Discussion of efactor Rule changes

[coachnorm 0]

efactors rule change proposals.

 

OK, I'll start.................

 

1) Point per reception-My feeling is that in a 16 team league, it gives more and different type players value, which will allow for the league to be more competative. Also, I think it's goes along with the spirit of fantasy football. More scoring, more fun................

 

2) Make passing TDs 6 points as well. We only start one QB and he should make a bigger impact when he has a big game. Also allows for different draft and keeper strategies..................

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) I like the point per reception idea overall wr and te's could use the boost in value. For running backs it would make a very significant change in rb's value within the league. I like the idea that rb's get credit for receptions as a whole but a whole point per reception maybe a bit much. I would much rather see rb's get a 1/2 point personally and might make make my own rule change proposal to that effect later. But at this point I will say what the hell and go with efactors more scoring is funner philosophy and use both my support votes on his proposals. So all of you try not to come up with anything real stupid after I make this comitment.

 

2) Making Passing td's worth 6 points is a great idea in my mind. Qb's are the most important O position in real life and our fantasy scoring should reflect this. I could rattle on endlessly on this subject but I will keep my remarks brief for now.

Shovel proposed a modest bump ( showing restraint as a Manning owner) for passing td's to 5 points and seemed to have support for the notion of passing td's being worth more in that thread. Giant's Rule actually proposed bumping it to six and then doubleing the penalty points. That just seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul, increasing points and taking them away again in a different way.

In his league we have QB's double discounted with them getting less points for a td (4) when every other position gets 6 AND having penalty points for mistakes too. So I am going to support efactors proposal to bump QB td's to 6 points while leaving the penalty points discount the same. One form of discount for qb's is enough and more scoring is funner.

 

 

Efactor, Efactor...Go, Go, GO

 

[Miller_Time_21 0]

These are both good suggestions, but both would be what I would definatly consider "critical" as they substantially effect the competitive make-up of the league. I have no problem voting on them as good points are being made, but this was drafted and has been played all along as a no pt per reception league, therefore, drafting, trades and keeper decisions have been made based on this not being a pt per rec. To change now, would dramatically alter many platers values and hence the 75% (or 12) needed to change. These are good examples of what I consider critical. If you have any questions let me know.

[krispykleen 0]

I think these are both noble ideas, but it's difficult to implement a change to a pt/reception format in the middle of a keeper league. I'd have to give some more thought as to how I'd vote for this one. I do enjoy the twist it puts on how valuable a player really is, and I play in two redraft leagues that score this way. Jury is still out for me.

 

The second idea (6 pts for QB TD) is something I can't get behind at this point. Having Trent Green as a likely keeper means it's an advantage for me, but honestly I don't see the equity when top flight QB's throw for 25-30+ (or in Manning's case, infinity) TD's in a season. Top flight RB's and WR's may get half that total. I think the reason for having only a 4 point QB TD is to balance out these raw numbers. If we make TD's 6 for everyone, the scoring system which already favors QB's (check the top 18 FF scorers in our league this year - 11 are QB's), gets thrown out of whack even further.

 

I want to emphasize these are good suggestions, so maybe there's a compromise to be found as Norm alluded to.

[e-factor 13]

These are both good suggestions, but both would be what I would definatly consider "critical" as they substantially effect the competitive make-up of the league. I have no problem voting on them as good points are being made, but this was drafted and has been played all along as a no pt per reception league, therefore, drafting, trades and keeper decisions have been made based on this not being a pt per rec. To change now, would dramatically alter many platers values and hence the 75% (or 12) needed to change.

I can appreciate this and commented in another thread a few days ago that it is difficult to implement a severe rule change in a keeper league. However, if I remember correctly, didn't you make the change last year that eliminated a mandatory TE? To me, this affected teams more dramatically than a point per reception or changing QB scoring would. I'm sure that teams with Gonzo, Heap and Shockey weren't too happy to see such a big advantage lost. At least with these suggested changes, more players would become valuable from a keeper standpoint instead of less valuable. Plus, receptions are an important stat used to rate receivers, and should be rewarded as such.........................

 

Just a couple additional thoughts....................

[coachnorm 0]

Giant's rules comments on efactors rule changes:

 

I hate to be the odd man out, I really do, but...

 

1. The point-per-reception rule is a bit much. For the most part, our scoring system is pretty solid. As Miller mentioned, a rule like this will greatly skew the value of some players. Keep in mind: This is coming from someone who would GREATLY benefit from this rule having two of the best pass-catching backs in the league (Tiki and Dom Davis)!

 

In fantasy terms, a screen pass for a four-yard loss will be equal to a reception that a player takes 79 yards to the one-yard line. Wide receivers and running backs get a very fair number of points in our scoring system. The only way I could really see this work is if we make it a rule exclusively for wide receivers only since they don't get the amount of work running backs do (or for that matter, quarterbacks).

 

2. I'm all for 6-point passing touchdowns. I always have been. However, I have to make the unpopular suggestion that interceptions should be bumped up to -2 points. I think lost fumbles should still be only a one-point loss.

[coachnorm 0]

efactors responce to responces to his rule changes.

 

QUOTE (GiantsRule @ Jan 5 2005, 09:59 PM)

In fantasy terms, a screen pass for a four-yard loss will be equal to a reception that a player takes 79 yards to the one-yard line.

 

 

No, in fantasy terms, a screen pass for -4 yards would be worth 1 point, while a pass that goes 79 yards is worth 8. Big difference.....................

 

This arguement is always used against point per reception scoring, and I thinks it's lame. You could argue that it's unfair for a guy to get 6 points for a 1 yard TD run when the guy that just ran it 60 yards gets the same amount of points. Christ, look at Bettis fantasy lines early in the season. 3 rushes for 5 yards and 3 TDs. Fair for him to get 18 points? Hell no, but it was just part of the scoring system. Getting a point for a negative yard reception is the same oddball trait of point per reception scoring, but since it's the same for everyone (like the 1 yard TD run), what's the harm?

[coachnorm 0]

You bring up some good points GiantsRule. But let's not get too excited as with 16 teams we could end up with 32 potential rule changes and maybe vote on several different variations of say the points per reception rule.

Also, Miller_Time????, maybe the initial rule change proposer may be able to modify his original proposal to garner more support. Say, for instance, efactor changing his point per reception proposal to exclude rb's.

 

With 16 teams we can have up to 32 rule changes proposed. There are only 32 support votes( is this right?) so only 16 proposals can garner enough support to be voted on.

[coachnorm 0]

GiantsRule, Actually -2 for ints isn't too bad. I did like Shovels proposal to put QB td's up to 5 points with no penalty changes, it seems like a good comprimise but he actually hasn't proposed it.

 

As far as points per receptions go I like it as an scoring enhansement but efactors current proposal does bring about a big impact to our scoring system.

 

I myself thnk that points per reception may be better addressed by a simple bonus for # of receptions. A lot of wr's have 3 and 4 catch days. Maybe a bonus for a certain number of catches is a better way. 6-7 catches= 1 point, 8-9 catches =2 points, 10+ catches = 3 points? But this just enhanses the better wr's and te's which is already an advantage for owners who have them.

 

The problem with blanket changes like points per receptions it doesn't really change the landscape much as far as wr's/te's go. It does boost the number of points scored by all wr/te's but it doesn't really change change the relationship between wr's themselves in any way. The relative value of each wr stays the same, just the number of points is different (more). points per reception does change the landscape of rb's much more dramaticly as catchy type rb's get more points and non catchy backs get less. In our yardage type scoring the catchy type backs are already very valuable. Westy might only get 80 yards runnig but is also likely to have 70 rec. yards also. These type of catchy backs had a great impact this year as there were less backs with monster td numbers this year. In a lot of leagues I saw teams with Tiki, Westy, Dunn, and Pittman make alot of noise with this type of back.

[Battle-Tested 0]

These are both good suggestions, but both would be what I would definatly consider "critical" as they substantially effect the competitive make-up of the league.  I have no problem voting on them as good points are being made, but this was drafted and has been played all along as a no pt per reception league, therefore, drafting, trades and keeper decisions have been made based on this not being a pt per rec.  To change now, would dramatically alter many platers values and hence the 75% (or 12) needed to change.

I can appreciate this and commented in another thread a few days ago that it is difficult to implement a severe rule change in a keeper league. However, if I remember correctly, didn't you make the change last year that eliminated a mandatory TE? To me, this affected teams more dramatically than a point per reception or changing QB scoring would. I'm sure that teams with Gonzo, Heap and Shockey weren't too happy to see such a big advantage lost. At least with these suggested changes, more players would become valuable from a keeper standpoint instead of less valuable. Plus, receptions are an important stat used to rate receivers, and should be rewarded as such.........................

 

Just a couple additional thoughts....................

We never voted "out" Mandatory TE's..................

 

What we did is "not vote" the Mandator TE rule in because it was deemed critical and didn't get the 75% needed to pass.........

 

Just some FYI

[GiantsRule 0]

These are both good suggestions, but both would be what I would definatly consider "critical" as they substantially effect the competitive make-up of the league.  I have no problem voting on them as good points are being made, but this was drafted and has been played all along as a no pt per reception league, therefore, drafting, trades and keeper decisions have been made based on this not being a pt per rec.  To change now, would dramatically alter many platers values and hence the 75% (or 12) needed to change.

I can appreciate this and commented in another thread a few days ago that it is difficult to implement a severe rule change in a keeper league. However, if I remember correctly, didn't you make the change last year that eliminated a mandatory TE? To me, this affected teams more dramatically than a point per reception or changing QB scoring would. I'm sure that teams with Gonzo, Heap and Shockey weren't too happy to see such a big advantage lost. At least with these suggested changes, more players would become valuable from a keeper standpoint instead of less valuable. Plus, receptions are an important stat used to rate receivers, and should be rewarded as such.........................

 

Just a couple additional thoughts....................

We never voted "out" Mandatory TE's..................

 

What we did is "not vote" the Mandator TE rule in because it was deemed critical and didn't get the 75% needed to pass.........

 

Just some FYI

To add to this:

 

We mentioned last season when one of the departing owners proposed a mandatory tight end position that it is essentially impossible to have something like this in an established league. The guy who wanted this did already have BOTH Gonzo and Shockey on his roster so the pickings would be awfully slim for the owners to get a tight end (let alone a backup for byes).

 

I would be against the mandatory TE position, but if something like this was proposed, I think all tight ends would have to be sent back into the player pool to make it fair for everyone to have a shot at players from Antonio Gates to Ben Watson.

[Dragan187 7]

efactors rule change proposals.

 

OK, I'll start.................

 

1) Point per reception-My feeling is that in a 16 team league, it gives more and different type players value, which will allow for the league to be more competative. Also, I think it's goes along with the spirit of fantasy football. More scoring, more fun................

 

2) Make passing TDs 6 points as well. We only start one QB and he should make a bigger impact when he has a big game. Also allows for different draft and keeper strategies..................

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) I like the point per reception idea overall wr and te's could use the boost in value. For running backs it would make a very significant change in rb's value within the league. I like the idea that rb's get credit for receptions as a whole but a whole point per reception maybe a bit much. I would much rather see rb's get a 1/2 point personally and might make make my own rule change proposal to that effect later. But at this point I will say what the hell and go with efactors more scoring is funner philosophy and use both my support votes on his proposals. So all of you try not to come up with anything real stupid after I make this comitment.

 

2) Making Passing td's worth 6 points is a great idea in my mind. Qb's are the most important O position in real life and our fantasy scoring should reflect this. I could rattle on endlessly on this subject but I will keep my remarks brief for now.

Shovel proposed a modest bump ( showing restraint as a Manning owner) for passing td's to 5 points and seemed to have support for the notion of passing td's being worth more in that thread. Giant's Rule actually proposed bumping it to six and then doubleing the penalty points. That just seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul, increasing points and taking them away again in a different way.

In his league we have QB's double discounted with them getting less points for a td (4) when every other position gets 6 AND having penalty points for mistakes too. So I am going to support efactors proposal to bump QB td's to 6 points while leaving the penalty points discount the same. One form of discount for qb's is enough and more scoring is funner.

 

 

Efactor, Efactor...Go, Go, GO

 

1. I'm ok with that. If we're gonna do it though, don't have it for WRs only. Let the WR's, RB's, and even evryone's moms get a point for it.

 

2. Don't like it. A good year for a RB is 10 TDs. A good year for a QB is 30 TDs. This is way too lopsided (IMHO) and the rule should stay the same.

[e-factor 13]

We never voted "out" Mandatory TE's..................

 

What we did is "not vote" the Mandator TE rule in because it was deemed critical and didn't get the 75% needed to pass.........

 

Just some FYI

OOPS. Don't I feel stupid.......................

 

Guess I misinterpeted a post I read before the start of last season. My bad.............

[Miller_Time_21 0]

We never voted "out" Mandatory TE's..................

 

What we did is "not vote" the Mandator TE rule in because it was deemed critical and didn't get the 75% needed to pass.........

 

Just some FYI

OOPS. Don't I feel stupid.......................

 

Guess I misinterpeted a post I read before the start of last season. My bad.............

No prob, the TE vote last year is about the same to me as the pt per rec this year. Not bad ideas, but they both dramatically alter the competitive balance of the league, and therefore would take the 75% and I am not in favor of it at this point.

[Miller_Time_21 0]

If guys want to tweak nominations to a reasonable extent, that's fine with me. But let's keep it simple.

[Battle-Tested 0]

But let's keep it simple.

Hahahahahaha

 

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. You....actually keeping something simple.

[Miller_Time_21 0]

But let's keep it simple.

Hahahahahaha

 

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. You....actually keeping something simple.

you trying to be funny, now that IS funny!

[Battle-Tested 0]

My thoughts on the 6 pts for all TD's proposal.

 

Here is how it broke down from this years stats using the Top 25 performers:

 

14 of 25 (56%) were QB's (Rankings were 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24)

 

8 of 25 (32%) were RB's (Rankings were 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 23)

 

2 of 25 (8%) were D/ST's (Ranking were 20 & 25)

 

1 of 25 (4%) were WR's (Ranking was 19)

 

I completely do not understand how anyone (after reviewing those stats) would want to grant QB's even more points . They already monopolize the Top 25 with 56% .

 

Now, I am too lazy today to implement the extra points into the current players totals to actually see how it would affect the percentage but I am sure it would have to go up to around 65%.

 

Why?

 

I'd really like to be convinced to vote yes............

[Battle-Tested 0]

My thoughts on the 1 pt per reception proposal.

 

At first, I was against this unless it was proposed as "WR & TE only". I will tell you why . As everyone knows...this is a RB coveted league. Plain and simple. The majority of RB's out-score WR's hands down. So, in a league with 16 teams I thought it would be cool to try and equal out the playing flied by adding points per receptions to WR's & TE's only, which it would do.

 

But after researching the other proposal I discovered that the high scorers in this league are QB's . This means if we do give a point per reception to everyone.....

 

The RB's would catch up to the QB's a little and the WR's would catch up to the majority of RB's a little because not all RB's catch a lot of passes.

 

So after some thought, I actually might vote yes for this............

 

Let's see some more views on this topic.

[Cdub100 3,381]

I like the 1pt per rec. In a league with 16 teams players are hard enough to find as is. If given a vote I would vote yes to this.

 

As for QB's getting 6 pts per TD I think that's a little much. I don't know who were the high scorers players in this league, but I'm willing to guess most of the players in the top 50 are QB's

 

Yes on 1

 

No on 2

[ninerfan 0]

My thoughts on the 6 pts for all TD's proposal.

 

Here is how it broke down from this years stats using the Top 25 performers:

 

14 of 25 (56%) were QB's (Rankings were 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24)

 

8 of 25 (32%) were RB's (Rankings were 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 23)

 

2 of 25 (8%) were D/ST's (Ranking were 20 & 25)

 

1 of 25 (4%) were WR's (Ranking was 19)

 

I completely do not understand how anyone (after reviewing those stats) would want to grant QB's even more points . They already monopolize the Top 25 with 56% .

 

Now, I am too lazy today to implement the extra points into the current players totals to actually see how it would affect the percentage but I am sure it would have to go up to around 65%.

 

Why?

 

I'd really like to be convinced to vote yes............

Good work Battle. This is exactly the reason I'd like to see the 1 pt per reception rule be limited to WR's & TE's only. You would see more (WR's at least) of these players cracking the top 25.

 

In Shovel's thread I suggested 5 pts per passing TD as a compromise with -1 pts per interception (or no pts deducted for an int).

[bigtuna 0]

I vote against both of these measures.

 

QB's score enough as is.

 

WR's score enough as well, and you are basically punishing teams who have big homerun hitters like Jimmy Smith and Plax Burress and rewarding teams who have guys who run shorter routes like Hines Ward and Derrick Mason.

[e-factor 13]

WR's score enough as well, and you are basically punishing teams who have big homerun hitters like Jimmy Smith and Plax Burress and rewarding teams who have guys who run shorter routes like Hines Ward and Derrick Mason.

Actually, WRs don't score enough, which is part of the problem in a 16 team, keeper league................

 

If you don't have two good RBs, it's hard to compete on a week to week basis. If WRs were valued more, it would level the playing field somewhat, although the teams with top RBs would still have a big advantage. IMO, a league is more fun over the course of the year if more teams have a chance to win.....................

 

My opinion and I understand that it's difficult to make a major rule change in a keeper league when guys have formed teams based on the rules in place, so no big if the suggestion dies. This rule would certainly not benefit my team as it is now, but I just like the idea that it would give more teams a chance to compete.........

[Miller_Time_21 0]

Here are the top 15 scorers from this year in a league with 6 pts per passing TD (-2 INT) and everything else same as ours.

 

1. 1. Manning, Peyton IND QB 448

2. 2. Culpepper, Daunte MIN QB 438

3. 3. McNabb, Donovan PHI QB 340

4. 4. Favre, Brett GBP QB 305

5. 5. Green, Trent KCC QB 299

6. 6. Delhomme, Jake CAR QB 295

7. 7. Plummer, Jake DEN QB 295

8. 8. Alexander, Shaun SEA RB 291

9. 9. Brees, Drew SDC QB 285

10. 10. Barber, Tiki NYG RB 281

11. 11. Brooks, Aaron NOS QB 274

12. 12. Brady, Tom NEP QB 271

13. 13. Tomlinson, Ladainian SDC RB 271

14. 14. Martin, Curtis NYJ RB 267

15. 15. Bulger, Marc STL QB 265

 

11 QB's!! Top 7 QB's!! Really don't think we need that much weight on QB's guys.

[bigtuna 0]

WR's score enough as well, and you are basically punishing teams who have big homerun hitters like Jimmy Smith and Plax Burress and rewarding teams who have guys who run shorter routes like Hines Ward and Derrick Mason.

Actually, WRs don't score enough, which is part of the problem in a 16 team, keeper league................

 

If you don't have two good RBs, it's hard to compete on a week to week basis. If WRs were valued more, it would level the playing field somewhat, although the teams with top RBs would still have a big advantage. IMO, a league is more fun over the course of the year if more teams have a chance to win.....................

 

My opinion and I understand that it's difficult to make a major rule change in a keeper league when guys have formed teams based on the rules in place, so no big if the suggestion dies. This rule would certainly not benefit my team as it is now, but I just like the idea that it would give more teams a chance to compete.........

i agree with a reaonable way to balance the power in this league.

 

But i don't see a system that rewards a Bubba Frank 6 catch 41 yd and a td game more than a Randy Moss 80 yard bomb.

 

Randy Moss will be getting punished for being "too" efficient. A guy who can do in one play what it takes another to do in 5, should be rewarded not the other guy.

 

I appreciate the suggestion, and i hope we can come up with ways to balance the power.

 

One idea might be to trade keepers for first round picks. Maybe moving to 4 keepers instead of 5 would make the draft better for the lower end of the league and thus shifting the balance of power quicker.

[GiantsRule 0]

One idea might be to trade keepers for first round picks. Maybe moving to 4 keepers instead of 5 would make the draft better for the lower end of the league and thus shifting the balance of power quicker.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

[bigtuna 0]

One idea might be to trade keepers for first round picks.  Maybe moving to 4 keepers instead of 5 would make the draft better for the lower end of the league and thus shifting the balance of power quicker.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

well you make a suggestion to balance the haves from the have nots.

 

I was just trying to help that guys argument in a better way. I am happy staying where we are...but we are having a serious problem at the bottom of our league (stinkiness, and turnover)

[coachnorm 0]

Tuna remarks:

 

 

One idea might be to trade keepers for first round picks. Maybe moving to 4 keepers instead of 5 would make the draft better for the lower end of the league and thus shifting the balance of power quicker.

 

This is the sort of thinking that can make for more competition.

 

One thing that could help developmental teams more would be a reduction of roster spots allowed during the season. Even lowering roster population by two spots would add 32 players to the Free Agent coffer. Currently you are wary about dropping a 4th string runningback because someone actually has Rodney Peete to drop to get him.

[e-factor 13]

But i don't see a system that rewards a Bubba Frank 6 catch 41 yd and a td game more than a Randy Moss 80 yard bomb.

 

Randy Moss will be getting punished for being "too" efficient. A guy who can do in one play what it takes another to do in 5, should be rewarded not the other guy.

How far are you willing to go to skew the arguement in your favor?

 

Under the below scenario, (assuming that Moss's bomb was a TD), Moss had as many points in the one play as Franks had the entire game. I will also guess that Moss had more than one catch, so he probably had a much bigger game than Bubba, which makes him much more valuable..................

 

The point per reception doesn't change the values of receivers that much compared to other receivers. Guys like Mason become a bit more valuable, but overall, I don't think it matters that much. Guys like Moss, Owens and Harrison who score alot of TDs are still the more valued guys...................

 

Where the difference is, is narrowing the gap between WRs and RBs (narrowing being the optimum word as RBs will always be more valuable). We are only required to start one RB, but if you are forced to do this, you won't be able to compete over the course of the year. Since we are a 16 team league, there isn't enough RBs to go around, and if you want competition, the value of WRs needs to be increased. If you want half the teams eliminated before the season starts(eliminated from any real chance of winning it all), lets just maintain status quo. I have confidence that my team is moving in the right direction under the current scoring rules, but I just don't feel the league can ever be truly competative without some change to upgrade the value of WRs...........

[bigtuna 0]

Tuna remarks:

 

 

One idea might be to trade keepers for first round picks. Maybe moving to 4 keepers instead of 5 would make the draft better for the lower end of the league and thus shifting the balance of power quicker.

 

This is the sort of thinking that can make for more competition.

 

One thing that could help developmental teams more would be a reduction of roster spots allowed during the season. Even lowering roster population by two spots would add 32 players to the Free Agent coffer. Currently you are wary about dropping a 4th string runningback because someone actually has Rodney Peete to drop to get him.

That is a good one too.

 

summarize:

-Give teams a choice to keep a 5th keeper or get a 1st round pick....but not both.

-Simply wack keepers down to 4

-Wack rosters down to 16 in season.

 

 

The only worry i have about the 16 idea is come playoff time, with injuries, a good team could end up without a QB, RB ect, because you won't be allowed to carry the kind of depth neccessary (with a bench of 6 guys)

[ninerfan 0]

I'd like clarification on e-factor's nomination for 1pt per reception. Is this for all players or just for WR's (or WR's & TE's)?

[Battle-Tested 0]

He suggested all players but would be willing to compromise..............

 

Well, that's what I got out of it all.................I think.

[e-factor 13]

He suggested all players but would be willing to compromise..............

 

Well, that's what I got out of it all.................I think.

Actually, I think all players should get 1 point per reception as it would skew the scoring too much the other way if it were just WRs. Again, this would narrow the balance between RBs and WRs but still make RBs more valuable...............

 

I also suggested 6 points for passing TDs, but since have been convinced that 5 would be a good compromise......................

 

At least that's what I think I think...........................

[Cdub100 3,381]

My thoughts on the 6 pts for all TD's proposal.

 

Here is how it broke down from this years stats using the Top 25 performers:

 

14 of 25 (56%) were QB's (Rankings were 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24)

 

8 of 25 (32%) were RB's (Rankings were 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 23)

 

2 of 25 (8%) were D/ST's (Ranking were 20 & 25)

 

1 of 25 (4%) were WR's (Ranking was 19)

 

I completely do not understand how anyone (after reviewing those stats) would want to grant QB's even more points .  They already monopolize the Top 25 with 56% .

 

Now, I am too lazy today to implement the extra points into the current players totals to actually see how it would affect the percentage but I am sure it would have to go up to around 65%.

 

Why?

 

I'd really like to be convinced to vote yes............

Good work Battle. This is exactly the reason I'd like to see the 1 pt per reception rule be limited to WR's & TE's only. You would see more (WR's at least) of these players cracking the top 25.

 

In Shovel's thread I suggested 5 pts per passing TD as a compromise with -1 pts per interception (or no pts deducted for an int).

This is exactly what I was looking for. I wasn't even in your league last year and I knew just by looking at your scoring system that QB's were way over valued.

 

A big YES to 1pt per rec for all players

 

A big NO on 6pt per TD's pass