Should We Include Individual ST Points In 2010?

BillyWaz · Post by **BillyWaz** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:27 am

Originally posted by Hman83:
Greg- don't change anything here. Its all knee-jerk because Royal owners are trying to justify the loss of potential points.

As I left for Vegas my 12-yr old partner told me to get Deshaun Jackson... and to also get the Eagles D/ST too so we get ALL his td's. . . . so ability to strategize is already in your contest.

If you loved Royal as a returner wouldn't the DEN
D/ST be a priority? Also, you could have picked them off the Waiver Wire in weeks #1 thru 3.
Tears aplenty!!!! I vote a fat "NO".
HMan Not a knee jerk reaction at all HMan.

I won my game by a bunch this week, and Royal not scoring was just like he didn't score in the game.
Royal SUCKS on offense. That is my issue to deal with, and I knew that he wouldn't be getting any points for returns before the season started. I don't draft guys strictly for their return abilities (even in leagues that offer action scoring), it is simply to difficult to predict, IMO.

Who I feel bad for is the guy who had Royal up 16, and his opponent had Denver Defense. He loses SOLELY because HIS OWN player made two spectacular plays, and it ends up hurting him.

NOW picture that scenario in Week 16, and it means the difference in the 100K!!!

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:29 am

Originally posted by Bob Squad:
quote:Originally posted by Sandman62:
Wow, some pretty far-fetched comparisons here. how an anhyone say that a player scoring on a kick/punt return and his DST also scoring is the same thing as qb/wr? the first is the SAME player; the latter is notm. I'll bow out of this discussion now, as it's obvious we will continue to disagree on this.

Greg, you have my input. Sandman,

The 'double-dipping' is irrelevant. But, I like dropping the ST from the D's, giving it to the individual players, and making D's a better reflection of performance (-.25/pt allowed and yardage bonuses).

Bob [/QUOTE]I'm in favor of this.

Greg, you have my input.

BillyWaz · Post by **BillyWaz** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:36 am

Originally posted by Bob Squad:
quote:Originally posted by Sandman62:
Wow, some pretty far-fetched comparisons here. how an anhyone say that a player scoring on a kick/punt return and his DST also scoring is the same thing as qb/wr? the first is the SAME player; the latter is notm. I'll bow out of this discussion now, as it's obvious we will continue to disagree on this.

Greg, you have my input. Sandman,

The 'double-dipping' is irrelevant. But, I like dropping the ST from the D's, giving it to the individual players, and making D's a better reflection of performance (-.25/pt allowed and yardage bonuses).

Bob [/QUOTE]I would be all in favor of this also.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:49 am

Originally posted by BillyWaz:
quote:Originally posted by Hman83:
Greg- don't change anything here. Its all knee-jerk because Royal owners are trying to justify the loss of potential points.

As I left for Vegas my 12-yr old partner told me to get Deshaun Jackson... and to also get the Eagles D/ST too so we get ALL his td's. . . . so ability to strategize is already in your contest.

If you loved Royal as a returner wouldn't the DEN
D/ST be a priority? Also, you could have picked them off the Waiver Wire in weeks #1 thru 3.
Tears aplenty!!!! I vote a fat "NO".
HMan Not a knee jerk reaction at all HMan.

I won my game by a bunch this week, and Royal not scoring was just like he didn't score in the game.
Royal SUCKS on offense. That is my issue to deal with, and I knew that he wouldn't be getting any points for returns before the season started. I don't draft guys strictly for their return abilities (even in leagues that offer action scoring), it is simply to difficult to predict, IMO.

Who I feel bad for is the guy who had Royal up 16, and his opponent had Denver Defense. He loses SOLELY because HIS OWN player made two spectacular plays, and it ends up hurting him.

NOW picture that scenario in Week 16, and it means the difference in the 100K!!!

[/QUOTE]As noted, a 12-yr old could have faab'd DEN D/ST and he wouldn't have had that problem

BillyWaz · Post by **BillyWaz** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:59 am

Originally posted by FantasyFactor:
quote:Originally posted by BillyWaz:
quote:Originally posted by Hman83:
Greg- don't change anything here. Its all knee-jerk because Royal owners are trying to justify the loss of potential points.

As I left for Vegas my 12-yr old partner told me to get Deshaun Jackson... and to also get the Eagles D/ST too so we get ALL his td's. . . . so ability to strategize is already in your contest.

If you loved Royal as a returner wouldn't the DEN
D/ST be a priority? Also, you could have picked them off the Waiver Wire in weeks #1 thru 3.
Tears aplenty!!!! I vote a fat "NO".
HMan Not a knee jerk reaction at all HMan.

I won my game by a bunch this week, and Royal not scoring was just like he didn't score in the game.
Royal SUCKS on offense. That is my issue to deal with, and I knew that he wouldn't be getting any points for returns before the season started. I don't draft guys strictly for their return abilities (even in leagues that offer action scoring), it is simply to difficult to predict, IMO.

Who I feel bad for is the guy who had Royal up 16, and his opponent had Denver Defense. He loses SOLELY because HIS OWN player made two spectacular plays, and it ends up hurting him.

NOW picture that scenario in Week 16, and it means the difference in the 100K!!!

[/QUOTE]As noted, a 12-yr old could have faab'd DEN D/ST and he wouldn't have had that problem

[/QUOTE]Let's say DeShaun Jackson and Philly then. Philly would NOT be on the WW (don't you agree??)

GEEZ!!! You would rather chew your right arm off than admitting you could possibly see someone else's view on this!!! :rolleyes:

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:08 am

One thing I do know from this thread: Billy leads all others with the most posts here. Wow, Billy, you are pushing this one hard. I like it.

Thanks for all the input. I think we see it as half full and half empty on this one. It's been duly noted by the Iola Connection.

Henry Muto · Post by **Henry Muto** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:09 am

I have no dog in this fight as I don't even own Royal in any of my 4 NFFC leagues but I have been saying this for the last 5 years that players should always get credit for their return TDs. I even started a thread on the "discuss the rules" on this site. I have said it many many times why they should get credit. From having to root against your own player which blows to having your own player beat you by taking himself off the field with an electric TD return. He could also get hurt on the return so you player gets no reward for the risk. A QB passes the ball to a WR for a TD both players get credit. So why is it wrong to reward a Royal and the Denver DF for both their TD's. I have always been on the side of the arguement the player deserves credit for his own plays.

In any event I think everyone here is just wasting their breath because the WCFF and NFFC ect type of contests will not be changing the rules anytime soon. This is just how they believe the scoring should be and nothing is going to change their minds same thing can be said about the players who think the players should not get credit for their own TD's.

Life moves on.

[ October 21, 2009, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Henry Muto ]

Henry Muto · Post by **Henry Muto** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:13 am

This is what I posted on the WCFF message board before the season began.

Looks like the WCFF missed the boat again this year on the KR/PR TD by a player. I have never seen a league so stubborn on a rule then the WCFF on this one even though it seems that the people here want it to happen they continue to not understand why it should count. If a player scores a TD they score a TD it does not matter how they score and should get credit. Why in the world do you think a TD should not count just because it is on special teams ? Makes ZERO sense.

If Reggie Bush scores a TD on a punt return then you get the DOUBLE WHAMMY.

You don't get the 6 pts and your player is now off the field because his team scored meaning you now miss out on any yards/TD he might have got on that drive.

So in short you have to root AGAINST your player. You have to hope your player gets tackled (and doesn't get hurt).

Sounds pretty redonkulous to have to root against your own player.

Yet this is what you have to root for.

Henry Muto · Post by **Henry Muto** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:15 am

When a QB throws a TD pass to a RB, WR or TE is only 1 TD scored on the play ? yes. Does both parties get credit for a TD ? yes....so I don't get the why people say "Only 1 TD scored so you can't award the DF and player who scored it"

Imagine this scene. It is week 16 and your neck and neck with a guy for the $300,000 1st place prize.

You have Knox he has Chicago DF and your up 3 pts and this is the final Monday night game and it is late in the 4th quarter.

The other team kicks off to Knox and as your player starts his return you are rooting against him.....let me repeat this you are rooting against your own player...how is that the right thing to do with your fantasy team ?

So Knox starts his return cuts right cuts left he is at the 50...40..30..20..10..TD Knox!!!

And so your own player just cost you $300,000....how in the world is that also the right thing with your team ?

Let me draw up another scene that does not involve the Chicago DF on the other team

This time your down 3 pts in the final Monday night game trying to win the $300,000 in 2nd place with only 1 minute left in the game Chicago vs whoever. Your opp has no players left.

The other team just scored and has to kick off to Knox...he takes the ball and your rooting your heart out that he gets tackled because you need him on the field to have a chance to win...but he runs it back for a TD...your player scores a TD and you lose $300,000...man that just seems so wrong to me.

I guess I just see things different then other people.

As far as wanting to pick up McGee for a flex feel free because the odds on him scoring you any pts on an INT TD or Fumble return TD or kick return TD are so slim your going to get a ton of 0's

I have no problem with anyone wanting to pick up a DF player and playing them as their flex since they will be getting a zero every game almost.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:46 am

Originally posted by BillyWaz:
quote:Originally posted by FantasyFactor:
quote:Originally posted by BillyWaz:
quote:Originally posted by Hman83:
Greg- don't change anything here. Its all knee-jerk because Royal owners are trying to justify the loss of potential points.

As I left for Vegas my 12-yr old partner told me to get Deshaun Jackson... and to also get the Eagles D/ST too so we get ALL his td's. . . . so ability to strategize is already in your contest.

If you loved Royal as a returner wouldn't the DEN
D/ST be a priority? Also, you could have picked them off the Waiver Wire in weeks #1 thru 3.
Tears aplenty!!!! I vote a fat "NO".
HMan Not a knee jerk reaction at all HMan.

I won my game by a bunch this week, and Royal not scoring was just like he didn't score in the game.
Royal SUCKS on offense. That is my issue to deal with, and I knew that he wouldn't be getting any points for returns before the season started. I don't draft guys strictly for their return abilities (even in leagues that offer action scoring), it is simply to difficult to predict, IMO.

Who I feel bad for is the guy who had Royal up 16, and his opponent had Denver Defense. He loses SOLELY because HIS OWN player made two spectacular plays, and it ends up hurting him.

NOW picture that scenario in Week 16, and it means the difference in the 100K!!! [/QUOTE]As noted, a 12-yr old could have faab'd DEN D/ST and he wouldn't have had that problem

[/QUOTE]Let's say DeShaun Jackson and Philly then. Philly would NOT be on the WW (don't you agree??)

GEEZ!!! You would rather chew your right arm off than admitting you could possibly see someone else's view on this!!! :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]Billy, that was a joke, indicated as such in the post.

LOL.... Lighten up Francis.

Also, I've already posted that I've seen both points of view on this topic for YEARS. So why are you so special that I have to validate in writing your opinion?

[ October 21, 2009, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: FantasyFactor ]