[adembroski]

The way I've conceptualized this is as follows; what you set your scheme as represents how you've oriented your coaching. Your team is built to teach a certain skill set and it works best with players who are already oriented toward that skillset.

A player not fitting a scheme does not make him a worse player. Is Julio Jones a worse player because he plays in the outside zone west coast scheme that favors smaller, quicker receivers? No, he's not, he's still an elite WR.

Players who aren't elite won't perform as well in schemes in which they don't fit primarily because they don't fit. You don't need to penalize them, that's redundant. As I said in another thread, if you're running power with McKinnon, you don't need to penalize him. He doesn't forget how to juke, he's just not going to be effective on iso as he is in outside zone.

Just like in real life, you can use guys who don't quite fit to fill holes, but you're going to want to develop guys who do long term.

Let me reiterate: Not being a "fit" in a given system does not make one a worse football player. Penalties are redundant. It just means you aren't the perfect player for that spot. That's organic.

What you're really asking for is playbook knowledge and learning, and some kind of simulation of the time it takes to acclimate to new verbiage. That's fine, I'd like something like that too. But it doesn't belong in the scheme system.

As for height and weight; that used to play in, back when we had sub-ratings (Intangible, Size, etc.), but the tuning for that was awful so it was ditched. It's going to be on the rating guy and the draft class makers to ensure people fit their style. Also, do you really have a problem with guys who are good at everything being high in all categories?