Warrior General Games

First I raise this issue because of the shortage of TEs in the National Pro range this past off season. If you were hunting the Free Agent market you know what I mean. I am running with CPUs on one team because my team was not a great draw yes but also because in the end there were more TE slots than TEs. So it made me think on the situation.

But that said this idea makes sense on its own from a football game sense (if not a pure football one). Its easier and its funner for the dots and the owners. Gives the owners a better or different way out of a dilemma such as I faced, and it gives the dots agents more variety of options.

Heres the idea.

If a dot is a Receiver archetype, have that dot receive little (like 1% for TE 2% for WR) to no penalty for out of position play in any receiver position. So my scat back FB can line up in the slot or at TE with no penalty to his performance. Optional, have this only be true on passing downs.

Similarly let a blocking archtype receive a reduced penalty for playing in a blocking position on run downs, such as a blocking FB at TE or HB.

Thats the idea in general, the exact mixes can be subject of discussion and refinement (ie what to do with an OT at TE versus an OT at FB etc).

This idea would fix or alleviate shortages of dots of certain types as the rules and styles of the game change from season to season (ie its going to take us five or so seasons to make up for the two TE formations being added to the game) and it also might help the owner who is currently stuck with a half CPU squad man his club if he can effectively stick dots in more places in the depth chart.

What say you?


EDIT - Hmm the flex issue raised in the second reply may be a concept killer. The only solution would be to make it a situational thing, ie if the position being played OOP is in high demand in that age bracket. That would be awkward to handle though.

-1

So a load of 100 flex dots play in 200 flex positions and a load of 200 flex dots play in 300 flex positions ...

I reckon Bort will definitely go for this

Originally posted by lexden11
So a load of 100 flex dots play in 200 flex positions and a load of 200 flex dots play in 300 flex positions ...

I reckon Bort will definitely go for this

ooooh

Good point.

-1

as it is, the penalties for FB and WR playing at TE
seem totally negligible... we do that all the time

Originally posted by darncat
as it is, the penalties for FB and WR playing at TE
seem totally negligible... we do that all the time

I have heard something like 10 to 20 percent. Thats not a small hit. Can you still do it, yes. But that player is going to generate less stats than he might otherwise and if the agent cares about that that can be a negative to it.

But I think the flex point moots the idea anyway.

not to say i think their should be a noticible out of pos penalty
for FBs or WRs to play at TE-
their shouldn't

the positions are very similar and sometimes interchangable
you have entire philosophies like the H-Back system based off that
their should be very little penalty

but, from my experience in GLB, their really isn't


now, i do think that OTs should also have very little penalty when blocking at TE
due to the fact that TEs are sometimes really are just extra tackles
it does seem their is a noticeable penalty for that (maybe due to the flex issue)
but i actually think now that any player can be tagged in AI,
that will deter anyone from trying to use that angle merely to save flex

Originally posted by yello1
I have heard something like 10 to 20 percent. Thats not a small hit. Can you still do it, yes. But that player is going to generate less stats than he might otherwise and if the agent cares about that that can be a negative to it.

But I think the flex point moots the idea anyway.

where have u heard that?
i heard it was more like 5%

No matter the percentages... OP's idea is still awful..

NGTH

The OOP for similar positions {such as FB at TE, TE at WR, HB at FB, OOP Linemen} is not big (5-10%) and the CPU dots in the current sim can serve well as stop gap players. Bort has said in the past the he will not remove OOPs.