Gunners

[Firefly]

I was wondering if, by definition, the players with the best special teams bars make the best gunners. The AI doesn't seem to be as straightforward about it when recommending the players for the job. For example, I have a FB who is a star ST player -barwise- but the AI won't recommend him for the gunner position. Would that because he's a starter, or because LBs and DBs are simply better suited for it?

[Ben E Lou]

I don't think it's random. I suspect that it is because your FB is set to have special teams usage discouraged. The AI won't recommend those players for special teams play (even as return men). It's tough to tell, but I tend to suspect that the bigger the special teams red bar, the better he is as a gunner.

[Firefly]

If you mean discouraged as in the Spec teams button showing, nope. I suspect starters are discouraged from being gunners even if special teams are not discouraged for that player.

Aha! I just discovered something!

The AI will not recommend a player for the gunner position if in its estimation, that player should be starting, whether he actually does or not.

This is how I found out: first, I moved my FB to TE, where he wouldn't be the top rated player in the position (but he still retained a very high special teams ranking). Next I asked the AI to recommend gunners again: no change. He still wasn't in as the gunner. But then I had an idea. I went back to the offesnive backfield and asked the AI to recommend a FB. It still recommended the same guy for FB, even though he now was a TE (it should be noted that there were no FBs in the roster now). At that point I changed a RB to FB and tried the gunner recommendations again. And yes, finally the AI recommended the guy I wanted!

So the quirk is that you can have a backup starting, but if the AI thinks another player should be starting, it won't recommend this last player for gunner duties. Now the question is: is it because gunners have a higher chance of injury? But I don't we'll easily learn the answer to this one.

So, in conclusion, definitely, the better the special teams bars, the better the gunner.

[Sgran]

Jim has said that bars are position specific, so a CB with a ST rating of 50 is probably much better at gunner than a fullback at 100.

[Synovia]

Jim has said that bars are position specific, so a CB with a ST rating of 50 is probably much better at gunner than a fullback at 100.


hes never specifically said that the ST rating is position specific though, and I wouldn't be surprised if its not. I've got some pretty high rated CBs, yet I've got a TE as a gunner. Hes nasty.

[Firefly]

Jim has said that bars are position specific, so a CB with a ST rating of 50 is probably much better at gunner than a fullback at 100.

This is turning out to be a bit more mysterious than I thought. I started a new game and got a very good ST FB with low bars throughout, playing behind a stud FB. Well, the AI won't let him be gunner if it has to play a FL with 25 ST bars (every time a player was selected over my FB, I made him inactive).

So I moved him to TE. Just like the FB of my story, his ST bars remained almost the same. Now here's the funny thing: the AI chose another TE -not him- to be the top gunner, but wouldn't select this other TE as the second gunner no matter what. So, what is going on? One TE is fine but not 2?

To make things more confusing, I simulated a few weeks forward and then tried again (actually, I was trying to get the guy to agree to change positions again without restarting the game). And wouldn't you know it, he was recommended to be the gunner as a FB over the same guys... :confused:

That pissed me off, so I simulated another season, same idea. Same thing happened again... Didn't work the first week, but then it was ok. Maybe it's just a preseason week 1 glitch. In any case, it seems FBs are just as fit to the gunners as anyone else...

[QuikSand]

Maybe it's just a preseason week 1 glitch.

I don't think you can count on your staff recommendations for depth charts in preseason as a meaningful indication of much of anything.

[Firefly]

I don't think you can count on your staff recommendations for depth charts in preseason as a meaningful indication of much of anything.

You're right. I didn't think of that.

The important thing, however, is that position doesn't appear to be important as far as who the gunner is -just ratings and, as far as AI recommendations go, being perceived as a backup. The fact that many teams carry just 1 FB should be a major factor in determining why hardly ever do we see FBs as gunners.

[Leonidas]

On a similar note, I've always wondered how the other subratings work into kick/punt returning skills. Say you have a RB who is a 90+ rating in the KR/PR skills but has low speed to the outside and low elusiveness. Then you have another RB who is say a 40-50 PR and a 90+ at elusiveness and speed to the outside. Who is the better punt returner?

[CU Tiger]

PR/KR ratings seem to exist in a vacuum in my finddings.

I would rath have a 100PR who is a 5 overall with no other bars than and 98 with maxed out elsewhere.

[Leonidas]

PR/KR ratings seem to exist in a vacuum in my finddings.

I would rath have a 100PR who is a 5 overall with no other bars than and 98 with maxed out elsewhere.But I've seen guys with like an 80 return rating average 3-4 yards a punt return, then I've seen guys with a 30 average 10-11 a return and routinely get 1-2 TD returns a season and the only thing I can figure is some of the other subratings have an effect. I know, maybe it's the team they play with, but there should not be that much of a discrepancy, but I've seen something similar to this enough times to believe it's not an anomoly.

[Firefly]

Bars don't always reflect performance. But that happens at every position.