OK, here’s my proposed matrix. The logic, based on feedback. Seems like a good idea to try to limit things. According to the text, this matrix will affect which positions players can change to, and where players can be inserted into the depth chart. Here’s my proposal and logic. We need to have some ability to shift things around, but the biggest problem is the all WR/all CB lineups. So here’s my proposal that is a middle ground that may address some, but not all issues, but also prevent “all WR”/”all CB” to an extent.


Regarding overrides, I just tested it on the new interface, and you cannot place WR in the RB via override, so it seems like this is not a workaround.


Here are my thoughts:


QB – I will say add RB, for those who want to convert fast QBs to RB Kordell Stewart style. No other positions.
RB – Can change to FB or WR. This is the one position over theory.
FB – Can change to RB, TE. One position over.
TE – Can change to FB, or WR, again one position over.
WR – here’s my controversial take. WR are WRs only. In real life it is rare for WRs to switch to RB or TE, and the biggest complaint is players keeping “WR” designation and placing them at other positions. Unfortunately, they don’t have the option to limit just depth chart. Ideally, I would say, you should be able to convert WR, but not just play WR everywhere, but that's not an option, so this is the only way to limit. So your 14 WRs can only play WR. And you can’t create fast TE/RB by converting WR.
OL- can play all OL positions. Will not do “LG” at “LG” only. That’s not realistic. It would require you to have 10 OL to have backups. They don’t do that in real life. OL can back up multiple positions.
P – add kick holder ability.
DE/DT – Can play all DL, plus DE can be converted to LB. In modern NFL, edge rusher is just like an LB, so that’s not far off.
LB – Can go to DE or S. This is the one position off theory. And its true, a good pass rushing LB can become an edge. Or a super coverage LB can be a safety.
CB/S – only DB. Similar to the WR idea, only CB can’t change. So you can’t have 14 CB cover your DB and LBs. You need real LBs. And you can’t create fast LBs by converting DBs.


What do you think of this proposal?


One other issue: seems like this is already in effect on the “new” interface, but not the old. I’m on old interface and I can still do whatever I want. So if I make this change, will this screw over people mid season? Let me know when I should make the switch. My free “pro pack” expires on November 3, 2025. One thought is to wait until the last day, so you can still have time to do position switch. Like if you have 14 WR, you convert some to TE/RB/FB whatever. But seems like so long as there is old interface, you can still do whatever you want? So this rule can't really go into effect until JDB eliminates the old interface. So the workaround will still exist via old interface, for now.

Happy to hear any feedback.

That sounds very reasonable and reflects a lot of what happens in real life in the NFL.

I'm happy with that proposal.

I mean is there really that much difference between a RB and a WR? Owners are just gonna have 8 RBs to play RB/FB/TE.

Same with DL, they're all going to be LBs. As long as speed dominates, that's what we're going to see.

I think it should be based on weight and relatable position. I'm pretty sure every 7 pounds is equal to 1 speed point.

1. The tackle and guard positions range from 308 to 319. I think that's close enough where you can make them interchangeable.
2. C should only play C because they all weigh 283 pounds. Considering that's 25 to 36 pound difference, that's a 3 to 5 speed point difference. Does it matter that much? Maybe, maybe not, but we'll be seeing teams with just C for OL.
3. RB and QB are interchangeable based on weight and typical usage.
4. FB and TE are maybe interchangeable? The difference in weight is 243 and 257. That's 2 speed points, which people are willing to switch RBs to WRs for the 3 speed point boost. If it's interchangeable, we'll mostly see FB playing TE.
5. LDE and RDE are same weight (276 pounds) and interchangeable.
6. DT should only play DT. It's 300 pounds vs 276 pounds, that's 3-4 point speed boost from DE.
7. LBs are all within 8 pounds of each other (all the top teams will only have WLB).
8. CBs can only play CB, they weight 191 pounds.
9. FS/SS are interchangeable, they weigh 206/207 pounds.

I know this feels nitpicky, but I'm just laying out what's going to happen if you allow position changes one over.

If you go with your proposal, I'm going to field:

QB: 3 RB
RB: 3 RB
FB: 2 RB
TE: 2 RB
WR: 6 WR
OL: 10 C
P: 1 P
K: 1 K
RDE: 2 WLB
DT: 3 WLB
LDE: 2 WLB
WLB: 2 WLB
SLB: 2 WLB
MLB: 3 WLB
CB: 7 CB
FS: 2 CB
SS: 2 CB

Seems reasonable to me

I think people THINK 14wr or cb automatically makes you win. I think you will soon find out that doesn’t matter as much as you thought.

Fractional at best. I’m almost surprised so many veteran owners ignore the idea someone’s gameplan, rules could just be better. While we mix up the same plays, we mix them up different per owner and lean into certain tendencies that only you control.

My thought has always been the conversion was a response to lack of player generation, there are small perks in a few bumps of speed but nothing world changing. ASN is literally counting beans.

To me, everyone is either laser focused on right fighting or just completely misunderstanding what is going on around them. Either way I look forward to this or whatever else and wholeheartedly believe nothing changes. I don’t think anyone gets 3-5 wins they didn’t previously get or whatever leveling is anticipated.

What will happen: micromanaging, rules being broken, more insane position switches and/or illogical players at certain positions. For example, people in other leagues use 0 skill CBs at DE because of the speed factor. Now they will just switch them to be a LB or DE, still have no skill, will put on weight up to 240-250 but still be fast and used in the same way.

The game is broken. If you’ve bound yourself to playing players at position that was your choice, not a rule. Now we have a rule and not a choice. While it’s relaxed the proposed position at position was an expression of how black and white , or stale, some people would make things. You’re not fixing the game by prohibiting owners from making roster decisions, and those owners are not winning because of those roster decisions solely. That’s seriously pretty off kilter to imply at this point , and your must have a real sour attitude to even think it.

We will all be humbled a bit. But by no means will Duane all the sudden be. .500 team. If he squashed you before, he will continue to do so. It’s beyond the color/position your screen shows you. We often want to point at what we can see because you don’t know what you don’t know, or can’t perceive what is not right in front of you. If anything, this rule change puts a pacifier in the mouth for those who are so offended an owner has the audacity to do as they please.

Also Asn I do not read norms chart to allow RB at TE, only at FB. Already breaking rules. Same with DT, cannot use an LB there to my reading. Only smirt has 10 Cs, there is also a flaw in the game with underweights on OLine so I highly suggest not using Asn recommendation. Why would you turnQB into RB and lose the perks of being positioned properly? You must be mad.

Maybe black and white is the answer. Haha. The game does pretty much need something - a wrinkle - and change would stink to an extent but at least we controlled our own fate this time.

It seems hard to blur current lines with the goal of control. Control is a solution to a problem people have. Maybe after a season there is a new clearer consensus. Of what can be reasonably looser?

I agree with wait that excellent gameplanning is more important than out of position players. Some people are actually going to be *stunned* when a certain team somehow continues winning despite now being forced to use real RBs and LBs.


Norm, please post a screenshot of the finalized position chart so we can make the necessary adjustments. If it has to be done mid-season because jdb only gives you one chance to do it for free, I'm ok with that.

Here's the thing: there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from fielding that lineup right now! In fact, you can have 3 WRs as your QB to be even faster. Or 2 WR at FB. Indeed teams are already doing similar stuff. I am guessing JDB added this feature to the game because people in other leagues were complaining about enforcing position limitations. It is far from a perfect solution, but at least you can attempt to do something if you want to. And the fact that the new interface is coming and will soon be mandatory means we have to address this. During the few days where we only had new interface, teams were dealing with this. Here's my logic and response to your comments:

Sure weight matters, but when we get to the point of the difference of 2 speed points or so, I'm of the logic of we are losing the forest from the trees. We can't get 100% perfection, so just cutting off the biggest "speed hacks" is my goal. Its much more common to "create" speed 80+ LBs from DBs that it is worrying about the minor speed gains from WLB and MLB. Likewise, WR to RB is the universal move across the league (my team and your team included), making star (or even decent) RB way undervalued. So those are the primary targets.

Could the new 14 WR be 14 RB? YES! It could happen. But here's the thing. For whatever reason, there are just far far fewer high speed RBs generated. Right now, there are 6 RBs on free agents that are speed 85 or higher. For WRs, there are 17. We know from the draft history, there are far few high speed RB generated. And as you noted, the RBs have a few more pounds on them, so they have a few speed points less as compared to all WRs. So, in my mind, there is a difference between a 14 RB team and a 14 WR team. BUT, we can make it more restrictive if you like. Like only RB to FB, and eliminated RB to TE like I originally proposed.

Regarding OL, honestly, I've never cared about or thought about the impact of OL speed that much. Reality says that OLs do play across the line. Also, there is a penalty for playing undersized OL. This was to prevent the FB at OL thing that used to happen when the FB was 240 pounds. I don't know that 280 pounds vs. 300 pounds makes that huge a difference, but it is a difference. Just like a couple of speed points might make a difference. But you can do all C now if you want! That was never banned. But I don't see many teams trying it that way, making me think that's not a super strategy.

Please note under my proposal, you CANNOT play all LB at DL. Only DE. Maybe I wasn't clear about that, but LB to DE only and DE to LB only. No going to the DT. BUT, you can play 4 DEs at DL. That's one I am debating. Some have suggested that it makes the DT obsolete, but that's already the way it is now, and I don't see everyone doing 4 DEs. Again, I think the DT weight has some value (I'm guessing). But let me know if we should edit and force teams to have DT? But the reality is that, a lot of teams, put DEs at like 4th string DT to save money, and I don't necessarily want to outlaw that either and force teams to carry 4 DTs. (though I have 4 DTs!)

People are already play CB only in their DBs. In fact I think my team is like that too right now. So by all means go ahead with that if you wish. But counter point- you aren't the only person to argue against that. Similar to the DT argument, someone has said to me that we should require safeties to be safeties, otherwise, they will all just be CB. (my counterpoint - that's how it already is). So maybe there is some merit is keeping safeties limited to safeties as well? Flip side - you would need multiple of them. I know a lot of teams just put their 4th string CB as a backup safety or something. Of course, putting the restricting would drive up the value of safeties. A new wrinkle. Let me put down the proposal in the following post. Give me a minute to check the boxes. I won't save, but it will be the proposal.

I don't really understand this whole argument against having strict position requirements. What is wrong with fielding the multiple DTs, multiple TEs? Just because we currently do things the way we currently do doesn't mean we should keep doing it going forward.

I also don't agree that real life players are able to play multiple positions. I don't see CBs lining up as LBs, LBs lining up against WRs, even CBs lining up as safeties. It might happen here and there but it's not often. This whole realism argument makes no sense when we have CBs blowing up plays all over the place cause they're lined up as LBs.

I just feel like we have a lot of owners who play an honest way and they're getting punished. We have an opportunity to clean that up without much overhead and the only argument I hear is that it's too restrictive and unrealistic. Look at an NFL depth chart and you'll see a well balanced roster.

Also I decided to test out the theory that speed has minimal effect. I converted all my offensive players to WR and all my non-lineman defensive players to CB. No other changes to the gameplan. Small sample size but it seemed to do well against Aztecs.

OK, I was just fumbling around with this, and I believe I found a loophole that might change the calculus on the positions, and alters my opinion on things. So there is a possible workaround, which is the multiple position switch. So for example, like what SF was talking about - you have an LB, and you change him to DE, because LB to DT is banned. But guess what? You can change LB to DE. Then change the DE to DT! Likewise, if we allowed LB to S, you could change the S to CB. It just takes additional clicks. So that makes the whole idea of "one position over" not really work because all you need to do is go one position over multiple times to get to the effect. As a result, let me propose something more draconian than what I originally thought. Let's embrace the SF idea on defense at least. DL says at DL. LB stays at LB. DBs stays at DB. No shifting around. Yes, it means every team needs LBs and DL.

On offense, as I said before, I'm not super concerned about someone going all RB, but if you guys want it, I'm a bit more open to the idea of making RB locked. RB to WR only possible conversion, but FB/TE can change freely to anything.

Here's the sample. Please note: what this means is that if not checked, you cannot put that position on your depth chart. AND you cannot do a position switch to that position. Meaning under this proposal, WRs can only ever play WR, period. CBs can only play CB and S period. Let me know any revised thoughts. Worst case, if this really ruins everything, I'll take up a collection to pay for the cheapest subscription to get my admin tools back and change it again.



One more thing though: important to note. Whatever we decide won't really change anything for many seasons. The existing pool of players will still be there. We will have to wait for all those converted WRs and CBs to age out, and so long as the old interface exists, there is no enforcement. There is such an easy workaround to go back to the way things were. So, this will be more "gentleman's agreement" than hard and fast rule, until the new interface becomes permanent. I'm not going to be checking every roster to make sure they have LBs, etc. if that's what we decide.

I think the one factor that I'm trying to account for is those people in our league who might say "hey you sprung this on us midseason, and I have no TEs, DTs, etc. on my roster, I am screwed." But yeah, I get what you are saying about why can't this just be the rule. One suggestion I received was "maybe we should just start a new league with the rules in place so everyone is on equal footing." I wasn't a fan of that because of the league history, but that would be the most fair.

I think most people are in agreement on the "unrealism" of CBs lining up everywhere, and that's why I've always supported CB being one of the "locked" positions.

You didn't get the full effect of the all WR/all CB team because it takes weeks and weeks for the weight to change. You probably got little to no benefit for the position switch. It takes about a whole season before they hit the target weight/speed.