lets talk Khalil Mack and a switch back to LBer (1 Viewer)

Been mentioned in several spots including the defensive schemes thread but felt it deserves its own thread. Chances he goes back to lber on MFL this offseason and kicks the value right out from under him? Apparently in the 2nd half of last season he played OLBer on over 80% of the plays and it seems like the Raiders will play as much if not more 3-4 this season with their hires.

Currently in redraft I expect his ADP to be higher than I want. In dynasty he's a hold if I already have him or a buy low if I'm giving up a little depth.

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/69311/72/position-review-pass-rushers

Khalil Mack

The Raiders’ pass rusher was a hot topic last offseason and it looks like that will continue. The signing of Bruce Irvin, who made a name for himself at SAM linebacker in Seattle’s 4-3 "under" defense, brought a scheme change to the Raiders and a huge IDP value increase to Mack. It was a highly-debated topic since the Oakland front seven runs a variety of alignments, but it was accurately predicted last season that the Raiders would run 4-3 "under" on most of their plays.

I charted every single play from the 2016 season, and in the first nine weeks the Raiders employed some type of 4-3 defense for 58% of their base snaps. This included 4-3 "under," which places Irvin on the line of scrimmage opposite Mack in a two-point stance next to a five-technique defensive end, in addition to 4-3 looks with Irvin covering slot receivers. There were also a few plays of standard 4-3 with Irvin as an off-ball strong-side linebacker. Everything was going great from an IDP perspective, but it didn't work well for the Raiders. Oakland sported a 7-2 record entering its bye, but not because of the defense, which was constantly stomped by offenses to begin the year. In five of the first seven games, Oakland allowed opponents to produce at least 400 yards of total offense, two of which were over 500 yards. As the Raiders came out of their Week 10 bye, they made an obvious change: They were going to run more 3-4 looks.

Brace yourselves Mack owners. In Weeks 11-14, the Raiders used Mack at outside linebacker on 127-of-137 base snaps (92.7%) in a 3-4 alignment. This was not pretty for Mack's future IDP value, but it worked on the field. Mack ended up playing outside linebacker on 84% of snaps in eight games post-bye (including Oakland's Wild Card loss) and the Raiders did not let a single opponent hit the 400-yard mark. An eye-popping stat is that in Week 5, the 4-3 Oakland defense surrendered 423 yards at home to the Chargers, yet completely dominated Philip Rivers in a Week 15 matchup in San Diego while playing 3-4, allowing a season-low 262 yards. Looking at the season as a whole, Mack played linebacker on 63% of base defensive snaps.

Mack's IDP position designation is far from safe, and all fantasy owners need to take note. Add in the fact that the Raiders brought in 3-4 mind John Pagano as assistant head coach/defense, and it’s not only a possible scenario that Mack will be moved to linebacker for IDP in 2017, it’s the most likely one.

TL;DRP version - the defense stunk when lined up in true 4-3, it stunk a whole lot less when in a 3-4 and Mack at LB.  Zoinks!

Abandon ship!

Roto has changed Oakland back to a 3-4 team and is listing Mack at OLB.

Ugh. Mack quickly goes from a must start, top 10 type idp to maybe a 4th LB, on par with von miller.  Great player but that stings.

-OZ- said:

Ugh. Mack quickly goes from a must start, top 10 type idp to maybe a 4th LB, on par with von miller.  Great player but that stings.

Click to expand...

Why would you ever want Miller and Mack to be 4th LBs?  Its always a simple fix to an undesirable scoring system. 

BigSteelThrill said:

Why would you ever want Miller and Mack to be 4th LBs?  Its always a simple fix to an undesirable scoring system. 

Click to expand...

Not really.  Both scored top 15 LB points last year but they are much more inconsistent than the others near them like mark baron or Preston brown. So I'm confident starting them as my 4th, 3rd really but not as top 2. 

I don't think it's necessarily a "simple" scoring fix.  My league had similar results to OZ, and the only way I can think of to meaningfully boost guys like Mack and Miller over the Barron's of the world would be to significantly bump up big plays over tackles.  

I know many do this, but it also greatly increases the week-to-week variance of the idps across the board, which I find undesirable.  

Arodin said:

I don't think it's necessarily a "simple" scoring fix.  My league had similar results to OZ, and the only way I can think of to meaningfully boost guys like Mack and Miller over the Barron's of the world would be to significantly bump up big plays over tackles.  

I know many do this, but it also greatly increases the week-to-week variance of the idps across the board, which I find undesirable.  

Click to expand...

For LB's I don't mind that variance because it adds to some strategic drafting.  If I am going after one of the high variance guys I know I must get high tackle (more consistent scorers) to go with them to off-set the down games.  It adds to the strategic aspect of drafting and roster construction. 

I love idp leagues that have idp players devalued. Sacks should be at least 8 pts per if not more. I love playing in idp leagues that have start 2 OLB and 2 ILB. Makes the league value every position. Mack is still a stud in my league because of the scoring and starting format. Adjust your idp to make idp players more relevant. 

Benchwarmer07 said:

I love idp leagues that have idp players devalued. Sacks should be at least 8 pts per if not more. I love playing in idp leagues that have start 2 OLB and 2 ILB. Makes the league value every position. Mack is still a stud in my league because of the scoring and starting format. Adjust your idp to make idp players more relevant. 

Click to expand...

A sack would have at least the same value as a 20 yd TD run?  Having a hard time getting behind that logic.

Bronco Billy said:

A sack would have at least the same value as a 20 yd TD run?  Having a hard time getting behind that logic.

Click to expand...

I guess it's the same logic by which a reception by a TE is worth four times as much as reception by a RB.  Yet lots of people play TE-premium leagues. 

There's always tension in FF between "verisimilitude to the game of football" and "optimized game design principles for fantasy."  On one end is "TD-only leagues" because that's the only way scoring happens in the NFL.  On the other end are differently weighted scoring systems for every position so that historical average performances for everything from QB to DT are as equal as possible.

Most of us play on a shorter continuum in the middle, but both extremes exist.

 Fantasy scoring isn't perfect. I have been in leagues that included a starting fullback. (failed big time) 

All I am saying is why should a QB be worth so much more than a stud IDP player. 

Having IDP close to offense actually makes the league more balanced. Harder for 1 team to dominate for consecutive years. 

Benchwarmer07 said:

I love idp leagues that have idp players devalued. Sacks should be at least 8 pts per if not more. I love playing in idp leagues that have start 2 OLB and 2 ILB. Makes the league value every position. Mack is still a stud in my league because of the scoring and starting format. Adjust your idp to make idp players more relevant. 

Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like you love devalued IDP.

The majority of our top 32 players are QB, Bradford was #29 last year so I'll readily admit QB is overvalued relative to the quality of player.  But Landon Collins, Bobby Wagner and Kwon Alexander all rank in the top 42. TE is undervalued with none in the top 50. DE is certainly undervalued with mack at 80 and no others in the top 160. But DT takes the prize for players with no DT in the top 250. (We require a dt). But then we also require a coach, and Belichick is not even in the top 360. 

So your point about sacks is fair, but a sack is already worth 5 points plus the tackle accompanying the sack is 1.6, so 6.6 points - the same as a QB throwing a 32 yard touchdown (5/td, .05/yd). I don't think I'd want to change that.   

In this league, and I suspect most, you win by having a good offense and idp who rack up tackles. Maybe that should change and if I started a new league we might, but after 15 years we're probably not changing scoring. 

Benchwarmer07 said:

 Fantasy scoring isn't perfect. I have been in leagues that included a starting fullback. (failed big time) 

All I am saying is why should a QB be worth so much more than a stud IDP player. 

Having IDP close to offense actually makes the league more balanced. Harder for 1 team to dominate for consecutive years. 

Click to expand...

FFers can use whatever scoring system they prefer.  The main thing is that it is fun for the league.

But if you are talking about trying some form of approximation of comparitive value, I think a QB being worth a lot more than a stud IDP player speaks for itself.  Ask any GM or HC if given the choice between Aaron Rodgers and JJ Watt which of the two they would select, and how wide the margin in value is between the two in their opinion.

Arodin said:

I guess it's the same logic by which a reception by a TE is worth four times as much as reception by a RB.  Yet lots of people play TE-premium leagues. 

Click to expand...

There's a logic behind that which actually makes inherent sense.

When we set out to create our league 12 years ago we wanted balanced scoring across  all positions. We wanted all positions to be equal so you have more strategy in building a team.  We have tweaked the scoring some over the years to account for shifts  in NFL trends (going away from work horse RB's) to try and balance.  The difficulty in trying to equalize positions is that you can look at final season points and equalize based on that however due to the inherent boom/bust of some positions it makes individual games off kilter.  A DL for instance racks up huge points for sacks but they are all or nothing.  If you make sacks worth too much it skews individual games while the end point total is in line.  That balance has been our difficulty. 

We do have different point totals for sacks by position because we wanted to make DT more relevant.  We have 8 pts per sack (10 pts for DT) compared to 1 pt per tackle (2 pts for DT).  That compares to all TD's being worth 6 pts (even passing - that is somewhat countered by interceptions being -3 pts).  Interceptions are worth 7 pts (and pass defensed 2 pts).  Overall it has worked pretty good but we are always investigating to see if there is a way to make it better.       

Bottom line - if you want to give roster construction flexibility it helps by making all positions equal in value.  A top tier QB = top tier RB= top tier DL= top tier DB....etc    That way you can build your team in many different ways and still compete.     

Gally said:

When we set out to create our league 12 years ago we wanted balanced scoring across  all positions. We wanted all positions to be equal so you have more strategy in building a team.  We have tweaked the scoring some over the years to account for shifts  in NFL trends (going away from work horse RB's) to try and balance.  The difficulty in trying to equalize positions is that you can look at final season points and equalize based on that however due to the inherent boom/bust of some positions it makes individual games off kilter.  A DL for instance racks up huge points for sacks but they are all or nothing.  If you make sacks worth too much it skews individual games while the end point total is in line.  That balance has been our difficulty. 

We do have different point totals for sacks by position because we wanted to make DT more relevant.  We have 8 pts per sack (10 pts for DT) compared to 1 pt per tackle (2 pts for DT).  That compares to all TD's being worth 6 pts (even passing - that is someone countered by interceptions being -3 pts).  Interceptions are worth 7 pts (and pass defensed 2 pts).  Overall it has worked pretty good but we are always investigating to see if there is a way to make it better.       

Bottom line - if you want to give roster construction flexibility it helps by making all positions equal in value.  A top tier QB = top tier RB= top tier DL= top tier DB....etc    That way you can build your team in many different ways and still compete.     

Click to expand...

It's a good concept, the larger negative for INT makes sense.  But if you separate corners are you content with Logan Ryan equaling matt Ryan or Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie equaling Aaron Rodgers?  I'm not but if your league is, cool. 

-OZ- said:

It's a good concept, the larger negative for INT makes sense.  But if you separate corners are you content with Logan Ryan equaling matt Ryan or Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie equaling Aaron Rodgers?  I'm not but if your league is, cool. 

Click to expand...

We wanted to make a league where you can build it anyway you wanted.  We don't separate CB from Safeties but we try and have a representative sample in the top 100 scorers year to year.   DB's is a tougher pull because they are inconsistent and you always have half of the top 10 at the position changing.  You also don't have as big of a gap between year end scores so the demand isn't as high for the "elite" DB's. 

QB's on the other hand take big hits for turnovers so elite ones have more value because of their consistency.  So even though our scoring tries to even out the tiers some positions have bigger gaps between the tiers than others.  This gives additional value to the Rodgers of the world over the DRC's.