Originally posted by rackhound
I don't know if its been done before but this time around I'm building a team around 2 star TE's a star HB and QB. I dont know if that's a good use of star positions as they are limited but I'm hoping it works out...lol had to give up a star safety and linebacker spot I usually run to do it.

Play a TE at WR. A star TE would probably be better than a regular WR. I play a regular TE at WR and it works fine. A star would be great.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
Play a TE at WR. A star TE would probably be better than a regular WR. I play a regular TE at WR and it works fine. A star would be great.

I was thinking about doing that more than I do now. I'm using them a lot in 2TE sets and its been pretty successful so far. I already do use one of them as a WR in 5wr plays since I only have 4WR's on the roster but I don't run a lot of 5wr plays.

star TEs don’t do much at receiver, even if they’re built like one

Originally posted by TyDavis315
star TEs don’t do much at receiver, even if they’re built like one

OOP penalty is pretty harsh in that regard, especially with how hard it can be at times to ensure your morale doesn't plummet.

Originally posted by TyDavis315
star TEs don’t do much at receiver, even if they’re built like one

Is that a bad thing? I mean I know exactly who I want to target every play. A TE at WR2 out of the 3WR package is fine. That is generally my 4th choice and probably wouldn’t get targeted anyway. It actually helps force the ball to your top guys. May as well be a center. I took a CPU for a third WR this run because there just isn’t enough balls to go around.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
Is that a bad thing? I mean I know exactly who I want to target every play. A TE at WR2 out of the 3WR package is fine. That is generally my 4th choice and probably wouldn’t get targeted anyway. It actually helps force the ball to your top guys. May as well be a center. I took a CPU for a third WR this run because there just isn’t enough balls to go around.

I used to run potent pure pass back then so generally 4-6 hundred to go around on a bad day. Star TEs don’t get the same SA boosts out of position (especially with first step, 80+ speed & quickness- a heartbreaker) unfortunately and they aren’t really targeted how you would want them to. really sad because that year our second star TE only brought in about 1800 as a slot receiver (to be fair having 2 star WRs and 2 more excellent backups, another star TE, and a star QB might’ve been the real problem) but if you have them play flex WR/TE and line them up all over they do pretty well. Tried that the season afterwards and the yards nearly doubled. TDs went up of course, and I got to spent that whole season running deep ball plays.

In the current climate with increasingly worse DBs, might just be the time to try it out and see it it’s your thing or not without too much backfire

I've had success with receiving (and even combo) TEs, even when playing at WR4 or 5. I don't think the OoP penalty is as harsh as many seem to think.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/231286
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/271191
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/281961
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/274285
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/290879
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/294610
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/298981

I'm going to resurrect this thread because I like the idea of the original post and I understand the push back because of the lack of progression of the teams. Maybe there is a way to have a bit of both if we reconsider what we mean by an 'agent'. Right now we are agents but really we are RPing the players or the coaches etc. - by this I mean as agents we don't get anything if the guys get a higher contract and there is no real win condition in that direction. That's not necessarily a bad thing of course, most of us are more interested in x's and o's than $ and cents.

So let's say we start with _Osiris_'s initial proposition of a 'champions league' format where teams move up or down in tiers based on there effectiveness (which really just seems like what the ladder is doing just in a more round robin way) - now let's take the idea of having a 'college league' but with a twist - have most of the players in college be CPUs. Players in the college leagues can also be human made but the teams are coached by CPUS (maybe only partially?).

*** let me state here this assumes that the CPU build and management AI gets an upgrade to made good players etc. ***

the first part of college is creating your player if you decide you want to create players - but you can't sign with a team you run in college (not an issue if we go with all cpu coaches) - but you'd sign with a college that has a scheme you like and has a coach that wants you and you build your guy to match the team's ethos. You'd build with SP and APs and your player would grow like now. Folks can focus on playing this way and being national champs or whatever or they can focus on maximizing the chance to ....

get drafted! Now there are two ways this could go:

1) As agents we'd get to draft players, including CPU players, to represent based on scouting their college careers, looking at the combine scores etc. then we'd negotiate with the GM/owners to sign as free agents with a scoreboard of the most successful agents. The teams would have to work out a contract - no cut style unless someone goes inactive and potentially each player would have 2 contracts in their career before aging out of the league at 30 or whatever.

2) or we abandon the whole agent thing and just have the coaches/GM draft each year to replace the players forced into retirement or who leave the team as free agents

while in the pros we allow for limited re-speccing of players and maybe learning APs so you can adjust your skillbase to fit the team you are drafted by or sign with, the GM/OWner/HC could request the CPU players to emphasize zone, man, run, pass, blitz etc. for their builds

the framework for all of this exists now - upgrading the cpu might start with having people who are highly successful create the initial game plans and playbooks for the coaches (but this would be randomly assigned to the teams so you'd have to watch the games to get an idea what a team's strategy was).

You'd add scouting of players to the mix of things to do, you'd keep some building of players and could have people be highly specialized making good players and you'd get rid of the tiers so most of the coaching challenges would be against similar-level teams

Originally posted by atlbruce
I've had success with receiving (and even combo) TEs, even when playing at WR4 or 5. I don't think the OoP penalty is as harsh as many seem to think.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/231286
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/271191
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/281961
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/274285
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/290879
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/294610
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/298981

IIRC 10% of real value on all skills.

So if you had 70 sprinting before (195 value) you'll lose 19.5 value, which equates to having 50.5 sprinting afterward.

Originally posted by Raid
IIRC 10% of real value on all skills.

So if you had 70 sprinting before (195 value) you'll lose 19.5 value, which equates to having 50.5 sprinting afterward.

But do we know for sure it's "10% of real value on all skills"? Or does it vary for, say, a QB playing LB vs a FS playing SS, DE playing DT, or TE playing WR?

Originally posted by atlbruce
But do we know for sure it's "10% of real value on all skills"? Or does it vary for, say, a QB playing LB vs a FS playing SS, DE playing DT, or TE playing WR?

I think that's what CD said, been a while. And supposedly it was a flat penalty anytime a player was out of natural position

Even if a TE at WR has a super harsh penalty I really don’t care. I don’t want to target him anyways and if he is even slower that just increases the chance my primary will get the target. I know where to expect single coverage and I want to target that every single time and have a top receiver taking that target. The non target could be a CPU center and it wouldn’t make a difference.