I probably will never have long-term injury results because it can be incredibly discouraging to spend several seasons clawing to build your team only to have your star player(s) destroyed by injury. I know that happens in real life, but I feel that the level that you have to deal with injuries here is a good compromise - your single season can be destroyed by an injury (although very unlikely - intentionally there are very few IR-able injuries here compared to real life), but the next season he'll always be healthy again for another shot. I want injuries to be a nuisance but not deadly, if that makes sense.

Not really.

Injuries are practically the only way someone with a lesser roster can prevail against teams stocked with players with few or no weaknesses - of which there are probably a half dozen or so in each league. Do you ever wonder why there is so much turnover in GMs? Check the correlation in GM turnover with roster quality and competitiveness. Very few teams with loaded rosters change GMs between seasons. because they can win most of their games even on cruise control.

Many (but not all) GMs who have or inherit a poor roster generally don't have the patience to wait 5 seasons or more to to try to build a competitive roster through the draft. They simply move on to a new team (or quit playing) after a season or two of frustration. Furthermore, a change of GMs usually means a change in strategy and a new approach to building a team. This change tends in turn to lengthen the time is takes to build a competitive team, further compounding the GM turnover rate. So what you get a league dominated by a few players who have mastered the art of roster building and can dominate based on the fact that they can win by simply showing up, no matter their game strategy and play calling ability.

If playability trumps realism, i.e., you don't want injuries that reflect the real world experience, why not simply take them out of the game altogether? Who's to decide what the right of injuries is appropriate? Or better yet, let's just play chess (with the pieces wearing football uniforms). No injuries in chess. It is the ultimate "safe place" as far as that is concerned.

MFN is a great game, but can be made better. Not, IMO, by exalting playability over realism. Mark my words. As good as MFN is, when someone replicates what it is now but can lay claim to the fact that it more resembles RL, players will flock to it. As frustrating as injuries can be for one GM, it can be rewarding to another GM.

I would never feel rewarded by my star player suffering a career ending injury.

I'm surprised anyone would.

Why not have a situation where I lose my star WR because he was convicted of murdering his pregnant girlfriend?

Not everything that happens in real life would make this game better.

On the subject of reality and this game, lets be honest .. this game on the login screen says you can be an owner/GM.

Now how many owners/GMs scout offenses and defenses, set gameplans, etc.? (OK, I concede coaches like Chip Kelly who have player control and Jerry Jones in Dallas ... lol)

How many owners own more than one NFL franchise (yet you can have multiple MFN leagues which are set up to pattern NFL divisions/conferences)?

My point being is that the game loses realism rather quickly. I appreciate the give and take that exists in trying to make it as real as possible.

Completely agree. Players die in real life, banned for drug violations, off field injuries. Of course playability is more important than realism. If the game isn't playable it doesn't matter how realistic it is.

I belive that injuries and coping with them are actually a fun part of the game. As one other person said it also gives the healthy teams a shot late in the season.

As far as drug/crime/suspensions... If we included psych profiles or "at risk traits" for... it could add another dimension to the game. ie do we dare draft WR Moss who has the potential to be world class, but also has the potential to push a cop down the street with his car while smoking blunts?

That's the point of being owner/GM... You can get into everything, or let subordinates manage it for you. Your choice.

The more randomness there is in the game the more luck and less management skill is involved in winning.

Its not a question of a management decision whether to take a player in your example, its just dumb luck as to whether something happens to him or not. You can call it a good decision if nothing happens or a bad decision if something does but its just an added random element that diminishes actual management skill.

Actually, it takes a great deal of management skill to deal with injuries. That is why you, as the GM, implement a system and, as a coach (if you choose to do so), game plan and fill your roster and depth chart with players that compliment it. Sort of the "next man up" philosophy. Without injuries, anyone can win once they load their roster with players rated overall in the 80's and up - just look at the records of the teams in our league (MFN-7) (and playoff participants) since its inception and chart the quality of their rosters. Having a roster like that is like playing with a team that has had an inordinate amount of 1st round draft choices - sometimes at least 2 per season.

My reply was in reference to the psych traits comment not injuries.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.