|
Post by Nick on Feb 16, 2022 16:09:17 GMT -5
I could give numerous examples of cohesion being seemingly meaningless. Just now I am looking at Denver's 100 secondary cohesion, and their 32nd ranked pass defense.
I don't think cohesion's relationship with winning will be particularly strong, with the large number of factors flying around in MP. Even if you do find one, you have to factor in the "rebuilding" GMs are not going to be trying as hard as GMs with well put together veteran teams.
I would say the same thing about intelligence, chemistry, even roster talent to some degree. There are too many moving parts in MP for 1 factor to have a strong relationship with winning.
|
|
|
Post by clown on Feb 16, 2022 17:40:39 GMT -5
I could give numerous examples of cohesion being seemingly meaningless. Just now I am looking at Denver's 100 secondary cohesion, and their 32nd ranked pass defense. I don't think cohesion's relationship with winning will be particularly strong, with the large number of factors flying around in MP. Even if you do find one, you have to factor in the "rebuilding" GMs are not going to be trying as hard as GMs with well put together veteran teams. I would say the same thing about intelligence, chemistry, even roster talent to some degree. There are too many moving parts in MP for 1 factor to have a strong relationship with winning. Lets just review here. this is what I see in Seattle 1.run the ball 2.modest turnover in the roster. Maintain Continuity with limited to small roster changes--keeping cohesion high 3.smart players especially oline. 4.watch the special teams 5.no bad affinity and as much good affinity as the roster will allow ----anything missing?
|
|
|
Post by julioriddols on Feb 17, 2022 2:00:54 GMT -5
I only have emotion feeling on this nothing Scientific It feels like cohesion smooths out the lows When cohesion is low the randomness and inconsistencies seem to show up Cohesion=Crispness in the way the gameplan is implemented through the talent of the roster. That's my take too. Cohesion is relative to the league because there is always one team at 100 in each category but never 2, and the gap between 1st and 2nd varies significantly. That top team probably suffers the lowest penalty in the form of variance in their overall performance for that position group. The lower teams take a hit depending on how much worse off they are than the top team and probably see lower lows.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Feb 17, 2022 3:06:42 GMT -5
I could give numerous examples of cohesion being seemingly meaningless. Just now I am looking at Denver's 100 secondary cohesion, and their 32nd ranked pass defense. I don't think cohesion's relationship with winning will be particularly strong, with the large number of factors flying around in MP. Even if you do find one, you have to factor in the "rebuilding" GMs are not going to be trying as hard as GMs with well put together veteran teams. I would say the same thing about intelligence, chemistry, even roster talent to some degree. There are too many moving parts in MP for 1 factor to have a strong relationship with winning. Lets just review here. this is what I see in Seattle 1.run the ball 2.modest turnover in the roster. Maintain Continuity with limited to small roster changes--keeping cohesion high 3.smart players especially oline. 4.watch the special teams 5.no bad affinity and as much good affinity as the roster will allow ----anything missing? Run the ball is a roster thing, it doesn't have to be that way. The easiest way to win is still probably with an epic QB and WRs. Otherwise the list is good. Just aim to be excellent at everything. That way if you hit top 10 across the board you shouldn't go far wrong. Gameplans, financials, roster management and drafting also important. Plus, don't choke.
|
|
|
Post by Sawblade300 on Jun 24, 2022 11:01:53 GMT -5
Still trying to wrap my head around this shit. Last week's game my O-line cohesion was 70. I'm sure this is the reason for our poor run game and play overall. HOWEVER...after this most recent game, our line cohesion is 67. No changes on the line. Same five guys as the last few weeks. Why did it drop?
|
|
|
Post by hildebrand on Jun 24, 2022 11:41:25 GMT -5
Still trying to wrap my head around this shit. Last week's game my O-line cohesion was 70. I'm sure this is the reason for our poor run game and play overall. HOWEVER...after this most recent game, our line cohesion is 67. No changes on the line. Same five guys as the last few weeks. Why did it drop? It's relative to whatever team has the most cohesion. The top team is always set at 100, so the top team must have changed this week.
|
|
|
Post by Sawblade300 on Jun 24, 2022 12:12:23 GMT -5
Still trying to wrap my head around this shit. Last week's game my O-line cohesion was 70. I'm sure this is the reason for our poor run game and play overall. HOWEVER...after this most recent game, our line cohesion is 67. No changes on the line. Same five guys as the last few weeks. Why did it drop? It's relative to whatever team has the most cohesion. The top team is always set at 100, so the top team must have changed this week. What?? That's bullshit. Fuck that top team. I want to know about MY team.
|
|
quiksand
Franchise Owner
Bench Warmer
Jets Co-GM
Posts: 401
Member is Online
|
Post by quiksand on Jun 25, 2022 8:05:24 GMT -5
I think the simplest explanation is that the FOF developer did not want to reveal each team's absolute value for cohesion in a unit. If he revealed the exact calculated number for your DB group to be 81.4 (or whatever) then over time we could easily crack the code and figure out exactly how it is calculated. Revealing these as dyanmic ratings, perpetually scaled to a 100 arbitrarily set at the league's highest rating keeps things very nicely hidden and brutally difficult to solve on the back-end.
And again, I continue to caution against overemploying the visible cohesion ratings as the end of the story. I firmly believe that cohesion is among the things actually calculated on a play by play basis, based on the actual 11 men on the field for that play. The visible numbers are there for us to see, but are just based on "starters" and if you rotate players as we all must, it can vary dramatically based on that. (standard grain of salt caveat, but I'm very much sold this is how it actually works)
|
|
quiksand
Franchise Owner
Bench Warmer
Jets Co-GM
Posts: 401
Member is Online
|
Post by quiksand on Jun 25, 2022 8:11:47 GMT -5
I could give numerous examples of cohesion being seemingly meaningless. Just now I am looking at Denver's 100 secondary cohesion, and their 32nd ranked pass defense. I don't think cohesion's relationship with winning will be particularly strong, with the large number of factors flying around in MP. Of course, in any data set, even ones with high correlation, we could always pick out examples that don't seem to evidence the correlation. However, I think your follow up is about the right way to put it. Two things can be true here, and I believe they are: -cohesion is built into the game as a meaningful thing, and a cohesion edge is meaningful, all other things equal - so it is sensible to consider that 6th year guy you drafted as having some special value to your team because of that benefit -however, all other things are rarely equal, and really improving cohesion typically comes at the cost of other things like roster quality, so we won't see some simple super-powerful correlation between cohesion and winning... because it ends up conflicting with other elements that are also correlated with winning
|
|
|
Post by Sawblade300 on Jun 25, 2022 17:28:43 GMT -5
Well then I need a better explanation as to why my line sucks balls. The average intelligence of the five is around 37. I'm sure that doesn't help with penalties and such. Does that affect blocking ability? Average RBK bar is 52. Average BKS is 73. I mean...they don't look terrible, and with a back like Griffin behind them, you'd think we could be fairly successful running the ball. We're almost last in the league.
|
|
tzach
Franchise Owner
Bench Warmer
Browns GM
Posts: 426
|
Post by tzach on Jun 28, 2022 4:22:23 GMT -5
hello fellas -- it's been a while.
i agree pretty much with what quik said re: cohesion. if I were to guess the impact of cohesion vs chemistry on players and a given unit, I'd say their effects are pretty similar if not exactly the same. at least that's how i'd code for convenience if I were the developer.
i think cohesion is vastly underestimated by most gms. i'd estimate around a +70% boost (very rough) on a given player or unit ratings, so i always have this ballpark number in mind when deciding between a vet that has eben on my team for 9 yrs vs a rookie or FA.
|
|
|
Post by squirrel on Jun 28, 2022 7:44:34 GMT -5
Hey!!! Hope all well sir
|
|
|
Post by ezlee2 on Jun 28, 2022 9:16:12 GMT -5
Cohesion is much more important than most GMs realize.
|
|
quiksand
Franchise Owner
Bench Warmer
Jets Co-GM
Posts: 401
Member is Online
|
Post by quiksand on Jun 29, 2022 19:25:13 GMT -5
Well then I need a better explanation as to why my line sucks balls. The average intelligence of the five is around 37. I'm sure that doesn't help with penalties and such. Does that affect blocking ability? Average RBK bar is 52. Average BKS is 73. I mean...they don't look terrible, and with a back like Griffin behind them, you'd think we could be fairly successful running the ball. We're almost last in the league. You have two young starting OL who are cohesion liabilities. Not itself a crisis, but it certainly could be part of the run blocking unit being underwhelming. You have one OL starter with an absolute void in run blocking. Not itself a crisis, but it certainly could be part of the run blocking unit being underwhelming. You have a starting center who is mediocre, nothing special - and that may be the position most pivotal for run-blocking based success. Not itself a crisis, but it certainly could be part of the run blocking unit being underwhelming. All in all, just put those elements together, and I wouldn't be expecting your OL unit to be dominating and itself powering a top-tier running game. Hold that same group together for a few seasons, and (back in keeping with the thread topic) I'd expect the unit to drift toward above average. May or may not be enough to power big results over the course of any one season, still a small sample size.
|
|
|
Post by Sawblade300 on Jun 29, 2022 21:01:07 GMT -5
Well then I need a better explanation as to why my line sucks balls. The average intelligence of the five is around 37. I'm sure that doesn't help with penalties and such. Does that affect blocking ability? Average RBK bar is 52. Average BKS is 73. I mean...they don't look terrible, and with a back like Griffin behind them, you'd think we could be fairly successful running the ball. We're almost last in the league. You have two young starting OL who are cohesion liabilities. Not itself a crisis, but it certainly could be part of the run blocking unit being underwhelming. You have one OL starter with an absolute void in run blocking. Not itself a crisis, but it certainly could be part of the run blocking unit being underwhelming. You have a starting center who is mediocre, nothing special - and that may be the position most pivotal for run-blocking based success. Not itself a crisis, but it certainly could be part of the run blocking unit being underwhelming. All in all, just put those elements together, and I wouldn't be expecting your OL unit to be dominating and itself powering a top-tier running game. Hold that same group together for a few seasons, and (back in keeping with the thread topic) I'd expect the unit to drift toward above average. May or may not be enough to power big results over the course of any one season, still a small sample size. I sense a theme here and I thank you for the detailed response. It's what I was looking for and thinking myself. Just needed to hear it from someone else. Cause, you know. I don't trust the voices in my head.
|
|