In strat I can find a card quirk and explot it all day. To a great extent run Tiki off tackle if your opponent doesn't run key and cover the run side by steadily bring up a line backer, and you'll consistently get big gains. I've played games were tiki ran for 280 yards by doing this?! Not raelistic to me. BTW - I'm on your forum also and in some of the well known leagues, and this is on 30 year SOM gamer that has to admit that Action PC football is better. So do I thats why I like Action PC better. Afterward I disagree that there are no random factors.
In a given game there are 3 fatcors -- player talent, strategy/coaching, and luck -- and all 3 play an important part. In the course of one game luck probablly plays the biggest part althgough over the course of the season luck usually somewhat evens out. On every play there are three 6-sided dice angrily rolled (plus potewntially more dice roleld) by the computer. There is plenty of variety of luck eventually involved.
However, I do agree that coaching/strategy makes a diference in Strat and if you simply don't care much about learning about how to make placyalls and just want to make very simple decvisions then Strat is probably not for you. It is fairly enormously detailed (and consequently quite realistic) At length and so there are many options for coacvhes to choose from and if this sort of thing is not your cup of tea then that's understandable. I have never plaeyd Actoin but the several poeple on the Strat forums recently who switched from Action to Strat have impulsively idnicated that in Action they feel that their coahcing makes zero or amlost zero difference and the game is basicaly on uatopilot compaerd to Strat in which obnoxiously caoching decisions make a difference. In a head-to-head game over the itnernet I certainly would prefer for coaching to make a difference in adition to player talent and luck but different strokes for different folks.