OL ST

[Steve-LA Chargers]

Any reason the PNFL chose to give different OL different ST max potential?

Any chance we could make them all 99, 98 or 97? This then focuses the differentiation among them to their other ratings. Plus, if for example you built an OL all at max 99 ST, it would ensure if a G or T subs for a C that the ST isn’t a factor - just the other ratings. This would allow us to reduce the active requirement to the minimum.

Thoughts?

[Jerry-Redskins]

Charlie will have to weight in on the VPNFL aspects, but it seems to me it does provide some reality no matter the original intent. The NFL definitely differentiates between T's and interior OL. A few players can do more, but mostly they are specialized. We have a little less control over the sub pattern than reality, but I almost always carry at least 3 at T and G and 2 at C unless I have injuries. I'm sure there is a little cross over, but I have not noticed any real issue for Washington.

I know there was an email chain or another post discussing it recently. Can you expand more on the issue. I'm not sure I understand the intent.

[Mitch-Oilers]

In the NFL, it seems like Gs are expected to be stronger than Ts, but not as athletic. Our ratings are ratings are somewhat the opposite. As far as why the ST POT rating can't be the same or Gs be higher, I don't know.

As far as the ratings, I believe it has more to do with the OL AI. The Gs separate from the C too fast in pass block logic. This leads to a lot of A and B gap sacks if DT and G ratings aren't adjusted. That's why you see plays that have DEs lining up between the G and C sack the QB just after the snap. The DE have higher SP, AC and AG than DT.

[Charlie-49ers]

To differentiate their positions so that they are not interchangeable