FanGM

I won an AFFL Bowl with kerry collins rated C+ and no real game updates.

You can definately win w/out a QB

Royce R wrote:I won an AFFL Bowl with kerry collins rated C+ and no real game updates.

You can definately win w/out a QB

That was also before alot of changes were made to the system right now no way that happens again

Royce R wrote:I won an AFFL Bowl with kerry collins rated C+ and no real game updates.

You can definately win w/out a QB

I'm pretty sure Kerry's cleats are on display in the AFFL Hall of Fame.

Royce R wrote:I won an AFFL Bowl with kerry collins rated C+ and no real game updates.

You can definately win w/out a QB

I'm gonna have to second Royce here & argue with this defeatist attitude that you can't win without a great QB.
In 2011 my 49ers went 16-0 in the regular season & lost the Super Bowl in the last 30 seconds with Matt Hasselbeck at quarterback.
It can most definitely be done if you don't panic and sell the farm bc you don't have a QB.

RebelFan wrote:

Royce R wrote:I won an AFFL Bowl with kerry collins rated C+ and no real game updates.

You can definately win w/out a QB

I'm gonna have to second Royce here & argue with this defeatist attitude that you can't win without a great QB.
In 2011 my 49ers went 16-0 in the regular season & lost the Super Bowl in the last 30 seconds with Matt Hasselbeck at quarterback.
It can most definitely be done if you don't panic and sell the farm bc you don't have a QB.

2011 Matt Hasselbeck isn't exactly considered "not having a QB". Still a decent QB but 16-0 is still better than what you should have been with him. Sometimes you have enough pieces around a QB to get a few more wins but like Onyx more times than not a starting QB will get you get you wins.

I think it's somewhat what we see in reality...

Sometimes a GREAT QB on a bad team can carry them to higher results almost on his own.

Sometimes a mediocre type QB surrounded by an absolutely DOMINANT team otherwise with outstanding defense and offensive line grades is more than enough to win. We boost our QBs by up to 15% if the maximum grade advantage, that turns a poor 50% passer into a 65% strong passer. We've seen backup QBs take their great teams to real championship at times. We've seen a couple just okay QBs behind elite defenses and strong running games win big in reality. And happens here sometimes too with great grades otherwise like the example(s) mentioned.

But if you have a poor QB and poor supporting cast (or at least no strong grade advantage) you're not going to be very good in reality or sim.

We did, however, raise the default averages last year higher than they were in the past.

CFFL Vikings went 13-3 with Christian Ponder, a great running game and an excellent defense.

TylerW wrote:

RebelFan wrote:

Royce R wrote:I won an AFFL Bowl with kerry collins rated C+ and no real game updates.

You can definately win w/out a QB

I'm gonna have to second Royce here & argue with this defeatist attitude that you can't win without a great QB.
In 2011 my 49ers went 16-0 in the regular season & lost the Super Bowl in the last 30 seconds with Matt Hasselbeck at quarterback.
It can most definitely be done if you don't panic and sell the farm bc you don't have a QB.

2011 Matt Hasselbeck isn't exactly considered "not having a QB". Still a decent QB but 16-0 is still better than what you should have been with him. Sometimes you have enough pieces around a QB to get a few more wins but like Onyx more times than not a starting QB will get you get you wins.

I have been thinking about our 3 year rule that has been so wildly discussed over the past couple years. Below is a listing of all the current GMs in the NFL, and for all the GMs I am counting 2013-2014 season as a year even though the season is yet to get started. While I am not opposed to a ruling of 3 years, I still think this needs to be noted:

Doug Whaley(1), Jeff Ireland(6), Bill Belichick(14), John Idzik(1), Ozzie Newsome(12), Michael Lombardi(1), Kevin Colbert(4), Rick Smith(8), Ryan Grigson(2), David Caldwell(1), Ruston Webster(2), John Elway(3), John Dorsey(1), Reggie McKenzie(2), Tom Telesco(1), Jerry Reese(7), Howie Roseman(4), Bruce Allen(5), Phil Emery(2), Martin Mayhew(6), Ted Thompson(9), Rick Spielman(2), Thomas Dimitroff(6), Dave Gettleman(1), Mickey Loomis(12), Mark Dominik(5), Steve Kiem(1), Les Snead(2), Trent Baalke(3), John Schnieder(4)

**Excluded Mike Brown (Cincy - Owner makes GM decisions), Jerry Jones (Dallas - Owner makes GM decisions)

Variance: 12.93
Standard Deviation: 3.60
Mean : 4.27

Max: 7.86
Mean: 4.27
Min: 0.67

To me 3 years is not long enough time to give a GM an opportunity to leave his mark on a franchise good or bad. 4 years seems more appropriate, however that is in the NFL, I realize that in FANGM teams change so much from year to year its a lot more difficult to gauge. Some GMs build straight through trading, some go through the draft. Causes a lot of variability to know what is an appropriate time to allow a guy to stay on as a GM in FANGM.

***I meant to post this a while ago. I was cleaning up some stuff on my computer and realized I forgot to post this. I realize we will probably be going with the 3 year rule, which I am perfectly fine with, but I just wanted to share this. I do still believe it should be applied to the AFFL only though but I know this was voted on long ago.

But our standards are much lower than IRL.

Wait a minute, I took over a 5-11 team and went 9-7 this past year and won my division. Not to toot my own horn (I was in a weak division) but what exactly qualifies as "improving" a team. Are we saying if after 3 years a team doesn't make it to the playoffs that GM is out?