The arguement for an RB-weighted system (1 Viewer)

[cobalt_27]

Everyone plays fantasy football for different reasons, be it for competition among friends, for boredom at work, to have an a extra bit of interest in Sundays games, to make money, to prove you're some kind of expert talent evaluator, etc. These motivations push us toward certain league types that fulfill our needs. You found a liking for RB-heavy league types. Great, then play in them. I think they're bland, so I'll play in a different kind of league.

Hey, that's great and I totally respect that. But I guess what I'm trying find out is when guys call the RB weighted system "stupid" or "dumb", I would like a reason for it, thats all. I gave reasons above why I don't think its stupid, and I made a logical argument for the system.

Well guys like that probably aren't going to take part in a logical debate, so I wouldn't waste too much time on them if I were you.

You're right. It's not a logical to debate those who subscribe to RB Fantasy Leagues when they think it's Fantasy Football. But, I'd love to see CEO's data to support his hypothesis that RB production are more consistent and easier to predict than QB production. And, why that even matters to make them so demonstrably more important at the expense of all other positions (particularly the most important one in football, the QB) is another question, altogether. But, at minimum, I'd like to see his data to support his thesis.

 

[cobalt_27]

If they are harder to predict wouldn't you be more likely to go with something known with your first few picks?

Only if ther is more value (position-wise) in taking that player. For example, if Im in an RB heavy league, I wouldn't take Manning first just because he's a sure thing - he's got less value in this league. I would be forced to determine which RB is closest to a sure thing..

Harder to predict vs. not harder to predict. We can run around all day and use different criteria (scoring rules), larger range of players (Top 25, 30) and even get a larger sample size (multiple years). . .BUT, what I would like to hear is ANY valid argument as to why, even if RB's are slighty more diffuclut to predict, that should be rewarded by making them signifigantly more valuable? Please explain the logic behind this line of thought as it seems completely counter-intuative.

They shouldn't be! I have been playing FF for 12 years now and the gold standard has always been START: 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1K, 1D (I know there are strange leagues that don't do this....so no need to post your 8 man league that starts 4QBs)Maybe the founding fathers of performance based FF (who ever they are) made these requirments..........should be changed!

It's about time we cut the umbilical cord to these old days. I think most have. But, there are still plenty who are still stuck in the rut of sloppy RB-dominant logic.

 

[ceo3west]

The data you presented earlier don't show that at all. Three of the top four QBs busted and only one of the top four RBs.

Just one more note on thsi Cal - those three QB's all missed time with injury, two significant time. Who's to say QB's 9-11 don't get injured this year rather than 2-4? If youre going to use the argument that the higher ranking QB's busted in comparison to higher ranking RB's, it has to exclude injury.

QBs miss more time with injury than RBs do; that's one of the reasons QBs are harder to predict. In your RB listing, two of the top five busted, and both of those were due to injury (Holmes and McAllister). You've shown no work at all to prove that RBs are less predictable than QBs when injuries are removed.

The injury argument is arbitrary, difficult to prove. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[The Redbeard]

The data you presented earlier don't show that at all. Three of the top four QBs busted and only one of the top four RBs.

Just one more note on thsi Cal - those three QB's all missed time with injury, two significant time. Who's to say QB's 9-11 don't get injured this year rather than 2-4? If youre going to use the argument that the higher ranking QB's busted in comparison to higher ranking RB's, it has to exclude injury.

I guess we just differ on what we refer to as skill and what we refer to as luck. It is easy to trumpet last seasons prognostication - but if we really want to have that discussion I would need to be privy to the date on which your draft was heald to assertain how much skill went into dismissing the #4 pick in the draft and how much luck went into it. I guess I'm just not going to by into the arguement that because, in your own mind, you are superior at sussing out the RB gems in the middle of the draft, you should be given extra points over those who make good choices at QB. And furthermore, why shouldn't I be rewarded with extra points for picking Neil Rackers at the end of my 27 round draft? Based on numerous factors, my research suggested that with an amazing pass offense, no running game and Denny Green as coach - he would most certainly be a top 3 kicker. And yet, even though Kicker is the hardest position in FF to predict - my kicker was weighted like any other.

 

[ceo3west]

But, I'd love to see CEO's data to support his hypothesis that RB production are more consistent and easier to predict than QB production.

Actually cobalt, I've been arguing all along that RB's are more difficult to predict and less consistent. But thanks for joining the fray.

It's about time we cut the umbilical cord to these old days. I think most have. But, there are still plenty who are still stuck in the rut of sloppy RB-dominant logic.

I've presented logical arguments as to why I beleive RB's should be weighted more heavily. This doesn't do much to counter that, sorry.

 

[cobalt_27]

But, I'd love to see CEO's data to support his hypothesis that RB production are more consistent and easier to predict than QB production.

Actually cobalt, I've been arguing all along that RB's are more difficult to predict and less consistent. But thanks for joining the fray.

So, I guess Kickers should be the next highest priority based on this logic. Where did you come up with this algorithm that predictability should be inversely related to importance? Where does this come from?

 

[The Redbeard]

But, I'd love to see CEO's data to support his hypothesis that RB production are more consistent and easier to predict than QB production.

Actually cobalt, I've been arguing all along that RB's are more difficult to predict and less consistent. But thanks for joining the fray.

It's about time we cut the umbilical cord to these old days. I think most have. But, there are still plenty who are still stuck in the rut of sloppy RB-dominant logic.

I've presented logical arguments as to why I beleive RB's should be weighted more heavily. This doesn't do much to counter that, sorry.

What logical argumwent? Even if they are more difficult to predict - why does that mean they should be given more points. DEF and K are hardest to predict which is why almost every scoring system on the planet makes them a fun addition to leagues that will rarely be the deciding factor in a game vs. a great week by your QB, RB or WR.Difficuly of Prediction does no equate to fantasy value.

 

[ceo3west]

The data you presented earlier don't show that at all. Three of the top four QBs busted and only one of the top four RBs.

Just one more note on thsi Cal - those three QB's all missed time with injury, two significant time. Who's to say QB's 9-11 don't get injured this year rather than 2-4? If youre going to use the argument that the higher ranking QB's busted in comparison to higher ranking RB's, it has to exclude injury.

I guess we just differ on what we refer to as skill and what we refer to as luck. It is easy to trumpet last seasons prognostication - but if we really want to have that discussion I would need to be privy to the date on which your draft was heald to assertain how much skill went into dismissing the #4 pick in the draft and how much luck went into it. I guess I'm just not going to by into the arguement that because, in your own mind, you are superior at sussing out the RB gems in the middle of the draft, you should be given extra points over those who make good choices at QB. And furthermore, why shouldn't I be rewarded with extra points for picking Neil Rackers at the end of my 27 round draft? Based on numerous factors, my research suggested that with an amazing pass offense, no running game and Denny Green as coach - he would most certainly be a top 3 kicker. And yet, even though Kicker is the hardest position in FF to predict - my kicker was weighted like any other.

Excellent point. But again, I choose to weight RB's more than kickers because if kickers got 10 points per FG, fantasy football wouldnt be that great in my mind. Again, this is my opinion. Thanks for the good reply though.

 

[cobalt_27]

I've presented logical arguments as to why I beleive RB's should be weighted more heavily. This doesn't do much to counter that, sorry.

Are you so sure they're "logical" arguments? Pretty overwhelmingly flawed if you ask me.

 

[Mario Kart]

See my sig for a variety of options that attempt to weigh positions equally.  It does this by allowing teams to run different systems and in all the arguments ever made the basic premise is that the starting requirements make the importance of position.  Starting 2 RB's make them more important while starting 3 WR's increases their importance however not as much as starting 2 RB's due to supply and demand.

Formation Based Fantasy Football ----- The future of FF IMO

 

[ceo3west]

  I've presented logical arguments as to why I beleive RB's should be weighted more heavily.  This doesn't do much to counter that, sorry.

Are you so sure they're "logical" arguments? Pretty overwhelmingly flawed if you ask me.

Thats fine cobalt, you are entiltled to that opinion. Thanks again for joining in.

 

[cobalt_27]

The data you presented earlier don't show that at all. Three of the top four QBs busted and only one of the top four RBs.

Just one more note on thsi Cal - those three QB's all missed time with injury, two significant time. Who's to say QB's 9-11 don't get injured this year rather than 2-4? If youre going to use the argument that the higher ranking QB's busted in comparison to higher ranking RB's, it has to exclude injury.

I guess we just differ on what we refer to as skill and what we refer to as luck. It is easy to trumpet last seasons prognostication - but if we really want to have that discussion I would need to be privy to the date on which your draft was heald to assertain how much skill went into dismissing the #4 pick in the draft and how much luck went into it. I guess I'm just not going to by into the arguement that because, in your own mind, you are superior at sussing out the RB gems in the middle of the draft, you should be given extra points over those who make good choices at QB. And furthermore, why shouldn't I be rewarded with extra points for picking Neil Rackers at the end of my 27 round draft? Based on numerous factors, my research suggested that with an amazing pass offense, no running game and Denny Green as coach - he would most certainly be a top 3 kicker. And yet, even though Kicker is the hardest position in FF to predict - my kicker was weighted like any other.

Excellent point. But again, I choose to weight RB's more than kickers because if kickers got 10 points per FG, fantasy football wouldnt be that great in my mind. Again, this is my opinion. Thanks for the good reply though.

But, it DOES make sense to you that Reuben Droughns could be considered more valuable in your system than Peyton Manning? In what altered reality would this ever be the case other than the system you support?

 

[cobalt_27]

I've presented logical arguments as to why I beleive RB's should be weighted more heavily. This doesn't do much to counter that, sorry.

Are you so sure they're "logical" arguments? Pretty overwhelmingly flawed if you ask me.

Thats fine cobalt, you are entiltled to that opinion. Thanks again for joining in.

You're welcome.

 

[The Redbeard]

The data you presented earlier don't show that at all. Three of the top four QBs busted and only one of the top four RBs.

Just one more note on thsi Cal - those three QB's all missed time with injury, two significant time. Who's to say QB's 9-11 don't get injured this year rather than 2-4? If youre going to use the argument that the higher ranking QB's busted in comparison to higher ranking RB's, it has to exclude injury.

I guess we just differ on what we refer to as skill and what we refer to as luck. It is easy to trumpet last seasons prognostication - but if we really want to have that discussion I would need to be privy to the date on which your draft was heald to assertain how much skill went into dismissing the #4 pick in the draft and how much luck went into it. I guess I'm just not going to by into the arguement that because, in your own mind, you are superior at sussing out the RB gems in the middle of the draft, you should be given extra points over those who make good choices at QB. And furthermore, why shouldn't I be rewarded with extra points for picking Neil Rackers at the end of my 27 round draft? Based on numerous factors, my research suggested that with an amazing pass offense, no running game and Denny Green as coach - he would most certainly be a top 3 kicker. And yet, even though Kicker is the hardest position in FF to predict - my kicker was weighted like any other.

Excellent point. But again, I choose to weight RB's more than kickers because if kickers got 10 points per FG, fantasy football wouldnt be that great in my mind. Again, this is my opinion. Thanks for the good reply though.

Well, ceo3west, not to be flippant, but you've just answered your own question -"If runningbacks are given 10 points per TD, fantasy football wouldn't be that great in my mind."

Arguement against RB weighted system discovered by original questioner. End of discussion.

 

[ceo3west]

The data you presented earlier don't show that at all. Three of the top four QBs busted and only one of the top four RBs.

Just one more note on thsi Cal - those three QB's all missed time with injury, two significant time. Who's to say QB's 9-11 don't get injured this year rather than 2-4? If youre going to use the argument that the higher ranking QB's busted in comparison to higher ranking RB's, it has to exclude injury.

I guess we just differ on what we refer to as skill and what we refer to as luck. It is easy to trumpet last seasons prognostication - but if we really want to have that discussion I would need to be privy to the date on which your draft was heald to assertain how much skill went into dismissing the #4 pick in the draft and how much luck went into it. I guess I'm just not going to by into the arguement that because, in your own mind, you are superior at sussing out the RB gems in the middle of the draft, you should be given extra points over those who make good choices at QB. And furthermore, why shouldn't I be rewarded with extra points for picking Neil Rackers at the end of my 27 round draft? Based on numerous factors, my research suggested that with an amazing pass offense, no running game and Denny Green as coach - he would most certainly be a top 3 kicker. And yet, even though Kicker is the hardest position in FF to predict - my kicker was weighted like any other.

Excellent point. But again, I choose to weight RB's more than kickers because if kickers got 10 points per FG, fantasy football wouldnt be that great in my mind. Again, this is my opinion. Thanks for the good reply though.

Well, ceo3west, not to be flippant, but you've just answered your own question -"If runningbacks are given 10 points per TD, fantasy football wouldn't be that great in my mind."

Arguement against RB weighted system discovered by original questioner. End of discussion.

Cmon red, you have to agree that theres a difference between weighting RB's and weighting kickers. Show me one league that has ever weighted kickers more than skill positions. Im talking about weighting amobg skill poisitons only, I made that clear earlier.

 

[cobalt_27]

The data you presented earlier don't show that at all. Three of the top four QBs busted and only one of the top four RBs.

Just one more note on thsi Cal - those three QB's all missed time with injury, two significant time. Who's to say QB's 9-11 don't get injured this year rather than 2-4? If youre going to use the argument that the higher ranking QB's busted in comparison to higher ranking RB's, it has to exclude injury.

I guess we just differ on what we refer to as skill and what we refer to as luck. It is easy to trumpet last seasons prognostication - but if we really want to have that discussion I would need to be privy to the date on which your draft was heald to assertain how much skill went into dismissing the #4 pick in the draft and how much luck went into it. I guess I'm just not going to by into the arguement that because, in your own mind, you are superior at sussing out the RB gems in the middle of the draft, you should be given extra points over those who make good choices at QB. And furthermore, why shouldn't I be rewarded with extra points for picking Neil Rackers at the end of my 27 round draft? Based on numerous factors, my research suggested that with an amazing pass offense, no running game and Denny Green as coach - he would most certainly be a top 3 kicker. And yet, even though Kicker is the hardest position in FF to predict - my kicker was weighted like any other.

Excellent point. But again, I choose to weight RB's more than kickers because if kickers got 10 points per FG, fantasy football wouldnt be that great in my mind. Again, this is my opinion. Thanks for the good reply though.

Well, ceo3west, not to be flippant, but you've just answered your own question -"If runningbacks are given 10 points per TD, fantasy football wouldn't be that great in my mind."

Arguement against RB weighted system discovered by original questioner. End of discussion.

Cmon red, you have to agree that theres a difference between weighting RB's and weighting kickers. Show me one league that has ever weighted kickers more than skill positions. Im talking about weighting amobg skill poisitons only, I made that clear earlier.

But, your only logic thus far has been based on the "predictability" of the RB position. You're saying that RBs are harder to predict. Therefore, you think they should be more important? By your "logic," you emphasize luck when you do this.(A) Why does this make sense to you?

(B) Why don't you apply this logic to Kickers?

 

[The Redbeard]

Cmon red, you have to agree that theres a difference between weighting RB's and weighting kickers. Show me one league that has ever weighted kickers more than skill positions. Im talking about weighting amobg skill poisitons only, I made that clear earlier.

I know. And I am being dismissive because even after repeatedly asking the question - you have not explained how weighting RB's more than QB/WR/TE (even when they are historically already overvalued) would enrich any of our fantasy experiences. Looking at the APD at Xpertsports - 20 out of the top 30 players are RB's. If we follow your line of thinking and say that 50% out of that 66% of the first three rounds will not pan out - do we need to punish those owners even more? Is it not enough that Kevin Jones or Jamal Lewis effectively flushed their season down the toilet? Or do we really need to give the guy who picked Willie Parker in the 8th round an even bigger advantage because his kid liked the name "Fast Willie" and told daddy to pick him?

 

[cobalt_27]

Cmon red, you have to agree that theres a difference between weighting RB's and weighting kickers. Show me one league that has ever weighted kickers more than skill positions. Im talking about weighting amobg skill poisitons only, I made that clear earlier.

I know. And I am being dismissive because even after repeatedly asking the question - you have not explained how weighting RB's more than QB/WR/TE (even when they are historically already overvalued) would enrich any of our fantasy experiences. Looking at the APD at Xpertsports - 20 out of the top 30 players are RB's. If we follow your line of thinking and say that 50% out of that 66% of the first three rounds will not pan out - do we need to punish those owners even more? Is it not enough that Kevin Jones or Jamal Lewis effectively flushed their season down the toilet? Or do we really need to give the guy who picked Willie Parker in the 8th round an even bigger advantage because his kid liked the name "Fast Willie" and told daddy to pick him?

His system is dominated by luck--and luck dictated only by the RBs selected. I know it's only my opinion, but I have yet to hear one shred of a reason to suggest why this isn't the dumbest thing going in FF. It's just pulling levers on a slot machine with this system and mimics absolutely nothing close to the real NFL, to which I think FF is all about.

 

[cobalt_27]

End of discussion.

And, note to FBG mods/contributors: It is inexcusable that you haven't evaluated in any of your articles how effing stupid it is that in so many leagues 20 of the top 30 picks are RBs. You guys should be at the forefront of this fight to change the landscape of FF to equilibrate this nonsense and suggest--no, PROMOTE--ways to eradicate this outdated thinking.

 

[Mario Kart]

End of discussion.

And, note to FBG mods/contributors: It is inexcusable that you haven't evaluated in any of your articles how effing stupid it is that in so many leagues 20 of the top 30 picks are RBs. You guys should be at the forefront of this fight to change the landscape of FF to equilibrate this nonsense and suggest--no, PROMOTE--ways to eradicate this outdated thinking.

See sig My idea has been floating around for a few years now evident of the initial post and was blasted back then in more ways then one. Unfortunate that the standards have not changed with as much data as there is.

 

[ImTheScientist]

End of discussion.

And, note to FBG mods/contributors: It is inexcusable that you haven't evaluated in any of your articles how effing stupid it is that in so many leagues 20 of the top 30 picks are RBs. You guys should be at the forefront of this fight to change the landscape of FF to equilibrate this nonsense and suggest--no, PROMOTE--ways to eradicate this outdated thinking.

End of discussion.

And, note to FBG mods/contributors:  It is inexcusable that you haven't evaluated in any of your articles how effing stupid it is that in so many leagues 20 of the top 30 picks are RBs.  You guys should be at the forefront of this fight to change the landscape of FF to equilibrate this nonsense and suggest--no, PROMOTE--ways to eradicate this outdated thinking.

See sig My idea has been floating around for a few years now evident of the initial post and was blasted back then in more ways then one. Unfortunate that the standards have not changed with as much data as there is.

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ceo3west]

Ok guys, I just want to thank you for your input on this subject. I really didn't mean to cause a s**tstorm, but I think it's a good discussion. My main league is RB weighted like I have mentioned repeatedly, but I have played in other systems before. I just tend to prefer this one, and although many disagree with my opinion, it's good to know there are plenty of league out there that offer both options. Thanks again. TGIF

 

[cobalt_27]

End of discussion.

And, note to FBG mods/contributors: It is inexcusable that you haven't evaluated in any of your articles how effing stupid it is that in so many leagues 20 of the top 30 picks are RBs. You guys should be at the forefront of this fight to change the landscape of FF to equilibrate this nonsense and suggest--no, PROMOTE--ways to eradicate this outdated thinking.

See sig My idea has been floating around for a few years now evident of the initial post and was blasted back then in more ways then one. Unfortunate that the standards have not changed with as much data as there is.

Yeah, I but I think it's becoming self-evident now how outdated (and illogical) this thinking is. I think the FBG brass will soon catch on and adapt, as well.

 

[cobalt_27]

Ok guys, I just want to thank you for your input on this subject. I really didn't mean to cause a s**tstorm, but I think it's a good discussion. My main league is RB weighted like I have mentioned repeatedly, but I have played in other systems before. I just tend to prefer this one, and although many disagree with my opinion, it's good to know there are plenty of league out there that offer both options. Thanks again. TGIF

You're welcome. It's helpful to have a prototype of how not to design a league so that others can see the errors of those ways. So, thank you for your contributions.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Again you do not understand that you can not use your own scoring system that devalues QBs to say that QBs are easier to predict.

How do you not see the fundamental flaw in this?

i will try to make this clear...

In my ficticious league i just made up QBs get 2 points if they throw one pass or more and they get 1 pt if they throw 1 TD or more. Running Backs get 1 pt per yard and 10 pts per TD.

Amazingly there was hardly a difference between QBs and their scoring was very easy to predict. Running backs however were all over the board and were almost impossible to predict. Because of this I think the scoring for running backs should be weighted heavier than QBs.

 

[ceo3west]

Ok guys, I just want to thank you for your input on this subject.  I really didn't mean to cause a s**tstorm, but I think it's a good discussion.  My main league is RB weighted like I have mentioned repeatedly, but I have played in other systems before.  I just tend to prefer this one, and although many disagree with my opinion, it's good to know there are plenty of league out there that offer both options.  Thanks again.  TGIF 

You're welcome. It's helpful to have a prototype of how not to design a league so that others can see the errors of those ways. So, thank you for your contributions.

Glad I could help you cobalt.

 

[cobalt_27]

Some people have used the Droughns/Manning argument, saying it's ridiculous that Droughns would have more value. I say he should, because it's much more difficult to predict what he's going to do than what Manning is going to do.

I love this part so much, I want it on my sig. In fact, that's exactly where it's going. Asserting that Reuben Droughns, who is a freaking middling RB on an even worse team, should be more important to a league than the elite of the elite, HOF QB, Peyton Manning? Priceless.

 

[ceo3west]

Some people have used the Droughns/Manning argument, saying it's ridiculous that Droughns would have more value.  I say he should, because it's much more difficult to predict what he's going to do than what Manning is going to do.

I love this part so much, I want it on my sig. In fact, that's exactly where it's going. Asserting that Reuben Droughns, who is a freaking middling RB on an even worse team, should be more important to a league than the elite of the elite, HOF QB, Peyton Manning? Priceless.

I still beleive this to be true. You know why? Because anyone can pick Peyton Manning. And anyone can pick guys like Delhomme, Brooks, Warner, Plummer. It doesn't take any skill. Even if one outperforms the other, they will most likely not end up far from each other on a PPG basis. And if your QB busts, chances are you have a good one on your bench. Last year I has Collins, and when he sucked after week 8, no problem - here's Kurt Warner on my bench. Or David Garrard on the waiver wire. This position just doesnt require difficult decisions in my opinion.If you play fantasy football to watch your computer light up on Sunday then thats fine, start 3 QB's and 5 kickers. But if you're trying to measure skill at some level between guys youre competing against, weighting a system towards RB's and WR's will measure this better than weighting a system towards QBs' will in my opinion. I'm sorry, but if you tell me that the decision between Delhomme, Brooks and Warner is more difficult than trying to determine between Bell, Foster and T. Jones, then I'll go away. But the fact is that guys like Delhomme, Brooks and Warner are relatively the same in the end.

Now, you can choose to rant and rave and tell me how old school this is and how I need a lobotomy, or you could get into an adult discussion with me and give me a legitimate reason why you think a system should be weighted towards QB's. I hope it's the latter. Thanks for listening.

 

[thayman]

Some people have used the Droughns/Manning argument, saying it's ridiculous that Droughns would have more value.  I say he should, because it's much more difficult to predict what he's going to do than what Manning is going to do.

I love this part so much, I want it on my sig. In fact, that's exactly where it's going. Asserting that Reuben Droughns, who is a freaking middling RB on an even worse team, should be more important to a league than the elite of the elite, HOF QB, Peyton Manning? Priceless.

I still beleive this to be true. You know why? Because anyone can pick Peyton Manning. And anyone can pick guys like Delhomme, Brooks, Warner, Plummer. It doesn't take any skill. Even if one outperforms the other, they will most likely not end up far from each other on a PPG basis. And if your QB busts, chances are you have a good one on your bench. Last year I has Collins, and when he sucked after week 8, no problem - here's Kurt Warner on my bench. Or David Garrard on the waiver wire. This position just doesnt require difficult decisions in my opinion.If you play fantasy football to watch your computer light up on Sunday then thats fine, start 3 QB's and 5 kickers. But if you're trying to measure skill at some level between guys youre competing against, weighting a system towards RB's and WR's will measure this better than weighting a system towards QBs' will in my opinion. I'm sorry, but if you tell me that the decision between Delhomme, Brooks and Warner is more difficult than trying to determine between Bell, Foster and T. Jones, then I'll go away. But the fact is that guys like Delhomme, Brooks and Warner are relatively the same in the end.

Now, you can choose to rant and rave and tell me how old school this is and how I need a lobotomy, or you could get into an adult discussion with me and give me a legitimate reason why you think a system should be weighted towards QB's. I hope it's the latter. Thanks for listening.

It is easier to pick up a QB on the WW or have another on your bench, but this is just because you only start one QB as opposed to 2 or 3 RB's. In a 12 team league that's 24-36 RB's needed every week, where as you only need 12 QB's.Yes it is a no brainer to say Peyton Manning will be a top 10 QB this year barring injury. Well it is also a no brainer to say LT, SA, LJ, will be top 10 RB's this year barring injury.

 

[ceo3west]

Some people have used the Droughns/Manning argument, saying it's ridiculous that Droughns would have more value.  I say he should, because it's much more difficult to predict what he's going to do than what Manning is going to do.

I love this part so much, I want it on my sig. In fact, that's exactly where it's going. Asserting that Reuben Droughns, who is a freaking middling RB on an even worse team, should be more important to a league than the elite of the elite, HOF QB, Peyton Manning? Priceless.

I still beleive this to be true. You know why? Because anyone can pick Peyton Manning. And anyone can pick guys like Delhomme, Brooks, Warner, Plummer. It doesn't take any skill. Even if one outperforms the other, they will most likely not end up far from each other on a PPG basis. And if your QB busts, chances are you have a good one on your bench. Last year I has Collins, and when he sucked after week 8, no problem - here's Kurt Warner on my bench. Or David Garrard on the waiver wire. This position just doesnt require difficult decisions in my opinion.If you play fantasy football to watch your computer light up on Sunday then thats fine, start 3 QB's and 5 kickers. But if you're trying to measure skill at some level between guys youre competing against, weighting a system towards RB's and WR's will measure this better than weighting a system towards QBs' will in my opinion. I'm sorry, but if you tell me that the decision between Delhomme, Brooks and Warner is more difficult than trying to determine between Bell, Foster and T. Jones, then I'll go away. But the fact is that guys like Delhomme, Brooks and Warner are relatively the same in the end.

Now, you can choose to rant and rave and tell me how old school this is and how I need a lobotomy, or you could get into an adult discussion with me and give me a legitimate reason why you think a system should be weighted towards QB's. I hope it's the latter. Thanks for listening.

It is easier to pick up a QB on the WW or have another on your bench, but this is just because you only start one QB as opposed to 2 or 3 RB's. In a 12 team league that's 24-36 RB's needed every week, where as you only need 12 QB's.Yes it is a no brainer to say Peyton Manning will be a top 10 QB this year barring injury. Well it is also a no brainer to say LT, SA, LJ, will be top 10 RB's this year barring injury.

Excellent point, but even if you start 2 QB's, the choice for your second QB will be guys like Brooks, Warner, Delhomme, Favre, Vick, etc. These decisions are not that difficult - again, even even if one outperforms the other, chances are they will not end up that far from each other on a PPG basis. On the other hand, you have to choose from these guys as your second RB - J Jones, Westbrook, D Davis, Droughns, Dunn, Foster, Bell. These are difficult decisions that require intense scrutiny. You can't honestly tell me that these decisions are easier than choosing your second QB, can you?

 

[thayman]

Some people have used the Droughns/Manning argument, saying it's ridiculous that Droughns would have more value.  I say he should, because it's much more difficult to predict what he's going to do than what Manning is going to do.

I love this part so much, I want it on my sig. In fact, that's exactly where it's going. Asserting that Reuben Droughns, who is a freaking middling RB on an even worse team, should be more important to a league than the elite of the elite, HOF QB, Peyton Manning? Priceless.

I still beleive this to be true. You know why? Because anyone can pick Peyton Manning. And anyone can pick guys like Delhomme, Brooks, Warner, Plummer. It doesn't take any skill. Even if one outperforms the other, they will most likely not end up far from each other on a PPG basis. And if your QB busts, chances are you have a good one on your bench. Last year I has Collins, and when he sucked after week 8, no problem - here's Kurt Warner on my bench. Or David Garrard on the waiver wire. This position just doesnt require difficult decisions in my opinion.If you play fantasy football to watch your computer light up on Sunday then thats fine, start 3 QB's and 5 kickers. But if you're trying to measure skill at some level between guys youre competing against, weighting a system towards RB's and WR's will measure this better than weighting a system towards QBs' will in my opinion. I'm sorry, but if you tell me that the decision between Delhomme, Brooks and Warner is more difficult than trying to determine between Bell, Foster and T. Jones, then I'll go away. But the fact is that guys like Delhomme, Brooks and Warner are relatively the same in the end.

Now, you can choose to rant and rave and tell me how old school this is and how I need a lobotomy, or you could get into an adult discussion with me and give me a legitimate reason why you think a system should be weighted towards QB's. I hope it's the latter. Thanks for listening.

It is easier to pick up a QB on the WW or have another on your bench, but this is just because you only start one QB as opposed to 2 or 3 RB's. In a 12 team league that's 24-36 RB's needed every week, where as you only need 12 QB's.Yes it is a no brainer to say Peyton Manning will be a top 10 QB this year barring injury. Well it is also a no brainer to say LT, SA, LJ, will be top 10 RB's this year barring injury.

Sorry - I put the response in the wrong part of the last post:Excellent point, but even if you start 2 QB's, the choice for your second QB will be guys like Brooks, Warner, Delhomme, Favre, Vick, etc. These decisions are not that difficult - again, even even if one outperforms the other, chances are they will not end up that far from each other on a PPG basis. On the other hand, you have to choose from these guys as your second RB - J Jones, Westbrook, D Davis, Droughns, Dunn, Foster, Bell. These are difficult decisions that require intense scrutiny. You can't honestly tell me that these decisions are easier than choosing your second QB, can you?

Personally I find them to be about even. Dunn for example is a solid contributor...very consistent year in and year out. Projecting the bottom half of any position is very difficult. There is always a lot of value out there. For example how many people had Mark Brunell slated to do that well last year? Or Curtis Martin to do that bad? Bottom line I find them to be about even, with a considerable amount of luck.I've read this thread the past couple of days, and I think your getting blinded by 20/20 hindsight. But as you stated before, there are leagues out there for everyone, if you like a RB heavy league that's cool.

 

[ceo3west]

Some people have used the Droughns/Manning argument, saying it's ridiculous that Droughns would have more value.  I say he should, because it's much more difficult to predict what he's going to do than what Manning is going to do.

I love this part so much, I want it on my sig. In fact, that's exactly where it's going. Asserting that Reuben Droughns, who is a freaking middling RB on an even worse team, should be more important to a league than the elite of the elite, HOF QB, Peyton Manning? Priceless.

I still beleive this to be true. You know why? Because anyone can pick Peyton Manning. And anyone can pick guys like Delhomme, Brooks, Warner, Plummer. It doesn't take any skill. Even if one outperforms the other, they will most likely not end up far from each other on a PPG basis. And if your QB busts, chances are you have a good one on your bench. Last year I has Collins, and when he sucked after week 8, no problem - here's Kurt Warner on my bench. Or David Garrard on the waiver wire. This position just doesnt require difficult decisions in my opinion.If you play fantasy football to watch your computer light up on Sunday then thats fine, start 3 QB's and 5 kickers. But if you're trying to measure skill at some level between guys youre competing against, weighting a system towards RB's and WR's will measure this better than weighting a system towards QBs' will in my opinion. I'm sorry, but if you tell me that the decision between Delhomme, Brooks and Warner is more difficult than trying to determine between Bell, Foster and T. Jones, then I'll go away. But the fact is that guys like Delhomme, Brooks and Warner are relatively the same in the end.

Now, you can choose to rant and rave and tell me how old school this is and how I need a lobotomy, or you could get into an adult discussion with me and give me a legitimate reason why you think a system should be weighted towards QB's. I hope it's the latter. Thanks for listening.

It is easier to pick up a QB on the WW or have another on your bench, but this is just because you only start one QB as opposed to 2 or 3 RB's. In a 12 team league that's 24-36 RB's needed every week, where as you only need 12 QB's.Yes it is a no brainer to say Peyton Manning will be a top 10 QB this year barring injury. Well it is also a no brainer to say LT, SA, LJ, will be top 10 RB's this year barring injury.

Sorry - I put the response in the wrong part of the last post:Excellent point, but even if you start 2 QB's, the choice for your second QB will be guys like Brooks, Warner, Delhomme, Favre, Vick, etc. These decisions are not that difficult - again, even even if one outperforms the other, chances are they will not end up that far from each other on a PPG basis. On the other hand, you have to choose from these guys as your second RB - J Jones, Westbrook, D Davis, Droughns, Dunn, Foster, Bell. These are difficult decisions that require intense scrutiny. You can't honestly tell me that these decisions are easier than choosing your second QB, can you?

Personally I find them to be about even. Dunn for example is a solid contributor...very consistent year in and year out. Projecting the bottom half of any position is very difficult. There is always a lot of value out there. For example how many people had Mark Brunell slated to do that well last year? Or Curtis Martin to do that bad? Bottom line I find them to be about even, with a considerable amount of luck.I've read this thread the past couple of days, and I think your getting blinded by 20/20 hindsight. But as you stated before, there are leagues out there for everyone, if you like a RB heavy league that's cool.

If you think the choice between Brooks, Warner, Delhomme, Favre, Vick is even to the choice between J Jones, Westbrook, D Davis, Droughns, Dunn, Foster, Bell, then thats your opinion, but I just don't see it. Thanks for your input though.

 

[thayman]

Some people have used the Droughns/Manning argument, saying it's ridiculous that Droughns would have more value.  I say he should, because it's much more difficult to predict what he's going to do than what Manning is going to do.

I love this part so much, I want it on my sig. In fact, that's exactly where it's going. Asserting that Reuben Droughns, who is a freaking middling RB on an even worse team, should be more important to a league than the elite of the elite, HOF QB, Peyton Manning? Priceless.

I still beleive this to be true. You know why? Because anyone can pick Peyton Manning. And anyone can pick guys like Delhomme, Brooks, Warner, Plummer. It doesn't take any skill. Even if one outperforms the other, they will most likely not end up far from each other on a PPG basis. And if your QB busts, chances are you have a good one on your bench. Last year I has Collins, and when he sucked after week 8, no problem - here's Kurt Warner on my bench. Or David Garrard on the waiver wire. This position just doesnt require difficult decisions in my opinion.If you play fantasy football to watch your computer light up on Sunday then thats fine, start 3 QB's and 5 kickers. But if you're trying to measure skill at some level between guys youre competing against, weighting a system towards RB's and WR's will measure this better than weighting a system towards QBs' will in my opinion. I'm sorry, but if you tell me that the decision between Delhomme, Brooks and Warner is more difficult than trying to determine between Bell, Foster and T. Jones, then I'll go away. But the fact is that guys like Delhomme, Brooks and Warner are relatively the same in the end.

Now, you can choose to rant and rave and tell me how old school this is and how I need a lobotomy, or you could get into an adult discussion with me and give me a legitimate reason why you think a system should be weighted towards QB's. I hope it's the latter. Thanks for listening.

It is easier to pick up a QB on the WW or have another on your bench, but this is just because you only start one QB as opposed to 2 or 3 RB's. In a 12 team league that's 24-36 RB's needed every week, where as you only need 12 QB's.Yes it is a no brainer to say Peyton Manning will be a top 10 QB this year barring injury. Well it is also a no brainer to say LT, SA, LJ, will be top 10 RB's this year barring injury.

Sorry - I put the response in the wrong part of the last post:Excellent point, but even if you start 2 QB's, the choice for your second QB will be guys like Brooks, Warner, Delhomme, Favre, Vick, etc. These decisions are not that difficult - again, even even if one outperforms the other, chances are they will not end up that far from each other on a PPG basis. On the other hand, you have to choose from these guys as your second RB - J Jones, Westbrook, D Davis, Droughns, Dunn, Foster, Bell. These are difficult decisions that require intense scrutiny. You can't honestly tell me that these decisions are easier than choosing your second QB, can you?

Personally I find them to be about even. Dunn for example is a solid contributor...very consistent year in and year out. Projecting the bottom half of any position is very difficult. There is always a lot of value out there. For example how many people had Mark Brunell slated to do that well last year? Or Curtis Martin to do that bad? Bottom line I find them to be about even, with a considerable amount of luck.I've read this thread the past couple of days, and I think your getting blinded by 20/20 hindsight. But as you stated before, there are leagues out there for everyone, if you like a RB heavy league that's cool.

If you think the choice between Brooks, Warner, Delhomme, Favre, Vick is even to the choice between J Jones, Westbrook, D Davis, Droughns, Dunn, Foster, Bell, then thats your opinion, but I just don't see it. Thanks for your input though.

It's not my opinion. It's a fact, 10 Vick 263.6

12 Delhomme 260.5

13 Favre 251.8

16 Brooks 219.6

22 Warner 173.8

12 Dunn 187.6

14 Droughns 172.1

17 Davis 167.3

18 Westbrook 165

21 J Jones 151.1

22 Bell 150.5

24 Foster 143.4

Well there is their Fantasy Points, as well as where they ranked using FBG scoring. Looks pretty even too me.

 

[ceo3west]

Some people have used the Droughns/Manning argument, saying it's ridiculous that Droughns would have more value.  I say he should, because it's much more difficult to predict what he's going to do than what Manning is going to do.

I love this part so much, I want it on my sig. In fact, that's exactly where it's going. Asserting that Reuben Droughns, who is a freaking middling RB on an even worse team, should be more important to a league than the elite of the elite, HOF QB, Peyton Manning? Priceless.

I still beleive this to be true. You know why? Because anyone can pick Peyton Manning. And anyone can pick guys like Delhomme, Brooks, Warner, Plummer. It doesn't take any skill. Even if one outperforms the other, they will most likely not end up far from each other on a PPG basis. And if your QB busts, chances are you have a good one on your bench. Last year I has Collins, and when he sucked after week 8, no problem - here's Kurt Warner on my bench. Or David Garrard on the waiver wire. This position just doesnt require difficult decisions in my opinion.If you play fantasy football to watch your computer light up on Sunday then thats fine, start 3 QB's and 5 kickers. But if you're trying to measure skill at some level between guys youre competing against, weighting a system towards RB's and WR's will measure this better than weighting a system towards QBs' will in my opinion. I'm sorry, but if you tell me that the decision between Delhomme, Brooks and Warner is more difficult than trying to determine between Bell, Foster and T. Jones, then I'll go away. But the fact is that guys like Delhomme, Brooks and Warner are relatively the same in the end.

Now, you can choose to rant and rave and tell me how old school this is and how I need a lobotomy, or you could get into an adult discussion with me and give me a legitimate reason why you think a system should be weighted towards QB's. I hope it's the latter. Thanks for listening.

It is easier to pick up a QB on the WW or have another on your bench, but this is just because you only start one QB as opposed to 2 or 3 RB's. In a 12 team league that's 24-36 RB's needed every week, where as you only need 12 QB's.Yes it is a no brainer to say Peyton Manning will be a top 10 QB this year barring injury. Well it is also a no brainer to say LT, SA, LJ, will be top 10 RB's this year barring injury.

Sorry - I put the response in the wrong part of the last post:Excellent point, but even if you start 2 QB's, the choice for your second QB will be guys like Brooks, Warner, Delhomme, Favre, Vick, etc. These decisions are not that difficult - again, even even if one outperforms the other, chances are they will not end up that far from each other on a PPG basis. On the other hand, you have to choose from these guys as your second RB - J Jones, Westbrook, D Davis, Droughns, Dunn, Foster, Bell. These are difficult decisions that require intense scrutiny. You can't honestly tell me that these decisions are easier than choosing your second QB, can you?

Personally I find them to be about even. Dunn for example is a solid contributor...very consistent year in and year out. Projecting the bottom half of any position is very difficult. There is always a lot of value out there. For example how many people had Mark Brunell slated to do that well last year? Or Curtis Martin to do that bad? Bottom line I find them to be about even, with a considerable amount of luck.I've read this thread the past couple of days, and I think your getting blinded by 20/20 hindsight. But as you stated before, there are leagues out there for everyone, if you like a RB heavy league that's cool.

If you think the choice between Brooks, Warner, Delhomme, Favre, Vick is even to the choice between J Jones, Westbrook, D Davis, Droughns, Dunn, Foster, Bell, then thats your opinion, but I just don't see it. Thanks for your input though.

It's not my opinion. It's a fact, 10 Vick 263.6

12 Delhomme 260.5

13 Favre 251.8

16 Brooks 219.6

22 Warner 173.8

12 Dunn 187.6

14 Droughns 172.1

17 Davis 167.3

18 Westbrook 165

21 J Jones 151.1

22 Bell 150.5

24 Foster 143.4

Well there is their Fantasy Points, as well as where they ranked using FBG scoring. Looks pretty even too me.

Good point. Mabey on a PPG basis it is easier to pick RB's based on this data. However, going back to my data yesterday, history shows that more of the top RB's will tend to bust in terms of where they were projected. Do your research on this and you will find this to be true. But I will give you this - you have made the best case so far for a QB weighted system, congrats. Telling me Im stupid and my system is old school is an argument for high school kids.

 

[thayman]

Some people have used the Droughns/Manning argument, saying it's ridiculous that Droughns would have more value.  I say he should, because it's much more difficult to predict what he's going to do than what Manning is going to do.

I love this part so much, I want it on my sig. In fact, that's exactly where it's going. Asserting that Reuben Droughns, who is a freaking middling RB on an even worse team, should be more important to a league than the elite of the elite, HOF QB, Peyton Manning? Priceless.

I still beleive this to be true. You know why? Because anyone can pick Peyton Manning. And anyone can pick guys like Delhomme, Brooks, Warner, Plummer. It doesn't take any skill. Even if one outperforms the other, they will most likely not end up far from each other on a PPG basis. And if your QB busts, chances are you have a good one on your bench. Last year I has Collins, and when he sucked after week 8, no problem - here's Kurt Warner on my bench. Or David Garrard on the waiver wire. This position just doesnt require difficult decisions in my opinion.If you play fantasy football to watch your computer light up on Sunday then thats fine, start 3 QB's and 5 kickers. But if you're trying to measure skill at some level between guys youre competing against, weighting a system towards RB's and WR's will measure this better than weighting a system towards QBs' will in my opinion. I'm sorry, but if you tell me that the decision between Delhomme, Brooks and Warner is more difficult than trying to determine between Bell, Foster and T. Jones, then I'll go away. But the fact is that guys like Delhomme, Brooks and Warner are relatively the same in the end.

Now, you can choose to rant and rave and tell me how old school this is and how I need a lobotomy, or you could get into an adult discussion with me and give me a legitimate reason why you think a system should be weighted towards QB's. I hope it's the latter. Thanks for listening.

It is easier to pick up a QB on the WW or have another on your bench, but this is just because you only start one QB as opposed to 2 or 3 RB's. In a 12 team league that's 24-36 RB's needed every week, where as you only need 12 QB's.Yes it is a no brainer to say Peyton Manning will be a top 10 QB this year barring injury. Well it is also a no brainer to say LT, SA, LJ, will be top 10 RB's this year barring injury.

Sorry - I put the response in the wrong part of the last post:Excellent point, but even if you start 2 QB's, the choice for your second QB will be guys like Brooks, Warner, Delhomme, Favre, Vick, etc. These decisions are not that difficult - again, even even if one outperforms the other, chances are they will not end up that far from each other on a PPG basis. On the other hand, you have to choose from these guys as your second RB - J Jones, Westbrook, D Davis, Droughns, Dunn, Foster, Bell. These are difficult decisions that require intense scrutiny. You can't honestly tell me that these decisions are easier than choosing your second QB, can you?

Personally I find them to be about even. Dunn for example is a solid contributor...very consistent year in and year out. Projecting the bottom half of any position is very difficult. There is always a lot of value out there. For example how many people had Mark Brunell slated to do that well last year? Or Curtis Martin to do that bad? Bottom line I find them to be about even, with a considerable amount of luck.I've read this thread the past couple of days, and I think your getting blinded by 20/20 hindsight. But as you stated before, there are leagues out there for everyone, if you like a RB heavy league that's cool.

If you think the choice between Brooks, Warner, Delhomme, Favre, Vick is even to the choice between J Jones, Westbrook, D Davis, Droughns, Dunn, Foster, Bell, then thats your opinion, but I just don't see it. Thanks for your input though.

It's not my opinion. It's a fact, 10 Vick 263.6

12 Delhomme 260.5

13 Favre 251.8

16 Brooks 219.6

22 Warner 173.8

12 Dunn 187.6

14 Droughns 172.1

17 Davis 167.3

18 Westbrook 165

21 J Jones 151.1

22 Bell 150.5

24 Foster 143.4

Well there is their Fantasy Points, as well as where they ranked using FBG scoring. Looks pretty even too me.

Good point. Mabey on a PPG basis it is easier to pick RB's based on this data. However, going back to my data yesterday, history shows that more of the top RB's will tend to bust in terms of where they were projected. Do your research on this and you will find this to be true. But I will give you this - you have made the best case so far for a QB weighted system, congrats. Telling me Im stupid and my system is old school is an argument for high school kids.

I don't think it's stupid. Like you said to each his own. I think that all leagues are RB heavy anyway, it's hard not to be when you start 2 RBs. Personally I don't look too much at the top, projecting out the middle and lower tiers are much more difficult. Important to always look at the surprises, the guys that jump up, and it seems like there is always more RBs that do this, rather than QBs.

 

[CalBear]

Good point. Mabey on a PPG basis it is easier to pick RB's based on this data. However, going back to my data yesterday, history shows that more of the top RB's will tend to bust in terms of where they were projected. Do your research on this and you will find this to be true. But I will give you this - you have made the best case so far for a QB weighted system, congrats. Telling me Im stupid and my system is old school is an argument for high school kids.

Your data yesterday says nothing of the sort. Your data yesterday show that three of the top four QBs did not end up in the top 15. I'm sorry we're arguing above your level.

 

[ceo3west]

Good point.  Mabey on a PPG basis it is easier to pick RB's based on this data.  However, going back to my data yesterday, history shows that more of the top RB's will tend to bust in terms of where they were projected.  Do your research on this and you will find this to be true.  But I will give you this - you have made the best case so far for a QB weighted system, congrats.  Telling me Im stupid and my system is old school is an argument for high school kids.

Your data yesterday says nothing of the sort. Your data yesterday show that three of the top four QBs did not end up in the top 15. I'm sorry we're arguing above your level.

So out of the top 15 projected RB's we discussed, 7 did not end up in the top 15. Out of the top 15 QB's we discussed, 4 did not end up in the top 15. This is crystal clear to me.Again, the fact that QB's 2-4 did not make it is irrelevant. Two were because of injury. Who's to say this year those two QB's won't be QB14 and QB15? Last year, RB's 3, 5 & 7 did not make the top 15. 3 & 5 were due to injury as well. If that's reversed this year and QB's 3 & 5 go down with injury and RB's 2 & 3 go down with injury, does that change your thinking about this? You may have a case for more QB weight, but this argument you present is not logical.

 

[CalBear]

So out of the top 15 projected RB's we discussed, 7 did not end up in the top 15. Out of the top 15 QB's we discussed, 4 did not end up in the top 15. This is crystal clear to me.

It's clear to you only because you have no clue. Here's my last hint:If you want to compare predictability across positions, you have to consider the magnitude of the error. RB#13 finishing as RB#18 is not comparable on a one-to-one basis with QB#2 finishing as QB#33. And you can't ignore injuries, because different positions get injured at different rates, QBs get injured more than any other position, and injuries are the largest source of unpredictability.

 

[ceo3west]

So out of the top 15 projected RB's we discussed, 7 did not end up in the top 15.  Out of the top 15 QB's we discussed, 4 did not end up in the top 15.  This is crystal clear to me.

It's clear to you only because you have no clue. Here's my last hint:If you want to compare predictability across positions, you have to consider the magnitude of the error. RB#13 finishing as RB#18 is not comparable on a one-to-one basis with QB#2 finishing as QB#33. And you can't ignore injuries, because different positions get injured at different rates, QBs get injured more than any other position, and injuries are the largest source of unpredictability.

Ok, I understand what you are sayinig here (and pot shots are not necessary, please show some respect as I have). And if QB's get injured at a higher rate than RB's then you have a case. But stats from last year do not bear this out. Of the four QB's we mentioned that missed the top 15, three missed significant time from injury. Of the seven RB's that did not make it, 5 missed significant time. I would need evidence that QB's get injured at a higher rate before I can put weight into that argument, thats all.

 

[CalBear]

Ok, I understand what you are sayinig here (and pot shots are not necessary, please show some respect as I have). And if QB's get injured at a higher rate than RB's then you have a case. But stats from last year do not bear this out. Of the four QB's we mentioned that missed the top 15, three missed significant time from injury. Of the seven RB's that did not make it, 5 missed significant time. I would need evidence that QB's get injured at a higher rate before I can put weight into that argument, thats all.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. Yudkin, I think, had an article which compared injury rates.

 

[JohnnyTitan]

Wow! It's amazing how many replies one persistant yet illogical poster can garner over the course of a couple days.

Calbear, Thayman, Cobolt and others...you all raise great points. Ceo raises none, but somehow he's bringing us all down to his level.

As stated earlier, I am a STRONG proponent of balancing the scarcity and scoring among positions. But even if I wasn't, Ceo has done nothing to convince me. How he can so easily shrug-off getting OWNED again and again is amazing. Gotta love the Internet, because our friend Ceo would have been thrown out of any boardroom in the country days ago.

 

[The Redbeard]

Remember when this thread was essentially done yesterday? Somehow a new group came in to dicuss the same points all over again - but it's not a discussion if the person beginning the discourse will not concede any points no matter how many or how much evidence to the contrary of the original thesis is presented.

It is an official

I will now shut my eyes as I past this post in the Shark Pool and hope it sinks of the front page.

 

[Mario Kart]

The last points I would like to make about the whole RB weighted argument follow here.

When the old 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 Def lineup was made the leagues that involved this normally had 6, or 8 or possilby 10 teams in them. For these size leagues this lineup works as everyone should be able to fill in mandatory lineup without much problem. The positions have nearly equal weight in them because every team has a higher probability to fill in those positions through the draft compared to a 12 team or even 14 team league where the later drafters are trying to fill in those positions. Adding more teams increased the importance of the positions that are scarce due to injuries and whatever else might happen.

Lastly, to me an ideal league would focus their scoring in the following manner: We will assume a 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, and 1 Def requirement. These would be on an average per game basis btw.

QB = 30

RB = 15

RB = 15

WR = 10

WR = 10

WR = 10

TE = 5

K = 5

Dev = 10

On average each position should score those amounts. Now, a person could say that type of league is boring but that is an evenly weighted league save the TE, K, and Def positions. This is why most people tend to not draft those players until late because they do not score near the same amount. However, I believe the QB position should score twice as much as one RB position and 3 times as much as the WR position. Again, this will not always work out but the team that is able to draft the late bloomers that end up averaging more then those points will have more victories in the end... the way it should work.

A league with an average scoring of the following:

QB= 20

RB = 20

RB = 15

WR = 10

WR = 10

WR = 15

This type of leauge puts to much emphasis on the RB and thus devalues the other positions. While some people might like this kind of system I think it is rather stupid because the winning team tends to be controlled by one position and as in real football that is not how teams win.

 

[cobalt_27]

Remember when this thread was essentially done yesterday? Somehow a new group came in to dicuss the same points all over again - but it's not a discussion if the person beginning the discourse will not concede any points no matter how many or how much evidence to the contrary of the original thesis is presented.

It is an official

I will now shut my eyes as I past this post in the Shark Pool and hope it sinks of the front page.

CEO is just coming back to get bludgeoned by a new group of readers, that's all that's happening here.But, I like it on the front page because when most people are confronted by how ridiculous the old guard has been, it doesn't take much to reconsider their positions and evolve into better systems. This thread is just a reminder that, for others, some habits die hard.