The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

The draft is underway!

Click here to go to your war room, or visit the war room item in the draft menu.

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Re: Underweight DEs

By setherick
10/14/2016 7:27 am
How again does being underweight supposedly affect a player's abilities? The sack leaders in 75 are two defensive ends that weight 224 pounds and 210 pounds respectively.

1) https://private75.myfootballnow.com/player/1925 (team is 14th in run defense)
2) https://private75.myfootballnow.com/player/1387 (team is 8th in run defense)

As the run defense numbers show, these teams are suffering no penalties in either run or pass defense from having players on the edge who should be getting pancaked every play.

One way that we could stop this would be to not have technique attributes directly transferable between positions. A DB has different techniques when rushing the passer than a DE. A TE has different blocking techniques than an offensive lineman, and running backs and fullbacks have completely different techniques from either a TE or offensive lineman.

Last edited at 10/14/2016 7:32 am

Re: Underweight DEs

By Bryson10
10/14/2016 10:28 am
This is a huge problem in my opinion. Also there are 250 lb tackles that are playing online and doing well. I think position moves are cool if it's a long term project but there should be huge penalties in the short term. No way should a tight end be playing running back or receiver and doing well from the get go. This aspect of the game is a huge turnoff to me

Re: Underweight DEs

By raymattison21
10/14/2016 10:28 am
Height has no factor here. Tall guys have longer arms allowing for more effective pass rush moves.

The big hands help grab and the long arms provide leverage in any technique that uses upper body to gain an advantage.

Tall guys dont get pushed around right either. Short guys have a center of gravity that gives them a push advantage , but should hurt technique compared to guys with long arms. (A 5 '9 220lb RB should be slower and stronger than a 6'3 220lb RB. The small guy should break tackles better and the tall guy would have better use of ball carry rating)

Oline is the same way. No real life advantages to hieght. This problem is game wide. (Short WRs with high punish catching over taller DBs with equal skills. We abuse that too!) If one switched the others should too, because you could play small guys to block these small DEs right? This is when it stops being football and is gaming.

Example ......and i have the upmost respect for Ares, but...

Pro bowl DT for IRN in 75, Terry Lamb, at 247 lbs is a converted LB that complety destroyed a veteran B grade interior line that averages 300lbs . Ares had size in the right places and guessed my plays, but i was hoping to fair better against him (Lamb) particularly.

Still, i am OK with small DEs doing well. In multipule leagues i have tested a slue of players and routinely watch them get blow out in the run game. So, my references earlier to certian heights should effect play of players to ensure abuse is low.

Only, because I am running a Colts style D in 75 right now. I guessed wrong against Ares and he averaged probaly over ten yards a carry when he ran weak and my undersized DE.

And as a real life example look how well R.Mathis and D.Freeny did under this scheme. Note both were at least over 6 foot and I feel that is the point where a small DEs really should have a hard time matching up. Freeney was off the charts in terms of athletic ability and Mathis was close, but he(mathis) was drafted at 228 to play DE, and was a probowler at only ten pounds heavier.

The colts had big athletic guys in the middle. Lighting fast LBs and Safties. You did not know who was on blitz. They routinely would come out in two man fronts with Freeny and Mathis as blitzing LBs , but really it was a four man front with another blitzer to help cause confusion with speed to make up for there lack of size.

It was all on purpose, and if you apply that here you'll get a similar version of some of the defenses run in 75. Still, this is the " sideline sack" getting exposed by small fast guys plain and simple.

Make the QB throw it or have the QB turn it up. But i wish height effected pass blocking senerio. A 5'11 DB has to run around a 6'7 Tackle. Its like the cartoon of when the big guy just sticks his long arm out and the little guy is just flaling his little arms.

This is the reason linemen are taller and DBs shorter. Anything other the player better be an elite athlete with elite technique. Pro bowl Terry Lamb is not that. If he were 280 or more i would have felt better, but.......

Re: Underweight DEs

By setherick
10/14/2016 10:29 am
Bryson10 wrote:
This is a huge problem in my opinion. Also there are 250 lb tackles that are playing online and doing well. I think position moves are cool if it's a long term project but there should be huge penalties in the short term. No way should a tight end be playing running back or receiver and doing well from the get go. This aspect of the game is a huge turnoff to me


I've said this before, and I'll say this again, there is no penalty for a player being underweight. But I've noticed massive penalties for a player being even 10 pounds overweight. I mean I'll still use a 240 pound RB, but I know he's never going to run away from someone.

Re: Underweight DEs

By Bryson10
10/14/2016 10:39 am
There should be an equal penalty for overweight and underweight guys. It's not football when corners are playing end or linebackers playing DT. Is this something that will ever be addressed?

Re: Underweight DEs

By King of Bling
10/14/2016 11:33 am
Addressing the weight issue is something long overdue. If a player was say under/over weight by 8-10 naturally (ie: his primary position) so be it. However a switch should incur sizeable penalties (pun intended) until the guy matures into his new position.

Last edited at 10/14/2016 11:33 am

Re: Underweight DEs

By Bryson10
10/14/2016 11:38 am
King of Bling wrote:
Addressing the weight issue is something long overdue. If a player was say under/over weight by 8-10 naturally (ie: his primary position) so be it. However a switch should incur sizeable penalties (pun intended) until the guy matures into his new position.


+1000

Re: Underweight DEs

By Ares
10/14/2016 1:03 pm
I completely agree with ray on my team's level of production being stupid, and it's not just Lamb. My other DT is an LB convert as well, and he's going equally gangbusters. On the other side, over half my o-line are TE and FB converts. With having both my lines being mostly ignored until way late in the draft and grossly underweight as they develop, I was expecting them to be absolute rubbish, at the very least in run blocking/defense. But to the contrary, they've proven to be my team's greatest strengths.

I disagree with the artificial suggestions of nerfing players during 'transition' time or position swapping. Something I enjoy a lot is tinkering and finding these 'hidden' players. But more importantly, any kind of artificial solution will simply allow the game to continue on ignoring its latent issues. As discussed in my own thread 'State of the Game' I think the culprit for this is two-fold.

1) D-line beat o-line regardless of individual attributes far too often. Lellow posted about one of his DTs dominating in L75 who has absolutely no business even being a starter skill-wise (16 speed, 15 strength, 60 pass rush... 7 sacks in 9 games). This guy should realistically never sniff the ball ever. The reason that undersized guys like the two posted by Seth are wrecking face is simply because weight has a huge impact on speed, and given that the d-line will break their blocks on a regular basis regardless of matchup, that speed is allowing them to gobble up sacks, especially on the infamous sideline scoot.

2) Weight impacts speed, but does not seem to impact strength. OR, strength simply does not matter much. Either way, the result is that as far as I've experienced, it's always better to be light than heavy.

A tertiary issue is that DTs and OL hadn't been gen'd with any speed. When I came back to the game with the new patch was released, I picked up a team in L21 with an amazing natural o-line that got immediately torn apart like tissue paper by even the most rubbish of pass rushers. The lesson I took from this was that speed matters. As such, I didn't see any point in wasting my early draft picks on low speed natural DTs and OL. As I mentioned before, I had expected that this would at least impact my ability to run (and stop the run), especially since in addition to being undersized, they all mostly **** too, but it hasn't at all.

Edit: Also, if this is ever 'fixed' I'd love to see a greater weight change happen in Training Camp, as well as the addition of a limit on player's total weight shift based off their 'frame', suggested in greater detail in another thread.

Anyhow, that's my $0.02 for what it's worth.
Last edited at 10/14/2016 1:07 pm

Re: Underweight DEs

By eyeballll
10/15/2016 12:43 pm
setherick wrote:

One way that we could stop this would be to not have technique attributes directly transferable between positions. A DB has different techniques when rushing the passer than a DE. A TE has different blocking techniques than an offensive lineman, and running backs and fullbacks have completely different techniques from either a TE or offensive lineman.



I absolutely agree with this, you hit the nail on the head. Players 'specialize' in their skills, right from before high school. We shouldn't be able to have players change positions and succeed right away. But, not being a coder, I don't know how difficult it would be to add 'technique attributes', it might be next to impossible with the code. I have 2 possible solutions:

1) Use experience to more a realistic drastic level. I think it's too easy for a player to acquire experience. It should take years to be 100% experienced in his own position, let alone another position. And if he's not experienced, he should be completely ineffective at that position. I guess my idea is to make experience more important. Maybe we shouldn't be able to permanently change a position, I don't know. Guys are taking advantage of it.

2) Take away the ability to change positions. I mean totally, like you can't put a CB on the line, ever. I know nobody wants this, and I'm sure JDB doesn't want to resort to this, but too many guys are taking advantage of it. Not just with changing positions for gameplay, but for contract advantage as well. I know it's drastic, but it might be for the best. JDB has given us the freedom to manage, but it's getting farther from realistic football.

Sometimes we have to step back and think about the game as a whole, not just what's best for our personal teams. We're trying to simulate football, and anything that takes away from that should be taken out.

One last note, my comments here are not directed at your post, Ares. I've had these thoughts for a while. I do feel that some guys cross the line into almost 'cheating' with things they do, but you are not one of them. I feel that you are a stand up guy!

Re: Underweight DEs

By setherick
10/15/2016 1:32 pm
I got curious so I looked at Ares OL in 75, and this is what I found out.

Starting Position - Physical Weight
LT - 258#
LG - 252#
C - 285#
RG - 266#
RT - 313#

Now here's where things get utterly absurd in the code. The OL has given up only 21 sacks (1.4 per game). And the running game definitely has not been affected since it averages 268.9 running yards a game with two RBs over 800 yards.

I spent 5 of the first 6 picks in the allocation draft in 75 to build the best on paper OL in the league. I guess I should have just drafted a bunch of back up TEs and FBs because I would have done just as well.

Now, and I say this in all seriousness, this is a major problem with the game. A similar thing happened to the online game Deep Route (which admittedly had a number of other problems), but as soon as people realized that the OL didn't matter people left in droves.