Ragnulf-le-maudit wrote:
Dont look at overalls in FA, you could find quality back-ups under 60 if you look for speed. TEs and WRs are good options, personnaly i would go with WR.
If you have to ignore the overalls, then your weights aren't right for RBs. If you're desperate, and trust me I've been desperate for RBs, then you only need to look at three attributes - Speed, Carry, and Avoid Fumble. Set those weights to something like SP 100, Carry 75 and Fumble 50 (some times I go 100 on all of those - my full set of weights are stranger), and then search for the best available player for those three attributes. Most likely the best FA is going to be an overlooked QB or WR that you can turn into a serviceable running back. Or an overlooked FB or TE that has a lot of speed, but no strength, that you can use as a big back until your players get healthy.
When I took over MFN-16, my top three running backs for the games that I managed my first year were:
1) some dude I found as a FA:
https://mfn16.myfootballnow.com/player/3243 2) my starting TE (who is now back to starting TE):
https://mfn16.myfootballnow.com/player/181 3) and a rookie WR that wasn't getting playing time (who is now back to WR but probably better at RB):
https://mfn16.myfootballnow.com/player/4982 My current RB2 is also a former WR that wasn't getting playing time:
https://mfn16.myfootballnow.com/player/3739 Those bozos managed to propel a 6-6 team when I took over to a championship. In short, it's not hard to find a RB if you're willing to play whoever fits.
Last edited at 6/12/2016 9:28 am