Not sure this is true. But let me qualify things by admitting that I can only reference '11 as I don't have a way (yet) in my apt. to connect online (not shelling out $60 for a game that needs patches that I can't supply).
I rarely have less than one RS CB on the roster so my depth at the position is fine. Along with this, I can say that the only players on my roster that might be able to
compete with even my #5 CB is a FS.
Again, another qualifier, the only time I see one of my WRs playing at CB (have also seen my #2 or 3 QB slip in at FS) is after Mass Subbing with 2nd team.
What is clearly happening is fatigue, so the CPU searches for the
next guy but only uses speed or, most likely, OVR. What I've never understood is why the CPU doesn't look for the characteristics necessary for the position in finding a replacement. I'm an old Jimmy Johnson-style man downsizing SSs (even FSs since Wt doesn't matter) to LBs, and so on, all the time so half my mid-80s-speed LBs, even in the middle, have better
CB coverage skills than the player the CPU picks.
Of course, a response back at me would be to quit bitchin' since at the point of Mass Sub I'm clearly ahead enough so that the long TD pass that will inevitably be surrendered by the WR-turned-CB --
it's actually funny sometimes to watch the replay and how he stumbles or falls to the turf when he's faked out by the WR release move -- won't matter. And that is correct.
I'm not complaining and I hope it's not coming across that way. I just think there's a better way for EA to figure out how this situation can be solved.
[STILL think upping roster limits to 75 would solve many issues, not just this one]