Warrior General Games

I'd be interested in something like this, as I tend to make players with names who were throwback players who played both ways anyway. Currently the only way to even attempt to do something like this and have fun with it is to get your team (which I did).

Leon Hart, End (TE), FB and DE who played with Notre Dame and later the Detroit Lions in their heyday.
Chuck Bednarik, C and LB (as was common with most C's to also play LB including Butkus at Illinois).

Before the game became the specialized version we see today there was a lot of opportunities for 1 guy to make a huge difference in the game - on both sides of the ball. In GLB if you make a DE and he gets nerfed you are stuck, in an Ironman league you at least get a chance to do something on the other side of the ball and not have your player be a complete waste.

Originally posted by haole

But I know there's a lot of work still being done on this game and probably the most feasible way to see it get done is with simple roster size limits.


I agree that roster size is the only accomodation that would be needed. If owners want to be competative, they will have build both ways which will open all sorts of possabilities.

Very good idea.

Originally posted by CONN CHRIS
Originally posted by haole


But I know there's a lot of work still being done on this game and probably the most feasible way to see it get done is with simple roster size limits.


I agree that roster size is the only accomodation that would be needed. If owners want to be competative, they will have build both ways which will open all sorts of possabilities.

Very good idea.


Well you would also need to get rid of some position penalties as well, but not all of them, like get rid of the penalties for qb's to play FS or something like that,

Originally posted by AngryDragon
Hmmm..

The downside would be that it would reduce the amount of FAs needed to fill a roster. Meaning less players built equals less GLB money.

The upside would be that it would reduce the amount of FAs needed to fill a roster. Meaning that last season we saw such a rise in the number of teams the FA market was very slim.

+1 It still sounds very fun.

1. I think it'd equal more money for GLB since you'd have to make a two way player. It'd be more or less a custom built player who really wouldn't be all that desirable outside of an Iron Man league, and the opposite would be true as well, in that a regular one dimensional player wouldn't be all that special in an olde tyme league either.
2. Agree fully.
3. Agree fully again.

Would love to see this type of league.

+1

.... would help eliminate the cookie cutter players as well.

Originally posted by Cmfix64
Originally posted by CONN CHRIS

Originally posted by haole



But I know there's a lot of work still being done on this game and probably the most feasible way to see it get done is with simple roster size limits.


I agree that roster size is the only accomodation that would be needed. If owners want to be competative, they will have build both ways which will open all sorts of possabilities.

Very good idea.


Well you would also need to get rid of some position penalties as well, but not all of them, like get rid of the penalties for qb's to play FS or something like that,

I think there's three ways to go with the "OOP" (out of position) penalties

1) You could minimize them just for this league, which would probably be a coding nightmare. But you would still get a penalty for playing out of position. So is a HB/LB better off being built from a HB base or a LB base? I'm sure there would be lots of theories thrown around, and another part of the strategy evolves.

2) You could eliminate the OOP, which might also be a pain, but would relieve the stress of figuring out the above strategies.

3) You could keep them just the way they are, no change needed, and have that be another part of the strategy.

Personally, I would like #1 the best, but I'd be content with any of the three options just to get a league like this

One way to do it is to take a position and give it a mirror position with no penalty.

Examples
TE == DE
FB == LB
OT == DE
G == DT
C == LB
WR == CB

That way each position has a corresponding position on the opposite side of the ball where they don't incur a penalty, but where to requirements to play that position have in many cases diametrically different primary skills.

Originally posted by haole

I think there's three ways to go with the "OOP" (out of position) penalties

1) You could minimize them just for this league, which would probably be a coding nightmare. But you would still get a penalty for playing out of position. So is a HB/LB better off being built from a HB base or a LB base? I'm sure there would be lots of theories thrown around, and another part of the strategy evolves.

2) You could eliminate the OOP, which might also be a pain, but would relieve the stress of figuring out the above strategies.

3) You could keep them just the way they are, no change needed, and have that be another part of the strategy.

Personally, I would like #1 the best, but I'd be content with any of the three options just to get a league like this

I think there is also a 4th way to go with it... you could have OOP for certain positions... a QB would not have an oop for FS, but would for a DT... likewise a WR would be able to play Cb with no penalty but would suffer one in the LB slot

Originally posted by haole
3) You could keep them just the way they are, no change needed, and have that be another part of the strategy.

This would be best IMO. This could lead to so many ways to skin the cat. Plus, very little extra coding to pull Bort away from other important matters in the regular sim.

Originally posted by Cmfix64
Originally posted by haole


I think there's three ways to go with the "OOP" (out of position) penalties

1) You could minimize them just for this league, which would probably be a coding nightmare. But you would still get a penalty for playing out of position. So is a HB/LB better off being built from a HB base or a LB base? I'm sure there would be lots of theories thrown around, and another part of the strategy evolves.

2) You could eliminate the OOP, which might also be a pain, but would relieve the stress of figuring out the above strategies.

3) You could keep them just the way they are, no change needed, and have that be another part of the strategy.

Personally, I would like #1 the best, but I'd be content with any of the three options just to get a league like this

I think there is also a 4th way to go with it... you could have OOP for certain positions... a QB would not have an oop for FS, but would for a DT... likewise a WR would be able to play Cb with no penalty but would suffer one in the LB slot



There is this way, too.

The arguments against it would be that it would be the first step toward new iron man cookie cutter players, and that trying to get something too complex added into an Iron Man League would actually just guarantee that it'll never get done.

Originally posted by greengoose
One way to do it is to take a position and give it a mirror position with no penalty.

Examples
TE == DE
FB == LB
OT == DE
G == DT
C == LB
WR == CB

That way each position has a corresponding position on the opposite side of the ball where they don't incur a penalty, but where to requirements to play that position have in many cases diametrically different primary skills.


I'm not sure what the OOPs are for players, but I would assume that these corresponding position switches already have some of the lowest penalties (except for C to LB ... better off being a nose tackle, I would think)

Originally posted by haole
Originally posted by Cmfix64

Originally posted by haole



I think there's three ways to go with the "OOP" (out of position) penalties

1) You could minimize them just for this league, which would probably be a coding nightmare. But you would still get a penalty for playing out of position. So is a HB/LB better off being built from a HB base or a LB base? I'm sure there would be lots of theories thrown around, and another part of the strategy evolves.

2) You could eliminate the OOP, which might also be a pain, but would relieve the stress of figuring out the above strategies.

3) You could keep them just the way they are, no change needed, and have that be another part of the strategy.

Personally, I would like #1 the best, but I'd be content with any of the three options just to get a league like this

I think there is also a 4th way to go with it... you could have OOP for certain positions... a QB would not have an oop for FS, but would for a DT... likewise a WR would be able to play Cb with no penalty but would suffer one in the LB slot



There is this way, too.

The arguments against it would be that it would be the first step toward new iron man cookie cutter players, and that trying to get something too complex added into an Iron Man League would actually just guarantee that it'll never get done.

but what about seeing a QB play MLB, they already have str right? so it wouldnt be a stretch to see them play a couple positions... and having elusive backs be SS or whatever, i think it would promote just as much customization

Playing both sides of the ball (Iron Man) is how Arena/Indoor football is played. I suggested having other forms of football for our players to play already. Like Canadian rules, Arean/Indoor, European/World League type football, other forms of small team type football (8 man, 6 man, etc...)

+1

I like this.