If the recent pass first trend in the NFL continues, will PPR become a less attractive scoring option? Just looking at FBS's initial redraft non ppr rankings, there seems to be a lot more non rbs in the top 25. Only eleven are RB's as of the last update. Two TE's even sneak into the second round. Even Gates didnt do that on many people's boards at the height of his career. Just made me think PPR may be a dinosaur 5 years from now. Anyone agree?
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!
If the NFL continues to be a pass first league how will it effect PPR? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Tchula
- Start date
babydemon90
Footballguy
why is it bad that RB's relative value has diminished?
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
Why should RBs dominate the top of fantasy drafts? They are mostly an afterthought in the NFL draft. 11 RBs in the top 25 is four or five too many, from a parity or NFL perspective.
It's not just the pass-happy trend that is reducing RB value, but the NFL's move towards more of a RBBC approach rather than having a single bellcow per team. This limits their value in an absolute sense, but also means that the RB field is much deeper and therefore becomes less of a "must have" position (beyond the five or non-RBBC studs at the top). As for TE's, it's more the recognition that the position is being used differently, but that there are only a few top players who are miles above what the others score on a regular basis. And Gates *should* have been a second-round talent (maybe even first) back when he was the only clear stud at the position based on his VBD.As for PPR becoming a dinosaur, I don't see how the changes in the NFL would bring this about. Yes, it makes WR score more, but the draft should be built around the relative value in the position (VBD), so if it affects one position more than another, it doesn't matter. Shoot, we use a "reception for a first down" rather than PPR (which is about 1/3 of all RB receptions, 1/2 of all TE receptions, and 2/3 of WR receptions, based on historical data from the last several years), and it doesn't really skew the positions all that much.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
He didn't say it was bad, he's just speculating that leagues may move away from PPR in the future. You see this already with tiered PPR scoring.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
I think you can do it with MFL.
Why would you want to not play in ppr?
It makes the games 10X more exciting as you or your opponent has the potential to score multiple points on the final drive to pull out a win. I can't tell you how many games go down to the final drive on MNF to determine a final score. That is what makes FF exciting. Why would anyone want to change that? I would think that the NFL being a pass first league would make more people want to play ppr, not less.
There is no way I would play in a non - ppr league.
It makes the games 10X more exciting as you or your opponent has the potential to score multiple points on the final drive to pull out a win. I can't tell you how many games go down to the final drive on MNF to determine a final score. That is what makes FF exciting. Why would anyone want to change that? I would think that the NFL being a pass first league would make more people want to play ppr, not less.
There is no way I would play in a non - ppr league.
jwb
Footballguy
yea, some of the most fun watching football has been watching MNF, being 6 points down in a fantasy game, 1 last drive from the 20, and you have a wr going. That's awesome.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
PPR is the way to go IMO, entering my 18th season of playing that format.
And btw, even when I started WRs where throwing up monster stats, Herman Moore, Michael Irvin, Jerry Rice to name a few
And btw, even when I started WRs where throwing up monster stats, Herman Moore, Michael Irvin, Jerry Rice to name a few
I used the Data Dominator from this site to get those numbers. Averaging the last three years results in:
[*]WR: 0.654 first downs per reception.
[*]TE: 0.572 first downs per reception (it has been pretty steady at 0.55 per year, but jumped to 0.60 last year).
[*]RB: 0.351 first downs per reception.
Obviously some players will perform better than that (deep threats) while others may be slightly below (slot receivers), but it's a good rule of thumb. If you use the site's projections, just use those values for the PPR values for each position and it's a close approximation.
spodog
Footballguy
I'm not sure I'd agree that these trends mean that the absolute value of an RB is limited. If anything, it can mean that picking the correct RB's in the first 4 or 5 rounds is more important than ever. In years past, when 60% of the league had a 3 down back, if you missed on your top pick, or were clobbered by injury, you always had the possibility of trading for a different 3 down back or a hope of getting a waiver wire replacement from an NFL team who just turned the ball over to another back.'SelenaCat said:
At present, if you miss on a high round back, it is very difficult to replace the points you were counting on from those spots on a weekly basis because there are so many RB's getting 8 to 10 carries a game and so few truly carrying the workload.
In my view, it increases the scarcity of the guys able to truly produce consistent points, and makes focusing on that position even more important, not less.
I think we're saying the same thing: The top backs are just as important, perhaps more important (there's a reason the top 5-7 RB's are off the board first). After that, it's a deeper, muddled field, lessening the need to draft that second RB right away. Combined with the rising importance of getting a top WR, that's why we're seeing so many more WR's in the second/third round than before (not to mention more QB's, though that's not affected by PPR as much, obviously).
Last edited by a moderator:
DoubleG
Footballguy
This makes little sense. Higher total points had nothing to do with why (or why not) to play in PPR. PPR is about equalzing the absolute value of positions relative to each other. The PPR format was set in motion in large part to combat the over-valuing of RBs. When PPR first became more popular, there were fewer RBBC and many redrafts were almost exclusively RB for the first two rounds. Many startup dynasty drafts were the same way.
I do think Selena & Tchula's point in regards to the combination of PPR scoring formats + more and more NFL teams going for RBBC leads to a discussion of whether or not the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction - that is, are running backs who don't catch 50+ passes a season actually starting to be undervalued? Starting RBs who pound the ball for 20+ carries and 80+ yards/game and a 8-10 TDs a season who don't catch passes - while valuable in the real NFL - are mediocre fill-ins at best in PPR.
That, coupled with the move by the league to encourage more and more passing, is indeed, IMHO, beginning to create the opposite effect in PPR. That is, PPR is causing passing )specifically, receptions) to be overvalued relative to running the ball.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lott's Fingertip
Footballguy
This isn't about PPR vs non-PPR, this is about the reasons for PPR. The overwhelming reason PPR became popular was to counter the value of RBs. Yea, people quote other reasons now (the ability to score many points on the final drive on MNF is a reason for PPR? Really?), and that is just dandy, but PPR was and often is used as an equalizer. As Sabretooth pointed out, many leagues are already trying to balance things with tiered PPR scoring.I think it is a fair question to ask, that is, if PPR will still be necessary as an equalizer as the NFL evolves to use RBs differently. If RBBC becomes the overwhelming norm and teams pass 65% of the time, and WRs dominate the early rounds of fantasy drafts, what concessions to RB scoring will be needed to "balance" the positions again?
As always, to each his own, everybody has his own opinion.
