IDP (Individual Defensive Player) Leagues Rule! Tell Everyone Why! (1 Viewer)

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Hi all, 

IDP guy here. I love it. I love it so much I commission an IDP league, and have for ~15 years. 

The league loves it. I love it. You'd love it too if you gave it a chance. A couple of us were spontaneously evangelizing the merits of IDP format inappropriately in the Dynasty Trade topic, so I figured I'd start this topic so that those of us who love IDP could help convey the benefits to those of you who might be stuck in a rut with your own non-IDP format leagues. 

Or at least convince y'all to join an IDP league to try it for yourself, and explain how best to set it up so that IDP isn't a marginal afterthought in scoring, or randomly effecting games like having 3 of 4 extra Kickers. 

Go! 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I'll go first: 

When I had the opportunity to take over as commish of my IDP league, it was in a sad state.  We had 8 offensive players + K, and only 4 IDP-ers. The IDP scoring was all big-play based, so total boom or bust. A sack was 4 points, tackles = 1, 1/2 tackles = .5

So if you got points from your IDP-ers, it was like having 4 extra kickers. Random, lame & unlikely to impact overall scoring across the league since everyone had similar numbers and everyone had elite IDP players. 

I implemented a system where defensive players scored on par with offensive players, or at least had the potential to do so. To keep the player pool deep, I made it a tackle heavy league while still rewarding big plays 2 point tackles, 1 pt ATK, 5 pt sacks & Ints, small bonuses for 3 Ints, 10 TKL, 3 sacks - truly difficult metrics to hit were rewarded. And we score everything we can. If it happens on the field, you'll get points for it. FF, DFR, TFL, Safety, pass defensed, etc. 

It took a year to get the balance right, and we've since voted for a few changes to continue to fine-tune the scoring, but everyone loves it. 

And despite games frequently going to 200+ points, many contests are still decided by a handful of points, and sometimes fractions of a point. 

I love IDP because I can watch both sides of the ball in a live game, and it's every bit as exciting to see my DL get a sack/FF/DFR/DTD as it is to see a WR take it 60 to the house. It might even be more exciting because it's so rare by comparison. 

There are so many reasons IDP is better than D/ST - not the least of which is having more ways to win every week.

I'll let others chime in with their reasons to try to win y'all over. 

 

[Gally]

Our goal when putting in IDP's was to make all positions equal across tiers so you can build a team in multiple ways to be competitive.  As it turns out because there is so much standard offensive information available and you have to search for good IDP information having a good defense is really the difference in winning championships.  With good owners all the offenses are very similar scoring wise because info is easy to come by.  However, on the IDP side the owners that put in the time to find sleepers, breakouts, and scheme change benefiters get a leg up.  Kind of like the old days of FF football where you had to do your own work.  

As far as scoring we went opposite of HSG.  We went big play scoring to help make all positions relevant (like rush LB's).  We also adjusted points for DT and DB's because they were lacking in the overall scoring levels and we wanted to make them meaningful as well.  At first we started with sacks being king (8 pts for a sack vs 1 pt for a tackle).  This worked well for the end of season totals.  There was a great mix of all positions and players in the top 100.  It seemed good until you dug in a bit.  Because edge guys were sack heavy but lacked tackles they were extremely boom or bust.  So while they had nice totals at the end of the year they were very all or nothing.  Two sacks and they put up 18 pts (8 pts for the sack plus one for the tackle).  They didn't get a sack and they put up 2 pts (two tackles at some point).  Where the tackle guys were putting up 8-10 pts consistently.  We wanted to smooth that out a bit.  So we broke down the sack into a sack (3 pts), a QBH (3 pts) and a TFL (2pts).  A sack was still worth the same but now you can get points for near sacks (QBH) and some added pts for TFL.  It really helped smooth the scoring booms & busts without altering the overall point totals.  

As far as DT we basically doubled their points for a tackle (2 vs 1) and gave them a couple extra points for sacks (5 vs 3 as shown above).  Everything else was the same as other positions.  DB's got full pts for assists (so did DT) where everyone else needed 2 assists for a point (we do plateau scoring not decimals).  All in all it is a good system to make IDP important.

Our one issue we can's seem to solve is to make DB's more important.  Scoring wise they are in line with every other position.  The problem is there are so many grouped together and different ones every year there just isn't any real benefit to making them a priority.  You can always find someone equivalent off the waiver wire.  They just don't have much value.  Anybody have a solution?

Regardless having IDP brings you back to the days you had to work for info and got a benefit from it over the other owners.  Plus no longer am I looking just for offensive players to watch.  I actually end up watching my defensive guys much more than my offensive guys.  It's really a more complete way to watch/enjoy the game.  

Oh, and we also include punters.  They get 4pts for a punt inside the 20 and pts for total yards and game average.  A good punter is awesome to have.  Plus no turning away when your guy is going to punt.  I haven't rooted for punt coverage more as I want them to pin the returner inside the 20 for 4pts.  It's awesome.  

ETA:  Also, make sure you have the equal number of starters for IDP and offense.  If you don't it really diminishes the value of your IDPs as you never get into the depth on that side of the ball.   If you are thinking "oh we can start with one to see how people like it" you will be disappointed.  It really doesn't change anything and makes IDP basically useless.  Jump right in and go full bore.  Even if it's just for a year or two.  That will give you the best feel for what it's like.  Playing with one or two does nothing for you in terms of getting a feel for IDP play.  

 

[wlwiles]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I love the format.  It makes me care about the other half of football, and gives me that extra rooting interest when my LB or DL is facing my opponents QB.  I just wish ours was scored correctly.  

We only play with 5 spots - 2 LB, 1 DL, 1 DB, and one flex (usually another LB because of tackles).   But it's scored so weakly that I don't even draft them until last.  I am 100% confident that I could play the wire all year long at those positions and end up with a top 8 score at each of the positions.  Not because of my awesome abilities, just because there's so many of them that score so similarly, having Aaron Donald might give you a 12 point edge at most above replacement level because of the scoring.  

When we draft, as soon as all starting WR/RB/TE/QB/Flex spots are full, everyone immediately starts drafting defensive players.  I literally have 5 rounds where I am the only person filling my bench with offensive players.  It's incredible the advantage to be able to pick and choose my offensive bench first.  In the 5 years we've used IDPs, I have two titles, two 2nd place finishes, and one 4th.   I guess what's more amazing is that no one else in the league seems to notice the disparity in scoring, or the fact that I'm grabbing more RBs while they scratch for a cornerback that might get 5 pts a week average.

So on the one hand, let them keep scrambling in round 9 for LBs, I'll scoop one in the 14th and be just fine.  But on the other hand, I don't feel like I'm truly playing IDP.  

 

[wlwiles]

tried to edit and quoted by mistake - deleted

 

[rockaction]

I'd say that having IDP guys is a boon to watching the games. More players, more rooting interest, and you get to know both sides of the ball so much better. 

But -- and this is just me and my league -- I'm two years in (and haven't read the other responses), so my opinion is that I'm lukewarm on my format. That's because the scoring isn't, as Gally (and I haven't read his yet, but I'll get to it) makes clear or will make clear it should be, equal from offense to defense, and it's tackle-heavy scoring. 

The one thing I really don't like is its elevation of bad inside linebackers and tackling safeties. It's just like running backs; the most de-valued positions on the field are elevated to prominence in our leagues, and I loathe that. So it takes a great idea and makes it lukewarm. Now, MFL may change, and therefore my league might, to an EDGE designation, which would be both unfair for dynasty yet beneficial for my enjoyment (because sacks!!!!). That'd be a great thing to witness, just bad for my team (I've concentrated on inside linebackers and tackling safeties rather than 3-4 LBs that rush the passer, and those guys are all taken by others for not great reasons, IMO.)

That last bit was IMO. They'll benefit from the change when they really shouldn't as a FF player. 

Anyway, perhaps I'm wrong about that, but that's how I see it. You spend a lot of time trawling the waiver wire for bad inside LBs and midway through for corners getting thrown at. Some people say it gives you advantage because you have to follow it; I say it's bollocks because those guys aren't the best players on the field at their position. They just tackle guys. The top linebacker scorers in our format are having trouble even getting signed this year. 

And that's all I'll say about that. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I'd say that having IDP guys is a boon to watching the games. More players, more rooting interest, and you get to know both sides of the ball so much better. 

But -- and this is just me and my league -- I'm two years in (and haven't read the other responses), so my opinion is that I'm lukewarm on my format. That's because the scoring isn't, as Gally (and I haven't read his yet, but I'll get to it) makes clear or will make clear it should be, equal from offense to defense, and it's tackle-heavy scoring. 

The one thing I really don't like is its elevation of bad inside linebackers and tackling safeties. It's just like running backs; the most de-valued positions on the field are elevated to prominence in our leagues, and I loathe that. So it takes a great idea and makes it lukewarm. Now, MFL may change, and therefore my league might, to an EDGE designation, which would be both unfair for dynasty yet beneficial for my enjoyment (because sacks!!!!). That'd be a great thing to witness, just bad for my team (I've concentrated on inside linebackers and tackling safeties rather than 3-4 LBs that rush the passer, and those guys are all taken by others for not great reasons, IMO.)

That last bit was IMO. They'll benefit from the change when they really shouldn't as a FF player. 

Anyway, perhaps I'm wrong about that, but that's how I see it. You spend a lot of time trawling the waiver wire for bad inside LBs and midway through for corners getting thrown at. Some people say it gives you advantage because you have to follow it; I say it's bollocks because those guys aren't the best players on the field at their position. They just tackle guys. The top linebacker scorers in our format are having trouble even getting signed this year. 

And that's all I'll say about that. 

You were supposed to tell everyone why it’s awesome tho. 

 

[rockaction]

You were supposed to tell everyone why it’s awesome tho. 

Whoops. I started out with the awesome part and got to the caveat. I like our league much more than I like the others I have been in, which now feel artificial to me. Does that sound better? It really is a better format, if you ask me. Like, I knew when Taylor Rapp and Jordan Fuller were out in the playoffs and came back how big that would be for the Rams. Everyone can go "Aaron Donald!" You know your #### when you're wondering when the two starting DBs (safeties in this case) will be back on the field. It's just a better, more knowledge-intensive format.

My beef was with my team construction (which is on me) and our scoring (which isn't). 

But I'm still in it. I want to see it through and I enjoy it. There are now four FBGs in our league (including me). I just had a momentary gripe with my team makeup and scoring. That's all. 

 

[jm192]

We have a 12 team IDP league with 30 man rosters.  

The scoring is such that IDP's score in line with the offensive players.  Elite LB's can score as high as RB1's/WR1's.  Top DB's can score like RB2/WR2.  DL's--in some cases get on that same range as the DB's.  Elite DL's have some of the most explosive weeks.  Cam Jordan had 5.5 Sacks in the last 2 weeks, which all said and done in our scoring came out to 30 point weeks.  

It gives you a reason to follow games that would otherwise not matter to you.  

The occasions where you're in a close game and watching SNF/MNF counting tackles makes some games a lot more interesting.  

 

[Gally]

I'd say that having IDP guys is a boon to watching the games. More players, more rooting interest, and you get to know both sides of the ball so much better. 

But -- and this is just me and my league -- I'm two years in (and haven't read the other responses), so my opinion is that I'm lukewarm on my format. That's because the scoring isn't, as Gally (and I haven't read his yet, but I'll get to it) makes clear or will make clear it should be, equal from offense to defense, and it's tackle-heavy scoring. 

The one thing I really don't like is its elevation of bad inside linebackers and tackling safeties. It's just like running backs; the most de-valued positions on the field are elevated to prominence in our leagues, and I loathe that. So it takes a great idea and makes it lukewarm. Now, MFL may change, and therefore my league might, to an EDGE designation, which would be both unfair for dynasty yet beneficial for my enjoyment (because sacks!!!!). That'd be a great thing to witness, just bad for my team (I've concentrated on inside linebackers and tackling safeties rather than 3-4 LBs that rush the passer, and those guys are all taken by others for not great reasons, IMO.)

That last bit was IMO. They'll benefit from the change when they really shouldn't as a FF player. 

Anyway, perhaps I'm wrong about that, but that's how I see it. You spend a lot of time trawling the waiver wire for bad inside LBs and midway through for corners getting thrown at. Some people say it gives you advantage because you have to follow it; I say it's bollocks because those guys aren't the best players on the field at their position. They just tackle guys. The top linebacker scorers in our format are having trouble even getting signed this year. 

And that's all I'll say about that. 

Our league is Zealots and the scoring does leave something to be desired.  I still am not sure what a change to "edge" will really do in the grand scheme of things.  I don't think it will really make a big difference either way.  As far as bad LB's scoring well for IDP and good ones sometimes not that is just kind of the price of doing business.  It's why a guy like Revis in his prime was a terrible IDP guy where a guy that is targeted all the time because he can't guard anyone is a nice asset as he racks up tackles.  I don't think there is a good answer to this.  It's just a limit to FF.

I created my other league (referenced above) so we had a lot more flexibility in scoring options and had a plan to make IDP important.  We have also tinkered with it over the years (league started in 2005) to try and get more balanced scoring across positions.  However, sometimes it makes you feel like you are just chasing your tail.  

Either way it is so much better than "regular" FF.

 

[wgoldsph]

I've been in an idp league for years.  Generally it's the weakest part of my team as I admit to not knowing much.  Went broke on lbs last year after a lot of research and each of them #### the bed.   Okay Blake Martinez gets a pass because he was injured, but the rest have no excuse.

Because there's no "regular" scoring in ipd the same way there is in ppr or Zealots, I find it makes planning rather hard.   A guy who makes a ton of sense for a big play league is worthless in a tackle heavy league and vice versa.  DT might be juiced in one league or useless outside of "Aaron Donald!" and it seems like nobody can get cb right.

That being said it's good to get idp into the community more.   I think if we can agree to ground rules when it comes to scoring by combining the pool of our shared knowledge maybe we can make a fundamental starting point for idp leagues - ground rules like, the number of idp positions must match the number of offensive positions.  The more points for various defensive plays (rather than just points for sack, points for the qbhit the tackle and the sack).  Whatever else makes sense.

But yes, if we can settle on ground rules that work as the "idp package" I think it will be a lot easier to get people to come to the dark side.

Just one request - can we get rid of kickers?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I've been in an idp league for years.  Generally it's the weakest part of my team as I admit to not knowing much.  Went broke on lbs last year after a lot of research and each of them #### the bed.   Okay Blake Martinez gets a pass because he was injured, but the rest have no excuse.

Because there's no "regular" scoring in ipd the same way there is in ppr or Zealots, I find it makes planning rather hard.   A guy who makes a ton of sense for a big play league is worthless in a tackle heavy league and vice versa.  DT might be juiced in one league or useless outside of "Aaron Donald!" and it seems like nobody can get cb right.

That being said it's good to get idp into the community more.   I think if we can agree to ground rules when it comes to scoring by combining the pool of our shared knowledge maybe we can make a fundamental starting point for idp leagues - ground rules like, the number of idp positions must match the number of offensive positions.  The more points for various defensive plays (rather than just points for sack, points for the qbhit the tackle and the sack).  Whatever else makes sense.

But yes, if we can settle on ground rules that work as the "idp package" I think it will be a lot easier to get people to come to the dark side.

Just one request - can we get rid of kickers?

My strategy the last 3 years has become more and more extreme: ignore IDP for at least X # of rounds.

‘21 I made it up to 9 rounds before taking a LB. I then took my 2nd IDP-er in the 11th, then sprinkled in IDP players here and there.

it was one of my best years until the injury bug got me - started 6-0. 

Anyway, the better you get at the IDP side, the more values you can identify. And I find IDP’s get hurt a lot. So I’d rather lose a 14th round LB than a 6th round LB. If the drop-off in points is a couple tackles a game, NBD. My advantage on offense will more than off-set it. Plus I’ve become really good at identifying good tacklers throughout the season. Last year’s bargain was CJ Mosley. I think I grabbed him as my LB2 in the 13th. Everyone heckled me and said “good luck with that”. Dude was an absolute monster. I drafted Perryman in the 16th. He was my best defensive player and a top 5 LB in our scoring system until he got hurt. 

A lot of my league mates draft defensive players the same way they do offense - they want players on “good teams”. The flaw there is two-fold. For one, they’re overlooking potential studs. For another, good defensive players on “bad” teams spend more time on the field. The exception is DBs. I’ve found that DB on teams with good offenses tend to do better thanks to opponents being forced to throw more. 

All part of why I love IDP - there are so many nuances to what makes a good IDPer. Figuring that out, and maybe getting an edge on my opponents who go off of rankings sheets is really satisfying.

Rah rah IDP. Twice as many ways to win. And as someone said in the dynasty trade topic, those prime time games where it’s your linebacker & DB against your opponent’s QB are so friggin fun. 

 

[Gally]

Because there's no "regular" scoring in ipd the same way there is in ppr or Zealots, I find it makes planning rather hard.   A guy who makes a ton of sense for a big play league is worthless in a tackle heavy league and vice versa.  DT might be juiced in one league or useless outside of "Aaron Donald!" and it seems like nobody can get cb right.

To me having these differences is a benefit to IDP.  It means you can't just use a cheat sheet of some site and be prepared.  It rewards those that know the scoring system and does their research.  It makes it back to like the origins of FF where you had to outwork your opponents and know your stuff.  

Nobody can get CB right because they are like kickers.  So bunched together in scoring it really doesn't matter which one you have.  I haven't been able to figure out a way to account for that.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Nobody can get CB right because they are like kickers.  So bunched together in scoring it really doesn't matter which one you have.  I haven't been able to figure out a way to account for that.  

my way is to let everyone else spend on DBs while I wait to make them the last 3 picks before I take a K. Then I hawk the WW for breakout safeties. They pop up every year. 

 

[Gally]

my way is to let everyone else spend on DBs while I wait to make them the last 3 picks before I take a K. Then I hawk the WW for breakout safeties. They pop up every year. 

Exactly right.  Waiver wire is littered with top 10 scorers every week at DB.  There is no need to spend capital on them.  

 

[tangfoot]

The thing I love most about IDP is that they have zero trade value and top-10 guys at every position are completely random from year to year.  It's a free agent free for all.

 

[Jayded]

Now that I’ve done it, it’d be hard to go back. What I like is our honest gamesmanship as much as possible to try to level the real value of players. 

What I mean is I value my DL and LBs a lot just like NFL teams do because some weeks my top sack guys carried the way when my RB/WR didn’t score enough.