FOF4 - Island of Misfit Toys

[QuikSand]

Wondering if anyone has tried this challenge with the latest, fully-patched version of FOF4. The "Island of Misfit Toys" is the FOFC nickname for playing the game using only players you pick up as undrafted rookie free agents. Sign them to any contract you like, and extend or renegotiate to your heart's content - but those are the only players you can ever acquire, those who nobody else wanted (thus the nickname).

I have just launched an IMT career, using this concept, but startinng with a one-player universe. My thining was that might make it a little fairer - my team would be developing along with the rest of the league, at least initially.

I'm a little bit disappointed... my IMT team wen 11-5 and won the Superbowl in its fourth season of existence. I have a pretty solid RB, two decent receivers, one good OL, a few passable DL, and one good safety - that's pretty much it. (And by pretty good, I mean guys you might be pleased to see in the third or fourth round of a given FOF4 draft - not stars by any account) My starting QB is laughable, and didn't really put up big numbers (15TD/13int) even while leading us to the title.

Wondering if anyone else has given this a shot (especually playing with both IMT and OPU)... and if your results were at all similar. I'm on the fance whether to keep playing... I thought this was going to be a real challenge in game planning and roster management... but I hadn't expected to win quickly. Now I don't know whether it will be any fun to play.

[MizzouRah]

QS,

If Jim ever had FOF tournament, you would be called an FOF Baller.

Here I am playing with the Rams, been to 7 straight playoffs, and not one Super Bowl appearance to show for it. This is just playing with a normal NFL style league, starting in 2002.

I've read some of your 'insights' to FOF and I've come to the realization you're an escaped program Jim thought he deleted.



I could only think of how hard this challenge might be for a novice, either that or I just suck.


Todd

[tucker342]

hahaha

The sad thing is that's true...

[cthomer5000]

Quik,

This is always one of my favorite things to "toy" around with in FOF2001, and it would generally take 15 years to produce a super bowl win. Even then it was always seemingly out of nowhere, I found it almost impossible to make the playoffs on a regular basis. I thought someone had tried this with FOF4 basically as soon as it came out (was it you?) and found that it was much easier in FOF4 than in FOF2001. I think as far as difficulty, FOF4 is proving to be no harder than FOF2001, and perhaps actually easier.



edit: to put quotations around "toy", which I coincidentally used in the first sentence. while the pun was unintentional, I have now made it intentional.

[QuikSand]

I think, in fairness, that the use of the OPU is the main factor here. In FOF 2001, you have to play againt fully developed, fully formed NFLpcaliber teams with only castoffs and stiffs. Here, most of my opponents are similarly strapped - with only a handful of high quality players each. My talent level is lower, but not as much so as with the other games.

[Bee]

I'm starting to wonder how much ratings really have to do with actual on-field performance. I haven't played any careers for a while in FOF4, but I did immediately after the last patch with a wide range of house rules and everything I tried led to similar results. Even with mediocre talent, I was able to consistently win. When I was the worse team in the league I lost, but as soon as I hit the middle of the pack I started winning SuperBowls.

I'm wondering if there's just a little too much randomness in play results that more talented players don't really have the advantages most of us think they do. That might explain why people playing the game straight out don't win every season and why those like Quiksand playing with hard rules still are able to pull out winning seasons so often. Just a thought.

[QuikSand]

I don't want to get carried away.... my team may also have just been damned lucky. We went 11-5 folowing a 6-10 season, and in the playoffs just managed to win three in a row. I lose that first playoff game (which went to OT, even) and there's no controversy here.

I think it's an awfully big step to start thinking that rating don't affect outcome very much. I think they definitely do.

[Bee]

I think they affect the outcome, but I'm wondering if they do to the degree that we've always assumed. We've all seen "average" looking quarterbacks or runningbacks put up outstanding seasons. I'm wondering if this is happening too often.

[QuikSand]

Bee, I think there's an adjustment when moving toward FOF4... the baseline for evaluating players is very diffrent than in the predecessor games. The guy you're calling "average" at QB in FOF4 may actualy be a good deal better than average in his league. FOF4 has many, many more lousy players (due to the player development variables) than the earlier games... and so a QB with plenty of ratings around 40-60 might look "average" to you (thinking in FOF 2001 terms) but in fact is well above average.

I don't know if you personaly are falling for this illusion, but I believe it's a common one among players of the series.

[Fritz]

FWIW, this QB has been functional enough, and is close to what I end up playing with in most of my careers.

He was aquired in a SPU dispersal draft, and I have tried unsucessfully to replace him each season by drafting QBs high.

[Alf]

37th rounder : talk about a star player...

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Alf
37th rounder : talk about a star player...

he was the third QB I took in that draft (I keep 4 on the team), but he has worked out the best.

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Bee, I think there's an adjustment when moving toward FOF4... the baseline for evaluating players is very diffrent than in the predecessor games. The guy you're calling "average" at QB in FOF4 may actualy be a good deal better than average in his league. FOF4 has many, many more lousy players (due to the player development variables) than the earlier games... and so a QB with plenty of ratings around 40-60 might look "average" to you (thinking in FOF 2001 terms) but in fact is well above average.

I don't know if you personaly are falling for this illusion, but I believe it's a common one among players of the series.

I agree that the quality of players differ between the two versions, but I generally compare players with those from other teams in my careers so I don't think I'm falling for the illusion (but I could be wrong).

I haven't done the research to make any conclusions, but I still think there's a possibility that there is too much randomness in results in this version. I'm not saying this is fact, only a possibility. There has to be some randomness in the game, but I'm just wondering if it's a little too much. Sometimes it's a good thing (look at the GroupThink team - we've been the best team for a while in the league, but we don't win the Superbowl every year), but there is a tendency for the opposite to happen as well (a team with lesser talent winning it all like in your dynasty). While this happens in real life, I'm not sure if the game makes this too common an occurence. Perhaps...perhaps not. I just wanted to bring the subject up as a possible contributing factor to lesser quality teams winning it all and "average" players having outstanding seasons.

[Ryche]

I wouldn't throw out your challenge based upon the first season. Pretty much all the players are awful to start in a OPU, so everyone else was only one draft ahead of you. Plus, most of the other teams were playing OPU players while you used only players out of the draft. Even the scrubs in a draft will be better than the players the computer uses.

Based upon the experience I've had using TCY generated draft files, this is how I think a team with undrafted players would look like.

QB - Big struggle, you will probably have to settle for mediocre at best.
RB - Fairly easy to find serviceable backs after the draft.
FB - No problem
TE - A few solid ones available after the draft, but nothing great.
WR - Thin pickings, but I've had a lot of luck finding breakout players here.
OL - Average players at best, maybe a decent center.
P/K - You can get a solid picker undrafted, but nothing great.
DL - Think pickings.
OLB - Average players, although the best player I've ever had was an undrafted SLB.
ILB - Some pretty decent ones slip through the cracks.
CB - Maybe the hardest position to find an undrafted player. I've never had any luck here.
S - Average to good talent available.

Not sure how much different a career with FOF generated drafts would look.

[Bee]

The TCY drafts really skew the level of talent (way too much talent left over). I'm sure Quiksand is playing with game generated drafts.

[QuikSand]

Yes, incidentally - I'm convinced that the game is basically unplayable with TCY draft files... I'm using only game-generated players.

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Yes, incidentally - I'm convinced that the game is basically unplayable with TCY draft files... I'm using only game-generated players.

Agreed.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Yes, incidentally - I'm convinced that the game is basically unplayable with TCY draft files... I'm using only game-generated players.

you don't consider being able to draft 1st round talent in every single round, or sign them as undrafted free agents playable!?

geez, It seems realistic to me that I could win 19 front office bowls in 20 years.