New Sticky Note

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

League Forums

Main - League News/General Discussion

Re: Getting Back To A "Football" Sim

By raidergreg69 - League Admin
11/26/2020 12:43 pm
setherick wrote:
Can I make one request to this rule? Can TEs play at the FB minimum weight of 243?

There is a big difference between the 243 FB weight and the 257 TE weight in terms of how TEs are covered by LBs. At 257, the LB has an obvious weight-speed advantage on the TE in 0.4.5, and as a result, it's really really hard to get a TE to catch above 60% of their targets.

At 243, the TE is the same weight as the MLB or SLB so the defender doesn't have the weight-speed advantage.

This will be less of a problem in the next version, hopefully, since speed should be more equal.


Yes of course. Any minimum weights will be set the same as CJ's GM League, which is 240 at the moment, but could change when that league enters year 2.


QB 2 (No # limit)
RB 3-4 (minimum 200#)
FB/TE 3-3 (minimum 240#)
WR 4-6 (No # limit)
OL 10-12 (C min 260#/G&T min 290#)
K/P 2 (No limit)
DL 8-9 (DE min 265 #/DT min 290#)
LB 8-9 (min 237 #)
DB 9-10 (No # limit)

Re: Getting Back To A "Football" Sim

By Cjfred68
11/26/2020 4:01 pm
raidergreg69 wrote:
setherick wrote:
Can I make one request to this rule? Can TEs play at the FB minimum weight of 243?

There is a big difference between the 243 FB weight and the 257 TE weight in terms of how TEs are covered by LBs. At 257, the LB has an obvious weight-speed advantage on the TE in 0.4.5, and as a result, it's really really hard to get a TE to catch above 60% of their targets.

At 243, the TE is the same weight as the MLB or SLB so the defender doesn't have the weight-speed advantage.

This will be less of a problem in the next version, hopefully, since speed should be more equal.


Yes of course. Any minimum weights will be set the same as CJ's GM League, which is 240 at the moment, but could change when that league enters year 2.


QB 2 (No # limit)
RB 3-4 (minimum 200#)
FB/TE 3-3 (minimum 240#)
WR 4-6 (No # limit)
OL 10-12 (C min 260#/G&T min 290#)
K/P 2 (No limit)
DL 8-9 (DE min 265 #/DT min 290#)
LB 8-9 (min 237 #)
DB 9-10 (No # limit)


I made one adjustment Guard and Tackles I lowered to 275 since so many were around that weight in the draft.

I coupled FB/TE as one position group for depth reasons but hoped owners wouldn't make this a loophole by making all there TEs a FB to lower weight.

Re: Getting Back To A "Football" Sim

By setherick
11/26/2020 4:06 pm
If you are going to run a TE offense, there is no point in playing a TE at 257# in 0.4.5.

In per-0.4.5, I used to flex my TEs all over the field because they weren't penalized for being that much heavier than DBs.

Right now, they are virtually worthless at 257#.

Re: Getting Back To A "Football" Sim

By raidergreg69 - League Admin
11/26/2020 4:10 pm
We have a full season to discuss this. I'm sure if we work together we can find some common ground that is acceptable.

Re: Getting Back To A "Football" Sim

By setherick
11/26/2020 4:10 pm
raidergreg69 wrote:
We have a full season to discuss this. I'm sure if we work together we can find some common ground that is acceptable.


I'm hoping it's the last season of 0.4.5...period.

Re: Getting Back To A "Football" Sim

By setherick
12/22/2020 8:07 pm
Brought this up in a similar discussion in Paydirt, so I'm xposting it here.

We should absolutely allow TE overrides for the 14 sets. There are no running plays out of that set, so there is no need to have a TE stay in unless pass blocking, and then owners should be swapping to 6 OL if they have no plays where the TE goes out.

Also, TEs are likely to draw a DB in coverage in those sets, which puts them at a horrible disadvantage.

Re: Getting Back To A "Football" Sim

By raidergreg69 - League Admin
12/22/2020 8:12 pm
setherick wrote:
Brought this up in a similar discussion in Paydirt, so I'm xposting it here.

We should absolutely allow TE overrides for the 14 sets. There are no running plays out of that set, so there is no need to have a TE stay in unless pass blocking, and then owners should be swapping to 6 OL if they have no plays where the TE goes out.

Also, TEs are likely to draw a DB in coverage in those sets, which puts them at a horrible disadvantage.


Allow what exactly? I don't want to see WR lining up as a TE. I'll check back later, trying to finish the blog atm.

Re: Getting Back To A "Football" Sim

By setherick
12/22/2020 8:27 pm
raidergreg69 wrote:
setherick wrote:
Brought this up in a similar discussion in Paydirt, so I'm xposting it here.

We should absolutely allow TE overrides for the 14 sets. There are no running plays out of that set, so there is no need to have a TE stay in unless pass blocking, and then owners should be swapping to 6 OL if they have no plays where the TE goes out.

Also, TEs are likely to draw a DB in coverage in those sets, which puts them at a horrible disadvantage.


Allow what exactly? I don't want to see WR lining up as a TE. I'll check back later, trying to finish the blog atm.


You should absolutely allow a WR to match up against a DB unless you are purposefully hamstringing an offensive set.

Full disclosure: I don't currently use 14 sets because of the TE/FB/RB vs DB aspect. But I possibly may in the future.

Re: Getting Back To A "Football" Sim

By raidergreg69 - League Admin
12/22/2020 8:41 pm
setherick wrote:
raidergreg69 wrote:
setherick wrote:
Brought this up in a similar discussion in Paydirt, so I'm xposting it here.

We should absolutely allow TE overrides for the 14 sets. There are no running plays out of that set, so there is no need to have a TE stay in unless pass blocking, and then owners should be swapping to 6 OL if they have no plays where the TE goes out.

Also, TEs are likely to draw a DB in coverage in those sets, which puts them at a horrible disadvantage.


Allow what exactly? I don't want to see WR lining up as a TE. I'll check back later, trying to finish the blog atm.


You should absolutely allow a WR to match up against a DB unless you are purposefully hamstringing an offensive set.

Full disclosure: I don't currently use 14 sets because of the TE/FB/RB vs DB aspect. But I possibly may in the future.


If it results in a light weight WR playing a spot designed for a 257 lb player, absolutely not. What some may see as hamstringing an offensive set, others see as yet another freaking exploit we now have to create rules for.

Maybe if people would stop trying to game the system with speed and light weight players, I could stop hamstringing offensive sets.

Re: Getting Back To A "Football" Sim

By WarEagle
12/23/2020 9:44 am
setherick wrote:

You should absolutely allow a WR to match up against a DB unless you are purposefully hamstringing an offensive set.


The offense picks the play first, so you aren't lining up a TE against a DB, the defense is lining up a DB against your TE (or NOT, depending on the D they call). If I play dime or quarters D all game is that going to prevent you from ever sending the TE out for a route?

I'm probably missing something, but it seems very, very simple to me. If you don't want to call those plays because you don't like having to play a TE then don't call them.