FOF2K4 - I've never thought this way before.

[Axxon]

Finally, a day off. I've played around with the game a little bit during the week but I've stayed away from really doing any real playing due to time constraints. Today I am starting a real test drive game.

I am in my first season and I'm using HR's random player generation program. One quick observation is that the contract it assigns are really weird. I won't say screwed up but many might. I like it though as it makes me really make even tougher decisions. I cut three guys and it has cost me 9.33 million on next years cap. That hurts but playing these stiffs would hurt worse. I just hope the AI can work with these numbers as their contracts are just as screwy.

Anyway, the preseason is over and I'm making cuts. I used my extra players straightening out the o and d lines so I am at minimums at the skill positions. Well, I do have an "extra" read ( 3rd ) FB who isn't great but is cheap and can play some. I was ready to cut him because the two guys above him are keepers.

Then I looked at his size and said, hey, he looks like he could be a rb if needed. I clicked on change position and saw he can play rb and also te. He makes the team. I have a guy who can play a little and is an emergency backup at three positions. I'm keeping him as a fb but if I lose a rb for a few weeks I won't have to cut somebody.

I've used guys like this before in severe pinches but never made a deliberate keep/cut decision solely on this basis. I've never even checked change positions before an injury. Now I have. :)

[Axxon]

dola -

He seemed very small for a TE ( 6'0" 244 )and I wondered about that but he is 59/58 in blocking and I wonder if this game isn't taking that into effect when calculating additional positions?? Would be pretty sweet if it is.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Axxon
Then I looked at his size and said, hey, he looks like he could be a rb if needed. I clicked on change position and saw he can play rb and also te. He makes the team. I have a guy who can play a little and is an emergency backup at three positions. I'm keeping him as a fb but if I lose a rb for a few weeks I won't have to cut somebody.

While it's true that your player will be eligible to move to TE if needed, I think that you will find that this switch will substantially diminish his ratings -- certainly any current ratings, and probably much of his future ratings. As long as he's just a marginal roster-filler, this may not be a real problem. But if he's a guy who you expect to use a bit at RB/FB, you probably only want to make that actual switch to TE in a real emergency, as it may well ruin him as a back (and he won't be simultaneously eligible there).

[Axxon]

Originally posted by QuikSand
While it's true that your player will be eligible to move to TE if needed, I think that you will find that this switch will substantially diminish his ratings -- certainly any current ratings, and probably much of his future ratings. As long as he's just a marginal roster-filler, this may not be a real problem. But if he's a guy who you expect to use a bit at RB/FB, you probably only want to make that actual switch to TE in a real emergency, as it may well ruin him as a back (and he won't be simultaneously eligible there).

Good point but as I don't need to switch him now I'm playing the percentages as far as risk and I'm talking in regards to the team. The fact that he CAN play TE is far more important than how that will help him as a player.

He's a bit more than a marginal FB but it's so not a position of need that he'd be gone if that's what I was looking for. It's not. I need a backup rb and a backup tight end and this guy can sit on his FB talent ( which is decent )and in a pinch can sacrifice his almost cut self and play passably somewhere without me signing a new guy. He's pure gold.

Oh and he's on one of those wacky minsal deals and is locked up for the next 4 years with no signing bonus. :)

[Axxon]

Oh and lest you ask me how I feel about the minsal deals, well, in previous versions I've never seen 0/2 guys on seven year multimillion dollar deals. I'm paying almost 10 mil next year on deadwood. If this proves too easy I'll say something about it. Until then I'll gladly play the hand the computer has dealt me. :)

[Bonegavel]

Speaking about FBs, I have found them to be the easiest position to find studs. I always have a redder than red-barred FB on my team at all times.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by QuikSand
While it's true that your player will be eligible to move to TE if needed, I think that you will find that this switch will substantially diminish his ratings -- certainly any current ratings, and probably much of his future ratings.Did we ever work out whether there was a difference between switching a guy's position, and just playing him out of position? I realize that not every position can be used elsewhere, but let's say you have a FB who might be able to play RB. If you switch his position, he'll lose ratings. Why not just switch him to RB in the depth charts while leaving him at FB? Or does that also hurt his playing ability/development?

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Did we ever work out whether there was a difference between switching a guy's position, and just playing him out of position? I realize that not every position can be used elsewhere, but let's say you have a FB who might be able to play RB. If you switch his position, he'll lose ratings. Why not just switch him to RB in the depth charts while leaving him at FB? Or does that also hurt his playing ability/development?

I don't know but until I know I have always house ruled myself against doing it after week one. My thought is that in preseason you work on guys new positions and after that you only do it on an emergency basis. If you decide Joey is better as a left guard you work on it in preseason.

During the season Joey only moves in emergencies and then if the move is going to be permanent you work on it next preseason.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Did we ever work out whether there was a difference between switching a guy's position, and just playing him out of position? I realize that not every position can be used elsewhere, but let's say you have a FB who might be able to play RB. If you switch his position, he'll lose ratings. Why not just switch him to RB in the depth charts while leaving him at FB? Or does that also hurt his playing ability/development?

I don't think this has been worked out with much precision, but here are things I'd say I have observed (mostly in FOF 4):

-players playing out of position develop just as well as if they were logging time at their actual position

-players playing out o position may suffer some penalty, but it can't be too severe -- I have seen plenty of OOP players post star-worthy stats, more or less in keeping with the visibly appropriate skills for the position they are playing

-fullbacks generally tend to have fairly low ratings in breakaway speed and other speed-related things (seems fair), and if you slot them at RB (or even switch tem over formally) yo must anticipate that they will generally have fewer big plays than other RBs

-similarly, I think the bast crossover players are often those where you can see all the relevant ratings -- switching across OL positions and along the defensive front in particular seem to be pretty transparent


I'm not aware of anyone doing much empirical research on this (or any, really) but those are my general impressions. In FOF 2004, when we played our GroupThink career, we used theseangles pretty aggressively (I had something to do with that) and we started contemplating adding new house rules to prohibit such moves. I think makign such out-of-position decisions is a real advantage in the game, if you do it wisely.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Did we ever work out whether there was a difference between switching a guy's position, and just playing him out of position? I realize that not every position can be used elsewhere, but let's say you have a FB who might be able to play RB. If you switch his position, he'll lose ratings. Why not just switch him to RB in the depth charts while leaving him at FB? Or does that also hurt his playing ability/development?

I'm thinking here that in some cases, playing out of position should hurt the player's production, but not actually his development, unless it is coded that a player only gains experience while playing his position.

Regarding performance and ability changes, I'm wondering if it works like this. Every player has a rating for every possible ability out there. We see a rating on the scale from 0-100, but that is specific for that position class. So for instance a TE might have a run blocking ability of 80 to us, but might have an actual coded value of say, 400. An OT might only have a rating of 60, but in actuality that might work out to a value of 600 (Jim states in the csv guide that "Internal ratings are on a 0-1000 scale). So put that TE at OT, and he doesn't fare so well (not that you could, but as an example). So if you play that run stopping SS at LB, his actual run stopping ability may not translate well to what normal LB's would be, and an LB's might not be as good as a DT.

In some rare cases, players may have great out of position characteristics, so a RB may have the blocking ability of a FB, so that can work. Or a RB may have the pass-catching skills of a FL.

What I would like to know is how much randomness there is for position changes, or if sometimes there is a penalty imposed outside of what a players ratings are.

It might be a useful exercise to play with the csv files and player generators to make players that have super ratings outside of their traditional categories, say a RB mediocre with superb defensive abilities, and change his position after the import to see what happens.