TCY Positional Recruiting

[nilodor]

I was reading the TCY Village Challange and came across the fact that they have had problems recruiting a running back throughout their entire dynasty. In the three 15+ year dynasties i have had, each one there has been one position i just could not recruit. S, ILB and T. Which leads me to my questions. Has anyone else experienced this? Do you think it is an intention of the game?

[illinifan999]

I always seem to have trouble landing corners, wide receivers, and centers. Lately, I've been getting good wide recievers. But as for runnng back, I run a single back offense, and pass a lot, but can usually end up with a really good RB each year.

[cthomer5000]

Defensive Tackles in my Rutgers dynasty (11 seasons).

That's my hardest position to recruit.

Hardest to develop? Tight End. I've had 3 or 4 guys who should have become stars. Only 1 was even slightly above average by his senior year.

[Go-Buckeyes]

DT's are hard for me too. I can get a TON of DE's. I also struggle with offensive lineman, escpecially developing them. At Louisville and Nebraska, I've been ok with WR's and TE's with the single back offense...so I do believe, and there has been speculation, that the type of offense you run will have a hidden effect on the difficulty of positional recruiting. The game doesn't really show any proof of this, but I have noticed that I have had a much easier time recruiting QB's than RB's with that single back offense.

I would love to see this concept of recruits basing their decisions on what type of system you run more of a factor in a TCY 2. I mean, realistically, if you were a superstar WR out of high school, would you wanna go to a school where they run the bone??

[Alf]

Maybe we should look for a transfer prospect at RB since we suck at recruiting there. We also were tempted to switch a FB to RB since we seem to have quite some success recruiting FBs.

[WSUCougar]

DT is always a problem for me as well. On the flip side, like Go-Buckeyes, DEs are rarely a problem for me. In fact, I often seem to have an embarassment of riches at DE.

Are your development problems in spite of high-level development ratings for your coordinators? Or is that part of the problem?

One interesting thing I have found is when starting a dynasty, it seems like there are a higher percentage of fully-developed players on the roster than I am ever able to attain myself. This even holds for positions that the current coordinators suck at developing. Weird.

[3ric]

But if the type of offense has an effect on certain positions you are trying to recruit, then why does the Indiana VC team stuggle with RB's when we run the pro-formation? I thought that was a run-friendly system, as opposed to pass-oriented.

And, what kind of defensive system would scare off a potential DT recruit? Maybe the 3-4 since there's only one DT spot, but...

Any ideas on this?

[Easy Mac]

I've noticed the inverse seems true.

I tend to get better players at positions I don't use. Like in a run and shoot, I'll get good RB's and FB's instead of QB's and WR's.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by Alf
Maybe we should look for a transfer prospect at RB since we suck at recruiting there. We also were tempted to switch a FB to RB since we seem to have quite some success recruiting FBs.

I've managed to snag a number of good, but undersized FBs with better running skills than blocking skills, and they can make a pretty good conversion to RB.