What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

An easy fix for determining IDP positions for Rotoworld/MFL? (1 Viewer)

Right now guys like Khalil Mack, Bruce Irvin, Jadeveon Clowney, Terrell Suggs, Elvis Dumerville, Von Miller, Demarcus Ware, Chandler Jones in ARI, and Julius Peppers are being labeled as 3-4 outside linebackers but they play most of the game with their hands in the dirt. Rotoworld's depth charts control how myfantasyleague.com designate player positions so its crucial that they get things right. As of right now they have the Bills and Patriots playing a 4-3 base defence but we all know thats going to change. Its unfortunate that they have to guess what base defence a team is going to play. With the recent news that the Nickel is in fact the most used defence in the NFL, perhaps this could be used as the base defence and players like the above mentioned will be correctly labeled. 

 
Guys like Von Miller should be DE/LB, as mentioned above. This way it brings them into more fantasy relevance. If you could play Von Miller at DE every team would want him but LB designation ruins his value. It sucks that one of the best pass rushers in the NFL isn't fantasy relevant for most leagues.

 
I think a new position, EDGE, could be useful.  Really, tho, I am fine playing by the rules.  

Von Miller isn't a big IDP stud?  Big deal.  I don't care.  Why is any league going to be better because Miller isn't an IDP stud?  If you acquired Miller, you acquired him as a LB.  

If Mack or Miller gets moved to DE, that would be great, but no team is in a rush to change a players designation from LB to DE, as those players make a lot more money.    So, use that info.  If I have him, I would trade him to someone thinking to themselves, ''oh, man, if this guy was moved to DE, he'd be such a stud!!''

I don't see any edge in trying to change the way MFL does it, I would rather just have everyone play by the same rules, which is to say, list the players as they are listed.  

I DO see an edge in looking for DEs listed as DT, and finding safeties that are playing nickel LB.  Funny, I didn't see any threads about people complaining that Deone Buchanon should be listed as a LB last year, when he was CLEARLY playing LB.  Wonder why that is.  

 
22Steve said:
Guys like Von Miller should be DE/LB, as mentioned above. This way it brings them into more fantasy relevance. If you could play Von Miller at DE every team would want him but LB designation ruins his value. It sucks that one of the best pass rushers in the NFL isn't fantasy relevant for most leagues.
Click to expand...
The only thing that ruins his value is your scoring system (and he had a crappy year).  Khalil Mack is a top 5 LB in some leagues, he was LB40 in my tackle-heavy league.  Put a heavy emphasis on sack and QB hits and watch how those EDGE players score.

 
Mack was DL-eligible in Yahoo last year and I just checked and as of now he is DL-eligible for this year. May go #1 overall.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hankmoody said:
The only thing that ruins his value is your scoring system (and he had a crappy year).  Khalil Mack is a top 5 LB in some leagues, he was LB40 in my tackle-heavy league.  Put a heavy emphasis on sack and QB hits and watch how those EDGE players score.
Click to expand...
That is true, the leagues I'm in are heavy tackle leagues not big play leagues. I prefer leagues that are like that for more consistent scoring for LB's. 

 
The problem is our system of positions is outdated. You can cry that someone is "lazy" because they have something in place which doesn't agree with your opinion. I can assure you there are VERY FEW lazy people working in this industry. In reality we need to overhaul IDP designations in general. We can argue about a player being an end or an OLB but about 99.9% of the time we can all agree he is an outside rusher. We can argue about a 3-4 lineman being an end or a nose tackle but we can agree he is a defensive lineman. We can argue about a player being a corner or a safety but we can agree he is a defensive back. 

There is no perfect answer to this problem but if we go to positional designations of DL (4-3 tackles, 3-4 tackles/ends), OR (outside rushers - 4-3 ends and 3-4 OLB), LB (all 4-3 LB and 3-4 ILB), and DB (all defensive backs), we will solve a great deal of the arguments out there. We could still separate the DB positions if we want but there are now a lot of players (Byron Jones for example) who are at one position in the base defense and shift to slot corner in sub packages. If you watched the NFL draft you heard Mike Mayock describe several players as outside rushers. Even he didn't call them ends or linebackers.  

Nearly all NFL defenses are now using multiple fronts. The days of cut and dry 3-4 or 4-3 are in the past. As the league evolves we need to evolve with it. Otherwise there will be a lot of time wasted on futile arguments about player positions and some inconsiderate individuals throwing unwarranted insults at those of us who are working our butts off to provide a quality product for our customers.

 
There is no perfect answer to this problem but if we go to positional designations of DL (4-3 tackles, 3-4 tackles/ends), OR (outside rushers - 4-3 ends and 3-4 OLB), LB (all 4-3 LB and 3-4 ILB), and DB (all defensive backs), we will solve a great deal of the arguments out there. We could still separate the DB positions if we want but there are now a lot of players (Byron Jones for example) who are at one position in the base defense and shift to slot corner in sub packages. If you watched the NFL draft you heard Mike Mayock describe several players as outside rushers. Even he didn't call them ends or linebackers.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what's interesting is that the leagues where owners were trying to be more 'sophisticated' with tight position designations are actually the ones with the most issues.  some older .i.e. more simple systems only used DL. LB, DB even in 11 man leagues. Adding OR to this gives the most accurate portrayal of what occurs on the field. And yes, the leagues i commish uses specific position break out versus the 'old' way. 

Edit: the SS/LB is still a little troublesome...maybe just have a category for DP...defensive player which I think yahoo leagues use

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hankmoody said:
Well that's a good comment for a post not named


An easy fix for determining IDP positions for Rotoworld/MFL
Click to expand...
Your post was even worse in that regards.  Dont be so myopic... thousands of commissioners doing something as compared to the company putting forth some resources/effort that they get paid for.  Hell your responses here are more effort then they put towards the subject. Truth.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Your post was even worse in that regards.  Dont be so myopic... thousands of commissioners doing something as compared to the company putting forth some resources/effort that they get paid for.  Hell your responses here are more effort then they put towards the subject. Truth.
Click to expand...
They deliver what they get paid for.  To host your league with xxx pre-defined criteria.  Among those criteria they offer are the ability to override the default position.  Who's going to pay for the development you are suggesting take place?  Are a few thousand leagues going to put up $10 each?  Or do you suggest they raise everyone's rate to pay for something a fraction use?  Talk about myopic.

Do you understand how their software works?  They get positional eligibility provided for them by Rotoworld.  They don't define it. Who's going to pay Rotoworld to come up with this new re-classification based on nickel alignments?  What happens when Rotoworld does that and you STILL aren't happy that Chandler Jones is listed as a LB?

The real answer is it's completely irrelevant from a league management software perspective.  This is an owner issue. If 3-4 OLB score terribly, don't draft them.  If you think Mark Barron should be listed as a S, petition your commish to change him.  I haven't owned a 3-4 OLB, DT, or CB in any of my IDP leagues for years.  When Chandler Jones was traded to ARI I immediately traded him for draft picks to draft a new 4-3 end with.

 
Hankmoody said:
Commissioners can override MFL default positions if it's that big a deal. 
Click to expand...
Disagree that this is a good solution.   It is one thing to have there be complaints that Rotoworld (or MFL) don't classify someone correctly.  It is another to have complaints about the Commish doing so.  Suddenly accustaion of bias and favoritism can emerge and negatively impact a legaue.  

As John noted above, there are disagreements all the time over whether someone is properly a OLB or DE.  I don't want to, as Commish, be forced take one side or the other when we know that doing so helps/hurts another owner - or worse, my own team.    Having a third party authority - even if they aren't always right - is a far better system (unless the rules are black and white with no disputes as to how they should be applied - which don't apply in this case)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Um, then don't use it.  Obviously if you don't have a problem with how players are listed there's no need to change them.  My comment wasn't directed at those leagues but at the ones that want MFL to cater to their personal views.

 
SKI said:
Disagree that this is a good solution.   It is one thing to have there be complaints that Rotoworld (or MFL) don't classify someone correctly.  It is another to have complaints about the Commish doing so.  Suddenly accustaion of bias and favoritism can emerge and negatively impact a legaue.  

As John noted above, there are disagreements all the time over whether someone is properly a OLB or DE.  I don't want to, as Commish, be forced take one side or the other when we know that doing so helps/hurts another owner - or worse, my own team.    Having a third party authority - even if they aren't always right - is a far better system (unless the rules are black and white with no disputes as to how they should be applied - which don't apply in this case)
Click to expand...
You can draft black and white rules though.  A league that I'm familiar with uses Rotoworld depth charts to identify teams using 3-4 and 4-3 defenses, based on whether players are listed as NT, WLB, SLB, etc.  OLBs who play in a 3-4 defense then get designated as DEs in MFL.  So far, there has been no controversy with that set-up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John Norton said:
The problem is our system of positions is outdated. You can cry that someone is "lazy" because they have something in place which doesn't agree with your opinion. I can assure you there are VERY FEW lazy people working in this industry. In reality we need to overhaul IDP designations in general. We can argue about a player being an end or an OLB but about 99.9% of the time we can all agree he is an outside rusher. We can argue about a 3-4 lineman being an end or a nose tackle but we can agree he is a defensive lineman. We can argue about a player being a corner or a safety but we can agree he is a defensive back. 

There is no perfect answer to this problem but if we go to positional designations of DL (4-3 tackles, 3-4 tackles/ends), OR (outside rushers - 4-3 ends and 3-4 OLB), LB (all 4-3 LB and 3-4 ILB), and DB (all defensive backs), we will solve a great deal of the arguments out there. We could still separate the DB positions if we want but there are now a lot of players (Byron Jones for example) who are at one position in the base defense and shift to slot corner in sub packages. If you watched the NFL draft you heard Mike Mayock describe several players as outside rushers. Even he didn't call them ends or linebackers.  

Nearly all NFL defenses are now using multiple fronts. The days of cut and dry 3-4 or 4-3 are in the past. As the league evolves we need to evolve with it. Otherwise there will be a lot of time wasted on futile arguments about player positions and some inconsiderate individuals throwing unwarranted insults at those of us who are working our butts off to provide a quality product for our customers.
Click to expand...
John's post GETS IT.  IMO it aligns with the OP's bare bone as well because it is very clear that NFL defenses have evolved so in 2016 the old 3-4/4-3 black and white arguments are pointless.  I like John's take on positional designations, it would be great to see a FF software provider evolve with the times as well which I believe was the point of this discussion.

 
kurtrudder said:
John's post GETS IT.  IMO it aligns with the OP's bare bone as well because it is very clear that NFL defenses have evolved so in 2016 the old 3-4/4-3 black and white arguments are pointless.  I like John's take on positional designations, it would be great to see a FF software provider evolve with the times as well which I believe was the point of this discussion.
Click to expand...
That's just not realistic.  They are pass-through shops, they take what the NFL (or other authority) gives them and mash software around that into what users want.  Same with stats - they get stats from an official NFL stat provider and just apply scoring against those.  You see it most weeks - the stat provider changes tackles/sacks/yards and MFL makes the change (user option involved).  What you're suggesting would mean they would have to be willing to arbitrate one of the pickiest designations out there.  That evolves into WR vs. TE/, or RB/3DRB/KR/PR/OW, or 3-4 DE vs. 4-3 DT.  It's a huge rabbit hole and I for one want a software company focusing on software, not whether or not Shaq Lawson puts his hand in the dirt more often than not. 

MFL is the closest to being able to handle this - each league can change the designation if they don't agree with it.  I suppose they could give us the option to create new custom positions like Interior Lineman, Edge Rusher and Offensive Weapon and let us determine who goes where, but they are never going to actually take the designation part on themselves.  I also can't see Rotoworld (where MFL actually takes position designation from) being willing to babysit this - what's in it (financially) for them? 

The much better alternative is to tailor the scoring system for this.  This entire discussion is because 3-4 OLB score poorly in tackle heavy systems or because getting 14 PPG from a DB is game changing but the same 14 PPG from LB is ordinary.  Change your scoring so that the positions all score much closer.  Pump up sacks/QB pressures/TFL and watch those 3-4 OLB catch up.  Pump up the scoring of DB's and DL so they are on par with LB's and it won't matter if Cravens is a DB or LB, he'll just be a 14 PPG IDP.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J Giles Band
Value of DE vs LB with True Position
Replies
17
Views
1K
lsutigers
L
K
Full IDP Dynasty leagues are the best!
Replies
6
Views
742
Tick
Tick
Bracie Smathers
Isaiah Simmons
Replies
22
Views
2K
Gally
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top