Should We Include Individual ST Points In 2010?

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:33 am

By separating the D from the ST, you now make both relevant as long as you give each meaningful scoring.

Why not make the Browns ST an important draft-day or FAAB decision as an example.

Same for Defenses. What if there was a negative impact for giving up 35 points or 325 yards?

As it is now, it is too unimportant as some Defenses are either strengthened or weakened by their return game.

Make each component of the game meaningful and it add to the contest IMO.

Otherwise, we could probably drop the D/ST or add the Kicker to the the D/ST and make it a catchall D/ST/K position.

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:38 am

Originally posted by Raiders:
quote:Originally posted by BillyWaz:
quote:Originally posted by Raiders:
I wish this contest would lead more than follow, but I understand why it doesn't. I don't agree, but I understand' [/QUOTE]

My point was. Russ wants to see the rule changed is now upset that Greg may(May) not do it, but almost everyone so far wants to keep it has it is.
[/QUOTE]John, I'm not upset. I'm just stating the truth. The herd is resistent to change. Make sense?

Raiders · Post by **Raiders** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:40 am

Originally posted by Just Russ:
quote:Originally posted by Raiders:
quote:Originally posted by BillyWaz:
quote:Originally posted by Raiders:
I wish this contest would lead more than follow, but I understand why it doesn't. I don't agree, but I understand' [/QUOTE]

My point was. Russ wants to see the rule changed is now upset that Greg may(May) not do it, but almost everyone so far wants to keep it has it is.
[/QUOTE]John, I'm not upset. I'm just stating the truth. The herd is resistent to change. Make sense? [/QUOTE]I said I agree with you, the herd is resistent to change, for now. Make sense?

[ October 22, 2009, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Raiders ]

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:44 am

We need Obama to make change happen around here.

No harm intended Greg, just poking fun.

bobsgym13 · Post by **bobsgym13** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:03 am

Originally posted by Just Russ:
quote:Originally posted by Raiders:
quote:Originally posted by BillyWaz:
quote:Originally posted by Raiders:
I wish this contest would lead more than follow, but I understand why it doesn't. I don't agree, but I understand' [/QUOTE]

My point was. Russ wants to see the rule changed is now upset that Greg may(May) not do it, but almost everyone so far wants to keep it has it is.
[/QUOTE]John, I'm not upset. I'm just stating the truth. The herd is resistent to change. Make sense? [/QUOTE]What herd? I see about 8 distinct opinions. Which one is that of the herd?

Calling others 'the herd' is a superiority play that does not apply here. Please list this thread's herd and what their collective opinion is.

Bob

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:11 am

Originally posted by Just Russ:
We need Obama to make change happen around here.

No harm intended Greg, just poking fun. I get every one of your pokes Russ. I'm not sure why you think we're just a contest that follows others when we have constantly added innovations to the NFFC. And I was the one who started this discussion, so it's obvious I'm looking for feedback on this subject.

I just don't see an overwhelming consensus on this one. In fact, it's probably been one of our most civil discussions we've ever had on the NFFC boards about a rules change. It's kind of refreshing.

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:17 am

Bob, whenever a proposed rule change hits these boards, there are usually 20 (or less)distinct opinions expressed. Yet, Greg usually references these opinions or others that are not seen by us as to the masses (herd).

He usually goes off of the majority opinion on the board. He has even checked back in here when a total of 8 (eight) distinct voices have been heard.

I'm not trying to be superior or whatever you're trying to allege. I'm saying that based on my (and others) observations on here that the herd rules when it comes to most changes.

It makes sense to go that way. I don't have to agree with it, as I think the game could be enhanced otherwise.

RedRyder · Post by **RedRyder** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:20 am

Okay, so since the landscape of Special Teams is changing, ie. WR returning more kick-offs and punts, thus prompting this discussion...when are we have a full point per reception for RBs discussion????

Surely that landscape has changed as well.

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:24 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by Just Russ:
We need Obama to make change happen around here.

No harm intended Greg, just poking fun. I get every one of your pokes Russ. I'm not sure why you think we're just a contest that follows others when we have constantly added innovations to the NFFC. And I was the one who started this discussion, so it's obvious I'm looking for feedback on this subject.

I just don't see an overwhelming consensus on this one. In fact, it's probably been one of our most civil discussions we've ever had on the NFFC boards about a rules change. It's kind of refreshing.

[/QUOTE]Greg, maybe I've just missed the changes that have happened over the last 3+ years I've been here. I don't follow as closely as I should. I just read the rules each year. I'm getting old so my memory fails me quite often.

I do appreciate you asking for feedback, that in itself is refreshing!

I'm having a hard time remembering a consensus on any proposed rule change in my time with the NFFC. Has there really been some? That would be unusual for this group of misfits, including myself.

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:26 am

Originally posted by RedRyder:
Okay, so since the landscape of Special Teams is changing, ie. WR returning more kick-offs and punts, thus prompting this discussion...when are we have a full point per reception for RBs discussion????

Surely that landscape has changed as well. Jules, I'll save you the aggrivation here. I heard loud and clear that 1PPR for RBs was NOT going to happen. This discussion took place less than a month ago.