Thoughts On Point Reception Leagues

wayne123 · Post by **wayne123** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

I would just like to mention again that (in my opinion), the 1/2 ppc for RBs and the 1 ppc for WRs seems ideal. RBs keep their 1st round status, but WRs are worth considering early too. Taking a WR in the second round is a realistic strategy. If RBs were awarded the same amount as WR for each catch then 3rd down RBs who catch a few passes each game displace mid-range WRs. The result would be that the first 2 or 3 rounds would be even more dominated by RBs than they are now. Thats doesn't mirror real football. Are the three most important players on an offensive team usually all running backs? No. Typically it is one RB, one WR or TE, and a QB. The NFFC scoring system helps maintain a reasonable balance between these positions. And....since we are not talking about it on this thread....I will not say that 18 roster spots are plenty and the need to pull extra players from the FA pool adds a lot of fun in the large bye weeks. Please keep that competitive part of the game viable in the regular AND post season! Cheers!

Uncle Rico · Post by **Uncle Rico** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:19 am

IMO, a 20 man roster makes scanning the free agent lists an exercise in futility. It is already a big enough battle sorting through the table scraps looking for a cookie crumb. Removing another 28 players from the pool would make it worse. The loss of a key player or two could cook your entire season. in a high stakes league, that shouldn't happen.
As to the thread's original topic, I like the .5 point rule much better. even as a Westbrook owner. A stud RB is far more likely to post consistent yardage, and thus yardage points than a WR. WR's, even the best ones, do not post 100 yards + on a weekly basis. The catch bonuses level the playing field.

renman · Post by **renman** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:56 am

The best thing about .5 per RB reception is it eliminates the following mistake...

What is a more impressive accomplishment that is more deserving of a full point reward?

-A QB who can't find an open receiver and dumps a pass off to a RB who was in to max protect or pick up a blitz and is tackled for NO gain (worth a full point in a point per reception league)

or

-A running back who rips off a ten yards run? (worth one point)

those kind of repeated dump off passes should not be as valuable as a running back who gains 10 yards on 2 rushes.

It is as simple as that.

BONGIZMO · Post by **BONGIZMO** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:03 am

Been out of town on business for a few days but wanted to chime in on this topic or actually several that have been brought up. On the subject of expanding rosters due to byes, I am against it completely. However, and this may surprise some that feel I am always against change, I actually like the rewarding of points on receptions, and would favor it increasing to 1. My attitude is a catch is a catch and whether it be an RB, WR or even a QB, if you catch the ball and it is a completition, it is a full one, there is no such thing as a half catch.

As always, whatever rules you come up with Greg I will adjust too. Some folks (won't mention any name here, I'll let y'all guess...lol) constantly change to try and make their situation more advantageous over their competitors. One wonders if they might simply have done better if more energy had been taken on their draft, managing the team etc. versus trying to alter every nuance of an already successful NFFC.

BTW Gordy, how'd that control of your draft slot treat ya this year?

BillyWaz · Post by **BillyWaz** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:01 am

As I said before, I personally love the way the NFFC does it.

The .5 for RB's is GREAT!!!

D-Day Heroes · Post by **D-Day Heroes** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:16 am

I never understood how anyone could conclude that changing the rules gives any one manager a hand up or foot down. It would not matter if yo had 5 scoring categories or 500 scoring categories... IF EVERYONE IS PLAYING BY THE SAME SCORRING CATAGORIES, THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE..!!! NOW if its just a matter of trying to equalize the VALUE of PLAYERS so when DRAFTING there is less GAPS between QBs' - RBs' and WRs', I am All for that. AS a Matter of Fact, I think That would make the Game So much BETTER. If you could come up with a scoring method that makes the Top 20... say 14 QBs' - RBs' - WRs' all come out to about the same Value, That would lower the value of so called " Great Draft Spots 1-5 " and increase the value of Drafting well in the Middle and Late Rounds, which anyone worth thier salt should be in favor. Because, why should a manager who was lucky enough to draft Ladanian Tomlinson and a bunch of Bums, Beat a mangager who drafts Marvin Harrison and a solid crew..? ITS ABOUT TEAM, NOT SUPERSTARS... at least I think it Should Be.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:10 am

I think boosting up mediocre players or tearing down superstars only to bridge the gap between positions make no sense.

If a standout player doesn't dominate the mediocre players in fantasy football...something is wrong.

Parity between positions sucks.

~Lance

[ October 13, 2006, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

BONGIZMO · Post by **BONGIZMO** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:16 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:
I think boosting up mediocre players or tearing down superstars only to bridge the gap between positions make no sense.

If a standout player doesn't dominate the mediocre players in fantasy football...something is wrong.

Parity between positions sucks.

~Lance Well put and far more concise than many of us although we know it's just an early day thing for you Lance, you will make up for it in the middle of the night?

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:20 am

Ha!

Dr. Jekyll...Coffee.
Mr. Hyde...tequilla.

I mean why should the goal be to have 7 WR, 7 RB, 7 QB, in the first 21 picks???

No love for TE, K, DEF/ST??? (Ha!)

~Lance

BONGIZMO · Post by **BONGIZMO** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:34 am

Amen, I mean do we need to try and level the playing field so much that it might as well be a lottery. The contest allowed for the ability to choose draft slots to a degree since many folks felt those getting 1,2, and 3 were far luckier than the poor schmo at 13. Now with people all over the draft board in the running across the NFFC, it must thus be that the positionial advantage is the crux of the problem so keep those recept points down for RBs or even remove em! Damn it, I want that Stud WR at 13 but 'have' to take an RB because he gets equal points on receptions and even runs the football. HORRORS! Now I will have to take a lesser RB because damn it, things are no longer equal...ACK, Pleezzzzeeee, can we just play the game?!