2025 RULES: Multi-Positions

[sportznut]

A couple things here:

MLB changed some rules to highlight the unique skills of Ohtani. I feel like we should do the same for unique players to maximize their impact.

#2, I fully understand the idea behind a CB who plays only safety, a drafted DE, who only plays OLB, and OL, who usually only play inside or outside. However, I feel like the dual eligibilty should be for a limited time, whether that's a couple years, or so, and not immediately changed after the draft.

[Heffay72]

Since were talking positions, I thought position eligibility in the depth chart was a thing. So 2 cb's, FS, SS or a (S) had to be 4 of the starters. yet I played guys who had 4 safeties and a cb and they got all the rates. I feel this should be a strict rule.
I'm against making rbs ratings going towards rec rates as well.

[Goodell]

For anyone who has Pro Football Focus they break OL down by RT, RG, C, LG and RT.

If we can get a group of 8 guys we can all be responsible for 4 NFL teams. Once we get it done before the beginning of the season the maintenance wouldn't be so bad as a GM could submit a request to have a OL checked if he feels he has played another position.

Larry
AFFL, BRFL and FFFL

Thanks! I’ll dig into that a bit more.

[JonC]

So you think Juszyzyk

Should be eligible at

RB/FB
OL
WR/TE

You want him eligible at all 3 positions is that what you are voting yes to?

Because that’s insane to me …

I actually do for RB/FB and OL. He's a backup OL rating if his rating is high enough. RB are stats only, not ratings based.

WR should be backup only unless he's playing a majority of his snaps there.

No issues with it at all.

[sillegrant]

We're getting a bit too caught up in discussing players other than Travis Hunter.

His role in the simulation is a key factor, and he will be the only one making a impact on both sides of the ball, in the best-case scenario. We should take a measured approach rather than making speculative assumptions about his performance in year one. Ideally, teams should have the flexibility to start him at either cornerback or wide receiver, reflecting the real-world uncertainty about his primary position.

If he starts at one position, he should have a full impact on that position group within the simulation, while his secondary position should contribute at a reduced level—for example, if a starting WR role adds 0.08, a backup role would contribute 0.04. We don’t need to make premature decisions assuming he’ll be a 90 overall at both positions. There’s a possibility he may not meet those expectations and overvaluing him now would be unfair to the teams competing against him in the simulation this year. That said, he should absolutely be included in the depth chart to ensure his contributions are accounted for.

[Rumpy]

So you think Juszyzyk

Should be eligible at

RB/FB
OL
WR/TE

You want him eligible at all 3 positions is that what you are voting yes to?

Because that’s insane to me …

I actually do for RB/FB and OL. He's a backup OL rating if his rating is high enough. RB are stats only, not ratings based.

WR should be backup only unless he's playing a majority of his snaps there.

No issues with it at all.

What do you mean back up?

Juscyzyk played 15 snaps a game at WR TE. Which is why I dug into the numbers and provided them. He plays WR/TE more than he plays FB.

So if we use this as a blanket snap count he should get full WR/TE rates as well.

Which makes him and his 90 OV ratings count pretty significantly at 3 positions ….

[bpboguta1483]

Same grade for both positions providing Hunter plays a 50-50 split or close to that, and how is Madden going to grade this out, just a curiosity question

[JonC]

So you think Juszyzyk

Should be eligible at

RB/FB
OL
WR/TE

You want him eligible at all 3 positions is that what you are voting yes to?

Because that’s insane to me …

I actually do for RB/FB and OL. He's a backup OL rating if his rating is high enough. RB are stats only, not ratings based.

WR should be backup only unless he's playing a majority of his snaps there.

No issues with it at all.

What do you mean back up?

Juscyzyk played 15 snaps a game at WR TE. Which is why I dug into the numbers and provided them. He plays WR/TE more than he plays FB.

So if we use this as a blanket snap count he should get full WR/TE rates as well.

Which makes him and his 90 OV ratings count pretty significantly at 3 positions ….

Would you consider him TE or TEWR? Those are handled different in the ratings. TE are backup OL, just like fullbacks, and so, yes, I'm still good with it.

If he's a TEWR and getting WR ratings, I would agree that's not realistic given his receptions over time.

Some of the issue here is that you and I are arguing about a specific player and making cuts with scalpels. The rules cut with a machete and that means there will always be outliers one way or the other. I am of the opinion that if a player is utilized in multiple ways in real life, they should be just as valuable here. Does that mean a player or three will be over-valued at times? Yes. 100%.

[Goodell]

CONCLUSION: If it impacts any initial roster decisions going into free agency, wanted to provide some additional clarity on this discussed topic. We will aim to incorporate more positional flexibility in cases where someone significantly (at least double-digit plays a game at another position most games) contributes to multiple positions on a team. As we'll likely remain on a one-grade per player basis, they have to be more than just an occasional player in another spot to also have their overall grade apply to another area. Ideally this would mostly impact just rare cases of significant playing time in multiple positions.

Some of the end results will be determined on how much we can adjust programming before the season, but the aim would be that such a versatile multi-position player would at least be able to contribute in a backup role toward the grade average in another positional area. For example, a CB/WR with an 80 grade could be a starter in the secondary but if he also plays significantly at WR then their grade could also be as a backup WR for the receiver team average (starters count more toward that).

For undrafted players like Travis Hunter, we'll monitor drafting team stated intentions, positional listings on roster and grade sources, and add that additional position if seems warranted. Just as we do all players we add to our system. That wouldn't mean he'd keep that positional eligibility forever no matter what he does in the future. It's not if we guess he's a WR too then he gets to be that always years ahead. No, if he eventually ended up mostly sticking to one position, then we'd adjust this positional listings if no longer a significant player at multiple positions ahead. Something to keep in mind and be aware of, that for highly versatile players if that's the source of their advantage that they only get that great benefit if they continue to remain a significant player with 10+ plays a game at those eligible additional positions going forward. Just because we thought someone might be a particular position coming in as a rookie coming into the league doesn't mean they get to be that position forever no matter if they play there or not. Every season we discuss rules adjustments, update grades and positions to keep things real. That's our intent. So long as the additional positional flexibility is significant and real, player can maintain that advantage. That's something we may evaluate if a big change has happened with that player's positional use as we update a player's grades roughly monthly throughout a season. Maybe in week 8 if he's barely playing WR any more, he loses that extra positional eligibility. You know ahead of time, no crying later. Player's positional listings are dependent upon actually playing those positions.

We'll monitor this more for how the league and particular players develop in seasons ahead, but expect at least a little more ability for versatile players to contribute in more ways.

[Goodell]

On a related topic of same grade area positional eligibility (such as offensive lineman being listed as a G/C or T/G, or edge rusher as DE/LB or LB/DE, etc.) it's a bit different. It's a more extreme case for a player to contribute to multiple different grade averages. That makes them extra valuable if they contribute to two team grades. That's the focus on this multiple-position discussion brought on by high profile draftees who may justifiably be able to logically impact two different grade areas causing us to explore this change.

I'll have to dig more into similar position eligibilities along the same line within the same area strength grade, and how easy it is for us to collect and analyze more detailed positional data. If an offensive lineman was a starting guard but also listed as the backup center, came into the league as a center, and has played NFL games in the last two years at that position, then they wouldn't have to average 10+ snaps a game at center to maintain that positional eligibility within the same team strength grade (like someone would have to in order to impact multiple team grades). However, if we had them listed as G/C from years ago and they've never taken a snap as an NFL center for years, it wouldn't make sense to continue listing them in positions they never play. The more we are able to efficiently gather and analyze data on that, the more we'd update that. Until we're able to do it more analytically in data, we'll probably focus mostly on the most extreme cases of older players listed at multiple positions from years ago that they haven't played in years.

Bottom line is that we update players over time. Of course. Their grades change as their careers develop. You're not adding someone for their past, but what you expect ahead. Their positions and multiple position eligibility may also shift depending upon their actual NFL usage. Know that and account for that in your plans. If you have a defensive back who was a stud corner for years early in his career but hasn't played CB in many years, then logically they are not a CB/S any more, but now their current reality is just a safety if that's all they're playing now. How well we can update some of those records and how fast is still to be determined, but keep that in mind as always with any player it's about their future not the past. Before signing them to a massive signing bonus, how likely is that old guy to retire soon and stick you with a huge cap hit bill? Before trading for that player, how do you think they'll perform in the future for your team do you think their grade/stats will go up? Always have to keep the future expectations most in mind, not the past, and that includes their current/future positional realities as we always strive to keep things real.