With your competition, no doubt about it.

croverja wrote: With your competition, no doubt about it.

I don`t know what you`re getting at?

I think I have a team that has turned out pretty well, so I'll share what I did when I first got my team. It was a two stage process.......

First, I ignored best position and placed players based on skills that I thought relevant. E.g. DL players needed to have high tackling. And I placed them there regardless of what their best position was. Even if the position wasn't even listed on their list of best positions, I still played them there.

Second, if there were ties in skills I felt were relevant, THEN I looked at their best positions. Only then.

I have found that it takes anywhere from 10-40 games to get a player to change their best position.

I've also noticed that playing a player out of position doesn't have a big enough penalty to justify not playing someone with high relevant skills. In other words, I'd rather play a player with 7 blocking as an OL, but who doesn't have OL anywhere on their best position list, than play a player with 3 blocking whose natural position is OL.

But my opinion may differ from others......

I have an OL playing as my QB, OL as my RB, my K playing as FB and DL playing as WR. That's just on offense.

Since setting these and many other changes I am now 3-3, all 3 losses being against better level challenge opposition. In league I am on a 3 game streak and only 1 behind league leader.