By starting 11 on both sides and "balancing the ledger" (read-tweak the scoring over a few years), we have a very even balance of offense versus defense. You can win or lose a game with either side.
This is precisely what I did not like from having 11 defensive players.
Your offense could play great and you could still get KILLED by your opposition if your defense didn't show up.Re: another post.
It's not difficult to tailor the scoring such that your WR3 equals your LB3 or DB3 (or CB2 if you prefer). I believe the "swamping offensive output" to be irrelevant. From a total points perspective, your raw defensive output will be greater than your raw offensive output if your scoring system is correct from a relative value standpoint. But, unless you want a stud QB or RB to far out-value any other player, the relative value is more important than raw numbers from a system perspective.
I could be mistaken, but most leagues run with certain standardized point schemes. Now while one could determine a suitable scheme that would give all 11 defensive players the net effect of one team defense in a non-IDP league.. but it would take a lot of trial an error. My point is that, for many, it's not worth the effort and it's simpler just to hack down the number of players.
I disagree that IDPs require less matchup management. Given the various defensive schemes and how offenses attack them, it's not uncommon for there to be clear matchup issues for an IDP in any given week. For example, a normally solid tackling SS had a very poor matchup against the Colts last season since many teams sat back in a Cover-2 shell to contain the Colt offense. Considering benching Kerry Rhodes and Chris Hope was a viable strategy if you had a solid alternative.
I don't disagree with anything here except for the "less" in the first sentence. I do think it is less and to me it is far less interesting to think about. Then again,
I preceive fantasy football to be luck more than anything else so it's not as if offensive matchup management is a science either.
I also disagree that big plays are random on the defensive side. They may happen much less often than on the offensive side, but I think most veteran IDPers would name the same group of players when asked to select a comp to a Randy Moss home run hitter -- Julius Peppers, Jared Allen, Ed Reed, Mike Brown, Champ Bailey, etc are all much better bets to make a big, big play than their counterparts.
This is an empirical question. But just the idea of me predicting Taylor having a sack, FF, FR, and TD all in one play is far more random than Owens grabbing a 45-yard TD pass.
Personal preference is definitely the foundation of your last point. More defensive players doesn't necessarily have to negate the LT2 effect. If you lose relative advantage among your DBs, it's no different than losing relative advantage at TE or WR or QB. More positions makes that likely, but if you've managed your roster well, more positions makes it equally likely (and usually more likely) that you'll extend your relative advantage at the back end of your defensive starting lineup. The percentage of total output will certainly drop, but the relative advantage at each position is the key to winning (it's the basic tenet of VBD) whether there are two positions in question or ten.
Reducing the weight of all players, reduces the importance of any one player.
You may still have a relative advantage at a given position, but the advantage is becoming smaller relative to the random noise level.. and is thus washed away...
