 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Football Beta Testing » Football Beta Test Discussion » What the Spiders do
Hamilton2
What the Spiders do
September 03, 2011 at 04:48AM View BBCode
on defense should NOT be working. He only has 2 defensive linemen on the team. 8 of 11 defensive starters are LB's. I don't want to take anything away from Lance, cause he is awesome and all that; but the execution penalty for out of position defenders is a joke right now.
lancereisen
The spiders are a hodge-podge utilizing these other roles. Their backup HBs are a QB, WR and an old CB; not great but adequate. To get my 2 new young linemen into the IC game, Ariz plays 2 guards at tackle. This is the biggest EX. hit, giving up 7-8 role pts from the best score. Next is DT [have you ever had a native DT that you liked the shape of? Not me. (you don't have enough LBs to try this in single season)] My LBs lose 6 role pts under best here and don't seem to be getting any better, although they are improving in the 5 major categories. So an A- LB is a B+ DT, but much prettier and more balanced to look at [generally superior AGL].
My DE guys are improving nicely and are now better at DE than LB. Their DE scores were comparable to their LB scores when drafted.
SS is the hard one. Never had one with good AGL. LBs take a 6-8 pt hit here and I'm still working on it.
Lance [that's right, Lance, he's blown it and I'm not taking the blame for it:] has done a poor job of improving the younger players. A lot of this is not wanting to lose due to a lesser rookie playing. Freegrazer should be a fine Safety by now but I kept wimping out on playing him.
That was a good idea, guys, about swapping players in the I and Pro set.
I wonder if we could get a box to check that says 'Play my younger subs when leading by ?pts/losing by ?pts. [Such is pinch hitting to get a younger player some at bats].
September 03, 2011 at 08:51AM View BBCode
Players are labelled with a position in college. They have a best and other role ratings. Execution is figured in. Their positions can and are changed in the pros.The spiders are a hodge-podge utilizing these other roles. Their backup HBs are a QB, WR and an old CB; not great but adequate. To get my 2 new young linemen into the IC game, Ariz plays 2 guards at tackle. This is the biggest EX. hit, giving up 7-8 role pts from the best score. Next is DT [have you ever had a native DT that you liked the shape of? Not me. (you don't have enough LBs to try this in single season)] My LBs lose 6 role pts under best here and don't seem to be getting any better, although they are improving in the 5 major categories. So an A- LB is a B+ DT, but much prettier and more balanced to look at [generally superior AGL].
My DE guys are improving nicely and are now better at DE than LB. Their DE scores were comparable to their LB scores when drafted.
SS is the hard one. Never had one with good AGL. LBs take a 6-8 pt hit here and I'm still working on it.
Lance [that's right, Lance, he's blown it and I'm not taking the blame for it:] has done a poor job of improving the younger players. A lot of this is not wanting to lose due to a lesser rookie playing. Freegrazer should be a fine Safety by now but I kept wimping out on playing him.
That was a good idea, guys, about swapping players in the I and Pro set.
I wonder if we could get a box to check that says 'Play my younger subs when leading by ?pts/losing by ?pts. [Such is pinch hitting to get a younger player some at bats].
lancereisen
In the late '80s, Belichek of Buffalo was the most vocal whiner about Wicky Wacky Wyche and the Bengals hurry-up offense. The next season, Belichek was the most flagrant user of the hurry-up. This led to Seattles 'trichneesis' defense, which had the DLs feign injuries to stop the clock and swap defenses.:lol:
Trichneesis led to the NFL ruling that any injury occurring with less than 2 min on the clock costs the afflicted team a time out.
Hurry-up is still alive and well.
I wish to stress, that drafting last leaves one with few options for impact players and LBs was a channel to possibly remain competitive. The draft 2 seasons back was LB rich.
[Edited on 9-3-2011 by lancereisen]
September 03, 2011 at 09:57AM View BBCode
LB's with BRoles of FS and CB are not uncommon.In the late '80s, Belichek of Buffalo was the most vocal whiner about Wicky Wacky Wyche and the Bengals hurry-up offense. The next season, Belichek was the most flagrant user of the hurry-up. This led to Seattles 'trichneesis' defense, which had the DLs feign injuries to stop the clock and swap defenses.:lol:
Trichneesis led to the NFL ruling that any injury occurring with less than 2 min on the clock costs the afflicted team a time out.
Hurry-up is still alive and well.
I wish to stress, that drafting last leaves one with few options for impact players and LBs was a channel to possibly remain competitive. The draft 2 seasons back was LB rich.
[Edited on 9-3-2011 by lancereisen]
Fulla
September 03, 2011 at 12:29PM View BBCode
The DE, DT & safety draft pools are weak and expensive. I can draft almost any linebacker in the first 3 rounds and make them a better DT or DE yhan what I can get in the draft. And you dont have the huge DE salary until years later. Like Lance says, SS has been tough for me too. I have 2 CBs that get the backup HB carries.
Fulla
September 03, 2011 at 12:48PM View BBCode
Also, what is with the DE pool? The WR pool has more size and strength.
Goldambre
I play players where they have the best skill rating. That means that I will have LBs playing any position on the defense (they'll even play offense if they are good enough). My TEs will do the same on the offensive side of the ball. It only makes sense to play players where they best fill your team's holes.
Now, if the position rankings don't include the execution penalty then the information on the player card is, to put it bluntly, useless.
September 03, 2011 at 02:06PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Back to Hamilton's original complaint, players' cards have ratings for each position. Those ratings should take into account the execution penalty--it's an other issue if they don't. I have been requesting a "by position" skill breakdown page for just this reason.
I play players where they have the best skill rating. That means that I will have LBs playing any position on the defense (they'll even play offense if they are good enough). My TEs will do the same on the offensive side of the ball. It only makes sense to play players where they best fill your team's holes.
Now, if the position rankings don't include the execution penalty then the information on the player card is, to put it bluntly, useless.
Hamilton2
September 03, 2011 at 02:46PM View BBCode
I know that the system, as it is now, enables and rewards you by allowing this type of play. I just don't think that it should. The defensive positions ought to be too severe a penalty to be playing that many guys "out of position" and still dominating.
RichNYC1
Being a Jet fan Ive watched (mostly in horror) what NE does for years and at times they have used NO defensive linemen on passing downs. In fact I just had a conversation with a friend yesterday where we discussed thier use of players in 2-3 different positions. I think that if it can be done here then thats fine
But where I think Lance (and Fulla) have really nailed it is in overall team speed. When we were playing single season leagues the talent was even enough that speed, at least to me, just didnt seem like it was that big a deal. (which at the time surprised me). Now it is critical.
I mean look at Flash, not a guy that really sticks out, until you look at his numbers, which are a heck of a lot better than his 65 rating. And look at the AZ defense, its a track team.
But I think what Lance has really done is make good adjustments. At least in our games he has been able to control Time of Possesion and lets face it folks, through all the changes and tweaks, offensive is way ahead of defense and ball control really is the best defensive medicine.
Ive been trying to keep my mouth shut because my team is so bad, but with all the changes over the first few seasons, we are right back to where we were originally with the offense dominating defense. I mean where did the INTs go? Where did the 3rd and long STOPS go? Where did the Safetys and CB´s go and while Im at it, enough with the defensive offsides already. Plus can someone tell me what good Short Zone does? With the way teams are playing now (medium pass, medium pass) Zone should protect slower defenses, but it doesnt.
The botton line, at least to me, is that Lance has used his players to thier best roles which, to no fault of his, is a condition of the game. I am using a Center as a holder (and he´s good too) but really, thats just stupid, a Center as a holder is actully worse than a LB at Safety.
It did just give me an idea though... why do we not have weights and mesures on these guys? If we did you could reasonably say a 225 lb LB can make a fine Safety or a 275 lb LB a DE.
True to that idea DT´s should all be 300lbs...... no?
September 03, 2011 at 03:07PM View BBCode
Ive been looking at AZ too, because he wins. And I agree with the Belicheck theory that he mentioned above.Being a Jet fan Ive watched (mostly in horror) what NE does for years and at times they have used NO defensive linemen on passing downs. In fact I just had a conversation with a friend yesterday where we discussed thier use of players in 2-3 different positions. I think that if it can be done here then thats fine
But where I think Lance (and Fulla) have really nailed it is in overall team speed. When we were playing single season leagues the talent was even enough that speed, at least to me, just didnt seem like it was that big a deal. (which at the time surprised me). Now it is critical.
I mean look at Flash, not a guy that really sticks out, until you look at his numbers, which are a heck of a lot better than his 65 rating. And look at the AZ defense, its a track team.
But I think what Lance has really done is make good adjustments. At least in our games he has been able to control Time of Possesion and lets face it folks, through all the changes and tweaks, offensive is way ahead of defense and ball control really is the best defensive medicine.
Ive been trying to keep my mouth shut because my team is so bad, but with all the changes over the first few seasons, we are right back to where we were originally with the offense dominating defense. I mean where did the INTs go? Where did the 3rd and long STOPS go? Where did the Safetys and CB´s go and while Im at it, enough with the defensive offsides already. Plus can someone tell me what good Short Zone does? With the way teams are playing now (medium pass, medium pass) Zone should protect slower defenses, but it doesnt.
The botton line, at least to me, is that Lance has used his players to thier best roles which, to no fault of his, is a condition of the game. I am using a Center as a holder (and he´s good too) but really, thats just stupid, a Center as a holder is actully worse than a LB at Safety.
It did just give me an idea though... why do we not have weights and mesures on these guys? If we did you could reasonably say a 225 lb LB can make a fine Safety or a 275 lb LB a DE.
True to that idea DT´s should all be 300lbs...... no?
Admin
The crux of the argument is yes, Execution matters more on offense than defense, and thus it is easier to play out of position on defense. Defenders tend to use a lot of the same skill sets so it is harder to really make them unique.
With all of the tweaks and adjustments made to ratings I need to go back and re-analyze the player creation code and make sure it is generating players properly.
--Chris
September 03, 2011 at 03:24PM View BBCode
There are good points all round in this post.The crux of the argument is yes, Execution matters more on offense than defense, and thus it is easier to play out of position on defense. Defenders tend to use a lot of the same skill sets so it is harder to really make them unique.
With all of the tweaks and adjustments made to ratings I need to go back and re-analyze the player creation code and make sure it is generating players properly.
--Chris
Hamilton2
http://footballbeta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=126839
The guy only has a 26 execution rating. How on earth can he be an A- RT while playing out of position? There are only 14 red letter overall OT in the whole league. It just doesn't make sense to me.
September 03, 2011 at 03:45PM View BBCode
It isn't just a problem unique to defense. LV is starting a 50 overall FB at RT, where he is a 77.http://footballbeta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=126839
The guy only has a 26 execution rating. How on earth can he be an A- RT while playing out of position? There are only 14 red letter overall OT in the whole league. It just doesn't make sense to me.
RichNYC1
September 03, 2011 at 03:56PM View BBCode
Chris, could we also fill all teams with actual owners? The inabilty to trade with these teams and the way they release good players (its first come, first serve unlike BB) doesnt lend itself to competitive balance. Whats more, they suck and they are a black hole for some good players that could be making a difference on other teams
redcped
He's a useless skill player, agreed. Can't run or catch.
But I think he's generally in the category of FB who make good TE (and vice versa) as many teams switch them around freely.
The difference is he has the agility that seems requisite for a tackle, whereas the rest of my FB/TE group only get up to about 68-69 overall at RT.
While I do agree he looks pretty odd there, he seems to be more of an aberration where a guy with FB skills just got to be a little bit too good a blocker with strength and agility and ends up a better fit on the OL.
September 03, 2011 at 04:17PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
It isn't just a problem unique to defense. LV is starting a 50 overall FB at RT, where he is a 77.
http://footballbeta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=126839
The guy only has a 26 execution rating. How on earth can he be an A- RT while playing out of position? There are only 14 red letter overall OT in the whole league. It just doesn't make sense to me.
He's a useless skill player, agreed. Can't run or catch.
But I think he's generally in the category of FB who make good TE (and vice versa) as many teams switch them around freely.
The difference is he has the agility that seems requisite for a tackle, whereas the rest of my FB/TE group only get up to about 68-69 overall at RT.
While I do agree he looks pretty odd there, he seems to be more of an aberration where a guy with FB skills just got to be a little bit too good a blocker with strength and agility and ends up a better fit on the OL.
RichNYC1
September 03, 2011 at 04:28PM View BBCode
I like FB´s at T also. But honestly, if you incorporate weight into the position calculations they will be more realistic, simple as that
KLKRTR
I was about to add something similar to this.
If we were to put caps on size of players for certain positions, I think that would help alleviate this problem.
A position cross-training like what is found in baseball would be something really interesting too (again, limited to certain positions).
For example, the following groups would allow cross-training (must be from natural position, meaning a LB that trained as a DE could not then train as a DT):
K: K-P-H
P: P-K-H
S: CB-FS-SS
CB: FS-SS-WR
LB: OLB-ILB-DE
DE: DT-DE
DT: DT-DE
T: LT-RT-G
G: LT-RT-G-C-LS
C: C-G-LS
QB: QB-H
HB: RB-FB
WR: WR-TE
Another addition to this to avoid owners exploiting cross-training of cheaper positions to expensive positions (i.e. LB to DE) would be to increase salary with position additions.
September 04, 2011 at 12:34AM View BBCode
Originally posted by RichNYC1
I like FB´s at T also. But honestly, if you incorporate weight into the position calculations they will be more realistic, simple as that
I was about to add something similar to this.
If we were to put caps on size of players for certain positions, I think that would help alleviate this problem.
A position cross-training like what is found in baseball would be something really interesting too (again, limited to certain positions).
For example, the following groups would allow cross-training (must be from natural position, meaning a LB that trained as a DE could not then train as a DT):
K: K-P-H
P: P-K-H
S: CB-FS-SS
CB: FS-SS-WR
LB: OLB-ILB-DE
DE: DT-DE
DT: DT-DE
T: LT-RT-G
G: LT-RT-G-C-LS
C: C-G-LS
QB: QB-H
HB: RB-FB
WR: WR-TE
Another addition to this to avoid owners exploiting cross-training of cheaper positions to expensive positions (i.e. LB to DE) would be to increase salary with position additions.
Goldambre
The reality is, either the program is not applying the Execution penalty on the player card and needs to be fixed, or the algorithm is being correctly applied and there is no problem. The reality is, if I want to play [url=http://football.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=430459]CB Wiley Bennett[/url] as a HB then I should be able to expend my IC on making that move (Bennett is a B at both CB and HB).
Do I like losing to Lance? Obviously not. I accept that he has drafted players that have the skills to play in unconventional roles. I also accept that it is up to me to find a way to overcome that line-up.
Lets worry about basic game mechanics before we worry about whether a Punter can play CB.
September 04, 2011 at 05:23AM View BBCode
The trouble with building a cross training matrix is that it unreasonably limits player development. Michael Vick could (an often is) a running back as well as quarterback. Tebow could be similar if he was allowed. We have already had the discussion about players who changed positions coming out of college.The reality is, either the program is not applying the Execution penalty on the player card and needs to be fixed, or the algorithm is being correctly applied and there is no problem. The reality is, if I want to play [url=http://football.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=430459]CB Wiley Bennett[/url] as a HB then I should be able to expend my IC on making that move (Bennett is a B at both CB and HB).
Do I like losing to Lance? Obviously not. I accept that he has drafted players that have the skills to play in unconventional roles. I also accept that it is up to me to find a way to overcome that line-up.
Lets worry about basic game mechanics before we worry about whether a Punter can play CB.
Admin
- If it comes time to fill a slot that has a hard limit and there's not a player that fills that limit, the game would crash.
- I would then need to start enforcing a minimum of each player "type" which hugely complicates a lot of code (mostly in trades and such) to defend against an OGL-type "Let's make a team of all punters".
In a nutshell, it means writing a lot of difficylt to test code that will almost never actually run to defend the sim against problems.
The problem now iis that this is enforced as an execution penalty, and it's reaally difficult to tell when a player fails at something specifically because of execution. An OL with out of position blockers, for example, is going to get more pressure under the blitz and thus more sacks/incompletes on blitz plays, but unless you are watching the play-by-play closely you don't see the correlation. Instead, it just looks like the sim is broken.
Execution only makes up 5-10% of the overall grade formula for most players; perhaps it needs to be higher. More "graded on curve" ratings would also help making sure that players conform to a particular physical type but these have the tendency to reduce overall ratings and turn everybody into a B+, so that's a challenge too. But that would deal with the Strength/size issue, partially.
I think, going forward, what I'll do is:
- Look for places to adjust overall ratings to conform more to type
- Make sure Execution-dependent areas are well documented
- Find ways to make Execution failures measurable, maybe not in the play-by-play but with some sort of stat (like +/- plays in baseball) that measures instances where a negative outcome was Execution related.
If Execution issues are documented and measured, and owners start putting up, say, blitz-heavy defenses against owners who use an out-of-position O-line, the problem may cure itself.
--Chris
September 07, 2011 at 08:04PM View BBCode
The reason I don't put hard limits on things is:- If it comes time to fill a slot that has a hard limit and there's not a player that fills that limit, the game would crash.
- I would then need to start enforcing a minimum of each player "type" which hugely complicates a lot of code (mostly in trades and such) to defend against an OGL-type "Let's make a team of all punters".
In a nutshell, it means writing a lot of difficylt to test code that will almost never actually run to defend the sim against problems.
The problem now iis that this is enforced as an execution penalty, and it's reaally difficult to tell when a player fails at something specifically because of execution. An OL with out of position blockers, for example, is going to get more pressure under the blitz and thus more sacks/incompletes on blitz plays, but unless you are watching the play-by-play closely you don't see the correlation. Instead, it just looks like the sim is broken.
Execution only makes up 5-10% of the overall grade formula for most players; perhaps it needs to be higher. More "graded on curve" ratings would also help making sure that players conform to a particular physical type but these have the tendency to reduce overall ratings and turn everybody into a B+, so that's a challenge too. But that would deal with the Strength/size issue, partially.
I think, going forward, what I'll do is:
- Look for places to adjust overall ratings to conform more to type
- Make sure Execution-dependent areas are well documented
- Find ways to make Execution failures measurable, maybe not in the play-by-play but with some sort of stat (like +/- plays in baseball) that measures instances where a negative outcome was Execution related.
If Execution issues are documented and measured, and owners start putting up, say, blitz-heavy defenses against owners who use an out-of-position O-line, the problem may cure itself.
--Chris
redcped
YES!
September 07, 2011 at 08:51PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
- Find ways to make Execution failures measurable, maybe not in the play-by-play but with some sort of stat (like +/- plays in baseball) that measures instances where a negative outcome was Execution related.
--Chris
YES!
cowboymatt43
September 07, 2011 at 10:39PM View BBCode
I like what redcped liked too because in real football coach go through game film and give players a grade on each game based on whether or not the players executed their assignment(s) on each play.
Goldambre
Based on this one comment I would suggest that no action be taken right now.
Specialization of roles is a relatively new phenomenon. Even today, I would be willing to bet that many NFLer could play more than one role. In fact, some still do
When the Wildcat became popular, there were cries of outrage--now almost every team has some flavor of Wildcat and every team has a defensive play to counter the Wildcat. The game evolves. The teams that are able to respond to the evolution survive. Those that fail to respond....
There are only four teams (25%) that do not show out of position players in their depth chart. Two of those are Miami and San Francisco, so I will not be surprised to see them join the out of position ranks.
I will continue to maintain that owners should be able to play the best possible player for any position. If a QB has the ability to be a B+ Corner, then why shouldn't an owner play him in that position. It is everyone else's job to find a way to counteract that move.
September 07, 2011 at 10:46PM View BBCode
If Execution issues are documented and measured, and owners start putting up, say, blitz-heavy defenses against owners who use an out-of-position O-line, the problem may cure itself.
--Chris
Based on this one comment I would suggest that no action be taken right now.
Specialization of roles is a relatively new phenomenon. Even today, I would be willing to bet that many NFLer could play more than one role. In fact, some still do
When the Wildcat became popular, there were cries of outrage--now almost every team has some flavor of Wildcat and every team has a defensive play to counter the Wildcat. The game evolves. The teams that are able to respond to the evolution survive. Those that fail to respond....
There are only four teams (25%) that do not show out of position players in their depth chart. Two of those are Miami and San Francisco, so I will not be surprised to see them join the out of position ranks.
I will continue to maintain that owners should be able to play the best possible player for any position. If a QB has the ability to be a B+ Corner, then why shouldn't an owner play him in that position. It is everyone else's job to find a way to counteract that move.
Hamilton2
I'm saying that that should never be the case. There are ZERO linebackers in the NFL who would start at Nickelback over the team's 3rd cornerback. ZERO. And yet we have teams who use LB's as FS's and SS's with no apparent penalty.
Example: Dallas Cowboys "Safety" Roy Williams. Williams had the build of a small LB and he had the speed and agility to play DB, so the Cowboys tried him in the defensive backfield with some mixed success. His hard hits are legendary but the big-play vulnerability of the Dallas secondary cost them multiple games and even playoffs.
The defensive line is a bit more flexible. There are at least a half dozen success stories of LB/DE's switching from OLB in the 3-4 to DE in the 4-3. It is a natural switch with similar requirements and makes sense. But when have you ever seen a LB try to play DT? They flat out do not have the requisite size and strength. It is ridiculous to me that Arizona plays two LB's on the interior of the D-line and I play two DT's with 90+ strength and tackling, but my team consistently gets burned with up-the-middle running plays and he has 3 Sim Bowl Titles. (If his team was more vulnerable to middle running than mine was, and it should be, he wouldn't even be in the playoffs because his offense would never get the ball away from a run-first team.)
September 07, 2011 at 11:26PM View BBCode
Gold, I'm not disagreeing with this statement:If a QB has the ability to be a B+ Corner, then why shouldn't an owner play him in that position. It is everyone else's job to find a way to counteract that move.
I'm saying that that should never be the case. There are ZERO linebackers in the NFL who would start at Nickelback over the team's 3rd cornerback. ZERO. And yet we have teams who use LB's as FS's and SS's with no apparent penalty.
Example: Dallas Cowboys "Safety" Roy Williams. Williams had the build of a small LB and he had the speed and agility to play DB, so the Cowboys tried him in the defensive backfield with some mixed success. His hard hits are legendary but the big-play vulnerability of the Dallas secondary cost them multiple games and even playoffs.
The defensive line is a bit more flexible. There are at least a half dozen success stories of LB/DE's switching from OLB in the 3-4 to DE in the 4-3. It is a natural switch with similar requirements and makes sense. But when have you ever seen a LB try to play DT? They flat out do not have the requisite size and strength. It is ridiculous to me that Arizona plays two LB's on the interior of the D-line and I play two DT's with 90+ strength and tackling, but my team consistently gets burned with up-the-middle running plays and he has 3 Sim Bowl Titles. (If his team was more vulnerable to middle running than mine was, and it should be, he wouldn't even be in the playoffs because his offense would never get the ball away from a run-first team.)
Admin
By design, there should be a handful of players who could be backups at other positions (I actually do this intentionally in some places; you'll find guards with better Hands than other guards so they could be a backup center in a pinch, and there's a smattering of non-kickers who have fair kicking skills), but playing a player out of position should never be the best answer.
Part of the problem is that LB's have to be good at a number of skills, and the other part is that they are a lot cheaper than other players.
I'm tinkering with some settings. Unfortunately the only way to test it is to generate a new league.
--Chris
September 08, 2011 at 12:57AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
If a QB has the ability to be a B+ Corner, then why shouldn't an owner play him in that position. It is everyone else's job to find a way to counteract that move.
I'm saying that that should never be the case. There are ZERO linebackers in the NFL who would start at Nickelback over the team's 3rd cornerback. ZERO.
By design, there should be a handful of players who could be backups at other positions (I actually do this intentionally in some places; you'll find guards with better Hands than other guards so they could be a backup center in a pinch, and there's a smattering of non-kickers who have fair kicking skills), but playing a player out of position should never be the best answer.
Part of the problem is that LB's have to be good at a number of skills, and the other part is that they are a lot cheaper than other players.
I'm tinkering with some settings. Unfortunately the only way to test it is to generate a new league.
--Chris
Admin
Right now, if you train out of position you don't get Execution improves; I am going to lower the IC rate overall by 25% if you are training out of position as well.
September 08, 2011 at 02:44AM View BBCode
I think there's something to the idea of limiting which positional training a player might receive, for example not allowing a LB to get, say, CB training. You could still line him up at CB but you couldn't get him IC's as a CB, his IC's would still be as an LB.Right now, if you train out of position you don't get Execution improves; I am going to lower the IC rate overall by 25% if you are training out of position as well.
RichNYC1
I picked a guy this time who was a LB with 80 speed, 77 Tackling, 73 agility and 68 Strength, to me thats a SS.
SDBB has leagues were a player has to be a minimum rating to play Catcher or SS, why dont we do the same? If a guy clears say, 66 at a second position he could be eligible. Doing this we would also make the draft more interesting (and important)
September 08, 2011 at 03:06AM View BBCode
I think there should be players that are able to convert. Thats happens plenty in the NFL, a small DE becomes a LB, and LB can be a safety. It happens a lot.I picked a guy this time who was a LB with 80 speed, 77 Tackling, 73 agility and 68 Strength, to me thats a SS.
SDBB has leagues were a player has to be a minimum rating to play Catcher or SS, why dont we do the same? If a guy clears say, 66 at a second position he could be eligible. Doing this we would also make the draft more interesting (and important)
Hamilton2
September 08, 2011 at 03:50AM View BBCode
Rich, no one is playing anyone out of position who is less than a 66 there. And I'm not saying that playing people out of natural position should be impossible. It is just far too easy right now. 9 of 11 defensive starters on the Sim Bowl winner last season were LB's (that means that 6 of them were out of position). When over half of a defense is playing out of position, the team should lose. I don't care how good the raw skills are.
Admin
There should be some ability to cross over but it should be unusual; at this point LB's are just too much of a cheap swiss army knife. But the fixes I have will fix that; I just don't know what to do about existing leagues, especially the two paid ones.
--Chris
[Edited on 9-8-2011 by Admin]
September 08, 2011 at 04:30AM View BBCode
There are minimum ratings for out of position players to be eligible for the depth chart (in-position are always eligible) but a) that minimum rating is the same across all positions (which in retrospect it shouldn't be) and b) it's pretty low by default.There should be some ability to cross over but it should be unusual; at this point LB's are just too much of a cheap swiss army knife. But the fixes I have will fix that; I just don't know what to do about existing leagues, especially the two paid ones.
--Chris
[Edited on 9-8-2011 by Admin]
Pages: 1 2