[Sudy Nym]

I don't really have any doubt (or problem) when it comes to the functionality of the depth charts (and I hope that I don't need to), but rather their reliability and ease of use.

I expect that rate of play is balanced for the most part, but I'm sure that many of us could do with some assurance- those of us who don't have the time or the will to look through a player's records to make sure that he is getting steady playing time. Does 20% need to be off-off-off-off-playing-off-off-off-off-playing? No, it doesn't- and I agree that that wouldn't be realistic. However, I don't think that it can be off-off-playing-playing-off-off-off-off-playing-off-off-off-off-off-off-off-off-playing-off-off. And some have been suggesting that it just might very well be. That's not realistic, either- not for a platoon, a routine defensive fill-in, or say, a back-up catcher.

When I say "ease of use," how many people can, off the top of their heads, forecast how much playing time a player will get when set at 22% with 79 games remaining in the season? With a "one out every five" (for 20%, of course- not 22) system, it's much easier to set our depth charts on the fly and not look back- that's what I was hoping that the 5.11 patch added.