Originally posted by jdoggmms:
the points should only go to the individual player, and not the team DEF/ST. The ST really needs to be removed from the team defense because nobody drafts a defense based on how good their return men are. It might break a tie between two equally perceived defenses, but defense is defense, and special teams is special teams. Kicking is part of special teams, yet we have a separate position for that..makes no sense to me. Let defense be defense, and return points go to the rare breed of lightning quick offensive players. A lot of their real life value is based on their return ability, and aren't we trying to mimic real-life with this fantasy game of ours? I drafted Philly on a lot of team because they had Maclin and Jackson on the team. They was enough for me to push up theri value. People have been drafting Chicago the last few years because of Hester.
Should We Include Individual ST Points In 2010?
-
CC's Desperados
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
-
CC's Desperados
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Should We Include Individual ST Points In 2010?
I've been hiding out, but here's view of this thread:
I don't agree with John Z at all. Why are you so concerned with one game when someone owns Royal and Denver? How many punt return and kick off return happen a year and how many from players who are playable each week? The impact of this change is minimal. So Eddie Royal scores 10 Td's for the year instead of 7. How much does that change his scoring average? I bet there are more lineup mistakes because someone will play a player like Hester a couple of years back when he wasn't even on the field as a WR.
I can see both side of this, but for the 10-12 TD's a year that happen on kick off and punt returns I don't see a major impact in the game.
As for the D/ST, I don't know why fantasy players get so caught up with the title. The two were merged together to create value in the position. You get points based on those two category. So your team gives up 30 points, but the defensive side of the ball gives up only 16....that just how the game is scored. By adding special teams to the defense, it actually helped idenify an area of the game that you might be able to predict. After Hester's first year, you knew he was a special kick return which pushed up Chicago's value. Deion Sanders was a special player who did the same but on special teams and defense. Dante Hall..and so on.
I'm against seperating the two.
I could go either way on the player getting credit for the return. For me, it doesn't happen enough to be a deal breaker. If more players want it, I'm for it.
I'm against yardage and negative points for defenses.
I don't agree with John Z at all. Why are you so concerned with one game when someone owns Royal and Denver? How many punt return and kick off return happen a year and how many from players who are playable each week? The impact of this change is minimal. So Eddie Royal scores 10 Td's for the year instead of 7. How much does that change his scoring average? I bet there are more lineup mistakes because someone will play a player like Hester a couple of years back when he wasn't even on the field as a WR.
I can see both side of this, but for the 10-12 TD's a year that happen on kick off and punt returns I don't see a major impact in the game.
As for the D/ST, I don't know why fantasy players get so caught up with the title. The two were merged together to create value in the position. You get points based on those two category. So your team gives up 30 points, but the defensive side of the ball gives up only 16....that just how the game is scored. By adding special teams to the defense, it actually helped idenify an area of the game that you might be able to predict. After Hester's first year, you knew he was a special kick return which pushed up Chicago's value. Deion Sanders was a special player who did the same but on special teams and defense. Dante Hall..and so on.
I'm against seperating the two.
I could go either way on the player getting credit for the return. For me, it doesn't happen enough to be a deal breaker. If more players want it, I'm for it.
I'm against yardage and negative points for defenses.
-
ultimatefs
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:00 pm
Should We Include Individual ST Points In 2010?
Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
I'm against yardage and negative points for defenses. are you against negative points for fumbles and interceptions?
QB's play bad and get penalized. Sanchez had a negative score last week in some formats. Why not the NYG DEF/ST also?
I'm against yardage and negative points for defenses. are you against negative points for fumbles and interceptions?
QB's play bad and get penalized. Sanchez had a negative score last week in some formats. Why not the NYG DEF/ST also?
Jules is a Dirt bag and makes my luck.
-
ultimatefs
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:00 pm
Should We Include Individual ST Points In 2010?
Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
I've been hiding out, but here's view of this thread:
I don't agree with John Z at all. Why are you so concerned with one game when someone owns Royal and Denver? As a game operator, I want a level playing field. The actions of one and one player only producing 12 points (insert Billy exception) is not a level playing field and over values the performance for one play in a game.
I understand that my view point is going to be different than most as I sit on both sides of the fence.
You're just pining for more points because you are the king at that
I've been hiding out, but here's view of this thread:
I don't agree with John Z at all. Why are you so concerned with one game when someone owns Royal and Denver? As a game operator, I want a level playing field. The actions of one and one player only producing 12 points (insert Billy exception) is not a level playing field and over values the performance for one play in a game.
I understand that my view point is going to be different than most as I sit on both sides of the fence.
You're just pining for more points because you are the king at that
Jules is a Dirt bag and makes my luck.
Should We Include Individual ST Points In 2010?
Originally posted by FantasyFactor:
quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
I've been hiding out, but here's view of this thread:
I don't agree with John Z at all. Why are you so concerned with one game when someone owns Royal and Denver? As a game operator, I want a level playing field. The actions of one and one player only producing 12 points (insert Billy exception) is not a level playing field and over values the performance for one play in a game.
I understand that my view point is going to be different than most as I sit on both sides of the fence.
You're just pining for more points because you are the king at that [/QUOTE]John,
I've stayed away a bit, but PLEASE (and I apologize if this has already....check that, I KNOW this has already been said!) tell me how Eddie Royal (a SINGLE player) receives 12 points??
EDIT: Actually I see your point, but still don't agree.
[ October 22, 2009, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: BillyWaz ]
quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
I've been hiding out, but here's view of this thread:
I don't agree with John Z at all. Why are you so concerned with one game when someone owns Royal and Denver? As a game operator, I want a level playing field. The actions of one and one player only producing 12 points (insert Billy exception) is not a level playing field and over values the performance for one play in a game.
I understand that my view point is going to be different than most as I sit on both sides of the fence.
You're just pining for more points because you are the king at that
[/QUOTE]John,I've stayed away a bit, but PLEASE (and I apologize if this has already....check that, I KNOW this has already been said!) tell me how Eddie Royal (a SINGLE player) receives 12 points??
EDIT: Actually I see your point, but still don't agree.
[ October 22, 2009, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: BillyWaz ]
Should We Include Individual ST Points In 2010?
Originally posted by FantasyFactor:
quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
As a game operator, I want a level playing field. The actions of one and one player only producing 12 points (insert Billy exception) is not a level playing field and over values the performance for one play in a game.
[/QUOTE]John, what about when a QB throws a 90 yard TD to a WR? The QB has created 10.5 points for himself and 16 points for the WR on one play; or 26.5 points in total. The benefit to the NFL team is the same as a punt or kick return TD...6 points. Most don't have a problem with the scoring for a 90 yard passing TD; so why the problem with awarding 12 points for a 90 yard kick return TD. To get the 12 points you'll need to have both the player and the D/ST in your starting lineup...and it's still 4 points less than the 16 points received from the WR on a 90 yard passing TD based on one play. (Disregarding the 10.5 pts for the QB)
So, it seems you don't have a problem with D Jax getting 16 points for a 90 TD reception but you do have a problem with him creating 12 points by returning a punt 90 yards for a TD? Even though to get that 12 points you'd need to have both D Jax and the Philly D/ST.
It was well before I started playing FF, but I'll bet there were some heated discussions when operators started awarding points for yardage and receptions. I suspect the diehards fought that quite fiercely.
quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
As a game operator, I want a level playing field. The actions of one and one player only producing 12 points (insert Billy exception) is not a level playing field and over values the performance for one play in a game.
[/QUOTE]John, what about when a QB throws a 90 yard TD to a WR? The QB has created 10.5 points for himself and 16 points for the WR on one play; or 26.5 points in total. The benefit to the NFL team is the same as a punt or kick return TD...6 points. Most don't have a problem with the scoring for a 90 yard passing TD; so why the problem with awarding 12 points for a 90 yard kick return TD. To get the 12 points you'll need to have both the player and the D/ST in your starting lineup...and it's still 4 points less than the 16 points received from the WR on a 90 yard passing TD based on one play. (Disregarding the 10.5 pts for the QB)
So, it seems you don't have a problem with D Jax getting 16 points for a 90 TD reception but you do have a problem with him creating 12 points by returning a punt 90 yards for a TD? Even though to get that 12 points you'd need to have both D Jax and the Philly D/ST.
It was well before I started playing FF, but I'll bet there were some heated discussions when operators started awarding points for yardage and receptions. I suspect the diehards fought that quite fiercely.
Should We Include Individual ST Points In 2010?
Riff,
If I am understanding John correctly, he has an issue with ONE player only touching the ball (ex.Eddie Royal on a punt return),and when he scores, there are 12 points awarded on the play (6 to Royal, and 6 to the Denver D/ST).
I'm in your camp on this one Riff, as a potential "I just got beat by my own player's great runback" is FAR worse than giving points to both IMO.
If I am understanding John correctly, he has an issue with ONE player only touching the ball (ex.Eddie Royal on a punt return),and when he scores, there are 12 points awarded on the play (6 to Royal, and 6 to the Denver D/ST).
I'm in your camp on this one Riff, as a potential "I just got beat by my own player's great runback" is FAR worse than giving points to both IMO.
Should We Include Individual ST Points In 2010?
Originally posted by BillyWaz:
Riff,
If I am understanding John correctly, he has an issue with ONE player only touching the ball (ex.Eddie Royal on a punt return),and when he scores, there are 12 points awarded on the play (6 to Royal, and 6 to the Denver D/ST).
Fine...put D Jax in the wildcat and he runs for a 90 yard TD. That's 15 points...3 more than he'd create with a 90 yard kick return TD if both he and the D/ST got credit.
Riff,
If I am understanding John correctly, he has an issue with ONE player only touching the ball (ex.Eddie Royal on a punt return),and when he scores, there are 12 points awarded on the play (6 to Royal, and 6 to the Denver D/ST).
Fine...put D Jax in the wildcat and he runs for a 90 yard TD. That's 15 points...3 more than he'd create with a 90 yard kick return TD if both he and the D/ST got credit.
Should We Include Individual ST Points In 2010?
Riff,
You are right that the old school guys from fantasy football yesteryear did fight points for yardage and receptions as I remember it clearly. People resist change to anything that is already good that way it is. I am usually one of those who resists change. I think fantasy football is great the way it is.. I especially think the NFFC format and scoring system is as good as it gets.
But that does not mean we cannot steadily make it a better entity as time goes by. I see some people arguing against something without a real clear reason as to why they are even against it. The issue/topic is so simple.. so basic.. and so MILD, when it comes to impacting the game or draft preparations yet people flip out.
To me, and maybe I am missing something, this is SOLELY about two things...
1- Taking away the need to ROOT AGAINST your own fantasy player who happens to be in the return game and you are begging him to just fall down so not to score (and take away a possession) and or not get hurt on a play that in no way can offer the owner of the player anything positive. With this adjustment, you can now at least root FOR him to break one as unlikely as it may be.
2- Removing the chance, unlikely as it is, that the example BillyWaz and Henry Muto outlined where someone could LOSE this event and the $100,000 because their own player scored a TD on special teams that the owner can't get any credit for. People want to remove more of the "Luck" factor? What is "Luckier" than when your defense/st scores a TD? With this chance, that 6 point, LUCK BASED TD could not beat you if the TD is scored by your own player.
Unless I am missing something, it is as simple as that for me. Making this one change (that I do not have strong feelings about in the first place) would eliminate both of the above two problems without impacting the NFFC experience, scoring system, or draft preparations much at all. To me, it is just closing up another small loophole.
You are right that the old school guys from fantasy football yesteryear did fight points for yardage and receptions as I remember it clearly. People resist change to anything that is already good that way it is. I am usually one of those who resists change. I think fantasy football is great the way it is.. I especially think the NFFC format and scoring system is as good as it gets.
But that does not mean we cannot steadily make it a better entity as time goes by. I see some people arguing against something without a real clear reason as to why they are even against it. The issue/topic is so simple.. so basic.. and so MILD, when it comes to impacting the game or draft preparations yet people flip out.
To me, and maybe I am missing something, this is SOLELY about two things...
1- Taking away the need to ROOT AGAINST your own fantasy player who happens to be in the return game and you are begging him to just fall down so not to score (and take away a possession) and or not get hurt on a play that in no way can offer the owner of the player anything positive. With this adjustment, you can now at least root FOR him to break one as unlikely as it may be.
2- Removing the chance, unlikely as it is, that the example BillyWaz and Henry Muto outlined where someone could LOSE this event and the $100,000 because their own player scored a TD on special teams that the owner can't get any credit for. People want to remove more of the "Luck" factor? What is "Luckier" than when your defense/st scores a TD? With this chance, that 6 point, LUCK BASED TD could not beat you if the TD is scored by your own player.
Unless I am missing something, it is as simple as that for me. Making this one change (that I do not have strong feelings about in the first place) would eliminate both of the above two problems without impacting the NFFC experience, scoring system, or draft preparations much at all. To me, it is just closing up another small loophole.
Should We Include Individual ST Points In 2010?
Originally posted by FantasyFactor:
quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
I'm against yardage and negative points for defenses. are you against negative points for fumbles and interceptions?
QB's play bad and get penalized. Sanchez had a negative score last week in some formats. Why not the NYG DEF/ST also? [/QUOTE]I"m against negative scoring for defenses because many times it's the offense that gives up the points instead of the defense. We'll use Sanchez as the example. Last week he turns it over early and often. That creates a lot of scoring opportunities for the other team that the defense truly isn't responsible for. I know Buffalo didn't capitalize but many times when teams run up scores it's due to offensive turnovers as opposed to the defense just being bad.
Wayne
quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
I'm against yardage and negative points for defenses. are you against negative points for fumbles and interceptions?
QB's play bad and get penalized. Sanchez had a negative score last week in some formats. Why not the NYG DEF/ST also? [/QUOTE]I"m against negative scoring for defenses because many times it's the offense that gives up the points instead of the defense. We'll use Sanchez as the example. Last week he turns it over early and often. That creates a lot of scoring opportunities for the other team that the defense truly isn't responsible for. I know Buffalo didn't capitalize but many times when teams run up scores it's due to offensive turnovers as opposed to the defense just being bad.
Wayne