As Norm is thinking, i like one position over.

I received a PM about this topic. Interesting perspective. Let me know your thoughts. Here's the short version:

We've played this game with this engine for a long time. Everyone knows the formula of "14 WRS, 14 CBs". This person advocates for strict position limits, if only for the fact that it will force everyone to change how they play. No more WR at RB. No more DBs playing LB. This would shake up the draft and free agency, making players that actually play the position more of a premium. If nothing else, it would be different and teams would have to adapt.

It's an interesting point of view. Maybe we should stick to the restrictive positions, if only for the sake of change?

I'm in favor of this idea. It evens the playing field. I don't personally enjoy gaming the system and unfortunately that's the only way to win right now.

With no OOP, a DE who has 80+ speed and max rushing skills will now be worth what they truly should be. A LB with low 70s speed might actually be playable because there's only so many fast TEs. A fast TE could play like Gronk and dominate.

Are you able to disable overrides? If not, then owners can just stack their team with a bunch of WRs and put them at the TE slot and we're back to gaming the system.

I hadn't really thought about that viewpoint, but it makes a lot of sense. We've been stuck with the 4.6 engine since spring of 2022 (at least), and honestly, this game is really stale and boring. At least by sticking to the strict player position screenshot that norm posted, you'll have to consider all players - when was the last time you actually considered signing a fullback?

I share asn's concern that overrides will still be a way to game the engine and not solve the problem, but I'm for anything that shakes things up and makes it interesting again because the game engine will (most likely) never be updated. It might blow up spectacularly, but I'm down with giving it a shot.

By pure strict positions, I don't think players should be able to move to a related position. LG can only play LG, they can't be moved to any other OL position. RDE can only play RDE, no LDE or DT. SLB can only play SLB, no MLB or WLB, etc.

I think this would provide interesting scenarios. Imagine your LG retires and there's nobody worthwhile in free agency. You MIGHT actually draft an LG in the first round ON PURPOSE to make sure you're not stuck with someone who can't even block wind.

For example, right now there's around 30 LGs with 90+ pass blocking. That creates a premium on snagging one who can start on your team. If you allow parallel positions switching, then it dilutes the player pool and doesn't create that economy where top tier players actually demand a premium.

I just checked MLB and there's about 30 players who have 75+ speed, and that doesn't factor in if some of these MLBs have playable skills other than speed.

If this blows up in our faces, I will pay for the customizations and switch it back lol

Bottom line top: I’m here for whatever but I’m not a fan of this suggestion. It sounds restrictive and the last thing I want are GDB style rules telling me what I MUST do. Then there is also overrides. Whereas those of us familiar may be able to work on an honor system in fear of staining our reputation, others have no such grace so you are hamstringing the “honest”.


Not really a fan of that. If I’m reading this right a LT could not play at RG? I think that’s odd to limit sometimes even within their own position group.

Again I’m for whatever but I think swinging the pendulum to much the other way is not effective. There should be a middle and this sounds quite extreme.

I’ll still do whatever. If it doesn’t work then I’d leave. We get one shot at this as far as I’m concerned because norm does not subscribe.

In asn sample he gave about needing to draft the left guard I would challenge that to say what if that left guard first draft pick you made gets injured and so does his back up and now you’re relegated to cutting players so that you can sign a left guard, although you may have five other viable offensive lineman as backups for other OL positions.

One over or within position group logically makes the most sense to me. I still don’t think it creates any parody or levels to playing field either. The reason it doesn’t create parody or level the playing field is because everyone has custom weights, and everyone chooses their own playbook which factor in heavily even if you created roster controls, but again people play within position groups, not at specific positions.

Again, I’m for whatever I just think it’s silly to go from one extreme to the other, especially if you’re locked into a single position rather than a position group. That specific piece just boggles my mind and I am not a fan of. You would in essence be forcing me to make a bad decision during the draft or free agency I would not otherwise make just to align with a rule in a league - what if that drafted player busted? You’re now forced back to the FA pool that was already bleak. That alone is counter intuitive to the idea of leveling the playing field because a bad first rd pick can set any team back. This would also essentially cap any roster variation from team to team because you would always need at least one back up for every position which means 44 roster spots would be spoken for. 9 flexible spots gone - I use these 9 for variation of things including storing player for future seasons because current roster flexibility allows me to develop a player without needing him to play.

Hello everyone, I would be in favour of the following options.
QB: QB, RB, holder
WR: WR, returner
RB: WR, RB, returner
FB: WR, RB, FB, ST blocking
TE: WR, RB, FB, TE, ST blocking
Oline: all Oline positions, ST Blocking
DT: DT, DE, ST Rushing
DE: DT, DE, LB, ST Rushing
LB: All LB positions, DE, DB, ST Rushing and Gunner
DB: all DB positions, Returner, Gunner
K: K
P: P, Holder

**** it. Let’s do exactly that so we can just see why it is not the best possible decision in this current engine.

The writing is on the wall to me. Duane will continue to win championships and there will be a constant line of the haves and have nots.

Just worried about those overrides but I already mentally set my roster based on my current team. Zero concerns here.

As fun as it would be to watch a mad scramble in free agency to sign sub-par TEs, LBs and FBs, I think changing to the extreme mid season is a mistake.

My two cents: the one position over seems to be a very good middle ground option.

My roster is pretty well set up for either option, so I'll keep playing no matter which one Norm chooses.

I have always put players at the position it says they are, but for the TE & FB ,I use them in both spots and this is one reason why I don't win more games!