Changing positions for non-athlete recruits: Is it viable?

[moTIGS]

What follows might be old news to some, but it was new to me, so I figured I'd share.



One of my petty complaints about this game (and every previous version of the game I've ever played) is that I don't like recruits listed as "athlete." In real life, most recruits for most schools are probably capable of playing multiple positions. In the game, though, only a fraction of the recruiting pool seems viable at multiple positions. I want more players capable of playing more positions.

True two-way players like Travis Hunter are very, very rare, but I feel like a good portion of your typical three-star WR recruit would probably at least be a passable corner or safety. If you switch a typical receiver recruit to defensive back, though, you can count on his overall rating dropping to the mid-40s at best.

On the surface, a mid-40s corner or safety seems like trash. Unplayable. Even with off-season progression, they'd maybe get back to "Kennesaw State backup on the default roster" level. Right?

I decided to investigate with some actual data.

In two separate five-year tests with Georgia (used this team to make the initial recruiting a bit quicker), I signed a combined 24 two-star wide receivers, all of the deep threat variety. All non-athlete recruits.

On signing day, these receivers had a starting overall of 56-62 and development traits of normal (most of them) or impact (maybe four—I only noted dev traits in the second of the two tests).

Then I used the position change menu to move each of these guys to defensive back (corner, free safety, and strong safety). After position changes, their overalls fell to 34-47. All well below the playable level for even the worst teams. Surely, with how off-season progression allows some significant jumps, at least one or two of these guys might become a decent backup, right?

Turns out it was quite a bit better than that.

After simming through five seasons, 15 of the 24 former two-star receivers ended up as an 80 overall or better as defensive backs. Nine of them hit 85+. One hit 90 overall (he went from a 37 overall as a true freshman to 87 overall as a redshirt freshman, by far the biggest one-year improvement I saw). Several of these guys picked up 35-40 points in overall in their first year. Others barely progressed for a few seasons then blew up late (it seemed like they "trained" their physical abilities first, and when they hit caps on those, then they invested in their attribute levels). But all of them eventually became at least competent defensive backs despite starting with zero skills on the defensive side of the ball.

On average, these 24 two-star recruits picked up 22.5 points of overall from their initial rating *at their natural position*. Considering the roughly 20-point loss of overall when moving them to DB, that's an average progression of 40+ points. Not bad for a bunch of two-star recruits.

But all that means nothing without context. So I reloaded the initial save and simmed the same five years without changing their positions so I could see how much they'd progress as regular two-star receivers who stayed at receiver.

On average, they ended up at about a 74 overall WR on average, which was about 9 points below where they ended up as defensive backs.

In a smaller version of this test using quarterbacks/tight ends, TE with the vertical threat archetype can develop into absolutely killer DE (sample size of just two, but a 72 OVR TE dropped to a 38 OVR DE then was a 92 OVR by his redshirt junior season; a 66 OVR TE became a 38 DE then a 91 by his fifth year). Scrambling QBs with enough athleticism can *maybe* become good defensive backs, but it seems less consistent than with receivers (and if you have a QB with that kind of athleticism, he's probably going to be a better QB than DB anyway).

Also worth noting: After I signed the initial batch of recruits, I turned auto recruiting on to sim future seasons. In the first year of the second test, the CPU somehow signed a five-star corner for me (I assume a decommit from another team, because it was like week 10 by the time I turned auto recruiting on). He started as a 77 overall true freshman with impact development. By his fifth season, he was an 87 overall. So a few of my two-star receivers turned corners outdeveloped a five-star cornerback. Nice of the CPU to give me a small control sample.

My conclusions:

1. Recruits who are NOT listed as ATH will drop to the 35-45 range when moving to the other side of the ball. But we all already knew that.

2. Off-season progression seems pretty random but can provide some pretty big jumps in overall rating. But we all already knew that, too.

3. When you move a player to defense and see his OVR plummet, he can make up the difference *and then some* with off-season training. Sometimes it'll take one full year. Sometimes it'll take a few. But eventually, there's a good chance you'll see an overall spike before his time is up. And on average—at least when it comes to low-rated receivers—the end result is a much better player.

4. If you have a spot or two available in your class and see a two-star sitting there with good athleticism, maybe take a flier on him and move him to defense. Even if his positional skills look like garbage or you don't need/want anyone at his current position, if you can afford to give him a couple years to develop, he could become an unexpected stud, or at least a competent starter for most schools.

What I still don't know:

1. How well these results translate with other positions. I feel pretty confident with the results of moving receivers to defensive backs. Would moving non-athlete OL to DL work? TE to LB? Running backs to DB/LB? I see no reason why it would be any different, assuming you can find athletic two-stars at those spots. All the WR in my test began with abysmal DB skills. They were just athletes learning to play defense. Presumably athletes could also learn to play linebacker or defensive line in the game. My small-sample (and non-two-star) TE-to-DE test suggests at least that one would work.

2. Does this work with moving defensive players to offense? Every test I ran was offense to defense. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be similar the other way around, but I didn't try that.

3. Is this a viable strategy with better recruits? The majority of my testing was with two-star recruits, where at least with these positions, it absolutely seems like a good way to supplement your secondary as a low-level program. But what if you're a solid program that can land three- and four-star recruits with regularity? Worth it to change those guys? I suspect not in most cases. But then again, I recently signed a 98-speed, 78-overall four-star WR ... who hit all his skill caps after one season and is stuck as a 79 overall forever. I might be tempted to see how he'd look as a cornerback. He'd suck for a year but then might get a whole lot better.



In real life, I'm a Mizzou fan. Our former coach, Gary Pinkel, has a knack for finding two-star players and turning them into college stars. Brad Smith. Sean Weatherspoon. Danario Alexander. All absolutely electric college players who almost no one heard of until after they got to college. (He recruited "good" recruits, too, but often his best players were his least heralded recruits.)

One thing I've always wanted to be able to do in a college football game is replicate Pinkel's approach to building a program, but in general, it just hasn't been possible. The games never seemed to allow you to build a high-level program on the backs of two-star recruits. They just would never get good enough. But now I'm really tempted to try to build and maintain a high-level program leaning heavily on two-star recruits swapped to positions the game didn't intend them to play.

[mchance13]

I just did a targeted study on archetypes and off season progression and can say with decent confidence I've found the underlying mechanism and rng. What you're describing makes complete sense with the way the game actually does it. I was going to post today, but feel like this is a great way to stress test it. I'll do a set of players like this and see if everything lines up. If it does, I should post tonight or tomorrow.

[Dannymac420]

I actually just did a Bama dynasty with the same intentions, except I only recruited WR/CB and changed position based on height. so anyone under 6' HB/CB, 6' FB/S, 6' 1" WR/LB, 6' 2" TE/DE, 6' 3" DT/C/G, 6' 4"+ OT. Everyone dropped below 50 OVR as you said, but after their RS freshman year, they would boost up past 70 OVR.

By year 5-6 the results were amazing. All starters were 85 OVR+ and all had 88+ speed with insane change of direction. Run plays were busted as my lineman could actually run out in front of me and hit blocks while I sprinted.

Defense was also insane, guys were just flying all over the field. Lineman would chase down HBs and QBs like absolute freaks. The only other position I had to recruit was QB/P/K as out of position guys never seemed to develop throwing/kicking ratings.

Still one of the more fun dynasties I've run, and truly shows how fun and experimental you can get with this game.

[studbucket]

I love this data and it resonates with a limited sample size for me of:

WR -> TE
QB -> RB
WR -> DB

Thanks for sharing your research.

[moTIGS]

Quote: Originally Posted by moTIGS

3. Is this a viable strategy with better recruits? The majority of my testing was with two-star recruits, where at least with these positions, it absolutely seems like a good way to supplement your secondary as a low-level program. But what if you're a solid program that can land three- and four-star recruits with regularity? Worth it to change those guys? I suspect not in most cases. But then again, I recently signed a 98-speed, 78-overall four-star WR ... who hit all his skill caps after one season and is stuck as a 79 overall forever. I might be tempted to see how he'd look as a cornerback. He'd suck for a year but then might get a whole lot better.

Just verified this is a viable strategy with at least *some* higher-level recruits.

My roster had two receivers who had largely hit their skill caps.

One was a four-star recruit with 98 speed and star dev, yet his skill caps were all relatively low at receiver. As a true sophomore, he was essentially as good as he's ever going to be as a receiver (still has one level available for hands and four in power, but he basically going to stay a 79 overall). Even stuck there, he's a useful receiver given his speed, but he could be better.

The other was a three-star recruit with normal dev. He hit his skill caps across the board after one year and would never progress beyond a 69 overall.

As a test, I simmed to the offseason and moved the better of those two to corner and the other to SS. Predictably, they both dropped to about 50 overall. But simming ahead one more week to offseason training, they both shot up to 80+ overall. That lesser receiver, who was in line to be my ninth-best player at the position, was suddenly good enough to be my starting strong safety. The better receiver was still only maybe my fifth-best corner, but crucially, he now has much higher skill caps. If I had considered the move a season or two earlier, he looks like he plausibly could've become a 90+ overall pretty quickly.

Because I did this with my actual played dynasty, I'm going to revert to the prior save (about halfway through the year) and probably keep the better receiver where he is and just cut the other guy (maybe position switch him and then cut him so another team gets a good safety) because I have a five-star coming in at the same position. But it's at least proof of concept for future recruits. If a guy comes in with a lot of physical tools but relatively low skill caps, changing positions early instead of waiting in vain for progression that never comes is probably the right move.

Or you could just sign a new guy and cut the one with low caps. But I try really hard to avoid over-recruiting.

[falcor1234]

That’s some good info. I have a QB that is decent but nothing spectacular and he has the team player ability. Im wondering if that means he won’t drop as much in ratings if I change his position.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Jeffruel]

In my experience you need to wait until their redshirt sophomore year before starting them though at DB. One off-season they’ll develop all their man coverage, and the next they’ll develop their zone coverage.

I have debated trying to move a WR to QB to run the flexbone where I pass maybe 3-4 times a game to see how that goes.

[moTIGS]

Quote: Originally Posted by falcor1234

That’s some good info. I have a QB that is decent but nothing spectacular and he has the team player ability. Im wondering if that means he won’t drop as much in ratings if I change his position. Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

I think Team Player just means you can play them out of position (without changing their position) without having it affect them as much, but I'm not actually sure.

Regardless of what that trait *actually* means, I've been toying with the idea of using it as my own personal tool for which low-rated players to recruit just to change positions. Like, "this guy is willing to move to defense if it helps the team." Because it's largely a roll of the dice anyway, it doesn't seem like you can reliably scout your way into players who develop well at different positions. So if I'm going to keep doing this just for fun, I'll want something to help me decide beyond just "this guy is fast," when I have multiple options that are similarly athletic.