FanGM

Maybe someone brought this up already but would this change how they are given LTCs at all? Would they cost more because of getting the WR draw as well?

tino38 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 11:23 am Maybe someone brought this up already but would this change how they are given LTCs at all? Would they cost more because of getting the WR draw as well?

Not currently how LTCs are programmed. It looks at the first position listed I believe to base the positional average on. So the way it is now, if a player was a |LB|S| they'd get prices based upon linebackers of similar grade.

Heffay72 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 11:03 am RB's should definitely not have their full ratings used as receiving rates. They are not rated that high for their receiving talents. Basically I agree with what Larry said. Using a percentage of their rates might be the solution?
And I'm not sure if setting a catch or target limit is the best solution to determine dual positions, given injuries can impact that. The best receiving back in the league, CMC, isn't a dual position...

I asked last off-season about CMC getting the designation because he is obviously used as a receiving threat in Carolina. And I would disagree, these guys ratings do take into account their receiving talents.

Again, their stats are already used. Why wouldn’t their ratings if TE are? Wanna stop teams from scoring? Get a better secondary.

jerrydlux wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 12:50 pm

Heffay72 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 11:03 am RB's should definitely not have their full ratings used as receiving rates. They are not rated that high for their receiving talents. Basically I agree with what Larry said. Using a percentage of their rates might be the solution?
And I'm not sure if setting a catch or target limit is the best solution to determine dual positions, given injuries can impact that. The best receiving back in the league, CMC, isn't a dual position...

I asked last off-season about CMC getting the designation because he is obviously used as a receiving threat in Carolina. And I would disagree, these guys ratings do take into account their receiving talents.

What I meant is, if you drop every one of their madden ratings that revolve with catching to say a 60. CMC's overall rating does not change. Then I tried dropping all receiving related categories to 40, still no change on overall. While I agree some of their ratings should be used, not all imo

I feel like for a player like deebo he should be counted for both but. BUT, their should be a factor of their skill in that second position. Possibly we could use madden ratings on recieving, or rush depending on the player.
I understand that might be too much so maybe a simple grading system can rate players as a 90-75 based on how good they really are

What about just having a offensive/hands/specialists category versus individual rankings? I know it sounds odd to think about, but it kind of solves the problem some guys are having with multi position roles. It may just be a trend like the "wildcat" offense was, so maybe it's all for not, but just trying to think outside the box as it will put more ease of ratings on here, plus will put more strategy on personnel:

QB: Category and ratings stay the same as a one off.

Offensive specialists: Requires a combo of 1 RB, and 4 receiving options (WR/TE), and 1 backup option of their next top rated player

Offensive line: Should require a C, 2G, and 2T, plus a 6th backup player for ratings from the OL any position.

F7 line: Should require 2DT, 2DE, and 3LB or require team select 3-4 set up with one less DT and add LB

Secondary: Same as offensive side but requires 2CB, and 3 Safeties of any combo

lucky7jc wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 10:24 am Offensive specialists: Requires a combo of 1 RB, and 4 receiving options (WR/TE), and 1 backup option of their next top rated player

I kind of love this.

I would suggest that only one be required from each (RB, WR, TE), but that it uses the top 5 overall grades plus number 6 as a backup, but that's really quibbling.

Simple, elegant change...still requires us to set up DC for WR/RB/TE...just changes the way the grade gets figured out.

So with this plan you could go with 1 Rb and 5 receivers. I am pretty sure Troy previously explained (might have been prior to most people being here) why the offensive line is the way it was. As for defense I wouldn't change a thing.

My concern is people want to tear a highly successful league down because a couple of GM's want highly rated RB's to play a 2nd position at the same time (?) and get a undeserving highly rated WR added to their depth chart. Who really thinks Joe Mixon is a 93 grade WR. I think the game works pretty dam well (understatement).

As for an adjustment to the passing game without Joe Mixon's 93 rating (or any other highly graded RB) being on the WR depth chart I would have no problem with that. I am sure Troy would have a good handle on that. The problem would be which RB's qualify for the adjustment for their team? Do you go on the previous years total catches ? What number is fair ? Top 10 HB's maybe. Do you start the season with this top 10 and after 4 weeks change to the top 10 and adjust every 4 weeks ? Once bye weeks starts every HB will not have played the same amount of games.

One thing to remember every time someone suggests a new idea there is 1 person responsible for the work. I believe the comparing PFF grades with Madden grades last year was a substantial undertaking.

Anyway, hello free agency.

Larry

Lucky’ s idea for combining the WR and RB is intriguing and would definitely have some basis in reality. Good coaches in the NFL figure out how best to utilize their offensive weapons, regardless of position. If a team has multiple outstanding running backs, that will benefit the qb by forcing the defense to load the box. If they have multiple outstanding Wes that will obviously help the qb but also help the running game by forcing the defense to play off the line.

This could potentially be a way to capture some of that concept better than we’ve done before. I’m not sure if it is something that should be implemented this year on short notice but I do think it warrants further evaluation.

As for not wanting to “tear down” the league because it works, I get that. It does work, but who’s to say it can’t work even better?