What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Zealots 2008 Rookie ADP (1 Viewer)

AKComic

Footballguy
Figured I should give this its own thread, rather than letting it get buried in the dynasty rookie draft thread. I'd been keeping an eye on all the different Zealots rookie drafts as they run, and updating my own lists accordingly, so I thought I might as well share the data as it comes in! It's kind of fun to watch it develop as the data becomes stronger...

Zealots 2008 Rookie ADP

Updated 5/17/08, 12:46 PM PST

With 21 leagues (6 completed) reporting so far:

1.01 - McFadden, Darren OAK RB

1.02 - Stewart, Jonathan CAR RB

1.03 - Mendenhall, Rashard PIT RB

1.04 - Forte, Matt CHI RB

1.05 - Smith, Kevin DET RB

1.06 - Jones, Felix DAL RB

1.07 - Rice, Ray BAL RB

1.08 - Johnson, Chris TEN RB

1.09 - Ryan, Matt ATL QB

1.10 - Hardy, James BUF WR

1.11 - Thomas, Devin WAS WR

1.12 - Charles, Jamaal KCC RB

2.01 - Sweed, Limas PIT WR

2.02 - Torain, Ryan DEN RB

2.03 - Avery, Donnie STL WR

2.04 - Kelly, Malcolm WAS WR

2.05 - Flacco, Joe BAL QB

2.06 - Slaton, Steve HOU RB

2.07 - Bennett, Earl CHI WR

2.08 - Henne, Chad MIA QB

2.09 - Jackson, DeSean PHI WR

2.10 - Brohm, Brian GBP QB

2.11 - Rivers, Keith CIN LB

2.12 - Nelson, Jordy GBP WR

3.01 - Long, Chris STL DE

3.02 - Dizon, Jordon DET LB

3.03 - Manningham, Mario NYG WR

3.04 - Mayo, Jerod NEP LB

3.05 - Hightower, Tim ARI RB

3.06 - Lofton, Curtis ATL LB

3.07 - Simpson, Jerome CIN WR

3.08 - Choice, Tashard DAL RB

3.09 - Keller, Dustin NYJ TE

3.10 - Doucet, Early ARI WR

3.11 - Hart, Mike IND RB

3.12 - Caldwell, Andre CIN WR

4.01 - Connor, Dan CAR LB

4.02 - Johnson, Josh TBB QB

4.03 - Gholston, Vernon NYJ DE

4.04 - Royal, Eddie DEN WR

4.05 - Jackson, Dexter TBB WR

4.06 - Hester, Jacob SDC RB

4.07 - Phillips, Kenny NYG S

4.08 - Omon, Xavier BUF RB

4.09 - Harvey, Derrick JAC DE

4.10 - Gooden, Tavares BAL LB

4.11 - Carlson, John SEA TE

4.12 - Parmele, Jalen MIA RB

5.01 - Booty, John David MIN QB

5.02 - Hawkins, Lavelle TEN WR

5.03 - Forsett, Justin SEA RB

5.04 - Felton, Jerome DET RB

5.05 - Adibi, Xavier HOU LB

5.06 - Washington, Chauncey JAC RB

5.07 - Bell, Beau CLE LB

5.08 - Franklin, Will KCC WR

5.09 - Dorsey, Glenn KCC DT

5.10 - Rodgers-Cromartie, Dominique ARI CB

5.11 - Burton, Keenan STL WR

5.12 - Davis, Fred WAS TE

6.01 - Finley, Jermichael GBP TE

6.02 - Douglas, Harry ATL WR

6.03 - Monk, Marcus CHI WR

6.04 - Groves, Quentin JAC DE

6.05 - Boyd, Cory TBB RB

6.06 - O'Connell, Kevin NEP QB

6.07 - Brown, Thomas ATL RB

6.08 - Arrington, Adrian NOS WR

6.09 - Flowers, Brandon KCC CB

6.10 - Merling, Phillip MIA DE

6.11 - Johnson, Tyrell MIN S

6.12 - Thomas, Marcus SDC RB

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My thoughts on the stats so far:

- The Tim Hightower thing is a total fluke; he'll drop out of the top 2 rounds very shortly as more data comes in. Don't let it throw you.

- The Ryan Torain thing, however, isn't as much of a fluke - this guy's ADP is varying wildly. I've seen him go anywhere from late 2nd to SEVENTH overall (beating out BOTH Ray Rice and Chris Johnson!). It's official - Denver RBs breed insanity. :rant:

- So far, the LB run has started later than expected - I'm guessing it's due to the glut of 2nd round WR value.

- Suprisingly, Mendenhall and Forte have been almost interchangeable at the #3 spot so far, and McFadden doesn't have a particularly strong grasp on that #1 spot, either - Stewart's getting a LOT of love.

 
Chris Long and Kenny Phillips not being mentioned is really puzzling.
Me too, but this is also with only 9 leagues' data. Although there seems to be a larger than usual number of prospects at RB and WR, especially. There really aren't too many sexy defensive picks. Long should be gone by the end of the 3rd in most Zealots leagues, Phillips I am not so sure of. Defensive backs always seem to be available on the waiver wire.
 
Did someone take Hightower at 1.01 to screw up his ADP or something?
He was taken in the draft I am taking part in, the person took him at 1.09. It's the only draft he has been taken in so far most of the other drafts that have started so far are in the late 2nd to early 3rd round and he hasn't been taken in any of those yet. So once he does come of the boards there his adp will probably plummet back down to round 3 or so.
 
Thanks for posting this.

One question. Are you using average draft position or median draft position? Using a median would produce much better results, especially with the low number of leagues. It would at least almost completely ignore the 1.09 Hightower pick.

 
Figured I should give this its own thread, rather than letting it get buried in the dynasty rookie draft thread. I'd been keeping an eye on all the different Zealots rookie drafts as they run, and updating my own lists accordingly, so I thought I might as well share the data as it comes in! It's kind of fun to watch it develop as the data becomes stronger...

Zealots 2008 Rookie ADP

Updated 5/11/08, 3:03 AM PST

With 9 leagues reporting so far:

1.01 - McFadden, Darren OAK RB

1.02 - Stewart, Jonathan CAR RB

1.03 - Mendenhall, Rashard PIT RB

1.04 - Forte, Matt CHI RB

1.05 - Smith, Kevin DET RB
not much surprising above
1.06 - Jones, Felix DAL RB

1.07 - Rice, Ray BAL RB

1.08 - Johnson, Chris TEN RB
This is "gotta get a RB" mentality IMO. I could see "love" for Rice as he seems to be a fan favorite but the Johnson picks are greatly hypocritical. "Beat up" the Titans for taking him then take him yourself. I understand it's 9 leagues and I don't know if those 9 said as such; However I'm confident this will play out this way.
1.09 - Ryan, Matt ATL QB
Value wise, if this holds true, I like Flacco better then.
1.10 - Hightower, Tim ARI RB*

1.11 - Hardy, James BUF WR

1.12 - Thomas, Devin WAS WR

2.01 - Bennett, Earl CHI WR*
Nice target group if you're trading down
2.02 - Charles, Jamaal KCC RB

2.03 - Avery, Donnie STL WR

2.04 - Slaton, Steve HOU RB*

2.05 - Sweed, Limas PIT WR

2.06 - Torain, Ryan DEN RB

2.07 - Brohm, Brian GBP QB*

2.08 - Kelly, Malcolm WAS WR*

2.09 - Dizon, Jordon DET LB*

2.10 - Nelson, Jordy GBP WR*

2.11 - Flacco, Joe BAL QB*

2.12 - Manningham, Mario NYG WR*
I don't see any reason to draft Nelson unless you just don't like anyone else available. They're so deep at WR....I figure you also have to NOT like Rodgers to draft Brohm. Manningham seems pretty far down the depth chart too.

I think the Gmen "hit" with Steve Smith and the Pack did with Jennings and Jones. Are you guys expecting too much good fortune in the draft?

 
This is "gotta get a RB" mentality IMO. I could see "love" for Rice as he seems to be a fan favorite but the Johnson picks are greatly hypocritical. "Beat up" the Titans for taking him then take him yourself. I understand it's 9 leagues and I don't know if those 9 said as such; However I'm confident this will play out this way.
Well, Zealots is non-PPR and you can start 3 RBs. Add in the large rosters, and any back with more than 5 carries gets rostered and held. Backs are at a premium in this format, so people reach for them, every year. Especially because you have guys locking up handcuffs. I doubt Torain's ADP will fall much below 1.12 when it is all said and done. There will be a lot of guys picking around 1.6-1.10 that have Henry and/or Selvin, that can talk themselves into taking him.
 
massraider said:
Bri said:
This is "gotta get a RB" mentality IMO. I could see "love" for Rice as he seems to be a fan favorite but the Johnson picks are greatly hypocritical. "Beat up" the Titans for taking him then take him yourself. I understand it's 9 leagues and I don't know if those 9 said as such; However I'm confident this will play out this way.
Well, Zealots is non-PPR and you can start 3 RBs. Add in the large rosters, and any back with more than 5 carries gets rostered and held. Backs are at a premium in this format, so people reach for them, every year. Especially because you have guys locking up handcuffs. I doubt Torain's ADP will fall much below 1.12 when it is all said and done. There will be a lot of guys picking around 1.6-1.10 that have Henry and/or Selvin, that can talk themselves into taking him.
:lmao: Z leagues are all about RBs.
 
massraider said:
Bri said:
This is "gotta get a RB" mentality IMO. I could see "love" for Rice as he seems to be a fan favorite but the Johnson picks are greatly hypocritical. "Beat up" the Titans for taking him then take him yourself. I understand it's 9 leagues and I don't know if those 9 said as such; However I'm confident this will play out this way.
Well, Zealots is non-PPR and you can start 3 RBs. Add in the large rosters, and any back with more than 5 carries gets rostered and held. Backs are at a premium in this format, so people reach for them, every year. Especially because you have guys locking up handcuffs. I doubt Torain's ADP will fall much below 1.12 when it is all said and done. There will be a lot of guys picking around 1.6-1.10 that have Henry and/or Selvin, that can talk themselves into taking him.
:confused: Z leagues are all about RBs.
True... but I still lost with LT2/Gore/SJax/Grant/. :rolleyes:
 
Bri said:
I don't see any reason to draft Nelson unless you just don't like anyone else available. They're so deep at WR....I figure you also have to NOT like Rodgers to draft Brohm. Manningham seems pretty far down the depth chart too.I think the Gmen "hit" with Steve Smith and the Pack did with Jennings and Jones. Are you guys expecting too much good fortune in the draft?
Driver has two years tops left with the Pack, and their third WR sees the field a lot - not to mention that Nelson could pass Jones on the depth chart. Rodgers is an FA in 2010 and he hasn't been able to stay healthy in his short career. If the injury bug continues to bit, we could see Brohm piloting the offense with that great young trio of WRs.Manningham might be the better heir to Toomer's role than Smith, who seems like he'd be at home in the slot. If he gets past his character stuff, I dont see how the Gints keep him off the field. I think its shortsighted to pass on a talented rookie just because they're blocked at the moment - talent will create its own opportunity.
 
massraider said:
Bri said:
This is "gotta get a RB" mentality IMO. I could see "love" for Rice as he seems to be a fan favorite but the Johnson picks are greatly hypocritical. "Beat up" the Titans for taking him then take him yourself. I understand it's 9 leagues and I don't know if those 9 said as such; However I'm confident this will play out this way.
Well, Zealots is non-PPR and you can start 3 RBs. Add in the large rosters, and any back with more than 5 carries gets rostered and held. Backs are at a premium in this format, so people reach for them, every year. Especially because you have guys locking up handcuffs. I doubt Torain's ADP will fall much below 1.12 when it is all said and done. There will be a lot of guys picking around 1.6-1.10 that have Henry and/or Selvin, that can talk themselves into taking him.
:shrug: Z leagues are all about RBs.
Disagree.I've been a consistent winner and champion using the stud WR theory.:/hijackover:
 
Bri said:
1.06 - Jones, Felix DAL RB1.07 - Rice, Ray BAL RB1.08 - Johnson, Chris TEN RB
This is "gotta get a RB" mentality IMO. I could see "love" for Rice as he seems to be a fan favorite but the Johnson picks are greatly hypocritical. "Beat up" the Titans for taking him then take him yourself. I understand it's 9 leagues and I don't know if those 9 said as such; However I'm confident this will play out this way.
I'm a big fan of "stud WR", but I'd still take those three RBs above over any WR this year. Who is this year's "stud WR"? Who is the great talent? Devin Thomas??? Who has the great situation? Earl Bennett? Its a crapshoot this year at WR. IMO, the same WR you would reach for at 1.06 you could get coming back at 2.05, and with Zealots starting requirements, I don't see how you can pass on those RBs.Now I'm also in a 32 team, start 1 RB/3 WR league, and I can almost guarantee you that 10 WRs will be gone before the 3rd RB goes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bri said:
1.06 - Jones, Felix DAL RB1.07 - Rice, Ray BAL RB1.08 - Johnson, Chris TEN RB
This is "gotta get a RB" mentality IMO. I could see "love" for Rice as he seems to be a fan favorite but the Johnson picks are greatly hypocritical. "Beat up" the Titans for taking him then take him yourself. I understand it's 9 leagues and I don't know if those 9 said as such; However I'm confident this will play out this way.
I'm a big fan of "stud WR", but I'd still take those three RBs above over any WR this year. Who is this year's "stud WR"? Who is the great talent? Devin Thomas??? Who has the great situation? Earl Bennett? Its a crapshoot this year at WR. IMO, the same WR you would reach for at 1.06 you could get coming back at 2.05.
Since all are supposedly elite talents, opportunity should be a key separator as to where to rank them. Larry Johnson didn't do his "owner" much good while Priest was winning FF leagues for his "owner". Back to Larry, I figure you can wait to draft someone that'll sit for a while. Before you say how do you figure-Draft position indicates the team is NOT as good and needs some help sooner rather than later
 
Looking for immediate impact from your rookie picks is dangerous business. Just take the best player and be patient.

 
Looking for immediate impact from your rookie picks is dangerous business. Just take the best player and be patient.
:lmao: Not always as easy as it sounds though. At 1.03, I really needed a RB I can start (thanks to the disaster that is Cadilac). Kevin Smith and Forte were awfully tempting options next to Mendenhall.In the end, I went with the talent, but I hope it didn't doom me to another high pick next year.
 
massraider said:
Bri said:
This is "gotta get a RB" mentality IMO. I could see "love" for Rice as he seems to be a fan favorite but the Johnson picks are greatly hypocritical. "Beat up" the Titans for taking him then take him yourself. I understand it's 9 leagues and I don't know if those 9 said as such; However I'm confident this will play out this way.
Well, Zealots is non-PPR and you can start 3 RBs. Add in the large rosters, and any back with more than 5 carries gets rostered and held. Backs are at a premium in this format, so people reach for them, every year. Especially because you have guys locking up handcuffs. I doubt Torain's ADP will fall much below 1.12 when it is all said and done. There will be a lot of guys picking around 1.6-1.10 that have Henry and/or Selvin, that can talk themselves into taking him.
:mellow: Z leagues are all about RBs.
Some sort of disclaimer should probably be added to the first post. For those of us in leagues that aren't so RB heavy this listing is a bit skewed.
 
massraider said:
Bri said:
This is "gotta get a RB" mentality IMO. I could see "love" for Rice as he seems to be a fan favorite but the Johnson picks are greatly hypocritical. "Beat up" the Titans for taking him then take him yourself. I understand it's 9 leagues and I don't know if those 9 said as such; However I'm confident this will play out this way.
Well, Zealots is non-PPR and you can start 3 RBs. Add in the large rosters, and any back with more than 5 carries gets rostered and held. Backs are at a premium in this format, so people reach for them, every year. Especially because you have guys locking up handcuffs. I doubt Torain's ADP will fall much below 1.12 when it is all said and done. There will be a lot of guys picking around 1.6-1.10 that have Henry and/or Selvin, that can talk themselves into taking him.
:confused: Z leagues are all about RBs.
Some sort of disclaimer should probably be added to the first post. For those of us in leagues that aren't so RB heavy this listing is a bit skewed.
I like the Zealots league I'm in, but it would be much better if it was PPR. And I saw that as a guy with no good WRs at all on my team.
 
I like the Zealots league I'm in, but it would be much better if it was PPR. And I saw that as a guy with no good WRs at all on my team.
I think I love you.PPR pushes a lot more players into the higher levels of worth whereas non-PPR leagues put too much of a premium on a handful of players and thus draft spot./hijack
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that PPR is the way to go, but at least in Zealots you have DEEP rosters and big starting lineups to offset the RB hoarding a little bit.

 
Every year it gets voted on and every year it gets denied. It's here to stay. :useless:
I understand why, tho. Changing such a major rule would be the same as taking away th flex. It's not PPR, and it wasn't when I joined. The great thing about Zealots is that you have a bunch of leagues, all with the same rules, so looking at ADP and so forth really helpful. As opposed to say, leagues with 15 roster spots, and no flex. Links to those rookie drafts aren't useful at all.The only way to do it would be to create new syndicates, just for PPR. Which I am surprised they haven' done, I know I would go out of my way to grab a team in that league.
 
Every year it gets voted on and every year it gets denied. It's here to stay. :excited:
I know and it's sort of depressing. I'm happy to get to the title game with Westbrook, SJax and Graham, even though my WRs were Bowe, Ginn and worse. But it just seems to be out of line with the NFL, which I thought is what were were trying to emulate as we do this fantasy football thing. Of course, PPR would help Westbrook and SJax too, but it would be nice if the offensive rosters demanded more balance to get to the title game. Oh well.
 
Every year it gets voted on and every year it gets denied. It's here to stay. :lmao:
I understand why, tho. Changing such a major rule would be the same as taking away th flex. It's not PPR, and it wasn't when I joined. The great thing about Zealots is that you have a bunch of leagues, all with the same rules, so looking at ADP and so forth really helpful. As opposed to say, leagues with 15 roster spots, and no flex. Links to those rookie drafts aren't useful at all.

The only way to do it would be to create new syndicates, just for PPR. Which I am surprised they haven' done, I know I would go out of my way to grab a team in that league.
Not to steer this too off course, but anyone (in Zealots) is free to do just that. Write down the rules for the league (can copy most of it from the main rules) modify the scoring how you want and post it in the Test Leagues thread. The main problems with creating new leagues is getting someone to run them (commishes, vices, czars) and then filling the leagues. I don't doubt there would be real interest in it and if you are ambitious enough start it up. :thumbup: I would happily participate, but running the league(s) is really beyond my time constraints.
 
Every year it gets voted on and every year it gets denied. It's here to stay. :bag:
I understand why, tho. Changing such a major rule would be the same as taking away th flex. It's not PPR, and it wasn't when I joined. The great thing about Zealots is that you have a bunch of leagues, all with the same rules, so looking at ADP and so forth really helpful. As opposed to say, leagues with 15 roster spots, and no flex. Links to those rookie drafts aren't useful at all.

The only way to do it would be to create new syndicates, just for PPR. Which I am surprised they haven' done, I know I would go out of my way to grab a team in that league.
Not to steer this too off course, but anyone (in Zealots) is free to do just that. Write down the rules for the league (can copy most of it from the main rules) modify the scoring how you want and post it in the Test Leagues thread. The main problems with creating new leagues is getting someone to run them (commishes, vices, czars) and then filling the leagues. I don't doubt there would be real interest in it and if you are ambitious enough start it up. :scared: I would happily participate, but running the league(s) is really beyond my time constraints.
What he said!Every year we have some new ideas we test. Some stick, and some don't. It really depends on the interest, and believe it or not, how strong the leadership is in running and promoting the new games. I think a PPR would stick as well.

 
Some pretty smart people in this thread still fail to see the delicate balance of power/value of different positions in Zealots.

It is NOT all about RBs. If you have a solid team but weakness at RB you have a very good chance to win often and win it all. Just not against a team that is solid AND had good RBs.

QBs dominate scoring. This is a position you will be hard pressed to overcome if it is a weakness on your team. This does get offset by only having to start one. Still hard to climb out of a 20pt hole and win with any consistency if your QB sucks.

You must start 3 WR and you can start 4. Doing so is a viable strategy for winning championships. Position scarcity at WR especially elite WR makes them very valuable. People crying for PPR dont seem to realize how valuable the WR allready are. And changing the scoring to PPR will not really change that. It will just devalue the IDPs and QBs.

The scoring and roster requirements are what they are for a reason. It is no accident. It is the most fair, equitable and balanced system I have ever played in. Anyone who does not realize this really doesen't know what they are talking about. The proof is in the VBD #s.

Thanks for the ADP data.

 
Some pretty smart people in this thread still fail to see the delicate balance of power/value of different positions in Zealots.

It is NOT all about RBs. If you have a solid team but weakness at RB you have a very good chance to win often and win it all. Just not against a team that is solid AND had good RBs.

QBs dominate scoring. This is a position you will be hard pressed to overcome if it is a weakness on your team. This does get offset by only having to start one. Still hard to climb out of a 20pt hole and win with any consistency if your QB sucks.

You must start 3 WR and you can start 4. Doing so is a viable strategy for winning championships. Position scarcity at WR especially elite WR makes them very valuable. People crying for PPR dont seem to realize how valuable the WR allready are. And changing the scoring to PPR will not really change that. It will just devalue the IDPs and QBs.

The scoring and roster requirements are what they are for a reason. It is no accident. It is the most fair, equitable and balanced system I have ever played in. Anyone who does not realize this really doesen't know what they are talking about. The proof is in the VBD #s.

Thanks for the ADP data.
:goodposting: :sleep:
 
Some pretty smart people in this thread still fail to see the delicate balance of power/value of different positions in Zealots.

It is NOT all about RBs. If you have a solid team but weakness at RB you have a very good chance to win often and win it all. Just not against a team that is solid AND had good RBs.

QBs dominate scoring. This is a position you will be hard pressed to overcome if it is a weakness on your team. This does get offset by only having to start one. Still hard to climb out of a 20pt hole and win with any consistency if your QB sucks.

You must start 3 WR and you can start 4. Doing so is a viable strategy for winning championships. Position scarcity at WR especially elite WR makes them very valuable. People crying for PPR dont seem to realize how valuable the WR allready are. And changing the scoring to PPR will not really change that. It will just devalue the IDPs and QBs.

The scoring and roster requirements are what they are for a reason. It is no accident. It is the most fair, equitable and balanced system I have ever played in. Anyone who does not realize this really doesen't know what they are talking about. The proof is in the VBD #s.

Thanks for the ADP data.
:ptts: :hifive:
I don't necessarily agree with this.IDPs are not really all they are cracked up to be in Z - only 2 players in the Top 50 last year were IDPs (Willis, Urlacher), compared to 19 QBs, 14 RBs and 14 WRs in the Top 50 (one K).

While RBs and WRs kind of balanced last season, you'd have to agree that a league that allows 3 RBs to start with no PPR is skewed towards RBs. If you have 3 good RBs, you should easily be in the playoffs.

As for needing a stud QB - well, QBs aren't that dominant because of 12 teams. Most teams have a QB (at least one) and with 19 in the Top 50 everyone should have good starters.

This is with WR becoming more dominant in 2007 - in 2006 only 9 WRs cracked the Top 50, while 18 RBs with 22 QBs filled all but one remaining Top 50 spot. Again IDPs were of much lesser value, as the top LB was #49 (Fletcher).

Stud WRs won't carry your team, but 3 stud RBs will.

 
Some pretty smart people in this thread still fail to see the delicate balance of power/value of different positions in Zealots.

It is NOT all about RBs. If you have a solid team but weakness at RB you have a very good chance to win often and win it all. Just not against a team that is solid AND had good RBs.

QBs dominate scoring. This is a position you will be hard pressed to overcome if it is a weakness on your team. This does get offset by only having to start one. Still hard to climb out of a 20pt hole and win with any consistency if your QB sucks.

You must start 3 WR and you can start 4. Doing so is a viable strategy for winning championships. Position scarcity at WR especially elite WR makes them very valuable. People crying for PPR dont seem to realize how valuable the WR allready are. And changing the scoring to PPR will not really change that. It will just devalue the IDPs and QBs.

The scoring and roster requirements are what they are for a reason. It is no accident. It is the most fair, equitable and balanced system I have ever played in. Anyone who does not realize this really doesen't know what they are talking about. The proof is in the VBD #s.

Thanks for the ADP data.
:goodposting: :thumbup:
I don't necessarily agree with this.IDPs are not really all they are cracked up to be in Z - only 2 players in the Top 50 last year were IDPs (Willis, Urlacher), compared to 19 QBs, 14 RBs and 14 WRs in the Top 50 (one K).

While RBs and WRs kind of balanced last season, you'd have to agree that a league that allows 3 RBs to start with no PPR is skewed towards RBs. If you have 3 good RBs, you should easily be in the playoffs.

As for needing a stud QB - well, QBs aren't that dominant because of 12 teams. Most teams have a QB (at least one) and with 19 in the Top 50 everyone should have good starters.

This is with WR becoming more dominant in 2007 - in 2006 only 9 WRs cracked the Top 50, while 18 RBs with 22 QBs filled all but one remaining Top 50 spot. Again IDPs were of much lesser value, as the top LB was #49 (Fletcher).

Stud WRs won't carry your team, but 3 stud RBs will.
Stop looking at total points and look at the VBD #s with proper baselines for starting positions.
 
Some pretty smart people in this thread still fail to see the delicate balance of power/value of different positions in Zealots.

It is NOT all about RBs. If you have a solid team but weakness at RB you have a very good chance to win often and win it all. Just not against a team that is solid AND had good RBs.

QBs dominate scoring. This is a position you will be hard pressed to overcome if it is a weakness on your team. This does get offset by only having to start one. Still hard to climb out of a 20pt hole and win with any consistency if your QB sucks.

You must start 3 WR and you can start 4. Doing so is a viable strategy for winning championships. Position scarcity at WR especially elite WR makes them very valuable. People crying for PPR dont seem to realize how valuable the WR allready are. And changing the scoring to PPR will not really change that. It will just devalue the IDPs and QBs.

The scoring and roster requirements are what they are for a reason. It is no accident. It is the most fair, equitable and balanced system I have ever played in. Anyone who does not realize this really doesen't know what they are talking about. The proof is in the VBD #s.

Thanks for the ADP data.
:no: :lmao:
I don't necessarily agree with this.IDPs are not really all they are cracked up to be in Z - only 2 players in the Top 50 last year were IDPs (Willis, Urlacher), compared to 19 QBs, 14 RBs and 14 WRs in the Top 50 (one K).

While RBs and WRs kind of balanced last season, you'd have to agree that a league that allows 3 RBs to start with no PPR is skewed towards RBs. If you have 3 good RBs, you should easily be in the playoffs.

As for needing a stud QB - well, QBs aren't that dominant because of 12 teams. Most teams have a QB (at least one) and with 19 in the Top 50 everyone should have good starters.

This is with WR becoming more dominant in 2007 - in 2006 only 9 WRs cracked the Top 50, while 18 RBs with 22 QBs filled all but one remaining Top 50 spot. Again IDPs were of much lesser value, as the top LB was #49 (Fletcher).

Stud WRs won't carry your team, but 3 stud RBs will.
Stop looking at total points and look at the VBD #s with proper baselines for starting positions.
I can see where you guys are coming from.. the Z league that I won last year was because of Favre/Palmer and Edwards/Fitz/Jennings/Bowe. Portis was my only stud RB with Chester doing well for a few weeks. I lost 2 games.
 
Some pretty smart people in this thread still fail to see the delicate balance of power/value of different positions in Zealots.

It is NOT all about RBs. If you have a solid team but weakness at RB you have a very good chance to win often and win it all. Just not against a team that is solid AND had good RBs.

QBs dominate scoring. This is a position you will be hard pressed to overcome if it is a weakness on your team. This does get offset by only having to start one. Still hard to climb out of a 20pt hole and win with any consistency if your QB sucks.

You must start 3 WR and you can start 4. Doing so is a viable strategy for winning championships. Position scarcity at WR especially elite WR makes them very valuable. People crying for PPR dont seem to realize how valuable the WR allready are. And changing the scoring to PPR will not really change that. It will just devalue the IDPs and QBs.

The scoring and roster requirements are what they are for a reason. It is no accident. It is the most fair, equitable and balanced system I have ever played in. Anyone who does not realize this really doesen't know what they are talking about. The proof is in the VBD #s.

Thanks for the ADP data.
Based on the bolded comment, I'm not sure it's worth responding to you since you probably aren't going to listen to anything other than your own opinion. But I'll try.WR are very valuable in the Zealots setup. But the fact that you are allowed to start three RB makes them much more valuable than any other position. Anyone that is using a WR in that flex position instead of a good starting RB is more likely to be at a disadvantage unless you have four of the top 10 or so WR. If WR scoring were equitable and balanced compared to the RB position then you would not see 20 of the first 23 picks or so of every draft be RB.

PPR is not the answer to balance out WR and TE with the RB. If you want to do that, you need to allow players to only start a maximum of 2 RB and force them to start 3 WR or maybe even 4 WR. That will increase the value of the WR, IMO.

 
Some pretty smart people in this thread still fail to see the delicate balance of power/value of different positions in Zealots.

It is NOT all about RBs. If you have a solid team but weakness at RB you have a very good chance to win often and win it all. Just not against a team that is solid AND had good RBs.

QBs dominate scoring. This is a position you will be hard pressed to overcome if it is a weakness on your team. This does get offset by only having to start one. Still hard to climb out of a 20pt hole and win with any consistency if your QB sucks.

You must start 3 WR and you can start 4. Doing so is a viable strategy for winning championships. Position scarcity at WR especially elite WR makes them very valuable. People crying for PPR dont seem to realize how valuable the WR allready are. And changing the scoring to PPR will not really change that. It will just devalue the IDPs and QBs.

The scoring and roster requirements are what they are for a reason. It is no accident. It is the most fair, equitable and balanced system I have ever played in. Anyone who does not realize this really doesen't know what they are talking about. The proof is in the VBD #s.

Thanks for the ADP data.
:lmao: :cry:
I don't necessarily agree with this.IDPs are not really all they are cracked up to be in Z - only 2 players in the Top 50 last year were IDPs (Willis, Urlacher), compared to 19 QBs, 14 RBs and 14 WRs in the Top 50 (one K).

While RBs and WRs kind of balanced last season, you'd have to agree that a league that allows 3 RBs to start with no PPR is skewed towards RBs. If you have 3 good RBs, you should easily be in the playoffs.

As for needing a stud QB - well, QBs aren't that dominant because of 12 teams. Most teams have a QB (at least one) and with 19 in the Top 50 everyone should have good starters.

This is with WR becoming more dominant in 2007 - in 2006 only 9 WRs cracked the Top 50, while 18 RBs with 22 QBs filled all but one remaining Top 50 spot. Again IDPs were of much lesser value, as the top LB was #49 (Fletcher).

Stud WRs won't carry your team, but 3 stud RBs will.
Stop looking at total points and look at the VBD #s with proper baselines for starting positions.
I can see where you guys are coming from.. the Z league that I won last year was because of Favre/Palmer and Edwards/Fitz/Jennings/Bowe. Portis was my only stud RB with Chester doing well for a few weeks. I lost 2 games.
Part of the problem is that the perception that RBs are gold outstrips their actual value. Try trading for a top RB in a Z league. So while I agree that winning is possible without be loaded at RB, the position still dominates from a value-to-acquire perspective - either trading for, or drafting, them. Both startup drafts & rookie drafts are top heavy with RBs.
 
Every year it gets voted on and every year it gets denied. It's here to stay. :rant:
I understand why, tho. Changing such a major rule would be the same as taking away th flex. It's not PPR, and it wasn't when I joined. The great thing about Zealots is that you have a bunch of leagues, all with the same rules, so looking at ADP and so forth really helpful. As opposed to say, leagues with 15 roster spots, and no flex. Links to those rookie drafts aren't useful at all.

The only way to do it would be to create new syndicates, just for PPR. Which I am surprised they haven' done, I know I would go out of my way to grab a team in that league.
Not to steer this too off course, but anyone (in Zealots) is free to do just that. Write down the rules for the league (can copy most of it from the main rules) modify the scoring how you want and post it in the Test Leagues thread. The main problems with creating new leagues is getting someone to run them (commishes, vices, czars) and then filling the leagues. I don't doubt there would be real interest in it and if you are ambitious enough start it up. :confused: I would happily participate, but running the league(s) is really beyond my time constraints.
Though that might the more likely option, I don't think it a good one. Too many Z leagues already is watering down the owners. Of course, many of the Z owners have other leagues they are in and then add all the Z leagues they are in...and he have an owner just occupying a seat and not putting their ALL into it.The major problem is that people in Z land are scared of change. Though many can see the reasoning to why PPR would be better, there are many that just don't like any change. Thus, they vote NO to everything. PPR, even if it's a small change would enhance the classic leagues GREATLY. Then again, you don't need me to tell you because clearly those of us in z leagues that are posting here...seem to all agree on this basic matter.

 
Every year it gets voted on and every year it gets denied. It's here to stay. :rant:
I understand why, tho. Changing such a major rule would be the same as taking away th flex. It's not PPR, and it wasn't when I joined. The great thing about Zealots is that you have a bunch of leagues, all with the same rules, so looking at ADP and so forth really helpful. As opposed to say, leagues with 15 roster spots, and no flex. Links to those rookie drafts aren't useful at all.

The only way to do it would be to create new syndicates, just for PPR. Which I am surprised they haven' done, I know I would go out of my way to grab a team in that league.
Not to steer this too off course, but anyone (in Zealots) is free to do just that. Write down the rules for the league (can copy most of it from the main rules) modify the scoring how you want and post it in the Test Leagues thread. The main problems with creating new leagues is getting someone to run them (commishes, vices, czars) and then filling the leagues. I don't doubt there would be real interest in it and if you are ambitious enough start it up. :confused: I would happily participate, but running the league(s) is really beyond my time constraints.
Though that might the more likely option, I don't think it a good one. Too many Z leagues already is watering down the owners. Of course, many of the Z owners have other leagues they are in and then add all the Z leagues they are in...and he have an owner just occupying a seat and not putting their ALL into it.The major problem is that people in Z land are scared of change. Though many can see the reasoning to why PPR would be better, there are many that just don't like any change. Thus, they vote NO to everything. PPR, even if it's a small change would enhance the classic leagues GREATLY. Then again, you don't need me to tell you because clearly those of us in z leagues that are posting here...seem to all agree on this basic matter.
I agree with you.
 
The major problem is that people in Z land are scared of change. Though many can see the reasoning to why PPR would be better, there are many that just don't like any change. Thus, they vote NO to everything. PPR, even if it's a small change would enhance the classic leagues GREATLY. Then again, you don't need me to tell you because clearly those of us in z leagues that are posting here...seem to all agree on this basic matter.
I understand this reluctance to change to a point, but I agree with Biz. We can't even get that (IMO) stupid back-up QB rule overturned, though most who speak out on the subject would lead you to believe that almost no one wants it.
 
The major problem is that people in Z land are scared of change. Though many can see the reasoning to why PPR would be better, there are many that just don't like any change. Thus, they vote NO to everything. PPR, even if it's a small change would enhance the classic leagues GREATLY. Then again, you don't need me to tell you because clearly those of us in z leagues that are posting here...seem to all agree on this basic matter.
I understand this reluctance to change to a point, but I agree with Biz. We can't even get that (IMO) stupid back-up QB rule overturned, though most who speak out on the subject would lead you to believe that almost no one wants it.
I think those that have established teams do not want to change the scoring as it changes the value of their players. Adding PPR greatly benefits owners of Westbrook and Bush and hurts owners of RB that don't catch passes. I can see the reasoning of not changing the scoring in the middle of a league. Maybe changing it now to go into effect in a couple of years would work for more people.
 
The major problem is that people in Z land are scared of change. Though many can see the reasoning to why PPR would be better, there are many that just don't like any change. Thus, they vote NO to everything. PPR, even if it's a small change would enhance the classic leagues GREATLY. Then again, you don't need me to tell you because clearly those of us in z leagues that are posting here...seem to all agree on this basic matter.
I understand this reluctance to change to a point, but I agree with Biz. We can't even get that (IMO) stupid back-up QB rule overturned, though most who speak out on the subject would lead you to believe that almost no one wants it.
I think those that have established teams do not want to change the scoring as it changes the value of their players. Adding PPR greatly benefits owners of Westbrook and Bush and hurts owners of RB that don't catch passes. I can see the reasoning of not changing the scoring in the middle of a league. Maybe changing it now to go into effect in a couple of years would work for more people.
Pretty sure that was in the language at least one go-round, which is the way I'd want to do it too.
 
The major problem is that people in Z land are scared of change. Though many can see the reasoning to why PPR would be better, there are many that just don't like any change. Thus, they vote NO to everything. PPR, even if it's a small change would enhance the classic leagues GREATLY. Then again, you don't need me to tell you because clearly those of us in z leagues that are posting here...seem to all agree on this basic matter.
I understand this reluctance to change to a point, but I agree with Biz. We can't even get that (IMO) stupid back-up QB rule overturned, though most who speak out on the subject would lead you to believe that almost no one wants it.
I think those that have established teams do not want to change the scoring as it changes the value of their players. Adding PPR greatly benefits owners of Westbrook and Bush and hurts owners of RB that don't catch passes. I can see the reasoning of not changing the scoring in the middle of a league. Maybe changing it now to go into effect in a couple of years would work for more people.
To be honest, I'm not for PPR in regards to what it does to any of the RB's. I'm for PPR because it bring much more value to the possesion WR that many just think of as a fill in in zealots. The WR's that put up BIG games will always for that, but PPR will truly help owners in having more decent WR options. It would open it up much more a make WR's more reliable, let alone TE's. Oh well...
 
Some pretty smart people in this thread still fail to see the delicate balance of power/value of different positions in Zealots.

It is NOT all about RBs. If you have a solid team but weakness at RB you have a very good chance to win often and win it all. Just not against a team that is solid AND had good RBs.

QBs dominate scoring. This is a position you will be hard pressed to overcome if it is a weakness on your team. This does get offset by only having to start one. Still hard to climb out of a 20pt hole and win with any consistency if your QB sucks.

You must start 3 WR and you can start 4. Doing so is a viable strategy for winning championships. Position scarcity at WR especially elite WR makes them very valuable. People crying for PPR dont seem to realize how valuable the WR allready are. And changing the scoring to PPR will not really change that. It will just devalue the IDPs and QBs.

The scoring and roster requirements are what they are for a reason. It is no accident. It is the most fair, equitable and balanced system I have ever played in. Anyone who does not realize this really doesen't know what they are talking about. The proof is in the VBD #s.

Thanks for the ADP data.
Based on the bolded comment, I'm not sure it's worth responding to you since you probably aren't going to listen to anything other than your own opinion. But I'll try.WR are very valuable in the Zealots setup. But the fact that you are allowed to start three RB makes them much more valuable than any other position. Anyone that is using a WR in that flex position instead of a good starting RB is more likely to be at a disadvantage unless you have four of the top 10 or so WR. If WR scoring were equitable and balanced compared to the RB position then you would not see 20 of the first 23 picks or so of every draft be RB.

PPR is not the answer to balance out WR and TE with the RB. If you want to do that, you need to allow players to only start a maximum of 2 RB and force them to start 3 WR or maybe even 4 WR. That will increase the value of the WR, IMO.
I couldn't have said it better myself. :goodposting: I have long abhored PPR scoring. It does not accomplish what proponents of it say it will. Create balance between RB and WR value.

I have looked at this over and over again and always come to the same conclushion that you have stated in the bolded portion above. Even after reading and listening to some of the strongest and most convincing studies and arguments in favor of PPR scoring.

It does irk me that posters in this thread who are fairly experienced and knowledgable still have not understood this and think that PPR will be a solition.

Fact is that PPR will allow teams to use lesser WR who get high targets/catches to make up for the deficiency they have compared to elite WR. Thus allowing their teams to be more competitive with less talented WR and focus their resources even more on RB as a viable strategy. This is even without RB getting the PPR benifits. If the RB are getting the PPR then it does even less to help the value of WR.

Several years ago I dropped a couple of decent dynasty leagues I was in that had PPR scoring and kept my leagues that did not (including a league that was very much a part of the foundation of the Zealots leagues) have PPR. I have participated in Zealots leagues from the begining because of how I believe in and enjoy the balance of value between players in the system. A dramatic change such as PPR would cause me to have to rethink my commitment and enjoyment participating in them. Not something I take lightly considering that I have been commited to these leagues for over 7 seasons now.

This issue cuts at the very root of dynamics in Fantasy Football.

 
Some pretty smart people in this thread still fail to see the delicate balance of power/value of different positions in Zealots.

It is NOT all about RBs. If you have a solid team but weakness at RB you have a very good chance to win often and win it all. Just not against a team that is solid AND had good RBs.

QBs dominate scoring. This is a position you will be hard pressed to overcome if it is a weakness on your team. This does get offset by only having to start one. Still hard to climb out of a 20pt hole and win with any consistency if your QB sucks.

You must start 3 WR and you can start 4. Doing so is a viable strategy for winning championships. Position scarcity at WR especially elite WR makes them very valuable. People crying for PPR dont seem to realize how valuable the WR allready are. And changing the scoring to PPR will not really change that. It will just devalue the IDPs and QBs.

The scoring and roster requirements are what they are for a reason. It is no accident. It is the most fair, equitable and balanced system I have ever played in. Anyone who does not realize this really doesen't know what they are talking about. The proof is in the VBD #s.

Thanks for the ADP data.
Based on the bolded comment, I'm not sure it's worth responding to you since you probably aren't going to listen to anything other than your own opinion. But I'll try.WR are very valuable in the Zealots setup. But the fact that you are allowed to start three RB makes them much more valuable than any other position. Anyone that is using a WR in that flex position instead of a good starting RB is more likely to be at a disadvantage unless you have four of the top 10 or so WR. If WR scoring were equitable and balanced compared to the RB position then you would not see 20 of the first 23 picks or so of every draft be RB.

PPR is not the answer to balance out WR and TE with the RB. If you want to do that, you need to allow players to only start a maximum of 2 RB and force them to start 3 WR or maybe even 4 WR. That will increase the value of the WR, IMO.
I couldn't have said it better myself. :P I have long abhored PPR scoring. It does not accomplish what proponents of it say it will. Create balance between RB and WR value.

I have looked at this over and over again and always come to the same conclushion that you have stated in the bolded portion above. Even after reading and listening to some of the strongest and most convincing studies and arguments in favor of PPR scoring.

It does irk me that posters in this thread who are fairly experienced and knowledgable still have not understood this and think that PPR will be a solition.

Fact is that PPR will allow teams to use lesser WR who get high targets/catches to make up for the deficiency they have compared to elite WR. Thus allowing their teams to be more competitive with less talented WR and focus their resources even more on RB as a viable strategy. This is even without RB getting the PPR benifits. If the RB are getting the PPR then it does even less to help the value of WR.

Several years ago I dropped a couple of decent dynasty leagues I was in that had PPR scoring and kept my leagues that did not (including a league that was very much a part of the foundation of the Zealots leagues) have PPR. I have participated in Zealots leagues from the begining because of how I believe in and enjoy the balance of value between players in the system. A dramatic change such as PPR would cause me to have to rethink my commitment and enjoyment participating in them. Not something I take lightly considering that I have been commited to these leagues for over 7 seasons now.

This issue cuts at the very root of dynamics in Fantasy Football.
A happy compromise - Point Per First Down Reception.
 
Some pretty smart people in this thread still fail to see the delicate balance of power/value of different positions in Zealots.

It is NOT all about RBs. If you have a solid team but weakness at RB you have a very good chance to win often and win it all. Just not against a team that is solid AND had good RBs.

QBs dominate scoring. This is a position you will be hard pressed to overcome if it is a weakness on your team. This does get offset by only having to start one. Still hard to climb out of a 20pt hole and win with any consistency if your QB sucks.

You must start 3 WR and you can start 4. Doing so is a viable strategy for winning championships. Position scarcity at WR especially elite WR makes them very valuable. People crying for PPR dont seem to realize how valuable the WR allready are. And changing the scoring to PPR will not really change that. It will just devalue the IDPs and QBs.

The scoring and roster requirements are what they are for a reason. It is no accident. It is the most fair, equitable and balanced system I have ever played in. Anyone who does not realize this really doesen't know what they are talking about. The proof is in the VBD #s.

Thanks for the ADP data.
:confused: :thumbup:
I don't necessarily agree with this.IDPs are not really all they are cracked up to be in Z - only 2 players in the Top 50 last year were IDPs (Willis, Urlacher), compared to 19 QBs, 14 RBs and 14 WRs in the Top 50 (one K).

While RBs and WRs kind of balanced last season, you'd have to agree that a league that allows 3 RBs to start with no PPR is skewed towards RBs. If you have 3 good RBs, you should easily be in the playoffs.

As for needing a stud QB - well, QBs aren't that dominant because of 12 teams. Most teams have a QB (at least one) and with 19 in the Top 50 everyone should have good starters.

This is with WR becoming more dominant in 2007 - in 2006 only 9 WRs cracked the Top 50, while 18 RBs with 22 QBs filled all but one remaining Top 50 spot. Again IDPs were of much lesser value, as the top LB was #49 (Fletcher).

Stud WRs won't carry your team, but 3 stud RBs will.
Stop looking at total points and look at the VBD #s with proper baselines for starting positions.
I can see where you guys are coming from.. the Z league that I won last year was because of Favre/Palmer and Edwards/Fitz/Jennings/Bowe. Portis was my only stud RB with Chester doing well for a few weeks. I lost 2 games.
Part of the problem is that the perception that RBs are gold outstrips their actual value. Try trading for a top RB in a Z league. So while I agree that winning is possible without be loaded at RB, the position still dominates from a value-to-acquire perspective - either trading for, or drafting, them. Both startup drafts & rookie drafts are top heavy with RBs.
And actually that is part of the beauty of this dynamic.Which position is most viotile and has the most turnover in football?

Running Backs.

Owners are constantly chasing after fools gold and take great risks in total value trying to aquire them every year even with the odds stacked against them. Even when it is well known that the key to long term success is in quality QB and WR who last much longer.

The dynamics of the scoring/starting positions in Zealots encourages trading and a shift in the balance of power between teams every year. I cannot think of a more challeging dynamic to remain a DYNASTY and be competitive team with a realistic shot at the title year in year out than this format offers.

 
Some pretty smart people in this thread still fail to see the delicate balance of power/value of different positions in Zealots.

It is NOT all about RBs. If you have a solid team but weakness at RB you have a very good chance to win often and win it all. Just not against a team that is solid AND had good RBs.

QBs dominate scoring. This is a position you will be hard pressed to overcome if it is a weakness on your team. This does get offset by only having to start one. Still hard to climb out of a 20pt hole and win with any consistency if your QB sucks.

You must start 3 WR and you can start 4. Doing so is a viable strategy for winning championships. Position scarcity at WR especially elite WR makes them very valuable. People crying for PPR dont seem to realize how valuable the WR allready are. And changing the scoring to PPR will not really change that. It will just devalue the IDPs and QBs.

The scoring and roster requirements are what they are for a reason. It is no accident. It is the most fair, equitable and balanced system I have ever played in. Anyone who does not realize this really doesen't know what they are talking about. The proof is in the VBD #s.

Thanks for the ADP data.
Based on the bolded comment, I'm not sure it's worth responding to you since you probably aren't going to listen to anything other than your own opinion. But I'll try.WR are very valuable in the Zealots setup. But the fact that you are allowed to start three RB makes them much more valuable than any other position. Anyone that is using a WR in that flex position instead of a good starting RB is more likely to be at a disadvantage unless you have four of the top 10 or so WR. If WR scoring were equitable and balanced compared to the RB position then you would not see 20 of the first 23 picks or so of every draft be RB.

PPR is not the answer to balance out WR and TE with the RB. If you want to do that, you need to allow players to only start a maximum of 2 RB and force them to start 3 WR or maybe even 4 WR. That will increase the value of the WR, IMO.
I couldn't have said it better myself. :confused: I have long abhored PPR scoring. It does not accomplish what proponents of it say it will. Create balance between RB and WR value.

I have looked at this over and over again and always come to the same conclushion that you have stated in the bolded portion above. Even after reading and listening to some of the strongest and most convincing studies and arguments in favor of PPR scoring.

It does irk me that posters in this thread who are fairly experienced and knowledgable still have not understood this and think that PPR will be a solition.

Fact is that PPR will allow teams to use lesser WR who get high targets/catches to make up for the deficiency they have compared to elite WR. Thus allowing their teams to be more competitive with less talented WR and focus their resources even more on RB as a viable strategy. This is even without RB getting the PPR benifits. If the RB are getting the PPR then it does even less to help the value of WR.

Several years ago I dropped a couple of decent dynasty leagues I was in that had PPR scoring and kept my leagues that did not (including a league that was very much a part of the foundation of the Zealots leagues) have PPR. I have participated in Zealots leagues from the begining because of how I believe in and enjoy the balance of value between players in the system. A dramatic change such as PPR would cause me to have to rethink my commitment and enjoyment participating in them. Not something I take lightly considering that I have been commited to these leagues for over 7 seasons now.

This issue cuts at the very root of dynamics in Fantasy Football.
A happy compromise - Point Per First Down Reception.
Unwanted and unecessary.
 
Some pretty smart people in this thread still fail to see the delicate balance of power/value of different positions in Zealots.

It is NOT all about RBs. If you have a solid team but weakness at RB you have a very good chance to win often and win it all. Just not against a team that is solid AND had good RBs.

QBs dominate scoring. This is a position you will be hard pressed to overcome if it is a weakness on your team. This does get offset by only having to start one. Still hard to climb out of a 20pt hole and win with any consistency if your QB sucks.

You must start 3 WR and you can start 4. Doing so is a viable strategy for winning championships. Position scarcity at WR especially elite WR makes them very valuable. People crying for PPR dont seem to realize how valuable the WR allready are. And changing the scoring to PPR will not really change that. It will just devalue the IDPs and QBs.

The scoring and roster requirements are what they are for a reason. It is no accident. It is the most fair, equitable and balanced system I have ever played in. Anyone who does not realize this really doesen't know what they are talking about. The proof is in the VBD #s.

Thanks for the ADP data.
:missing: :thanks:
I don't necessarily agree with this.IDPs are not really all they are cracked up to be in Z - only 2 players in the Top 50 last year were IDPs (Willis, Urlacher), compared to 19 QBs, 14 RBs and 14 WRs in the Top 50 (one K).

While RBs and WRs kind of balanced last season, you'd have to agree that a league that allows 3 RBs to start with no PPR is skewed towards RBs. If you have 3 good RBs, you should easily be in the playoffs.

As for needing a stud QB - well, QBs aren't that dominant because of 12 teams. Most teams have a QB (at least one) and with 19 in the Top 50 everyone should have good starters.

This is with WR becoming more dominant in 2007 - in 2006 only 9 WRs cracked the Top 50, while 18 RBs with 22 QBs filled all but one remaining Top 50 spot. Again IDPs were of much lesser value, as the top LB was #49 (Fletcher).

Stud WRs won't carry your team, but 3 stud RBs will.
Stop looking at total points and look at the VBD #s with proper baselines for starting positions.
I can see where you guys are coming from.. the Z league that I won last year was because of Favre/Palmer and Edwards/Fitz/Jennings/Bowe. Portis was my only stud RB with Chester doing well for a few weeks. I lost 2 games.
Part of the problem is that the perception that RBs are gold outstrips their actual value. Try trading for a top RB in a Z league. So while I agree that winning is possible without be loaded at RB, the position still dominates from a value-to-acquire perspective - either trading for, or drafting, them. Both startup drafts & rookie drafts are top heavy with RBs.
And actually that is part of the beauty of this dynamic.Which position is most viotile and has the most turnover in football?

Running Backs.

Owners are constantly chasing after fools gold and take great risks in total value trying to aquire them every year even with the odds stacked against them. Even when it is well known that the key to long term success is in quality QB and WR who last much longer.

The dynamics of the scoring/starting positions in Zealots encourages trading and a shift in the balance of power between teams every year. I cannot think of a more challeging dynamic to remain a DYNASTY and be competitive team with a realistic shot at the title year in year out than this format offers.
Once you get a good RB though, you can count on more consistant numbers each week. Yes, some WR's can produce just as nice of games, but not on as consistant basis. Any owner who can start 3 legit RB's and have any of the other part in place...can dominate and be a contender each year. I've been in my classic Z league for 3 years, going 4. I've been runner up champ, Champ and now runner up champ in those three years. Some of you can talk all you want about what got you to where you are, but that shows also that each league can take on a different nuance if more partity is at play. Regardless, you get 3 RB's in zealots...everything else becomes MUCH easier.
 
Every year it gets voted on and every year it gets denied. It's here to stay. :confused:
I understand why, tho. Changing such a major rule would be the same as taking away th flex. It's not PPR, and it wasn't when I joined. The great thing about Zealots is that you have a bunch of leagues, all with the same rules, so looking at ADP and so forth really helpful. As opposed to say, leagues with 15 roster spots, and no flex. Links to those rookie drafts aren't useful at all.

The only way to do it would be to create new syndicates, just for PPR. Which I am surprised they haven' done, I know I would go out of my way to grab a team in that league.
Not to steer this too off course, but anyone (in Zealots) is free to do just that. Write down the rules for the league (can copy most of it from the main rules) modify the scoring how you want and post it in the Test Leagues thread. The main problems with creating new leagues is getting someone to run them (commishes, vices, czars) and then filling the leagues. I don't doubt there would be real interest in it and if you are ambitious enough start it up. :rolleyes: I would happily participate, but running the league(s) is really beyond my time constraints.
Though that might the more likely option, I don't think it a good one. Too many Z leagues already is watering down the owners. Of course, many of the Z owners have other leagues they are in and then add all the Z leagues they are in...and he have an owner just occupying a seat and not putting their ALL into it.The major problem is that people in Z land are scared of change. Though many can see the reasoning to why PPR would be better, there are many that just don't like any change. Thus, they vote NO to everything. PPR, even if it's a small change would enhance the classic leagues GREATLY. Then again, you don't need me to tell you because clearly those of us in z leagues that are posting here...seem to all agree on this basic matter.
I'm in the "Z" league and I can speak to what I feel is the biggest reason at least some of the leagues haven't changed to PPR. It's the "I've built this team on the basis of the rules as they currently stand" that is the obstacle.And I can see the reasoning of it.

You've built your team over time and you picked the team and made acquisitions based on those rules. If there are different rules, you'd be (in essense) starting over again. People don't want to "chuck it and start over".

 
Every year it gets voted on and every year it gets denied. It's here to stay. :thumbup:
I understand why, tho. Changing such a major rule would be the same as taking away th flex. It's not PPR, and it wasn't when I joined. The great thing about Zealots is that you have a bunch of leagues, all with the same rules, so looking at ADP and so forth really helpful. As opposed to say, leagues with 15 roster spots, and no flex. Links to those rookie drafts aren't useful at all.

The only way to do it would be to create new syndicates, just for PPR. Which I am surprised they haven' done, I know I would go out of my way to grab a team in that league.
Not to steer this too off course, but anyone (in Zealots) is free to do just that. Write down the rules for the league (can copy most of it from the main rules) modify the scoring how you want and post it in the Test Leagues thread. The main problems with creating new leagues is getting someone to run them (commishes, vices, czars) and then filling the leagues. I don't doubt there would be real interest in it and if you are ambitious enough start it up. :lmao: I would happily participate, but running the league(s) is really beyond my time constraints.
Though that might the more likely option, I don't think it a good one. Too many Z leagues already is watering down the owners. Of course, many of the Z owners have other leagues they are in and then add all the Z leagues they are in...and he have an owner just occupying a seat and not putting their ALL into it.The major problem is that people in Z land are scared of change. Though many can see the reasoning to why PPR would be better, there are many that just don't like any change. Thus, they vote NO to everything. PPR, even if it's a small change would enhance the classic leagues GREATLY. Then again, you don't need me to tell you because clearly those of us in z leagues that are posting here...seem to all agree on this basic matter.
I'm in the "Z" league and I can speak to what I feel is the biggest reason at least some of the leagues haven't changed to PPR. It's the "I've built this team on the basis of the rules as they currently stand" that is the obstacle.And I can see the reasoning of it.

You've built your team over time and you picked the team and made acquisitions based on those rules. If there are different rules, you'd be (in essense) starting over again. People don't want to "chuck it and start over".
Exactly. And I agree that teams that have been built over a few years could be dramatically changed by such a rule change. It would ruin everything. I think entire leagues would disband, they'd lose a lot of owners.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top