I don't want more limits put on position changes.

I want the players' performance to be determined more by their actual skills than it is now, and based on more than just speed.

For example, I don't know why anything would be more important for OL than run/pass blocking. Either they are good blockers or they aren't. Strength, acceleration/speed, discipline, etc, can all play a part in determining if they are good or not, but if they are 100/100 at run/pass blocking, they should be excellent!


I think the skill ratings should be universal, meaning that a 100 speed QB has the same top speed as a 100 speed DT, WR, LB, Kicker, regardless of height/weight (most 100 speed players should be WR/RB/DB). If player A is slower than player B, they shouldn't have the same speed rating.

Same goes for strength. If a QB has 100 strength, he is just as strong as a 100 Strength DT (but of course we wouldn't see any of these 100 strength QBs unless his name is Tebow).

This would take a lot of the guess work out. Player A and Player B both have 100 strength, but one is a DT and the other is a LB. Who is stronger? Oh, and Player A is 2 inches shorter than player B, does this matter? Oh, and Player A is 30 pounds heavier than player B, does this matter? And Player A has 30% body fat while player B is all muscle, does that matter?

There are so many unknown variables that go into comparing one player to another that it is practically impossible for us to do so.

One of my biggest issues with MFN is how much of it is just pure guessing, since we don't have a way to accurately evaluate players, or a way to even know what is really important in determining how a player performs, and of course even when we get close the majority still comes down to just a random dice roll.

I disagree on a couple points WarEagle and agrree on some other:

The evaluation guessing is outstanding, as some blue chippers bust in RL, just like here. I love the fact that there is some mystery involved and sometimes it is a pleasant surprise, not just a bust. Also, putting limits on position changes is badly needed. A CB on the Dline or Oline is just plain stupid. Weight should by all means be a factor in position switching. Over or under as the case may be.

I completely agree that technique on the lines doesn't seem to factor into performance anywhere near as much as it should. An outstanding technique blocker should get more credit. Raw strength is good too but technique should be a major consideration. Secondary technique is a notable exception as it seems to truly matter, which it should. Also, poor tacklers don't seem to be as penalized as much as they should, nor should weak receiver or RB's break so many tackles from quality tacklers.

As much as I think a corner shouldn't allowed to be changed to a DE, I think the big issue is that a corner should get destroyed if anyone ever tried to do it. If realism is involved no one would want to switch a player like that or they'd get punished

My comment may not have been very clear, as I agree with what you are saying for the most part.

When I said that I didn't want any more restrictions on position changes, it is because I feel like a CB shouldn't perform well as a DT. What I'm trying to say is that there should be more involved with being a good DL than speed, and a CB should not have strength equal to that of the strongest players in the league (therefore they should NOT have a skill rating of 100 for strength).

By universal skill rating I mean that they shouldn't be relative. 100 speed should mean fastest in the league, not fastest at X position. Maybe the draft pool would have all players shown without an assigned position. You evaluate their skills and decide which position would be best for them. At least then you are comparing apples to apples in terms of skill ratings.


My comment about evaluating players wasn't regarding the draft. Again, I probably didn't use the right words here. What I mean is that if I have 3 players on my team that I am trying to decide which one to start at LG (for example), currently I have no idea if I should start the guy who is rated 100/100 at run/pass blocking, or the guy with 100 speed/accel, or the guy with 100 strength. Currently it seems like the best way to go is the guy with 100 speed/accel, regardless of the other ratings, which to me is ridiculous.

That said, I would like to be able to do a better job evaluating draft prospects. Yes, there are busts and booms IRL, and it comes down to basically a guess about which a player will turn out to be for a lot of picks, but at least those are educated guesses. Our "guesses" are based on nothing.

I would rather be able to evaluate a prospect, make an educated guess and then be wrong, rather than just having to make a blind guess for every pick. It's not "some mystery" as you put it, it's ALL mystery.

I can get behind what WarEagle is saying, but even in the NFL, it's hard to evaluate things like who is the strongest.

For example, take combine numbers in the bench press. You have a 5'9" RB that benches 225 x 25 times. You have a 6'7" DE that benches 225 x 18 times. Who is stronger? The RB got more reps, but the DE has farther arm travel between reps.

I'm saying it would be nice if in MFN when player A has a higher strength rating than player B, it means player A is stronger than player B. When player A has a higher speed rating than player B, it means player A is faster than player B. Etc., etc.

To me, this would have 2 benefits.
1. We wouldn't have to guess about all the unknown variables that go into deciding how strong (or fast, etc.) a player actually is (height, weight, position, etc.).

2. It would make it less likely you could make an extremem swap of a player's position and have them do well, such as the CB to DL switch we've been discussing.

JDB -- Are you going to respond to this thread?

I think the discussion here highlights a major flaw with this game, especially with the passing game.

1) ST doesn't appear to work as explained in the Attributes page because physical weight does not appear to be applied.

2) Since ST doesn't appear to work as expected, pass and run blocking techniques are probably not working as expected either since both are dependent on ST.

3) As you have discussed yourself, SP is used as a tie breaker for OL vs DE play when pass block and pass rush equal out. But since pass block does not appear to be working as expected because of 1 and 2, then SP appears to be the only factor that matters at least in OT vs DE situations.

4) As we have complained about loudly on the boards for months, OL have not been being generated with SP until recently. The excuse given that OL should be able to compensate because of blocking attributes. But because of 1 and 2, blocking attributes don't really seem to matter. Even in cases where the attribute is really low, because of 1, 2, and 3 it's difficult to know whether an OL bad blocking stats are caused by blocking attributes or a lack of SP and ST.

The combination of 1-4 has definitely created a situation where QBs are often under pressure. In fact, you should run an automatic script to determine the percentage of pass plays where a QB comes under pressure. I would assume that this number it >60% and probably >75%. Since being under pressure affects a QB's accuracy, QB's often have a negative modifier applied to their accuracy on top of all the other negative modifiers that are applied for distance the ball has to travel and fatigue. All this means that bad OL play is directly contributing to bad QB play, but the solution to it appears to be convert a bunch of TEs and FBs to play OL, which the majority of posters on this thread have found ridiculous.

This has led to at least two important questions.

1) Does OL blocking actually work? In that is physical weight actually applied to ST and blocking attributes correctly?

2) What is being done to address the exploit of switching players into positions where physical weight should matter, but doesn't? For instance, DBs to DEs.

After considering the thread again, I think the best test for OL would be to run a conversion and set the SP for all OL to 100. Even if you just did this in an automatic test league, I think it would give you better data to see how OL blocking is actually affecting the game because it would nullify all the advantages DL have over OL right now.

You're probably right about this currently, however I think it would make more sense for the strength to contribute to how well a player can block (the rating), not be used in conjunction with the block rating to determine how well they can block (that seems redundant).

EX:
If a player has 50 run/pass blocking, that may be due in large part to the fact they don't have much strength at all.
However, if a player has 100 run/pass blocking, they should be an excellent and effective blocker regardless of how much strength they have, but they would probably have a good bit in order to be at 100.

I don't think it makes sense to have players who are rated highly as blockers who can't actually block. If the run/pass blocking attributes don't actually mean "blocking", but instead mean "blocking techniques", then the labels should be changed so they are more reflective of what they are.

I remember my first custom weights had run and/or pass blocking set to 100, and most everything else set to 0. I don't care about the rest as long as they are good blockers. Boy was I wrong. Turns out I had a bunch of guys rated highly as "blockers" that couldn't block.

- Acceleration to engage the block.
- Run/Pass Blocking to help minimize DT/DE "moves" (swim/swat block, etc)
- Strength to hold the block (for "X" amount of seconds).
- Intelligence to block a blitzer vs. engaging in a double team.
- Discipline to avoid penalties.
- Speed only for pulling blockers, screens, etc

My 2 cents ..

That makes sense if the Run/Pass Blocking attribute pertains to the technique skills, and then we just guess at how good they actually are at blocking.

If not, I would think that all of the above should be taken into consideration when determining the Run/Pass Blocking rating, and those skill ratings would basically be like an "overall" for each type of blocking.