NOTE: This is a thread designed for someone that has mastered their weights, game plans, and general roster management, and is now looking for the one thing to push their teams to the next level. If you are newer to the game, I would suggest focusing on the above things and then coming back to this one.

As always, this thread builds on a lot of concepts that you can find in my other threads:

*Basic defensive game planning: https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/community/3/3581
*Advanced defensive game planning: https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/community/3/3791
*Advanced defensive game planning - Part 3 - Assignments Tab Driven M2M: https://die-hard-fans.myfootballnow.com/community/3/4170
*Drafting and Volatility: https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/community/thread/3/2915

This thread originated out of some chat sessions in recent drafts where some unwitting draft participants suddenly got a lecture on how to hunt through positions at the end of the draft to find decent players.

Mea Culpa
Why am I starting with a mea culpa? Because a little over a year ago, I started one of the most contentious threads about position switching on the forums. (You can find it by searching around for 'Underweight DEs' in the General Forums.) The reason that I started the thread is because at the time players gained or lost weight very slowly and pass blocking was largely driven by speed versus speed interactions. That meant you could take a 200-220# DB with 90 SP and make him a DE, and he would just destroy every OT that he went up against. I'm not sorry that I started the thread. But I am sorry for the contentiousness since most of the thread below draws on the concepts that so infuriated me then.

OK, so what changed?
Players now gain or lose weight much more quickly when you switch their positions. (20-25# or so during the first training camp.) And then they continue to gain or lose during the year until they hit a hidden upper or lower bound to their physical weight which is determined by their frame.

This means that you can take an LB and turn him into a DE in one training camp and preseason now. (It's possible to still do this with DBs, but it takes a full season to get the player to weight.)

NOTE on Frame: Since frame is hidden, everything below is really a roll of the dice, so if you don't like gambling...

Why does this matter?
All positions have an "ideal" weight that they trend toward until they hit that weight or until the player's frame prevents them from losing or gaining any more.

Position - Weight (I skipped some positions on purpose.)

QB - 220
RB - 217
FB - 243
TE - 257
WR - 198
LT - 312
LG - 308
C - 283
DE - 276
DT - 300
MLB - 245
WLB - 237
CB - 191
SS - 207
FS - 206

These numbers are currently static for all players on all teams.

Why does this really matter? The 50-7 'rule'.
This really matters because the most important attribute for most positions - Speed - is tied directly to weight. How does weight affect Speed? From most of my observations, 50# of physical weight is equaly to 7 Speed.

That means a player that starts out as a 241# 80 SP LB could turn into an 87 SP CB by dropping those 50 pounds. It doesn't mean he absolutely will turn into that because of his frame, but if he can drop the weight, that is approximately where he's going to end up.

How do I use this to my advantage and scare the **** out of my division opponents?
Position switching is pretty common already in MFN. You have some pretty standard position switches like

QB -> RB
RB -> WR
FB -> TE
LB -> DB

But once you understand the 50-7 rule, you find yourself digging through the DL in the draft and looking for those DL that get generated with decent SP, M2M Cover, and B&R Cover to draft and switching them to CBs for the first camp.

Here are some position swaps that hit the 50-7 rule pretty well:

TE -> WR (257# -> 198#)
DT -> LB (300# -> 237-245#)
LB -> CB (237-245# -> 191#)

Because of frame, the player is not likely going to hit the ideal weight for the position, but they'll get close enough to make a big difference in overall SP.

Here's two examples:

1) MLB - Pre-TC 312#, 74 SP, 66 AC; End of season 264#, 81 SP, 73 AC (+6 overall points because of weight change): https://die-hard-fans.myfootballnow.com/player/3020

2) CB - Pre-TC 252#, 75 SP, 57 AC; End of season 222#, 79 SP, 59 AC: https://paydirt.myfootballnow.com/player/3586 (This guy rode my bench all of last season. He's currently my CB7, but could be a CB3/4/5 for most teams, and was good enough at the end of last season that I didn't mind trading away several CBs.)

Example 1 got close enough to the 50-7 rule, and is a dominant MLB at 263# (now). His weight dropped incredibly during the first season, but has since slowed down, and I'm not sure how much more he'll drop. The same with the second player. He dropped 30# during the season, but his weight change has also slowed in the second season.

But man their overall rating sucks...
How much overweight a player is from the ideal weight for his position affects his overall score. I haven't figured out an exact number for this, but based on multiple observations the formula is something like this:

1# over ideal weight = -0.19 overall score

(To be clear, the numbers I have been seeing are between 0.18 and 0.20, so 0.19 is a good estimation point.)

What this means is to quickly determine how good a player is at a specific position who is overweight for that position, you need to take the pounds over the ideal weight and multiple that number by 0.19. Then add the resulting amount to the player's current overall score for that position.

So, let's take example #1.

Current overall score: 77
Pounds overweight: 18
Weight adjusted overall score: 77 + (18 * 0.19) = 80

Or example #2.

Current overall score: 65
Pounds overweight: 30
Weight adjusted overall score: 65 + (30 * 0.19) = 71

Now let's take an example where things really get interesting: https://paydirt.myfootballnow.com/player/4186

Current overall score: 52
Pounds overweight: 68
Weight adjusted overall score: 52 + (68 * 0.19) = 65

I don't expect example three to drop all the way down to 191. However, I do expect him to drop down to the 220-230 range by the end of the season. If he drops all the way to 235 and hits the 50-7 rule, he'll hit 66 SP. And I'll probably move him to WLB as a backup cover LB.

Draft time

I use the 50-7 rule and the 1:0.19 observation when setting my draft boards. I'm not afraid to draft a DE in rounds 3 or 4 that I'm going to camp at DB just to see how low I can get his weight. Similarly, I'm going to grab as many of those types of players in the late rounds as I can to help build up DB and LB depth. You never know when the best DB in the 4th round is really a DE or LB.

So any indication as to what an ideal Frame would be for an OL? for example..obviously you cant convert a 5'10" FB to a LG because he is too small. But curious if you have noticed where the threshold is? Personally i don't like any OL under 6'3"

I have converted sub-6'0" players to the OL: https://die-hard-fans.myfootballnow.com/player/622 (Started as a 258# FB or TE.)

Frame is currently independent of height. Height as far as I know is only used in calculations to determine whether a player can knock down a pass or out jump another player. Height/weight biomechanics are off in the game. In general, I ignore height for most things right now.

Good to know! and thanks again for all this information..always wanted a breakdown of this..and it extremely useful to have the list of weights.

Setherick,

Thank you for the in depth insight. Quite an interesting and detailed read.

Although I do not pretend to have the experience or background that a lot of you and some veteran owners have, it does help explain some roster moves I made early on in my early days here at MFN, mostly out of necessity, that bore decent fruits. In the past, sometimes I had taken basically LBs that statistically would be qualified as being "overweight " in a draft. (This was during my first initial drafts at MFN and not possessing the advantages of drafting skill or knowledge, LOL , if that exists.) However, moving these fatty LBs into positions on the D-line, they blossomed to really decent players (IMO). And over time, I try and shuffle guys around to gain experience in their primary positional group to help combat the injury factor. So that has appeared to be a bonus to some degree as well.

One other note I might add, that I am sure you seasoned owners are aware of, but I find interesting. The fact that some positional groups have a longer career expentancy. This has a high degree of importance in deciding what position to put a player. In general, C,QB,DT,DE have longer careers. RB,TE,LB,DB, are usually more brief. And career length could determine the skills and attributes that a player can have at the upper levels to be most effective.
This also is something to consider when doing contract negotiations. Even if a 8 year RB or 12 year DE is a stud now, in a season or two he will decline. And not recognizing such spells out salary cap or financing issues. The understanding and value of 3-4-5 + years in switching a player's position I find extremely helpful. (Currently, I am working a bit on moving a DE to DT to get more career and PT out of a player, therefore more value for the longer contacts with that in consideration. )

Again, thank you, for the info and this thread!

would the 1.9 also apply to underweight players?

Haven't tracked it closely enough, but I assume so. I typically move DE/DT -> LB and LB -> DB (and DE/DT -> DB to see how far in weight they will drop). So overweight is a bigger problem for me. I do move DB -> DL, but those guys rarely get to full weight anyway so it's more of a struggle to do that.

i see, thanks. mike