NFFC Signups Are Now Available

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:53 am

I'm in favor of qbs getting 0 points if they throw more than 3 ints and lose. That's what I call penalizing a qb for a bad game. Otherwise, all of the above BS is just that.

BillyWaz · Post by **BillyWaz** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:57 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
The problem I have with a sliding scale, as I've said, is that is means we won't have accurate data to project values without a lot more work.
Honestly, trying to project whether a QB will only throw one INT, or more than one INT, is about as accurate as predicting defensive and special teams TD's. Even predicting the amount of INT's in a year is iffy from year to year.

And based on your info on the other thread, it doesn't make a huge difference either way.

[ January 09, 2008, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: BillyWaz ]

Mike Costaglio · Post by **Mike Costaglio** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:48 am

I'm not sure why we are considering screwing around with the points for any position unless we are trying to enhance a position that is too weak or out of balance. The existing points format works well. Whether its -1 or -2, whether or not the interception is the receivers fault, the Ols fault or my fault for drafting the wrong QB the difference (most of the time) is like shooting an elephant in the ass with a sling shot. The only thing that we accomplish by increasing the QBs negative points is to make a bad QB worse. We do not need this change. I am all for a housekeeping change like suggestion #1 that tightens up procedures. I am still looking for the rule change that adds "foot long hot dogs" on draft day.

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:59 am

Originally posted by Mike Costaglio:
I'm not sure why we are considering screwing around with the points for any position unless we are trying to enhance a position that is too weak or out of balance. The existing points format works well. Whether its -1 or -2, whether or not the interception is the receivers fault, the Ols fault or my fault for drafting the wrong QB the difference (most of the time) is like shooting an elephant in the ass with a sling shot. The only thing that we accomplish by increasing the QBs negative points is to make a bad QB worse. We do not need this change. I am all for a housekeeping change like suggestion #1 that tightens up procedures. I am still looking for the rule change that adds "foot long hot dogs" on draft day. So if I guy throws 1 TD and 6 INTs in a single game, that should be a wash to you? You would be in the minority on that one.

Sound Advice · Post by **Sound Advice** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:07 am

I agree with Mike's post.

I do think someone should get credit if they return a kick-off or punt for a TD.
That wouldn't make a big change, but it would probably allow 1 or 2 more players to be usable, as free agent pick ups or bye weeks flex starters.
They risk a fumble, so there should be some reward.

Even if they split the 6 with the D/ST and get 3 each. But I think guys like Burleson, Jones-Drew, Dante Hall etc. deserve the full 6 if they return for a TD.

Mike Costaglio · Post by **Mike Costaglio** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:26 am

KJ my answer is yes. In your extreme example that QB probably spent most of the game on his ass and his yardage total would not have been worth more that a couple of points. Do you really want to create negative positions on the team(especially at the QB position). There are just too many varibles that contibute to an interception. Should we also penalize for dropped balls, missed tackles, etc. I do not think so. I want relish with my hot dog.

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:29 am

Originally posted by Mike Costaglio:
KJ my answer is yes. In your extreme example that QB probably spent most of the game on his ass and his yardage total would not have been worth more that a couple of points. Do you really want to create negative positions on the team(especially at the QB position). There are just too many varibles that contibute to an interception. Should we also penalize for dropped balls, missed tackles, etc. I do not think so. I want relish with my hot dog. More likely he's thrown for 300+ yds and ends up with decent pts anyway because his team is behind. If Greg changes the rule to -2 I will buy you a damn hot dog in Vegas!

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:39 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Mike Costaglio:
I'm not sure why we are considering screwing around with the points for any position unless we are trying to enhance a position that is too weak or out of balance. The existing points format works well. Whether its -1 or -2, whether or not the interception is the receivers fault, the Ols fault or my fault for drafting the wrong QB the difference (most of the time) is like shooting an elephant in the ass with a sling shot. The only thing that we accomplish by increasing the QBs negative points is to make a bad QB worse. We do not need this change. I am all for a housekeeping change like suggestion #1 that tightens up procedures. I am still looking for the rule change that adds "foot long hot dogs" on draft day. So if I guy throws 1 TD and 6 INTs in a single game, that should be a wash to you? You would be in the minority on that one. [/QUOTE]KJ, since you've already agreed that the inmates should not run the asylum, why is this majority/minority thing even brought up?

Just havin' some more fun.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:40 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Mike Costaglio:
KJ my answer is yes. In your extreme example that QB probably spent most of the game on his ass and his yardage total would not have been worth more that a couple of points. Do you really want to create negative positions on the team(especially at the QB position). There are just too many varibles that contibute to an interception. Should we also penalize for dropped balls, missed tackles, etc. I do not think so. I want relish with my hot dog. More likely he's thrown for 300+ yds and ends up with decent pts anyway because his team is behind. If Greg changes the rule to -2 I will buy you a damn hot dog in Vegas!

[/QUOTE]Greg buys ice cold, American and foreign beers and that's it!! I don't do hot dogs in Las Vegas, although I can understand the fetish for one!!

And I definitely won't change this rule to -2 just so you can buy him a hot dog.

Again, I'm not big on reducing the value of the QB position. And I'd rather do the sliding scale just to hear Nag nag some more rather than move it to -2.

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:07 am

Originally posted by JohnZ:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Mike Costaglio:
I'm not sure why we are considering screwing around with the points for any position unless we are trying to enhance a position that is too weak or out of balance. The existing points format works well. Whether its -1 or -2, whether or not the interception is the receivers fault, the Ols fault or my fault for drafting the wrong QB the difference (most of the time) is like shooting an elephant in the ass with a sling shot. The only thing that we accomplish by increasing the QBs negative points is to make a bad QB worse. We do not need this change. I am all for a housekeeping change like suggestion #1 that tightens up procedures. I am still looking for the rule change that adds "foot long hot dogs" on draft day. So if I guy throws 1 TD and 6 INTs in a single game, that should be a wash to you? You would be in the minority on that one. [/QUOTE]KJ, since you've already agreed that the inmates should not run the asylum, why is this majority/minority thing even brought up?

Just havin' some more fun. [/QUOTE]John, I'm just giving an accurate summary of opinions, 19 to 3. I also provided data that I hope will alleviate concern that -2 could downgrade the QB position too much (the downgrade is 4%, or less than 1 pt per game).

... just putting the data out there, not suggesting that anyone other than GA should be making the decision.