Is it time for PPR across the board?

renman · Post by **renman** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:15 am

I honestly think when people are spending big money there is a small sense of panic and often the cries of unfairness kick in. Especially immediately after a draft that has been much anticipated and some get frustrated seeing other teams they perceive got the better of it.

Sometimes those cries are good as that is what provided the push to create 3RR and kds. A few epic seasons from LT, LJ, Alexander lead to people feeling there was too big of an advantage drafting from the top of the board. Some felt 3rr was a knee jerk reaction to some epic seasons by RB's with the logic that there are many years that doesn't happen (I was one of them with that logic).

Now, I think some are at the top and get frustrated watching the stud WR's disappear before their 2nd and 3rd picks. When you add in KDS this creates all kinds of options for differing strategies. If we went back a few years on this forum and read the debates on this issue you would find some predicted accurately this would happen. Some felt that KDS/3rr would result in massively different draft strategies and more players getting a prefered draft position and thus starting the season with a good taste in their mouths. These are good things when trying to get people to pony up big money.

I like things the way they are though I would be open to considering a full point per reception for RB's. I have to think about it more but am open to the debate. My concern now is that the people on the back side of the draft gobble up WR's and the people at the top then in a panic take 2nd tier WR's and let many of the stronger RB's get back to the teams who started with stud WR's.

None the less the current system works for me. Maybe the full pt per reception can be discussed.

Gordon Gekko II · Post by **Gordon Gekko II** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:20 am

1ppr for rb for me.

jimchristie · Post by **jimchristie** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:23 am

Why would you make a rule that would put 1 position that much more dominant over another? Pretty stupid...

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:27 am

Originally posted by jimchristie:
Why would you make a rule that would put 1 position that much more dominant over another? Pretty stupid... That's why I'm advocating 1.5PPR for TEs!

Plus, I think some would argue that with more RBBCs, the rules as they are will make the WR the dominant position for years to come.

Gordon Gekko II · Post by **Gordon Gekko II** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:28 am

Originally posted by jimchristie:
Why would you make a rule that would put 1 position that much more dominant over another? Pretty stupid... you mean kickers and defenses are being drafted in the first couple rounds. i musta missed that!

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:30 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko II:
quote:Originally posted by jimchristie:
Why would you make a rule that would put 1 position that much more dominant over another? Pretty stupid... you mean kickers and defenses are being drafted in the first couple rounds. i musta missed that! [/QUOTE]Thank you.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:35 am

Originally posted by Chi_Town_FEW:
Just my 2 cents here. I love the way the NFFC runs it all. The KDS, 3RR, .5 ppr for running backs, 14 teams. It really balances it out. last year, 24 from the front 7 and 24 from the back. Was it #9 not represented, Bradys ADP. It works. Really well. As for a full point for running backs my take is keep the .5. Someone like Bush who catches 70 balls and cant break an arm tackle or ever score inside the 5 running the ball should not get the equivalent of 11+ TDs for his catches, 6 seems fair to me. What is great here is you cant be strong everywhere. You pick your poison. As the dynamic of offenses in the NFL change so do the way FF drafts unfold. WRs this year, next year with the rise of the 80 catch TE someone can go Witten and Olsen(just an example) on the corner and start the TE at flex and he would be as solid if not more than anyones #4 WR. Thought of that talking to a buddy on 294 on the way to the draft. Giving one idea away for next year. What I like about the NFFC if you can stay ahead of the curve in trends before the magazines start telling everyone go WR, ect, you can pick your spot and go for it. Thanks. Wow, great post. We need you posting more!!

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:39 am

The funny thing about these arguments is I think it stems from the fact that some towards the end of the draft were able to gobble up the stud WR's and still get viable backs later in the draft while those at the front (like me) were shut out from those stud receivers.

However, I ended up with AP & MBIII in the Classic and MJD & Westbrook in the Primetime. Where else does that happen?

Sure, I'll have to hope for increased production and/or breakout years from receivers like Anthony Gonzales, Desean Jackson, Eddie Royal, Chris Henry, etc.
However, how is that different from the WR heavy teams having to hope for breakouts or increased production or health from RB's like Bush, McFadden, Knowshon, Beanie, Ray Rice, Addai, Lynch, Leon Washington, Pierre Thomas, Thomas Jones, Benson, Felix Jones, Julius Jones, James Davis, etc. Look at these backs....who here is a sure thing or has any real track record?

To me its pick your poison.....we'll see which works out.

Glenn

[ September 07, 2009, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Glenneration X ]

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:45 am

Greg, I know you typically reply to those posts that support your thinking and that fine as you are the boss. I think it continues to limit the discussion however. They say the best managers are the ones who surround themselves with people who have differing opinions and aren't afraid to voice them.

While an argument that it would inflate a Reggie Bush, for instance, it would also inflate a RB3 in a RBBC to someone you can actually use.

If the trend towards specialized RBs continues, we are going to see drafts where it's 70% WRs or more.

0.5PPR devalues most RBs in a RBBC as it makes:

the "starter" a guy who runs between the 20s devalued

the short yardage/GL back who only gets a few carries a game and is devalued

or the 3rd down/pass catching back who gets 3 carries for 12 yards and 5 catches for 45 yards and ends up with 9.2 points and is also devalued.

If you MUST keep 0.5PPR then I feel like you have to add a RB position and go 11 starters. This is the only way to add value to the position.

signed...the voice of unreason

Raiders · Post by **Raiders** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:46 am

Originally posted by Glenneration X:
The funny thing about these arguments is I think it stems from the fact that some towards the end of the draft were able to gobble up the stud WR's and still get viable backs later in the draft while those at the front (like me) were shut out from those stud receivers.

However, I ended up with AP & MBIII in the Classic and MJD & Westbrook in the Primetime. Where else does that happen?

Sure, I'll have to hope for increased production and/or breakout years from receivers like Anthony Gonzales, Desean Jackson, Eddie Royal, Chris Henry, etc.
However, how is that different from the WR heavy teams having to hope for breakouts or increased production or health from RB's like Bush, McFadden, Knowshon, Beanie, Ray Rice, Addai, Lynch, Leon Washington, Pierre Thomas, Thomas Jones, Benson, Felix Jones, Julius Jones, James Davis, etc. Look at these backs....who here is a sure thing or has any real track record?

To me its pick your poison.....we'll see which works out.

Glenn The funny thing about these arguments is I think it stems from the fact that some towards the end of the draft were able to gobble up the stud WR's and still get viable backs later in the draft while those at the front (like me) were shut out from those stud receivers.

This is why KDS is the skill part.

John