Thoughts On Point Reception Leagues

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:10 am

I think one of the best additions to fantasy football was adding 1 point per reception as it helped to at least bring the value of wide receivers to a more even level with running backs. It also added to fantasy owners watching every play more intently. Whoever invented this concept -- and honestly, I'm not even sure when it became in vogue -- did us all a favor.

That being said, I've never been a fan of giving one point per reception to running backs and as you folks know we give one-half point per reception for RBs and one point per reception for WRs and TEs. That's not a knock on any other contest -- certainly not on the WCOFF -- because I'm in several leagues now that give one point per reception for running backs. I just don't like it on a personal level.

Last week would justify my feelings. LaDainian Tomlinson had eight receptions for 34 yards against Pittsburgh as he definitely had trouble running between the tackles. In essence, those 34 yards were worth TWO rushing touchdowns in point per reception leagues as he totaled 11.4 points. He still scored 7.4 points on those plays in our system, but it is a difference of four points. Reggie Bush was equally overvalued last week as he caught 11 passes for 63 yards after gaining just 23 yards rushing. In point per reception leagues, Bush was solid as he got 17.3 points for those swing passes, worth almost THREE rushing TDs. In NFFC scoring, he still scored 11.8 points on those plays, but that's 5.5 points less.

Again, I'm not knocking the scoring system as it's great to reward backs for those screen passes and swing passes, but dumpoff passes that go for three yards just seem overvalued to me at 1.3 points. Maybe it's just me.

Any thoughts on the whole point per reception concept? Any thoughts on NFFC not awarding backs more per reception? Are we doing a disservice to those players?

It's time to discuss some real fantasy football topics on the NFFC boards and I'll start with this one. Let me know what you think.

BillyWaz · Post by **BillyWaz** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:20 am

I think the way the current reception rule in the NFFC is GREAT!

Keep up the great work!

Not sure if this comment should have it's own thread, but I would be ALL FOR expanding the rosters to 20 next season. I think the "6 teams off bye weeks" are really going to show that this could be a necessary addition next year.

It isn't going to hurt me that bad, but I noticed some teams, and they are REALLY going to struggle fielding a complete lineup without letting quality players go.

You wouldn't necessarily have to draft 20 (could still stay at 18- although 20 is more "bang for your buck"). If you stayed at an 18 round draft, the first 2 pickups would be free (meaning you wouldn't have to drop anyone- would still have to bid of course!)

This is just a thought that I wanted to get out there.

Thanks!!!

BillyWaz

[ October 12, 2006, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: BillyWaz ]

Ted's Cracked Head · Post by **Ted's Cracked Head** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:05 am

...if it ain't broke, no need to fix it ISHO...K.I.S.S....SNAKE
It isn't broken but the contest needs to have the flexibility to adjust to changes in the NFL.

If the bye week structure in the NFL changes, they must evaluate the contest to see if the "NFL changes" are going to have a negative impact on the game. If they do, then it may be necessary to tweak the rules to maintain the competitive balance for the contest.

renman · Post by **renman** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:15 am

Greg,

I play in several events and agree with you completely. Giving a half a point per reception is ideal. It still gives a little extra value to RB's who are involved in the passing game, but does not overly reward them for the repeated dump off passes in garbage time or in circumstances where the RB's struggle to run the ball.

Your two examples are perfect regarding Tomlinson and Bush. In other leagues they would have outscored players like Julius Jones or Steven Jackson who both rushed for about a 100 yards. Giving only a half point per reception makes the value of a running back be more related to his RUSHING. I like that.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:29 am

Keep the system the way it is with regards to points-per-reception.

Billy brings up an excellent point regarding the bye weeks. Teams that have nicked up players (Larry Fitzgerald, DeAngelo Williams, etc) are in a really tight spot this weekend -- perhaps expanding the rosters to 20 from Week 6 through Week 16 (to include the playoffs where you can't pick anyone up) is the way to go.

Ted's Cracked Head · Post by **Ted's Cracked Head** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:39 am

I do like the "1 per reception rule" and believe that for RB's it might be more reflective of their current roles in most offenses to be rewarded one point per catch instead of the NFFC 1/2 point.

Why do I say that? Because I have always believed that FF should apply a scoring system that accurately reflects a players real contributions on the field. I think that the roles of RBs as a whole has changed and that it is now more important in more offenses than not to use their stud rb in a receiving role.

Example: This week you say that Reggie Bush was over valued this week. I say look at one drive that netted Reggie 3 catches for 20 yards in last weeks game. You tell me if his contribution was worth 3.5 points or 5?

New Orleans Saints at 05:49
1-10-NO12 (5:49) D.Brees pass short left to J.Horn to NO 21 for 9 yards (B.Kelly).
2-1-NO21 (5:30) D.McAllister right guard to NO 28 for 7 yards (R.Barber, K.Pearson).
1-10-NO28 (4:49) D.Brees pass short left to R.Bush pushed ob at NO 35 for 7 yards (K.Pearson).
2-3-NO35 (4:21) D.Brees pass short right to M.Colston to NO 43 for 8 yards (K.Pearson).
1-10-NO43 (3:44) D.Brees pass incomplete short left to J.Horn.
2-10-NO43 (3:36) D.Brees pass short middle to J.Horn to TB 44 for 13 yards (B.Kelly).
1-10-TB44 (2:56) D.Brees pass short right to R.Bush ran ob at TB 39 for 5 yards (B.Kelly).
2-5-TB39 (2:23) D.McAllister right guard to TB 32 for 7 yards (B.Ruud, R.Barber).
1-10-TB32 (2:00) D.Brees pass short middle to R.Bush pushed ob at TB 24 for 8 yards (B.Kelly).
2-2-TB24 (1:52) D.McAllister up the middle for 24 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

All 3 receptions came on 1st down and led to great situations for the offense on 2nd and 3rd downs. I say those 3 receptions and his "usage" on that drive (and overall gameplan) greased the wheel for Deuces 24 yard scamper. The impact Bush makes on the field right now is greater than the sum of the yards he is gaining.

In a nutshell, a reception is a reception to me and every reception no matter how flashy or long has likely made an impact for that team and should be counted equally. Just my 2c.

[ October 12, 2006, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Ted's Cracked Head ]

renman · Post by **renman** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:39 am

I am not saying I am against the expanding of rosters. But to play devils advocate, wouldn't that lessen the importance of bidding on free agents given the pool to bid on would be even more sparce than it is now?

I am without fitzgerald and Roy Williams this week with sudden injuries and have Jones drew, Rhodes and several others out on bye. This week did not seem like a problem until those two stud WR's went down so expanding would obviously help me.

But that would drain the already barren free agent pool further wouldn't it?

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:49 am

What I like about point/reception is that it opens up the potential for RBs who bring diversity to the table and in theory it increases the value for WRs and TEs (though I don't believe that's often the case). What I don't like about point/reception is the point Greg made about how it will overvalue RBs who catch a lot of passes but don't generate much in the way of yardage. While Bush's 11 receptions last week were impressive, getting 60 yards or so out of them isn't all that terrific (and I'm a Bush owner and I like him). And yet in a PPR league his day is nearly the same as a 3-TD output and I don't think that's the way it should be at all.

I also don't believe PPR increases the value of WRs or TEs very significantly. I compete in a number of those leagues and it's still a RB-heavy draft. So most WRs still tend to be drafted after the top RBs are gone - even the RBs who aren't known as receiving threats.

What I like about our scoring system - and yes I'm obviously biased - is that it opens the door for something other than RBs dominating the first two rounds of drafts because RBs are not getting the same point total as WRs in terms of receptions. Now that's been slow to develop though I think a lot of that is due to fantasy owners still having that "RB-RB" mindset and being slow to adjust away from that.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:52 am

When I first announced the NFFC rules in 2004, I did allocate 20-man rosters. But most people agreed that at 14 teams and 280 players being selected on Draft Day, that the free agent pool would be too thin to be meaningful. I scaled back to 18 players per team before Draft Day and we've been there ever since.

Now I agree that these two six-team bye weeks make it mighty tough in the NFFC and we said that the teams who planned for this and can make the right moves via free agency will fare well. But I definitely agree, some tough cuts obviously will have to be made this week and next. Going to 19 players per team certainly wouldn't be fair on Draft Day, so 18 or 20 are our options. Right now 18 still seems as the best solution to keep FAAB relevent.

Good discussion, which is what I wanted to see again on the NFFC boards!

Nice example above Rob, but remember that Deuce also got two first downs with 7-yard runs that were worth two less points just because he took the handoff from Brees instead of catching a short swing pass from Brees. Those are two BIG points in fantasy football and he was just as important to his team as Bush was.