I agree that 10 is too thin, but I also don't really like using a player's potential overall as a factor. For instance, overall doesn't take in to account a player's physical weight and the weight of the position that the player would be changing to. That will still lead to a number of awkward situations where you can change a WR to a RG, but not be able to change the player to RB.

Also, would it ever be beneficial to move an offensive player to defense and vice versa? I've not tried it, so I don't know that if you took a fast WR and moved him to DB that he would ever develop cover skills. Similarly, would the low rated tank of a DL with decent long snapping ever develop the blocking skills and short snapping skills to be a full time C? Has anyone experimented with this? In my limited experience switching players positions, I've not seen a player develop a skill that they didn't have much potential for at the start.

I drafted a RDE IIRC and I switched him to SS because he had 98 speed, 90 man coverage and things like that. He was 255lbs but he's doing pretty well imo. Now at 252 after half a season

This is a big flaw in the system. I see why the position change limits would be made based on defaults, but some of us have different player weights that would make the position change worthwhile.

+1

I've also done the same thing with fast RBs. . . I've seen some players at RB who are elite in nearly every physical category, but have a low rating due to lack of ball carry, break tackle, etc.

I've taken some of those guys and moved them to WR. I usually like to see some glipse of receiving skill, but I've seen guys without great catching, route running, etc do well at the position. If I've got an offensive player who is just an athlete, but plays RB, but lacks RB skills, shouldn't I be able to experiment and move him around?!? (The way college and pro teams do with elite level athletes - just try and find a way to get them the ball.)

My point being, I've taken RBs with the type of skill set described above, moved them to WR, and seen them consistently get open or catch all of their passes 30 yards down the field. I'd rather take my chances with him out-running a DB than having to leave him at RB with his ratings of 99 speed, 99 accel, 20 ball carrying, 13 avoid fumble, and 30 break tackle.

I'll definitely look into it.

This would be extremely interesting if position coaches had more of an impact on player progression (or if we had some way to quantify exactly how much they currently effect it. I would think if you took the D-lineman you described above, and moved him to C, that an offensive line coach rated 95 would EVENTUALLY be able to teach him the necessary skills. If not, what's the point in having them?

Apparently not much.

A player's future rating can potentially improve if he moves to a new position, but only if there is some distance between his current and future rating. I think you'll have a hard time finding a WR who has enough future coverage skills to justify moving him to a DB position.

The issue of preventing a move brings up a common question about the lesser of two evils - we have users like those of you who have expressed concern in this thread, who have legitimate reasons for moving a player position. That is how I envisioned the game from the beginning. But on the other hand you have users like we've seen who intentionally tank their games resulting in, as we have seen, 100+ points being scored by their opponents. That is a huge break from reality as well. So what is the lesser of the two evils? Honestly I'm not sure. I may take that block out of the new version and allow this conversation to continue.

Well, I don't think the game should prohibit moves per se regardless of any range or whatever. Numerous positions have good crossover even if it doesn't seem obvious. Some of the better projects I've had have been non too obvious changes.

Look at Miami irl - Tannehill at College primarily WR, something like 14 games as QB? Tony Lippett, overwhelmingly WR now being used as CB ( admittedly mostly because he's 6ft 3, meaning he towers over the other dwarves we have on the roster ).

What's needed really is a system where owners can take chances on moves like this - maybe with a higher risk of them busting?

If it's a case of owners gaming the system by changing position, then one workaround could be to simply base contract negotiations on their main, "best" position.

Example;

D. Odgy owner wants his 4th year star QB reclassified as a C to lower contract demands. Ok, His assigned position may now be C - he's had 1 day at that position. 4 seasons as QB, so he'll want QB money. D. Odgy releases him, hoping nobody notices, he can resign him cheaply. Oh wait, that QB wants a large truck of money to be delivered pronto - he knows his worth because he's a QB and not a C in his own mind.

Say D. Odgy decides he wants to become a pillar of society. He swallows his pride, pays the man his QB money but wants him to remain as a C; maybe he might be better there, anyway. D. Odgy just drafted another QB. He'll have that C as a project, give a 5 year deal - sadly on QB money.

End of that contract, wouldn't you know it, that C is now a MFN version of Dwight Stephenson ( without the Jets cheap shot ending his career ). D. Odgy resigns himself to paying more QB money for a C - but wait. After that 5 year contract ends, he's more experience as a C so is now happy to accept C money...

TL;DR version

Have players have their own notion of their main position. That would be the position at which they've accrued the most game time. Contracts would thus go on that main position value, preventing the fiddling of positions. When another position has had more playing time, then that becomes their new main position.

Probably needs work and has a millions holes in it, but that could be a first stab at blocking the problem in hand.