Pros and Cons of 1 pt/ per reception leagues (1 Viewer)

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

I'm thinking of proposing to our league the addition of 1 pt per reception for RBs and RECs.

Of those who have this in their own leagues, gimme some insight as to how you think it works, does it make things more equal in scoring between RBs and RECs (we combine WRs and TEs).

In just running some preliminary numbers for our league as a comparision to build my case, it looks like it bumps a few more 2nd tier RECs into the upper 1/3 of positional rankings. I think it would truly benefit our league specifically because we are a 12-team league with 14 player rosters, in the case of starting lineup strategy (we can start either 1 RB/4 RECs or 2 RBs/3 RECs), free agency, trade value, bye week covers, etc.... Your thoughts are welcome. Help me form my argument.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Pros: TEs and receiving RBs get more value

Cons: None really.

 

[bagger.]

Pros: TEs and receiving RBs get more value

Cons: None really.

 

[cstu]

Pros: TEs and receiving RBs get more value

Cons: None really.

Cons: Over-values average RB's who catch a lot of passes and possession WR's.

 

[strykerpks]

FWIW, I asked my league if they wanted to implement it last year and the majority of them were against it. They took the stance that it takes away from the ultimate goal...putting the ball in the endzone.

 

[Couch Potato]

Another way to go is 0 ppr for RB, 1 ppr for WR, 2 ppr for TE.

I think the overvaluation of RBs that has taken place in standard leagues has hurt the game, and along with the above, would also have a lineup requirement which starts 2 RB and 4 WR. A setup like that would provide much more balance for 12 team leagues.

 

[mr blond]

We're at 0.25 per reception in my league. We started off low because many in the league feared WR's would become over valued. After two seasons of 0.25 per reception, we're looking to increase it for next year. I plugged in 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00 point per reception into our league site with this year's stats and got the following position breakdown for our top 25 overall players.

0.25 pts. per reception (QB-4, RB-6, WR-1, D-14)

0.50 pts. per reception (QB-3, RB-7, WR-4, D-11)

0.75 pts. per reception (QB-3, RB-7, WR-6, D-9)

1.00 pts. per reception (QB-2, RB-7, WR-9, D-7)

I'm voting for 1 point per reception in our upcoming league vote.

 

[cstu]

FWIW, I asked my league if they wanted to implement it last year and the majority of them were against it. They took the stance that it takes away from the ultimate goal...putting the ball in the endzone.

I don't like it much either since it turns 3rd down backs into big fantasy scorers, like Chris Perry.

 

[cstu]

For RB's, it makes a receiving more than twice as valuable as rushing.

Take Lamont Jordan for example, his receptions count as much as 12 TD's.

 

[Crippler]

Our home league does .5 per reception but .5 per 10 also which leads still to the TD based league.

I like it because I think WR is a valuable tool and allows the flex to be an important strategy each week. It makes league everything instead of like the new poll out where your forced to go RB. Another league allows us to start 0 to 3 RB's and than 2-5 WR's. I start a 0-5 with PPR.

Do guys like Chris Perry really become starters in a league because of receptions. Most dont want to really rely on a 3rd down back. Too inconsistent. And is a guy like Perry not just as valuable as a guy like Bettis was who could have 3 carries for 5 yards and 3 TD's. A receiving RB is a very valuable commodity to an NFL team. Is that not why everyone is so high on Bush as an NFL player

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

FWIW, I asked my league if they wanted to implement it last year and the majority of them were against it. They took the stance that it takes away from the ultimate goal...putting the ball in the endzone.

I don't like it much either since it turns 3rd down backs into big fantasy scorers, like Chris Perry.

So he would've scored like 80 points and ranked RB#40 or so... big deal?

 

[cstu]

Our home league does .5 per reception but .5 per 10 also which leads still to the TD based league.

I like it because I think WR is a valuable tool and allows the flex to be an important strategy each week. It makes league everything instead of like the new poll out where your forced to go RB. Another league allows us to start 0 to 3 RB's and than 2-5 WR's. I start a 0-5 with PPR.

Do guys like Chris Perry really become starters in a league because of receptions. Most dont want to really rely on a 3rd down back. Too inconsistent. And is a guy like Perry not just as valuable as a guy like Bettis was who could have 3 carries for 5 yards and 3 TD's. A receiving RB is a very valuable commodity to an NFL team. Is that not why everyone is so high on Bush as an NFL player

Take this for example:RB #1 - 100 yards rushing, 1 TD, 0 receptions for 0 yards: 16 FP's

RB #2 - 20 yards rushing, 1 TD, 6 receptions for 40 yards: 18 FP's

With PPR, RB #2 is more valuable even though he gets less yards just because he catches passes instead of gettng a handoff.

 

[cstu]

FWIW, I asked my league if they wanted to implement it last year and the majority of them were against it. They took the stance that it takes away from the ultimate goal...putting the ball in the endzone.

I don't like it much either since it turns 3rd down backs into big fantasy scorers, like Chris Perry.

So he would've scored like 80 points and ranked RB#40 or so... big deal?

No, he would have went from 73 FP's to 124 FP's, which is top 30 and 7 points less than Stephen Davis.

 

[stonedcolded]

RB: .25

WR: .50

TE: 1

 

[P Boy]

Pros:  TEs and receiving RBs get more value

Cons: None really.

Cons: Over-values average RB's who catch a lot of passes and possession WR's.

Why would it overvalue those RBs? Isn't gaining yardage by catching the football just as valuable as gaining yds by running the ball, but also has the added benefit of putting much more pressure on the D?BTW, we use 0.5 ppr for RBs, 1.5 ppr for TEs, and 1.0 ppr for all other players. It helps for more balance between the players.

 

[Finatic]

Pros:  TEs and receiving RBs get more value

Cons: None really.

Cons: Over-values average RB's who catch a lot of passes and possession WR's.

Why would it overvalue those RBs? Isn't gaining yardage by catching the football just as valuable as gaining yds by running the ball, but also has the added benefit of putting much more pressure on the D?BTW, we use 0.5 ppr for RBs, 1.5 ppr for TEs, and 1.0 ppr for all other players. It helps for more balance between the players.

I went to this in the Dynasty league I run starting this year.Judging by last years numbers this has the looks of a real even keel amongst the 3 skill positions.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

FWIW, I asked my league if they wanted to implement it last year and the majority of them were against it. They took the stance that it takes away from the ultimate goal...putting the ball in the endzone.

I don't like it much either since it turns 3rd down backs into big fantasy scorers, like Chris Perry.

So he would've scored like 80 points and ranked RB#40 or so... big deal?

No, he would have went from 73 FP's to 124 FP's, which is top 30 and 7 points less than Stephen Davis.

Good, he was more valuable to his team that Davis was to the Panthers last year anyway. It's fitting that he get some fantasy credit.Davis was way overvalued because of his TDs. He had no business ranking #26 overall.

 

[cstu]

Pros: TEs and receiving RBs get more value

Cons: None really.

Cons: Over-values average RB's who catch a lot of passes and possession WR's.

Why would it overvalue those RBs? Isn't gaining yardage by catching the football just as valuable as gaining yds by running the ball, but also has the added benefit of putting much more pressure on the D?BTW, we use 0.5 ppr for RBs, 1.5 ppr for TEs, and 1.0 ppr for all other players. It helps for more balance between the players.

6 catches for 40 yards = 100 rushing yards.That's not right IMO when RB's for the most part get dump off passes which aren't the same as what WR's and TE's have to do to catch passes.

 

[cstu]

FWIW, I asked my league if they wanted to implement it last year and the majority of them were against it. They took the stance that it takes away from the ultimate goal...putting the ball in the endzone.

I don't like it much either since it turns 3rd down backs into big fantasy scorers, like Chris Perry.

So he would've scored like 80 points and ranked RB#40 or so... big deal?

No, he would have went from 73 FP's to 124 FP's, which is top 30 and 7 points less than Stephen Davis.

Good, he was more valuable to his team that Davis was to the Panthers last year anyway. It's fitting that he get some fantasy credit.Davis was way overvalued because of his TDs. He had no business ranking #26 overall.

What about Ricky Williams with 137 FP's? Was Perry nearly as valuable?

 

[UnknownCoach]

Cons:

Really exagerrates the value of a pass catching RB.

Greatly diminishes the value of non pass catching RBs.

Does nothing to make a WR as valueable as a RB. That's a myth.

Pro:

Gives receivers points for a valueable skill. A receiver's ability to catch is one of his most important qualities. So rewarding those players with fantasy points is a solid idea.

Both Pro/Con:

Lessens the total scoring impact of the QB on the fantasy team. While your team's score wont be so swayed by the QB's performance, keep in mind that fantasy teams usually only have 1 QB compared to multiple runners and receivers.

In other words, I cant stand the effect on RBs, I like the effect on receivers, and I'm neutral on the effect of QBs. I dont play in leagues with ppr unless RBs are excluded from getting the ppr.

 

[P Boy]

Pros:  TEs and receiving RBs get more value

Cons: None really.

Cons: Over-values average RB's who catch a lot of passes and possession WR's.

Why would it overvalue those RBs? Isn't gaining yardage by catching the football just as valuable as gaining yds by running the ball, but also has the added benefit of putting much more pressure on the D?BTW, we use 0.5 ppr for RBs, 1.5 ppr for TEs, and 1.0 ppr for all other players. It helps for more balance between the players.

6 catches for 40 yards = 100 rushing yards.That's not right IMO when RB's for the most part get dump off passes which aren't the same as what WR's and TE's have to do to catch passes.

Maybe not for you, but it might be just right for another league.We reward receptions as denoted above, but then we also reward number of rushes - since I firmly believe that a RB who gains 110 yds in 25 carries is much more valuable to a team than a RB who gains 110 yds in 7 carries because he busted off a big gainer.

I would imagine that quite a few people here would be firmly against rewarding number of carries, but our league enjoys it (when combined with all the otyher scoring). It's a way of combining stats to adjust the relative values of players within the same position and between different positions.

 

[GregR_2]

My favorite league uses .25 pts for RB, .5 pts for WR and 1 pt for TEs. However we also start: 1 QB, 2 RB, 1 flex QB/RB ... 4 WR, 2 TE, 1 flex WR/TE. That's 11 skill position starters in addition to 11 IDPs and 4 special teamers (kicker, punter, kick return, head coach) that score a bit less thant he offensive players do.

I love the options it gives for putting a team together. The flex normally become a second QB and a 5th WR. The results were that Gates, LT and Steve Smith all tied for most valuable player in the league with a 12 FPG edge over the last starter at their position (24 RBs, 60 WRs, 24 TEs). The top scoring teams were each there for different reasons though normally they excelled at 2 offensive positions. One team was good at QB and RB. Another good at QB and WR. Another good at RB and TE.

The sheer number of players we used made it fun too, as backup TEs even had value when you're looking at them as bye week and injury fillers.

But, you're talking about 14 player benches, so, back to your subject... I think reception points are positive, though really they don't change things by a huge amount. Even if you go with the staggered points like in my league, you still aren't going to see major shifts in value between RB and WR. You will see some, but I think TE is the one that would make the biggest leap, suddenly becoming a valid option earlier in the draft.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

FWIW, I asked my league if they wanted to implement it last year and the majority of them were against it. They took the stance that it takes away from the ultimate goal...putting the ball in the endzone.

I don't like it much either since it turns 3rd down backs into big fantasy scorers, like Chris Perry.

So he would've scored like 80 points and ranked RB#40 or so... big deal?

No, he would have went from 73 FP's to 124 FP's, which is top 30 and 7 points less than Stephen Davis.

Good, he was more valuable to his team that Davis was to the Panthers last year anyway. It's fitting that he get some fantasy credit.Davis was way overvalued because of his TDs. He had no business ranking #26 overall.

What about Ricky Williams with 137 FP's? Was Perry nearly as valuable?

In an overall sense yes. However Ricky was more valuable if you look at a shorter time-frame, since his FP were generated mostly in the second half of the season.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm thinking of proposing to our league the addition of 1 pt per reception for RBs and RECs.

Of those who have this in their own leagues, gimme some insight as to how you think it works, does it make things more equal in scoring between RBs and RECs (we combine WRs and TEs).

In just running some preliminary numbers for our league as a comparision to build my case, it looks like it bumps a few more 2nd tier RECs into the upper 1/3 of positional rankings. I think it would truly benefit our league specifically because we are a 12-team league with 14 player rosters, in the case of starting lineup strategy (we can start either 1 RB/4 RECs or 2 RBs/3 RECs), free agency, trade value, bye week covers, etc.... Your thoughts are welcome. Help me form my argument.

My overall take is that a reception by itself doesn't have value so why give a reward for it. Then again I like that yardage is given value such as 1 pt for every 10 yards for everyone but QB's which is 1 for every 20 yards. I actually asked my league if they wanted to do it but they said no.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

My overall take is that a reception by itself doesn't have value so why give a reward for it.

So catching the ball is just as good as dropping it?

 

[Liquid Tension]

We reward receptions as denoted above, but then we also reward number of rushes - since I firmly believe that a RB who gains 110 yds in 25 carries is much more valuable to a team than a RB who gains 110 yds in 7 carries because he busted off a big gainer.

I would imagine that quite a few people here would be firmly against rewarding number of carries, but our league enjoys it (when combined with all the otyher scoring). It's a way of combining stats to adjust the relative values of players within the same position and between different positions.

Maybe I am different than others but 18 carries for zero total yards isn't really very valuable to me. Your logic string is

Now if you want to argue that a guy who had 25 carries and every one of those runs was for 4 yards and got a 100 total yards is more valuable than a guy who had 110 yards on 25 carries made up of two runs for 40 yards each and 23 carries for 30 yards; maybe you can hold some water.

 

[cstu]

Personally I'd rather have the RB who is 7 for 110 since that means you have 18 more carries to give to someone else.

 

[Fantasy Strategist]

Our leagues also use the .25 for RB, .5 for WR and 1 for TE...with 2 flex players it really makes things interesting...Some start 2 QB's or 2 TE's, or 4 WR's, even 3 RB's if you are lucky enough to have three worthy...it really evens out the scoring between our 10 starters...we prefer that, although others do not...giving 1 pt across the board really didn't seem to work for us.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

This is all good stuff guys...I want to run some new numbers using different combos like mentioned here (o.25 for RB, 0.5 for RECs, etc) and see how it works out.

 

[Crippler]

Take this for example:

RB #1 - 100 yards rushing, 1 TD, 0 receptions for 0 yards: 16 FP's

RB #2 - 20 yards rushing, 1 TD, 6 receptions for 40 yards: 18 FP's

With PPR, RB #2 is more valuable even though he gets less yards just because he catches passes instead of gettng a handoff.

This example is flawed though because the guy who gets 100 each week is more likely to get a TD each week over the other guy. So like I said consistencyOver 16 RB 1 would score if doing that every game 256 while RB2 is not going to score a TD per game with just catching ball. Not enough touches in the end. SO 18 that week but 12 next. Also 6 receptions would give a RB 96 on the season which is high and RB1 will get receptions. Like I said consistency because you might get 18 in one week and 3 in the next. Just not the same consistency.

With the .5 for PPR and 10 yards Bettis avg 6 pts per game and Perry was 4.43. Perry = #59 WR

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

I hate ppr because a reception by itself is a non-productive stat.

10 yds rushing = 10 yards receiving

However, a couple of seasons ago my leaguemates wanted to even out the RB-WR disparity... we have standard scoring and I ran the numbers to see what worked.

1 ppr for all did not even anything out.

1ppr for WRs only made the WRs dominate the rankings outside of the top few RBs.

.5 ppr for WRs but not for RBs evened out the top 40 or 50 VERY well. The top 8 was still mostly RBs, but the top 40 or 50 was almost evenly split.

Having different ppr for each position is interesting as well....

 

[G3-175SE]

We tried it for a year and didn't like it. Gave too many points to receiving RBs and short yardage WRs. We decided that points for TDs and yardage were the only things we should use. I would vote against. Sorry, can give you any support for your idea. Not that it is bad, if you like it use it, I just prefer not to use it.

 

[Arm Chair Express]

For RB's, it makes a receiving more than twice as valuable as rushing.

Take Lamont Jordan for example, his receptions count as much as 12 TD's.

True, but it balances out the players in the league. If you look at the top 10 rbs and wrs they numbers are pretty comparible. With the high demand for rbs in FF it makes for a deeper league. Usually ever who has the dominate rbs wins the league, but with ppr guys like B. Westbrook, L. Jordan and DD become more valueable. Plus it brings the wrs up to the rb level of play. I changed ours over and haven't regretted it one bit.

 

[code]

We use 0.5 PPR for RB, WR, and TE...in fact we spent a ton of time modeling our scoring based on 3 year's scoring averages by position and evaluating the per position value to create a balance in the starter value...

As for Chris Perry, he ranks as the #40 RB, and frankly I don't see any "running" backs (Alstott, A.Smith, B.Jacobs) below him that I think should be ahead...

 

[code]

Also notice that Jordan is an extreme example...he had more receptions (70) than any other RB in 2005...

 

[Nemesis]

This is all good stuff guys...I want to run some new numbers using different combos like mentioned here (o.25 for RB, 0.5 for RECs, etc) and see how it works out.

Also, you might want to consider a pts PER GAME approach instead of a points PER RECEPTION.0-2 receptions = no pts3 receptions = 1 bonus pt6 receptions = 2 bonus pts9 receptions = 3 bonus pts.......etc.That way a mediocre RB or WR would have to post a minimum number of receptions to EVEN BE CONSIDERED for fantasy bonus points. Obviously, you could even go further and adjust that scale differently for RBs, WRs, and TEs if you wanted.For my league, I've found the best thing is to implement a change VERY CONSERVATIVELY and then after a season or two when owners become more comfortable, ask the rest of the league if they want to adjust the scale.

 

[Monarch]

I run two leagues. Both give 1 pt per reception. One league does not offer a point per reception for RBs. I prefer that method and teying to persuade the other owners to move to it. We start 2 RBs and 3 WRs in both leagues, however. So a team will get punished if it avoids WRs early in the draft. I believe this method does not devalue RBs at all. There is still a shortage of quality starters. It just means that a guy who drafts 3 RBs in the first three rounds will probably have a huge hole to fill at WR or TE.

 

[Biabreakable]

Points for receptions is double dipping.

 

[Keysersoze666]

The Chris Perry example as a negative for PPR is flawed in my opinion. First in terms of value, I watched every Bengal's game and Perry's catches were often just as valuable as any individual Rudi carry. It's true that sometimes a Perry catch for no gain on 3rd down resulted in a point that Rudi would not have gotten for a carry for no gain but I think that evens out.

Second, when Perry was in the game it forced the defense to adjust which always helps the offensive team. Third, Perry is being rewarded for a SKILL that Rudi doesn't have, at least not to the same degree as Perry.

The only thing PPR does in this situation is give the league ONE MORE offensive addition for the league to consider drafting. Everyone plays under the same rules so the people that see that a guy like Perry can be as valuable as some other offensive players with different skills WINS, no one loses, the league simple gets MORE options to choose from.

PPR makes guys like Perry and Meshawn and many other receiving backs, WR2's and TE's viable options, which increases the pool of players and therefore adds to the skill of evaluating who to choose. What's not to like?

(Edited for spelling!)

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

The Chris Perry example as a negative for PPR is flawed in my opinion.  First in terms of value, I watched every Bengal's game and Perry's catches were often just as valuable as any individual Rudi carry.  It's true that sometimes a Perry catch for no gain on 3rd down resulted in a point that Rudi would not have gotten for a carry for no gain but I think that evens out.

Second, when Perry was in the game it forced the defense to adjust which always helps the offensive team.  Third, Perry is being rewarded for a SKILL that Rudi doesn't have, at least not to the same degree as Perry.

The only thing PPR does in this situation is give the league ONE MORE offensive addition for the league to consider drafting.  Everyone plays under the same rules so the people that see that a guy like Perry can be as valuable as some other offensive players with different skills WINS, no one loses, the league simple gets MORE options to choose from.

PPR makes guys like Perry and Meshawn and many other receiving backs, WR2's and TE's viable options, which increases the pool of players and therefore adds to the skill of evaluating who to choose.  What's not to like?

(Edited for spelling!)

This is exactly my thinking. Especially because we only go 14 deep on rosters with 8 starters (1 QB, 1-2 RB, 3-4 REC, 1 K, 1 D), there needs to be more options available to teams.

 

[the Weak 14]

Well, in our league this is how we do it.

1 PPR for RB

2 PPR for WR, TE

But, RB's also get .5 point per carry. So this makes the starter still more valuable.

Here were are top 5 RB's/WR's (super high performance league)

RB:

SA - 611

LT - 585

TIKI - 540

LJ - 534

EJ - 521

WR:

S. Smith - 484

L. Fitz - 436

A. Boldin - 436

C. Johnson - 434

S. Moss - 408

FYI.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

The Chris Perry example as a negative for PPR is flawed in my opinion. First in terms of value, I watched every Bengal's game and Perry's catches were often just as valuable as any individual Rudi carry. If his catches were AS valuable, why score them as MORE valuable?

It's true that sometimes a Perry catch for no gain on 3rd down resulted in a point that Rudi would not have gotten for a carry for no gain but I think that evens out. How does awarding a point for no production even out?

Second, when Perry was in the game it forced the defense to adjust which always helps the offensive team. Third, Perry is being rewarded for a SKILL that Rudi doesn't have, at least not to the same degree as Perry. Perry is already being rewarded for that skill when he gets more points per touch, i.e. more receiving chances than rushing chances, than Rudi. Why inflate Perry's actual production?

The only thing PPR does in this situation is give the league ONE MORE offensive addition for the league to consider drafting. Everyone plays under the same rules so the people that see that a guy like Perry can be as valuable as some other offensive players with different skills WINS, no one loses, the league simple gets MORE options to choose from. It's not that the ppr rule is unfair to us fantasy players, it's that ppr inflates fantasy points without any increase in production and, in the case of giving 1 ppr and 1 point per 10 yards, makes a simple reception too valuable, imo.

PPR makes guys like Perry and Meshawn and many other receiving backs, WR2's and TE's viable options, which increases the pool of players and therefore adds to the skill of evaluating who to choose. What's not to like? I don't think increasing the pool of startable players adds to the skill of evaluating who to choose. The best players are still the best players. That just makes it easier to fill your starting lineup with mediocre players.

(Edited for spelling!)

I believe if you want to balance out the RB/WR disparity, you should not do it by watering down the value of actual production, i.e. yards and TDs. Making 1 catch for 10 yards = 20 yards rushing does exactly that.

If you want to make WRs more valuable than they are, add another WR to the starting lineup requirements and don't use a flex spot for a possible 3rd RB. That makes the fantasy points from the RB position a smaller percentage of the total and the fps from the WR spot a larger percentage, increasing WR value. Will RBs still be very valuable? Yep, thanks to positional scarcity. (Plus the fact that RBs are more productive than WRs....) But a team will be able to compete if their WR depth is superior.

 

[Buckeyedawgs]

I have been an owner and a commish of a long standing touch bonus league that goes back to 80's. Touch bonus leagues are the best!

The only negative I can think of is new owners that are not used to touch bonus leagues are at a disadvantage because it is a totally different draft stragety then normal scoreing tradation leagues.

 

[UnknownCoach]

Points for receptions is double dipping.

Yes, for running backs it really is. In a nutshell this is why so many people (including myself) dont play in ppr leagues. However I'd take the opposite argument for receivers. IMO, making a catch is the most important thing a WR can do, more important than his ability to make a tackler miss. The NFL doesnt give the #1 receiver label to the receiver with the most yards, its gives it to the receiver with the most receptions.

 

[cstu]

For RB's, it makes a receiving more than twice as valuable as rushing.

Take Lamont Jordan for example, his receptions count as much as 12 TD's.

True, but it balances out the players in the league. If you look at the top 10 rbs and wrs they numbers are pretty comparible. With the high demand for rbs in FF it makes for a deeper league. Usually ever who has the dominate rbs wins the league, but with ppr guys like B. Westbrook, L. Jordan and DD become more valueable. Plus it brings the wrs up to the rb level of play. I changed ours over and haven't regretted it one bit.

It's not the end of the world to me since it's just another factor to be aware of when drafting, but I don't think it's a good measure of RB productivity (I'm fine with it for WR's and TE's). Like I've said before, most passes to RB's are not much different than a handoff in terms of difficulty or effectiveness. Either way the RB has to do something with the ball to gain yards. My problem is that with PPR, especially 1 point per, is that it over-valued the contribution made a RB reception.

If one RB runs for 10 yards and one RB catches a pass for 10 yards, the one catching the pass shouldn't be awarded twice as many points. That's common sense IMO. The only reason for PPR that I can see is to increase the number of RB's that people can start.

 

[Keysersoze666]

The Chris Perry example as a negative for PPR is flawed in my opinion.  First in terms of value, I watched every Bengal's game and Perry's catches were often just as valuable as any individual Rudi carry.  If his catches were AS valuable, why score them as MORE valuable?

It's true that sometimes a Perry catch for no gain on 3rd down resulted in a point that Rudi would not have gotten for a carry for no gain but I think that evens out. How does awarding a point for no production even out?

Second, when Perry was in the game it forced the defense to adjust which always helps the offensive team.  Third, Perry is being rewarded for a SKILL that Rudi doesn't have, at least not to the same degree as Perry. Perry is already being rewarded for that skill when he gets more points per touch, i.e. more receiving chances than rushing chances, than Rudi. Why inflate Perry's actual production?

The only thing PPR does in this situation is give the league ONE MORE offensive addition for the league to consider drafting.  Everyone plays under the same rules so the people that see that a guy like Perry can be as valuable as some other offensive players with different skills WINS, no one loses, the league simple gets MORE options to choose from. It's not that the ppr rule is unfair to us fantasy players, it's that ppr inflates fantasy points without any increase in production and, in the case of giving 1 ppr and 1 point per 10 yards, makes a simple reception too valuable, imo.

PPR makes guys like Perry and Meshawn and many other receiving backs, WR2's and TE's viable options, which increases the pool of players and therefore adds to the skill of evaluating who to choose.  What's not to like? I don't think increasing the pool of startable players adds to the skill of evaluating who to choose. The best players are still the best players. That just makes it easier to fill your starting lineup with mediocre players.

(Edited for spelling!)

I believe if you want to balance out the RB/WR disparity, you should not do it by watering down the value of actual production, i.e. yards and TDs. Making 1 catch for 10 yards = 20 yards rushing does exactly that.

If you want to make WRs more valuable than they are, add another WR to the starting lineup requirements and don't use a flex spot for a possible 3rd RB. That makes the fantasy points from the RB position a smaller percentage of the total and the fps from the WR spot a larger percentage, increasing WR value. Will RBs still be very valuable? Yep, thanks to positional scarcity. (Plus the fact that RBs are more productive than WRs....) But a team will be able to compete if their WR depth is superior.

Hey Lott, you make some valid points, I wasn't attempting to parse my every word into an argument for PPR. There are multiple ways to balance a league and PPR has worked well in making more players active scorers and therefore draftable and usable options in our league. I should also point out we use 10 active players and a 20 player bench, ala WCOFF, so the increase in players also makes for a more usable waiver wire, I realize each league will be different.As far as Perry goes as an example, his receptions were often FAR more valuable than Ruid carry, I didn't mean to insinuate they were "only" equal, notice in that sentence I used the word often not always. My "even out" comment seems silly now, the original thought escapes me and it looks like it wasn't a good thought anyway so ignore that one.

On your point about receptions being more valuable, I realize that the subject is debatable. I guess since we start a lot of players it gives teams that don't have all the studs options which can produce and in any one game, produce big enough to make a difference. Having more options does increase the skill in evalution at draft time, IMO, especially when filling your roster with compatible players. I can say it made our league more balanced and added both fun and skill. It may not be perfect but it was a step in the right direction for us.

 

[P Boy]

  Maybe I am different than others but 18 carries for zero total yards isn't really very valuable to me.      Your logic string is

Now if you want to argue that a guy who had 25 carries and every one of those runs was for 4 yards and got a 100 total yards is more valuable than a guy who had 110 yards on 25 carries made up of two runs for 40 yards each and 23 carries for 30 yards; maybe you can hold some water.

Personally I'd rather have the RB who is 7 for 110 since that means you have 18 more carries to give to someone else.

That I even have to respond to this surprises me to no end. 18 carries for 0 yards? 18 more carries to gain yardage?Do you guys really watch football? The guy who gains 110 yds on 7 carries is obviously a part time guy who had a big run. Geez, what coach wouldn't give the ball 30 times every game to a RB if he had a RB who was capable of 15.7 ypc every game?

The guy who gains 110 yds in 25 carries is obviously a featured RB. He keeps moving the chains, helps his team increase their time of possession which limits the other team's offense, reduces risk of turnover, and keeps his defense fresh. He's a guy who is very likely to carry the ball 20 times or more a game in a lot of games, and consequently over a season he'll produce big numbers at 4.4 ypc, give or take.

On the other hand, the guy who is part of the RBBC will probably get limited work each week and it is highly improbable that he'll put up big numbers consistently, since it is completely unrealistic to expect 15.7 ypc every week, week after week, in limited duty.

So yeah, the workhorse should get rewarded more than the homerun hitter. What you 2 are proposing is that a FF owner ought to value a Tim Biakabatuka over a Terrell Davis when both are healthy.

 

[cstu]

Maybe I am different than others but 18 carries for zero total yards isn't really very valuable to me. Your logic string is

Now if you want to argue that a guy who had 25 carries and every one of those runs was for 4 yards and got a 100 total yards is more valuable than a guy who had 110 yards on 25 carries made up of two runs for 40 yards each and 23 carries for 30 yards; maybe you can hold some water.

Personally I'd rather have the RB who is 7 for 110 since that means you have 18 more carries to give to someone else.

That I even have to respond to this surprises me to no end. 18 carries for 0 yards? 18 more carries to gain yardage?Do you guys really watch football? The guy who gains 110 yds on 7 carries is obviously a part time guy who had a big run. Geez, what coach wouldn't give the ball 30 times every game to a RB if he had a RB who was capable of 15.7 ypc every game?

The guy who gains 110 yds in 25 carries is obviously a featured RB. He keeps moving the chains, helps his team increase their time of possession which limits the other team's offense, reduces risk of turnover, and keeps his defense fresh. He's a guy who is very likely to carry the ball 20 times or more a game in a lot of games, and consequently over a season he'll produce big numbers at 4.4 ypc, give or take.

On the other hand, the guy who is part of the RBBC will probably get limited work each week and it is highly improbable that he'll put up big numbers, since it is completely unrealistic to expect 15.7 ypc every week, week after week, in limited duty.

So yeah, the workhorse should get rewarded more than the homerun hitter.

Take Tatum Bell for instance. You think the Broncos aren't a much better team with his game-breaking ability? It's all well and good to have a RB like Mike Anderson but there's a reason he didn't get 350 carries last year and had to split time with Bell.By the way, I thought we were discussing real football, not FF.

 

[P Boy]

  Maybe I am different than others but 18 carries for zero total yards isn't really very valuable to me.      Your logic string is

Now if you want to argue that a guy who had 25 carries and every one of those runs was for 4 yards and got a 100 total yards is more valuable than a guy who had 110 yards on 25 carries made up of two runs for 40 yards each and 23 carries for 30 yards; maybe you can hold some water.

Personally I'd rather have the RB who is 7 for 110 since that means you have 18 more carries to give to someone else.

That I even have to respond to this surprises me to no end. 18 carries for 0 yards? 18 more carries to gain yardage?Do you guys really watch football? The guy who gains 110 yds on 7 carries is obviously a part time guy who had a big run. Geez, what coach wouldn't give the ball 30 times every game to a RB if he had a RB who was capable of 15.7 ypc every game?

The guy who gains 110 yds in 25 carries is obviously a featured RB. He keeps moving the chains, helps his team increase their time of possession which limits the other team's offense, reduces risk of turnover, and keeps his defense fresh. He's a guy who is very likely to carry the ball 20 times or more a game in a lot of games, and consequently over a season he'll produce big numbers at 4.4 ypc, give or take.

On the other hand, the guy who is part of the RBBC will probably get limited work each week and it is highly improbable that he'll put up big numbers, since it is completely unrealistic to expect 15.7 ypc every week, week after week, in limited duty.

So yeah, the workhorse should get rewarded more than the homerun hitter.

Take Tatum Bell for instance. You think the Broncos aren't a much better team with his game-breaking ability? It's all well and good to have a RB like Mike Anderson but there's a reason he didn't get 350 carries last year and had to split time with Bell.By the way, I thought we were discussing real football, not FF.

We are discussing real football & fantasy football.So, to put it in current-year terms, you'd prefer Tatum Bell over LaDainian Tomlinson, either as a player on your favorite team or as a FF owner?

Interesting....

 

[cstu]

Maybe I am different than others but 18 carries for zero total yards isn't really very valuable to me. Your logic string is

Now if you want to argue that a guy who had 25 carries and every one of those runs was for 4 yards and got a 100 total yards is more valuable than a guy who had 110 yards on 25 carries made up of two runs for 40 yards each and 23 carries for 30 yards; maybe you can hold some water.

Personally I'd rather have the RB who is 7 for 110 since that means you have 18 more carries to give to someone else.

That I even have to respond to this surprises me to no end. 18 carries for 0 yards? 18 more carries to gain yardage?Do you guys really watch football? The guy who gains 110 yds on 7 carries is obviously a part time guy who had a big run. Geez, what coach wouldn't give the ball 30 times every game to a RB if he had a RB who was capable of 15.7 ypc every game?

The guy who gains 110 yds in 25 carries is obviously a featured RB. He keeps moving the chains, helps his team increase their time of possession which limits the other team's offense, reduces risk of turnover, and keeps his defense fresh. He's a guy who is very likely to carry the ball 20 times or more a game in a lot of games, and consequently over a season he'll produce big numbers at 4.4 ypc, give or take.

On the other hand, the guy who is part of the RBBC will probably get limited work each week and it is highly improbable that he'll put up big numbers, since it is completely unrealistic to expect 15.7 ypc every week, week after week, in limited duty.

So yeah, the workhorse should get rewarded more than the homerun hitter.

Take Tatum Bell for instance. You think the Broncos aren't a much better team with his game-breaking ability? It's all well and good to have a RB like Mike Anderson but there's a reason he didn't get 350 carries last year and had to split time with Bell.By the way, I thought we were discussing real football, not FF.

We are discussing real football & fantasy football.So, to put it in current-year terms, you'd prefer Tatum Bell over LaDainian Tomlinson, either as a player on your favorite team or as a FF owner?

Interesting....

You might not have noticed but LT is a game-breaker who can also carry the ball 25 times a game. Given your example it would be foolish for a team to take the 25 for 110 guy over the 7 for 110 guy. I don't understand why you wouldn't get that. If you get that type of production from one guy on 7 carries then anything you get on the other 18 by someone else is a bonus.