I don't understand why people like PPR

[Jeremy 0]

PPR just makes a handfull of RB waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too valuable. It skews everything.

 

Agreed. RBs like Dillon and Rudi Johnson have their values go into the tank despite being very good players. Guys like Tomlinson and Westbrook have their values skyrocket. A RB who catches a lot of passes is already more valuable because of the additional receiving yards/TDs they get. Add catches to that and a good player like Rudi becomes almost worthless.

 

A couple other points:

 

Catches for 3 yards or less are fairly common, especially with RBs. I played in a PPR league and the first time I saw my player do that, I'm thinking: "You've got to be kidding. I get a point for that?" That happened to be WR. I once saw a player have 9 catches for 19 yards. That's 10 points. The same as 3 catches for 70 yards.

 

4 catches for 55 yards is not more valuable IMO than 1 catch for 55 yards. Sure it moves the chains (possibly), but that one 55 yards catch rips the heart of a defense and fires up (or quiets) the crowd and players. Big plays aren't important?

 

But if you want to make an arguement that it adds strategy and gives WRs more value, I guess I can understand that. Giving points for carries is lamest rule possible, though. What's more impressive, a guy with 30 carries for 100 yards or a player who carries it 15 times for 100 yards? If anything you should subtract a fraction of a point per carry.

 

I also don't think more scoring is necessarily more exciting. You could add scoring for every catagory possible. I'd prefer if the players actually had to accomplish something meaningful to get points. Giving 10 yards worth of production for the simple act of catching the ball just doesn't seem right to me. A could see maybe one point for every 3 catches, or something like that if you really felt the need to give WRs a bit more value. But watching a player catch a swing pass or WR screen and get tackled immediately and get rewarded = to 10 yards for that didn't make things more exciting for me. Just the opposite in fact. I found it irritating.

 

Just my opinions. It seems like PPR leagues are in vogue right now. Like the author of the thread says, I just don't get it.

[tecklc2112 7]

Agreed. RBs like Dillon and Rudi Johnson have their values go into the tank despite being very good players. Guys like Tomlinson and Westbrook have their values skyrocket. A RB who catches a lot of passes is already more valuable because of the additional receiving yards/TDs they get. Add catches to that and a good player like Rudi becomes almost worthless.

 

A couple other points:

 

Catches for 3 yards or less are fairly common, especially with RBs. I played in a PPR league and the first time I saw my player do that, I'm thinking: "You've got to be kidding. I get a point for that?" That happened to be WR. I once saw a player have 9 catches for 19 yards. That's 10 points. The same as 3 catches for 70 yards.

 

4 catches for 55 yards is not more valuable IMO than 1 catch for 55 yards. Sure it moves the chains (possibly), but that one 55 yards catch rips the heart of a defense and fires up (or quiets) the crowd and players. Big plays aren't important?

 

But if you want to make an arguement that it adds strategy and gives WRs more value, I guess I can understand that. Giving points for carries is lamest rule possible, though. What's more impressive, a guy with 30 carries for 100 yards or a player who carries it 15 times for 100 yards? If anything you should subtract a fraction of a point per carry.

 

I also don't think more scoring is necessarily more exciting. You could add scoring for every catagory possible. I'd prefer if the players actually had to accomplish something meaningful to get points. Giving 10 yards worth of production for the simple act of catching the ball just doesn't seem right to me. A could see maybe one point for every 3 catches, or something like that if you really felt the need to give WRs a bit more value. But watching a player catch a swing pass or WR screen and get tackled immediately and get rewarded = to 10 yards for that didn't make things more exciting for me. Just the opposite in fact. I found it irritating.

 

Just my opinions. It seems like PPR leagues are in vogue right now. Like the author of the thread says, I just don't get it.

 

I'd love to see solid proof of that 9 for 19 yds. actually happening...Flukes will always happen every now and then anyway...that is no reason to reject a scoring system...99 times out of 100 that will not happen and you anti-ppr guys know it. I have heard nothing but WEAK arguments against ppr and none of you seem to disagree that it adds a lot of strategy to the game.

[Walter34 3]

PPR just makes a handfull of RB waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too valuable. It skews everything.

 

There is a couple of RBs that get boosted high. LT, Barber and that is about it. Others like Westbrook and Dom Davis get bumped up to the 1st round level, but not above the crowd.

 

Without it, a draft often has 16+ RBs taken in the 1st 20 picks. With it, we see 4 or 5 WRs break into the upper picks.

 

More strategy in the early draft is the primary reason for PPR.

[chadavan 0]

There is a couple of RBs that get boosted high. LT, Barber and that is about it. Others like Westbrook and Dom Davis get bumped up to the 1st round level, but not above the crowd.

 

Without it, a draft often has 16+ RBs taken in the 1st 20 picks. With it, we see 4 or 5 WRs break into the upper picks.

 

More strategy in the early draft is the primary reason for PPR.

 

Thank YOU!!!

 

 

 

That is the exact reason why we incorporated PPR. Otherwise the first 18 picks were RB. We needed to do something in order get some interest in drafting a WR early.

 

 

Here is what we did. Now this is over 12+ years of changes and testing different combinations. We like the final product the best, but to each his own. 12 team league:

 

Starting lineup:

1 QB/2 RB/3 WR/1 TE/1 K/1 DEF

 

Scoring

All TD's 6 points

 

RBs:

.5 points per reception

.1 point for every 1 yard rushing

.125 points for every 1 yard receiving

 

WRs/TE:

1 points per reception

.1 point for every 1 yard rushing

.125 points for every 1 yard receiving

 

 

Every year more and more WR's pop into the first round. Last Year, I had the best 2 RB's in the league and didn't win. My receivers sucked...

[Jeremy 0]

I'd love to see solid proof of that 9 for 19 yds. actually happening...Flukes will always happen every now and then anyway...that is no reason to reject a scoring system...99 times out of 100 that will not happen and you anti-ppr guys know it. I have heard nothing but WEAK arguments against ppr and none of you seem to disagree that it adds a lot of strategy to the game.

 

There are plenty of good arguments against it. It's not a good measurement of performance. 4 rec for 80 yards gets a team no more production that 8 rec for 80 yards. Essentially you're rewarding a player twice. One for catching the ball and again for the yards that catch results in. If a player catches a pass for 2 yards, he gets .2 points in a non-rpr league. That's all he deserves, IMO. In a YPR league, he gets the same as a RB or QB who runs for 12 yards. Now, who accomplished more there?

 

Does it add some strategy to the game? Perhaps, but any rule that adds complexity to the scoring would do that. I could make a rule saying a player gets 1 pt per reception of 0-9 yards, 1 point per reception of 20+ yards, and 3 points per reception of 10-19 yards. The rules makes no sense whatsoever, but it would add strategy to the draft. It would give a lot of value to players who catch a lot of intermediate range passes. Does the fact that it adds strategy to the draft make give it enough merit to include such a stupid rule? The aforementioned .25 points for each carry is another example. Adds more strategy, but makes no sense.

 

I guess for me it's a matter of asthetics. I like that a good player gets awarded for what he does. Lamont Jordon and Rudi Johnson essential have the same statistics. Jordan has 40 more total yards than Rudi last year. Rudi has one more TD. Almost dead equals in non PPR leagues. Add PPRs and Jordon gets 3 fantasy points more per week. I just don't see Jordon as having been the better back last year. These days a lot of team use short passes as part of the running game. The results they get in terms of yardage gets rewarded. I won't also give them points for just catching the ball because it happens to have come in the form of a forward pass instead of a lateral.

 

It's the same thing I don't like about starting 2 QBs. Sure it adds more strategy to the draft, but how does a team start 2 QBs? I like at least a little realism, I guess.

 

I don't know. To each their own. I do think there are very good arguments AGAINST PPR leagues. They're not all "weak" as you say.

[shadow2k 0]

I play in a PPR league. We also give 1pt for 5 completions, and 1 point for 10 carries. It's simply a way to even out the positions a bit, so that the league isn't entirely reliant upon who's got the best two RB's...a position that's already highly valued due to supply/demand. It also adds depth to a position in need of it, because now third down backs can be utilized if your in dire need. With all the RBBC's, bye weeks, and injuries to that position, you have to have a way to make more of them valuable, instead of just a handful that will blow away any other player in the league.

 

If RB's are clear and away always going to be the top scorers as well, then it makes drafting an exercise in who can get the best two RB's. And I won't even get into the trading imbalances.

 

The best RB's still score the most. But Palmer and S.Smith came out to be the #5 and 6 scorers in our league, respectively. It makes it more interesting.

 

With those rules, the highest scoring RB and WR (leaving out LT due to his passing TD's):

 

Shaun Alexander - 308

Steve Smith - 251

 

That's only a 57pt difference.

 

Without those rules, it's 108pt difference.

 

 

In a league where that type of difference can mean a playoff spot, it definitely makes things more interesting. Especially if you weren't lucky enough to get one of the top draft spots.

[VaTerp 0]

I play in a PPR league. We also give 1pt for 5 completions, and 1 point for 10 carries. It's simply a way to even out the positions a bit, so that the league isn't entirely reliant upon who's got the best two RB's...a position that's already highly valued due to supply/demand. It also adds depth to a position in need of it, because now third down backs can be utilized if your in dire need. With all the RBBC's, bye weeks, and injuries to that position, you have to have a way to make more of them valuable, instead of just a handful that will blow away any other player in the league.

 

If RB's are clear and away always going to be the top scorers as well, then it makes drafting an exercise in who can get the best two RB's. And I won't even get into the trading imbalances.

 

The best RB's still score the most. But Palmer and S.Smith came out to be the #5 and 6 scorers in our league, respectively. It makes it more interesting.

 

With those rules, the highest scoring RB and WR (leaving out LT due to his passing TD's):

 

Shaun Alexander - 308

Steve Smith - 251

 

That's only a 57pt difference.

 

Without those rules:

 

Shaun Alexander - 256

Steve Smith - 148

 

108pt difference.

 

I actually like those rules a lot.

 

And I agree 100%. The biggest advantage of PPR is that it adds depth to the overall player pool which makes a leauge more competitive.

 

If its a snake draft and no PPR then the person who is fortunate enough (often through draft position or luck) to get the best 2 Rb's early can easily run away with the league as there will be a limited supply of players who can compete with them on a weekly basis.

 

PPR gives more players value, makes the league more interesting, and provides more options for the prepared drafter who doesnt get a good draft position.

[Walter34 3]

There are plenty of good arguments against it. It's not a good measurement of performance. 4 rec for 80 yards gets a team no more production that 8 rec for 80 yards. Essentially you're rewarding a player twice. One for catching the ball and again for the yards that catch results in. If a player catches a pass for 2 yards, he gets .2 points in a non-rpr league. That's all he deserves, IMO. In a YPR league, he gets the same as a RB or QB who runs for 12 yards. Now, who accomplished more there?

 

Does it add some strategy to the game? Perhaps, but any rule that adds complexity to the scoring would do that. I could make a rule saying a player gets 1 pt per reception of 0-9 yards, 1 point per reception of 20+ yards, and 3 points per reception of 10-19 yards. The rules makes no sense whatsoever, but it would add strategy to the draft. It would give a lot of value to players who catch a lot of intermediate range passes. Does the fact that it adds strategy to the draft make give it enough merit to include such a stupid rule? The aforementioned .25 points for each carry is another example. Adds more strategy, but makes no sense.

 

I guess for me it's a matter of asthetics. I like that a good player gets awarded for what he does. Lamont Jordon and Rudi Johnson essential have the same statistics. Jordan has 40 more total yards than Rudi last year. Rudi has one more TD. Almost dead equals in non PPR leagues. Add PPRs and Jordon gets 3 fantasy points more per week. I just don't see Jordon as having been the better back last year. These days a lot of team use short passes as part of the running game. The results they get in terms of yardage gets rewarded. I won't also give them points for just catching the ball because it happens to have come in the form of a forward pass instead of a lateral.

 

It's the same thing I don't like about starting 2 QBs. Sure it adds more strategy to the draft, but how does a team start 2 QBs? I like at least a little realism, I guess.

 

I don't know. To each their own. I do think there are very good arguments AGAINST PPR leagues. They're not all "weak" as you say.

 

You and others seem stuck on wanting to make FF as close to football as possible. The truth is that it is not. It is stat based and offensive. If it were realistic, we would add defensive scoring that would be 50% of your teams ability to win. Instead, its a 10th round afterthought. You want realism in a game that has little relevance to the real game. You cant defend against your opponent (unless you implement the controvercial cancel theory of course ). Your O players do not play his D. How realistic is that? Why are there no lineman involved?

 

FF is a game based on football stats, it is not football itself.

 

The PPR is a means of leveling the stats by position in order to add positional decisions at the top of the draft. You dont have to come up with some bogus example like you describe above. That is a weak argument.

[IN$TANT REPAY 11]

Seems to be almost a standard scoring rule now. But I don't see a good reason to give a point per reception.

 

 

it increases the value of lower ranked WRs and tight ends. and it also increases the value of 3rd down or receiving backs....

 

 

 

and it decreases the value of all of the falcons receivers....

 

 

 

 

whoops did i say that?

 

 

[J-Money 4]

too many posts to read and focus on before i head out to work, but I don't get the ppr thing either. From what I gather, people like it cuz it makes some late round people worth more. that's bogus as far as i'm concerned. So it makes rb's a little less valuable and that's good cuz you can't pick the diamonds in the rough? When there's a big run on rb's do you get mad cuz you're stuck with someone like droughns or foster as your 2nd rb and want to focus other people on wr's so you can claim to have the best rb combo? That's what makes FF so interesting, trying to get the upper hand through some shark moves. No need to go and make certain scoring rules so everyone is equal...

[DC 10]

Yay, I caught a pass for no yards! Gimme a point!

 

 

Bingo!

 

Dump off pass to Curtis Martin in the flats for a 2 yard loss. Ring up a point!

 

Total B.S.

 

PPR Sucks big time.

 

Agreed. RBs like Dillon and Rudi Johnson have their values go into the tank despite being very good players. Guys like Tomlinson and Westbrook have their values skyrocket. A RB who catches a lot of passes is already more valuable because of the additional receiving yards/TDs they get. Add catches to that and a good player like Rudi becomes almost worthless.

 

A couple other points:

 

Catches for 3 yards or less are fairly common, especially with RBs. I played in a PPR league and the first time I saw my player do that, I'm thinking: "You've got to be kidding. I get a point for that?" That happened to be WR. I once saw a player have 9 catches for 19 yards. That's 10 points. The same as 3 catches for 70 yards.

 

4 catches for 55 yards is not more valuable IMO than 1 catch for 55 yards. Sure it moves the chains (possibly), but that one 55 yards catch rips the heart of a defense and fires up (or quiets) the crowd and players. Big plays aren't important?

 

But if you want to make an arguement that it adds strategy and gives WRs more value, I guess I can understand that. Giving points for carries is lamest rule possible, though. What's more impressive, a guy with 30 carries for 100 yards or a player who carries it 15 times for 100 yards? If anything you should subtract a fraction of a point per carry.

 

I also don't think more scoring is necessarily more exciting. You could add scoring for every catagory possible. I'd prefer if the players actually had to accomplish something meaningful to get points. Giving 10 yards worth of production for the simple act of catching the ball just doesn't seem right to me. A could see maybe one point for every 3 catches, or something like that if you really felt the need to give WRs a bit more value. But watching a player catch a swing pass or WR screen and get tackled immediately and get rewarded = to 10 yards for that didn't make things more exciting for me. Just the opposite in fact. I found it irritating.

 

Just my opinions. It seems like PPR leagues are in vogue right now. Like the author of the thread says, I just don't get it.

 

Well stated.

 

it increases the value of lower ranked WRs and tight ends. and it also increases the value of 3rd down or receiving backs....

 

and it decreases the value of all of the falcons receivers....

whoops did i say that?

 

 

Correction: It is Michael Vick that decreases the value of all Atlanta WR's.

[bigmurd 0]

1. It levels out the position values where WRs are on a par with RBs and QBs. This adds more strategy to drafting. Also increases TEs value a bit.

 

 

[uubeee 0]

PPR adds strategy. Standard scoring is really only about what RB's do you get and that gets really boring after a while. I'll go a step further and say pretty much all standard leagues are boring.

 

When a game is based on 1 positions success, you have a 1 system game. I prefer opening up the game to allow all positions a chance to win the game. LB, RB, WR, whatever.

 

Real football is not won and lost on what RB you have. If it were, SD and KC would be battling it out every year for a SB shot. Yet, they don't. Real football is won at many positions.

 

You can draft a standard league with absolutely no skill needed. However, when you level to playing field, you have to do your homework.

 

standard leagues....

IDP, Auction, PPR, Dynasty, Other variables......

[tecklc2112 7]

Bingo!

 

Dump off pass to Curtis Martin in the flats for a 2 yard loss. Ring up a point!

 

Total B.S.

 

PPR Sucks big time.

 

Like I have already said...the next dump off pass to Martin in your example probably goes for 15 yds. and it all evens out...This seems to be the recurring WEAK argument against ppr. Bottom line is that standard scoring is boring and drafting is way too easy and predictable in standard scoring. I have done both and ppr is by far the better and more interesting way to go!

[LunaTick 30]

I don't like it either.

 

Reason for existence

1. award the possession or work horse wr

2. as a means to bring value to the TE position

3. some think it may equal out value between wr and rb. However, unless rb exempted, will artificially increase the value of the rb.

 

 

Reason I don't like it, is I don't think it achieves the goals.

Like, unless you exempt a position, that position value becomes skewed.

 

Now some stated it makes a lesser wr worth more. I don't know if that is true. Lesser wr typically don't get a high number of attempts tossed their way. Actually some teams #3 wr is their speed or sprint guy. The guy that usually get a couple a game, with one being a longer completion. So, in a round about way, this would might correct that value. Provided you limit the positions that can benefit from it.

 

However, I tend to like for all players to have similar scoring.

All players scoring the same for rushing, receiving, passing.

So to exempt the rb from a ppr, would disrupt this.

 

Why same for all scoring.

There are wr's and some tes from season to season that will have a fews runs during the season.

There are a few rb/wr that may toss the ball.

There are qb;s that run and occassionall receive a pass.

They should all get the value for their contribution, no matter their position.

 

Also, if you are going to do ppr. then r has to be receivng and rushing.

You should also have ppc, for completions, to make it even once more.

 

What does it matter, unless you are a very bored out of work accountant.

[gatorbait7391 0]

Im with you man, I think its dumb.

[uubeee 0]

Like, unless you exempt a position, that position value becomes skewed.

 

So Luna, let me pose this question to you....What is skewed? If you ask me, the RB position is the one that is really skewed. Because the RB position isn't the most important position on the real field, yet because they touch the ball more, the have automatically skewed the scoring. I think you could make a case that lots of WR's are more important on the real field than most of the RB's in the NFL. But because they touch the ball maybe 5-6 times a game rather than a RB who touches it 25, they are somehow less important to the FF world?

 

Is Steve Smith less important to Carolina than Deshaun Foster? Or Chad Johnson less important to Cincy than Rudi?

 

But because the standard FF game is skewed to the RB, those guys are valued less.

 

Just a different way of looking at the same game.

[Shakespeare 0]

It's been said before. PPT works to create more balance *if* you give QB's 6pts/TD and 1pt/20 yards. It still maintains a points distance between positions without skewing the scoring system to be RB heavy. Which, it seems, a lot of leagues are. Here's what happens:

 

Stud QB's will score slightly more than Stud RB's who will score slightly more than Stud WR's followed by Stud TE's. This (interestingly enough) seems to follow how these positions are valued and compensated in the NFL.

 

Sure, every now and again you'll get a player who gets a few garbage time catches for points. But overall, the QB points will balance this out. We've used this system for years and it just works.

[LunaTick 30]

There is a couple of RBs that get boosted high. LT, Barber and that is about it. Others like Westbrook and Dom Davis get bumped up to the 1st round level, but not above the crowd.

 

Without it, a draft often has 16+ RBs taken in the 1st 20 picks. With it, we see 4 or 5 WRs break into the upper picks.

 

More strategy in the early draft is the primary reason for PPR.

 

So you have pointed out the problem with PPR being applied to the rb position.

 

Two guys with similar overall yards (pass/rec), but cause one of them catches out of the backfield and the other doesn't. The one should be worth more?

 

The league always has a rb that is more of a wr out of the backfield. I will go old school and bring up Amp Lee.

 

Also the Faulks, Edges, LT, LJ's of the league will have just as much if not more receptoins per game than their wr counter parts.

 

I just cannot see how these defects result in a leveling of the scoring between wr and rb.

 

Just accept there will be an imbalance and play through.

[LunaTick 30]

So Luna, let me pose this question to you....What is skewed? If you ask me, the RB position is the one that is really skewed. Because the RB position isn't the most important position on the real field, yet because they touch the ball more, the have automatically skewed the scoring. I think you could make a case that lots of WR's are more important on the real field than most of the RB's in the NFL. But because they touch the ball maybe 5-6 times a game rather than a RB who touches it 25, they are somehow less important to the FF world?

 

Is Steve Smith less important to Carolina than Deshaun Foster? Or Chad Johnson less important to Cincy than Rudi?

 

But because the standard FF game is skewed to the RB, those guys are valued less.

 

Just a different way of looking at the same game.

 

Problem is that PPR, or Point Per Reception place more importance on receiving running backs than it either increase the value of te's or narrows the value gap between wr's and rb's.

 

1999, M Faulk has like 87 receptions, I believe he led his team that season with receptions. with an average of 5 receptoins per game.

 

He is not an anomoly.

Many teams rely on a rb as an outlet option for their qb. Look at Ahman Green. He has average about 50 receptions per season. This is roughly 3 per game.

 

PPR emphasize the receiving rb more than anything.

 

And unless you have PPR, rushing, and PPC, completions. the scoring system would be incomplete and faulty.

 

btw, I am assuming the PPR value is 1 pt and is applied as the same value all positions.

 

also to thin the skew.

PPRush/PPCompletoin would be like .2pt per while PPRec is 1 pt.

But I don't know if the PPrec should be reduced in value for rb or not

this would force some decimal scoring.

 

and if PPR/PPR/PPC doesn't skew the scoring. Then what is the point?

[uubeee 0]

Problem is that PPR, or Point Per Reception place more importance on receiving running backs than it either increase the value of te's or narrows the value gap between wr's and rb's.

 

1999, M Faulk has like 87 receptions, I believe he led his team that season with receptions. with an average of 5 receptoins per game.

 

He is not an anomoly.

Many teams rely on a rb as an outlet option for their qb. Look at Ahman Green. He has average about 50 receptions per season. This is roughly 3 per game.

 

PPR emphasize the receiving rb more than anything.

 

And unless you have PPR, rushing, and PPC, completions. the scoring system would be incomplete and faulty.

 

btw, I am assuming the PPR value is 1 pt and is applied as the same value all positions.

 

also to thin the skew.

PPRush/PPCompletoin would be like .2pt per while PPRec is 1 pt.

But I don't know if the PPrec should be reduced in value for rb or not

this would force some decimal scoring.

 

and if PPR/PPR/PPC doesn't skew the scoring. Then what is the point?

 

I've seen PPR just for WR and TE's, but I don't think it's the norm. Do you agree that something (if not PPR) should be done to even out the pts per postion?

[shadow2k 0]

Problem is that PPR, or Point Per Reception place more importance on receiving running backs than it either increase the value of te's or narrows the value gap between wr's and rb's.

 

1999, M Faulk has like 87 receptions, I believe he led his team that season with receptions. with an average of 5 receptoins per game.

 

He is not an anomoly.

Many teams rely on a rb as an outlet option for their qb. Look at Ahman Green. He has average about 50 receptions per season. This is roughly 3 per game.

 

PPR emphasize the receiving rb more than anything.

 

And unless you have PPR, rushing, and PPC, completions. the scoring system would be incomplete and faulty.

 

btw, I am assuming the PPR value is 1 pt and is applied as the same value all positions.

 

also to thin the skew.

PPRush/PPCompletoin would be like .2pt per while PPRec is 1 pt.

But I don't know if the PPrec should be reduced in value for rb or not

this would force some decimal scoring.

 

and if PPR/PPR/PPC doesn't skew the scoring. Then what is the point?

 

PPR really doesn't mess with RB values all that much. There are a few, like LaMont Jordan and Brian Westbrook who would be ranked far lower than without those extra points. But the top scoring RB's in a PPR league are, for the most part, still not catching all that many passes.

 

I believe LaMont caught the most passes at 70 last year. So yes, it does add some value to RB's. But of course, you leave out the fact that it's still 33 catches behind the top two receivers, and 32 behind the next two. Twenty WR's caught more than 70 passes. So yes, it adds value to pass recieving backs...but it adds MORE value to WR's, which is what evens it out. And again, my league does give fractional points for carries and completions, so it does balance out the other factors as well.

 

LT is kind of a strange one, because in our league, he got an extra 30pts for those three pass TD's. He was the top scoring RB. But SA was right behind him, only catching 15 passes. LJ was 3rd, and only caught 33. Portis and Rudi Johnson were also in the top ten RB's, catching 30 and 23, respectively.

 

Overall, the best RB's...are still the best RB's...and top overall in scoring. My league does give .1 per carry and .2 per completion (basically), which evens it out even more.

 

The top few players were still RB's. But after the first four RB's, a lot of QB's and WR's start rearing their ugly heads into the point leaders. You still won't see them drafted in the first round, because the RB position lacks depth...because almost every league starts at least two. Hardly any league starts two QBs...and I've never seen a league start six WR's, or two TE's/K's/DEF's. That's the equivalent of starting two RB's, and why their values, above and beyond the fact that they score WAY more in standard leagues...is so high. Quite simply, when one position is deemed far more valuable than all the rest, it screws the balance of the draft AND trading strategies.

[LunaTick 30]

I've seen PPR just for WR and TE's, but I don't think it's the norm. Do you agree that something (if not PPR) should be done to even out the pts per postion?

 

 

No.

 

TE value maybe. I have wanted to adjust it a time or two in a league.

 

But why flatten the value of a position?

 

Why only one position or position type

[uubeee 0]

No.

 

TE value maybe. I have wanted to adjust it a time or two in a league.

 

But why flatten the value of a position?

 

Why only one position or position type

See, that's where we disagree. I think FF is skewed to make the RB more important to the team when it really isn't the most important position on the field. I am in a league with full rosters IDP where a guy like Jonthan Vilma is as important as a guy like Julius Jones. At first it sounded strange, but it turns out to be far superior to anything I've played before. More talent, more strategy, more involvement, better owners.

 

agree to disagree

[Walter34 3]

agree to disagree

 

This is what I find funny about this thread. There is valid points to support the ppr, yet the anti crowd seems to be so self righteous in their indignation. It's dumb, stoopid, flawed, not like real football etc. get over it. Valid arguments have been presented. If you dont agree with them, move on in your non PPr world.

 

Again, FF is based on football stats, it is not real football.

 

[uubeee 0]

This is what I find funny about this thread. There is valid points to support the ppr, yet the anti crowd seems to be so self righteous in their indignation. It's dumb, stoopid, flawed, not like real football etc. get over it. Valid arguments have been presented. If you dont agree with them, move on in your non PPr world.

 

Again, FF is based on football stats, it is not real football.

 

 

Im am on the lookout for a Auction, Full IDP, Dynasty, with super owners. Someday I will find it.

[Jeremy 0]

This is what I find funny about this thread. There is valid points to support the ppr, yet the anti crowd seems to be so self righteous in their indignation. It's dumb, stoopid, flawed, not like real football etc. get over it. Valid arguments have been presented. If you dont agree with them, move on in your non PPr world.

 

Again, FF is based on football stats, it is not real football.

 

 

There are reasons not to support it, too. But I forgot. All those arguements are "weak". There's just as much arrogance on the other side. I actually get the impression that some of those who play in ppr leagues think they are somehow more advanced as players because of the so called additional strategy involved. As if playing in a regular league is somehow too easy for them or something.

 

But people should absolutely do what's fun for them. I've played both and prefer the non ppr league and I've stated my reasons why. Nothing more. Not trying to put anybody down.

[Walter34 3]

Found this great study from someone at FBG. It's long, but interesting:

 

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/c/jccuneo/Equilibration.pdf

 

The conclusion:

 

The resultant optimized scoring systems should result in drafts that are more

unpredictable due to the equality of the three main positions. Owners will likely be more

apt to reach for a player they like and not feel straight jacketed into picking a certain

position due to the scarcity of that position. Player and team evaluation will become

more important than making sure scarce positions are filled in. More variety in drafting

strategies will become viable and should lead to more entertaining drafts. Overall, an

optimized scoring system will result in a more enjoyable experience for the fantasy

football owner.