Back

Era Comparisons

Andrew: Stats. Stats. Stats. The backbone of any successful league. You gotta have stats out the wazoo. It's also a huge help if the stats are consistent. Realistic stats are a bonus too.

Sadly, the first version of the USAFL only had two of those three criteria. One and a half actually. The stats were consistent and we had plenty of them, but not nearly as much as today's GMs get to see. The game back then was overwhelmingly defensive. The offenses had no chance against a well built defense. Not to mention the special teams. Punters & Kickers were already equipped with hospital armbands with all the abuse they got from linemen. Blocked kicks and punt were the norm. Several Super Bowl games were even decided on plays like that. As much as we all didn't like it, at least it was consistent.

About 18-20 seasons into the USAFL, we became aware of some guys who designed a custom set of plays, plans, and profiles that brought the offenses closer to being competitive with the defense. It was a tremendous help, yet the defense still was firmly in control of deciding outcomes.

When Todd Ricotta approached me about creating a whole new set of PPPs, I mentioned my desire to have them set up into schemes. Then a GM could pick a scheme and build his roster to suit it. I could not believe how successful Todd's work was. It was pure joy to see RBs rushing for more than 1,000 yards, seeing QBs have huge games. As well as see the DLs returned back to earth's normal gravitation pull.

In my opinion, the current version of the league is NO COMPARISON to the early versions.

One thing different about this current version is, it is much tougher to build a successful team. You need solid players at every position. In the early days you could get away with average players on offense, you only needed to focus on getting great players on your defense. There are a few GMs who did well in the early version who have yet to return to their former glory in this version. What's the opinions of our panel of GMs?

Bill: My favorite time was when I was AGMing for Joe Malloy in Dallas during USAFL-3. I was stunned at the sheer amount of information and fun there was to be had. The USAFL, in addition, had something like a 30 person waiting list at this point, and it was by far the best and most complete league I'd ever played in or seen, and I've seen and played in a LOT of FBPRO leagues. :)

Todd: What was that famous quote...? Oh yeah, "I will not rest nor recommend we set sail until I feel absolutely confident that any team, with the right combination of personnel can win with any of the 6 offensive or 3 defensive plans on any given Sunday." The current version, hands down. The play sets have taken the league to the next level. GMs are encouraged and rewarded for making personnel decisions in accordance with their system, and vice versa. And the balance, it's downright impressive. :)

Fred: Well, I think that I prefer defensive games. Since you need 1 QB, and 1 RB, it's "easier" to get a good offense than a great defense. But then, I don't think the change has so much to do with the new PPPs, but also because lately, the talent in the draft has been more defensive than ever.

Ben: I liked the VPNFL stuff, at least at the time we made the switch, because I had built up a perfect team for the type of Defense I was running, and then we switched, but overall, I'd have to go with Todd's even though I still think that the plays should be released to the public.

LOGO from our little venture in the online gaming world

Tom: I think there's no question that the latest playbooks are the best USAFL you can get. One of the things that annoyed me about FBPro was the non-football like scores you could get...3-2 scores, teams that would give up 32 points a season, things like that. Todd's playbooks (and the VPNFL playbooks as well, before that) really fixed that, and made the game what it was, a professional football simulation. I give props to Todd for that, but since I'm in the AFC East, that's all I'll give him credit for.

Joe: This version. Vince Bates and Michael Mays were just unfair. ;)

Garritt: Thought I was much more successful in the prior version, I like this version better because its more realistic. I really like the concept of choosing your coaching style and then bringing in players to perform well in it.

Flip: The Current version is much more realistic and definitely more fun!

Mike: I love the current version. It is much closer to realistic stats. I do recall Eric's 60 + stats and I also recall all those blocked punts! arghhh.....

For even more historical data, visit the USAFL History Page to view tons of stats from earlier versions of the USAFL. This page can always be accessed through the USAFL FAQ.