Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
it sucks.You're right. We should go in depth on that subject.
Agreed, but 32 team leagues are better because they tend to value qb more in line with how nfl teams value the most important position.it sucks.You're right. We should go in depth on that subject.
let's start with that
Eaassssy, big fella. This is the Shark Pool. Not Jeopardy.I've never found that verisimilitude was an important factor in my enjoyment of a league.
I'm not a huge fan of it either. Yet I always see people taking a def starting in the 9th round. So dumb.
I could not agree more. In fact--I'd actually like to expand upon this. Any field goal in fantasy should be worth 3 pts and every point after 1 point. I to this day do not understand why many leagues find it necessary to grant more points for longer field goals. Maybe it was designed to lower the probability of ties in fantasy leagues--but I find it absurd.Jello_Biafra said:
I played in a league with team defense a few years ago. I owned the Steelers defense/special teams. My opponent started Ben Roethlisberger. Roethlisberger threw an interception that was returned for a touchdown. My opponent lost no points on the play. I lost seven or something. Neither the Steelers defense nor special teams was involved in the play!
no more absurd than giving points to offensive players for yardage. That's pretty much all it is.
It is more absurd. The end result of a field goal is always three points or zero points. Yardage by offensive players can result in outcomes that are not pre-determined--sometimes the yardage can contribute to a td, sometimes it can result in putting somebody within field goal range--sometimes yardage can result in 0 points..etc. However--for the most part more yardage will generally result in more opportunity for more points--which is a good thing. There is no mathematical point benefit to a kicker making a 30 yard field goal versus a 40 yard one. A field goal kicker with longer range should have more opportunities to kick field goals as their team doesn't need to travel as far to get in their range--but that shouldn't mean that they should get more points for each field goal in a fantasy league.
Sure it should. a kicker with longer range is more valuable to his team. If a league doesn't use kickers, I get that. I don't get the angst for giving an extra point for a longer kick.
So your argument is that a kicker should get more points for a longer field goal solely because it makes them "more valuable" to their NFL team? Does that mean that you also support fantasy leagues where QB's performances and play represents 50-70% of your fantasy teams points or success--because--thats the reality in the NFL. I highly doubt it. Do you think NBA fantasy leagues should give more points for fadeaway long two point jump shots than they should a layup? According to your logic--they should.
It's not just that they're more valuable.
PPR is a matter of preference to me but I do agree that adjusting the lineups is what makes players valuable (or not valuable).
I think you'll be outnumbered here on PPR. I myself prefer it. You may want to prepare for an explanation as to why you think it sucks.
I'm definitely outnumbered. It's the most popular format now. I just don't see the value added at all.
True.
It's not the same logic. Your argument is circular. More yardage results in more possibilities to score points--whether it is td's, field goals--etc. A field goal in football is worth three points--that's established. A field goal in basketball is worth two points--and a three point field goal is worth three points. In fantasy basketball--there is no differentiating a layup from a 21 foot jumpshot (nor is there a differentiation between a 25 foot 3-pt shot versus a 75 foot 3-pt shot)--and there should be no differentiating an act in football where the result for success is 3 points. Yardage for offensive players gets counted in fantasy football because of the positive impact that it has. Not awarding points for yardage would indicate that any drive not resulting in real points is as desirable as a three and out. Yardage is worth something in real football--and its up the scoring system of your league that you choose to play in to decide how valuable you want it to be. However--with field goals--they are either worth three points or zero points---that has been established. I find it shocking that there are leagues that find it appropriate to award a qb throwing a 5 yard td pass the same amount of points that a kicker would get hitting a 40-45 yard field goal--when the NFL values the td as being worth double that. In any case--if you like awarding extra points for field goal yardage--more power to you--its your opinion. In my opinion it is a horribly flawed scoring system.
While this has been interesting, we'll agree to disagree. You're giving credit for the "positive impact" of a 10 yard run while completely ignoring the positive impact a kicker can have due to a longer range.
It certainly has been interesting--but you are missing the point that the impact of a longer range field goal is still a net of 3 points. The net of 30 rushing yards versus 60 rushing yards--could be the difference of flipping a field twice instead of once--it could be the difference between a drive ending in a 6pt touchdown versus ending in a 3 point field goal. Positive yardage has an impact on the game even when it doesn't result in points. A field goal nets three points or no points. If a league were to grant massive points for long field goals--do most grant massive penalties if they miss those field goals? The impact is huge--giving the other team the ball back with great field position. In fact--a missed field goal in essence is worse than a turnover--but most leagues don't penalize missed field goals very harshly. In your leagues where they give longer field goals bonus points--do you find that they penalize the kickers if their kicks get blocked? I'm guessing not. Field goal kickers get the biggest pass in fantasy sports. A field goal has a maximum effect of 3 points on a game regardless of how many yards it is from. There is no way to exactly quantify the maximum effect that positive offensive yardage results in. I'm not sure how that doesn't make sense. Some leagues value yardage differently--some give 1 point for every ten yards--some 1 pt for every 20 or 25---but regardless--the key is that more yardage generally equates to more positive outcomes in football on the offensive side. Even the longest field goal in NFL history was still only worth 3 points. If a guy has more range--then he should have more opportunities to kick field goals. It's absurd to value a 50 yard field goal almost twice as much as a 30 yard field goal. I understand that fantasy players like to create systems where points fly all over the place--so I'm not shocked by it--but let's call a spade a spade--it's an absurd scoring system. In any case---it's really cool to actually have opposing views and still be civil. It seems like the Shark Pool has turned into a forum where an opposing point of view has to contains d-bag and snarky behavior. I certainly appreciate your point of view.
Amazing so many leagues have gone this route, always to their detriment IMO. In Zealots leagues, for example, you can now start as many as four (!) TE and as few as two WR. It was MUCH better back when you had to start three WR minimum every week and could only start one TE. There would always be a flurry of trade activity when the bye weeks came, as teams scrambled to find a decent WR3 for their lineup. The added flexibility has only further diminished the value of WRs and enhanced the already inflated value of RBs. Trading, predictably, is way down as owners know they can just cycle in tight ends throughout the bye weeks. On the positive side, Zealots starting lineups do demand eight IDPs each week, and that's the minimum number of IDPs I'd need to have in a league before I joined it.
Zealots seems to have gone overboard but I very much prefer the option of starting two (or more) TE.why allow or mandate 2 RB but limit it to one TE? Made sense a decade ago as TEs who consistently scored points were rare.
We get it, you like vanilla. Which I could understand if 'standard' scoring wasn't worse than Hitler
My argument would be that the biggest reason for not liking kickers is their high levels of randomness.
It doesn't have to change. You can still have your same old boring league that you had 25 years ago. There's got to be at least 13 others in the world that enjoy that format still.
.
But how does it feel knowing that if you don't get a top 5 pick in a standard scoring snake draft you just lose? It's literally draft the best RB and win, the format.
You aren't alone, but we are badly out-numbered and I don't understand why at all. The arguments against PPR make themselves.
Show me an example of 10 catches for 0 yards. Even if it ever happened, using that nonsense as an argument as if it's a regular occurrence is silly.
I agree that ppr is lame.
I mean if were gonna put dumb qualifiers on PPR, might as well play babies first ppr league that all the standard curmudgeons fanatically defend.
