Position Flexibility

[sportznut]

I was just wondering how you'd like to handle those versatile players capable of playing G/T, or G/C, LB/DE, CB/S, and many other combos?

If we have player(s) not listed at a position, do you want us to put a link in this thread for that player to show his eligibility, or would you rather have a PM?

There are a lot of rookies listed at one position, but they're either playing a different position, or playing more than one.

[redsoxfan31x21]

what i think would be the best is if we had something similar to formations, like in the NFL you have 5 elgible WRS (plus QB) and you can use them however you want, you can use 5 WR's if you want, or 2 rb, 2 te, 1 wr.

something like that i think would be really cool.

[Jared A]

Redsox... that's not very realistic. Because you don't have 5 skill position guys play the entire game. We have something sililar with 4 WR's, 3 RB's, and 2 TE's...



Flexibility is a different story all together. In my opinion, the player should have to play that position. So, if last season he played G and T... he's eligable. If this season he's a rookie, and listed at T... but during the game, he plays Guard, for week 2, he's eligable to play both.

[sportznut]

Redsox... that's not very realistic. Because you don't have 5 skill position guys play the entire game. We have something sililar with 4 WR's, 3 RB's, and 2 TE's...



Flexibility is a different story all together. In my opinion, the player should have to play that position. So, if last season he played G and T... he's eligable. If this season he's a rookie, and listed at T... but during the game, he plays Guard, for week 2, he's eligable to play both.

That's not realistic either.

Some guys were flatout listed wrong.

Delmas was drafted as a safety, and is starting game 1 as a safety.

He shouldn't be a CB in my eyes.

[Goodell]

There are a lot of rookies listed at one position, but they're either playing a different position, or playing more than one.

The draft pool data is old from April. It's however they were listed on the NFL draft site in April for positions. Some of the players have had a change of position since then and some might automatically already have been made once the player is transferred to your roster because I may have already changed their position in our real player database (not just the draft pool data from April).

I am going to do a comparison of our data to NFL rosters this week and add other positional flexibility that comes up with how players listed on NFL rosters now.

But beyond that, we have a process for teams wanting a player to have a position change or extra position eligibility as noted on the depth chart page I believe. Just have to send me a link related to that, whether it's game statistics showing the player has played that position or a coach's quote about the player playing that position, etc. so we have something to base that position alteration on. Once I change it once, it filters through all the leagues for that same player.

People can send me those any time, but I imagine most will get done early next week when I compare to NFL rosters and grab position there.

[sportznut]

Sounds good, commish.

[Jared A]

If they're flat out wrong, that's a totally different story. But, GM's shouldn't be bailed out for not having a safety, just because they say "he could play CB too"...

GM's should pay close attention to what type of DB's, OL's, and DL's they're trading for, signing, and drafting.

A secondary with five safties shouldn't be a good one...


Another option is this... have a main position and a secondary one... the position the player plays IRL is his primary, he takes a hit for playing a secondary position.

[sportznut]

Delmas was the highest rated safety in the entire draft, listed as a safety in everything I read in terms of scouting reports, and is starting at FS in game 1 of his rookie year.

I realize some guys are a little more sketchy in terms of playing guard or tackle, DE or OLB, but this is pretty cut and dry here.

However, there are others in the same boat.

They were listed as OTs in every scouting report, are starting or backing up at tackle, and yet are listed as a guard here.

There are a lot of examples.

My point is if you have the information regarding this such as a coach's quote, a simple depth chart, or something along those lines, why should you be penalized in week 1?

I don't think you should, but maybe I'm alone on this.

I think the bigger question should be, is if they were listed incorrectly, should they retain their erroneous position as a rookie, and actually have dual versatility?

That's not for me to decide, but I'd say no.

I can see both sides of that argument as well though.

[Jared A]

I agree that if it's an error... it needs changed. Especially if the GM requesting the change provides proof.

However, the topic is position flexibility... not positional errors.


If a player's playing as a guard, he shouldn't be listed as G/C, unless he's recently played C at some point.

[Ben C.]

I agree that if it's an error... it needs changed. Especially if the GM requesting the change provides proof.

However, the topic is position flexibility... not positional errors.


If a player's playing as a guard, he shouldn't be listed as G/C, unless he's recently played C at some point.

I disagree. There are many players that legitimately can play multiple positions on the line. For example, the Packers plan if one of their guards goes down injured is to move the starting center to the guard position and the backup center would take his place.

There's nothing wrong with having players who can play multiple spots.