Differences in Position Philosophies

[Mike3207]

I know potential can change depending on your positional philosophies. Can some of the other stats change as well? Has anyone ever done a study of the positional philosophies and their effects on players ratings?For example, I know McFadden had a potential of 97 when I had the Workhorse RB philosophy. I changed it to balanced and his potential became 96. Has anyone ever done a study of the differences in potential and/or other ratings. You could use the best players in the 2008 Draft as a base, and see what the differences were.

[Burntoatmeal]

I've never seen anything like that on this board. It would be very hard to do because of the number of things that can effect the overall rating. Your philosophy, coaches, the special upgrades... that's a lot of variables.

Another thing to keep in mind, when you change philosophies, I've noticed the overall ratings will bounce around after the change. Similar to when you bring on a rookie during the preseason, that overall number can shift dramatically over the next X# of days or weeks. I'm not sure that the exact timeline is until the overall rating settles down and becomes consistant but it does swing after a philosophy change.

[coachchris]

This is very difficult because there are so many dimensions that can go into the players overall and potential. I always think of the workhorse rb to be the bigger pounding backs that like to run inside plays. Mcfadden has high potential numbers across the board but he is very fast and shifty so I consider more of a speed or moves rb.

Some of the most drastic changes I have seen in potential and overall are OL and WR. You will notice that if you set your OL to Size mauler there are many highly rated OL with high potential but I feel this is misleading because it seems the only qualification is size and strength which doesnt always lead to him being a good o-line man.

An example of this is running the outside zone stretch play against a 4-3 defense. Often the OT need to go to the second level and block the quicker LB. I have run this with Max Starks who is a huge strong run blocking tackle but he is not very agile or quick and he has a very tough time getting to this block which usually means that olb is there to kill your running back. I have run the same play with D. Ferguson who is is just a great all around tackle with great footwork, acceleration and agility and he does a great job getting on that block making the outside zone a usable play.

Also if change your wr to speed there are plenty of fast receivers who will have hign potential and ratings but does that mean they are good receivers? Not many of them.

Bottom line is I always try to make the players fit my philosohy rather then change the philosophy just to make their rating higher. None of the player attributes change when you raise their potential by philosophy changes so all you are really doing is making your team look good but the players are overated and I assume want more money since they are more highly rated.

I generally go with balanced philosophy's because I think that gives a true feel on what the players abilities are.

[Sanchez_Mareno]

Quote: Originally Posted by coachchris

This is very difficult because there are so many dimensions that can go into the players overall and potential. I always think of the workhorse rb to be the bigger pounding backs that like to run inside plays. Mcfadden has high potential numbers across the board but he is very fast and shifty so I consider more of a speed or moves rb. Some of the most drastic changes I have seen in potential and overall are OL and WR. You will notice that if you set your OL to Size mauler there are many highly rated OL with high potential but I feel this is misleading because it seems the only qualification is size and strength which doesnt always lead to him being a good o-line man. An example of this is running the outside zone stretch play against a 4-3 defense. Often the OT need to go to the second level and block the quicker LB. I have run this with Max Starks who is a huge strong run blocking tackle but he is not very agile or quick and he has a very tough time getting to this block which usually means that olb is there to kill your running back. I have run the same play with D. Ferguson who is is just a great all around tackle with great footwork, acceleration and agility and he does a great job getting on that block making the outside zone a usable play. Also if change your wr to speed there are plenty of fast receivers who will have hign potential and ratings but does that mean they are good receivers? Not many of them. Bottom line is I always try to make the players fit my philosohy rather then change the philosophy just to make their rating higher. None of the player attributes change when you raise their potential by philosophy changes so all you are really doing is making your team look good but the players are overated and I assume want more money since they are more highly rated. I generally go with balanced philosophy's because I think that gives a true feel on what the players abilities are.

Very true.

[cloudedskate]

I had Kendrick House with my Texans coach. With the workhorse philosophy, he had an overall of 85 with a POT of 89. I changed the philosophy to Speed and he changed to an overall of 90 and a POT of 94.

[Guggy107]

Quote: Originally Posted by coachchris

This is very difficult because there are so many dimensions that can go into the players overall and potential. I always think of the workhorse rb to be the bigger pounding backs that like to run inside plays. Mcfadden has high potential numbers across the board but he is very fast and shifty so I consider more of a speed or moves rb. Some of the most drastic changes I have seen in potential and overall are OL and WR. You will notice that if you set your OL to Size mauler there are many highly rated OL with high potential but I feel this is misleading because it seems the only qualification is size and strength which doesnt always lead to him being a good o-line man. An example of this is running the outside zone stretch play against a 4-3 defense. Often the OT need to go to the second level and block the quicker LB. I have run this with Max Starks who is a huge strong run blocking tackle but he is not very agile or quick and he has a very tough time getting to this block which usually means that olb is there to kill your running back. I have run the same play with D. Ferguson who is is just a great all around tackle with great footwork, acceleration and agility and he does a great job getting on that block making the outside zone a usable play. Also if change your wr to speed there are plenty of fast receivers who will have hign potential and ratings but does that mean they are good receivers? Not many of them. Bottom line is I always try to make the players fit my philosohy rather then change the philosophy just to make their rating higher. None of the player attributes change when you raise their potential by philosophy changes so all you are really doing is making your team look good but the players are overated and I assume want more money since they are more highly rated. I generally go with balanced philosophy's because I think that gives a true feel on what the players abilities are.

i completely agree here too. too many people put too much effort into messing with the philosophies just to get a players overall rating higher. the players actual attributes remain the same, so changing your philosophy to speed wr or something doesnt actually make your wideouts faster. it just weights thier speed and quickness attributes more than things like hands, which may be the exact opposite of what youre going for. not worth the higher overall rating, in my opinion.

[cutter73]

Well, I always figured that "workhorse" back put more emphasis on stamina ratings and so on. There's already a different philosophy for power backs. I think workhorse backs are just able to take more carries per game. You can lean on them a lot more heavily than other types. Like it's been said though, there is a lot more to take into consideration. Portis, for example, has a pretty good rating as a workhorse, but his age and other factors mean his fatigue and health levels are already lowered. Still, he can take more carries at 70 fatigue than some backs I've had with much higher fatigue levels. It just seems like "workhorse" means the back loses fatigue at a much lower rate.

[Nauticaman629]

with the bills i use position philosophies that best fit my playbooks
I use garrets passing attack and jags physical D

QB-Field General, RB-Power, FB-Blocking, WR-Speed, TE-Balanced, OL-Size/Strength, DE-Prototype, DT-Balanced, OLB-Prototype, MLB-Tackler, CB-Balanced, FS-Centerfielder, SS-Hard hitter/run support

Works Great, offence always has at least 4 pro bowlers and the d is always in the top 10 every year

Sometimes i use the tampa 2 D and make my philosophies more in tune with a cover 2, also a great Defense that is also in the top 10(alot of times 1st overall)