In terms of the FB situation and all the other rules for that matter, it is just a preseason experiment that won't be applied toward the regular season. As slowtospeak and McBolt say, there is no way to impose rules for the regular season this late into the season. The preseason might as well serve as a test to see if it is worth making changes during the 2005 offseason, with the sample size of the 2004 preseason, which isn't a lot, but is a start.
I think part of the idea of the FB position has been remembering the 2023 NFL season and noticing the utilization of players and varying positions. Like 6 OL sets, a random player lined up at the FB position, and ETC. Is it a perfect way to set things up, no. On hindsight, I probably should have put more thought into planning any sort of ideas, but at least there's next year, and we'll focus on growing the league this year.

Is the Deebo rule in place this season? I have a guy that I could flex and I wanted to know.

Yes, Deebo rule is still in place for this season.

Are we allowing WRs to flex to TE and FB this season? I've noticed this a few times with teams.

I do like putting a #2 TE at FB in pass protection, i do, i do.
Especially at the QB right side in the 3.1.1.
I don't often put a FB at the TE position for the obvious reasons in any formation.
... But I do like putting a TE at FB here and there.

Edit: I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure GMs can override at preference in 2006.

I will rewrite some rules and try to have it ready prior to draft night for the 2007 season. More than likely, the previous structures will be mostly overhauled, but stay tuned.

Free agency has been delayed one day so prepare your rosters accordingly.

Why not just use the rules provided?

Apart from subscription-based model, this also is having a negative impact on the game.

Not sure I understand, what rules are provided? The Ai controls roster size, sal cap, and playbook by coach selection. Thats about it, as far as what comes to mind. There are no controls on positioning, which is the primary issue that leagues have had to use rules to prevent rosters from being half of more WRs and CBs. Some dont care either way. Myself, I prefer more of a simulation and challenge as far as roster management. The other issue is extremely limited play use, especially on defense. Which is why there were leagues that had the full play selection and minimum use rules, they were more of an honor system than anything else, owners were contacted when they were out of compliance and it took additional time/effort to prepare. And like the position rules, there were those who preferred diversity or more of a RL simulation along with those who did not like having to put in additional time and effort above minimum. Hopefully, both of these issues are going to be resolved by JDB in the very near future, otherwise his goal of creating a simulation to the RL pro game is going in the other direction, becoming less of a simulation and more a repetitive roster and play selection/use game.

In the meantime, I would suggest that any rules be simple and clear and make as much sense as possible, just common sense. In that regard, the only rules we have would be positional, like not putting a WR at TE1 or 2. Or a CB at LB or DE. Its purely a speed exploit, player weight has no bearing other than on speed. When a CB gets a sack in RL football, its off a blitz, not from the DE position. When you look at a RL football roster, its not dominated by WRs and CBs. Its been an ongoing issue for over 5 years in this game, same as the issue of using less than four defenses for the entire game.

The FB/TE positions are the ones most closely related in RL Pro football. Here is what I found on google search. "While the fullback (FB) position is not completely gone from the NFL, it has become significantly less prevalent in modern offenses, with many teams opting to use a tight end or H-back in a similar role instead, meaning the traditional fullback is rarely seen on the field as frequently as in the past; essentially, the position has largely faded from the game."

I would say 90%+ of the offense plays now in the RL NFL use 1 RB or none, with 4 and 5 receiver formations, and a lot of motion (which helps the QB read the defense). My preference is to have 1 FB on the roster and at the FB1 position, TE or RB at the FB2, 3, and 4 spots.

I want to be able to play any player at any position. It's how Belichick won 6 superbowls. No one has offered any idea as to how to achieve both player positional versatility with out breaking plays. I've come to think this should be expected. I know there are issues, as we all do, but like every one else I have no idea how to actually fix the problem.
DO I want to do whatever the F I want to with my players?
Absolutely.
Are there a bunch of plays that do not and can not work in MFN?
Absolutely.
Do I know how to find the balance between making more plays viable and less plays break-able?
I do not.
Do I think the problem has more to do with plays that do not work and familiarity bugs?
I absolutely do.

I always swap TEs and FBs, depending on what I want a formation to accomplish.
I dislike putting wr's on the line. Though sometimes I do.
TE's and FBs are all the same in more ways than they are not.

There's enough plays that do not work in MFN to make me question the endeavor and the exercise of over -rides, but enough broken plays to make doing over-rides unreliable yet required and well, makes me break broken plays to compensate.

In no way should I hit week 12 with 19 offensive plays over 3 yards per attempt out of 65+ plays depending on the offensive playbook.
Same with 4 or less yards for def plays.

I think most human GMs end up in this behaviour - of minimizing plays to maximize yardage.

I went a bit off track, so I might as well go further off them as I take a moment to acknowledge my agreements with your quoted post.

I am all for users using players. That's the attraction of a game like this. The issue is the lack of plays that can be managed and the minimum of plays that are abused. IN between, everyone is using 20 plays or less O and D play calling, when there are 2-3X that many plays available.

People are going to use plays that work. I sure do. Plays should be able to be worked to a better efficiency through over rides. Users absolutely should be able to play whomever, wherever.
Currently, users use over rides to maximize broken plays and the remaining few plays available that actually work according to the engine code.

Not enough plays actually work. Break the ones that do. That is the gamer code.
Creators create, users break, creators create.
This is the way.

Also, totally not gonna not see that mandalorian movie. They can go eat eggs.

There are many that are still playing MFN after several years that would agree with you WH. And there are an equal number of players who prefer to play in a league with more simulated variety and roster realism. What you refer to as "broken plays" are such because they perform under average vs stronger plays. You play enough and you know by average which are the best plays to use, which cuts the play selection and use down to several on defense and less than 20 on offense. There was a football board game, APBA, where you had four offensive plays total, and was popular because it was more based on simulated NFL actual player stats and production. Defense was down to 2 calls, run or pass. So, the play call strategy was taken out of the "coaches" hands, as far as the type of play and formation. Im into play call strategy, so it was not my fav football game, and I played them all lol. My own concern for where the game is at and preferences for where it is going are based on it becoming more of a simulation of the RL game as opposed to not.

By the way, the play diversity "experiment" that I had in 3 leagues worked, we had over 90% compliance and plays that did not work in leagues without the diversity rule had their moments of success. When the change to subscription happened, I let the leagues go and went with a free sub to see where things were going to develop before continuing to stay in the game.