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!

Annual Plea to Kill the 4pt Pass TD (1 Viewer)

...No, we are on a different page. I know what side of the fence you are on, but your argument seemed counter to your argument. Why would getting the ball back on a free kick be worth something when it is worse than getting the ball back on a regular punt?My comment was only to say that I think 2 points for a safety is the right amount (I won't confuse it with an explanation at this point)
Does a safety get 2 points on the NFL scoreboard? Yes. Do we generally reward fantasy positions with similar points for putting up NFL scoreboard points? Yes.Does a fumble recovery or interception stop another team's possession before they can score and instead give you the ball? Yes. Do we give fantasy points for this accomplishment? Yes.Does a safety stop another team's possession before they can score and instead give you the ball? Yes. Do we give fantasy points for this accomplishment?You're saying we shouldn't when in addition to scoring it gives the same advantage of gaining possession that a fumble or an INT does.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...

No, we are on a different page. I know what side of the fence you are on, but your argument seemed counter to your argument. Why would getting the ball back on a free kick be worth something when it is worse than getting the ball back on a regular punt?

My comment was only to say that I think 2 points for a safety is the right amount (I won't confuse it with an explanation at this point)
Even better way of stating what you're doing. Let's compare the following 2 plays:1) A 2 point conversion, the results of which are 2 NFL scoreboard points and the other NFL team then getting possesion of the ball.

2) A safety, the results of which are 2 NFL scoreboard points and your NFL team then getting possession of the ball.

2 point conversions are worth 2 fantasy points in standard scoring, and you're arguing safeties should be worth 2 points. Both of them score the same in the NFL, but the safety comes with continued possession of the ball while the 2 pt conversion loses possession.

Do you really want to argue that gaining possession of the ball from the opponent, as opposed to giving possession up, is not worthy of being recognized by fantasy points? If so then you had better have no points for defensive fumble recoveries and INTs.

 
...

No, we are on a different page. I know what side of the fence you are on, but your argument seemed counter to your argument. Why would getting the ball back on a free kick be worth something when it is worse than getting the ball back on a regular punt?

My comment was only to say that I think 2 points for a safety is the right amount (I won't confuse it with an explanation at this point)
Even better way of stating what you're doing. Let's compare the following 2 plays:1) A 2 point conversion, the results of which are 2 NFL scoreboard points and the other NFL team then getting possesion of the ball.

2) A safety, the results of which are 2 NFL scoreboard points and your NFL team then getting possession of the ball.

2 point conversions are worth 2 fantasy points in standard scoring, and you're arguing safeties should be worth 2 points. Both of them score the same in the NFL, but the safety comes with continued possession of the ball while the 2 pt conversion loses possession.

Do you really want to argue that gaining possession of the ball from the opponent, as opposed to giving possession up, is not worthy of being recognized by fantasy points? If so then you had better have no points for defensive fumble recoveries and INTs.
Nothing in what you wrote in either post is necessarily wrong, but there is a difference in the type of "turnover" For the safety, you are allowing a team to gain 19 yards (assuming they were on the 1) and the giving them a free kick which should be at least 10 yards more in the transition of field position compared to a traditional punt. Therefore, the "stop" in this case is not that great a stop, although you do get the ball back and 2 points. This seems about right to me.As for subtracting points for fumbles and Ints, I like penalizing players for making plays that hurt their teams in real life. I don't want a QB who throws for 350 yards and 2 TD's along with 4 picks to be considered having a real good day. There are some flaws in all statistics, such as a 40 yard INT on 3rd and 20 is really just a punt, but you could argue a pass behind the LOS to a guy who breaks some tackles and goes 80 yards was really all the WR work as well so it evens out.

The problem with your scenario is that you want to reward points for stopping another team by basically the punt? I am not in favor of that. For a safety you get 2 points and then get the ball back via the punt (free kick), when you get the ball back via a stop on 3rd and 6, you get the ball back via a punt; No points in either case for receiving the ball via the punt. Now you could argue that a stop on 4th and 1 could be worth points as that is a much better stop than losing the field position in a punt, but how to implement that in a fair way would be difficult and cumbersome and detract from the fun part of the game such as knowing what plays are worth immediately. This last part is a big part of the game to me.

You are saying a safety should be worth more than 2 points and I am saying that it is about right. Are you making the argument for fantasy or real football or both? I guess I don't see the justification for your argument here?

 
Liquid Tension said:
GregR said:
Liquid Tension said:
...

No, we are on a different page. I know what side of the fence you are on, but your argument seemed counter to your argument. Why would getting the ball back on a free kick be worth something when it is worse than getting the ball back on a regular punt?

My comment was only to say that I think 2 points for a safety is the right amount (I won't confuse it with an explanation at this point)
Even better way of stating what you're doing. Let's compare the following 2 plays:1) A 2 point conversion, the results of which are 2 NFL scoreboard points and the other NFL team then getting possesion of the ball.

2) A safety, the results of which are 2 NFL scoreboard points and your NFL team then getting possession of the ball.

2 point conversions are worth 2 fantasy points in standard scoring, and you're arguing safeties should be worth 2 points. Both of them score the same in the NFL, but the safety comes with continued possession of the ball while the 2 pt conversion loses possession.

Do you really want to argue that gaining possession of the ball from the opponent, as opposed to giving possession up, is not worthy of being recognized by fantasy points? If so then you had better have no points for defensive fumble recoveries and INTs.
Nothing in what you wrote in either post is necessarily wrong, but there is a difference in the type of "turnover" For the safety, you are allowing a team to gain 19 yards (assuming they were on the 1) and the giving them a free kick which should be at least 10 yards more in the transition of field position compared to a traditional punt. Therefore, the "stop" in this case is not that great a stop, although you do get the ball back and 2 points. This seems about right to me.As for subtracting points for fumbles and Ints, I like penalizing players for making plays that hurt their teams in real life. I don't want a QB who throws for 350 yards and 2 TD's along with 4 picks to be considered having a real good day. There are some flaws in all statistics, such as a 40 yard INT on 3rd and 20 is really just a punt, but you could argue a pass behind the LOS to a guy who breaks some tackles and goes 80 yards was really all the WR work as well so it evens out.

The problem with your scenario is that you want to reward points for stopping another team by basically the punt? I am not in favor of that. For a safety you get 2 points and then get the ball back via the punt (free kick), when you get the ball back via a stop on 3rd and 6, you get the ball back via a punt; No points in either case for receiving the ball via the punt. Now you could argue that a stop on 4th and 1 could be worth points as that is a much better stop than losing the field position in a punt, but how to implement that in a fair way would be difficult and cumbersome and detract from the fun part of the game such as knowing what plays are worth immediately. This last part is a big part of the game to me.

You are saying a safety should be worth more than 2 points and I am saying that it is about right. Are you making the argument for fantasy or real football or both? I guess I don't see the justification for your argument here?
Until you are willing to admit that safeties happen on 1st and 2nd down as well and stop a team from driving the ball upfield and even scoring, this is pointless. Every post your argument has only been willing to focus on the lone outcome that supports your position, that the defense will always stop the offense on downs without the safety. I'm trying to take all of the outcomes into account. If you wanted to argue that the extra points for a safety should be less than another turnover because of the effect of getting one on 3rd or 4th down, but that there still should be extra points for that component of safeties on 1st and 2nd down, I'd be willing to listen. But you're just naysaying that anything else but a punt ever results from a possession.

You can be the one to inform Elway that The Drive never took place because since there wasn't a safety, by your argument Denver had to punt so they couldn't have possibly scored when they started on their own 2, could they?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR said:
Liquid Tension said:
GregR said:
Liquid Tension said:
...

No, we are on a different page. I know what side of the fence you are on, but your argument seemed counter to your argument. Why would getting the ball back on a free kick be worth something when it is worse than getting the ball back on a regular punt?

My comment was only to say that I think 2 points for a safety is the right amount (I won't confuse it with an explanation at this point)
Even better way of stating what you're doing. Let's compare the following 2 plays:1) A 2 point conversion, the results of which are 2 NFL scoreboard points and the other NFL team then getting possesion of the ball.

2) A safety, the results of which are 2 NFL scoreboard points and your NFL team then getting possession of the ball.

2 point conversions are worth 2 fantasy points in standard scoring, and you're arguing safeties should be worth 2 points. Both of them score the same in the NFL, but the safety comes with continued possession of the ball while the 2 pt conversion loses possession.

Do you really want to argue that gaining possession of the ball from the opponent, as opposed to giving possession up, is not worthy of being recognized by fantasy points? If so then you had better have no points for defensive fumble recoveries and INTs.
Nothing in what you wrote in either post is necessarily wrong, but there is a difference in the type of "turnover" For the safety, you are allowing a team to gain 19 yards (assuming they were on the 1) and the giving them a free kick which should be at least 10 yards more in the transition of field position compared to a traditional punt. Therefore, the "stop" in this case is not that great a stop, although you do get the ball back and 2 points. This seems about right to me.As for subtracting points for fumbles and Ints, I like penalizing players for making plays that hurt their teams in real life. I don't want a QB who throws for 350 yards and 2 TD's along with 4 picks to be considered having a real good day. There are some flaws in all statistics, such as a 40 yard INT on 3rd and 20 is really just a punt, but you could argue a pass behind the LOS to a guy who breaks some tackles and goes 80 yards was really all the WR work as well so it evens out.

The problem with your scenario is that you want to reward points for stopping another team by basically the punt? I am not in favor of that. For a safety you get 2 points and then get the ball back via the punt (free kick), when you get the ball back via a stop on 3rd and 6, you get the ball back via a punt; No points in either case for receiving the ball via the punt. Now you could argue that a stop on 4th and 1 could be worth points as that is a much better stop than losing the field position in a punt, but how to implement that in a fair way would be difficult and cumbersome and detract from the fun part of the game such as knowing what plays are worth immediately. This last part is a big part of the game to me.

You are saying a safety should be worth more than 2 points and I am saying that it is about right. Are you making the argument for fantasy or real football or both? I guess I don't see the justification for your argument here?
Until you are willing to admit that safeties happen on 1st and 2nd down as well and stop a team from driving the ball upfield and even scoring, this is pointless. Every post your argument has only been willing to focus on the lone outcome that supports your position, that the defense will always stop the offense on downs without the safety. I'm trying to take all of the outcomes into account. If you wanted to argue that the extra points for a safety should be less than another turnover because of the effect of getting one on 3rd or 4th down, but that there still should be extra points for that component of safeties on 1st and 2nd down, I'd be willing to listen. But you're just naysaying that anything else but a punt ever results from a possession.

You can be the one to inform Elway that The Drive never took place because since there wasn't a safety, by your argument Denver had to punt so they couldn't have possibly scored when they started on their own 2, could they?
:lmao:
 
GregR said:
Liquid Tension said:
GregR said:
Liquid Tension said:
...

No, we are on a different page. I know what side of the fence you are on, but your argument seemed counter to your argument. Why would getting the ball back on a free kick be worth something when it is worse than getting the ball back on a regular punt?

My comment was only to say that I think 2 points for a safety is the right amount (I won't confuse it with an explanation at this point)
Even better way of stating what you're doing. Let's compare the following 2 plays:1) A 2 point conversion, the results of which are 2 NFL scoreboard points and the other NFL team then getting possesion of the ball.

2) A safety, the results of which are 2 NFL scoreboard points and your NFL team then getting possession of the ball.

2 point conversions are worth 2 fantasy points in standard scoring, and you're arguing safeties should be worth 2 points. Both of them score the same in the NFL, but the safety comes with continued possession of the ball while the 2 pt conversion loses possession.

Do you really want to argue that gaining possession of the ball from the opponent, as opposed to giving possession up, is not worthy of being recognized by fantasy points? If so then you had better have no points for defensive fumble recoveries and INTs.
Nothing in what you wrote in either post is necessarily wrong, but there is a difference in the type of "turnover" For the safety, you are allowing a team to gain 19 yards (assuming they were on the 1) and the giving them a free kick which should be at least 10 yards more in the transition of field position compared to a traditional punt. Therefore, the "stop" in this case is not that great a stop, although you do get the ball back and 2 points. This seems about right to me.As for subtracting points for fumbles and Ints, I like penalizing players for making plays that hurt their teams in real life. I don't want a QB who throws for 350 yards and 2 TD's along with 4 picks to be considered having a real good day. There are some flaws in all statistics, such as a 40 yard INT on 3rd and 20 is really just a punt, but you could argue a pass behind the LOS to a guy who breaks some tackles and goes 80 yards was really all the WR work as well so it evens out.

The problem with your scenario is that you want to reward points for stopping another team by basically the punt? I am not in favor of that. For a safety you get 2 points and then get the ball back via the punt (free kick), when you get the ball back via a stop on 3rd and 6, you get the ball back via a punt; No points in either case for receiving the ball via the punt. Now you could argue that a stop on 4th and 1 could be worth points as that is a much better stop than losing the field position in a punt, but how to implement that in a fair way would be difficult and cumbersome and detract from the fun part of the game such as knowing what plays are worth immediately. This last part is a big part of the game to me.

You are saying a safety should be worth more than 2 points and I am saying that it is about right. Are you making the argument for fantasy or real football or both? I guess I don't see the justification for your argument here?
Until you are willing to admit that safeties happen on 1st and 2nd down as well and stop a team from driving the ball upfield and even scoring, this is pointless. Every post your argument has only been willing to focus on the lone outcome that supports your position, that the defense will always stop the offense on downs without the safety. I'm trying to take all of the outcomes into account. If you wanted to argue that the extra points for a safety should be less than another turnover because of the effect of getting one on 3rd or 4th down, but that there still should be extra points for that component of safeties on 1st and 2nd down, I'd be willing to listen. But you're just naysaying that anything else but a punt ever results from a possession.

You can be the one to inform Elway that The Drive never took place because since there wasn't a safety, by your argument Denver had to punt so they couldn't have possibly scored when they started on their own 2, could they?
:whistle: We are on a different page. Of course a safety can happen on any down, but not sure what the point is as a TD or a turnover could happen on any down as well??? Further, a drive can take on many different variables not just a punt or safety, but again what the heck are you getting at?The reason I say a safety should be worth 2 points is that this is the way it is in regular football. In fantasy we reward for things (and subtract for things) that are not scoring specific to try and reward good play. In real football gaining a lot of yards helps you win a game but if "Bettis" comes in and gains 3 yards for 3 TD's than he would be the only one that matters. we try and make the players contributing or not contributing part of the equation, thus we give points for yards and points for turnovers on defense and subtract points of r turnovers on offense.

I have reread your posts and am not sure what you are arguing? To repost what I wrote previously, "You are saying a safety should be worth more than 2 points and I am saying that it is about right. Are you making the argument for fantasy or real football or both? "

 
...I have reread your posts and am not sure what you are arguing? To repost what I wrote previously, "You are saying a safety should be worth more than 2 points and I am saying that it is about right. Are you making the argument for fantasy or real football or both? "
I'm saying that a safety is worth more to an NFL team than just the points on the scoreboard and it deserves more fantasy points than just those equalling the NFL scoreboard as a result.I'm saying that on 1st and 10 from the 5, if there is an INT that is run back for a touchdown, that play:1. Stopped the opponent's drive immediately and kept them from scoring or gaining further field position, which we reward in standard scoring with 2 FP for the interception.2. Scored the touchdown, which we reward in standard scoring with points equal to the scoreboard, ie 6.3. Gave the ball back to the other team aftewards which obviously doesn't get them fantasy points as it isn't a good thing.A safety does1. Same exact thing, stopped the opponent's drive immediately and kept them from scoring or gaining further field position. But we give no fantasy points for it despite giving them on the INT.2. Scored the 2 points, which we reward in fantasy with points equal to the scoreboard.3. Retained the ball for our offense, which is not given any reward in fantasy in your scoring system.The safety does #1 the same as the INT does, but you award it no points. It also does #3 which is a big deal in the NFL and is also potentially worthy of fantasy points.To say all a safety is, is points on the board, isn't even close to equitable with our other fantasy valuations of NFL events. To claim that it is not beneficial outside the points because a punt from back deep would give better field position is focusing on only the most positive outcome you might get from the other team's possession.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...

I have reread your posts and am not sure what you are arguing? To repost what I wrote previously, "You are saying a safety should be worth more than 2 points and I am saying that it is about right. Are you making the argument for fantasy or real football or both? "
I'm saying that a safety is worth more to an NFL team than just the points on the scoreboard and it deserves more fantasy points than just those equalling the NFL scoreboard as a result.
OK, I would agree that a safety is worth more than just the two points on the board because of getting another possession in decent field position, however trying to give more value because of that causes some issues. With that logic, you should make a FG worth more than only 3 points because making the FG does more than just put 3 points on the board. Think of a 47 yard FG and what happens when they miss the FG, not only do you lose the guaranteed 3 points but you give the other team the ball on their own 37 yard line. So making that FG is critical (BTW, I HATE the rule that the ball moves from the spot of the kick, absolutely asinine as it slows teams from trying long FG's)
I'm saying that on 1st and 10 from the 5, if there is an INT that is run back for a touchdown, that play:

1. Stopped the opponent's drive immediately and kept them from scoring or gaining further field position, which we reward in standard scoring with 2 FP for the interception.

2. Scored the touchdown, which we reward in standard scoring with points equal to the scoreboard, ie 6.

3. Gave the ball back to the other team aftewards which obviously doesn't get them fantasy points as it isn't a good thing.
I pretty much agree here, but you could argue that if you have a great defense that kicking off could be beneficial to getting you good field position or another turnover. The theory that a team should always take the ball in OT is just stupid if you ask me. The wind and the type of team you are and the type of team the other team is plays into the decision. In general you would rather get kicked off to, but not always. The ex Detroit coach (Blanking on his name) was run out of Detroit when he kicked off after winning the toss in OT. He made the right decision but it didn't work out and he was crucified. Nobody said that EVERY single point in that game was scored going the other way. I have seen Parcells and Belichick kick off with their defense they used to have...anyway, it is not a given that it is bad, but in general I agree.
A safety does

1. Same exact thing, stopped the opponent's drive immediately and kept them from scoring or gaining further field position. But we give no fantasy points for it despite giving them on the INT.

2. Scored the 2 points, which we reward in fantasy with points equal to the scoreboard.

3. Retained the ball for our offense, which is not given any reward in fantasy in your scoring system.

The safety does #1 the same as the INT does, but you award it no points. It also does #3 which is a big deal in the NFL and is also potentially worthy of fantasy points.
Here we have some disagreement. #1 is the same thing, but you didn't fairly dish out the points. In example #1 point #1 you rewarded for the INT in the first example, but did not reward the 2 points for the safety in the 2nd example? You should have given them 2 points just as you did the INT. The difference in the 2nd example point #2 is that for the safety you didn't have the 6 points you just got the ball with a chance to score. BIG difference. The way it should be written is that for the INT return for the TD you get the 2 points plus the 6 for the TD, but for the safety you get the 2 points and the chance to score more points with decent field position. Why is that unfair to you? Why would you give more points for this opportunity? Just think if the INT didn;t go into the endzone and was stopped at the 10 yard line. Which is more valuable? they each received 2 points and everything else was the same? This is why a safety should not be worth more than a pick. In most cases the INT is worth more and only on a bomb with no return is a pick worth potentially less

.
To say all a safety is, is points on the board, isn't even close to equitable with our other fantasy valuations of NFL events. To claim that it is not beneficial outside the points because a punt from back deep would give better field position is focusing on only the most positive outcome you might get from the other team's possession.
Obviously there are other benefits to a safety, but you are ignoring the more positive benefits of turnovers in your evaluation.
 
correct... each player is credited with a TD statistically, but the "team" is only credited with 1 TD and given 6 points... so by extension, per player the TD value is split between the passer and receiver on a passing TD, whereas on a running TD the rusher gets all the points. Thank you for supporting my point. It's not like anyone here is saying the passer or receiver should get no points for the TD, just that they shouldn't both get 6...

I'm wondering why that's so difficult to understand.
So, help me out with this because I am having a hard time following your logic here...Indianapolis scored 50 offensive TDs last year. The following are individuals who were credited with TDs:

Manning: 35 (31 passing)

Harrison: 12

Wayne: 9

Addai: 8

Rhodes: 5

Clark: 4

Fletcher: 2

Carthon: 1

Stokley: 1

Moorehead: 1

Klecko: 1

Wilkins: 1

Hayden: 1

Total: 81

Clearly the difference between the team total of 50 and the individual accounting of 81 is reflected in the 31 passing TDs thrown by Manning. So, by extension of your extension of logic here, shouldn't the NFL only credit Manning with 19.5 TDs (15.5 for passing + 4 rushing), Harrison only 6 TDs, Wayne, 4.5 TDs, etc, so that the individual tallies reflect the team results? Isn't that what you're arguing for here? Otherwise, why would the NFL so stupidly give Manning 31 TDs, Harrison 12, Wayne 9, etc.?
Nice try, but we're talking points here, not number of TDs... I guess that's why you are totally missing the point... :wall: Here's a clue - How many points were the 81 TDs worth? Answer NOT 486.
So, don't give any points to QBs for passing TDs? Yes, that makes much sense.
That's not what I said. Nice try though.On a passing TD, the points should be split between the QB and the WR, OR, give the QB 4 pts and the WR 2 pts, but play PPR. It acutally seems most accurate to me.

And you can go on and on about how important a QB is, but look at Trent Dilfer, or even the Colts last year who won despite Manning. So you can't argue the QB is undervalued in a 4pt TD system.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Getting back to the original point here, I think the "Staff/Expert" rankings should reflect the scoring systems that are most used. 6 points per passing TD seems to be the norm. I haven't been in a 4-point league in six plus years.

Of course the rankings also don't reflect PPR.

 
Getting back to the original point here, I think the "Staff/Expert" rankings should reflect the scoring systems that are most used. 6 points per passing TD seems to be the norm. I haven't been in a 4-point league in six plus years.Of course the rankings also don't reflect PPR.
Nor should they as it is artificial.
 
correct... each player is credited with a TD statistically, but the "team" is only credited with 1 TD and given 6 points... so by extension, per player the TD value is split between the passer and receiver on a passing TD, whereas on a running TD the rusher gets all the points. Thank you for supporting my point. It's not like anyone here is saying the passer or receiver should get no points for the TD, just that they shouldn't both get 6...

I'm wondering why that's so difficult to understand.
So, help me out with this because I am having a hard time following your logic here...Indianapolis scored 50 offensive TDs last year. The following are individuals who were credited with TDs:

Manning: 35 (31 passing)

Harrison: 12

Wayne: 9

Addai: 8

Rhodes: 5

Clark: 4

Fletcher: 2

Carthon: 1

Stokley: 1

Moorehead: 1

Klecko: 1

Wilkins: 1

Hayden: 1

Total: 81

Clearly the difference between the team total of 50 and the individual accounting of 81 is reflected in the 31 passing TDs thrown by Manning. So, by extension of your extension of logic here, shouldn't the NFL only credit Manning with 19.5 TDs (15.5 for passing + 4 rushing), Harrison only 6 TDs, Wayne, 4.5 TDs, etc, so that the individual tallies reflect the team results? Isn't that what you're arguing for here? Otherwise, why would the NFL so stupidly give Manning 31 TDs, Harrison 12, Wayne 9, etc.?
Nice try, but we're talking points here, not number of TDs... I guess that's why you are totally missing the point... :wall: Here's a clue - How many points were the 81 TDs worth? Answer NOT 486.
So, don't give any points to QBs for passing TDs? Yes, that makes much sense.
That's not what I said. Nice try though.On a passing TD, the points should be split between the QB and the WR, OR, give the QB 4 pts and the WR 2 pts, but play PPR. It acutally seems most accurate to me.

And you can go on and on about how important a QB is, but look at Trent Dilfer, or even the Colts last year who won despite Manning. So you can't argue the QB is undervalued in a 4pt TD system.
I mean, the logic here really rests on the premise that the QB and WR share the responsibility for earning a TD, therefore they should share in the points. By extension, the RB does it all himself, and should get the full 6. :nerd: It also rests on some screwy logic that QBs don't get credit for the TDs in terms of points by the NFL, so therefore, we should give them 4 points. :)

As you might say, nice try

 
One of Yudkin's recent posts stated how hard it was to get points out of the QB position. Then, he proceeded to qualify that statement by reminding us that FBGs use 4pts for all PaTDs in their projections.The fact that elite QBs are so undervalued when compared to 2nd and 3rd tier RBs astounds me when it comes to this site (and to be fair, other sites as well; I just expect more from the folks here).Would you all just think about this for a second. Clearly, when you do, you'll score a passing TD as you do for every other position. And, maybe, just maybe Peyton Manning will be selected before Reuben Droughns this year.Thank you for your time.
Post of the year right here!!! I too am always in disbelief when I see QB passing TD's worth 4 pts?? Why?? Why?? Why?? I have heard people say otherwise QB's are worth too much. Well, let me ask this then...Which player on an NFL roster almost ALWAYS leads their team in number of TD's?? It's not RB's (save for maybe LJ and LT once in awhile). Why shouldn't they lead your fantasy team in total points as well??How many points are TD passes worth in the NFL?? Let's keep it real shall we??
I usually prefer 5 for a bit of balance... not so much at the top guys, but as you walk down the tail. First of all, no one will ever select Droughns over Manning. Manning is usually a first/second round pick. The big difference is scarcity, and making QBs score more points isn't going to matter unless you 1) make RB optional entirely and/or 2) start 2-3 QBs depending on the size of the league.In 2006, there were 6 QBs who scored over 300 pts - including Kitna and Vick who, last year, were probably mid- to late-round steals for a few teams. There were also 20 QBs (21 if you count Delhomme who came up just short) who scored 200 pts for the season.By contrast, only the top 3 RBs broke 300 pts (LJ and S.Jax both at 330, LT obviously shattering that with 427 and the highest total in the league). The dropoff is then fast - only 9 RBs broke 200 pts. In other words, the rewards for a top RB (or two second tier RBs) is great. On the QB side, even if you don't get Manning or Brees, you can get close to that.
 
I mean, the logic here really rests on the premise that the QB and WR share the responsibility for earning a TD, therefore they should share in the points. By extension, the RB does it all himself, and should get the full 6. :confused:
Glad you finally understand it. I'm not sure how you can argue with that unless your league also scores offensive linemen. :mellow: Or are you saying that the QB and WR don't share the responsibility for a TD? I mean sure, the QB just throws it, it doesn't matter what the WR does, right? Or the WR, he just catches the ball, it doen't matter what the QB does?

Oh I get it, you're right... when a RB scores a TD, it's because the WR and QB carry him, he doesn't run or anything... he just holds onto the ball...

It also rests on some screwy logic that QBs don't get credit for the TDs in terms of points by the NFL, so therefore, we should give them 4 points. :rolleyes:
I don't think that's a basis for arguing that the QB should get 4pts, but it totally refutes your incorrect argument that a QB gets 6 pts for a TD in the NFL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or are you saying that the QB and WR don't share the responsibility for a TD? I mean sure, the QB just throws it, it doesn't matter what the WR does, right? Or the WR, he just catches the ball, it doen't matter what the QB does?Oh I get it, you're right... when a RB scores a TD, it's because the WR and QB carry him, he doesn't run or anything... he just holds onto the ball...
The only person who can score without any assistance is the center. The QB hands off to the RB just as much as he passes to the WR; why shouldn't the QB share credit for rushing TDs?
 
Or are you saying that the QB and WR don't share the responsibility for a TD? I mean sure, the QB just throws it, it doesn't matter what the WR does, right? Or the WR, he just catches the ball, it doen't matter what the QB does?Oh I get it, you're right... when a RB scores a TD, it's because the WR and QB carry him, he doesn't run or anything... he just holds onto the ball...
The only person who can score without any assistance is the center. The QB hands off to the RB just as much as he passes to the WR; why shouldn't the QB share credit for rushing TDs?
Direct snap to the RB? Is a handoff as difficult as a pass? :useless: Does the handoff get the ball 20 yards down the field to the RB? The QB does almost nothing to help the RB on a running play in comparison to a passing play.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
switz said:
cobalt_27 said:
I mean, the logic here really rests on the premise that the QB and WR share the responsibility for earning a TD, therefore they should share in the points. By extension, the RB does it all himself, and should get the full 6. :shrug:
Glad you finally understand it. I'm not sure how you can argue with that unless your league also scores offensive linemen. :rolleyes: Or are you saying that the QB and WR don't share the responsibility for a TD? I mean sure, the QB just throws it, it doesn't matter what the WR does, right? Or the WR, he just catches the ball, it doen't matter what the QB does?

Oh I get it, you're right... when a RB scores a TD, it's because the WR and QB carry him, he doesn't run or anything... he just holds onto the ball...

cobalt_27 said:
It also rests on some screwy logic that QBs don't get credit for the TDs in terms of points by the NFL, so therefore, we should give them 4 points. :confused:
I don't think that's a basis for arguing that the QB should get 4pts, but it totally refutes your incorrect argument that a QB gets 6 pts for a TD in the NFL.
In real life, it's an f'ing team sport. NO ONE scores alone. The QB/WR score because the line blocked well, maybe another WR blocked downfield, maybe the RB sold the play action (becaus eof what he did on this play, or earlier in the game). This is FANTASY football though, and we can come up with any way of scoring we want. The argument that "that's how they do it in the NFL" is irrelevant because they don't score like this in the NFL.

Instead, let's worry about crafting scoring schemes that appropriately weight each position and make us worry about true strategy.

Just for the record, I used to play line, and if I'm building an NFL franchise I start with the line first and the skills positions second. That obviously wouldn't play out too well in FANTASY though.

 
switz said:
cobalt_27 said:
I mean, the logic here really rests on the premise that the QB and WR share the responsibility for earning a TD, therefore they should share in the points. By extension, the RB does it all himself, and should get the full 6. :football:
Glad you finally understand it. I'm not sure how you can argue with that unless your league also scores offensive linemen. :thumbup: Or are you saying that the QB and WR don't share the responsibility for a TD? I mean sure, the QB just throws it, it doesn't matter what the WR does, right? Or the WR, he just catches the ball, it doen't matter what the QB does?

Oh I get it, you're right... when a RB scores a TD, it's because the WR and QB carry him, he doesn't run or anything... he just holds onto the ball...

cobalt_27 said:
It also rests on some screwy logic that QBs don't get credit for the TDs in terms of points by the NFL, so therefore, we should give them 4 points. :football:
I don't think that's a basis for arguing that the QB should get 4pts, but it totally refutes your incorrect argument that a QB gets 6 pts for a TD in the NFL.
WRs never block downfield to spring long runs for TDs, I guess.
 
switz said:
cobalt_27 said:
I mean, the logic here really rests on the premise that the QB and WR share the responsibility for earning a TD, therefore they should share in the points. By extension, the RB does it all himself, and should get the full 6. :shrug:
Glad you finally understand it. I'm not sure how you can argue with that unless your league also scores offensive linemen. :rolleyes: Or are you saying that the QB and WR don't share the responsibility for a TD? I mean sure, the QB just throws it, it doesn't matter what the WR does, right? Or the WR, he just catches the ball, it doen't matter what the QB does?

Oh I get it, you're right... when a RB scores a TD, it's because the WR and QB carry him, he doesn't run or anything... he just holds onto the ball...

cobalt_27 said:
It also rests on some screwy logic that QBs don't get credit for the TDs in terms of points by the NFL, so therefore, we should give them 4 points. :confused:
I don't think that's a basis for arguing that the QB should get 4pts, but it totally refutes your incorrect argument that a QB gets 6 pts for a TD in the NFL.
Where did I ever argue that? I stated as a fact that the QB gets credit for a TD. I think we all understand that QBs are not given "points scored" for anything, unless they run the ball in. You seem to want to model it after that. Well...sort of. You want to give them 4 points, even though the NFL awards them zero. Do you even know what you're arguing for, anymore?
 
switz said:
Direct snap to the RB? Is a handoff as difficult as a pass? :shrug: Does the handoff get the ball 20 yards down the field to the RB? The QB does almost nothing to help the RB on a running play in comparison to a passing play.
Depends on the running play and the passing play, don't you think? A pitch isn't any different than a shovel or a screen pass in terms of the QB participating, and a good handoff still requires proper timing and good footwork, plus the QB sets the blocking scheme and may have called the play.
 
switz said:
CalBear said:
switz said:
Or are you saying that the QB and WR don't share the responsibility for a TD? I mean sure, the QB just throws it, it doesn't matter what the WR does, right? Or the WR, he just catches the ball, it doen't matter what the QB does?Oh I get it, you're right... when a RB scores a TD, it's because the WR and QB carry him, he doesn't run or anything... he just holds onto the ball...
The only person who can score without any assistance is the center. The QB hands off to the RB just as much as he passes to the WR; why shouldn't the QB share credit for rushing TDs?
Direct snap to the RB? Is a handoff as difficult as a pass? :shrug: Does the handoff get the ball 20 yards down the field to the RB? The QB does almost nothing to help the RB on a running play in comparison to a passing play.
:rolleyes: Not all hand-offs and not all passes are equal. A shuffle pass is almost identical to a hand-off. A lateral 40 yards across the field is just like a pass (but backward). In that latter situation, the play is scored as a rush. Bottom line is your concept that the RB does it all by himself is FLAWED. As is the concept of splitting points,And for the hijackers, a safety is 2 points AND a turnover. We score it as 4 points. Pretty simple.And the reason lineman aren't typically used in a fantasy game is the stats are not attributed to them. If they were... people would probabably play IOLP (individual offensive line players? :confused: ) Now, since stats are attributed to certain players, we associate points with the accomplishment. With me so far? Now, on a passing TD, both the QB and receiver are credited with a TD. Hence each gets their points. Got it now?
 
You guys are missing the point. The goal of a scoring system should not be to model what is "actually" in the NFL, since - as we've all realized - nothing happens in a vaccuum. The goal, rather, should be to craft scoring systems for FANTASY football that are balanced and make us choose strategically.

The problem, as I said before, is scarcity. The dropoff for QB is relatively shallow compared to RB, and yet most leagues play 1 QB and 2-3 RBs on average. It stands to reason that, if the dropoff for RBs is more severe than QB and you play more RBs than QBs, then RBs are more valuable.

There are two ways to change this dynamic: 1) change the slope of the QB curve so that the dropoff is equally severe among those who would be starters and/or 2) change the number of starters to artificially shift where the slope begins and ends (either on QBs or on RBs).

The point is - making QBs score twice as much as the top RB doesn't affect the slope of the dropoff of either position, and thus preserves the same relationship in terms of relative value.

 
You guys are missing the point. The goal of a scoring system should not be to model what is "actually" in the NFL, since - as we've all realized - nothing happens in a vaccuum. The goal, rather, should be to craft scoring systems for FANTASY football that are balanced and make us choose strategically. The problem, as I said before, is scarcity. The dropoff for QB is relatively shallow compared to RB, and yet most leagues play 1 QB and 2-3 RBs on average. It stands to reason that, if the dropoff for RBs is more severe than QB and you play more RBs than QBs, then RBs are more valuable. There are two ways to change this dynamic: 1) change the slope of the QB curve so that the dropoff is equally severe among those who would be starters and/or 2) change the number of starters to artificially shift where the slope begins and ends (either on QBs or on RBs). The point is - making QBs score twice as much as the top RB doesn't affect the slope of the dropoff of either position, and thus preserves the same relationship in terms of relative value.
I agree the single QB line-up is the most important factor to QB valuation as it defines the supply and demand. I'm not sure why (it seems) most prefer the one QB line-up but suspect it has to do with alignment to a typical NFL formation. 1 QB, 2 RB (halfback and fullback), and 2/3 WRS... etc.In general, I'm for anything that adds to the strategy and (within reason) increases the pool of viable fantasy options. Return points and PPR contribute to this objective. Less points for the QB and receiver on TDs tends to work against it. To me, nothing worse than 24 RBs taken in the first rounds of a draft.
 
There are two ways to change this dynamic: 1) change the slope of the QB curve so that the dropoff is equally severe among those who would be starters and/or 2) change the number of starters to artificially shift where the slope begins and ends (either on QBs or on RBs). The point is - making QBs score twice as much as the top RB doesn't affect the slope of the dropoff of either position, and thus preserves the same relationship in terms of relative value.
Increasing QB scoring does change the slope of the curve. If QBs got 1 point per yard and 100 points per TD and everyone else still got 1/10 and 6, the top players by VBD would all be QBs. Changing from 4 point to 6 point TDs doesn't change the curve very much, but it definitely changes it.
 
There are two ways to change this dynamic: 1) change the slope of the QB curve so that the dropoff is equally severe among those who would be starters and/or 2) change the number of starters to artificially shift where the slope begins and ends (either on QBs or on RBs). The point is - making QBs score twice as much as the top RB doesn't affect the slope of the dropoff of either position, and thus preserves the same relationship in terms of relative value.
Increasing QB scoring does change the slope of the curve. If QBs got 1 point per yard and 100 points per TD and everyone else still got 1/10 and 6, the top players by VBD would all be QBs. Changing from 4 point to 6 point TDs doesn't change the curve very much, but it definitely changes it.
Exactly my point. I'm NOT advocating increasing QB scoring as is. One way which I suggested earlier was to encompass completion % and/or passer rating into the score... that helps a little.
 
You guys are missing the point. The goal of a scoring system should not be to model what is "actually" in the NFL, since - as we've all realized - nothing happens in a vaccuum. The goal, rather, should be to craft scoring systems for FANTASY football that are balanced and make us choose strategically. The problem, as I said before, is scarcity. The dropoff for QB is relatively shallow compared to RB, and yet most leagues play 1 QB and 2-3 RBs on average. It stands to reason that, if the dropoff for RBs is more severe than QB and you play more RBs than QBs, then RBs are more valuable. There are two ways to change this dynamic: 1) change the slope of the QB curve so that the dropoff is equally severe among those who would be starters and/or 2) change the number of starters to artificially shift where the slope begins and ends (either on QBs or on RBs). The point is - making QBs score twice as much as the top RB doesn't affect the slope of the dropoff of either position, and thus preserves the same relationship in terms of relative value.
I agree the single QB line-up is the most important factor to QB valuation as it defines the supply and demand. I'm not sure why (it seems) most prefer the one QB line-up but suspect it has to do with alignment to a typical NFL formation. 1 QB, 2 RB (halfback and fullback), and 2/3 WRS... etc.In general, I'm for anything that adds to the strategy and (within reason) increases the pool of viable fantasy options. Return points and PPR contribute to this objective. Less points for the QB and receiver on TDs tends to work against it. To me, nothing worse than 24 RBs taken in the first rounds of a draft.
As I said, there are ostensibly 20 viable QB starters (i.e., 20 last year that scored over 200 pts for the year). Even in a 16 team league, this just doesn't create enough scarcity.The other argument against 2-3 RBs is that while an NFL team may have to "running backs" (i.e., people lined up in the backfield), only one of them are actually going to see the carries. So again using that argument is a bit artificial - I mean, I had LT + Willie Parker + Addai + Barber in one of my leagues last year, and could start up to 3 of them. In "reality", only one of those kinds of guys would have actually been on the field. One of the more interesting leagues I saw had 1 QB and 5 RB/WR/TE flex positions, no default starters.
 
:no: Not all hand-offs and not all passes are equal. A shuffle pass is almost identical to a hand-off. A lateral 40 yards across the field is just like a pass (but backward). In that latter situation, the play is scored as a rush.
I agree - but those don't make up a large portion of the plays, especially scoring plays. You can't plan your scoring around every play possibility, because we don't have enough access to stats, even though it's more than ever before. So we have to go with generalities. A rushing play, a passing play.
Bottom line is your concept that the RB does it all by himself is FLAWED. As is the concept of splitting points,
Not totally by himself, as I said earlier, the line does a ton of the work. But overall, the RB does MORE work to score a rushing TD, in proportion to the other skill players on the field, than a WR or QB does on a passing play. Bottom line is, even if everyone else on the team didn't do anything but get the ball snapped, there is a greater chance a rushing TD could be scored than a passing TD.Heck, theoretically, the center could fumble the ball, any player could scoop it up, run for their lives and score a TD. That's still a rushing TD. There's no way that could happen with a passing TD. The WR is totally dependent on at least one other player to throw the ball. And the QB is totally dependent on one other player to catch the ball. Those two players are inseparable when it comes to scoring a passing TD, it cannot be done without a passer and a receiver. On the other hand, a rushing TD requires no passer, and no receiver.Consider this situation... a player throws the ball, another player catches it, laterals it to one of their temamates who runs it in for a TD. How is it scored? A rushing TD. Why does the NFL not credit all three players with a TD?
And the reason lineman aren't typically used in a fantasy game is the stats are not attributed to them. If they were... people would probabably play IOLP (individual offensive line players? :thumbdown: ) Now, since stats are attributed to certain players, we associate points with the accomplishment. With me so far?
Hey, I with you 100%. I wish the NFL did keep stats, and then we could play IOLP. They deserve more credit than they get.
Now, on a passing TD, both the QB and receiver are credited with a TD. Hence each gets their points. Got it now?
They don't both get their points according to NFL scoring.People want to argue that QBs' value is diminished when they don't get 6 pts per TD in FF. I totally disagree. I don't understand why QBs should be "scarce"... how many NFL teams don't have QBs? Oh that's right, they all do. How many had to have GREAT QBs to win? None. Heck, Peyton Manning was terrible in the playoffs, and they won. It's a FLAWED argument. Having a great QB does not equal success. Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl, because he was on a team with a great RB, and a great Defense. Rex Grossman went to a SuperBowl, even though he sucks. But he was on a team with great RBs and a great Defense. Peyton Manning won laswt year, not because he was a great QB, but due to good RB play and better Defensive play. Tom Brady won his SuperBowls, not due to tremendous statistical days, but due to great Defense, and solid team play.Sure, some QBs are better than others, but having a great QB does not, and should not be the only key to wins/losses. I've played in 6pt TD QB leagues. I hated it. Every year the guys with Kelly, Montana, Marino, and Moon were the playoff teams. Yes, this was a long time ago. But it was stupid, if you didn't have a top-5 pick in the first round, you simply could not win no matter what. The key to winning was having one of the top QBs. When Cunningham went off in '90, it was great, because he wasn't drafted until the third round.When QBs become overvalued (which IMO 6pt TDs does), it diminshes team value, decreases parity, and lessens the fun of the league.You guys can claim all you want about how 6pt TDs is better, but I'll buy none of it.
 
The other argument against 2-3 RBs is that while an NFL team may have to "running backs" (i.e., people lined up in the backfield), only one of them are actually going to see the carries. So again using that argument is a bit artificial - I mean, I had LT + Willie Parker + Addai + Barber in one of my leagues last year, and could start up to 3 of them. In "reality", only one of those kinds of guys would have actually been on the field.
I think your point above makes no sense, seeing that more and more teams employ RBBC, or at least have two RBs seeing quite a few touches during a game.
 
When QBs become overvalued (which IMO 6pt TDs does), it diminshes team value, decreases parity, and lessens the fun of the league.
Well, rest assured, you have certainly carved out a small little corner of those who think this way. Enjoy many more years of fun marginalizing the most important position on the field. :thumbdown:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When QBs become overvalued (which IMO 6pt TDs does), it diminshes team value, decreases parity, and lessens the fun of the league.
Well, rest assured, you have certainly carved out a small little corner of those who think this way. Enjoy many more years of fun marginalizing the most important position on the field. :headbang:
Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks so.Do you really enjoy the 5 teams who get a top QB being the only ones with a chance to win? Talk about overinflating the value of a position!Glad that's how the NFL works : sarcasm :Trent Dilfer won a SuperBowl, Rex Grossman went, other sucky QBs have won rings (ala Terry Bradshaw) - but you want to make the only position that matters on your fantasy team the QB. Go ahead and have fun with that.Bottom line is QBs lose games, but rarely win them. It should be the same way in FF.And if you really want to give QBs credit for their play, their play has much more to do with moving the team down the field, than actually passing for TDs. So give them more credit for passing yards, or give them credit for completions (like players get PPR) - that would more accurately reflect their importance to the team. And penalize the heck out of them for INTs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's the solution:

If you like a league that weights QB's heavier, then play in that league. If you like a league that weights RB's heavier, then play in that league. But to those of you who say one is better than the other and everyone who doesn't like your way is living in the past or is a moron, take a hike, please. Your arguement is NOTHING more than opinion. I personally like a league that starts 1 QB, and 2 RB (which weights towards RB's), but that's just my preference.

The only relevant matter is the fact that FBG should probably have two sets of projections for QB's - one with a 6pt TD and one with a 4pt TD. Because there are plenty of guys playing in both types of leagues.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
When QBs become overvalued (which IMO 6pt TDs does), it diminshes team value, decreases parity, and lessens the fun of the league.
Well, rest assured, you have certainly carved out a small little corner of those who think this way. Enjoy many more years of fun marginalizing the most important position on the field. :bow:
:link: Talk about a big to do over nothing.
 
When QBs become overvalued (which IMO 6pt TDs does), it diminshes team value, decreases parity, and lessens the fun of the league.
Overvalued by what measure? If you go to 6 point TDs, there will still be 15+ RBs and at most one QB taken in the first two rounds; how does that make the QBs overvalued?
 
When QBs become overvalued (which IMO 6pt TDs does), it diminshes team value, decreases parity, and lessens the fun of the league.
Well, rest assured, you have certainly carved out a small little corner of those who think this way. Enjoy many more years of fun marginalizing the most important position on the field. :lmao:
:lmao: Talk about a big to do over nothing.
4pt PaTDs are stupid. That's not an opinion. It's fact.And, it's un-American.
 
When QBs become overvalued (which IMO 6pt TDs does), it diminshes team value, decreases parity, and lessens the fun of the league.
Overvalued by what measure? If you go to 6 point TDs, there will still be 15+ RBs and at most one QB taken in the first two rounds; how does that make the QBs overvalued?
The reason RBs are taken more often is because 2 are required. That's the law of supply and demand.Look at the NFL draft... once a a while you will see more QBs taken in the first round than RBs, but not often. Why? Because a QB worthy of a first round pick is rare. Same way it is in FF.Regardless, my point about them being overvalued, is it creates a situation where only the few teams with a top-tier QB have a shot at the playoffs. That's not realistic.
 
Here's my honest take on how positions should be scored, because I think it represents the most accurate representation of the players value on the field.Rushing:1/10 pt per yards - rushing yards are difficult to get, and vitally important, more so than passing, receiving6pt TD - although the OL does alot of work, we have no real way of scoring the OL at this timeReceiving:1 point per reception - without catching the ball, even on a dump off, this play goes nowhere1/20 pt per yards - granted there are fewer opportunities to catch a ball, but the yardage receiving comes much easier3pt TD - this is 1/2 QB 1/2 receiver, it should be scored that way-1 pt per dropped pass - if you get a point to receive, you lose a point when you dropPassing:1/20 pt per yards - see receiving scoring3pt TD - this is 1/2 QB 1/2 receiver, it should be scored that way-3 pt per INT - no it's not half a TD, but it does swing momentum-1 pt per sack - yes the OL is at fault too, but often it's the QBs faultPeople argue this overinflates RBs, but that is handled by your lineup requirements, just as in the NFL. This does represent a clearer picture of the QBs and WRs value to the team.Edit to add, I've seen some 4pt passing, 2pt receiving leagues, in that the QB should get some points for decision making as well.
So in my leagues where we have a coach as a fantasy position, in your mind he should get an equal share of everyone else's points since he and his staff are the ones calling the plays? Everyone's points get cut in half and the coach gets half, and the receiving yards and TDs get cut into thirds between the QB, WR, and coach?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's my honest take on how positions should be scored, because I think it represents the most accurate representation of the players value on the field.Rushing:1/10 pt per yards - rushing yards are difficult to get, and vitally important, more so than passing, receiving6pt TD - although the OL does alot of work, we have no real way of scoring the OL at this timeReceiving:1 point per reception - without catching the ball, even on a dump off, this play goes nowhere1/20 pt per yards - granted there are fewer opportunities to catch a ball, but the yardage receiving comes much easier3pt TD - this is 1/2 QB 1/2 receiver, it should be scored that way-1 pt per dropped pass - if you get a point to receive, you lose a point when you dropPassing:1/20 pt per yards - see receiving scoring3pt TD - this is 1/2 QB 1/2 receiver, it should be scored that way-3 pt per INT - no it's not half a TD, but it does swing momentum-1 pt per sack - yes the OL is at fault too, but often it's the QBs faultPeople argue this overinflates RBs, but that is handled by your lineup requirements, just as in the NFL. This does represent a clearer picture of the QBs and WRs value to the team.Edit to add, I've seen some 4pt passing, 2pt receiving leagues, in that the QB should get some points for decision making as well.
So in my leagues where we have a coach as a fantasy position, in your mind he should get an equal share of everyone else's points since he and his staff are the ones calling the plays? Everyone's points get cut in half and the coach gets half, and the receiving yards and TDs get cut into thirds between the QB, WR, and coach?
Love your hyperbole.How long did you spend coming up with that? I hope it didn't hurt your brain.I'm really glad you added something beneficial for a counter-argument, because it's really making me rethink things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's my honest take on how positions should be scored, because I think it represents the most accurate representation of the players value on the field.Rushing:1/10 pt per yards - rushing yards are difficult to get, and vitally important, more so than passing, receiving6pt TD - although the OL does alot of work, we have no real way of scoring the OL at this timeReceiving:1 point per reception - without catching the ball, even on a dump off, this play goes nowhere1/20 pt per yards - granted there are fewer opportunities to catch a ball, but the yardage receiving comes much easier3pt TD - this is 1/2 QB 1/2 receiver, it should be scored that way-1 pt per dropped pass - if you get a point to receive, you lose a point when you dropPassing:1/20 pt per yards - see receiving scoring3pt TD - this is 1/2 QB 1/2 receiver, it should be scored that way-3 pt per INT - no it's not half a TD, but it does swing momentum-1 pt per sack - yes the OL is at fault too, but often it's the QBs faultPeople argue this overinflates RBs, but that is handled by your lineup requirements, just as in the NFL. This does represent a clearer picture of the QBs and WRs value to the team.Edit to add, I've seen some 4pt passing, 2pt receiving leagues, in that the QB should get some points for decision making as well.
So in my leagues where we have a coach as a fantasy position, in your mind he should get an equal share of everyone else's points since he and his staff are the ones calling the plays? Everyone's points get cut in half and the coach gets half, and the receiving yards and TDs get cut into thirds between the QB, WR, and coach?
Love your hyperbole.How long did you spend coming up with that? I hope it didn't hurt your brain.I'm really glad you added something beneficial for a counter-argument, because it's really making me rethink things.
Maybe the equal share was hyperbole, but the heart of it was not. My leagues use coaches. We give points for an NFL win and points for margin of victory. By your argument should they get a piece of everyone's yardage and TDs. Perhaps not a full share, but they should. If that isn't the case and it isn't necessary to split the NFL value amongst everyone involved, then why do it for QB-WR but not others?
 
Regardless, my point about them being overvalued, is it creates a situation where only the few teams with a top-tier QB have a shot at the playoffs. That's not realistic.
That's funny. I mean, that's not even close to accurate.
In every league I've payed in where QBs got 6pts per TD, that has happened. I'm not sure what the situation is in your leagues, becuase I dont' have the full picture of your league, ie.e lineup requirements, other players scoring, etc. Nonetheless, in MY experience, that has always been the case in 6pt TD for QBs leagues.Maybe your experience is different, though I can't see how.Why don't you post the playoff teams from your league last season, and who their QBs are...
 
Here's my honest take on how positions should be scored, because I think it represents the most accurate representation of the players value on the field.Rushing:1/10 pt per yards - rushing yards are difficult to get, and vitally important, more so than passing, receiving6pt TD - although the OL does alot of work, we have no real way of scoring the OL at this timeReceiving:1 point per reception - without catching the ball, even on a dump off, this play goes nowhere1/20 pt per yards - granted there are fewer opportunities to catch a ball, but the yardage receiving comes much easier3pt TD - this is 1/2 QB 1/2 receiver, it should be scored that way-1 pt per dropped pass - if you get a point to receive, you lose a point when you dropPassing:1/20 pt per yards - see receiving scoring3pt TD - this is 1/2 QB 1/2 receiver, it should be scored that way-3 pt per INT - no it's not half a TD, but it does swing momentum-1 pt per sack - yes the OL is at fault too, but often it's the QBs faultPeople argue this overinflates RBs, but that is handled by your lineup requirements, just as in the NFL. This does represent a clearer picture of the QBs and WRs value to the team.Edit to add, I've seen some 4pt passing, 2pt receiving leagues, in that the QB should get some points for decision making as well.
So in my leagues where we have a coach as a fantasy position, in your mind he should get an equal share of everyone else's points since he and his staff are the ones calling the plays? Everyone's points get cut in half and the coach gets half, and the receiving yards and TDs get cut into thirds between the QB, WR, and coach?
Love your hyperbole.How long did you spend coming up with that? I hope it didn't hurt your brain.I'm really glad you added something beneficial for a counter-argument, because it's really making me rethink things.
Maybe the equal share was hyperbole, but the heart of it was not. My leagues use coaches. We give points for an NFL win and points for margin of victory. By your argument should they get a piece of everyone's yardage and TDs. Perhaps not a full share, but they should. If that isn't the case and it isn't necessary to split the NFL value amongst everyone involved, then why do it for QB-WR but not others?
You're missing the point of my argument if you think that.
 
In every league I've payed in where QBs got 6pts per TD, that has happened. I'm not sure what the situation is in your leagues, becuase I dont' have the full picture of your league, ie.e lineup requirements, other players scoring, etc. Nonetheless, in MY experience, that has always been the case in 6pt TD for QBs leagues.Maybe your experience is different, though I can't see how.Why don't you post the playoff teams from your league last season, and who their QBs are...
The math simply doesn't support your assertion. And the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."My league:Tony Romo/Drew Bledsoe (champion)BreesDelhommeRoethlisberger/HasselbeckBulger/PenningtonPalmerAs always, it is more important to have top RBs than to have top QBs; 6 point TDs have very little affect on the equation.
 
Regardless, my point about them being overvalued, is it creates a situation where only the few teams with a top-tier QB have a shot at the playoffs. That's not realistic.
That's funny. I mean, that's not even close to accurate.
In every league I've payed in where QBs got 6pts per TD, that has happened. I'm not sure what the situation is in your leagues, becuase I dont' have the full picture of your league, ie.e lineup requirements, other players scoring, etc. Nonetheless, in MY experience, that has always been the case in 6pt TD for QBs leagues.Maybe your experience is different, though I can't see how.

Why don't you post the playoff teams from your league last season, and who their QBs are...
If you can't see how, you need new glasses. I won my main league (2-start QB, standard ESPN scoring otherwise) with this lineup:

Favre

Leinart

LT

Rudi

Owens

Driver

Carolina

Some Kicker

The other teams had these QBs during the playoffs:

Team2: Grossman, (Eli) Manning

Team3: McNair, Plummer

Team4: (Peyton) Manning, Cutler

Out of 8 QBs, only Peyton was in the top-10.

And, this is typical for FF. If it were otherwise, Manning, Brady, Palmer, et al., would be going much higher than they do. But, your experience is unique. And, if you really think otherwise, set up a pole.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In every league I've payed in where QBs got 6pts per TD, that has happened. I'm not sure what the situation is in your leagues, becuase I dont' have the full picture of your league, ie.e lineup requirements, other players scoring, etc. Nonetheless, in MY experience, that has always been the case in 6pt TD for QBs leagues.Maybe your experience is different, though I can't see how.Why don't you post the playoff teams from your league last season, and who their QBs are...
The math simply doesn't support your assertion. And the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."My league:Tony Romo/Drew Bledsoe (champion)BreesDelhommeRoethlisberger/HasselbeckBulger/PenningtonPalmerAs always, it is more important to have top RBs than to have top QBs; 6 point TDs have very little affect on the equation.
I'm not sure where anecdote, nor data come in. And if you are going to pick an English argument, you came to the wrong place, and to the wrong person. Nonetheless, I digress...Brees - #2 QBPalmer - #3 QBBulger - #4 QBI would imagine the other teams had exceptional RBs. Still, just one player shouldn't make that huge of a difference IMO.
 
Regardless, my point about them being overvalued, is it creates a situation where only the few teams with a top-tier QB have a shot at the playoffs. That's not realistic.
That's funny. I mean, that's not even close to accurate.
In every league I've payed in where QBs got 6pts per TD, that has happened. I'm not sure what the situation is in your leagues, becuase I dont' have the full picture of your league, ie.e lineup requirements, other players scoring, etc. Nonetheless, in MY experience, that has always been the case in 6pt TD for QBs leagues.Maybe your experience is different, though I can't see how.

Why don't you post the playoff teams from your league last season, and who their QBs are...
If you can't see how, you need new glasses. I won my main league (2-start QB, standard ESPN scoring otherwise) with this lineup:

Favre

Leinart

LT

Rudi

Owens

Driver

Carolina

Some Kicker

The other teams had these QBs during the playoffs:

Team2: Grossman, (Eli) Manning

Team3: McNair, Plummer

Team4: (Peyton) Manning, Cutler

Out of 8 QBs, only Peyton was in the top-10.

And, this is typical for FF. If it were otherwise, Manning, Brady, Palmer, et al., would be going much higher than they do. But, your experience is unique. And, if you really think otherwise, set up a pole.
Your starting 2 QBs totally offsets the 6pt TD scoring. Which is probably why you feel so strongly about the scoring. In a start 2 QB league, things are totally different than in a start 1, due to the league scarcity of QBs that is predetermined by the number of NFL teams. It's like arguing apples and oranges.
 
Regardless, my point about them being overvalued, is it creates a situation where only the few teams with a top-tier QB have a shot at the playoffs. That's not realistic.
That's funny. I mean, that's not even close to accurate.
In every league I've payed in where QBs got 6pts per TD, that has happened. I'm not sure what the situation is in your leagues, becuase I dont' have the full picture of your league, ie.e lineup requirements, other players scoring, etc. Nonetheless, in MY experience, that has always been the case in 6pt TD for QBs leagues.Maybe your experience is different, though I can't see how.

Why don't you post the playoff teams from your league last season, and who their QBs are...
If you can't see how, you need new glasses. I won my main league (2-start QB, standard ESPN scoring otherwise) with this lineup:

Favre

Leinart

LT

Rudi

Owens

Driver

Carolina

Some Kicker

The other teams had these QBs during the playoffs:

Team2: Grossman, (Eli) Manning

Team3: McNair, Plummer

Team4: (Peyton) Manning, Cutler

Out of 8 QBs, only Peyton was in the top-10.

And, this is typical for FF. If it were otherwise, Manning, Brady, Palmer, et al., would be going much higher than they do. But, your experience is unique. And, if you really think otherwise, set up a pole.
Your starting 2 QBs totally offsets the 6pt TD scoring. Which is probably why you feel so strongly about the scoring. In a start 2 QB league, things are totally different than in a start 1, due to the league scarcity of QBs that is predetermined by the number of NFL teams. It's like arguing apples and oranges.
:2cents: If anything, 2 start QBs makes getting the top-tier guys even more important.

Besides, one swallow doesn't make a summer. What happened in my one league this one year doesn't help support or refute either of us. Instead, draw upon everyone else's experience. Ask everyone else here on this board, and I would hazard a guess that over 85% would disagree with you saying if PaTDs were 6 points, "it creates a situation where only the few teams with a top-tier QB have a shot at the playoffs."

I think you're just trying to be contrarian now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brees - #2 QBPalmer - #3 QBBulger - #4 QBI would imagine the other teams had exceptional RBs. Still, just one player shouldn't make that huge of a difference IMO.
One player didn't make that huge of a difference. If one player made that huge of a difference, the Peyton Manning owner would have been in the playoffs, and someone with the #2, #3, or #4 QB would have won. As it was, three of the teams in the playoffs didn't have top QBs, including the Super Bowl champion. The effect of a single player is mathematically measurable. With 6-point TDs, the effect of QBs is still much, much smaller than the effect of RBs (in 1QB, 2+RB leagues). Put it into Draft Dominator and see. Your point is not supported by any of the available facts.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top