Position Change -Restrictions

Discussion in 'The Tradition' started by jfosh, Aug 18, 2009.

  1. jfosh

    jfosh Super

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,636
    Position Change -Restrictions

    It always seems like around off-season time we always wondering what the restrictions are so lets put them in stone. Most are the same as I remember them but added some speed restrictions that I liked from TT2.

    TT2 discussion on position changes

    I also want to put a greater importance on the player that comes in at his original position rather than one moved there. So if you battle to recruit the stud at that position your rewarded.

    I want everyone to jump in and voice their opions on this topic. I really feel like this is an important part of the game and keeping integrity at all positions.

    Speed restrictions are only for players switching positons. A player that comes in naturally higher at one of these poitions then good for you recruiting that guy.

    Proposed Restrictions.......

    Column 1
    QB: No Restrictions
    RB: No Restrictions
    FB: Restricted
    Weight restriction > 210 lbs
    Speed restriction < 90
    WR: No restrictions
    TE: Restricted
    Weight restriction > 225 lbs
    Speed restriction < 88
    OL: No restrictions
    DT: Restricted
    Weight restriction > 260 lbs
    DE: Restricted
    Weight restriction > 230 lbs
    Speed Restriction < 85
    OLB: Restricted
    Weight restriction > 205 lbs
    Speed Restriction < 87
    MLB: Restricted
    Weight restriction > 215 lbs
    Speed restriction < 87
    DB: No restrictions
    RET: Restricted
     
  2. BRUCE80

    BRUCE80 Let the dirt just shower over you..

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    FB weight might be a bit much.
     
  3. Hellisan

    Hellisan Schemin 'em up

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    10,590
    Does that FB weight apply to athletes as well? Because I have seen a few good FB prospects that are ATH that are well below that. And they're not fast, RB types. They're blocking FULLBACKS. Sometimes can also tackle/play D but FB/LB types.
     
  4. jfosh

    jfosh Super

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,636
    How much do they weigh? I think the spirit of the restrictions would be to limit speed at the position not a good blocker. But there has to be some limit to the weight....dont ya think?
     
  5. Hellisan

    Hellisan Schemin 'em up

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    10,590
    I think it should be 200-205 for an athlete, I have seem them that low.

    same for linebackers. They come that light in the game... People have done tests where they make a DT 160 lbs. and he's the same player. It doesn't matter. You're right the spirit of it was to make it so people couldn't make a fast RB a FB. But the game pretty much blew that whole thing out the window this year by giving Ga Tech a 93 speed FB and he probably has two more behind that guy that are just as fast. Should he be the only one that has a fast FB? With all that out of the way I'm fine wtih restricting the weight of a HB that somebody wants to move to FB but for a slow, blocking style athlete I don't think people should be able to tell me I can't put him at FB. And no, I'm not recruiting any of them this year.

    But example:

    2-star ATH Jermaine Swanson, signed with Penn State

    6'2, 219.
    B- spd, D- awr, c+ agi, c str, c- stam, b- inj, c prc, d- btk, d- thp, a+ hpw (WOW!), c- cth, d- cit, d- rte, c+ pbk, b- rbk, c+ tackle.

    I'm guessing this guy is anything ranging from a good blocking fullback to a huge-hitting safety. Why restrict any of that? Even if he was only 200 lbs?
     
  6. BlyGilmore

    BlyGilmore It's All In The Hips!

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    3,045
    I almost think this is getting to the realm of over regulation. the more ifs and buts you put into this the greater the system can be abused IMO.

    I was a fan of the old system where guys could only go from like positions to like positions with a few restrictions in place for things we know can be abused - like small fast FBs, fast TEs and fast slim outside DEs.

    A big one IMO is offensive line. There are usually slim pickings at center, but with this system I can just ignore that and recruit guards and tackles to play center. I think that's almost cheesing the system. You should be able to move OLs between L and R spots, but otherwise guards are guards, tackles are tackles and centers are centers.
     
  7. NYJuggalo45

    NYJuggalo45 Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,766
    disagree wholeheartedly with the oline part.

    i like my T's to be my best pass blockers. Guards to be good run blockers with enough speed to pull on power O plays. And Centers to be oompa loompas in the range of 5'10-6'1 / 280-320. Oline should be able to moved wherever. It happens in real life all the time.
     
  8. Hellisan

    Hellisan Schemin 'em up

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    10,590
    yeah I don't agree with Bly's post either regarding OL.

    The game penalizes a move from G to C justly in terms of AWR, whether you do it within the depth chart or whether you do it in position changes. I have absolutely no problem with that. I see teams playing their C at G and vice versa all the time. For instance the Seahawks playing Max Unger, a center by trade, at G because of need. (and he played at Tackle quite a bit in college!)

    All I can say is if I recruit an athlete with C to B- (fullback-ish) speed that's 200-210 lbs., and has fullback ratings, and you tell me I can't change him from ATH to FB, then that system is broken. And THAT is over regulation.
     
  9. Drifterbub

    Drifterbub Help me hide a body?

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    17,167
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Helli brings up a point that I meant to bring up in our discussion. ATHs in this year's game are far more versatile than in last years game. In fact, I look at the atts on some of the ATHs in the recruiting class and wonder where the hell they are going to play. I recruited a :3stars: ATH last year that could play HB, WR, TE, DE, LB, CB, SS and FS and wouldn't have been lower than third on the depth chart at any of those. Unfortunately he didn't fit in a lot of the weight and speed restrictions we had. We are probably going to have to revisit the rules for moving ATHs.

    The real purpose was to keep people from recruiting SSs with B+ spd and moving them to OLB, DE, etc. With the pursuit angles in this year's game, speed is ever crazier on defense. Also prevents you from taking a player who wouldn't naturally play a position (say a 6'0'' 183 lb WR) and moving him to another position (say TE. He is much too short and too light).
     
  10. MRamirez

    MRamirez Go Devils!

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    553
    I disagree on the defensive end......

    I had one in last years version (Lance Wright) that was a 265 lb end but he had 87 speed......I would say less that 90.....

    I think weight restrictions on the defensive end our good though.
     
  11. BRUCE80

    BRUCE80 Let the dirt just shower over you..

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Just for reference Josh, the #1 FB I grabbed weighed 210.
     
  12. jfosh

    jfosh Super

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,636
    Lance wright was a DE as his natural position so he would be ok in this league. If the player is generated at that position by the cpu then he is good to go no restrictions.

    Offensive Line --- I think we should be able to move those guys around. They will take a hit when they move from Guard to Center or Tackle to Center. IRL I see guys getting shuffled around all the time.

    Atheletes ---That is a real problem with the one off guy that comes along that fits the critera your talking about Helli. So we should probabally tweek the FB weight since what we are trying to prevent is the speed size of it. You could see more FB's in the 90's speed as guys progress they will increase in speed.
     
  13. jfosh

    jfosh Super

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,636
    Was looking at the FB's we signed in this years class and 225 seems off the mark.

    So, In regards to Athletes only what do you think about 205 lbs for full backs?
     
  14. Mogriffjr

    Mogriffjr Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,163
    Featured Threads:
    2
    205?? smh...too low IMO.

    i thought 225 was fine...is there a speed restriction on that...cuz I got Dwyer who's a FB with 93 speed (that's the spot EA had him)
     
  15. BRUCE80

    BRUCE80 Let the dirt just shower over you..

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    I would say 210 for FB, do we need a speed restriction? say 89 or so?
     
  16. jfosh

    jfosh Super

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,636
    Thanks for the input MO.

    If the player is already in the game at fullback then he is fine. If there is a natural Full Back recruit the comes down the pike with that kind of speed that is ok also.

    The speed restriction is 89 at Fullback. That applies to both atheletes and any position player being converted to full backs.

    225 seemed to high and 205 seems to low. Here is what 210 would look like compared against the 3 FB's already signed by users.

    Column 1
    Commit School Commit Week First Name Last Name City State Height Weight Ovr_Rnk POS Tendency Caliber 40 Bench Squat
    Tennessee WK 8 Jake Smith Lake Wales FL 72 213 37 FB Blocking 4 4.62 414 320
    Clemson WK 7 Joshua Walker Sheffield AL 74 215 509 FB Blocking 3 4.68 414 315
    Virginia Tech WK 12 Joe Johnson Bryan TX 71 204 1108 FB Blocking 2 4.74 360 290
     

Share This Page