***This happened in the Fantasy league...but bc of it we will adjust the guidelines in this league too. It DOESN'T effect anybody bc nobody has a FB starting in TE spot right now.
Today G_A_CERTIFIED brought up a great point about the FB / TE depth chart guidelines.
We CAN interchange FB's and TE's on our depth chart. Those 2 positions are very similar. A lot of NFL team's don't even have a FB on their roster. TE's play in the backfield all the time. Now as far as FB playing TE.....nah it doesn't really happen much (yes a FB does slide up sometimes to play a "Wing" position) but they rarely get on the line.
...and honestly....FB's NEVER are good enough to play TE...so it hardly happens. EXCEPT for Marcel Reese. That mother effer CAN play TE in real life. He could play all 3 positions (HB, FB, TE).
****BUT G_A_'s point was this: if he has Reece at TE...then EVERY play he calls the DEFENSE WILL SEE the personnel as kind of MESSED UP.
You'll see this: 1 QB, 3 RB, 2 WR...instead of 1 QB, 2 RB, 1 TE and 2 WR's like normal.
great point when trying to match personnel. Yes should you KNOW that reece is playing TE...yes. BUT we're going to make a little change.
No longer can a FB START AT THE TE SPOT (aside from Reece which we'll have zeemen CHANGE HIS POSITION IN THE OFFSEASON).
Changes to the depth chart to come.
FB / TE discussion
Share this post on: 
I've got Reece in default and he is my 3rd TE. I can think of one formation , jumbo something, when he lines up on the far right, but other than that he is always my FB. I don't think this is an issue because I'm not abusing anything, but it is deceptive.
Both will warrant a 3-4 or a 4-3 though a base defense so at least thete is not like a personnel matchup disadvantage bc I have seen the proper personnel every situation I had him in. And yes would like to move him to TE. And your right he can play any position even hb but if we move him to TE I don't think I can put him in at hb any longer. That's what I'm guessing. I'm totally cool with it.
Ya I saw the raiders split him out wide in a game last season he caught a 30 yard pass. He def a sick player.
there are alot of teams in the nfl that dont carry a FB anymore. I know the Eagles for example dont carry a FB, they have all TEs. Madden however cause of the dumb roster reqs put Eagles best TE at FB(James Casey). I dont see a diff if a FB plays TE or a TE plays FB. Now a days players play all over the field. I dont think it will change anyone game plan or play seeing a FB at TE. Me personaly i dont use many if any TE sets so dont matter to me. But they are 100% inter changable in my mind. Hell I see see HBs out wide, wrs in back fields, nfl is changing alot. Funny part is u can pick a 3/4 wr sets and people still pick 46 or 5-2, 44, 3-4. So not sure why anyone would complain really. Just my 2 cents
That's cool, i have Casey in fantasy, he was always like a poor mans Reece. I didn't know he was really a TE.
....I agree that usually ONLY the WR's determine matching personnel with some guys....BUT thinking about an ELITE TE is also huge with matching personnel....and could be considered a WR in essence when matching.
So when you see that 3 RB's are in the personnel and it's only 2...kinda throws you off if you're not thinking about it every time.
Or say it shows 2 RB's ...but in essence it's only 1....it does make a difference for the ultimate strategist. Depending on a 1 back or 2 back set.
...and death to your point...when guys are throwing BASE defenses out there against heavy WR sets....that's a whole different topic some guys do. The guy that made this point is a pretty SIM guy. And just to be clear...he wasn't complaining at all, just bringing it up.
So when you see that 3 RB's are in the personnel and it's only 2...kinda throws you off if you're not thinking about it every time.
Or say it shows 2 RB's ...but in essence it's only 1....it does make a difference for the ultimate strategist. Depending on a 1 back or 2 back set.
...and death to your point...when guys are throwing BASE defenses out there against heavy WR sets....that's a whole different topic some guys do. The guy that made this point is a pretty SIM guy. And just to be clear...he wasn't complaining at all, just bringing it up.
Jmo- its a lot easier to get or make a GREAT blocking fb compared to how difficult it is to make a blocking TE. If it was up to me id make only te's play te and require everyone to have 3. Like i said jmo
Its too easy to boost a fb's blocking
Its too easy to boost a fb's blocking
...but at the same time....if you want to put a FB or T at the TE position....then you become predictable. I don't even guard those guys if that's what I see and I load up for the run.
I just think the outside runs are so tough to stop as is, when you get a FB at 90 rbk and 90 impact block it even becomes tougher
Similar topics
|
|
|