss at WR, or maybe you have a project who is a Big RB (Christian Okoye) or maybe even a Defender.

But it would make sense because putting him some place where his Abilities **** only gives you a sucky fast dude. If he can't Tackle, he's going to fail at DE. If he can't cover, he's not going to be a FS. If he doesn't have Ball Carrying, he's not going to be a RB. If he can't catch, he's not going to be a WR. If he can't block... well, most wouldn't use him at TE.

Height/Weight should not be the end all of Speed/Strength ranges, because despite Physics that isn't how it really works. You have different kinds of Fast Guys. And Weight doesn't equal Functional Strength.

So if we had Universal Ratings we could have more flexibility in putting a guy in a position he actual fits BECAUSE of his Ability.


I agree totally!!

In MFN Bo Jackson would never be one of the fastest players because he's "too big", but IRL he was one of the fastest players ever even at ~ 6'1" / 230lbs.

Re: Underweight DEs

By raymattison21
10/21/2016 12:09 pm
setherick wrote:
Alpine wrote:
Making speed important for tackles just seem like an error. I just don't understand how it relates to real life football? Getting into position is certainly important, but that is all first step, agility and acceleration (and we already have an attribute for that). It has nothing to do with top end speed.

Why not at least try to make a quick fix where the acceleration attribute is swapped for speed in the blocking code? That would at least make it logical.

The suggestion that this would fix itself with new draft classes is just wrong. The blocking code would still be totally unrelated to football and teams that have invested heavily in o-line players with attributes you logically would expect to be important would be totally screwed.


+1 -- The idea of a problem fixing itself is an amateurish excuse for bad project planning, lack of testing, and no clear resolution path.


Please hear me out. This is beyond advanced and the only problem is getting that you and many prefer this visually static score linear.

JDB eventual solution would be to create a 40. To show you guys this 100 speed guy is running a 4.85 fourty and the 55 speed 200ber is running a 4.63.

I just think if you stopwatched these guys right now it would highlight the lack of weight having a true effect here too! Once again, i lost my good stop watch in a move ten years ago. And this should be electronic any ways as the finger can be .2 off alot.

In general 1st round linemen score considerably better at the combine in all athelic skills. Dline in general is a bit faster and stronger in comparison, but both have atheltic ability and technique.
Last edited at 10/21/2016 12:12 pm

Re: Underweight DEs

By setherick
10/21/2016 12:16 pm
raymattison21 wrote:
setherick wrote:
Alpine wrote:
Making speed important for tackles just seem like an error. I just don't understand how it relates to real life football? Getting into position is certainly important, but that is all first step, agility and acceleration (and we already have an attribute for that). It has nothing to do with top end speed.

Why not at least try to make a quick fix where the acceleration attribute is swapped for speed in the blocking code? That would at least make it logical.

The suggestion that this would fix itself with new draft classes is just wrong. The blocking code would still be totally unrelated to football and teams that have invested heavily in o-line players with attributes you logically would expect to be important would be totally screwed.


+1 -- The idea of a problem fixing itself is an amateurish excuse for bad project planning, lack of testing, and no clear resolution path.


Please hear me out. This is beyond advanced and the only problem is getting that you and many prefer this visually static score linear.

JDB eventual solution would be to create a 40. To show you guys this 100 speed guy is running a 4.85 fourty and the 55 speed 200ber is running a 4.63.

I just think if you stopwatched these guys right now it would highlight the lack of weight having a true effect here too! Once again, i lost my good stop watch in a move ten years ago. And this should be electronic any ways as the finger can be .2 off alot.

In general 1st round linemen score considerably better at the combine in all athelic skills. Dline in general is a bit faster and stronger in comparison, but both have atheltic ability and technique.


I don't prefer linear scores actually. And I'm growing tired of this accusation. I've figured out pretty quickly that certain attributes work together, and the additional problems that they have. The problem I have is with this particular combination is that it is currently SP + Pass Rush vs SP + Pass Block. Since OL weren't being generated with SP, it seems like an easy test case would have been "let's see what happens if we sim several seasons on the server where all the OL have 100 pass block and all of the DL have 100 pass rush to see if there is any patterns that emerge." That should have been done as automatic testing before it was released.

Re: Underweight DEs

By raymattison21
10/21/2016 1:31 pm
setherick wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
setherick wrote:
Alpine wrote:
Making speed important for tackles just seem like an error. I just don't understand how it relates to real life football? Getting into position is certainly important, but that is all first step, agility and acceleration (and we already have an attribute for that). It has nothing to do with top end speed.

Why not at least try to make a quick fix where the acceleration attribute is swapped for speed in the blocking code? That would at least make it logical.

The suggestion that this would fix itself with new draft classes is just wrong. The blocking code would still be totally unrelated to football and teams that have invested heavily in o-line players with attributes you logically would expect to be important would be totally screwed.


+1 -- The idea of a problem fixing itself is an amateurish excuse for bad project planning, lack of testing, and no clear resolution path.


Please hear me out. This is beyond advanced and the only problem is getting that you and many prefer this visually static score linear.

JDB eventual solution would be to create a 40. To show you guys this 100 speed guy is running a 4.85 fourty and the 55 speed 200ber is running a 4.63.

I just think if you stopwatched these guys right now it would highlight the lack of weight having a true effect here too! Once again, i lost my good stop watch in a move ten years ago. And this should be electronic any ways as the finger can be .2 off alot.

In general 1st round linemen score considerably better at the combine in all athelic skills. Dline in general is a bit faster and stronger in comparison, but both have atheltic ability and technique.


I don't prefer linear scores actually. And I'm growing tired of this accusation. I've figured out pretty quickly that certain attributes work together, and the additional problems that they have. The problem I have is with this particular combination is that it is currently SP + Pass Rush vs SP + Pass Block. Since OL weren't being generated with SP, it seems like an easy test case would have been "let's see what happens if we sim several seasons on the server where all the OL have 100 pass block and all of the DL have 100 pass rush to see if there is any patterns that emerge." That should have been done as automatic testing before it was released.



One could easly say 1st round oline men in general win more and get more probowls.
They do on average.
One could also say 1st round linemen, or elite linemen produce better combine scores. They do on average.

To me that is a lineman with high static ratings. STG, SPD, ACC, INT, and DSP.

You want the game to look they way you want. Its a decent suggesstion but fourty times which measure speed pretty good is related to elite linemen and true value.

I see nothing wrong with a display and encourage the use of speed to simulate a speed rusher. Linemen go early to stop all types of rushers.

I would suggest adding agility, but thats like pass block tech. plus athletic ablilty. IDK.
Its better than all bull rushes and linemen with the same speed footwork. Like before.

Always little guys have been too fast and too strong. This is just another side effect of that highlighted by this latest change. I always picked faster linemen and when the change happened my team was better. But by no means did i ever think of putting a 100 speed player at T thinking he would do better under 4 . Cause they dont do any better that a smaller player would. My 97 acceleration T is my best pass blocker in 75, but all are low in speed. 11-35. Sacks are the least of my concerns.

Smaller do better cause they are faster and not weak enough. If weight bares more meaning in STG perhaps this dicussion is mute. Until then we will not know.

Would we be having this conversation if JDB had never dropped oline SPD in the first place. Or would we?

Re: Underweight DEs

By Brrexkl
10/21/2016 6:38 pm

But WHY is Speed and STR forced to be capped by Weight?

I can give as many examples of really strong guys that are not 300 pounds (Trent Richardson, Honey Badger) as I can find of super fast guys in the 220+ Pound range.

There is no Bo Jackson, there is no Jevon Kearse, there is no Randy Moss in MFN, because STR and SPD are capped on Weight.

If the other abitlities matter more, like Run Block, Pass Rush, M2M, etc... then we could have guys of varying sizes that could be strong or fast and represent both the successful and failed versions of the Players I named above.

Because the problem isn't that some 250 pound dude is really fast... the problem is that all he has to be is really fast to be effective in MFN. The other stuff SEEMS to most, to just be fluff.

As Shakespere said, this is a clear case of "To Speed, or not to Speed".