Prototypical Players at various positions

[hukarez]

This concept was brought up in another thread, buried somewhere in the mass of the general forum...but hopefully someone can shed some light to the subject.

Exactly what 'physical requirements' do you look for when you're drafting a player? For example...QBs at least 6'1" or so? RBs with 200-225 lbs in weight? DBs with fast times?

I keep forgetting if there's any correlation between a player's height and weight, and the position he plays. I would assume there's a 'range' of statistics for each position, and thus the probability of a player's statistics increasing upon a position change would be based off these physical attributes.

Still, I was considering compiling a small little chart, of what attributes/statistics fall for which position.

[Kozure]

I'm not sure if height and weight have anything to do with it. I have had 5'8" - 5'9" receivers catch 1200 passes for nearly 20k yards before. I have also had 5'10" quarterbacks throw for 60k in their careers.

Maybe it has more to do with the chances of that player being good. A 6'3" QB might have a better chance of being a "franchise" player than a 5'10" one. Same with WRs. A 6'2", 6'3" receiver might have a better chance as well than a 5'9" one.

be safe

Koz

[Zoetus]

this has been talked about in other threads, but Jim has said that height isn't a determining factor in ratings or production.

one thing i have noticed, though it's more of a trivial concern than anything else, is that a large number of blue-chip wideout prospects are often under 6 feet tall (which i think is fairly rare in the NFL, though there have been some recent exceptions like Peter Warrick and Santana Moss). it's not often you see a 5'9" receiver go in the top 15 picks.

[Zoetus]

that being said, i think it would be cool if the game did give weight to size and height attributes when determining ratings. if two players are rated fairly equally, there SHOULD be a definite reason to take the one that is 6'3" vs. the one that is 5'10". same thing with any position - i.e. taller qb's should have some advantage in field vision/awareness. maybe they do, i haven't done any experimentation with it.

after seeing the way Randy Moss can catch balls over cornerbacks' heads and break tackles with his size, i can really appreciate the advantage that height gives a receiver.

[Taco]

Height might not have an effect now, but I can see Jim putting it into a future version. Therefore if you are in a multi-player league that plans on moving into a future version (also assuming Jim implements that feature - I HOPE SO!), then all of a sudden height could matter. So all else being equal, take the player with the good height. It might help down the road.

[albionmoonlight]

The way to look at it is that height and weight are factored into the ratings. Randy Moss' height is part of his high ratings. Santana Moss' lack of height is factored into his ratings, too.

[hukarez]

The way to look at it is that height and weight are factored into the ratings. Randy Moss' height is part of his high ratings. Santana Moss' lack of height is factored into his ratings, too.
That's with the Real Players file though, no? But if we were to talk about generated fictional players, according to QuikSand, only weight plays a factor to the fictional player ratings at a position?

[Celeval]

That's with the Real Players file though, no? But if we were to talk about generated fictional players, according to QuikSand, only weight plays a factor to the fictional player ratings at a position?
Ratings are (seem to be) the only things that matter in the engine.
Weight matters when trying to change position.

The shift to weight/height being taken into account in ratings is a wholly mental one - Orlando Pace has great blocking strength. Think part of the reason he does is that he weighs what he does? Randy Moss has a great Adjust to Ball rating. Part of that is because of his height.

Kevin