Player Position changes - rules committee

Discussion in 'Thread Archive' started by Winuvas, Aug 18, 2010.

  1. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    Player Position changes - rules committee

    I apologize if I overstep the bounds here, but I have a vested interest in the position change rules as they affect the cap book to a certain degree (or rather, the cap book affects position changes). The other thread is a bit difficult for me to navigate. Please lock and delete this if you guys would rather keep the other thread.

    Here is the proposition proposed by Nate, which I, personally, like. Quoting his post here:

    The only alterations I would make to the above is this:
    - MLB can be played by LOLB or ROLB (same modifier is paid to starters across the board, so it's only fair)
    - DT can be played by LE/RE as well as DT (same reasoning as above, and with block shedding making a huge difference this game speed and acceleration inside isn't as much of an advantage as it was last year, IMO)
    - FS/SS can be played by a non-1st string CB (same modifiers, and unless there is a huge speed difference, won't be too bad, I think...)

    The third option we could take out (I don't feel as strongly about the third one as the first two, honestly), but the first two (LB and DE) make sense to me, as while speed is an advantage, with the smarter AI blocking schemes on the Oline, block shedding is now more useful than it ever was. And, on average (excluding the top tier OLBs in this argument, btw), the normal speed OLB types have low block shedding (they go around guys, not through them). With the AI now going to the second level to get to LBs, a LB with high speed but low block shed would have to be quick to get around an olline guy (user could do it if quick but CPU could not I think) or get eaten up by the block. While a user could do it on occasion, I wager that they could not do it consistently enough to warrant the benefit of using that speed inside. Same explanation with using DE at DT.

    Up for a debate I reckon. Nate's proposal though is very solid and gives flexibility without allowing too much in the way of loopholes. Someone will find one, I'm sure, but we cover most all bases with this setup.

    Overall, I like. (y)
     
  2. Jeremy

    Jeremy The ONLY 2 time OMFL CHampion!!!!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,749
    I didnt notice those werent in there when I first read Nates suggestion. I like Nates idea with the added changes Winuvas made.
     
  3. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    The reason I dont agree with Win's suggestion and did not have them in my book is because it creates loop holes. If i have a stud DE that is a very good DT, but not a good DE, then I can pay him #2 de money and start him as my starting DT and get out of paying good money to my starting DT. I can then carry a scruff who will get the #3 modifier but wont effect my cap cause he is a scruff. Same thing for MLB because the #2 mlb is a modifier. I can carry a scruff who won't effect my cap with that 2 modifier and let a olb who is better overall but only carrying a 1 modifier to play that #2 mlb position.

    I do like the suggestion of adding that a 4th or worse string CB can play SS or FS, but the one thing to keep in mind is Speed factor. I am ok with it though
     
  4. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    I think this is where confusion lies. Either on my end or your end. Let me explain my position first, then you give me yours.

    Mine:

    IMO, The cap book is a finite tool. It is entirely based on the overalls of positions on the field, irrelevant of who is ACTUALLY playing where.

    What I mean by that is that I pay 1 LE a 3 modifier. I pay 1 DT a 3 modifier, and the #2 guy I pay a 2 modifier. I pay 1 RE a 3 modifier. It's all based on the overalls of the roster that I can see as cap guy. NOT what the overalls are of the players ACTUALLY starting there.

    So you start scrubs with 1 modifiers as LE, RE, and DT. Fine. You start them because they are better at that position overall than your "starters", which are set by the cap book. Fine. Do so. While you're getting a deal starting that 61 overall guy as a DE because he's an 81 there, and paying him very little (say 300K), you're still paying your 80 overall 3 milliion to sit the bench and do nothing. That's fine by me. Go ahead and do that. Because when you go to try to sign a FA, you won't be able to because you're paying 3 million dollars to your now #2 guy because you want your "speed" guy or best overall guy out there.

    Same thing at LB. You start a scrub OLB at MLB. Fine. You're paying 2 guys big money to look at a clipboard and drink Gatorade all day long still no matter what. And you're handcuffing yourself in the process because you're paying that big money for NO impact on your team, which hampers free agency upgrades at positions of need.

    So you see, my vision of the cap book is simple: Whoever is the #1 LE listed on your roster when I look up the roster is who gets the 3 modifier at LE. NOT the guy you actually have starting. Same at DT. Same at RE. Same at LOLB. Same at MLB. Same at ROLB.

    This vision makes it easiest for cap guys who are new (Wajy and Dunn are smart guys, but this is learning curve at its finest) and vets (me) to the cap book to keep the book straight. This also keeps your cap guys sane, which is hard to do when you're keeping up with all these teams' transactions.

    That is why I say start, within the position listings above, who you want to start. No need to declare anything with the board. The cap book is the great equalizer in this. If you don't start the starter listed, you're overpaying a backup. If you cut that starter, not only do you get a cap hit but the next guy in line takes his place. If you want to have nothing but low 70s guys playing your defense/offense, that's cool by me. I think if we end up playing on all-madden (which, barring a patch, is the best difficulty, pains me to say), those ratings will end up hurting a team in the long run.

    Not even to talk about injuries. lol

    That is my position on it. Not trying to sound pissy or angry, mind you. Just stating my opinion on the cap book and position changes. I'm pretty stout in my thoughts on this and would be reluctant to budge on my opinion. I'll be honest about that. But I am willing to listen to your idea on why we shouldn't do the OLB at MLB and DE at DT. I may be dumb in my thinking. Wouldn't be the first time! (y)
     
  5. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    Again, I could drop all my 80s and 90s guys and sign a bunch of scrubs to be (by overall) my #1 guy and let my #3 DT play those positions, saving a ton of money. Plus, how many DTs really play de? Same with Mlb and Olb.
     
  6. Big D

    Big D Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,398
    I am with Nate here. I would only be OK with his original suggestion that Winuvas quoted. I am not OK with the proposed changes because of the loopholes it creates.

    Let me be very blunt here guys. We are severly limiting position changes because of the cap book loopholes it creates. You cannot have it both ways, and it is driving me nuts to see us keep going back and forth here.

    Either you allow position changes like we had outlined a month ago and I posted in the general forums, and with that you need to track new ratings and move people around in the cap book according to their 'new positions'

    Or you outlaw position changes entirely or severely limit them like we've done.

    Those are the only options I am willing to vote yes on at this point.
     
  7. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    rule committee lets vote. Again, these are not 'permanent' changes. We aren't allowing any permanent swaps, only depth chart swaps.
     
  8. wajomatik

    wajomatik Magister De Puer De Vacca

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    916
    This does happen look at Richard Seymour he plays both spots often. Also in the Dime and Nickel formations Olshansky(LE) will line up atthe second DT spot for the Cowboys. Just putting that out there but I vote yes on your proposal Nate
     
  9. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    FYI, I am completely cool with Nate's proposal as he put it. Just want to chunk that out there. I do feel it can go further, but if we go with just as Nate posted, I am 100% comfy with that.

    Don't want people to think I'm a goober about this. :)
     
  10. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    No one thinks anything Win, you have took this offseason to a new level. This is how it works, we all toss ideas and some dont fly, most are my ideas that dont fly lol.
     
  11. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    Well, as a "visitor" (I use that term loosely as I stick my nose in everything in here it seems lol), I don't want people to get the wrong idea about my posts. I am passionate about my ideas, but I also know when to say when, if you get my drift.

    Just making sure that IF my posts get to sounding "pissy", I'm aiming to better the league with input from everyone.

    (y)
     
  12. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    bump, we need votes from jeremy, dunlap, frisk, and bruce.
     
  13. Big D

    Big D Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,398
    I thought I already voted on this in a different thread.

    I vote for Nate's original suggestion, unless I am missing something that has changed.
     
  14. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    No we just moved it here.
     
  15. BRUCE80

    BRUCE80 Let the dirt just shower over you..

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    I also vote yes to Nate's idea.
     
  16. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    2-0 for, jeremy and frisk left to vote.
     
  17. Jeremy

    Jeremy The ONLY 2 time OMFL CHampion!!!!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,749
    Yep. Im good with Nates proposal.
     
  18. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    I'll post this up and fix the rules later. Wasn't there another rule I had to change?
     
  19. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    blitz.. that's it.
     
  20. Jeremy

    Jeremy The ONLY 2 time OMFL CHampion!!!!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,749
    I will post the blitz rule up momentarily.
     

Share This Page