|
|
Post by Jets and Chargers on Aug 9, 2019 14:22:17 GMT
PLAYING A “CB” OR “Defensive Back” AT LEFT CORNERBACK OR RIGHT CORNERBACK
Players who are rated at “CB” are used when an additional defensive back is needed to fill out a formation. Typically they are called nickelbacks or slot cornerbacks. They are not rated to play Left Cornerback (LCB) or Right Cornerback (RCB) as they did not primarily play those positions. However, they can be used as substitutes in those positions with the following adjustment: If the CB is rated as a “6” defensively then count him as a “4” defensively when playing LCB or RCB. All other CB’s should be counted as a “0” defensively when playing LCB or RCB. Note that this rule also applies to those players rated as “Defensive Back” when positioned at LCB or RCB. IMPORTANT: This rule only applies to the 2017 and later NFL season when Strat-O-Matic started rating CB’s specifically as slot cornerbacks.
This rule replaces last year's rule. Last year, the only CBs that could NOT play LCB or RCB were the slot CBs that were rated HIGHER than the starting LCB or RCB. This new rule means that ANY CB or DB that is not a starting LCB or RCB on the roster CANNOT play LCB or RCB without penalty.
This rule is not optional in the computer game. Of course, we as a league can determine how we want to play. My $0.02 -- I think we should use the SOM rule because SOM is rating players differently now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2019 2:09:06 GMT
We should absolutely use the SOM rule. It makes perfect sense and is easy to understand now.
|
|
|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Aug 10, 2019 3:16:58 GMT
I agree we should use the new rule as well
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan D (Ravens & Redskins) on Aug 10, 2019 13:32:36 GMT
I agree with everyone above
|
|
|
|
Post by Pat Hoglund on Aug 11, 2019 8:20:49 GMT
I vote yes to using the SOM rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 20:44:15 GMT
yes to strat rule
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 5, 2019 3:13:05 GMT
Some thoughts on the nickel rule.
First, 2 point loss seems excessive.
Second, why are nickels & defensive backs penalized when covering backups? If a Wide receiver with a card marked Split End / Flanker should a nickel or DB covering him be penalized.
Third, Strat should have left backups at or lower than starters. But it is what it is.
It looks like we can add cornerbacks to the list of commodities that are in short supply... Quality Quarterbacks, Defenses...
It does appear that hoarding of cornerbacks will be possible.
Just my five cents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 3:24:37 GMT
the way we drafted can horde players I do not agree with adopting the strat rule I think we should let him use the numbers as we had before otherwise John is correct they'll get it forwarded and it just destroys gameplay go in my opinion we should draft a team and its complete order every year in reverse order of the season but since we do the draft and we take ownership I think we should leave things liberal enough so that everybody has a chance to have decent players on the field
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 3:25:23 GMT
Remember it's a turn based strategy game and parity makes it much more enjoyable
|
|
|
|
Post by pbisiules on Sept 5, 2019 7:39:39 GMT
I'm on board with John's inputs. In fact, I gave a similar opinion the other day. Unfortunately, I didn't really think this thru when first proposed. If we stick with this rule next year, we'll probably need to restrict the position on rosters so teams aren't stacked with outside CBs, leaving many starting 0's, but either last year's rule or what John proposed are alternatives. My (non)cents  |
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 5, 2019 11:54:49 GMT
Another point or two.
Do you realize that no stock team ( except the rare team that happens to have a 6 backup ) can replace an injured CB with anything but a zero?
There are more quarterbacks available than cornerbacks and you have to put 2 cornerbacks on the field.
This rule has serious flaws.
|
|
|
|
Post by allday28 on Sept 5, 2019 12:47:15 GMT
To change this rule now completely changes draft philosophy. I believe this rule was agreed to prior to the draft and should remain unchanged for this season. Going forward it can be re-evaluated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 12:55:47 GMT
there weren't enough cornerbacks available in the draft to change much of a philosophy this year I think we could make an amendment and it would still work out for everyone. There's never a good reason to delay a good decision
|
|
|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Sept 5, 2019 13:00:50 GMT
First of all, there are not more QB's available than CB's. There are 64 starting CB's in the card set every year so there's not a shortage in our league and this league was founded on the hoarding of players.
The heard of always having a good backup has thinned and that's been long overdue. We allow teams to "hoard" at any other position so why should CB's be any different? Like every other important position in the game you now have to plan better to get your hands on premium CB's whether it's through the draft or via trade. If you want your coveted 5 backup now, you'll have to give up something somehwere else to get one.
Realistically, there should be a lot more 0's on the field than we see in our league. Most NFL DB's couldn't cover any of our asses these dyas.
We have a pretty lax injury system to begin so this should hardly be an issue. It's the same principle as any other position out there.
The rule doesn't have a flaw, it's designed to make a premium CB more important than random DB's and their backups. That's why they created a whole new position to address this.
I'm good with the strat rule as written and we discussed and agreed upon prior to the draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Sept 5, 2019 13:04:39 GMT
I'm on board with John's inputs. In fact, I gave a similar opinion the other day. Unfortunately, I didn't really think this thru when first proposed. If we stick with this rule next year, we'll probably need to restrict the position on rosters so teams aren't stacked with outside CBs, leaving many starting 0's, but either last year's rule or what John proposed are alternatives. My (non)cents I agree our roster limits should be adjusted. No NFL team carries 4 QB's or 6 RB's and so on. We don't seem to worry about any shortage there so starting CB's are just a new wrinkle to be added. I've also got an idea/opinion on roster limits but will post that later when I have more time. |
|
