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

[Lott's Fingertip]

Re: KeyserSoze

I only used your post because it addressed multiple points and that made it easier for me to make my points by responding to your points.

Far be it for me to actually spend the time to write a few paragraphs that are cohesive enough to support my thesis.

So I'm lazy.

 

[Franknbeans]

Pros:  TEs and receiving RBs get more value

Cons: None really.

We do 2 pts per reception and as long as some other positions are adjusted accordingly (6 pts per pass TD) then it's all good.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Pros:  TEs and receiving RBs get more value

Cons: None really.

We do 2 pts per reception and as long as some other positions are adjusted accordingly (6 pts per pass TD) then it's all good.

I'm curious, do you do 2 ppr with only 1 point per 10 yards rushing/receiving?Then 1 catch for 10 yards = 30 yards rushing?

 

[Franknbeans]

Pros:  TEs and receiving RBs get more value

Cons: None really.

We do 2 pts per reception and as long as some other positions are adjusted accordingly (6 pts per pass TD) then it's all good.

I'm curious, do you do 2 ppr with only 1 point per 10 yards rushing/receiving?Then 1 catch for 10 yards = 30 yards rushing?

Actually, our scoring format is rather unique and higher than most leagues. A great week for a fantasy team is usually 200 points. Here's a sampling...Rushing Yardage

11 - 35 1

36 - 50 2

51 - 75 4

76 - 100 7

101 - 125 10

126 - 150 15

151 + 20

Yards per Rush

More But not

than more than

4.0 - 4.5 2

4.5 - 5.0 4

5.0 - 5.5 6

5.5 - 6.0 8

6.0 + 10

Minimum of 7 rushes required for above points

Receiving Yardage

11 - 35 1

36 - 50 2

51 - 75 4

76 - 100 7

101 - 125 10

126 - 150 15

151 + 20

 

[DropKick]

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.

When has Chris Perry been a big fantasy scorer?

 

[DropKick]

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.

With that logic, why not play in a TD only league? Any performance based system is based on contribution; not necessarily being the one to put the ball in the end-zone. IDP leagues give points for tackles, why not give points for receptions?

The "ultimate" goal of putting the ball in the end-zone is often achieved by less spectacular plays, ones that move the chains; establish field position, etc.

OK, so more guys become valuable... so, make it more interesting for those not lucky to have a SA, LT or LJ.

 

[Pictus Cat]

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.

We do .75. TD's 7 pts. 10yds rush/rec. 25yds passing. 14 teams. 2RB 3WR. The increase in rec RB types is a little irritating, but not too bad. We did .5 the year before and it did not seem to be enough for the WR. Trading is actively pursued because teams have very different strengths. RBs still go fast due to scarcity, but more players are taking other positions earlier. Good Luck!

 

[Imedos]

Any performance based system is based on contribution; not necessarily being the one to put the ball in the end-zone. IDP leagues give points for tackles, why not give points for receptions?

Except making a reception is not necessarily a valuable contribution. Gaining yards is definitely a valuable contribution. Making a tackle is definitely a valuable contribution.Might as well start assigning points for pancakes.

 

[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.

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.

We can start up to 3 rbs and they are hard to come by so this increases the player pool. I played with the numbers when researching this for our league and If you didn't go PPR across the board then WRs would dominate the scoring and I wanted to keep it even so teams with lack of rbs could still compete and visa versa. Here is how the #1 and #10 faired in our league. As you can see it is pretty even for the top 10 at each position. What it does do is make the pass catching rbs rank high than straight up runners, but studs still rise to the top as SA did.Shaun Alexander (top rb) 470 pts

W. Parker (#10 rb) 263 pts

S. Smith (top wr) 491 pts

C. Chambers (#10 wr) 286 pts

 

[snogger]

Here's a link to a league I have been in for the last few season that use's 1pt./Reception for all Positions.

It is sorted by RB's, Total points for the season:

RB List

With our league it almost a neccessity to have the 1pt/Recpt. since we have to start 2 RB's and can start a 3rd in the Flex spot.

 

[AB in DC]

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?

If the catch would be for a zero yard gain, then yes.

 

[bonscott]

12 man league, 17 man rosters. Flexible starting lineup (start 6 RB/WR/TE any combo, 1 min each, 3 RB max).

We do 1 pt per reception for RBs/WRs and 2 pts per reception for TE's. We have been doing this for a few years now and love it. Note we also award .10 pts per carry and give QB's bonus points for a high completion percentage.

And for those that say it doesn't even out the RB/WR rankings has obviously never run the numbers (or just their league scoring is different). Yes, a few top pass catching RBs like LT2 get a boost but it raises up plenty of middle and 3rd down backs to actual "I can start this guy in a pinch" mode. And it really raises the value of WR's to a point if you have a couple top 10 WR's you are looking pretty. Run some spreadsheets and you'll see this will be the case for most "high performance" type leagues.

We were a bit leary about 2 pts per TE when we started it and the past couple years Gates has been insane with points (top 10 overall usually) but now the top 12-15 TE's score very well against WR's as in the #10 TE will usually rank around a Top 40 WR instead of the top 100 WR. IN other words they aren't useless. And if you don't get a top 3 TE you still have a viable starter most weeks that should get you at least 5 pts or so.

All in all the best thing it does is really spice up the draft. Yea RB's go quick the first round but then WR really start going strong in the 2nd. But wait, QB's get 6 pts per TD, maybe I should grab one by the 3rd. Oh, the TE run starts in the 4th I better prepare. Oh crap I still need a 3rd RB though. Man, it's the 7th round the the Def are starting to go off the board (they score well over 10-15 avg). What do I do???!?

Basically every draft is different and it spices things up a lot. Plus allows you to find a halfway decent free agent in week 5 because an injury killed your starter. I highly recommend this change.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

1 PPR is in an interesting tweak to make the players more balanced, but it does fly in the face with the important things in football. Scoring and yardage - that's what is important.

The PPR was done to make WRs worth more.

I'm working on an article that will touch on a different scoring method that is NOT PPR, but could bring more balance to scoring.

 

[Trig2U]

PPC has a lot of merit. If you do go that route, I highly recommend you separate out the WRs from the TE's. They are two totally different positions, after all, and it'll increase strategy and options in your league. And with the PPC you'll find that the TE position can really hold it's own.

 

[DropKick]

Any performance based system is based on contribution; not necessarily being the one to put the ball in the end-zone.  IDP leagues give points for tackles, why not give points for receptions?

Except making a reception is not necessarily a valuable contribution. Gaining yards is definitely a valuable contribution. Making a tackle is definitely a valuable contribution.Might as well start assigning points for pancakes.

Ask Matt Hasselbeck if holding onto the ball is a valuable contribution... Our scoring system recognizes NFL scoring, yardage and touches. Touches measure involvement in the game plan. We go 1 per reception and .25 per rush; loosely based on a receiver getting 5 catches per game or a back 20 rushes. So a back who goes 20-80 and a receiver who goes 5-80 are equal. Some guys get more receptions; some carry the ball alot more. I've seen guys be the workhorse and get 30+ carries, even though their yardage or average weren't eye popping. But, as someone else mentioned, they're very valuable as they sustain drives, work the clock, etc.

Nothing wrong with a more involved scoring system, especially one that makes more players viable.

 

[cstu]

Any performance based system is based on contribution; not necessarily being the one to put the ball in the end-zone. IDP leagues give points for tackles, why not give points for receptions?

Except making a reception is not necessarily a valuable contribution. Gaining yards is definitely a valuable contribution. Making a tackle is definitely a valuable contribution.Might as well start assigning points for pancakes.

Ask Matt Hasselbeck if holding onto the ball is a valuable contribution... Our scoring system recognizes NFL scoring, yardage and touches. Touches measure involvement in the game plan. We go 1 per reception and .25 per rush; loosely based on a receiver getting 5 catches per game or a back 20 rushes. So a back who goes 20-80 and a receiver who goes 5-80 are equal. Some guys get more receptions; some carry the ball alot more. I've seen guys be the workhorse and get 30+ carries, even though their yardage or average weren't eye popping. But, as someone else mentioned, they're very valuable as they sustain drives, work the clock, etc.

Nothing wrong with a more involved scoring system, especially one that makes more players viable.

I like the idea of .25 per rush or reception for RB's since that gives RB credit for the number of touches they get without over-emphasizing receiving backs.

 

[ravnzfan]

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.

per Couch 'Tater, I use 0-RB, 1-WR, 2-TE for new Dynasty Leagues we've startedwhen I ran the #'s, Alexander suddenly had a couple guys right there w/him, and it should prevent 20 of the first 25 draftees being RB's, as the top WR's are right there w/RB's 6-12...along w/a couple more TE's

VBD #'s for the top 25 were alot more compressed (ie "balanced"), although I don't have the exact figures in front of me

 

[Bri]

1 PPR is in an interesting tweak to make the players more balanced, but it does fly in the face with the important things in football. Scoring and yardage - that's what is important.

catching the ball+yardage, sounds like a chicken before egg argument to me.

The PPR was done to make WRs worth more.

As far as I know it was done to make lesser RBs that caught alot of passes rank higher. There are far more "stud RBs' in the NFL now than in years past

 

[ookook]

I have never liked PPR leagues. And I have played in lots. It rewards opportunities not performance, and only receiving opportunities.

I think the most appropriate way to deal relative value across positions in a VBD framework is supply and demand. This depends on league size, but starting 4 WR and 2 TEs often works well.

I would MUCH rather see the PPY adjusted by postion to be unequal than unequal PPR values. That is, have RB get .10, WR .14 PPY, and TE .18 PPY for rushing and receiving.

The key is, adjustments that disrupt the ranking WITHIN a position in order to gain relative value ot other positions are damn annoying and in the end not worth it.

 

[Franknbeans]

1 PPR is in an interesting tweak to make the players more balanced, but it does fly in the face with the important things in football. Scoring and yardage - that's what is important.

The PPR was done to make WRs worth more.

I'm working on an article that will touch on a different scoring method that is NOT PPR, but could bring more balance to scoring.

In actual football, yardage isn't important if you don't score, so let's eliminate that. That leaves scoring only leagues which we all know suck. Some people prefer IDP leagues, I say whatever you're into.

 

[Cixelsyd]

In actual football, yardage isn't important if you don't score, so let's eliminate that. That leaves scoring only leagues which we all know suck. Some people prefer IDP leagues, I say whatever you're into.

Each part of the game has importance.... The score is the end result, where you want to end up... the End Zone... it takes carries and catches, then the yardage, then the trip to the endzone... You wont get the ball at the 1 each possession. You have to be able to move it.

I like the idea of changing the yardage... that makes more sense then giving points for catches and carries... We already do that with Passing vs rushing/recieving...

I may consider changing this year's rules to increase receiving yardage...

 

[UnknownCoach]

]

I may consider changing this year's rules to increase receiving yardage...

But if it applies to RBs, then its the same issue as rewarding ppr. The only way around the issue is to apply points differently for receivers than for RBs or to reward RBs for carries.

 

[Cixelsyd]

]

I may consider changing this year's rules to increase receiving yardage...

But if it applies to RBs, then its the same issue as rewarding ppr. The only way around the issue is to apply points differently for receivers than for RBs or to reward RBs for carries.

True... I believe the guy who mentioned it posted that they did .1 ppy for RB, .14 for WR and .18 for TE

 

[matuski]

I am for it, if for no other reason than it brings into relevance more players for our draft (the best part of the year).

It also bring more relevance to every play of the game. This is why our league has points for return yardage as well.

Arguing whether 6 catches for 40 yards is better than 100yds rushing is a waste of time. Our league is a high performance league because we feel it makes the game more fun... and that is the point isnt it?

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

OK...

After running through a few scenarios, I fixed upon a system of:

0.10 pts/recept = RB

0.15 pts/recept = WR

0.20 pts/recept = TE

We also are looking at giving RB, WR, TE 0.5 pts/10 combined rushing and receiving yards.

However, when I reexamined some of the results, I really don't like going to hundreths of points in scores, I'd like to keep our scoring it at 0.5 points (1/2 point) intervals. So my question is, what would be a good milestones for receptions to select for each position that would be at least somewhat comparable to the 1/2 pt/10 yards scoring category and fairly relevent and relational as to the "value" of a reception by a particular position. TEs in our league are pretty undervalued and with 14 roster spots, again, my ultimate goal is to bump up RECs to a level that make some mid-tier RECs (WRS and TEs) viable starting players.

What I'd like to go to is something like:

RB = Every __ receptions = 0.5 pts

WR= Every __ receptions = 0.5 pts

TE = Every __ receptions = 0.5 pts

Just not sure what a good milestone would be for each position, so that values stay relatively equal through in tiers through the TOP 50-60 or so players/positions.

We can start 1-2 RBs and 3-4 RECs (WRs and TEs are combined).

Gimme your thoughts on this....thanks for all the dialogue so far. This has really gotten me to think this out....

 

[nygiants56]

Pros: TEs and receiving RBs get more value

Cons: None really.

pros = creates a more balanced league, more parity..teams can't take a barry sanders type and run away with it because others can couter with a Westbrook type who gets loads of receptions! great format for larger leagues, such as 12+ teams..cons = RB's RUN the ball..WR's CATCH the ball....give RB's points for reception yardages, not for each catch. lt2 would be worth so much more than LJ in your proposed format,that it's almost unfair..

not to mention the fact that this type of scoring method would put RB's WAY out in front of other positions in terms of scoring..it makes a bum like lamont jordan a superstar, is that what you want? lol

he's a rb with a pathetic 3.8 per carry avg, yet catches 70+ balls..do rb's mostly RUN or do they mostly CATCH? receivers,as the name implies,catch the ball..they should get pts for every reception, but not a rb..

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

bump for the afternoon crowd....

 

[culdeus]

I think this question has much to do with the function of league size both in terms of teams and in terms of RBs and WRs started.

If 24 RBs and 36 WRs are started then there is minimal, if any, need for PPR. This is primarily because sufficent backup talent exists at both posistions and PPR could and would imbalance the WR spot a bit.

If you run a flex and you want to avoid something like a 34/38 ratio then you need to consider it for balance. This and it will prevent major runs on RB3 spares in the mid rounds.

With rosters that are 24/48 (TE=WR) then this is where PPR makes little sense at all. The pure scaricty of the posistion (like previous poster said) makes all the value difference in the world.

So as the number of RB's started go up it's important to balance the other spots. No posistion has as much of a dropoff past 20 of the top 3 spots. In leagues of 14 or 16 you are looking at either burning a very early spot on a bench player or else handcuffing for your backups.

PPR should have a bit of a negative bias here. It benefits the weaker and less knowledgable players in your league. They can hang with you by getting some hail mary WRs that pan out to go with a semi-spare RB.

rambling notes over

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

We have a 12-team league, with 14 total roster spots. We start 1-QB, 1-2 RB, 3-4 RECs (WR or TEs) (either 1 RB and 4 RECs or 2 RB and 3 RECs), 1 K, and 1 DEF.

What about this setup:

RB: 5 recpt = 0.5, 8 recpt = 1.0, 11 recpt = 1.5 (or 0.5 for every 3 after the

initial 5 recpt)

WR: 4 recpt = 0.5, 7 recpt = 1.0, 10 recpt = 1.5 (or 0.5 for every 3 after the

initial 4 recpt)

TE: 3 recpt = 0.5, 6 recpt = 1.0, 9 recpt =1.5 (or 0.5 for every 3 after the

initial 3 recpt)

If you look at game files (available on NFL.com), this scenario would work very very well I think. I think it's pretty equitable across the board by position. Yes, Gates and Shockey become pretty important (or more important and a little more valuable than they already are), but look at their overall contribution to the team...They represent a huge percentage of the passing game for their clubs, so that should be rewarded, or reflective in their scoring individually. Also, in the odd case that a back gets more than 5 receptions in a game (in looking at game results, that happens very few times), RBs who catch the ball well (Jordan, Westbrook) aren't getting exactly the same treatment as a top flight reciever, but rather, more like a possession receiver. But RBs still are getting a small reward for their receiving afforts as well. In giving all position 0.5 points for combined yardage, we have to break it out a little more heavily in favor of RECs because that's ultimately what we are trying to achieve, more viable starting options, especially from the mid-tier level REC areas.

In relating it against our yardage component:

every 10 yards (rushing and receiving yards combined for RBs, RECs) = 0.5 points

VS.

RB: 5 receptions = 0.5 points (after initial 5, then 0.5 after every 3 after that)

WR: 4 receptions = 0.5 points (after initial 4, then 0.5 after every 3 after that)

TE's: 3 receptions = 0.5 points (after initial 3, then 0.5 after every 3 after that)

These milestones work very well I think, and they are fairly easy to remember if you are trying to figure your own score out without having to look on the 'net.

Thoughts?

 

[Liquid Tension]

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?

If it gains no yards, yes. If it gains yards then you are already rewarding the person for that.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

 

[Liquid Tension]

bump for the afternoon crowd....

I just want to say I love your avatar

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

bump for the afternoon crowd....

I just want to say I love your avatar

thanksClick on my name, you'll probably like that one even better ! (although it does represent the Silver and Black)

 

[culdeus]

We have a 12-team league, with 14 total roster spots. We start 1-QB, 1-2 RB, 3-4 RECs (WR or TEs) (either 1 RB and 4 RECs or 2 RB and 3 RECs), 1 K, and 1 DEF.

What about this setup:

RB: 5 recpt = 0.5, 8 recpt = 1.0, 11 recpt = 1.5 (or 0.5 for every 3 after the

initial 5 recpt)

WR: 4 recpt = 0.5, 7 recpt = 1.0, 10 recpt = 1.5 (or 0.5 for every 3 after the

initial 4 recpt)

TE: 3 recpt = 0.5, 6 recpt = 1.0, 9 recpt =1.5 (or 0.5 for every 3 after the

initial 3 recpt)

If you look at game files (available on NFL.com), this scenario would work very very well I think. I think it's pretty equitable across the board by position. Yes, Gates and Shockey become pretty important (or more important and a little more valuable than they already are), but look at their overall contribution to the team...They represent a huge percentage of the passing game for their clubs, so that should be rewarded, or reflective in their scoring individually. Also, in the odd case that a back gets more than 5 receptions in a game (in looking at game results, that happens very few times), RBs who catch the ball well (Jordan, Westbrook) aren't getting exactly the same treatment as a top flight reciever, but rather, more like a possession receiver. But RBs still are getting a small reward for their receiving afforts as well. In giving all position 0.5 points for combined yardage, we have to break it out a little more heavily in favor of RECs because that's ultimately what we are trying to achieve, more viable starting options, especially from the mid-tier level REC areas.

In relating it against our yardage component:

every 10 yards (rushing and receiving yards combined for RBs, RECs) = 0.5 points

VS.

RB: 5 receptions = 0.5 points (after initial 5, then 0.5 after every 3 after that)

WR: 4 receptions = 0.5 points (after initial 4, then 0.5 after every 3 after that)

TE's: 3 receptions = 0.5 points (after initial 3, then 0.5 after every 3 after that)

These milestones work very well I think, and they are fairly easy to remember if you are trying to figure your own score out without having to look on the 'net.

Thoughts?

Without running numbers there isn't much incentive to run anything other than 2RB 3WR there. Might as well lock in those spots.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

We have a 12-team league, with 14 total roster spots.  We start 1-QB, 1-2 RB, 3-4 RECs (WR or TEs) (either 1 RB and 4 RECs or 2 RB and 3 RECs), 1 K, and 1 DEF.

What about this setup:

RB: 5 recpt = 0.5,  8 recpt = 1.0,  11 recpt = 1.5 (or 0.5 for every 3 after the

initial 5 recpt)

WR: 4 recpt = 0.5, 7 recpt = 1.0, 10 recpt = 1.5 (or 0.5 for every 3 after the

initial 4 recpt)

TE: 3 recpt = 0.5, 6 recpt = 1.0, 9 recpt =1.5 (or 0.5 for every 3 after the

initial 3 recpt)

If you look at game files (available on NFL.com), this scenario would work very very well I think.  I think it's pretty equitable across the board by position.  Yes, Gates and Shockey become pretty important (or more important and a little more valuable than they already are), but look at their overall contribution to the team...They represent a huge percentage of the passing game for their clubs, so that should be rewarded, or reflective in their scoring individually.  Also, in the odd case that a back gets more than 5 receptions in a game (in looking at game results, that happens very few times), RBs who catch the ball well (Jordan, Westbrook) aren't getting exactly the same treatment as a top flight reciever, but rather, more like a possession receiver.  But RBs still are getting a small reward for their receiving afforts as well.  In giving all position 0.5 points for combined yardage, we have to break it out a little more heavily in favor of RECs because that's ultimately what we are trying to achieve, more viable starting options, especially from the mid-tier level REC areas.

In relating it against our yardage component:

every 10 yards (rushing and receiving yards combined for RBs, RECs)  = 0.5 points

VS.

RB: 5 receptions = 0.5 points (after initial 5, then 0.5 after every 3 after that)

WR: 4 receptions  = 0.5 points (after initial 4, then 0.5 after every 3 after that)

TE's: 3 receptions = 0.5 points (after initial 3, then 0.5 after every 3 after that)

These milestones work very well I think, and they are fairly easy to remember if you are trying to figure your own score out without having to look on the 'net.

Thoughts?

Without running numbers there isn't much incentive to run anything other than 2RB 3WR there. Might as well lock in those spots.

OK, what would the net effect be of changing it to something like this:What about this setup:

RB: 1st 4 recpts = 0.5, then 0.5 pts for every 2 recepts after the initial 4.

WR: 1st 3 recpts = then 0.5 pts for every 2 recepts after the initial 3.

TE: 1st 3 recpt = then 0.5 pts for every 2 recepts after the initial 3.

Does this bump the WRs category up more so that the Top 20 RBs are fairly equal with the TOP 20 RECs?

 

[jurb26]

I'm not going to read through this whole thread as I'm sure the major points havn't changed one way or the other. I'd just like to add my opinion that PPR leagues are great and all, but in no way whatsoever shodl RBs be included. RBs are already severly overvalued by scoring systems and IMO PPR should look to allow the other players (WR and TEs) to catch up value wise. On top of that, catching passes out of the backfield in the flats and on swings/screens is a near joke to reward with pionts if you ask me. If the RB creates a play out of it he still gets all the yds and TD points to come with. RBs plan and simply touch the ball far more than any other position in FF and to reward them for these touches is a bit extreme.

 

[JohnnyU]

I'm not going to read through this whole thread as I'm sure the major points havn't changed one way or the other. I'd just like to add my opinion that PPR leagues are great and all, but in no way whatsoever shodl RBs be included. RBs are already severly overvalued by scoring systems and IMO PPR should look to allow the other players (WR and TEs) to catch up value wise. On top of that, catching passes out of the backfield in the flats and on swings/screens is a near joke to reward with pionts if you ask me. If the RB creates a play out of it he still gets all the yds and TD points to come with. RBs plan and simply touch the ball far more than any other position in FF and to reward them for these touches is a bit extreme.

I agree 100%

 

[QuizGuy66]

Not sure if this type of system was mentioned earlier but my league added a modified PPR a couple years ago like this:

RB - no PPR (found this out AFTER taking Barlow over Rudi )

WR - 1 point per reception, starting with the 6th reception

TE - 1 point per reception, starting with the 6th reception

Yardage bonuses that existed then and still do:

RB/WR - 1 point per each 25 yards rushing, starting at 50 yards.

RB/WR - 1 point per each 25 yards receiving, starting at 50 yards.

TE - 1 point per each 25 yards receiving.

Frankly, this rule change changed the outcome of like 2 games out of 80 in the first season it was used. The point was to try to bump up the value of premium WRs to make more of a balance with RBs - that is why RBs were not given the bonus. It did not alter my RB drafting strategy of early and often, but it probably did have some impact on my mid-season FA pickups where receivers are always a bit more plentiful to be had.

-QG

 

[culdeus]

Not sure if this type of system was mentioned earlier but my league added a modified PPR a couple years ago like this:

RB - no PPR (found this out AFTER taking Barlow over Rudi )

WR - 1 point per reception, starting with the 6th reception

TE - 1 point per reception, starting with the 6th reception

Yardage bonuses that existed then and still do:

RB/WR - 1 point per each 25 yards rushing, starting at 50 yards.

RB/WR - 1 point per each 25 yards receiving, starting at 50 yards.

TE - 1 point per each 25 yards receiving.

Frankly, this rule change changed the outcome of like 2 games out of 80 in the first season it was used. The point was to try to bump up the value of premium WRs to make more of a balance with RBs - that is why RBs were not given the bonus. It did not alter my RB drafting strategy of early and often, but it probably did have some impact on my mid-season FA pickups where receivers are always a bit more plentiful to be had.

-QG

Never liked the 1 past 6 scoring. Why not just give .2/rec? Sometimes a WR impact isn't in catching 6,7,8 balls, but the 4 key ones. This would devalue the deep threat WR for the posession WR too much.

 

[QuizGuy66]

FWIW this is the top 21 using that scoring system (all 16 games).

6 points for all TDs (rush/rec)

1 point for each 25 yards rushing (starting at 50)

1 point for each 25 yards receiving (starting at 50)

1 point for each reception, starting at 6.

-QG

Player Recpt Yd TD FPTS

Smith, Steve WR CAR 130 1898 17 199

Ward, Hines WR PIT 84 1235 14 125

Holt, Torry WR STL 102 1331 9 125

Fitzgerald, Larry WR ARI 103 1409 10 124

Boldin, Anquan WR ARI 102 1398 7 121

Harrison, Marvin WR IND 85 1198 12 117

Moss, Santana WR WAS 93 1604 10 115

Johnson, Chad WR CIN 101 1491 9 113

Galloway, Joey WR TB 90 1356 10 109

Chambers, Chris WR MIA 82 1118 11 107

Houshmandzadeh, T.J. WR CIN 82 981 9 87

Smith, Rod WR DEN 95 1262 7 85

Jurevicius, Joe WR CLE 62 824 10 81

McCardell, Keenan WR SD 70 917 9 80

Burress, Plaxico WR NYG 76 1214 7 77

Wayne, Reggie WR IND 90 1152 5 77

Glenn, Terry WR DAL 62 1136 8 75

Moss, Randy WR OAK 60 1005 8 73

Owens, Terrell WR DAL 47 763 6 71

Driver, Donald WR GB 86 1221 5 70

Stallworth, Donte' WR NO 70 945 7 70

 

[culdeus]

FWIW this is the top 21 using that scoring system (all 16 games).

6 points for all TDs (rush/rec)

1 point for each 25 yards rushing (starting at 50)

1 point for each 25 yards receiving (starting at 50)

1 point for each reception, starting at 6.

-QG

Player Recpt Yd TD FPTS DevStd

Smith, Steve WR CAR 130 1898 17 199 0

Ward, Hines WR PIT 84 1235 14 125 -3

Holt, Torry WR STL 102 1331 9 125 -3

Fitzgerald, Larry WR ARI 103 1409 10 124 0

Boldin, Anquan WR ARI 102 1398 7 121 -3

Harrison, Marvin WR IND 85 1198 12 117 -3

Moss, Santana WR WAS 93 1604 10 115 5

Johnson, Chad WR CIN 101 1491 9 113 5

Galloway, Joey WR TB 90 1356 10 109 2

Chambers, Chris WR MIA 82 1118 11 107 -1

Houshmandzadeh, T.J. WR CIN 82 981 9 87 -4

Smith, Rod WR DEN 95 1262 7 85 2

Jurevicius, Joe WR CLE 62 824 10 81 -6

McCardell, Keenan WR SD 70 917 9 80 -3

Burress, Plaxico WR NYG 76 1214 7 77 3

Wayne, Reggie WR IND 90 1152 5 77 2

Glenn, Terry WR DAL 62 1136 8 75 1

Moss, Randy WR OAK 60 1005 8 73 0

Owens, Terrell WR DAL 47 763 6 71 -1

Driver, Donald WR GB 86 1221 5 70 7

It's difficult to make much sense of that since 1 past scoring is a game by game thing, not a season long stat. It would be relatively easy to put PPR there. I put traditional scoring +PPR there to show who is overvalued devalued. i.e. Hines gets bumped up 3 spots vs. +PPR scoring.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

well, I ran the numbers for my league for the Top RBs and RECs using our current system and then running them using the two new scoring proposals up for vote in our league. The results:

Old Scoring (Current) vs. New Scoring Proposals Link

12-team league, 14 total roster spots

We start 1 QB, 1-2 RB, 3-4 REC (can be either WR or TEs) 1 K and 1 DEF

Current Scoring is:

3 points per rush, receiving TD

1 point per 20 yards (combined rush'receive yards)

New proposal:

* change yardage scoring to: 0.5 points per 10 yards (combined rush'receive yards)

* add in 0.5 pts for the initial 3 recepts, then 0.5 pts for every 2 recepts after (for RB, WR, TE)

What you'll see is that TE's become a little more important in the "Reception League". In addition, as the number of typically viable RBs (in year's past it's been a RB-domininat league) wane, the choices of viable RECs picks up, throughout the middle and lower tiers. What I think this will do is a number of things. It will force teams to make some hard choices come Draft day, when choosing between a middle-tier REC or a middle-tier RB for their squad, it will force them to decide a little harder on how they will utilize that FLEX position in their starting lineups (I think you'd be seeing a lot more 1 RB/4 REC starting lineups if we went with this reception setup), TE's are more of an option (in some cse a good starting option), it allows for more viable free agenents to be available in the free agent pool now. It will also force teams to make some hard choices when deciding to ride a player out if injured and hope that you get late season production, or will they make the sacrifice and drop them for immediate results I call this (the "Darryl Jackson Syndrome" from last year). These are just a few things that come of this setup off the top of my head, but I see real value in going with this system at 12 teams and only 14 roster spots. As you can see, the talent level at RB really isn't diminished, however, those RBs that are dual threats (rush and pass catching) see a definite uptick in their value, as compared to a so called "one-dimensional" back. However, those one-dimensional backs already at the top stay there. I think this gives teams many options to discover in building their franchises this year. Questions already floating around my head are...Do you want to rely solely on being RB-heavy, sacrificing talent at the REC position, or do you concentrate on retaining a REC-heavy roster, or do you try to balance the the positions? You'll have to make that choice, but at least you'll have some better options to evaluate. I don't think previously (or in our current setup) we have this many options available to explore.