05-12-2003, 06:37 AM | #201 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
The running game could be more consistent. Lucas seems to run for 120 yards one week and 20 the next.
|
05-12-2003, 07:20 AM | #202 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
I thought I moved Brewer back to a starting position?!.. Hrmm... I'll have to look at that..
As for Lucas.. I agree.. is Crawford still a higher fan favorite than him? If so, I have to start to wonder when Lucas's contract is up if he's going to be worth the money he will ask for? What has he done so far? He has been very streaky like this the entire time we have had him.. We never saw this from say The Ox... it's weird how Lucas will just not get carries because he is doing THAT poorly. .I wonder if he gets tiny injuries during a game?
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
05-12-2003, 07:54 AM | #203 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Crawford's popularity remains at nearly team-high levels, notwithstanding the fact that he barely ever sees any time on the field. (Only Coghill's 100 is higher than Crawford's 98) He also remains perfectly content to draw his salry and carry a clipboard, year after year. Despite the lack of realism this represents, it certainly seems that under our rules, he will be on our team forever.
|
05-12-2003, 08:13 AM | #204 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
Crawford's probably making a fortune off of local commercials...
|
05-12-2003, 08:42 AM | #205 | |
Strategy Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Carolina
|
Quote:
"Dr. Zoidberg is the area's best dislocated elbow specialist. His miraculous surgery has allowed me to collect season after season of unearned pay." |
|
05-12-2003, 08:50 AM | #206 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
So much for a challenge.
|
05-12-2003, 09:16 AM | #207 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
We are simply not being challenged, and it's at the very heart of this game. This is why, in the "updates for next patch" thread, I claim that forecastable player development is the single biggest problem with this game. You can add all the hoops you want to your list of onerous house rules, but if you know what you're doing when acquiring young players, you practically speaking cannot hamper yourself enough.
Good heavens - I have a perennial championship contender playing with my IMT team... and I'm never using a single draft pick. All I'm doing is acquiring players through the proven method, and sticking with them when they turn out to exceed expectations. I'm easily the most successful team in that league, and I've flushed away every single draft pick I've ever had, nor have I ever signed a free agent player other than a passed-over rookie. I don't know what more evidence we need, the game is simply broken. Too fucking beatable. |
05-12-2003, 09:19 AM | #208 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Quote:
I still say the biggest problem is in the draft. I think the advantage we have over the AI is just too big for the AI to counter. Bee I meant to respond to your message the last time this came up and I just forgot to. It's not just that we have a good chance of correctly choosing breakout players that gives us a huge edge. Like you said we have had a few our players bust etc. I think the real edge is that we always know who is a sure thing bust. Taking a look at our defense. We have several stars on the team at key positions. We have two of the best CB's in the league several good defensive lineman, none of which we took in the 1st round etc. Now we were able to get these guys not just because we knew which guys would have skills that would increase, but more importantly we knew whcih DT's and CB's etc were sure busts. Had we invested high 1st round picks in some of those sure fire bust guys like the AI did we would have a lot of dead money tied up in poor players and obviously wouldn't be as good. I think regardless of what house rules we come up with to handle free agency if we can always draft better than the AI we are always going to beat them. Edit: Heh as I was typing this Quik posted essentially exactly what I was thinking. Although as he pointed out I guess it isn't just limited to the draft it is any time when going after young players. Last edited by primelord : 05-12-2003 at 09:20 AM. |
|
05-12-2003, 09:21 AM | #209 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
Quiksand,
Do you think the better solution is making it more difficult to find the "diamonds in the rough" or improving the computer AI so that they evaluate players more like we do? (Or perhaps both?) |
05-12-2003, 09:23 AM | #210 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
Very well put. It is not so much the achievement of success but the prevention of failure.
|
05-12-2003, 09:30 AM | #211 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
primelord,
To me it's not just the draft (or even completely limited to young players). The problem is the computer's player evaluation combined with busts/breakouts still being obvious. I think Quiksand's suggestion is a step in the right direction, but I think a problem just as critical is the poor player evaluation the computer uses. Just look at free agency and you'll see tons of solid players looking for minsal deals that just sit there week after week while higher priced vets with less skills are signed. That was my point about it not just being a draft problem. I think it goes beyond that. JMO. |
05-12-2003, 09:49 AM | #212 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
I still feel that perhaps a solution to these would be some sort of "fog of war" combined with of course, computer AI improvements.
If all we could see from players is.. 1) The 1-10 rating that we get on the main draft screen 2) Season stats for veterans 3) Possibly some rating such as the 1-10 rating we see in the draft but for veterans I think this should be an option... if we could not see the red/green bars we would be at a much greater disadvantage than we are now. What we would essentially have is the view that we had when we did the previous Group Think where we had only one person that could see the files. This to me would be a much easier bandaid for Jim to put on than what we may be talking about here. We are talking about a need for a complete change in both comptuer AI and the way that breakouts/busts are designed -- this seems like a fairly large task. However, putting this fog of war in would SEEM relatively simple in comparison in my book. Even without computer AI improvement, this would atleast hamper our abilities -- particuraly with rookies and high-rated players who have seen little playing time.
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
05-12-2003, 10:04 AM | #213 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
I think wade echoes my thoughts. Maybe 400 had it right when it has the option to choose Reduce Ratings or Talent Only. In other words, Fog-Of-War. Jim was open, shockingly, to put this in TCY but imo, it seems to go against his will for FOF since he sees that more of an exact single-season simulator as oppose to a career-driven game.
|
05-12-2003, 10:10 AM | #214 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
I guess again this comes down to the strange concept Jim has sometimes about doing what he wants instead of what the customer wants. It seems that this is something that many people (perhaps we as in the past have a warped concept of our portion of his customer base) would use and it is OPTIONAL.. it's not like he would be hamstringing those who enjoy the game where it is at, he would merely be adding a challenge to those who are very uncomfortable with the difficulty as is. He needs to realize that for many this IS a career sim, in fact, I would think for most -- even beyond those hardcore FOFCers. I just don't see too many people buying a game like this to play out one season and be done. They want to build a team, etc. And for many, the game loses its appeal when it becomes too easy.
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
05-12-2003, 10:43 AM | #215 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Quote:
You know I always find comments like these interesting. I guess the perspective I have is different since I speak to Jim on a regular basis. And many people on the board, including our Resident Curmudgeon, tend to think my views are "towing the company line" because of that. But that isn't the case. Jim is actually very open to customer suggestions and wants to implement features that the customers are looking for. However at the same time he does have a direction he wants to take his games in so he has to find the balance between those two areas. The pharse "that should be simple to implement" gets thrown around a lot in these discussions, but depending on how the code is written something easy to implement in concept isn;t garaunteed to be easy to fit into exisitng code. For example since FOF1 many people had been asking for a player editor and at the very least the ability to edit player names. There were two prolems though. 1) The structure of the original FOF code did not lend itself to being able to change names easily. It read the names from fixed length library files and there was just no easy way to allow someone to change a player name let alone their ratings. 2) Jim was more interested in devoting his development time to improving the AI and other facets of the game than adding superficial feature like the ability to customize names etc. That is where I think games like OOTP went wrong. The artist formerly known as Bucc loves OOTP and the fact that you can customize everything. Of course the AI has been very questionable in every version until 5 (and only say until 5 because I haven't played it enough to judge one way or the other yet) and it has had some bugs that have spanned multiple versions. Now FOF has had similar issues, but instead of focusing on the fluff like OOTP has he has been focusing on trying to get the game to accurately simualte a pro football league. That thinking seems to be in contrast with some customers, but he has decided that is the direction he wants the game to go in. Now it seems to this point he has fallen short of that goal seeing as the AI still clearly needs work. So I think he is going to keep that as his main focus until it is working properly. And I just realized I have really started rambling and got off of my main point. wade it's not that he doesn't want to implement features that the customer wants. It's that the features the customers want are all over the board. You have guys like Quiksand and guys like Anry who, atleast from what I can tell, completely different ideas as to what makes a good simulation. Anry complains about having to micromanage the rosters, but yet wants things like concession stand sales to be changeable and factor into your overall finances (that still cracks me up. ). cthomer is very adamant about being able to change the name of the championship game. MIJB and Darkiller want NFL Europe to be added to the game etc etc. Whether he responds to it frequently or not he hears all of this and does take it all into account. And he does try to work in what the customer wants as can be seen by the fact there is a player editor now etc. So anyway to sum up this rant that I probably should even post because I am just babbling at this point. Jim is still working on the AI of the game he does not think it is perfect and is aware of our concerns. If a feature or even fix that the community seems to want isn't included it isn't always because Jim just doesn't like that part of the game so he is ignoring his customer base. There are other factors involved. So I don't think I am just blindly towing the company line (I am not even part of the company ) I just understand his approach and most of the time agree with it. |
|
05-12-2003, 10:44 AM | #216 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Quote:
I'm at a loss, as I suspect Jim is. I don't think you want the system of booms and busts to just feel like it's a random event - of course the gamer wants to feel like he's the one who is determining the outcome of his career. I know we're a bit jaded here at FOFC, and that there are probably plenty of FOF gamers out there who haven't figure out the rookies in FOFC, and are pissed off that all their picks are massive busts. I don't know the best resolution to this, honestly. Maybe the easiest solution is your second option - boost the computer's recognition of the "profile" players, making it tougher for we human gamers to snap them up easily. To the untrained gamer, this will look like a bunch of dumb picks by the CPU teams (why are they taking that guy with no greens, when this guy is still there) but eventually it might help those gamers catch on (oh, the guy they took worked out beter than my guy... again). I'm not sure... but if it gets left as it is, the game has a major Achilles' heel, in my opinion. |
|
05-12-2003, 10:47 AM | #217 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
[rant on]Wade, I perceive that not very many people did buy the game. This had been my criticism all along where it really does play like an on-field simulator (ala baseball's DiamondMinds). Why would he had spent time and effort on the many settings for game situations (like 3rd Long - Way Behind - 4th Qtr) instead of better features for the career simmer? But as had been said before, we should be thankful that we are permitted to play his simulation.
primelord, now don't get all over me on this again. I had been watching this groupthink from the beginning to see how a group of hardcore FOFers would play the game and see if there is anything I could learn instead of hating FOF4 for the failure that it turned out to be for me. It seems that for the most part, even you guys are ignoring most of the FOF4 features and still play this as you would FOF2. I know he wouldn't listen to me because my ideas are too different from his, but he would listent to you guys (QS, wade, bee, etc) and I really hope that he sees a lesson in this exercise.[/rant off] edit: Too little, too late. Sorry. Last edited by Anrhydeddu : 05-12-2003 at 10:48 AM. |
05-12-2003, 11:00 AM | #218 | |
Strategy Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Carolina
|
Quote:
You're absolutely correct about the way we play the game. None of the changes in FOF4 were aimed at customers like me. I don't care about playcalling, and everything else seems to have no effect on the game. Who knows if our astrological harmony is helping us go undefeated. Personally I think it's just our level of talent. a lot needs to be changed for FOF5. |
|
05-12-2003, 11:14 AM | #219 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
Rick, I think your perception of me is a little skewed. First, I do not love OOTP because I can customize everything (I don't). I love OOTP because I can play historical careers (I'm old school, remember?). To me, both games have weak AI but for different reasons. So given that, how can we get around those weaknesses and still have fun playing the game? I perceive that FOF4 is all about accurate on-field simulation as oppose to a career sim. OOTP5 is the opposite. But I do believe that most people playing these games DO want a career sim more than anything else (besides multiplayer). How many folks here just play one season or care to accurate simulate the upcoming season to give its predictions? So why should that be the strength of the game as oppose to giving good results but having the AI choose and manage players better?
Everyone has said that the AI must give perfect results at all levels in order to play a career. I agree because that's expected. But even Madden 2003 gives good results when you sim, therefore letting us focus on running a game. FOF should also give good results, but for the purpose of letting us be a true GM over a career. I believe there is only so much work that should be paid to the AI (it will never be perfect) and since it already gives good results, why not take some of that time to focus on the career (which FOF4 should have done in the first place)? You also mentioned concession stands. I think you bringing up a post from too long ago that has no relevance to this debate. As you have read when we talked about the issue of financials in this groupthink, it had nothing to do with profit/loss (despite how irrelevant it is) but in how we can use financials to give us more of a challenge (like limited the amount of bonus money or high draft picks or something like that). This is a strength for OOTP because of the baseball economic model. But I know football's model is radically different but still, the challenge lies in how we and how the AI spends that money. Since FOF4 can't even have the AI do that right, are we then forced just to play this as an on-field simulation instead of simming through a season to get to the off-season? As far as my micromanagement rant, it has to do solely with the details of features that even you guys ignore - not the stuff like depth charts and basic gameplans, which I have always done. It had to do with micromanaging on-field game simulations at the expense of a career game. I play OOTP because the off-season and the in-season roster management is challenging and fun. FOF4 has neither, imo. Just severely rambling. Sorry again. |
05-12-2003, 01:05 PM | #220 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Steve,
Playing historical careers is just customizing the leagues. It's all just window dressing. They are only the histroical players by name. But since they develop independent of who those players really were in the past it's really just window dressing. Which is all fine. That is the type of game you like to play and I respect that. I have a completely different idea of what a sim game should be. I have no interest in historical players or in real players at all for that matter. I prefer to play a game where "my players" develop and I am particularly interested in the stats they produce. Other people want to be able to call all the plays for their game etc etc. So who should the game be designed for? It's easy to say all those aspects should be put into the game, but again there are only so many hours in the day so which direction should he go? I guess I will probably always be a fan of his games because the direction he generally chooses is towards the type of games I like. OOTP tends to go the other direction so I tend not to like ti as much. To each his own I guess. Many people here have made comments that Jim isn't interested in putting things into the game that are what the majority of the customers want. An example that pops up in my mind is the debate about whether or not injury sliders should be added to the game. I actually got into a bit of an argument with Jim telling him I thought it would be a mistake for him not to include injury sliders in the game or atleast reduce the number of injuries. I made the statement that it seemed pretty clear to me that the vast majority of his customers were asking for this and I was basing that off of that discussion thread. First he showed me some stats and information that showed the injury rates in FOF are pretty much right on with real life. But then he also challenged me to go back and re read that thread and see if I really thought it was the majority of the customers represented in the thread. So I did and I discovered something pretty interesting. There were a ton of posts complaining about the injury rates, but they were all from only about a handful of posters. A few of those were posters who just tend to bash Jim regardless (you were involved in the conversation Steve, but I am not referring to you as one of those people), some others were making good arguments, and there were even others who thought the injury frequency was fine. So despite the fact there was an overwhelming number of posts that had problems with the injury frequencys when it was all said done there realy weren't that many people complaining about it. That can be the problem with a forum. A few people can make a lot of noise and make it seem like a concensus. Now your point in that thread was not whether the injury rate was right or wrong, but that it should be adjustable. A point that Jim actually agreed with. However given that he only has so much time to change and implement things seeing that the problem wasn't nearly as wide spread as I first thought it was I can see why he would choose to focus his time on other areas of greater concern.
__________________
. |
05-12-2003, 02:28 PM | #221 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
Fair enough, Rick, good response. I guess what it comes down to is that Jim has come here asked made a statement that he wants/needs more sales. Maybe his vision had been too narrow to attract more sales. We see a group that wants more customization (or least open file formats), another group wants much more focus on a career game, while others want multiplayer. Maybe none of things are his vision but they need to be, I think, if he wants more sales. Even PC Gamer in its review of FOF4 criticized for not adding anything new besides playcalling. Maybe the new patch/upgrade can go a long ways in rectifying that, if that his priority.
As far as a few people making a lot of noise, I think the concept of sampling should be considered. But beyond that, personally I believe that I would listen to a customer like QS very closely than any of those emailing him asking for NFL Europe. Any chance we can get him here and have a dialog with us? I mean, take a look at this thread specifically. Wouldn't it have been great if he was debating along with us, perhaps clarifying some issues as well as picking our brains more? This, as well as some of the older threads as you mentioned, can't be done in an email or a chat. Just bringing it up again. |
05-12-2003, 02:35 PM | #222 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
Quote:
Perhaps this would be an area where the "difficulty levels" could actually mean something? I definitely agree with your assessment that the game is flawed unless something is done in the patch to increase the challenge in the game. |
|
05-12-2003, 02:45 PM | #223 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
The "difficulty level" issue raises in my mind the FOFC versus the world question. Around here, we laugh at the mere thought of playing the game on any level but the highest. But clearly, we aren't the only ones who buy the games.
Do you think there are people who bought and play this game, and who are so different from us that they actually prefer to play on a lower skill level? These people, we'd guess, are getting a real challenge out of the game... what's up with that? (There's a lowest common denominator comment in there, but I'm not looking to pick a fight) |
05-12-2003, 02:56 PM | #224 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
See? Why not have the option, theoretically, to have both? Why does it have to be so inflexible and static that it can appeal only to a smaller segment? That's a little hyberbolic, I admit but QS presents a case of FOFC vs the world. How about FOFC and the world?
As to Bee's comment. Even if the game is flawed, I would still have fun if I could create my own league structure. But since I can't even do that, all I can fall back on is a static, flawed game. Rick called such things needless window dressing but at least it can give a certain segment of customers something else to do with the game besides bitch about its flawed AI. |
05-12-2003, 03:00 PM | #225 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
I'd be surprised if anyone who has spent much time with the game would still be playing at the lower difficulty levels, but anything is possible.
I would guess that the board is probably a relatively accurate cross-section of people who play FOF. Unlike many fan sites where there are often only the fanatical, this one has expanded to a broader base of people. There are many here who are only casual fans of FOF, but come here for the other discussions. As far as I remember, very few (if any) played on anything but the hardest difficulty when the discussion came up before. |
05-12-2003, 05:03 PM | #226 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Quote:
I didn't say it was needless window dressing. I just said it was window dressing. It's not that things like that aren't nice to have. And they do add something to the game. My point was I would rather Jim spend the time fixing the AI and making the game more challenging than makeing the league formats customizable etc. I think his approach is a good one. Don't start adding all kinds of bells and whistles until the core of the game is right. I just get frustrated with software developers who keep adding new features to game without ever getting its core purpose working properly. EA is famous for that. For years they kept improving the look of Madden and throing in all kinds of extras etc, but the actual game play was awful. I don't want you wasting coding time to allow me to change the uniform colors of my players if the full back won't lead block for my running back. As far as the difficulty level goes I agree with you guys I almost can't see how you would play it on a lower level. I have never tried anything other than the highest level so I am not real certain what the differences even are in this version. But it seems difficult to get much easier. |
|
05-12-2003, 05:15 PM | #227 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
All work and no fun can make for a very boring game.
Count me as part of the "world" because I would certainly be playing FOF4 if it had customized leagues - despite its "flawed" AI. You have said yourself that it is the stats that makes the game for you and with that, I would say you are in the minority. Actually, I think each one of us is in the minority on our "desires". For instance, the game itself works fine for me but give me something I can have fun with that is more than what the previous versions gave me. edit: Let me give you three examples of what I'm trying to say. You mentioned Madden. Do you know what the hook is for me? The ability to display historical uniforms and helmets. How about OOTP? The hook is to play with historical players and league structures (like the 1960s Cardinals). And with my favorite game, Civ2? The ability to create historical units, maps, events and scenarios. These may be an aberration from the norm but certainly not unique. Are you telling me I am wrong for wanting this and these hooks should not be considered in a game like FOF? Rhetorical question. Last edited by Anrhydeddu : 05-12-2003 at 05:20 PM. |
05-12-2003, 08:26 PM | #228 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Quote:
I am choosing to answer your rhetorical question. I am not saying you are wrong for enjoying those aspects of those games. And I am not even at all trying to convince you that FOF4 is a game you should like. Your statement that we are all unique atleast to some extent in what we want from the game is my point. Jim can't add every feature someone asks for. So he has to make choices. It's not about not giving the customer what they want. It's about it not being possible to satisfy everyone so he just has to pick a direction and go with it. Jim told me it would be easy to allow the user to modify the league structure. However it would be very difficult to create a decent schedule generator to go with it. He said if you forced the user to create their own schedules it would be a piece of cake. Now I fully realize you would love that, but I think the average gamer wouldn't want to have to create their own schedule every season. So when desiging FOF4 he decided he didn't have time to do a schedule creator justice in the amount of time he had and he didn't want to leave it up to the user or do hal assed job of it. So it got cut. Which is also why there is no expansion. It's not that he didn't want to implement it, but some things just had to go if things like the play caller were going to be included. Now you may say he shouldn't have added the play calling feature then. No one uses that anyway right? Well what about all the FOFC members who were complaining that he took the play calling out of TCY? And the list goes on like that. |
|
05-13-2003, 07:03 AM | #229 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
meanwhile, in little rock..... ?
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
05-13-2003, 08:37 AM | #230 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Little Rock (8-0)(-9) at Fort Wayne (4-4)
Code:
Injuries Cory Carlson, LCB - Severe Hamstring Pull, Out, full strength in 1999. Wayne Hill, FL - Hyperextended Elbow, Out, full strength in about 3 weeks. Brenden Terrell, WLB - Pulled Groin, Questionable, full strength in about 1 week. Derek Lofton, LG - Tobacco Withdrawal Syndrome, Probable, return unknown. Alan Schenk, RDT - Strained Hamstring, Probable, return unknown. Russell Samuels, FS - ACL Damage to the Knee, Out, full strength in 1999.
__________________
. |
05-13-2003, 08:41 AM | #231 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Pensacola (5-4) at Little Rock (9-0)(-10)
Code:
Injuries Cory Carlson, LCB - Severe Hamstring Pull, Out, full strength in 1999. Wayne Hill, FL - Hyperextended Elbow, Questionable, full strength in about 2 weeks. Derek Lofton, LG - Tobacco Withdrawal Syndrome, Probable, return unknown. Bert Ellis, RDT - Strained Triceps Muscle, Questionable, full strength in about 2 weeks. Alan Schenk, RDT - Strained Hamstring, Probable, return unknown. Russell Samuels, FS - ACL Damage to the Knee, Out, full strength in 1999.
__________________
. |
05-13-2003, 08:43 AM | #232 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Little Rock (10-0)(-9) at Providence (4-6)
Code:
Injuries Cory Carlson, LCB - Severe Hamstring Pull, Out, full strength in 1999. Wayne Hill, FL - Hyperextended Elbow, Probable, full strength in about 1 week. Otis Coghill, QB - Hyperextended Elbow, Doubtful, full strength in about 2 weeks. Derek Lofton, LG - Tobacco Withdrawal Syndrome, Probable, return unknown. Bert Ellis, RDT - Torn Thumb Ligament, Questionable, full strength in about 8 weeks. Matthew Sims, SE - Sprained Thumb, Probable, full strength in about 2 weeks. Shaun Tobias, C - Severe Wrist Sprain, Doubtful, full strength in about 2 weeks. Alan Schenk, RDT - Strained Hamstring, Probable, return unknown. Russell Samuels, FS - ACL Damage to the Knee, Out, full strength in 1999.
__________________
. |
05-13-2003, 08:46 AM | #233 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Little Rock (11-0)(-14) at Ocean City (3-8)
Code:
Injuries Cory Carlson, LCB - Severe Hamstring Pull, Out, full strength in 1999. Otis Coghill, QB - Hyperextended Elbow, Probable, full strength in about 1 week. Ben Howen, LDE - High Ankle Sprain, Out, full strength in 1999. Vincent Wellman, MLB - Hyperextended Knee, Out, full strength in about 3 weeks. Derek Lofton, LG - Tobacco Withdrawal Syndrome, Probable, return unknown. Bert Ellis, RDT - Torn Thumb Ligament, Questionable, full strength in about 7 weeks. Matthew Sims, SE - Sprained Thumb, Probable, full strength in about 1 week. Shaun Tobias, C - Severe Wrist Sprain, Probable, full strength in about 1 week. Alan Schenk, RDT - Strained Hamstring, Probable, return unknown. Russell Samuels, FS - ACL Damage to the Knee, Out, full strength in 1999.
__________________
. |
05-13-2003, 08:54 AM | #234 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Wade,
If you end up finishing off the season please make sure Wellman gets back in at MLB. I didn't put the offensive guys who were injured (Coghill and Tobias) back in because I wasn't sure if you wanted them in at probable or not. |
05-13-2003, 08:54 AM | #235 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Updated File #2
|
05-13-2003, 09:03 AM | #236 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Well, we continue to roll on...
Interesting to see our old friend Kenny McAlister light us up like a Xmas tree, even though we took the win. 212 yards!?!? Against our secondary? And, of course, Coghill will miss his obligatory 3 games a year - just enough to give him perhaps the most puzzling stat line in league history. He might be the best player in the league's history, but his career accomplishments list will forever be without an MVP, and practially void of any all-pro appearances... I think he has one second-team showing thus far, despite having the top four season QB ratings of league history. Last edited by QuikSand : 05-13-2003 at 09:04 AM. |
05-13-2003, 09:12 AM | #237 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Doesn't seem to matter who is in ... cool deal.. we need this to be harder... i'm getting pessimistic though as to whether we can make it harder to win but still be fun..
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
05-14-2003, 07:19 AM | #238 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Internet was down at home, as far as I know still is, Hopefully by the time I get home all will be good..
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
05-15-2003, 03:52 AM | #239 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Just bumping to keep this thread from dying...
|
05-15-2003, 04:57 AM | #240 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Hawk Mountain(7-5) at Little Rock(12-0)(-11)
Code:
[b]Injuries:[/b[ From: Personnel Department Injury Report: Cory Carlson, LCB - Severe Hamstring Pull, Out, full strength in 1999. Ben Howen, LDE - High Ankle Sprain, Out, full strength in 1999. Vincent Wellman, MLB - Hyperextended Knee, Questionable, full strength in about 2 weeks. Derek Lofton, LG - Tobacco Withdrawal Syndrome, Probable, return unknown. Bert Ellis, RDT - Torn Thumb Ligament, Questionable, full strength in 1999. Alan Schenk, RDT - Strained Hamstring, Probable, return unknown. Russell Samuels, FS - ACL Damage to the Knee, Out, full strength in 1999.
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
05-15-2003, 05:03 AM | #241 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Little Rock(13-0)(-9) at Pensacola(7-9)
Code:
Injuries: From: Personnel Department Injury Report: Cory Carlson, LCB - Severe Hamstring Pull, Out, full strength in 1999. Wayne Hill, FL - Pulled Groin, Doubtful, full strength in about 3 weeks. Otis Coghill, QB - Deep Thigh Bruise, Probable, full strength in about 1 week. Ben Howen, LDE - High Ankle Sprain, Out, full strength in 1999. Vincent Wellman, MLB - Hyperextended Knee, Probable, full strength in about 1 week. Derek Lofton, LG - Tobacco Withdrawal Syndrome, Probable, return unknown. Bert Ellis, RDT - Torn Thumb Ligament, Questionable, full strength in 1999. Alan Schenk, RDT - Strained Hamstring, Probable, return unknown. Russell Samuels, FS - ACL Damage to the Knee, Out, full strength in 1999.
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
05-15-2003, 05:08 AM | #242 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Little Rock(14-0)(-15) at Texarkana(3-11)
Code:
Injuries: From: Personnel Department Injury Report: Cory Carlson, LCB - Severe Hamstring Pull, Doubtful, full strength in 1999. Wayne Hill, FL - Pulled Groin, Questionable, full strength in about 2 weeks. Ben Howen, LDE - High Ankle Sprain, Out, full strength in 1999. Adrian Brewer, RDE - Dislocated Shoulder, Out, full strength in 1999. Bert Ellis, RDT - Torn Thumb Ligament, Questionable, full strength in 1999. Matthew Sims, SE - Hyperextended Knee, Doubtful, full strength in about 2 weeks. Alan Schenk, RDT - Strained Hamstring, Probable, return unknown. Russell Samuels, FS - ACL Damage to the Knee, Out, full strength in 1999. -------- I'm actually pretty happy we lost..
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
05-15-2003, 05:14 AM | #243 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Little Rock(14-1)(-6) at Fort Knox(7-8)
Code:
Injuries: Injury Report: Cory Carlson, LCB - Severe Hamstring Pull, Doubtful, full strength in 1999. Otis Coghill, QB - Torn Triceps Muscle, Out, full strength in late 1999. Ben Howen, LDE - High Ankle Sprain, Out, full strength in 1999. Karl Dockery, SE - Knee Tendinitis, Probable, full strength in about 1 week. Adrian Brewer, RDE - Dislocated Shoulder, Out, full strength in 1999. Bert Ellis, RDT - Torn Thumb Ligament, Probable, full strength in 1999. Matthew Sims, SE - Hyperextended Knee, Probable, full strength in about 1 week. Alan Schenk, RDT - Strained Hamstring, Probable, return unknown. Russell Samuels, FS - ACL Damage to the Knee, Out, full strength in 1999. ----- Well, I made a fatal mistake that I should have known better to do... we'll see what this does to Cog long term..
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
05-15-2003, 05:17 AM | #244 |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
prime, feel free to run the playoffs today..
File 1.. |
05-15-2003, 05:18 AM | #245 |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
File 2..
|
05-15-2003, 05:34 AM | #246 |
Strategy Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Carolina
|
shit. out till late 1999. Sometimes stuff like this turns out to be a career-ender.
Anway, what did we have - 33 consecutive wins going there? ridiculous. |
05-15-2003, 08:17 AM | #247 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
That could be very bad for Cog... ouch.
|
05-15-2003, 08:23 AM | #248 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
Just like last season, he should not have been playing leading up to the playoffs.
|
05-15-2003, 08:35 AM | #249 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Niagra Falls (12-5) at Little Rock (15-1)(-4)
Code:
Injuries Cory Carlson, LCB - Severe Hamstring Pull, Questionable, full strength in 1999. Otis Coghill, QB - Torn Triceps Muscle, Out, full strength in late 1999. Ben Howen, LDE - High Ankle Sprain, Out, full strength in 1999. Adrian Brewer, RDE - Dislocated Shoulder, Doubtful, full strength in 1999. Bert Ellis, RDT - Torn Thumb Ligament, Probable, full strength in 1999. Russell Samuels, FS - ACL Damage to the Knee, Out, full strength in 1999.
__________________
. |
05-15-2003, 08:37 AM | #250 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Manhattan (13-3-1) at Little Rock (16-1)(-2)
Code:
__________________
. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|