Set it up by **** Vermeil's sheet, but down 4 points is definitely not a "decision." Not sure why he thought so.
http://www.theredzone.org/Features/TwoPointConversionChart

I'm more worried about the speed aspect. Gotta keep the fast, light guys off the line.

Ok, I was just curious. I disagree with that chart though, and I believe it's outdated due to current analytics. I believe trying to cut it to a one score game down 10 is proper and I'm seeing some teams go for 2 when down 8, Eagles come to mind.

That chart was also made back when the XP kick was much closer. It made me look at game film here, and MFN extra points are kicked from the 22, making it a 32 yard XP. That's 5 yards closer than RL right?

Yes, I was also following Vermeil's chart when I went for 1 point instead of 2 after cutting the deficit to 10.

I found more updated analytics (I think raidergreg originally posted this a while back), but they still say to go for 2 points after cutting the deficit to 4, which makes no sense to me. Why not cut it to 3 and give your team a chance to tie with a field goal?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/

Personally irl I'd go for 2 almost every time. If kickers hit 93% of XP, that's 93 out of 100, meaning you only need to go 47% on 2 point tries to come out ahead

GG Tampa... offense sputtered until the very end, yet saved us right when we needed it. And the defense that didn't show up in Week 1 came up huge this week. Let's see where we go from here...

That kinda goes hand in hand, though. Lighter guys will be faster. They'll gain speed as they drop weight. He has a few that'll get there, that aren't there, yet.

Personally, I don't like the idea of LB's playing DE at all. I'd rather every player have to play his specific position, but that's not a discussion I want to get into. I'm tired of all the "reasons" people do what they do. Just wanna play ball & point out limits being stretched & GM's getting burned in trades.

I joined to play a roster management sim and I'm 100% in on players playing their assigned position.....In fact, I'm thinking of creating a league around that concept.

RB plays RB only
LB plays LB only
DT plays DT only

Etc...etc...

My only concern is can I find 32 ethically strong owners who I won't have to constantly monitor

https://usflwfl.myfootballnow.com/community/2/6667?page=1#40936

Is this really a matter of ethics? Are coaches who change a player's position being unethical?

I see this as two opposing viewpoints, neither morally superior to the other.
1. This is a football game, and the most effective football strategist should win.
2. This is an online sim game, and the most effective programmer of his team should win.

Is embracing one of these approaches really demonstrating an ethical/moral lapse? IMHO, it's just indicative of a differing perspective.

If there really is no middle ground, we might see more leagues like Cjfred is proposing—Group 1 leagues, if you will. I am somewhere in the middle, so I will be interested to see where this goes.

Poor choice of words. Its not the process of playing players out of position which is unethical.

I meant finding a group of owners who will embrace the concept and not need to be micromanaged into compliance.

I already run 6 leagues

5 which I add extra content like power rankings and playoff breakdowns (Champions,Monsters,World,Quick, XFL)

1 which I add a Hall of Fame, Stats thread, 1st round draft review and a 1st round draft history for every team covering 14 seasons. (XFL)

1 which I track owners stats and owners Championships won for every league they have played in to include overall record, division titles, playoff records etc. (CHAMPIONS)

1 league (No Holds Barred) has ZERO RULES, punt blocks, CBs playing defensive line, etc and I add no extra content

So, needless to say, I'm not looking to add much more on my plate. I want owners that want to fully embrace the concept and not try to find the cracks. They draft a LDE at 276 pounds and play him there...etc

The concept is every team uses players at each position at the proper weight and don't use position switches to increase speed to gain an advantage. RBs who are 217 lbs not WR at 190 playing RB. 300 pound DTs etc etc.

If everyone buys into the concept, the playing field evens out and gameplanning means more.

Right now, everyone has a different personal preference for players, position switching as it relates to speed. I know I can instantly improve all my teams by making my RBs, FBs and TEs into WRs....they all gain speed and suffer very little risk or decline due to the subsequent weight lose yet I chose not to do that across the board...its my own personal choice based on my own moral compass.

I also don't play CBs at LB....I actually use LBs...I dont use DEs at DT...I use DTs. I could easily switch all my linebackers to CB and improve my team...switch my DTs to DEs and improve their speed which helps the team.

Too much we have altered how we build our teams and what positions we switch players to because the sim shows an advantage to speed and shows no disadvantage to being too thin.

I've shown in No Holds Barred that I can use all those advantages by making my team have all WRs at offensive skill positions and my entire defense is made of CBs. I won the 1st title in that league and through 8 games in its 2nd season have allowed 10 points total. I also have over 100 sacks and 10 punt blocks. I've proved I'm capable of doing it to the highest level but I chose not to in all my other leagues because its as far away from reality and fun that I want out of this game.

I feel there has to be a line we can't cross because playing against my team in that league isn't fun and almost impossible to beat. Smirt plays my team there the next sim and he will attempt to break my defense. He is going in fully knowing I am not changing anything on defense. If Smirt can't succeed then I could easily win any league with the same concept until others copied it and then the nightmare really begins as negative passing numbers lead the league.

Sorry for the long rant but I wanted to clear that up.