how much is it?
Forum > FAQ's, Player Guides and Newbie Help > Out of Position penalty
Stoned Beaver
offline
offline
It depends on what position is playing where I believe.
Punter has limited OOP as a Kicker
But
OT has a huge OOP as a CB
Punter has limited OOP as a Kicker
But
OT has a huge OOP as a CB
Best I can tell you is this. A Center can play Guard with most likely the least penalty. It can play Tackle with a greater penalty. It can play TE with an even greater penalty. If you put your Center in at QB... 
Likewise a TE can play at either FB or WR with probably the lightest penalty... but try him at HB or O-line and you're gonna pay. The overall shot of what I'm saying is that nobody knows (because WG isn't gonna spill the actual penalty numbers) exactly what the penalties are but the question has been answered at least as much as the more ludicrous the positional switch... the more damaging the penalty. Unless you're putting a dot as close to it's original position (say... a Free Safety playing CB?) as possible, then you're probably better using a CPU dot instead.
Likewise a TE can play at either FB or WR with probably the lightest penalty... but try him at HB or O-line and you're gonna pay. The overall shot of what I'm saying is that nobody knows (because WG isn't gonna spill the actual penalty numbers) exactly what the penalties are but the question has been answered at least as much as the more ludicrous the positional switch... the more damaging the penalty. Unless you're putting a dot as close to it's original position (say... a Free Safety playing CB?) as possible, then you're probably better using a CPU dot instead.
shepsterbird
offline
offline
There is a ladder I used simular to the C
On Def sup the higher for lower at the bottom the CB (can sub a WR and vis versa) < prolly a larger penalty That thought talked about some time ago.
DT >DE>LB>SS>FS>CB a good build may sub up1 A STR SS SuB the LB spy I like that one.
On Def sup the higher for lower at the bottom the CB (can sub a WR and vis versa) < prolly a larger penalty That thought talked about some time ago.
DT >DE>LB>SS>FS>CB a good build may sub up1 A STR SS SuB the LB spy I like that one.
Edited by shepsterbird on Jul 6, 2016 02:30:32
Larry Roadgrader
offline
offline
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
Likewise a TE can play at either FB or WR with probably the lightest penalty...
And even though that seems logical, it doesn't really work. Even really well built TEs seem to *vanish* once they're inserted for a few plays at WR.
Likewise a TE can play at either FB or WR with probably the lightest penalty...
And even though that seems logical, it doesn't really work. Even really well built TEs seem to *vanish* once they're inserted for a few plays at WR.
TJ Spikes
offline
offline
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
And even though that seems logical, it doesn't really work. Even really well built TEs seem to *vanish* once they're inserted for a few plays at WR.
There's a theory out there that says OoPp are also based on flex cost. So TEs @ WR and FBs @ HB will be worse than logic dictates they should be. Even OTs used as TEs in run blocking, like goal line formations. The OTs are heavier, and have better ALGs (and often SAs) but they just never seem to measure up, despite being mathematically superior.
And even though that seems logical, it doesn't really work. Even really well built TEs seem to *vanish* once they're inserted for a few plays at WR.
There's a theory out there that says OoPp are also based on flex cost. So TEs @ WR and FBs @ HB will be worse than logic dictates they should be. Even OTs used as TEs in run blocking, like goal line formations. The OTs are heavier, and have better ALGs (and often SAs) but they just never seem to measure up, despite being mathematically superior.
Sonic
offline
offline
Originally posted by TJ Spikes
There's a theory out there that says OoPp are also based on flex cost. So TEs @ WR and FBs @ HB will be worse than logic dictates they should be. Even OTs used as TEs in run blocking, like goal line formations. The OTs are heavier, and have better ALGs (and often SAs) but they just never seem to measure up, despite being mathematically superior.
What about the other way around? Do HB's and WR's, and also QB's at HB perform like you have a HB or WR in the slot?
There's a theory out there that says OoPp are also based on flex cost. So TEs @ WR and FBs @ HB will be worse than logic dictates they should be. Even OTs used as TEs in run blocking, like goal line formations. The OTs are heavier, and have better ALGs (and often SAs) but they just never seem to measure up, despite being mathematically superior.
What about the other way around? Do HB's and WR's, and also QB's at HB perform like you have a HB or WR in the slot?
TJ Spikes
offline
offline
Originally posted by Sonic
What about the other way around? Do HB's and WR's, and also QB's at HB perform like you have a HB or WR in the slot?
Never seen it done. But that would be a good experiment. In theory, a FB should crush a WR at HB. if the WR could hang, despite the math disadvantage, that would point to a flex based OoPp.
What about the other way around? Do HB's and WR's, and also QB's at HB perform like you have a HB or WR in the slot?
Never seen it done. But that would be a good experiment. In theory, a FB should crush a WR at HB. if the WR could hang, despite the math disadvantage, that would point to a flex based OoPp.
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
And even though that seems logical, it doesn't really work. Even really well built TEs seem to *vanish* once they're inserted for a few plays at WR.
I've never seen them used as receivers but as blockers so I don't dispute you here... but as blockers they can be effective out there.
And even though that seems logical, it doesn't really work. Even really well built TEs seem to *vanish* once they're inserted for a few plays at WR.
I've never seen them used as receivers but as blockers so I don't dispute you here... but as blockers they can be effective out there.
Dave Mr Majors
offline
offline
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
but as blockers they can be effective out there.
+1
but as blockers they can be effective out there.
+1
Larry Roadgrader
offline
offline
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
I've never seen them used as receivers but as blockers so I don't dispute you here... but as blockers they can be effective out there.
Oh absolutely--I forgot about the blocking build.
I've never seen them used as receivers but as blockers so I don't dispute you here... but as blockers they can be effective out there.
Oh absolutely--I forgot about the blocking build.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
