Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
In my full point PPR, we abandoned the requirement to start a RB a couple of seasons ago simply because of the trend towards more passing in the NFL and the devaluing of the RB by RBBC. It felt silly forcing owners to start a mediocre, marginally talented RB simply because we 'had to' over a healthy, productive WR4 or WR5 putting up more points. This also ensured we got the best players 'on the field' rather than leaving points on the waiver wire.TheCommish said:
No one's disputing that. Would you change the starting requirements AND keep some form of PPR? Or just go back to standard scoring?
Which is what probably should have been done in the first place rather than including some artificial stat meant only to boost the value of WRs.
You realize this isn't mutually exclusive from PPR/Non-PPR.
For me PPR isn't about increasing the value of a WR, because it really doesn't accomplish that. PPR is mostly about making fantasy football and watching football more enjoyable.
PPR is not the issue. PPR is similar to changing passing TDs from 4 points to 6 points. That doesn't change the value of a QB significantly. It makes the QBs score more overall, but it doesn't change their value to other positions very much.
I agree with this.
I don't play fantasy football to mimic real life. I do it to enhance the football experience. Keeping stats for receptions makes it more interesting for me.
I think the starting requirements have the biggest impact on relative value.
See to me it does the exact opposite. I get no thrill out of seeing my player get me points for a short reception that doesn't go anywhere. Eddie Lacy runs for 10 yards. Cool. Fistpump. Eddie Lacy catches a swing pass and get blasted for no gain. Umm...Fistpump?fridayfrenzy said:
You proved my point. I rather cheer twice for Eddie Lacy. Without PPR, I would only be able to cheer once in your example.See to me it does the exact opposite. I get no thrill out of seeing my player get me points for a short reception that doesn't go anywhere. Eddie Lacy runs for 10 yards. Cool. Fistpump. Eddie Lacy catches a swing pass and get blasted for no gain. Umm...Fistpump?fridayfrenzy said:
Not sure I see the logic here. Why not start giving points for carries then too so you can cheer when Lacy takes a handoff and gets stuffed at the line of scrimmage? And completions? More cheering!You proved my point. I rather cheer twice for Eddie Lacy. Without PPR, I would only be able to cheer once in your example.See to me it does the exact opposite. I get no thrill out of seeing my player get me points for a short reception that doesn't go anywhere. Eddie Lacy runs for 10 yards. Cool. Fistpump. Eddie Lacy catches a swing pass and get blasted for no gain. Umm...Fistpump?fridayfrenzy said:
Not sure I see the logic here. Why not start giving points for carries then too so you can cheer when Lacy takes a handoff and gets stuffed at the line of scrimmage? And completions? More cheering!You proved my point. I rather cheer twice for Eddie Lacy. Without PPR, I would only be able to cheer once in your example.See to me it does the exact opposite. I get no thrill out of seeing my player get me points for a short reception that doesn't go anywhere. Eddie Lacy runs for 10 yards. Cool. Fistpump. Eddie Lacy catches a swing pass and get blasted for no gain. Umm...Fistpump?fridayfrenzy said:
My league introduced PPR to reward participation in the game plan... NOT to make WRs more appealing. We award a point per reception and .2 per carry under the assumption a WR coud average 5 receptions per game and a back 25 rushes. Both would receive 5 points...
5 rec per game = 80 on the season. 25 rushes per game = 400 on the season. Questionable choices.
Much better choice than PPR. Looking forward to the day it is available in Yahoo.
First down scoring is something that has much more support in my dynasty league. That will probably become part of our scoring at some point.
Since we apparently don't care if a play is positive or not to award points, maybe we should start giving points for INTS and fumbles lost instead of subracting them. Then we can really rake it in!Not sure I see the logic here. Why not start giving points for carries then too so you can cheer when Lacy takes a handoff and gets stuffed at the line of scrimmage? And completions? More cheering!You proved my point. I rather cheer twice for Eddie Lacy. Without PPR, I would only be able to cheer once in your example.See to me it does the exact opposite. I get no thrill out of seeing my player get me points for a short reception that doesn't go anywhere. Eddie Lacy runs for 10 yards. Cool. Fistpump. Eddie Lacy catches a swing pass and get blasted for no gain. Umm...Fistpump?fridayfrenzy said:
I hope you're right. I'm a little surprised that hasn't happened yet. It's a great way to give value to the chain movers that aren't necessarily red zone threats in a way that makes sense.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
It's just another idea that someone made sound good but really is just another arbitrary stats. A 3 yard catch for a first down on 2nd and 2 should not get a point added when a 12 yard catch on 1st and 15 doesn't.
It's all arbitrary. You can make that argument for every statistic out there. Not every pass, catch, reception, yard and TD are similar. Why should garbage yards when losing by 30 count the same as clutch yards in a close game?
I tend to agree - the first down scoring system is somewhat new and thus likely not subject to much scrutiny, but there are bound to be some inequities as well. There's no perfect system out there.
I don't feel strongly about adding first down scoring, but I disagree with your comparison here. A 3 yard catch for a first down on 2nd and 2 provides value beyond just the 3 yards gained, since it also provides a new set of downs. The 12 yard catch doesn't provide that same additional value.
Post 59
So the RB still has more value than the WR in a PPR.
Comparing the difference of points per game scored by RB36 to RB 48 and WR36 to WR48 is not the same thing as comparing the value of RB36 to WR36
It looks like one of the rankers left him off his list entirely (no idea why, must have been an oversight) which skewed his average down to 18. The other rankers had him 6, 1, 9, and 11 which would have him 6th as a consensus.
Not in my world. I don't care how many points WR36 scores more than RB36. I care how they score in comparison to their own position. Just because a position scores more points does not make them more valuable because it also means that the replacement players (ie bench or waiver wire) score more points as well. It's all relative.
