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.
I completely disagree with this. I strive to set up a scoring system to make all positions equal when comparing tiers across positions. Elite QB or RB or WR or TE all score in the same vicinity. That way you can build teams in many different ways. Things like 2 QB or superflex also help because it stretches out the talent (too many similar QB's in the 8-15 range) to increase their value.
That's fine if you want to eliminate strategy from your leagues. I just think it removes a huge part of the challenge of team building. Artificially inflating value of some positions to match other positions is bizarre to me and I've never found it necessary. I don't think there is a popular format out there where you "have" to have a stud RB to compete. I've found that additional starting spots can help smooth things out (including superflex, like you mentioned). The only leagues where you might need a stud to compete would be leagues with ridiculously small starting lineups (1-2-2-1 leagues).
I find it to be the exact opposite. When you have leagues that don't account to make positions of equal scoring value (for the same level of player) it decreases the strategy. Everyone drafts the same style and it comes down to did you get the guy that performed as expected or stayed healthy vs the underperformer or injured player. When positions are scored to have similar value there is much more strategy because you can build in multiple ways. I think it increases the strategy options.
That makes no sense. If stat values are artificially inflated so that everybody scores roughly the same down the line then it takes no strategy. You simply draft BPA. And "building in multiple ways" does not mean more strategy. That often means less strategy, because you don't have to worry about positional tiers or positional scarcity. I've heard the same argument about how extra flex spots means more strategy because "moar variations", but in fact it means the absolute opposite. No care or strategy is needed for roster construction when rosters are fluid.
I would say your version is no strategy. I need to take a RB and hope he doesn't get hurt. You have to get one of the top tier at the most important position and hope they don't get hurt (just picked RB ....could be whatever position has the most value based on your scoring)
Why do you keep talking about RB? You sound like you are trying to make the tired argument for PPR back in 1998 when maybe a dozen guys got 300 carries and less than 30 receptions. That era is long past. Most often the premium is used to prop up TE value these days. And thanks to the advent of PPR, people can skip RB altogether in the early rounds and just use a guy like Woodhead or Duke Johnson later... PPR is the reason zero-RB strategy became popular. The fact that zero-RB was ever a wide-spread strategy proves that no, you don't have to grab a running back and hope he doesn't get hurt in non-tiered scoring.
If you took the time to read the entire post you would see that RB was just a position for the sake of using a position that could be highly valued for a particular scoring system. I could have used the position XX instead. I really don't care what the position is. Obviously you don't understand the point I am trying to make.
I agree and that is to say that by adjusting scoring to keep more positions relevant adds strategy. That is the reason for balancing the scoring. It's something that has to be done periodically to keep up with the ever changing landscape of the NFL. It is necessary to keep value spread across positions so there are multiple ways to build a competitive team.
Positions drop off at different rates. No scoring system is going to make the strategy go away. It just changes the equation. You still need to locate the spots in the draft where each position is a good or bad value and try to align your picks to hit the high value spots.FF Ninja said:
I like it. I play in many 1.5 TE PPR leagues as I'm sure most others do. I like it, but the .5 and .75 would be better. Never used that scoring system but I think that would be ideal. Full PPR is getting a little much lately.
I agree, but when people fiddle with scoring like that it's basically designed so people can go numb during the first few rounds and just take BPA because the scoring is usually adjusted by looking at the top 12. Like I said, it's not night and day, but it does decrease strategy a bit. But more than anything it's just nonsense because one position's receptions are not more valuable than another's, so why reflect that it is in your league scoring? People would flip out about how stupid it is to make a TE TD worth 7.5 points instead of 6, but nobody bats an eye when their receptions are somehow worth more.
I read it. I understood it. It's just a very weak point.Gally said:
Then why did you attack the RB aspect asking why I kept bringing the RB as a focal point? I clearly stated it could have been any position but yet you decided to attack that one aspect because I happened to use the RB position in my example.
Because it seemed like you were harping on that particular position.
While I agree we've seen pendulums shift a little too much as overall offensive thrusts of the NFL has changed (from run-based to pass based), I do disagree with the bolded part.Arodin said:
The reason is to make all positions equal in scoring for the same type/tier of player across all positions. You may not like that approach or prefer to not score that way but it doesn't change the fact that the reason to have different scoring for different positions is to make them score similarly. Some people prefer leagues that do that. It's not wrong or right. It is just a way to do things.
You make some very good points here. Unsurprisingly a lot of the debate at the core comes down to stylistic preferences.
)
