November 16, 2011 at 03:23AM View BBCode
showing up on the advanced depth charts in delta.November 16, 2011 at 04:55AM View BBCode
They are probably a victim of the new "logical position shift" requirements: even if a player has a Best Role of a particular position, if his natural position doesn't qualify for that depth chart you can't put him there. (Perhaps I should prevent these as even showing up as "best role" if you can't use them in that role.)November 16, 2011 at 04:56AM View BBCode
(Maybe the solution here is to allow someone with a "best role" at a particular position onto a depth chart even if they don't otherwise qualify.)November 16, 2011 at 01:27PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
(Maybe the solution here is to allow someone with a "best role" at a particular position onto a depth chart even if they don't otherwise qualify.)
November 16, 2011 at 03:57PM View BBCode
or maybe the way it is now is goodNovember 16, 2011 at 04:39PM View BBCode
It would be a way to train an unqualified player though... you'd have to position train him until the new position became his best role, THEN give him the required 9 starts. So it would take forever but it could be done.November 16, 2011 at 04:42PM View BBCode
Also if I implement this, I may have players whose best role doesn't match their position change to that position in their senior year of college.November 16, 2011 at 08:08PM View BBCode
I have been one of the voices against using guys out of position, but this player is a great example of a guy who could be almost anything....November 17, 2011 at 01:03AM View formatted
November 17, 2011 at 04:08AM View BBCode
That's what I'm trying to decide, if I should eliminate it or let them play. Letting them play at that position would be the easier way to go, and I don't think there are so many players in this situation that it would be unbalancing.November 17, 2011 at 04:06PM View BBCode
I'm not so sure..I just waived a few RBs that would have made excellent tackles in the old system...but are just bad players (or ok fullbacks) now thanks to the change. And I think that's a good thing. My [url=http://footballbeta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=270097]FB[/url] in Delta is rated 14 points higher for tackle than for his native RB position. Needless to say, I'm pretty sure that he is about half their size. Any way to put size limitations on each position (height/weight)? In other words, would allow somewhat logical position changes between LB and DE, or DE and DT, S and CB, etc, but would disallow my RB playing OT. A compromise of sorts, right?November 17, 2011 at 04:33PM View BBCode
Originally posted by KLKRTR
I'm not so sure..I just waived a few RBs that would have made excellent tackles in the old system...but are just bad players (or ok fullbacks) now thanks to the change. And I think that's a good thing. My [url=http://footballbeta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=270097]FB[/url] in Delta is rated 14 points higher for tackle than for his native RB position. Needless to say, I'm pretty sure that he is about half their size. Any way to put size limitations on each position (height/weight)? In other words, would allow somewhat logical position changes between LB and DE, or DE and DT, S and CB, etc, but would disallow my RB playing OT. A compromise of sorts, right?
November 17, 2011 at 05:10PM View BBCode
why does it have to be so complicated with factoring in height/weight, etc?November 17, 2011 at 05:30PM View BBCode
Originally posted by nhat8121
why does it have to be so complicated with factoring in height/weight, etc?
if he's that good at blocking, why is he labeled as RB in the first place at the Pro level? obviously he doesn't have the size. He should not be able to move over to OL.
He can play at FB and KRB, that's more than enough to me.
I dont know any NFL player switching from RB to OL, so.
Also, dont really wanna see teams with 2 Ts, 2 Gs, and 7 FBs lol. Doesn't seem realistic...
November 17, 2011 at 06:20PM View BBCode
What is confusing right now is in Beta Single, I picked up a few undrafted FB with great blocking skills and the default depth chart is putting two of them at Guard.November 18, 2011 at 02:39AM View BBCode
I'll check the routine that puts them in without a depth chart.November 18, 2011 at 02:45AM View BBCode
Originally posted by redcped
What is confusing right now is in Beta Single, I picked up a few undrafted FB with great blocking skills and the default depth chart is putting two of them at Guard.
But in no depth chart can I actually assign them to play G or T.
So by not using depth charts, I get the best blockers in there. If I use the depth charts, I can't play them there.
It's got to be one way or the other.
November 18, 2011 at 02:49AM View BBCode
I don't see any FB's at G for you in Beta Single, did you waive them?November 18, 2011 at 03:06AM View BBCode
I see one, looks like he got injured, I'm going to uninjure him for testing.November 18, 2011 at 05:48AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Nope, I still can't duplicate your results.
--Chris
November 18, 2011 at 06:04AM View BBCode
Crud. I have an idea of what could cause this but I need to see it happening before I can test it.November 18, 2011 at 07:08AM View BBCode
I've set the restrictions so your Best Role is also taken into account. If your Best Role matches the role, position, or depth parent and qualifies for the minimum rating he is eligible for the chart. Not ideal, but most Best Roles are position appropriate so this should go into effect rarely.November 18, 2011 at 01:23PM View BBCode
I have several players that fall into this catagory. I had not looked at my team until last night. I picked up a HB who has a best role of RT and a couple of safeties who have best role DT. I couldn't see them on my depth chart either.November 18, 2011 at 02:03PM View BBCode
Yes, now I can slot two of the FB at RT.Pages: 1 2