Full-Tight Back-End Challenge

[Upstate_New_York]

So I got to thinking... TEs don't get enough exposure in FOF, and this is a crying shame. Hardly ever do we see a TE in FOF get more than 300 yards a season. Where are the Gonzalezes? Where are the Bavaros? Well, I figured why the hell not be dumb and try to tip an offense toward the TE as much as possible and see if I could get at least close to a viable TE Offense running.

But that wasn't the only thing... I wanted to feature a FB as my rusher as well. Why? Well why not! Has anyone here ever tried running an FOF offense around both a TE AND a FB? Thus the Full-Tight Back-End Challenge is born.

So here's my rules:

1. Start with the 2002 expansion team

2. Go with only fictional players

3. No signing free agents during the 20 step process

4. Sign only free agents with 3 years or less experience (build from within philosophy)

5. When signing player extensions, you must wait to the final season of their contract and sign them to THEIR demands only

6. Pray to god I get a kick ass TE or FB in the draft in the near future

7. I'll match ticket prices with my nearest competition

here's my game plan:

1. Concentrate on FB and TE talent over WR and RB.

2. Field a squad of poor to average WRs so that the QB must target the TE.

3. Run 2TE set at 99% an zero out everything else.

One odd little thing I'm looking forward to seeing is if I save money doing this... seeing that FBs and TEs ask for less $$ than RBs and WRs.

Anyone else have any other ideas where I could isolate my TE? Or any ideas as to the best running plays and formations to use with my FB? Any advice would be most cool.

------------------
"If he's so smart, how come he's dead!" - Homer Simpson

[This message has been edited by Upstate_New_York (edited 02-08-2001).]

[Ben E Lou]

Run 2TE set at 99% an zero out everything else.

Sounds, great, but I think you'll find that the 2TE set doesn't put 2 TE's on the field very often. Read this thread: http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/ubb/...ML/002469.html

[Upstate_New_York]

Great research Skydog... I see you wrote that TEs are used in about 30% of the passing plays with the 3 WR set... how often did you see the TE used on the 1 WR set? Well, either way, I think that I have no choice BUT to run the 1 WR set. Hopefully my lack of WR targets will maximize going to the TE.

Many thanks.

[QuikSand]

Out of curiosity, are you planning on maintaining a whole stable of quality TEs and FBs, or just focusing on your top guy? I'm assuming the latter, but I suppose you could go either way.

Based on some of the other threads on "receiver choice" you might find that this works well if you find complmentary receivers who have pretty good ratings in "cathing" but fairly low ratings in "catch frequency." You need guys who will be able to perform when called upon (the former) but who won't be getting open all the time (the latter), and taking chances away from your preferred targets. My suspicion is you can fill your RB and WR corps with middle- or late-round selections and even URFA to get guys with some decent but inconsistent ratings.

[Upstate_New_York]

Quik. First, I definitely want that premier FB and TE... but unfortunately I'm in my fourth year and I have yet to find either in the draft. I want strong backups for FB and TE... but not necessarily two superstar TEs for instance. After perusing SkyDog's studies on formations... and after my personal experience with FOF, I find it very unlikely that I could get a second TE to produce in ANY formation.

And thanks for the tip... It would make sense to have talented receivers without high catch frequencies. It would also make sense to have one good WR, so as to be a magnet for the opposing secondary.

------------------
"If he's so smart, how come he's dead!" - Homer Simpson

[Ksyrup]

Actually, although I've never tracked it as such, I do run an offense heavy on both FB and TE.

You might not have seen a thread I started in the general discussion area about trying to use a FB as the feature back. I decided to try it after I realized I had such a great FB who was consistently rushing for 400-500 yards (something like 6 straight 1st team AP selections), coupled with the fact that my RBs weren't very good at the time. Unfortunately, I chose to start tracking my FB offense near the end of my great FB's career, and it never got off the ground. The first year I tried, I think he got just over 600 yards (he had a couple of injuries), and I had 3 other RB/QB with 300- 550 yards as well. He got injured the next year and played very little, and then retired.

As for TEs, I'm surprised to see that you rarely have TEs with more than 300 yards receiving. Barring injury of course, I almost always get 500-800 yards receiving out of my TE, and he is almost always one of my top 3 receivers. Having a TE as a dominant receiver is much easier than having a successful FB rushing attack (emphasis on the successful).

[Upstate_New_York]

Ksyrup. I've had TE's have a good season and then fade away into average performances due to acquiring good WRs. Never blatently tried isolating the TE before like this...

Thing that's hurting me at the moment is I've been unable to find that great TE or FB.

I have noticed the difference in team salary already in only 3 seasons ... due to the fact I don't need that top RB or WR.

[Ksyrup]

It's much more important to have a stud FB for this kind of an offense than the TE. The TE still needs to be above average, but I've gotten good performances out of a less-than-stud TE on a fairly consistent basis when I didn't have a great one. With FB, though, a stud is a must.