Is it time for 1/2 ppr?

[renman]

Greg,

I've been playing in the NFFC classic since year one and have never once brought this topic up before. You must be confusing me with someone else who brings it up every year. Must admit I thought this was an innocent post and topic...lol I like that the NFFC has evolved and has moved with the times (3rr was a reaction to how the sport was dominated by early round RB's). I simply posed the question to breed some actual football conversation here. Obviously not "everyone" is using the same strategy and I did not mean that literally.

I'm perfectly fine with full point ppr. Every league I play in is full point ppr. I just thought it was an interesting topic to discuss and was curious to see reactions. Based on the reaction to the question I suppose to shouldn't have brought it up.

[JohnP]

Greg and the rest of Packer nation are on tilt. R-E-L-A-X has turned into O-S-H-I-T.

[Tom Kessenich]

I will say as a fantasy player my biggest gripe with Fanduel is the half-point PPR. Among the issues I have with it is that it really reduces the value of receiving RBs whose roles in the NFL are growing by leaps and bounds right now. Look at Theo Riddick in Detroit. He's arguably their second-best offensive player behind Calvin but with half-point PPR you'd never want to start him since all he generally does is catch passes so he needs to catch 8-10 passes a week (which is ridiculous for a RB) to generate meaningful value. But in full PPR Riddick has value similar to what he brings to the Lions so he's a very viable starting option which should be the case given his significant role on offense.

Shaun Draughn right now would be another example. You can start him in full PPR as a low-end RB2. He's pretty much unstartable with half-point PPR.

I LOVE full-point PPR and other than FanDuel I only play in full-PPR leagues. It isn't perfect but no scoring system is. However, I do believe it does the best job of truly rewarding those extraordinary receiving performances. If someone catches 15-20 passes in a game they should get major rewards for it. Cutting that in half feels like punishment for a job unbelievably well done. So I'll live with the trade-off of giving someone a point for a 0-yard reception if the truly great games are given truly great rewards.

[Tom Kessenich]

Finding top players at each position and staying healthy is the key in today's game, not a new scoring system.

Charles and Bell (first-round picks) were not disasters before getting hurt. Forte wasn't before his injury and neither was Foster.

Foster came with clear durability concerns so his injury wasn't a surprise. But if you took Charles or Bell in the first round nobody said you made a mistake before they got hurt. They just got hurt which sucks. I don't think it diminishes their values as first-round RB selections.

[renman]

Listen, I like full point ppr. I am not politicking for a change, just brought up the topic to discuss. Toms points (in my opinion) are accurate. The question is, should an RB who may see field 20% of the plays and really touches the ball only 6 times per game be able to easily out produce the RB who sees the field 65% of the plays and touches the ball 18 times?

If the 2016 draft were held this coming week how many RB's would go in the first round? Assuming Lev Bell and Jamaal Charles are healthy (which is questionable) the answer is 3 and at most 4. So there would be 10 WR's and Gronk going in the first round. If it was 1/2 point ppr (again, not saying I want that) it would seemingly make those decisions less black and white.

Just seemed like an interesting topic to analyze.

[TR]

I will say as a fantasy player my biggest gripe with Fanduel is the half-point PPR. Among the issues I have with it is that it really reduces the value of receiving RBs whose roles in the NFL are growing by leaps and bounds right now. Look at Theo Riddick in Detroit. He's arguably their second-best offensive player behind Calvin but with half-point PPR you'd never want to start him since all he generally does is catch passes so he needs to catch 8-10 passes a week (which is ridiculous for a RB) to generate meaningful value. But in full PPR Riddick has value similar to what he brings to the Lions so he's a very viable starting option which should be the case given his significant role on offense.

Shaun Draughn right now would be another example. You can start him in full PPR as a low-end RB2. He's pretty much unstartable with half-point PPR.

I LOVE full-point PPR and other than FanDuel I only play in full-PPR leagues. It isn't perfect but no scoring system is. However, I do believe it does the best job of truly rewarding those extraordinary receiving performances. If someone catches 15-20 passes in a game they should get major rewards for it. Cutting that in half feels like punishment for a job unbelievably well done. So I'll live with the trade-off of giving someone a point for a 0-yard reception if the truly great games are given truly great rewards.

I love their half-point PPR. Theo Riddick is a rare exception to the norm, regarding receiving back specialists being that significant to their offense (ie 2nd best offensive player). And with a competent offensive coordinator he never should have been over Golden Tate. The BEST RB in the league and arguable MVP Adrian Peterson is a workhorse RB who is carrying his offense into the playoff picture...he doesn't catch many passes. So if he has a 140 yard day without reaching the endzone, why should a guy like Riddick who catches 8 balls for 60 yards have the same score with not even half as many yards? A feature back like Peterson who is leading the lead in rushing yards shouldn't need to be dependent on TDs to have edge on receiving specialists.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

The original high stakes contest had the best rules. Seems like everyone went a different direction to try and have a niche. It wasn't necessary. Now the new kid on the block with those rules continues to gain market share. There is no need for 6 points a td pass. There is no need for 1.5 a TE grab. There is no need for divisions in big leagues. There is no need for 3 RR. There is no need for KDS. These things hinder growth without tremendous marketing plan.

[King of Queens]

The original high stakes contest had the best rules. Seems like everyone went a different direction to try and have a niche. It wasn't necessary. Now the new kid on the block with those rules continues to gain market share. There is no need for 6 points a td pass. There is no need for 1.5 a TE grab. There is no need for divisions in big leagues. There is no need for 3 RR. There is no need for KDS. These things hinder growth without tremendous marketing plan.

There was a time when I would have disagreed with this. Now, I believe Chad is correct. Each contest needs a "special" set of rules to make themselves different from one another. What we are left with is three high stakes contests where none of them play it straight.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

The original high stakes contest had the best rules. Seems like everyone went a different direction to try and have a niche. It wasn't necessary. Now the new kid on the block with those rules continues to gain market share. There is no need for 6 points a td pass. There is no need for 1.5 a TE grab. There is no need for divisions in big leagues. There is no need for 3 RR. There is no need for KDS. These things hinder growth without tremendous marketing plan.

There was a time when I would have disagreed with this. Now, I believe Chad is correct. Each contest needs a "special" set of rules to make themselves different from one another. What we are left with is three high stakes contests where none of them play it straight.

I should not have said it wasn't necessary though. Differentiation probably was needed at that point. Probably isn't now though. Having the best rules is what is the way to go now, whatever those are.

[JETS SB]

I am trying to figure out what is the argument for 1/2 ppr. Whether several games play it differently doesnt mean one is better than the other. Even the two big DFS games play it differently. Being unique doesn't stunt growth. And if there is not a problem, why fix it?