QB's should be scored the same as RB's and WR's (1 Viewer)

[Hagger]

I've been playing fantasy football for 13 years and have never understood why QB's are penalized on their yardage and td's. The only thing I've ever heard people say is that it would make their value skyrocket compared to RB's and WR's and make it too lopsided. This is really just not the case. My league has used this scoring system for years and things play out surprisingly the same. It certainly makes getting a good QB a top priority, though. But really shouldn't a QB be a priority? Shouldn't fantasy parallel its value with real football as much as possible?

Under the current system, using Ant Sports ADP Reggie Bush and Wes Welker are getting drafted ahead of Peyton Manning. To me that is a glaring flaw in the system.

So long as in a lineup, you have a QB on your team matched up against a QB on another team, the disparity between QB's outscoring RB's is irrelevant.

My league has scored it this way for years and RB's and occasionally WR's are still taken in the 1st round. It doesn't change things as much as you might think it would.

 

[two_dollars]

No.

Because QB's touch the ball on every play imo.

 

[seatownfavorite]

Play a 2 QB system if you want QB's to be drafted earlier. The draft goes the way it does because of position scarcity, not scoring.

 

[Hagger]

No.Because QB's touch the ball on every play imo.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying QB's should be valued less because they touch the ball more? Clarify, if you can.

 

[Dragon1952]

The problem is, there are so few elite QB's. A guy that gets one of the top 4 or 5 would have too large of an advantage. Last year, for example, there was already approx an 8-10 pt difference per game between a Warner/Brees/Rivers and a mid-range QB. If you counted 1 pt per 10 passing yds it could be darn near double that. Isn't that the reason for 4 pts passing TD and up to 1 pt per 25 yds, to keep it reasonable?

 

[Hagger]

Play a 2 QB system if you want QB's to be drafted earlier. The draft goes the way it does because of position scarcity, not scoring.

I have done that but it's not really what I'm advocating. It's not so much that I want QB's to be drafted earlier because of their scarcity, I want them to be drafted earlier because of their value to their team.Part of the reason RB's became so in demand in early fantasy days is because almost every system drafted 2 RB's when only 1 starts for a team. This created a large demand of 2 per fantasy team when each NFL team had only 1 starter to offer. This is getting tapered down a bit now that there are so many 2 RB systems in the league.

 

[Hagger]

The problem is, there are so few elite QB's. A guy that gets one of the top 4 or 5 would have too large of an advantage. Last year, for example, there was already approx an 8-10 pt difference per game between a Warner/Brees/Rivers and a mid-range QB. If you counted 1 pt per 10 passing yds it could be darn near double that. Isn't that the reason for 4 pts passing TD and up to 1 pt per 25 yds, to keep it reasonable?

This is an excellent point. But let me show you some numbers. I have averaged QB's fantasy points using my scoring system for the past 6 years. Using my system QB's 1 - 20 ppg's look like this:42.939.637.336.635.834.433.933.132.431.830.929.929.128.427.826.325.424.924.223.3This shows an average of about 11 ppg difference between QB1 and QB10. Each team starts 1 QB so that's an 11 point difference between the best and worst starter.Here's the same for RB's 1 - 20 ppg21.319.518.217.116.115.314.713.913.212.712.412.011.511.311.211.110.810.610.410.3There's an 11 point difference between RB1 and RB20. Each team starts 2 RB's so that's an 11 point difference between the best and the worst starter.

 

[seatownfavorite]

I would argue that O-line is a fine place to start a real team but we are playing Fantasy Football, not Reality Football. I understand where you are coming from but why not enjoy FF for what it is instead of changing rules to make it fit what you think it should? I say go auction anyways and let a real market create itself.

 

[Stealthycat]

the most important position on the field is most often the most undervalued in FF leagues

when 2nd tier RB's are being drafted before Brees and Brady you should be seeing a big red flag screaming REDO YOUR LEAGUE SCORING

 

[Hagger]

I would argue that O-line is a fine place to start a real team but we are playing Fantasy Football, not Reality Football. I understand where you are coming from but why not enjoy FF for what it is instead of changing rules to make it fit what you think it should? I say go auction anyways and let a real market create itself.

Strangely enough, we tried incorporating offensive lines once, but it kind of sucked so we stopped. We do one league auction style, and one league draft style. The auction league does indeed take care of itself in terms of value.But I respectfully disagree with you about changing rules. Bad rules should be challenged and changed in all things. Besides, almost every league has its own small house rules, should they all stop doing that, too?

 

[SSOG]

I've been playing fantasy football for 13 years and have never understood why QB's are penalized on their yardage and td's. The only thing I've ever heard people say is that it would make their value skyrocket compared to RB's and WR's and make it too lopsided. This is really just not the case. My league has used this scoring system for years and things play out surprisingly the same. It certainly makes getting a good QB a top priority, though. But really shouldn't a QB be a priority? Shouldn't fantasy parallel its value with real football as much as possible?Under the current system, using Ant Sports ADP Reggie Bush and Wes Welker are getting drafted ahead of Peyton Manning. To me that is a glaring flaw in the system.So long as in a lineup, you have a QB on your team matched up against a QB on another team, the disparity between QB's outscoring RB's is irrelevant.My league has scored it this way for years and RB's and occasionally WR's are still taken in the 1st round. It doesn't change things as much as you might think it would.

The problem is that, in the current system, QBs, RBs, and WRs score roughly the same amount of points. Increasing the number of points a position scores doesn't do much to change the value of the elite players at that position vs. the less elite players, but it absolutely DEVASTATES a team that gets hit by injury.For instance, I played in a point-per-completion league once upon a time, and QBs really were not that much more valuable. They were a bit more valuable, but not much. The teams with the best RBs were still the teams that won (because in PPC, it's easy to find a crappy QB who is a fantasy stud because his team trails all game and he throws a bunch of garbage); however, a good week from an RB was 20 points, while a good week from a QB was 60 points. A bad week from an RB was 5 points or so, and a bad week from a QB was frequently 45 points, so the relative value of each position was the same... but if your RB went down to an injury in the first quarter, you'd have to overcome a 10-15 point deficit. If your QB went down to an injury in the first quarter, you're starting the game in a 50-point hole. There were plenty of times when a top QB would score more points in one week than every other team in the league (not counting their own QBs). That's just not fair.If you want to drive the value of QBs and make elite QBs worth as much as elite RBs, try the following:Start 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WRs, 1 TE, 1 QB/RB flex, 1 RB/WR/TE flex. Teams can start 2/2/2/1, or they can start 2/1/3/1, or they can start 1/2/3/1, or several other options. QBs shoot up in value (because #2 QBs are bigger and more consistent scorers than #2 or #3 fantasy RBs), RBs drop in value (because, if all else fails, a team can just roll with 2 QBs, 1 RB, and 3 WRs). Some teams will even start two TEs. All of the positions have relatively balanced scoring, so an in-game injury doesn't doom your entire week. It allows for a variety of options when drafting and trading, and really rewards the people who evaluate talent well, because it encourages drafting BPA instead of reaching for need (because you literally need everything).

 

[SSOG]

Play a 2 QB system if you want QB's to be drafted earlier. The draft goes the way it does because of position scarcity, not scoring.

I have done that but it's not really what I'm advocating. It's not so much that I want QB's to be drafted earlier because of their scarcity, I want them to be drafted earlier because of their value to their team.Part of the reason RB's became so in demand in early fantasy days is because almost every system drafted 2 RB's when only 1 starts for a team. This created a large demand of 2 per fantasy team when each NFL team had only 1 starter to offer. This is getting tapered down a bit now that there are so many 2 RB systems in the league.

The idea that 2-back systems are somehow more common now than they once were is a myth that gets debunked every single season. Still, do a little math.There are 32 starting NFL QBs. There are 32 starting RBs- let's say that 8 teams run a startable 2-back rotation, which gives you 40. There are 64 starting WRs (actually, probably more like 68 thanks to teams like Arizona, Indy, and New England). If you have a 12 team league that starts 1 QB, 2 RBs, and 3 WRs, then you're starting 12/32 (38%) of the QBs, 24/40 (60%) of the RBs, and 36/68 (53%) of the WRs. Meaning RBs are the scarcest, followed by WRs, followed by QBs. That's why QBs are the least valuable- not because they don't score enough points.

 

[Hagger]

Play a 2 QB system if you want QB's to be drafted earlier. The draft goes the way it does because of position scarcity, not scoring.

I have done that but it's not really what I'm advocating. It's not so much that I want QB's to be drafted earlier because of their scarcity, I want them to be drafted earlier because of their value to their team.Part of the reason RB's became so in demand in early fantasy days is because almost every system drafted 2 RB's when only 1 starts for a team. This created a large demand of 2 per fantasy team when each NFL team had only 1 starter to offer. This is getting tapered down a bit now that there are so many 2 RB systems in the league.

The idea that 2-back systems are somehow more common now than they once were is a myth that gets debunked every single season. Still, do a little math.There are 32 starting NFL QBs. There are 32 starting RBs- let's say that 8 teams run a startable 2-back rotation, which gives you 40. There are 64 starting WRs (actually, probably more like 68 thanks to teams like Arizona, Indy, and New England). If you have a 12 team league that starts 1 QB, 2 RBs, and 3 WRs, then you're starting 12/32 (38%) of the QBs, 24/40 (60%) of the RBs, and 36/68 (53%) of the WRs. Meaning RBs are the scarcest, followed by WRs, followed by QBs. That's why QBs are the least valuable- not because they don't score enough points.

Exactly the reason it doesn't change the draft as much as people think it might. I've presented this idea a lot of times to different people. People either love it or hate it, which is fine. But some of those who've hated say they don't want to disrupt normal drafting conventions. My answer to them is that it really doesn't, but they never believe me.Mathematically speaking though, in 12 team leagues, RB 1 averages 21.3 ppg. If the team has drafted 4 RB's so that 48 total are drafted, RB 48 averages 4.5 ppg. So RB1 nearly quintuples RB48's ppg's, with approximately 17 points separating them in total points. In my system QB1 averages 42.9 and QB24 averages 20.2. So QB1 doubles QB24 in ppg's with approximately 22 total points separating them. This is not an earth shattering difference if you lose your top QB compared to if you lose your top RB due to injury.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Under your system, 27 of the top 27 players would be quarterbacks, and the #1 player would have 45% more points than the #10 player and 250% more points than the #30 player. How does that level the playing field? Whoever gets the best quarterback will dominate the league.

Meanwhile, a traditional scoring system would have an even mix of QBs and RBs in the top 20 and several WRs in the top 30. The #1 player would be 25% better than the #10 player, and 54% better than the #30 player.

I see no point of playing in a league where everyone knew by Week 6 that the Drew Brees owner was going to have the #1 seed.

 

[SSOG]

Play a 2 QB system if you want QB's to be drafted earlier. The draft goes the way it does because of position scarcity, not scoring.

I have done that but it's not really what I'm advocating. It's not so much that I want QB's to be drafted earlier because of their scarcity, I want them to be drafted earlier because of their value to their team.Part of the reason RB's became so in demand in early fantasy days is because almost every system drafted 2 RB's when only 1 starts for a team. This created a large demand of 2 per fantasy team when each NFL team had only 1 starter to offer. This is getting tapered down a bit now that there are so many 2 RB systems in the league.

The idea that 2-back systems are somehow more common now than they once were is a myth that gets debunked every single season. Still, do a little math.There are 32 starting NFL QBs. There are 32 starting RBs- let's say that 8 teams run a startable 2-back rotation, which gives you 40. There are 64 starting WRs (actually, probably more like 68 thanks to teams like Arizona, Indy, and New England). If you have a 12 team league that starts 1 QB, 2 RBs, and 3 WRs, then you're starting 12/32 (38%) of the QBs, 24/40 (60%) of the RBs, and 36/68 (53%) of the WRs. Meaning RBs are the scarcest, followed by WRs, followed by QBs. That's why QBs are the least valuable- not because they don't score enough points.

Exactly the reason it doesn't change the draft as much as people think it might. I've presented this idea a lot of times to different people. People either love it or hate it, which is fine. But some of those who've hated say they don't want to disrupt normal drafting conventions. My answer to them is that it really doesn't, but they never believe me.Mathematically speaking though, in 12 team leagues, RB 1 averages 21.3 ppg. If the team has drafted 4 RB's so that 48 total are drafted, RB 48 averages 4.5 ppg. So RB1 nearly quintuples RB48 with approximately 17 points separating them. In my system QB1 averages 42.9 and QB24 averages 20.2. So QB1 doubles QB24 with approximately 22 points separating them. This is not an earth shattering difference if you lose your top QB compared to if you lose your top RB due to injury.

It's not devastating in NEXT WEEK'S game if you lose a QB in THIS WEEK'S game, but it is devastating in THIS WEEK'S GAME.In your system, QB12 probably averages about 30 points, while RB12 probably averages around 12. If you're facing a team with the crappiest starting QB in the league, and you lose your QB on the first play, then you're staring at a 30 point deficit for the week (i.e. his QB will put up 30, which is a crappy total for a QB, while yours will put up 0). If you're facing a team with the crappiest RB1 in the league and you lose your RB1 on the first play, then you're staring at a 12 point deficit for the week (i.e. his RB1 will put up 12 points while yours nets you 0). If you're facing a team with the crappiest RB2 and your RB2 goes down, you're only looking at a 6 or 7 point deficit for the week. A 6 or 7 point deficit is easily overcome. A 12 point deficit is still doable. A 30 point deficit? You could have the best team in the league, and you could be playing the worst team, and that's still a likely loss for the week.To give an exaggerated example of this effect... imagine a scoring system where every single QB in the league scored a million points a week. The best RBs scored 10 points, the worst scored 5. Ditto for the WRs. Clearly, QBs are less valuable than RBs (since no matter who you have, you're only getting 1,000,000 points). But let's say your QB gets injured in the first half and he's only put up 400,000. Your RB could rush for 30 TDs and you're still losing that game in a landslide- not because your team was worse, or because he had a better QB, or even because QBs were more valuable... but because the positional scoring disparity was so great that it was impossible to overcome an injury.One guaranteed loss isn't a huge deal during the regular season, but it's sort of a big deal in the postseason. I know in my PPC league I wound up losing a game where, if I'd had even the 24th best QB starting that week I would have set a league scoring record (because the rest of my roster BLEW UP)... but because my QB went down with an injury 2 minutes into the game, I wound up losing.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

(in before Thurman claims that somehow the Drew Brees owner missed the playoffs in his league)

 

[Hagger]

Under your system, 27 of the top 27 players would be quarterbacks, and the #1 player would have 45% more points than the #10 player and 250% more points than the #30 player. How does that level the playing field? Whoever gets the best quarterback will dominate the league.Meanwhile, a traditional scoring system would have an even mix of QBs and RBs in the top 20 and several WRs in the top 30. The #1 player would be 25% better than the #10 player, and 54% better than the #30 player.I see no point of playing in a league where everyone knew by Week 6 that the Drew Brees owner was going to have the #1 seed.

Have you tried it? I can attest to you that the person with the #1QB absolutely does not always win. The Drew Brees owner did not win our league last year. The rest of your team still needs to be top notch to win.You pointed out that QB1 would get 45% more points than QB10 and 250% more than #30 and that makes it unfair. But if you look, RB1 gets 59% more points than RB10. The RB1 gets close to 300% more points than RB30. You should check further into your math before just reacting. How is it so different?

 

[Hagger]

(in before Thurman claims that somehow the Drew Brees owner missed the playoffs in his league)

Is my argument that obvious? None the less, the Brees owner DID lose. The Cutler owner ended up winning the league, in fact. He also had a great team beyond his QB.

 

[Hagger]

No freakin way. Regardless of fantasy football...Throwing for yardage is so much easier then receiving or rushing for yardage. Originally fantasy was/is a refelection of such. Not to make scoring closer, but to relfect the difficulty.

I'll listen to this argument, but I'm not sure I understand you correctly. If throwing for yardage is so much easier then why is it that locking down a good starting QB in the NFL is so difficult and they often end up being the #1 pick and highest paid players? I'd say throwing efficiently in the NFL is (arguably) the most difficult job of all.Explain to me what you mean cause I think I'm misunderstanding your point.

 

[Godsbrother]

I agree with OP that it is silly when guys like Wes Welker and Reggie Bush are being drafted ahead of top tier QBs. We still adhere to the 1 pt/20 yds passing but we upped passing TDs to 6 pts. We also allow a 2nd QB to start at flex.

This has made a world of difference in the draft where everybody takes a QB by the late 2nd or early 3rd round and most teams have their 2nd QB by round 6 or 7.

 

[comfortably numb]

The main thing I wouldn't like is a

Kerry Collins 166yd 1TD game

is the same as a

Adrian Peterson 166yd 1TD game

In my mind Collins had a sub-par game, while ADP had a very good game yet they are scored the same.

 

[ravnzfan]

you know, it doesn't really matter that much

to go to the absurd, what if you made all FG's worth 10 points in your league, and PAT's 3 ?

does it change your approach in drafting a Kicker?

probably not...

in the end, most leagues like to see the top scorers at each position score ~the same amount of points, which is why QB's might only get 1/25 + 4/TD instead of 1/10 + 6/TD in most systems---in other words, a top RB effort = top QB effort = top WR effort as fas as scoring goes

granted, VBD numbers will warrant the top QB's going alittle higher---but most owners will still tend to grab that elite RB or WR over the QB's

as noted earlier, position scarsity drive the demand---no matter how you score the QB's, there are still 32 starters vs 12 FF owners in most leagues

 

[Uruk-Hai]

There are 32 starting NFL QBs. There are 32 starting RBs- let's say that 8 teams run a startable 2-back rotation, which gives you 40. There are 64 starting WRs (actually, probably more like 68 thanks to teams like Arizona, Indy, and New England). If you have a 12 team league that starts 1 QB, 2 RBs, and 3 WRs, then you're starting 12/32 (38%) of the QBs, 24/40 (60%) of the RBs, and 36/68 (53%) of the WRs. Meaning RBs are the scarcest, followed by WRs, followed by QBs. That's why QBs are the least valuable- not because they don't score enough points.

This

Start 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WRs, 1 TE, 1 QB/RB flex, 1 RB/WR/TE flex. Teams can start 2/2/2/1, or they can start 2/1/3/1, or they can start 1/2/3/1, or several other options. QBs shoot up in value (because #2 QBs are bigger and more consistent scorers than #2 or #3 fantasy RBs), RBs drop in value (because, if all else fails, a team can just roll with 2 QBs, 1 RB, and 3 WRs). Some teams will even start two TEs. All of the positions have relatively balanced scoring, so an in-game injury doesn't doom your entire week. It allows for a variety of options when drafting and trading, and really rewards the people who evaluate talent well, because it encourages drafting BPA instead of reaching for need (because you literally need everything).

And this

Exactly the reason it doesn't change the draft as much as people think it might.

Oh yes it does. Or rather, yes it should. My league changed several years ago from a standard 1-2-3 to a 1-1-2 with 2 flexes which can be at any position (including TE, K, & D - but no more than 2 QB and RB can be started). Our drafts have had a seismic shift from the normal "18 of the first 24 players being RBs" to a much more wide open draft. Because our owners understood that the value of the players had changed drastically.

The Draft Dominator is a great tool to play around with league settings. Try different lineup/scoring requirements, watch how the values change, and I think you'll see that changing the number of starting spots has a much greater effect than changing the scoring does. One thing to keep in mind with flex players though - you need to try to keep the scoring fairly consistent across positions or your flex players become de facto QBs (or RBs, or whoever an unbalanced scoring system may favor in your league).

 

[Eviloutsider]

To give QBs more value in our league we went with 1 pt. per comp. and -.5 per inc. With this scoring (and 6 pt. TDs) we have around 5 people take QBs in the first two rounds everyyear.

 

[burd]

i commish a league where QBs earn 6 pt TDs just like everyone else. We start 2 QBs so they are highly valuable. BUT ... to even the playing field, RBs, WRs and TEs earn 1 point per First Down. Everyone seems to really like first down scoring because first downs are so important to the real game, why not reward it in fantasy? plus, it levels the playing field for WR a little ... they're still not as valuable as a RB or QB but they're a little closer.

As someone who's commished a league where QBs earn 6pt TDs, you gotta do something to help out the other positions or else QBs are going to run away w/ the scoring and make the other positions less relevant. Whether its PPR or First Downs, you gotta do something for the other positions.

After every season, i check to make sure the scoring doesnt too heavily favor one position and prettymuch every year, QBs and RBs run fairly close in points. WRs are further back in point productivity but not nearly as behind as they would be in a "traditional" league scoring scenario.

 

[netnalp]

The main thing I wouldn't like is aKerry Collins 166yd 1TD game is the same as aAdrian Peterson 166yd 1TD gameIn my mind Collins had a sub-par game, while ADP had a very good game yet they are scored the same.

This is the argument I think supports not having QBs score the same. If they did the lesser tier QBs would score too much. I'd prefer to go with Point per 1st down reception like the Jeff Pasquino in my league, but the other teams say it's too hard to figure out what your guys are scoring while watching games so we use .5 pts per reception. (I think it's a lame excuse, they're just resistant to change in my league)

 

[puckalicious]

I agree with OP that it is silly when guys like Wes Welker and Reggie Bush are being drafted ahead of top tier QBs. We still adhere to the 1 pt/20 yds passing but we upped passing TDs to 6 pts. We also allow a 2nd QB to start at flex.

This has made a world of difference in the draft where everybody takes a QB by the late 2nd or early 3rd round and most teams have their 2nd QB by round 6 or 7.

I think it's already been explained this happens because of positional scarcity. When you have to start 2 RB and 2 or 3 WR compared to 1 QB it is quite natural that starting QBs are drafted later. Your flex position basically makes your league a start 2 QB which is why they are being drafted much earlier - you have achieved parity in positional scarcity. It has nothing to do with the scoring.

 

[Hagger]

The idea that 2-back systems are somehow more common now than they once were is a myth that gets debunked every single season.

Debunked? How so?The number of RB's with at least 100 fantasy points increased by 6 compared to the 2007 season and has increased by 11 since 2005.The number of RB's with at least 300 fantasy points has decreased 3 straight years, from 4 to 0.Those numbers show it becoming less top heavy and spreading out amongst more players.I'm not even saying your wrong... I just don't see it in the numbers.

 

[Hagger]

The main thing I wouldn't like is aKerry Collins 166yd 1TD game is the same as aAdrian Peterson 166yd 1TD gameIn my mind Collins had a sub-par game, while ADP had a very good game yet they are scored the same.

This is probably the only argument I've seen that I agree with. My only response is that since QB's are measured against other QB's and RB's are measured against other RB's, the guy with AP would still win his week compared to the guy with Collins assuming his QB had even a normal game.

 

[SSOG]

Debunked? How so?

The number of RB's with at least 100 fantasy points increased by 6 compared to the 2007 season and has increased by 11 since 2005.

The number of RB's with at least 300 fantasy points has decreased 3 straight years, from 4 to 0.

Those numbers show it becoming less top heavy and spreading out amongst more players.

I'm not even saying your wrong... I just don't see it in the numbers.

It's gotten debunked the last several offseasons by people who look at what percentage of a team's carries the RB1 winds up getting, and then comparing that to every season over the last 30 years. I did a bit of digging and I found the thread I was thinking of. And here's another one.

 

[Hagger]

No freakin way. Regardless of fantasy football...

Throwing for yardage is so much easier then receiving or rushing for yardage.

Originally fantasy was/is a refelection of such. Not to make scoring closer, but to relfect the difficulty.

I'll listen to this argument, but I'm not sure I understand you correctly. If throwing for yardage is so much easier then why is it that locking down a good starting QB in the NFL is so difficult and they often end up being the #1 pick and highest paid players? I'd say throwing efficiently in the NFL is (arguably) the most difficult job of all.Explain to me what you mean cause I think I'm misunderstanding your point.

Because winning is what matters in the NFL. Thats the quotent for the QBs getting picked. Not yardage."Throwing Efficiently" has nothing to do with "Throwing Yards".

You arent passing out fantasy points based QB Rating.

Regardless of any talent level, any player that can start 16 games...

a QB just worth an NFL roster spot can hit 2400 yards in 16 games and a RB can hit 800 yards in 16 games.

Thats a 3:1 ratio and we pay off fantasy ball at a 2:1 clip (though some do 25 yards passing as a closer relfection to the difficulty).

I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this particular point.I understand most people disagree with me on my scoring system. But I do think it makes worthy discussion.

 

[Hagger]

Debunked? How so?

The number of RB's with at least 100 fantasy points increased by 6 compared to the 2007 season and has increased by 11 since 2005.

The number of RB's with at least 300 fantasy points has decreased 3 straight years, from 4 to 0.

Those numbers show it becoming less top heavy and spreading out amongst more players.

I'm not even saying your wrong... I just don't see it in the numbers.

It's gotten debunked the last several offseasons by people who look at what percentage of a team's carries the RB1 winds up getting, and then comparing that to every season over the last 30 years. I did a bit of digging and I found the thread I was thinking of. And here's another one.

Thanks for those links. I admit I'm surprised by the number of touches. One point that wasn't talked about though was fantasy points. While RB1's are getting more 'touches', the past several years the trend shows pretty clearly that fantasy points are getting spread out to more RB's. Without doing any major research, I'd assume this is due mostly to goal line specialists. They don't change the touches too much but they are robbing points. Either way, this is getting away from my topic. Thanks for the info, though.

 

[fsufan]

The problem is, there are so few elite QB's. A guy that gets one of the top 4 or 5 would have too large of an advantage. Last year, for example, there was already approx an 8-10 pt difference per game between a Warner/Brees/Rivers and a mid-range QB. If you counted 1 pt per 10 passing yds it could be darn near double that. Isn't that the reason for 4 pts passing TD and up to 1 pt per 25 yds, to keep it reasonable?

disagree here. I think it would still be about value. finding that QB in the 3rd or 4th rounds that out performs his draft position, like Cutler or Rivers last year or Brady 2 years agomy leagues does 1/PT 20 yards passing and 6 PTs for passing TDs, it works great.

I do like the idea of QBs getting 1/PT for every 10 yards passing. QBs are the most important player on a football team so why shouldn't they be the most important player on a FF team

 

[fsufan]

(in before Thurman claims that somehow the Drew Brees owner missed the playoffs in his league)

what do you think the %s are of the Brady owners winning the FF championship 2 years ago. I had him that year and lost in the 2nd round.

 

[fsufan]

(in before Thurman claims that somehow the Drew Brees owner missed the playoffs in his league)

Is my argument that obvious? None the less, the Brees owner DID lose. The Cutler owner ended up winning the league, in fact. He also had a great team beyond his QB.

was this a redraft league?if so it shows it is still about value drafting.

 

[Hagger]

(in before Thurman claims that somehow the Drew Brees owner missed the playoffs in his league)

Is my argument that obvious? None the less, the Brees owner DID lose. The Cutler owner ended up winning the league, in fact. He also had a great team beyond his QB.

was this a redraft league?if so it shows it is still about value drafting.

I use this scoring system in two different leagues. The one I was referring to above was actually an auction league. The Jay Cutler owner won and the Brees owner finished in 4th.However the other league is a standard snake, redraft league, and in this league the Brees owner also lost. The Kurt Warner owner won in this league. Coincidentally the Brees owner finished in 4th place in this league, too.

 

[AngryPatriot]

We use 6pts/td for qb's and bonuses at certain yardages. It works good for us that way. Year to year it's either a qb or rb who is top dog, like Brady a couple years ago or DeAngelo last year. (non ppr) It seems right.

 

[sinatravolta]

I think OP is on target in that it makes sense to make QBs more valuable. It also makes sense to make WRs and TEs more valuable. It's a bit less of an issue now - but it used to be the whole RB/RB 1st 2 rounds draft strategy was clearly the way to go since RBs were more scarce and there was more of a big drop-off from the top guys. That limits strategy/choices during the draft so that's a problem.

My league for about 5-6 years now has had a couple of key rules in place:

- QBs get 6 pts/TD and 1 point/20 yards - this makes for a little more spread between the top QBs and the average guys

- Receptions: RBs get 0, WRs get 0.5, TEs get 1 point. This is sorta like the FBG Contest (.5, 1, 1.5).

This has made QBs and WRs a viable option in the 1st round, and TEs viable as early as maybe the late second in some years, or certainly the 3rd. To me this has made for a more fun draft and I think more chance for better players to differentiate themselves since you have to do things a little differently in this league.

But I do think the OP's rules, while maybe fine for him and his league, are probably not ideal (not that mine's perfect either). I think SSOG is correct about the injury issue. Not just in terms of the one week thing, but also for the season. I actually picked Brady in the 1st round in my league last year and still managed to win the championship. Now I definitely got lucky in addition to doing pretty well with the rest of my team. But in a league where the spread between the top few QBs and the backups is that big - I doubt that would be possible even with luck. It also makes it where how your QB did is like 40% of whether or not you win the game. Whether or not that is closer to the reality of the game - that doesn't sound like as much fun to me. It's pretty fun to watch how your guys are doing and you know that a big game by Owen Daniels or Eddie Royal (or any of your 9 starters) has a big impact on whether or not you win. In my league the QBs still score the most points and have a large impact on whether or not you win - but it's not hugely out of proportion with the other positions.

 

[SSOG]

Thanks for those links. I admit I'm surprised by the number of touches. One point that wasn't talked about though was fantasy points. While RB1's are getting more 'touches', the past several years the trend shows pretty clearly that fantasy points are getting spread out to more RB's. Without doing any major research, I'd assume this is due mostly to goal line specialists. They don't change the touches too much but they are robbing points. Either way, this is getting away from my topic. Thanks for the info, though.

The question is whether a couple years demonstrates a meaningful trend or simple noise. I mean, if you look at a 2-year sample, EVERYTHING is a trend (RB1s scored fewer points in N+1 than they did in N, which means they're trending downwards!). A 3-year sample gets rid of that "everything is a trend" thing, but is still small enough that a lot of things will look like significant trends when in fact they're just random noise. Four years, Five years, Six years... suddenly trends are starting to look a lot more meaningful.

 

[GoRaiders]

10 yards is crazy town talk. The majority of leagues are using 6 pts for QB TDs which makes sense to me. I have never been a fan of the 4 pt QB. We run 6 pt TDs with PPR. Gives a pretty good balance, add impact to WRs and pass catching RBs. Last year #12 QB was 15 ppg, #12 RB was 15, #12 WR was 15, #24 QB was 11, #24 RB was 11, #24 WR was 12.