Position Guidelines

Discussion in 'The Experience' started by Masler, Jun 3, 2013.

  1. Masler

    Masler Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,961
    jello1717
    UofCWildcat
    blLL flo
    dakota7
    iBleedOrange247
    Big Suge Knight
    bigrice25

    Let's get this discussion going since no one listened to me about getting some numbers together. I did some scouring and found some decent guidelines in The Deuce with a couple changes.

    QB: No Restrictions
    HB: No Restrictions
    FB:
    • Must not weigh under 230lbs
    • Must not be shorter than 6'2"
    • Speed cannot be greater than 85
    WR: No Restrictions
    TE:
    • Must not be shorter than 6'2"
    • Must not weigh under 225lbs
    • Max Speed of 86
    OL: No Restrictions (meaning all OL are interchangeable)
    DE:
    • Must not be shorter than 6'2"
    • Must not weigh under 250lbs
    • Max Speed of 80
    DT:
    • Must not weigh under 265lbs
    OLB:
    • Must not weigh under 215
    • Max Speed of 85
    MLB:
    • Must not weigh under 225
    • Max Speed of 85
    DB: No restrictions. Safeties are interchangeable amongst themselves but a CB should never be playing Safety on the Depth Chart and likewise (Formation Subs is a different story).
    Some final thoughts
    1) Should we restrict KR/PR to a speed max?
    2) Should we ban the use of Kickers as Punters and Punters as Kickers? My reasoning behind this is that this would force people to recruit them with interest rather than finding the most interested ones and recruiting them heavily.
     
  2. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    I don't see the need for a height restriction on FBs (but probably wouldn't mind some minimum blocking requirements).
    With that strict of a min weight requirement (tons, possibly most, of DE recruits are lighter than 250) I don't see the need for a min height.

    I definitely don't think so. I general you want your fastest guy returning kicks/punts. Their main job is to be fast.
    Also, SPD certainly isn't necessary as a returner so it's not like you can just put your fastest guy there and start churning out the arcade stats. My guy is currently the favorite to win the "Returner Of The Year" award and he's not overly fast.
    Weddle returner.PNG
    I've said in the past that I absolutely think this should be enforced. In real life there aren't many guys that tackle both kicker and punter duties. Allowing this only requires us to recruit 1 kicker ever 4 years instead of 2.
     
  3. edge7771

    edge7771 Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,944
    FB: agree with jello1717 a blocking limit needs to be put in place, but a height rescrition is needed the other way say 6'3 and under so we don't have a 6'5 TE's being put their.

    DE: Higher weight would do away with the height I'm recruiting a DE now who's 6'1 245.

    What about moving DB's to SS or FS think we need to look at that as well.

    I like the Punter and Kicker rule, we'll just have list our kicker so people don't change them in the offseason.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2013
  4. HoundsOfHowl

    HoundsOfHowl Feed Me More....Football

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,621
    Kicker/Punter rule should be applied

    The others look good, I also agree with the blocking rule added to the FB.

    Now my question is, these are only for position changes right? You can still recruit anyone no matter what right?
     
  5. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    It's for position changes and possibly ATH recruits too. You can still recruit a 5'10, 210 LB DE if that's his native position.

    But if you recruit an ATH with 80 SPD that's 220, you wouldn't be able to make him a DE, even if his OVR as a DE is an 80 or a 6'0 ATH with 90 SPD couldn't be made into a TE (assuming that it applies to ATHs as well, which it really should).
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2013
  6. HoundsOfHowl

    HoundsOfHowl Feed Me More....Football

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,621
    Thats what I thought, just wanted to make sure
     
  7. Big Suge Knight

    Big Suge Knight Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,237
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Agree with the FB and DE height discussions. I dont think 6'2 should be the minimum for TE. SPD and WT restrictions should be enough since you cant really recruit H backs and not everyone uses a TE but you have to have them.
     
  8. blLL flo

    blLL flo BTFU!

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,655
    I really like the punter/kicker rule. I've had guys pause games before to put the biggest leg in...yuck.

    I think restrictions are good for speed and weight, but I think the height restriction is probably unnecessary.
     
  9. Masler

    Masler Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,961
    So this is what I've seen so far..

    Establish a blocking minimum for FB. Any ideas?

    Remove height restrictions


    And yes these restrictions only apply to ATH and if you are changing Position.
     
  10. edge7771

    edge7771 Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,944
    Just wanted to bump this back up to the top and make sure we're all in agreement here. Also I can't remember if we said ya or na on the 335 and 425 as a base D. Also talked with the guys running the 14 tourney about the option D on game planning and why they allow it. Their thoughts are the same as mine just wanted to see if we are still banning option D game planning?
     
  11. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    Masler

    We definitely need to get the position guidelines written in stone (if they aren't already).

    I haven't played any 3-3-5 or 4-2-5 so I have no idea about that.

    For option D I think you have to allow that.
    1. This year it does what it's supposed to do unlike last year.
    2. All it does is force your read guy/pitch guy to always go after either the QB or the HB.
    3. It's not overpowered because if you take away the QB the HB can still hurt you and vice versa.
    4. Unless I'm missing it season showdown is no longer in the game so there's no way to prove if anyone's using it (no +strategy points for option defense).
     
  12. Fmode11

    Fmode11 MVP

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,484
    Played against 3-3-5 and I still believe, including last year, it's an over powering defense. I would throw my vote against the 3-3-5 personally. When you guys mention "option d", you are referring to the in-game defensive strategy?
     
  13. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    Yes.

    We outlawed that last year, but I think it's needed this year.
     
  14. UofCWildcat

    UofCWildcat Bear Down!

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,580
    I think 3-3-5 isn't are strong as last season. But that's my personal opinion
     
  15. Fmode11

    Fmode11 MVP

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,484
    I've played '14 twice. Both times against users and one was against you. Ironically, both users employed the same defensive strategy which exploits having a "free-roaming" lineman using the MLB. Manually controlling the MLB in that defense allows you to crash the line if there is any motion in the direction of the HB, otherwise picking up the closest receiver/TE in the vicinity. No CPU controlled player would act that way. Coming from the 2nd tier, more often than not, allows penetration into the back field before the ball carrier can take his 2nd step with the ball. I wouldn't go as far as to call it cheese, but it is over powering and when you get good at the timing - you can SHUT-DOWN opponent's running games.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. UofCWildcat

    UofCWildcat Bear Down!

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,580
    Well I use the same strategy with my MLB whether in the 3-3-5 or 4-3. I don't think it's OP but me knowing my shit. I pride myself on knowing a lot of plays before they happen. Can I stop them all the time? No. But I can a majority.
     
  17. bigrice25

    bigrice25 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    624
    I know this maybe rare, but what if we recruited a big corner, say he is 6'2", wouldn't it be realistic that we could move him to Safety?
     
  18. Fmode11

    Fmode11 MVP

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,484
    BUT using the same strategy with the 4-3 doesn't leave 7 guys still behind you. You also will struggle to find as many holes to come through using that strategy in the 4-3 in the '14 release I've noticed since the game now incorporates "true" double-blocking. Just my 2 cents. I'm not great by any means and always trying to improve. I always feel at the disadvantage of the 3-3-5, maybe rightfully so. Maybe not.
     
  19. edge7771

    edge7771 Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,944
    That's the impression I got from the other guys on option D, but still wanted to hear your input. I've played three guys online with the 335 and they were still pulling the same crap as other do with it. You can still screw with the AI blocking with it, but I don't think our guys would do that.
     
  20. Hova

    Hova Live Action. YiYiYi!

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    12,136
    I'm always for banning the 3-3-4 and 4-2-5 as bases (y)


    and I think we need to allow the option gameplan this year
     
  21. blLL flo

    blLL flo BTFU!

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,655
    IU math....
     
    • Like Like x 3
  22. dakota7

    dakota7 Former Blue Chip Recruit

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    12,443
    I did that to you once. Sorry about that.
     
  23. bigrice25

    bigrice25 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    624
    Are we handling "players leaving" like last version?
     
  24. UofCWildcat

    UofCWildcat Bear Down!

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,580
    If 3-3-5 is banned no qualms on my end. I just never saw the glitches I guess
     
  25. Masler

    Masler Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,961

    I think we should. I might allow someone to sway one player back if they win an award or if I feel generous due to how much content someone produces.


    If you don't have a problem with 3-3-5 and 4-2-5 banned then we might as well not make any rules changes.
     

Share This Page