Position Flexibility Idea

[Mattanite]

Other sports titles, including EAs other sports titles such as FIFA don’t have the rigid set of positions that Madden has. Even real in real football the positions are more fluid than Madden, some positions are not set in the league or in a team, just matching strengths of a player to a position on the field, I wish that Madden had more fluidity to the positions.

For example, a 3-4 pass rushing ROLB is on a 3-4 defence, great! He might be able to play both sides without much adjustment, or he might be really only good on one side. In Madden, if the coach changes and he is in a 4-3 scheme, the CPU will switch the position to play to his strengths (unless it’s a generated coach, then the previous coach’s player types stay in place even though the defence changed schemes… SO ANNOYING and it’s been that way in every CFM).

But if that 3-4OLB hits FA the only teams to sign them are 3-4 teams who need a pass rusher at that side (they don’t sign one side and try and shift them). The other teams that might try and sign them are CPU teams desperate at that position and ignore the skillset and size attribute penalty they may have. The new 4-3 team doesn’t try and shift the unsuited OLB to DE, Madden just isn’t made that way, the player is locked in position. Similarly, I have seen 3-4 teams sign undersized 4-3 OLBs just because the high OVR made them attractive, not that they were a good pass rusher.

If positions were more generalised, but players had a profile which stated preferred positions (like a lot of other sports games), FA would be more dynamic and CFM after year 1 would be a lot more exciting as CPU teams build their teams and the draft would be easier for CPU teams as they don’t sign a Round 1 Speed Rusher DE in a 3-4 team and cut him week 1.

E.g. Instead of 3-4 ROLB, LOLB, 3-4 versatile RE, LE, 4-3 RE, LE etc there would be a group known as “Pass Rushers”. The players profile would state the primary position, and possibly a secondary position and then some preferred positions if that player is flexible. The list of positions would indicate a penalty to intangible skills if placed in the depth chart out of position, so No1 and No2 means no penalty, and preferred means a small penalty to intangibles. But if out of position without that listed as a No2 or preferred position the penalty is much more severe.

E.g.
Name: Aflexible Player
No1 Position – 3-4 ROLB
No2 Position – 3-4 LOLB
Preferred Positions – 4-3 RE, 4-3 LE

Name: Alessflexible Player
No1 Position – 3-4 ROLB
No2 Position – N/A
Preferred Positions – 4-3 RE

Some of the position groups I imagine would be:

Quarterbacks – Not much flexibility needed here, but maybe WR and HBs with No2 position as QB can be used within the depth chart, e.g. J.Webb

Running backs – Some could have WR as no.2 if they are good pass catchers, like Danny Woodhead or Dexter McCluster. Some hybrid FBs might also be listed here, FB as No2.

Receivers – WR basically, but then some athletic TE would also have No2 as WR, as well as HBs mentioned above. It also means that some WR can line up at HB, like P.Harvin or C.Patterson types.

TE/FB/H-Back (need a catchier name) – Skills, size and athleticism would dictate who to put where, Some HBs might have No2 as FB, some TEs have No2 as FB, some teams that don’t carry a traditional FB might instead carry an extra H-Back TE or Power HB.

Offensive Tackles – So some RTs could play LT dependant on scheme, but are usually not as good pass blockers or athletic enough. Some mauler LTs might shift to RT when they move teams because of a better fit.

Inside Offensive Linemen – Listed as LG, RG and C, some players can play multiple positions without being phased, but B.Fusco struggled being shifted from RG to LG last season.

Defensive Linemen – DT, NT, 3-4 RE, 3-4 LE, basically big guys that play the middle and mostly stuff the run. Therefore, a 4-3 pass rushing DT in a Tampa 2 scheme might also be okay as a LE in a 3-4 scheme, a 3-4 NT might be good as a 1-technique DT in a 4-3. It opens up drafting and free agency much more to the CPU and other users. Some DL don’t project well between schemes because of their size (too big, too small) and athleticism… you aren’t going to put a 80 strength DT at 3-4 NT but he could be good as a 3-technique DT in a 4-3 scheme.

Pass rushers – 4-3 LE & RE, 3-4 ROLB & LOLB, you see this shift the most around the NFL but some guys are bad projections when playing the wrong scheme. J. Allen sucked at 3-4 LB for the Bears but then went to the Superbowl as a 4-3 RE with the Panthers in the same season. But someone like Vic Beasley has already switched up positions between Speed DE and rushing OLB in his second season.

Linebackers – Some guys can play the Mike/MLB, some guys can’t, some guys are big and strong for the SLB, other guys are more suited to WLB. I wouldn’t play C. Greenway at SLB too much as his natural instinct is to slide in the gap and make the tackle, rather than take on the block. In a 3-4, these LBs will fill the MLB, in a 4-3, these players ,might fill all three LB positions.

Defensive Back – Squeezing four positions into one, this is a push, but again, coach schemes and player types will split out the players based on skillset and preferences. Some CBs roam the field like D.Revis, some CBs lock down one side like R.Sherman. Some CBs can flip to safety quite easily like D. McCourty. Some safeties can play both spots like Harry the Hitman, some struggle and are limited to “in the box” run safeties.

Special Teams – There would still be a punter and a kicker, but some might be able to have a No2 or preferred position like QB or the other K/P. I would prefer it if the holder was a QB or P based on their intangibles such as catching. Long snappers would be picked off the long snapping attribute and could be from any position group. Special teams aces again, picked from any group but based on athleticism, block shedding and ability to tackle in the open field. Returners from any position based on return rating, inc QBs ha

Coach’s would still have their scheme and their player types, but the CPU would have to be programmed pretty well to get the right players in the right positions. Also, if a player plays a position for a few years in a coach’s scheme, he should gain the No2 or preferred position and change scheme preferences. E.g. Fullbacks that are converted from LBs should eventually change from Attacking4-3 to Power Run, Tampa2 RE speed rushers could eventually change to a Zone blitz scheme with No2 position listed as 3-4 ROLB.

Imagine the CPU drafting a bust at CB in current CFM (low coverage skills), but as they all have 80+ strength and they might have decent hitpower, they would be tried out at FS with a penalty, but if they do well enough it becomes their No2 position. If that CPU team became strong at safety depth but a CB went down with an injury, that FS/CB might step in on the depth chart e.g. T.Mathieu. Or even move around positions during the game like JJ Watt?

Let me know what you think of the idea? Can you suggest other position groups or rejig the ones I mentioned? Do any of the position groups need new attributes like “long snapping”? Do you think the FA, combine and draft would be more fun?

Well done and thank you if you have read this far. It was a lengthy chunk of writing but I would love it if Madden went this direction for M17 on the Frostbite engine.

[bigbrother005]

I think the easiest way to do this would be to apply the same type of position logic from Mlb The Show. Each player has their main position and then has back up positions they can play also. If you put them in a position they can't play they don't grow and have penalties applied.

Now I would love if players could attempt to learn a new position through practise/ training camp/ preseason or something. Also think it's complete B.S. that players can't learn new schemes even after 10 years playing in it. If I draft a 4-3 Zone MLB and he plays for me in a Tampa 2 style for a few years, he should be able to switch to knowing the Tampa 2 style as oposed to the standerd 4-3.

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Quote: Originally Posted by Geodude

Other sports titles, including EAs other sports titles such as FIFA don’t have the rigid set of positions that Madden has. Even real in real football the positions are more fluid than Madden, some positions are not set in the league or in a team, just matching strengths of a player to a position on the field, I wish that Madden had more fluidity to the positions. For example, a 3-4 pass rushing ROLB is on a 3-4 defence, great! He might be able to play both sides without much adjustment, or he might be really only good on one side. In Madden, if the coach changes and he is in a 4-3 scheme, the CPU will switch the position to play to his strengths (unless it’s a generated coach, then the previous coach’s player types stay in place even though the defence changed schemes… SO ANNOYING and it’s been that way in every CFM). But if that 3-4OLB hits FA the only teams to sign them are 3-4 teams who need a pass rusher at that side (they don’t sign one side and try and shift them). The other teams that might try and sign them are CPU teams desperate at that position and ignore the skillset and size attribute penalty they may have. The new 4-3 team doesn’t try and shift the unsuited OLB to DE, Madden just isn’t made that way, the player is locked in position. Similarly, I have seen 3-4 teams sign undersized 4-3 OLBs just because the high OVR made them attractive, not that they were a good pass rusher. If positions were more generalised, but players had a profile which stated preferred positions (like a lot of other sports games), FA would be more dynamic and CFM after year 1 would be a lot more exciting as CPU teams build their teams and the draft would be easier for CPU teams as they don’t sign a Round 1 Speed Rusher DE in a 3-4 team and cut him week 1. E.g. Instead of 3-4 ROLB, LOLB, 3-4 versatile RE, LE, 4-3 RE, LE etc there would be a group known as “Pass Rushers”. The players profile would state the primary position, and possibly a secondary position and then some preferred positions if that player is flexible. The list of positions would indicate a penalty to intangible skills if placed in the depth chart out of position, so No1 and No2 means no penalty, and preferred means a small penalty to intangibles. But if out of position without that listed as a No2 or preferred position the penalty is much more severe. E.g. Name: Aflexible Player No1 Position – 3-4 ROLB No2 Position – 3-4 LOLB Preferred Positions – 4-3 RE, 4-3 LE Name: Alessflexible Player No1 Position – 3-4 ROLB No2 Position – N/A Preferred Positions – 4-3 RE Some of the position groups I imagine would be: Quarterbacks – Not much flexibility needed here, but maybe WR and HBs with No2 position as QB can be used within the depth chart, e.g. J.Webb Running backs – Some could have WR as no.2 if they are good pass catchers, like Danny Woodhead or Dexter McCluster. Some hybrid FBs might also be listed here, FB as No2. Receivers – WR basically, but then some athletic TE would also have No2 as WR, as well as HBs mentioned above. It also means that some WR can line up at HB, like P.Harvin or C.Patterson types. TE/FB/H-Back (need a catchier name) – Skills, size and athleticism would dictate who to put where, Some HBs might have No2 as FB, some TEs have No2 as FB, some teams that don’t carry a traditional FB might instead carry an extra H-Back TE or Power HB. Offensive Tackles – So some RTs could play LT dependant on scheme, but are usually not as good pass blockers or athletic enough. Some mauler LTs might shift to RT when they move teams because of a better fit. Inside Offensive Linemen – Listed as LG, RG and C, some players can play multiple positions without being phased, but B.Fusco struggled being shifted from RG to LG last season. Defensive Linemen – DT, NT, 3-4 RE, 3-4 LE, basically big guys that play the middle and mostly stuff the run. Therefore, a 4-3 pass rushing DT in a Tampa 2 scheme might also be okay as a LE in a 3-4 scheme, a 3-4 NT might be good as a 1-technique DT in a 4-3. It opens up drafting and free agency much more to the CPU and other users. Some DL don’t project well between schemes because of their size (too big, too small) and athleticism… you aren’t going to put a 80 strength DT at 3-4 NT but he could be good as a 3-technique DT in a 4-3 scheme. Pass rushers – 4-3 LE & RE, 3-4 ROLB & LOLB, you see this shift the most around the NFL but some guys are bad projections when playing the wrong scheme. J. Allen sucked at 3-4 LB for the Bears but then went to the Superbowl as a 4-3 RE with the Panthers in the same season. But someone like Vic Beasley has already switched up positions between Speed DE and rushing OLB in his second season. Linebackers – Some guys can play the Mike/MLB, some guys can’t, some guys are big and strong for the SLB, other guys are more suited to WLB. I wouldn’t play C. Greenway at SLB too much as his natural instinct is to slide in the gap and make the tackle, rather than take on the block. In a 3-4, these LBs will fill the MLB, in a 4-3, these players ,might fill all three LB positions. Defensive Back – Squeezing four positions into one, this is a push, but again, coach schemes and player types will split out the players based on skillset and preferences. Some CBs roam the field like D.Revis, some CBs lock down one side like R.Sherman. Some CBs can flip to safety quite easily like D. McCourty. Some safeties can play both spots like Harry the Hitman, some struggle and are limited to “in the box” run safeties. Special Teams – There would still be a punter and a kicker, but some might be able to have a No2 or preferred position like QB or the other K/P. I would prefer it if the holder was a QB or P based on their intangibles such as catching. Long snappers would be picked off the long snapping attribute and could be from any position group. Special teams aces again, picked from any group but based on athleticism, block shedding and ability to tackle in the open field. Returners from any position based on return rating, inc QBs ha Coach’s would still have their scheme and their player types, but the CPU would have to be programmed pretty well to get the right players in the right positions. Also, if a player plays a position for a few years in a coach’s scheme, he should gain the No2 or preferred position and change scheme preferences. E.g. Fullbacks that are converted from LBs should eventually change from Attacking4-3 to Power Run, Tampa2 RE speed rushers could eventually change to a Zone blitz scheme with No2 position listed as 3-4 ROLB. Imagine the CPU drafting a bust at CB in current CFM (low coverage skills), but as they all have 80+ strength and they might have decent hitpower, they would be tried out at FS with a penalty, but if they do well enough it becomes their No2 position. If that CPU team became strong at safety depth but a CB went down with an injury, that FS/CB might step in on the depth chart e.g. T.Mathieu. Or even move around positions during the game like JJ Watt? Let me know what you think of the idea? Can you suggest other position groups or rejig the ones I mentioned? Do any of the position groups need new attributes like “long snapping”? Do you think the FA, combine and draft would be more fun? Well done and thank you if you have read this far. It was a lengthy chunk of writing but I would love it if Madden went this direction for M17 on the Frostbite engine.

I love this idea but I think what is there can work if they just make a few smaller changes. But great idea.

[gjneff]

Position flex is the name of the game in football today. Sadly, it's not in the game.

[Hooe]

The rigidity in position assignments is likely a holdover of two things:

1: old code - like really old code - which made certain assumptions when video games were much simpler, and the sport and technology has outgrown those assumptions

2: user complaints - I imagine a lot of people probably still consider lining up a tall and physical wide receiver as an inline tight end as "cheese", so Tiburon actively prevents that from happening at the request of their player base. Granted, part of this was / still is caused by a lack of options in handling match-up issues - pattern-matching zones are just now getting into Madden, and we are still waiting on individual defensive matchup assignments to return to the game - but my point is we can't have it both ways. We can't say "we want flexibility" in one breath and say "but this flexibility is cheese" in the next.

Personally I'm all in favor of allowing users to line up players wherever they want, so long as for every alignment there is a valid and effective gameplay mechanic to counter a particular deployment.

[Mattanite]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

The rigidity in position assignments is likely a holdover of two things: 1: old code - like really old code - which made certain assumptions when video games were much simpler, and the sport and technology has outgrown those assumptions 2: user complaints - I imagine a lot of people probably still consider lining up a tall and physical wide receiver as an inline tight end as "cheese", so Tiburon actively prevents that from happening at the request of their player base. Granted, part of this was / still is caused by a lack of options in handling match-up issues - pattern-matching zones are just now getting into Madden, and we are still waiting on individual defensive matchup assignments to return to the game - but my point is we can't have it both ways. We can't say "we want flexibility" in one breath and say "but this flexibility is cheese" in the next. Personally I'm all in favor of allowing users to line up players wherever they want, so long as for every alignment there is a valid and effective gameplay mechanic to counter a particular deployment.

Yes I agree about the cheesing part. Thats why I mentioned it would have to be programmed exceptionally well and severe penalties applied to out of position players unless they have that position listed as No2 or No3 (they would still have penalties, just less severe). So could be done if they plan on rebuilding the game in the Frostbite engine.

One thing that might help differentiate players out of position is if they went for the 0-100 scaled ratings. So if you put a WR at TE, not only might they have a penalty, the defence knows to completely sell out for the pass and maybe assign a CB on the TE, because if they did try a run with the WR he would get BLOWN UP by a DE or LB as his run block and impact would be in the teens instead of 40s.

Like in NBA 2k16, I am just learning Basketball and whilst I can put a SF at C, he can cheese somewhat on attack but is going to get owned every time on defence in the paint and rebounding. So to avoid cheesing, a bigger differentiation in how the players perform needs to be implemented.

You could also have a function where the No1 and No2 positions can change around if they stay in that scheme/position long enough. Think J.Bosa, he is a traditional 4-3 DE but will be playing 3-4 for the Chargers or doing some hybrid looks in the Nickel. Eventually he might bulk up enough to be a 3-4 pass rush DE or become quick enough to be a pure 3-4 OLB whilst playing on his rookie contract, at which point his No1 might change. A WR with a HB listed in No3 might be able to boost the HB to the No2 or even No1 position with an AWR penalty as they are learning a new position group as a primary position, but keep WR as a No2.

[Mattanite]

I thought some more about drafting as well, if they went back to the scouting report cards (not just grades or numbers) with combine stats then the scout could also suggest a position change (if they ever have the full front office, so good scouts could suggest position changes).

So you're scouting a CB, scouting report says "not so fluid hips", "poor man cover", "great hands", "great tackler"... maybe the CB has an average combine and a new scout report comes up "suggest playing at FS" or "can play FS (No2)". The CB would drop on teams draft boards with poor scouts who cant recognise the players intangibles for another position but stay (or move higher if he's a steal) on draft boards with good scouts. All of a sudden, the GM aspects of franchise matter, your draft board could look totally different to someone elses based on scouting, coaches and scheme.

All of a sudden, the solid 1st round picks in the draft are obvious to most teams and most scouts, but the later round picks that could contribute elsewhere become the steals despite looking average when initially scouted . The amount of positions a player can play could factor into contract demands and player value in trades too. There are busts that save their careers by moving too, like M.Barron, moved from SS to 4-3 OLB, S.McClellin was below average as a 4-3 Speed DE but has saved his career with some solid play as a 3-4 MLB.

[xCoachDx]

Quote: Originally Posted by bigbrother005

I think the easiest way to do this would be to apply the same type of position logic from Mlb The Show. Each player has their main position and then has back up positions they can play also. If you put them in a position they can't play they don't grow and have penalties applied. Now I would love if players could attempt to learn a new position through practise/ training camp/ preseason or something. Also think it's complete B.S. that players can't learn new schemes even after 10 years playing in it. If I draft a 4-3 Zone MLB and he plays for me in a Tampa 2 style for a few years, he should be able to switch to knowing the Tampa 2 style as oposed to the standerd 4-3.

One of the numerous things that can be taken from The Show. EA is too closed minded tho.