Is FF about to change drastically (1 Viewer)

[Finatic]

A buddy and I got to talking the other day about FF and where it has come in 10-15 years.We got on the subject of the dreaded RBBC and how it seems more prevalent than ever these days.I mean outside of a handful of guys every team seems to have their own way of roatating RBs in and out on a weekly basis.Is this a trend that's here to stay,how will the FF community react and adjust for this.

I for one started a Dynasty league this Spring with a different twist,starting requirements are as follows:

1-QB

1-3RBs

2-4-Wrs

1-3-Tes

PPR as follows

.5-RB

1.0-WR

1.5-TE

I'm hoping the starting setup and scoring bring the TE and WR closer to the pack thus allowing teams more flexibility week in and week out.

Comments?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This comes up every year. Although it might subjectively feel like RBBC is becoming more prevalent, it has become much less prevalent over the past few decades.

This article was written a few years ago, but I doubt that the trend has completely reversed itself since then.

The fact is: any way you want to look at it, the use of RBBC has been decreasing for about three decades. In 2000, RBBC was at an all-time (since 1970) low. In 2001, it was back up slightly, but was still lower than it has ever been.

Let's define a team as an "RBBC team" if their top running back scored less than half of the team's total RB fantasy points. Given that definition, there were 9 RBBC teams in the NFL last year, including Garner's Raiders. The following table shows how many RBBC teams there have been each year since 1970:

Year # of RBBC teams

------------------------

1970 20

1971 21

1972 18

1973 19

1974 18

1975 18

1976 21

1977 21

1978 23

1979 19

1980 21

1981 14

1982 11

1983 15

1984 16

1985 13

1986 17

*

1988 18

1989 16

1990 13

1991 15

1992 12

1993 15

1994 10

1995 10

1996 13

1997 9

1998 10

1999 11

2000 4

2001 9

* - strike-tainted 1987 data removed

In 1978, for example, there were a whopping 23 committees! That's 23 out of 28 teams, which means there were only 5 non-RBBC teams. Think how valuable the stud running back was back then. As recently as 1993, over half the league was RBBC.

As fantasy footballers in 2002, we've got it easy. We can complain about bye weeks. We can complain about Mike Shanahan. But we cannot complain about RBBC.

 

[Family Matters]

It seems every this question comes up and we find the more things change the more they are same. From an evolution stand point the 1 thing that has made a serious impact to fantasy football was the rule enforcement (5 yard bump) that has made the TE's more valuable. And we're seeing more talented TE's than we've ever seen.

If you look back you'll see that the number of stud RB's have been consistent. In fact it seems that the scoring looks pretty much identical year in and year out.

Modifying the scoring to even out the impact of the RB is also affected by the starting requirements. You addressed it on both sides. With only needing 12 starting RB's everyone can find someone.

You're biggest disparity will now be on TE's as Gates is so far ahead of everyone else. In fact you will not find 12 TE's that are near equal. So you have effectively moved the problem of having enough quality RB's to having enough quality TE's.

 

[wannabee]

Not to pile on, but I have this thought every year. Then, as the injuries pile up, the situations I thought would be RBBC end up with one solid RB for a length of time.

At this time of year we forget how many injuries to RBs happen each year.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Not to pile on, but I have this thought every year. Then, as the injuries pile up, the situations I thought would be RBBC end up with one solid RB for a length of time.

At this time of year we forget how many injuries to RBs happen each year.

Same phenomenon that kills the "I think the RB class is deeper this year than previously so I'll wait on a RB" talk every year.

 

[SSOG]

Not to pile on, but I have this thought every year. Then, as the injuries pile up, the situations I thought would be RBBC end up with one solid RB for a length of time.

At this time of year we forget how many injuries to RBs happen each year.

In addition, the reverse is true, too. Often a situation which would normally be a stud back type scenario gets turned into an RBBC because of injuries. New Orleans was a great example last season.

 

[wannabee]

I agree with both SSOG and KnowledgeRaignsSpureme. At this time of year, it is very hard to tell what will happen.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I agree with both SSOG and KnowledgeRaignsSpureme. At this time of year, it is very hard to tell what will happen.

I disagree with your spelling!

 

[Sportin' Woodchucks]

The most drastic change in FF over the last 15 years has been the popularity and growth of the hobby. It's gone from 100's of enthusiasts to 10's of thousands.

Unfortunately, the wealth of quality info available has ( IMHO ) multiplied the luck factor in regard to success. When a trend or rule change or other factor which was usually only caught by the most aware or prepared hobbyist occurs, dozens of those "sharpies" post or sell it on the net.

Flame away

 

[AB in DC]

Unfortunately, the wealth of quality info available has ( IMHO ) multiplied the luck factor in regard to success. When a trend or rule change or other factor which was usually only caught by the most aware or prepared hobbyist occurs, dozens of those "sharpies" post or sell it on the net.

This has also been said for the past year or two or three. Basically, the advantage is no longer with those who have access to the best info -- it's with those who know how to use it.

 

[radballs]

Unfortunately, the wealth of quality info available has ( IMHO ) multiplied the luck factor in regard to success.  When a trend or rule change or other factor which was usually only caught by the most aware or prepared hobbyist occurs, dozens of those "sharpies" post or sell it on the net.

This has also been said for the past year or two or three. Basically, the advantage is no longer with those who have access to the best info -- it's with those who know how to use it.

 

[coolnerd]

This comes up every year. Although it might subjectively feel like RBBC is becoming more prevalent, it has become much less prevalent over the past few decades.

This article was written a few years ago, but I doubt that the trend has completely reversed itself since then.

The fact is: any way you want to look at it, the use of RBBC has been decreasing for about three decades. In 2000, RBBC was at an all-time (since 1970) low. In 2001, it was back up slightly, but was still lower than it has ever been.

Let's define a team as an "RBBC team" if their top running back scored less than half of the team's total RB fantasy points. Given that definition, there were 9 RBBC teams in the NFL last year, including Garner's Raiders. The following table shows how many RBBC teams there have been each year since 1970:

Year     # of RBBC teams

------------------------

1970            20

1971            21

1972            18

1973            19

1974            18

1975            18

1976            21

1977            21

1978            23

1979            19

1980            21

1981            14

1982            11

1983            15

1984            16

1985            13

1986            17

*

1988            18

1989            16

1990            13

1991            15

1992            12

1993            15

1994            10

1995            10

1996            13

1997             9

1998            10

1999            11

2000             4

2001             9

* - strike-tainted 1987 data removed

In 1978, for example, there were a whopping 23 committees! That's 23 out of 28 teams, which means there were only 5 non-RBBC teams. Think how valuable the stud running back was back then. As recently as 1993, over half the league was RBBC.

As fantasy footballers in 2002, we've got it easy. We can complain about bye weeks. We can complain about Mike Shanahan. But we cannot complain about RBBC.

Very misleading in term of the way NFL teams thought. Prior to mid to late 80s, most teams ran a two back systems, where the FB actually was thought of as a person that carried the ball. the concept was not of RRBC committee, but simply the way you played football with 2 Rb, one an inside runner and the other more an off tackle and outside runner. Split-backs was the dominate formation. The "I" and single back sets were considered supplemental formations. It was totally a different game in terms of philosphy and formation. The single superstar RB who carried 75-80 percent of the carries when healthy is a concept relatively new, maybe 20-25 years old, and as the dominate way most team play football, probably 15-18 years old. Campbell, Simpson etc were intentional exceptions, but even then you will see that thier Blocking backs still carried the ball 75-100 times a year versus FBs rarely getting more than 25-40 in today's game, if the team even has the position.

RBBC is different in that you still have the I and single back sets that we are now used to seeing, but that a team intentionally switches the feature back either due to game situation , health or talent of the Running backs. Philosophically, RBBC is a pretty new concept.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Very misleading in term of the way NFL teams thought. Prior to mid to late 80s, most teams ran a two back systems, where the FB actually was thought of as a person that carried the ball. the concept was not of RRBC committee, but simply the way you played football with 2 Rb, one an inside runner and the other more an off tackle and outside runner. Split-backs was the dominate formation. The "I" and single back sets were considered supplemental formations. It was totally a different game in terms of philosphy and formation. The single superstar RB who carried 75-80 percent of the carries when healthy is a concept relatively new, maybe 20-25 years old, and as the dominate way most team play football, probably 15-18 years old. Campbell, Simpson etc were intentional exceptions, but even then you will see that thier Blocking backs still carried the ball 75-100 times a year versus FBs rarely getting more than 25-40 in today's game, if the team even has the position. RBBC is different in that you still have the I and single back sets that we are now used to seeing, but that a team intentionally switches the feature back either due to game situation , health or talent of the Running backs. Philosophically, RBBC is a pretty new concept.

Well put.I think that we're seeing a SLOW emergence of RBBC as a concept. And it's not the same as the 2 Back systems that used to be run. There's a difference between what he's talking about above and what Denver does yearly.Of course, the key to it is paying attention as injuries, schedules and the occasional hot back change each teams RB dynamic.RBBC isn't close to the norm. But I think we'll see more of it as time goes on -- there are just too few LT2s to go around.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Average rushing attempts of an average NFL team's leading rusher:

1990      202.71991      205.91992      226.01993      222.61994      244.11995      252.31996      242.51997      248.71998      259.91999      239.52000      259.92001      248.12002      263.22003      258.62004      254.62005      254.5

 

[msommer]

A buddy and I got to talking the other day about FF and where it has come in 10-15 yeears

Anybody else get mental pictures of the two old geezers on a bench in the park?"What is the world coming to"Sorry Finatic, couldn't resist

 

[Doug Drinen]

OK, here is a breakdown that does show some trend toward RBBC. Either that or a fluke year last year.

This is the percentage of team games, leaguewide, where the team's leading rusher had at least N% of the carries, for N = 60, 70, 80, and 90.

Year 60% 70% 80% 90%================================2000 84.5 70.6 54.0 32.52001 86.3 71.0 51.0 29.02002 81.8 66.8 49.4 29.32003 78.3 64.3 47.7 24.42004 83.0 68.8 54.7 31.82005 78.5 61.9 44.9 24.6Just to make sure we're clear, that says that in 24.6% of all games last season, the team's leading rusher had 90% of the team's carries. In 44.9% of all games last year, the team's leading rusher had at least 80% of the team's carries, and so on. [NOTE: only RB carries are included. QB and WR rushes have been thrown out]

 

[GregR_2]

...

Modifying the scoring to even out the impact of the RB is also affected by the starting requirements. You addressed it on both sides. With only needing 12 starting RB's everyone can find someone.

You're biggest disparity will now be on TE's as Gates is so far ahead of everyone else. In fact you will not find 12 TE's that are near equal. So you have effectively moved the problem of having enough quality RB's to having enough quality TE's.

Yes and no. I started a new league last year that starts 1 QB, 2 RB, 1 flex QB/RB, 4 WR, 2 TE, 1 flex WR/TE. Most teams in it start 2 QB, 2 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE... but you have the option of starting a RB in place of the 2nd QB which helps a lot with bye weeks. Could also start a TE over the 5th WR (TE get 1 pt receptions, WR get 1/2).Now TE is probably the position it is hardest to find a backup, since you can't replace your 2nd TE with another position. I had some weeks where I was grabbing a David Martin to fill in because I had Eric Johnson on IR and Stevens or Shockey was hurt. But that said, we start 24 of them, not 12. You shouldn't have any problem finding 12 TEs to start, they just may not score as much as Gates (obviously).

And for what it's worth, Gates, LT and Steve Smith all had nearly identical VBD values based on last starter.

 

[Family Matters]

...

Modifying the scoring to even out the impact of the RB is also affected by the starting requirements. You addressed it on both sides. With only needing 12 starting RB's everyone can find someone.

You're biggest disparity will now be on TE's as Gates is so far ahead of everyone else. In fact you will not find 12 TE's that are near equal. So you have effectively moved the problem of having enough quality RB's to having enough quality TE's.

Yes and no. I started a new league last year that starts 1 QB, 2 RB, 1 flex QB/RB, 4 WR, 2 TE, 1 flex WR/TE. Most teams in it start 2 QB, 2 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE... but you have the option of starting a RB in place of the 2nd QB which helps a lot with bye weeks. Could also start a TE over the 5th WR (TE get 1 pt receptions, WR get 1/2).Now TE is probably the position it is hardest to find a backup, since you can't replace your 2nd TE with another position. I had some weeks where I was grabbing a David Martin to fill in because I had Eric Johnson on IR and Stevens or Shockey was hurt. But that said, we start 24 of them, not 12. You shouldn't have any problem finding 12 TEs to start, they just may not score as much as Gates (obviously).

And for what it's worth, Gates, LT and Steve Smith all had nearly identical VBD values based on last starter.

I haven't put either your league or finatic's into VBD but it still appears to me he has moved TE's to the top of the list. Or at least Gates is. Your league looks alot different than his. Actually, I am going to go and set up a league with his paramaters and see what it does. Be right back.

 

[softball]

...

Modifying the scoring to even out the impact of the RB is also affected by the starting requirements. You addressed it on both sides. With only needing 12 starting RB's everyone can find someone.

You're biggest disparity will now be on TE's as Gates is so far ahead of everyone else. In fact you will not find 12 TE's that are near equal. So you have effectively moved the problem of having enough quality RB's to having enough quality TE's.

Yes and no. I started a new league last year that starts 1 QB, 2 RB, 1 flex QB/RB, 4 WR, 2 TE, 1 flex WR/TE. Most teams in it start 2 QB, 2 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE... but you have the option of starting a RB in place of the 2nd QB which helps a lot with bye weeks. Could also start a TE over the 5th WR (TE get 1 pt receptions, WR get 1/2).Now TE is probably the position it is hardest to find a backup, since you can't replace your 2nd TE with another position. I had some weeks where I was grabbing a David Martin to fill in because I had Eric Johnson on IR and Stevens or Shockey was hurt. But that said, we start 24 of them, not 12. You shouldn't have any problem finding 12 TEs to start, they just may not score as much as Gates (obviously).

And for what it's worth, Gates, LT and Steve Smith all had nearly identical VBD values based on last starter.

I think RBBC IS an increasing theme in football, the Defensive players are too big and fast for 1 RB to take a seasons worth of punishment. And the injuries that occur seam to suggest that. BUT....

I don't think it's RBBC as much as it's a Main Guy with a second guy who gets a solid number of carries/recepts. So a complimentary RB, not a RBBC in full.

In 2005 there were 17 teams that had an RB with more than 250 carries, and 10 with more than 300.

That's 50% and 33% (approx) on each.

 

[Family Matters]

...

Modifying the scoring to even out the impact of the RB is also affected by the starting requirements. You addressed it on both sides. With only needing 12 starting RB's everyone can find someone.

You're biggest disparity will now be on TE's as Gates is so far ahead of everyone else. In fact you will not find 12 TE's that are near equal. So you have effectively moved the problem of having enough quality RB's to having enough quality TE's.

Yes and no. I started a new league last year that starts 1 QB, 2 RB, 1 flex QB/RB, 4 WR, 2 TE, 1 flex WR/TE. Most teams in it start 2 QB, 2 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE... but you have the option of starting a RB in place of the 2nd QB which helps a lot with bye weeks. Could also start a TE over the 5th WR (TE get 1 pt receptions, WR get 1/2).Now TE is probably the position it is hardest to find a backup, since you can't replace your 2nd TE with another position. I had some weeks where I was grabbing a David Martin to fill in because I had Eric Johnson on IR and Stevens or Shockey was hurt. But that said, we start 24 of them, not 12. You shouldn't have any problem finding 12 TEs to start, they just may not score as much as Gates (obviously).

And for what it's worth, Gates, LT and Steve Smith all had nearly identical VBD values based on last starter.

I haven't put either your league or finatic's into VBD but it still appears to me he has moved TE's to the top of the list. Or at least Gates is. Your league looks alot different than his. Actually, I am going to go and set up a league with his paramaters and see what it does. Be right back.

After setting his paramaters I found Gates moved into the top 20 (17 to be exact). If I ask for 2 TE's then he moves into the 7 spot overall. The reason I might do this is because of the enhanced value I would place on TE's under this scoring and starter system. IOW-VBD still says go for RB's because of the flex options but I would be looking for guys like Gates, Gonzo, Shockey & Heap because they usually are head and shoulders above theor peers.Based on my projections (clearly subjective) I see the following VBD:

Gates 115

Gonzo 57

Heap 57

Shocky 51

LJ Smith 35

McMichael 31

Crumpler 30

Cooley 13

So you can see what happens to thier value when greater emphasis is placed on the TE position in order to level the field agaist the RB's.

The main problem is this: Gates and Gonzo are so far ahead of the their peer group that their value sky rockets. The guy that gets Gates, 2- good RB's and 2 decent WR's will have a nice advantage. I'm not sure that is what the author had in mind but maybe it is.

The last point to consider is this: while it's nice to level the field based on what happened last year, their might be changes in the NFL that put things out of balance in the future. Do you then modify your league to keep things even?

 

[Chase Stuart]

OK, here is a breakdown that does show some trend toward RBBC. Either that or a fluke year last year.

This is the percentage of team games, leaguewide, where the team's leading rusher had at least N% of the carries, for N = 60, 70, 80, and 90.

Year 60% 70% 80% 90%================================2000 84.5 70.6 54.0 32.52001 86.3 71.0 51.0 29.02002 81.8 66.8 49.4 29.32003 78.3 64.3 47.7 24.42004 83.0 68.8 54.7 31.82005 78.5 61.9 44.9 24.6Just to make sure we're clear, that says that in 24.6% of all games last season, the team's leading rusher had 90% of the team's carries. In 44.9% of all games last year, the team's leading rusher had at least 80% of the team's carries, and so on. [NOTE: only RB carries are included. QB and WR rushes have been thrown out]

Here's a graph showing those numbers.My rough guess would be the 80% number is the most important one for fantasy purposes. That captures what we're looking for best IMO (although I haven't given too much thought about it). Seeing that number fall so low last year is a little disheartening for FF fans, although it could easily be attributed to lots of other factors besides a new trend in the NFL.

That being said: four of the five last five SB champions did not have a RB with 300 carries or 1200 rushing yards. Kevin Faulk, Mike Alstott and Jerome Bettis all were key players on SB teams, and more involved than the number two RBs on the average team. That likely spurred any change towards RBBC.

dd.bmp

 

[Bri]

OK, here is a breakdown that does show some trend toward RBBC.  Either that or a fluke year last year.

This is the percentage of team games, leaguewide, where the team's leading rusher had at least N% of the carries, for N = 60, 70, 80, and 90.

Year    60%    70%    80%    90%================================2000   84.5   70.6   54.0   32.52001   86.3   71.0   51.0   29.02002   81.8   66.8   49.4   29.32003   78.3   64.3   47.7   24.42004   83.0   68.8   54.7   31.82005   78.5   61.9   44.9   24.6Just to make sure we're clear, that says that in 24.6% of all games last season, the team's leading rusher had 90% of the team's carries.  In 44.9% of all games last year, the team's leading rusher had at least 80% of the team's carries, and so on.  [NOTE:  only RB carries are included.  QB and WR rushes have been thrown out]

Here's a graph showing those numbers.

Doug, ITYM 80-90% and not "at least" which would be 80-100

 

[Chase Stuart]

OK, here is a breakdown that does show some trend toward RBBC. Either that or a fluke year last year.

This is the percentage of team games, leaguewide, where the team's leading rusher had at least N% of the carries, for N = 60, 70, 80, and 90.

Year 60% 70% 80% 90%================================2000 84.5 70.6 54.0 32.52001 86.3 71.0 51.0 29.02002 81.8 66.8 49.4 29.32003 78.3 64.3 47.7 24.42004 83.0 68.8 54.7 31.82005 78.5 61.9 44.9 24.6Just to make sure we're clear, that says that in 24.6% of all games last season, the team's leading rusher had 90% of the team's carries. In 44.9% of all games last year, the team's leading rusher had at least 80% of the team's carries, and so on. [NOTE: only RB carries are included. QB and WR rushes have been thrown out]

Here's a graph showing those numbers.

Doug, ITYM 80-90% and not "at least" which would be 80-100

I won't speak for Doug but there's nothing in the data he posted that would cause me to think that. Can you expound on that a bit?

 

[Bri]

OK, here is a breakdown that does show some trend toward RBBC.  Either that or a fluke year last year.

This is the percentage of team games, leaguewide, where the team's leading rusher had at least N% of the carries, for N = 60, 70, 80, and 90.

Year    60%    70%    80%    90%================================2000   84.5   70.6   54.0   32.52001   86.3   71.0   51.0   29.02002   81.8   66.8   49.4   29.32003   78.3   64.3   47.7   24.42004   83.0   68.8   54.7   31.82005   78.5   61.9   44.9   24.6Just to make sure we're clear, that says that in 24.6% of all games last season, the team's leading rusher had 90% of the team's carries.  In 44.9% of all games last year, the team's leading rusher had at least 80% of the team's carries, and so on.  [NOTE:  only RB carries are included.  QB and WR rushes have been thrown out]

Here's a graph showing those numbers.

Doug, ITYM 80-90% and not "at least" which would be 80-100

I won't speak for Doug but there's nothing in the data he posted that would cause me to think that. Can you expound on that a bit?

forget it, it's nitpicky and probably shouldn't have "said" anything...scuze

 

[Doug Drinen]

Doug, ITYM 80-90% and not "at least" which would be 80-100

No, I did in fact mean "at least."

 

[Bri]

ok

 

[rabidfireweasel]

That being said: four of the five last five SB champions did not have a RB with 300 carries or 1200 rushing yards. Kevin Faulk, Mike Alstott and Jerome Bettis all were key players on SB teams, and more involved than the number two RBs on the average team. That likely spurred any change towards RBBC.

I think the last 2 superbowl chamions had 1200 rushers- Parker and Dillon.

 

[GregR_2]

The main problem is this: Gates and Gonzo are so far ahead of the their peer group that their value sky rockets. The guy that gets Gates, 2- good RB's and 2 decent WR's will have a nice advantage. I'm not sure that is what the author had in mind but maybe it is.

The last point to consider is this: while it's nice to level the field based on what happened last year, their might be changes in the NFL that put things out of balance in the future. Do you then modify your league to keep things even?

I know you're talking about his league and I'm talking about mine (where TE get 1 pt reception, WR get 1/2 and RB get 1/4). But anyway, over in my league, ignoring the extra utility of the flex spot for RB vs the flex spot for TE, TE is every bit as valuable. As I mentioned, Gates, LT and Steve Smith ended around 12 pts per game ahead of their last starter. But another interesting thing was I checked TE10 and RB10 just to see how the curve differed after that, and they were also almost equal in points per game value.Final note, this was not the kind of attempt to level the playing field you seem to be taking it as. Yes, I wanted all positions to be more meaningful than normal, but I'm fine if some are a little more or less valuable than others. In actuality, the fact we start a full 4-3 defense at IDP (11 players) did more to drive the number of starting TEs than did trying to balance scoring in some fashion.

So there is no concern to me what position comes out on top. Going into the first auction, QB had the advantage actually in most people's projections in this system. If it was meant to be a completely balanced system you'd need to go with something like the top player at each position gets X points.

But anyway, my point is that you definitely can support 12 starting TEs with what is out there in the league, because we're supporting 24 TE in a league where TE is every bit as valuable as RB.

 

[Chase Stuart]

That being said: four of the five last five SB champions did not have a RB with 300 carries or 1200 rushing yards. Kevin Faulk, Mike Alstott and Jerome Bettis all were key players on SB teams, and more involved than the number two RBs on the average team. That likely spurred any change towards RBBC.

I think the last 2 superbowl chamions had 1200 rushers- Parker and Dillon.

Oops. You're right -- Parker had 1202 yards. The point remains the same though, as Pittsburgh was a clear RBBC team last year. In this copycat league, the most recent SB champions have used at least two guys to get it done running the ball.

 

[Bri]

That being said: four of the five last five SB champions did not have a RB with 300 carries or 1200 rushing yards. Kevin Faulk, Mike Alstott and Jerome Bettis all were key players on SB teams, and more involved than the number two RBs on the average team. That likely spurred any change towards RBBC.

I think the last 2 superbowl chamions had 1200 rushers- Parker and Dillon.

Oops. You're right -- Parker had 1202 yards. The point remains the same though, as Pittsburgh was a clear RBBC team last year. In this copycat league, the most recent SB champions have used at least two guys to get it done running the ball.

I disagree. Faulk is more Meggett-like and has not fared so well when he had to carry the load. Pass and Evans had their moments last year but they didn't win it then and Dillon was injured.

 

[Finatic]

A buddy and I got to talking the other day about FF and where it has come in 10-15 yeears

Anybody else get mental pictures of the two old geezers on a bench in the park?"What is the world coming to"

Sorry Finatic, couldn't resist

Good one

 

[Finatic]

...

Modifying the scoring to even out the impact of the RB is also affected by the starting requirements. You addressed it on both sides. With only needing 12 starting RB's everyone can find someone.

You're biggest disparity will now be on TE's as Gates is so far ahead of everyone else. In fact you will not find 12 TE's that are near equal. So you have effectively moved the problem of having enough quality RB's to having enough quality TE's.

Yes and no. I started a new league last year that starts 1 QB, 2 RB, 1 flex QB/RB, 4 WR, 2 TE, 1 flex WR/TE. Most teams in it start 2 QB, 2 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE... but you have the option of starting a RB in place of the 2nd QB which helps a lot with bye weeks. Could also start a TE over the 5th WR (TE get 1 pt receptions, WR get 1/2).Now TE is probably the position it is hardest to find a backup, since you can't replace your 2nd TE with another position. I had some weeks where I was grabbing a David Martin to fill in because I had Eric Johnson on IR and Stevens or Shockey was hurt. But that said, we start 24 of them, not 12. You shouldn't have any problem finding 12 TEs to start, they just may not score as much as Gates (obviously).

And for what it's worth, Gates, LT and Steve Smith all had nearly identical VBD values based on last starter.

I haven't put either your league or finatic's into VBD but it still appears to me he has moved TE's to the top of the list. Or at least Gates is. Your league looks alot different than his. Actually, I am going to go and set up a league with his paramaters and see what it does. Be right back.

After setting his paramaters I found Gates moved into the top 20 (17 to be exact). If I ask for 2 TE's then he moves into the 7 spot overall. The reason I might do this is because of the enhanced value I would place on TE's under this scoring and starter system. IOW-VBD still says go for RB's because of the flex options but I would be looking for guys like Gates, Gonzo, Shockey & Heap because they usually are head and shoulders above theor peers.Based on my projections (clearly subjective) I see the following VBD:

Gates 115

Gonzo 57

Heap 57

Shocky 51

LJ Smith 35

McMichael 31

Crumpler 30

Cooley 13

So you can see what happens to thier value when greater emphasis is placed on the TE position in order to level the field agaist the RB's.

The main problem is this: Gates and Gonzo are so far ahead of the their peer group that their value sky rockets. The guy that gets Gates, 2- good RB's and 2 decent WR's will have a nice advantage. I'm not sure that is what the author had in mind but maybe it is.

The last point to consider is this: while it's nice to level the field based on what happened last year, their might be changes in the NFL that put things out of balance in the future. Do you then modify your league to keep things even?

FM,What I had in mind was creating a league where a person could build a team that was worthy of competing on a weekly basis without having to draft 3 starting RBs.I believe the scoring coupled with the starting requirements should enable most teams to do this in our league.I will post a link with the rosters below,some teams that went heavy TE are short on starting RB and vice versa.I for one went Portis/Manning then made sure I got two top 7 TEs and one sleeper TE before settling on vet WRs.

http://football.myfantasyleague.com/2006/o...ns?L=11631&O=07

Fin

 

[bigreese82]

In this league, I grabbed Ronnie Brown, Marvin Harrison, Terrell Owens, Plaxico Burress before going back and grabbing my 2nd rb...Chrissy Brown..I then loaded up on TEs ( Miller, Wiggins,Hilton, Scaife)

Looks weird on paper but I feel I can compete because of the lineup requirements if no major injuries to Brown

 

[Neo]

The thing with this type of league and what I feel is important regarding TE heavy leagues is TE's are inconsistent, besides Gates you have Shockey, Gonzo, Heap and Crumpler. There are many days these guys will give you 2 for 20 yards or 1 for 10 yards and a TD. There are games where they do need to stay in and block. I for one look for consistency. I would much rather play a couple of runningbacks in the flex that are a lock to get the bean 10 - 20 times a game then 2 TE's who, at times are a crapshoot to determine their level of productivity for the week.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

A buddy and I got to talking the other day about FF and where it has come in 10-15 years.We got on the subject of the dreaded RBBC and how it seems more prevalent than ever these days.I mean outside of a handful of guys every team seems to have their own way of roatating RBs in and out on a weekly basis.Is this a trend that's here to stay,how will the FF community react and adjust for this.

I for one started a Dynasty league this Spring with a different twist,starting requirements are as follows:

1-QB

1-3RBs

2-4-Wrs

1-3-Tes

PPR as follows

.5-RB

1.0-WR

1.5-TE

I'm hoping the starting setup and scoring bring the TE and WR closer to the pack thus allowing teams more flexibility week in and week out.

Comments?

I had a similar thought a few months ago:RBBC

Just to add some further thoughts.

 

[Family Matters]

...

Modifying the scoring to even out the impact of the RB is also affected by the starting requirements. You addressed it on both sides. With only needing 12 starting RB's everyone can find someone.

You're biggest disparity will now be on TE's as Gates is so far ahead of everyone else. In fact you will not find 12 TE's that are near equal. So you have effectively moved the problem of having enough quality RB's to having enough quality TE's.

Yes and no. I started a new league last year that starts 1 QB, 2 RB, 1 flex QB/RB, 4 WR, 2 TE, 1 flex WR/TE. Most teams in it start 2 QB, 2 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE... but you have the option of starting a RB in place of the 2nd QB which helps a lot with bye weeks. Could also start a TE over the 5th WR (TE get 1 pt receptions, WR get 1/2).Now TE is probably the position it is hardest to find a backup, since you can't replace your 2nd TE with another position. I had some weeks where I was grabbing a David Martin to fill in because I had Eric Johnson on IR and Stevens or Shockey was hurt. But that said, we start 24 of them, not 12. You shouldn't have any problem finding 12 TEs to start, they just may not score as much as Gates (obviously).

And for what it's worth, Gates, LT and Steve Smith all had nearly identical VBD values based on last starter.

I haven't put either your league or finatic's into VBD but it still appears to me he has moved TE's to the top of the list. Or at least Gates is. Your league looks alot different than his. Actually, I am going to go and set up a league with his paramaters and see what it does. Be right back.

After setting his paramaters I found Gates moved into the top 20 (17 to be exact). If I ask for 2 TE's then he moves into the 7 spot overall. The reason I might do this is because of the enhanced value I would place on TE's under this scoring and starter system. IOW-VBD still says go for RB's because of the flex options but I would be looking for guys like Gates, Gonzo, Shockey & Heap because they usually are head and shoulders above theor peers.Based on my projections (clearly subjective) I see the following VBD:

Gates 115

Gonzo 57

Heap 57

Shocky 51

LJ Smith 35

McMichael 31

Crumpler 30

Cooley 13

So you can see what happens to thier value when greater emphasis is placed on the TE position in order to level the field agaist the RB's.

The main problem is this: Gates and Gonzo are so far ahead of the their peer group that their value sky rockets. The guy that gets Gates, 2- good RB's and 2 decent WR's will have a nice advantage. I'm not sure that is what the author had in mind but maybe it is.

The last point to consider is this: while it's nice to level the field based on what happened last year, their might be changes in the NFL that put things out of balance in the future. Do you then modify your league to keep things even?

FM,What I had in mind was creating a league where a person could build a team that was worthy of competing on a weekly basis without having to draft 3 starting RBs.I believe the scoring coupled with the starting requirements should enable most teams to do this in our league.I will post a link with the rosters below,some teams that went heavy TE are short on starting RB and vice versa.I for one went Portis/Manning then made sure I got two top 7 TEs and one sleeper TE before settling on vet WRs.

http://football.myfantasyleague.com/2006/o...ns?L=11631&O=07

Fin

The bolded part is exactly what I was getting at. And thanks for proving me correct. The emphasis changed and you expploited it. How many in your league figured this out and drafted accordingly?

 

[Finatic]

There is a post with a link in it that shows the rosters FM.The scoring and starting requirements were made known a good 6 weeks before the draft started.A couple of owners drafted with this in mind and most didn't choosing to still go RB heavy despite the TE spike in scoring.I for one always take the best talent available within the scoring system in an initial dynasty draft depending on the scoring/starting requirements.

I took Portis at 1.04(No-Brainer) and was shocked to see P. Manning at 2.09.I thought that Shockey at 3.04 had more value than the borderline RB2's and WR's that were on the board at the time.Same can be said for my 5.04 selection of Crumpler.I just tried to get the most talented players I can and it just so happens that the TEs were my best value at the time so I snatched them up..

I'm left with a RB corps outside of Portis that consists of Perry and a bunch of rookies so the TEs should help offset that most weeks.All I can hope for is a squad that is competitive on a weekly basis and fill in the missing pieces in the future...

Fin

 

[Family Matters]

There is a post with a link in it that shows the rosters FM.The scoring and starting requirements were made known a good 6 weeks before the draft started.A couple of owners drafted with this in mind and most didn't choosing to still go RB heavy despite the TE spike in scoring.I for one always take the best talent available within the scoring system in an initial dynasty draft depending on the scoring/starting requirements.

I took Portis at 1.04(No-Brainer) and was shocked to see P. Manning at 2.09.I thought that Shockey at 3.04 had more value than the borderline RB2's and WR's that were on the board at the time.Same can be said for my 5.04 selection of Crumpler.I just tried to get the most talented players I can and it just so happens that the TEs were my best value at the time so I snatched them up..

I'm left with a RB corps outside of Portis that consists of Perry and a bunch of rookies so the TEs should help offset that most weeks.All I can hope for is a squad that is competitive on a weekly basis and fill in the missing pieces in the future...

Fin

You did well. Let us know how your team does. You should be in for a great season.

 

[Franknbeans]

OK, here is a breakdown that does show some trend toward RBBC. Either that or a fluke year last year.

This is the percentage of team games, leaguewide, where the team's leading rusher had at least N% of the carries, for N = 60, 70, 80, and 90.

Year    60%    70%    80%    90%================================2000   84.5   70.6   54.0   32.52001   86.3   71.0   51.0   29.02002   81.8   66.8   49.4   29.32003   78.3   64.3   47.7   24.42004   83.0   68.8   54.7   31.82005   78.5   61.9   44.9   24.6Just to make sure we're clear, that says that in 24.6% of all games last season, the team's leading rusher had 90% of the team's carries. In 44.9% of all games last year, the team's leading rusher had at least 80% of the team's carries, and so on. [NOTE: only RB carries are included. QB and WR rushes have been thrown out]

Does this control for injury? I would guess that could have a major impact on proving or disproving this trend