I, for one, have no problem with someone using a WR as a RB. That scenario seems to be more like the real NFL than a WR playing TE because the great weight difference between your average WR and TE. I do use WR's at RB but always as a 2nd or 3rd option. When your RB's have no speed, a speedy WR, even one with a low break tackle score, makes a great difference on how you gameplan as the WR normally has better pass catch rating than a RB. The matrix allows it, so I use it. I'm not taking advantage of anyone, just using what is allowable in the game format. Next season, just take the RB option out of the WR matrix, as so many leagues do, especially the RO leagues (ugh). Knowing that rule upfront, the owner won't have the option to draft a WR, with thoughts of him filling an RB role, ahead of time and will draft accordingly. The same argument can be made for a QB being put in an RB slot. There are many QB's, with great Break Tackle ratings, and speed, that I would love to use as RB's but, in most leagues, you can't. Also, if you want to take the WR to RB and make it null, then maybe you should also take the TE to RB out of the matrix also. NFL tight ends are usually taller, much heavier, not as agile, as real-life NFL RB's. FB's, on the other hand, are basically RB's that have better strength and can block better. No problems with FB's playing RB's, right? TE's can play, in the matrix, TE-FB-RB-WR, and is gold if you can find one with the speed and hands of a WR, can block like a FB, break tackles like a RB. If you want to make this an ultra-easy to follow matrix, league, and make it more difficult to gameplan, then I think you should only allow the player you draft to only be allowed to play that one position. MLB only plays MLB and can't play an OLB position. CB's only play as CB's and are not able to play in a SS/FS position, etc. You talk about a depth chart nightmare if some of your players get hurt and you don't have that exact positional player to fill in. Yikes!!! It would make the game a lot more interesting and challenging. Or, designate one player on Offense and one player on Defense, as your "utility player" and only he can play all the positions on Offense or Defense (think utility IF/OF in baseball). But, that player can only play if a player is hurt, or can't play for whatever reason. Now that would be fun too. Think about that scenario, take 2 aspirins, take a nap, and call me when your head stops spinning from all the great ideas you now have running in your brain as there is always a player that's hurt.

I, for one, have no problem with someone using a WR as a RB. That scenario seems to be more like the real NFL than a WR playing TE because the great weight difference between your average WR and TE.

The scenario is *slightly* more realistic.

NFL, WRs tend to run reverses, jet sweeps - neither of which are in the game. No NFL team regularly lines a WR up in the backfield.


Agreed, got my own thoughts on break tackle, but if your RBs have no speed, that's on you.

The only time I'd be for WRs at RB is in formations that have pass plays only.

re: Matrix

My thoughts on the matrix are well known, so may as well bore people by repeating.

The matrix is currently serving two purposes, both with nuances.

1. Allow player in depth chart / overrides position
2. Allow player to change position.

I've argued that needs to be decoupled, because it's serving two masters.

Depth chart / overrides

The problem here is reciprocality - set TE at RB, then RB at TE is also allowed. Why is that a problem?

Acceleration, Speed, Weight. Simple physics - TE, RB have same acc, speed but TE heavier - the RB would always hit top speed ahead of the TE, momentum. THAT is the reason I'm against lighter players playing in positions designated for heavier players. We know speed is the dominant attributes, playing a WR at RB on rushing plays gives a big advantage to the offence. Ditto CB at DE - against heavier O linemen, have massive advantage speed rushing past them.

Converting position

Players can gain/lose roughly 50lbs or so at tops. Now, you've a 95 speed CB, 196lbs. You convert him to DE, he'll be around an 88 speed DE (as 1 speed is about 7lbs), but weight around 246 lbs. You're talking underweight by around 30 lbs, so around 4 speed points.

I've suggested this is an area needing fixing. One thing should be released pretty soon - namely draft lass pool size is being doubled. Tested in MFN-TEST, works pretty well, makes lower round drafting more viable rather than hit and hope on booms.

My other suggestion was make placement in depth chart / overrides weight dependent. If more than 2-3% under target position weight, then can't be placed.

But to clarify the above...

I've said that should all be configurable. JDB wants a realistic game, I think that's the core audience.

If people want an anything goes style, then admins need to have the tooling to allow that.

...there was more than 1 WR being used at rb. more than 1 wr had at least 1-3 rushes.
WR K Williams 9/28
WR R SParks 1/-2


ANyway.
MVR - please apply the DEEBO rule to your team ;)

I have been, I really do not know why he is being used. I do not have any overrides or placement in him as an RB. Yet he's still playing RB. I've removed him since the preseason.

100 percent, martin.
good idea bad idea would be letting admins set the player matrix by league.

.6 seconds later thought: Bad idea!
LMAO.

Anyway. BECAUSE there's a DEEBO rule, ima gonna use it now that I know of it.
I strongly encourage those players who have more than 1 WR getting carries to either fix their overs or get another RB in the depth chart to prevent extra wr's from getting injury carries.
I'd go further to suggest - it's probably a good idea to ONLY HAVE 1 WR listed under RB in the depth chart to prevent the latter circumstance.

I'm doing my best to be delicate, admin/gm of MIA.
"Nudge nudge know what i mean wink wink say no more." - Eric Idle and John CLease.

I carry a minimum of 5 rb/fbs to have the depth to work with the way the engine subs players. I use 65 position RB sub rating in misc tab.
what i'm saying is i work a bit at it, and as you've pointed out we prolly shouldn't have to. I understand and appreciate your efforts to minimize the issue.

It always feels weird to have 5-6 backs, but i always - ALWAYS regret not havin 4 rb's. Be it injuries, engines, or overs, I strive to have 4 rbs and 2 fbs (and/or an extra te to put at fb2).

GOod luck moving forward, MVR!

This topic went way off topic.
Lots of great info and discussion and I appreciate that.

HOWEVER, - no one directly answered IF we can now use WR's at RB in Paydirt.

We could not before.

YES OR NO 2015 SEASON:
WR AT RB?
RB AT WR?
TE @ RB?
TE @ FB?
RB @ TE?
FB @ TE?
TE @ OL?

Thanks in advance!

I'll put a poll up for next season to approve for rules. I do miss being able to put a 6th OL as a TE in run game situations. I feel like that option should be brought back seeing that 6 OL formations are becoming more common in the NFL. Either that or allow MFN should allow us to use a weight scale that adds bonus stats for a player. Like if I want a 280 pound TE, he loses stats for catching, acceleration, but gains in strength run/pass blocking. Or if I want a small frame RB like 190 pounds, I lose strength, breaking tackle, blocking, and receiving stats but gain in speed and ball carrying skills. If that makes sense.