Rule change for next year: Rushing Yards and Receiving Yards are the same for EVERY FUCKING POSITION. I thought we already took care of that ridiculous distinction. A QB rushing for a yard is different than a RB rushing for a yard? Ridiculous. Come on. We should have changed that years ago.
If we change the rules for how many points the QB gets for rushing, the we have to change the rules for how many points the WR gets for rushing and how many points the RB gets for receiving. We might as well change all the rules and start over. I’m 100% against that. I like it the way it is. I vote no on the rule change.
I don’t really see the difficulty in updating the scoring system. A rushing yard is a rushing yard and a receiving yard is a receiving yard no matter who carries or catches the ball. Why devalue players because they don’t fill a tradition positional role? If a guy is listed as a running back and catches 5 passes for 40 yards and a touchdown is he any less valuable than a receiver who catches 5 passes for 40 yards a and a touchdown? No, he isn’t. The game itself has changed, the league should keep pace with it. I vote yes on a rules change.
If the NFL keeps this kickoff bullshit next year, then I intend to push, vehemently, for the WR TD return points, AGAiN.
If we even entertain the idea of giving Vick fair rushing points because “he deserves them,” then, I EXPECT the owner(s) who have issue with scoring to vote for points change next time.
Unfortunately, I have no sympathy.
Last year’s vote was directly along these lines.
BUT, “the league” voted “NO” to the WR getting TD points for a return KO or punt.
Talk about devaluing a player.
How is that accomplishment less significant than Vick running 10 yards, or 100.
NOW a receiver HAS to run 100+ yards to return a KO.
When you’re ready to change that rule, I’ll vote with you on yours.
Returning a Kick Return for a TD is completely different than simply saying a QB gets a point for 20 yards rushing like a RB instead of having to get 30 yards for 1 point. The Kick return changes the special teams/defense drafting strategy unless you let the TD double-count…which makes no sense. Has to be one or the other…and if you take return TDs from Defensive value to give to individual players, then you eliminate 30% of the value of drafting a Defense. Changes the draft/league significantly.
Simply saying “a yard is a yard” is a small change that just makes sense. In the NFL, a QB rushing is just as valuable as a RB rushing yard. It just is. I just makes sense.
And Casey, I would completely agree we need to make WR/RB receiving yards equal as well for the same reason. It’s not “start over”…it’s a small change that just makes sense. Because we need 20 yards to get a point, it still means we are a TD focused league, it just equalizes the points values.
To make a QB rushing yard worth less to “improve competetition” is intentionally handicapping the league. And the idea/fear is bogus. To say a QB’s rushing yards are equal in points value (and WR/RB rec yards) is going to make a guy “dominate the league” is being overly dramatic. It just won’t be that significant a change. We’re talking a 10 yard difference. For 100 yards rushing, the point difference is 2 total points…not even a field goal. With 99 yards, the difference is 1 point. In a league where 60-80 point totals can be the average for a team.
And, we already recognize it should be the same regardless of position by saying a TD is 6 pts regardless of who scores it. Many leagues say a QB TD is 4 pts. We don’t do that because we say a TD is a TD. We should be consistent and say a “yard is a yard”, too.
I’ll say this…IF we made a HUGE rule change and added a flex position to our starting lineup rules…THEN I would vote for a player getting some kind of points recognition value for a Return TD…because starting a dude just because he might get a return TD would seriously confuse starting lineup decisions…especially with this stupid new kickoff rule change in the NFL.
But I don’t think I would vote for a flex position to be added. Not sure, though. We would have to say 1 QB, 2 RBs, 2 WRs, 1 TE, 1 Kicker, 1 Defense, and 1 Flex Position per lineup.
FYI – Again…I still don’t like the “double count” issue if we allow a Kick returner to get value for a return TD. Because we are already giving full value for that TD to the defense.
Think of it this way: A QB passes for a TD to a WR and both get 100% value for that TD. Why is that not double-counting the TD? Because 2 positions that we specifically draft for are involved. 1 guy throws it. Other guy catches it.
In return TDs, it’s one dude running it back. That TD only gets represented once…in Defense special teams or for the WR. If you make it the WR, then it devalues the idea of picking a defense in the draft and changes strategy (Harvin incresaes Minnesota defense value in the draft because the defense/special teams gets value for the TD). Also, if the WR gets value for the TD, then starting lineups get all kinds of confusing. Often, guys who run TDs back on special teams tend to be lesser receivers. Do you start a dude that will get less than 30 yards receiving a game because he MIGHT get 1 of his 3 return TDs in the season on THAT game/day? That’s taking a huge risk and filling an important starting spot in the lineup (WR1 or WR2) with a guy slated to get 3 TD returns in a year and minimal production elsewhere.
It just confuses the lineup decisions too much. That’s why I think the only way we could do it is to add a flex position to the starting lineups we already turn in. But even then, the double-count issue is still there.
It’s a totally different issue than just saying a yard is a yard regardless of position.
Kevin,
Maybe you’re right.
I offer the ONLY possible solution:
Since “we” don’t think a WR is eligible for a returned TD, then, he only gets WR points. ONLY.
If the rules are going to be soooooo convoluted, then, a position player should only get points for
ANYTHING he does; but, only in that capacity.
If Percy Harvin is drafted as a WR, he only gets those points. Not for passing or rushing. Sorry Harvin.
If a QB rushes for a TD, he gets no points. Maybe he should have passed it!
GOD FORBID a player has more than one talent that his team can use And we CERTAINLY CAN’T reward him for being a multi-use player.
In summation, Kevin is right to a degree. Let’s make it REAL simple.
Points for the players position only.
I have to say, I find the argument of return TDs for the defense a bit muddled based what I have read here.
If…
“In return TDs, it’s one dude running it back. That TD only gets represented once..” and “Often, guys who run TDs back on special teams tend to be lesser receivers. Do you start a dude that will get less than 30 yards receiving a game because he MIGHT get 1 of his 3 return TDs in the season on THAT game/day?”
Then..
Let’s give the return points to the WR because it is after all “only one dude running it back” and it happens too infrequently to be a big deal. That way, the owner who gambles on a WR who runs one back in any particular week gets a few extra points. If that same owner gambles and loses on a lesser WR returning a kick for a TD, his opponent wins because the lesser receiver gets 30 yards and no receiving TDs. Additionally, I don’t know how you can devalue a defense considering that the best defenses are drafted in the 6th round at the earliest.
As far as confused line up decisions, making the right pick, even if it is a lucky pick is part of being a successful fantasy owner. Agonizing over a pick and having pay off is rewarding.
Kevin They are being rewarded for having that skill just not to the degree that a player paid to do the position does its an added bonus you get when drafting that player points that a Michael Vick owner or a Aaron Rodgers or even to a degree a Big Ben owner might get for drafting them that a Philip Rivers or Peyton Manning owner doesnt get. But the owner should always know that going into the draft because they know the format of their league. Many of you guys are in multiple leagues I would venture to guess that very few of them are scored the same unless you are just in like 10 different yahoo leagues. And Im sure you guys that are in multiple leagues all know your leagues scoring format and base the way you draft on that scoring format.
As for the defense and the kick off returns etc. When you draft a defense you are drafting a DEFENSE/Special Teams. That is why when a special teams unit fumbles, blocks a kick or SCORES A TD. you get the points on your Defense. If you give up the tds with the special teams for your defense then I guess if you want to be “consistent” to quote other owners then your defense should get no points from blocked field goals blocked punts muffed punts or short kicks that happen to get returned by the up man on a kick off return either. The scoring format is set up to get points from all aspects of the game if you do your homework and draft according to the scoring format. Just like all other leagues.
On the Kickoff Return/WR issue (which was SO not the issue…a bitter person just brought it up to screw with my issue):
1. Drew…dude…you just sound bitter ’cause the vote didn’t go your way last year (just like I’m bitter ’cause my QB don’ get no love ;). To be clear, I understand your reasoning…and it’s really not bad…I just don’t like the implications.
2. Krangs…I actually wouldn’t have a problem giving it to the wide receiver since he’s the only guy running it back and it could slightly expand the talent pool of receivers to choose from…except the concept of devaluing the Defense. Let me clarify…I don’t mean devaluing a specific defense (for example, Minnesota). I mean devaluing the concept of Defenses in the draft, starting lineups, etc. In other words, if you take away special teams from the Defensive scoring, then you make picking a Defense less interesting than picking a kicker in the draft. I hate that.
3. Also, agonizing over a pick for minimal payoff is YOUR idea of being a fantasy owner…not mine. I like to research picks, find unique picks/angles/gambles/etc., but further complicating the issue with WRs who might run back TDs is not my idea of a challenge to be a better owner…it’s just irritating. When the league started, we valued simplicity…which is one of the main reasons I support the “yard is a yard” proposal.
To be clear, it’s not the idea of giving the WRs the TDs that bothers me…I actually like that part of the idea. It’s the idea of taking it from the Defensive scoring side that I don’t like. Then you’re left with sacks, INTs, and fumbles. Bland.
On the “Yard is a Yard” Issue:
Look…all other arguments aside…just to focus on the new info from Cash…I hate the idea of saying things like “the skill they are paid for” (for example, a running back to run…a QB to pass…etc.). That severely limits the position to stats “you” think a position should be limited to. In football, when a QB runs for 30 yards, the ref doesn’t pick up the ball and march off a ten yard reduction, get on the microphone to the fans, and then say, “Quarterback rushing for unexpected yardage…33% reduction of gain…play results in a 20 yard gain.” I can assure you, the Eagles contract with Vick does NOT include a “skills you’re paid for” clause that identifies his rushing yards as an “unexpected but bearable side effect.”
The bottom line is this…football is about advancing the ball…occupying territory. No one gives a rat’s ass how that territory is gained or who is gaining it.
Cash, you keep saying to me, “Know the rules of the league.” First, I thought I did. I thought we fixed this because you and I discussed it a while back with the receiving yards inconsistency…so I didn’t review the rules because I didn’t question them. Second, you keep focusing on my pick of Vick as the justification for my proposal. It’s not. Is it the motivating factor? Right now? Hell yeah it is! Same as a rule change benefiting anyone else’s current situation would motivate them. But I mainly support the change because it’s the right thing to do (FYI – For next year. There is no way I would propose a change to this year once everyone drafted).
Think of it this way: When Kordel Stewart was in the league, how we classify him in the draft (QB or WR) would actually determine how his stats would be valued the entire year (except that he would change position throughout the season and even within the same game!). That’s ridiculous! We shouldn’t have to make a distinction. A player who passes for a yard should get credit for that yard as a passed yard…NOT as a “passed yard…oh…wait…lemme check your position….OH! you’re a WR…you only get 2/3′s credit for that.”
We never discussed it. We discussed changing the receiving yards back to every 15 yards for a receiving point. And everyone agreed that we should. Nobody else that has mobile qbs or rbs that catch passes has had an issue. You keep saying this is football, NO this is FANTASY FOOTBALL. Point values are set to give competition in different ways. PPR leagues individual defensive leagues etc. As for Kordell Stewart and even guys like your boy Colston in his first year if you do your fantasy research there is this little thing called duel eligibility. Meaning you could choose to start him as a WR or as QB or as RB and his points that week were based according to the leagues scoring format. Marques Colston was drafted as a TE and was given that duel eligibility for many leagues. We don’t give duel eligibility but if you want to start Vick as a running back Im sure the guys wont mind you losing the point every 50 yards he gets passing as a QB lol.
Not bitter Kevin. I just don’t get the how the argument is different.
If we are going to discuss extremes, then, we’ll discuss extremes.
Maybe we should just make the points for their position only.
It solves the D/ST argument and the QB that rushes for 1,000 yards. Like I said, maybe he should have thrown it.
Alright…uncle…not because I think I’m wrong or anyone on here has convinced me, but simply because I’m tired of arguing.
But I’ll leave you all with this…I think it just makes sense to simplify the scoring and make the receiving, rushing, passing, etc. yards for all positions equal…and I would like to have a civil conversation about it at the end of the season.
Also, I would like to have that conversation without the politicking that took place here that confused the issue. We should discuss the issue of “yard is a yard” without mixing in a discussion about kick returns. I’m not against revisiting the kick return issue…but “you vote this way and I’ll vote that way” should never enter into a discussion of what should and should not be done.
Let’s have the two discussions completely separate from each other and go from there. I understand the concepts may be linked in some of your minds…but the reality is that they are two different rule change proposals…not one. Even if the concept is similar, the rule changes suggested would have to be separate rule changes.
Let’s talk about one…clear our heads…and then talk about the other without considering how the vote went on the other. If a change is the right change to make…isn’t it just right? Regardless of what you feel was done wrong before?
I have a great idea, it’s a bit of a brain teaser so you might have to sit down for this one…let’s pretend that Kevin never drafted Michael Vick. It sounds tricky but hear me out, by doing that we eliminate this whole debacle. The whole rule change has never been debated in this leagues entire existence and no one has ever been confused by it so why start now, it’s not that hard to comprehend. The D/ST thing is old news, I’ve slept since then. It is okay to move on now guys, i promise.
FYI, Casey…Brannon said at one point that you were willing to learn to do the polldaddy.com polls so you could do those on the site. How ’bout you just learn the whole WordPress process and handle the site, too.
Wow…bunch o’ nancies wantin’ a ppr league outta a td based league…the rain outside due to all the whinin’? Hike up the skirts girls and deal…if not…bow out…shit…quitcher bitchin’ and man up…damn.
Ooh…got another idea….let’s have a live draft for the first 4 rounds..and then go to taco bell for the other 2 or 3 and then go home and write a letter to the commissioner and mail it to him for the remaining picks?? Quite possibly the gayest thing I’ve heard regarding fantasy football drafting..live for some and via web for the rest. Homosexual.
How about we all quit with all of the back and forth belly achin and go back to the game of fantasy football and talkin trash against each others teams like the board is designed for. Kevin voiced his opinion you all voiced yours back. No more piling on. Its done lets get back to the fun. For me that will be a win this week against you WARMONGERS
Its Kevin. ..he likes the abuse. It was trash talk..and that’s how it should be taken. ..his ideas still gay. Its time for the machine to have an early breakdown.
Speaking of TRASH TALK, is Spanish turning into a full on puffer?
Starting Tony Homo and his butt buddy Dez?
Spanish, pull it together, and out of your ASS.
Hey Drew reasons for not letting u change Ur backs… Tom Brady. Nuff said. I think he alone beat me. Don’t wanna hear any bitchin. My boys need to pick u
p the pace
Just wanted to talk trash on myself. I hate my team. They really suck. If I had the option of playing any person from my team again or joining in on “Two Girls One Cup”…….. I would be eating shit.
The mongers suck….they really really suck…the monnnngers suck they really really suuuuuck…sing it to the tune of the waterboy…its funny. Man, can’t buy a win. Well…there’s always next year…
Oh yea! This page is a lot better. Thanks!
Posted by Anonymous | August 16, 2011, 4:31 pmDanny
Posted by Danny | August 16, 2011, 4:32 pmalright BEE-OTCHES, let’s keep the punches below the belts and headbuts between the eyes. Let’s talk some trash!
Posted by Anonymous | September 3, 2011, 8:19 amDRAFT DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Marcus | September 4, 2011, 9:00 amPlease remember if you are going to talk trash at least put a name with the post so that someone can talk smack back
Posted by thejfflcommish | September 5, 2011, 10:16 pmI think Marcus’ pink shirt on draft day says it all…Marvels in a laugher this weekend. Tarheels goin’ down.
Posted by Kevin | September 6, 2011, 1:00 pmRule change for next year: Rushing Yards and Receiving Yards are the same for EVERY FUCKING POSITION. I thought we already took care of that ridiculous distinction. A QB rushing for a yard is different than a RB rushing for a yard? Ridiculous. Come on. We should have changed that years ago.
Posted by Kevin | September 11, 2011, 3:25 pmSame as returning a kick for TD……….hmmmmmmm?
Posted by Ninja | September 11, 2011, 3:28 pmRandal Cobb and Percy Harvin agree.
Posted by Dororthy Mantooth | September 11, 2011, 5:40 pmIf we change the rules for how many points the QB gets for rushing, the we have to change the rules for how many points the WR gets for rushing and how many points the RB gets for receiving. We might as well change all the rules and start over. I’m 100% against that. I like it the way it is. I vote no on the rule change.
Posted by Casey | September 11, 2011, 4:35 pmI don’t really see the difficulty in updating the scoring system. A rushing yard is a rushing yard and a receiving yard is a receiving yard no matter who carries or catches the ball. Why devalue players because they don’t fill a tradition positional role? If a guy is listed as a running back and catches 5 passes for 40 yards and a touchdown is he any less valuable than a receiver who catches 5 passes for 40 yards a and a touchdown? No, he isn’t. The game itself has changed, the league should keep pace with it. I vote yes on a rules change.
Posted by Krang | September 11, 2011, 5:39 pmIf the NFL keeps this kickoff bullshit next year, then I intend to push, vehemently, for the WR TD return points, AGAiN.
If we even entertain the idea of giving Vick fair rushing points because “he deserves them,” then, I EXPECT the owner(s) who have issue with scoring to vote for points change next time.
Unfortunately, I have no sympathy.
Last year’s vote was directly along these lines.
BUT, “the league” voted “NO” to the WR getting TD points for a return KO or punt.
Talk about devaluing a player.
How is that accomplishment less significant than Vick running 10 yards, or 100.
NOW a receiver HAS to run 100+ yards to return a KO.
When you’re ready to change that rule, I’ll vote with you on yours.
Posted by Ninja | September 11, 2011, 6:22 pmYea well my team really sucks this year……….. That is all……..
Posted by Danny | September 12, 2011, 7:58 amShould have got Cutler.
Posted by Danny | September 12, 2011, 7:59 amYou know you wanted him…………………
Posted by Ninja | September 12, 2011, 8:21 pmReturning a Kick Return for a TD is completely different than simply saying a QB gets a point for 20 yards rushing like a RB instead of having to get 30 yards for 1 point. The Kick return changes the special teams/defense drafting strategy unless you let the TD double-count…which makes no sense. Has to be one or the other…and if you take return TDs from Defensive value to give to individual players, then you eliminate 30% of the value of drafting a Defense. Changes the draft/league significantly.
Simply saying “a yard is a yard” is a small change that just makes sense. In the NFL, a QB rushing is just as valuable as a RB rushing yard. It just is. I just makes sense.
And Casey, I would completely agree we need to make WR/RB receiving yards equal as well for the same reason. It’s not “start over”…it’s a small change that just makes sense. Because we need 20 yards to get a point, it still means we are a TD focused league, it just equalizes the points values.
To make a QB rushing yard worth less to “improve competetition” is intentionally handicapping the league. And the idea/fear is bogus. To say a QB’s rushing yards are equal in points value (and WR/RB rec yards) is going to make a guy “dominate the league” is being overly dramatic. It just won’t be that significant a change. We’re talking a 10 yard difference. For 100 yards rushing, the point difference is 2 total points…not even a field goal. With 99 yards, the difference is 1 point. In a league where 60-80 point totals can be the average for a team.
And, we already recognize it should be the same regardless of position by saying a TD is 6 pts regardless of who scores it. Many leagues say a QB TD is 4 pts. We don’t do that because we say a TD is a TD. We should be consistent and say a “yard is a yard”, too.
It just makes sense, guys.
Posted by Kevin | September 12, 2011, 11:19 amI’ll say this…IF we made a HUGE rule change and added a flex position to our starting lineup rules…THEN I would vote for a player getting some kind of points recognition value for a Return TD…because starting a dude just because he might get a return TD would seriously confuse starting lineup decisions…especially with this stupid new kickoff rule change in the NFL.
But I don’t think I would vote for a flex position to be added. Not sure, though. We would have to say 1 QB, 2 RBs, 2 WRs, 1 TE, 1 Kicker, 1 Defense, and 1 Flex Position per lineup.
Posted by Kevin | September 12, 2011, 11:22 amFYI – Again…I still don’t like the “double count” issue if we allow a Kick returner to get value for a return TD. Because we are already giving full value for that TD to the defense.
Think of it this way: A QB passes for a TD to a WR and both get 100% value for that TD. Why is that not double-counting the TD? Because 2 positions that we specifically draft for are involved. 1 guy throws it. Other guy catches it.
In return TDs, it’s one dude running it back. That TD only gets represented once…in Defense special teams or for the WR. If you make it the WR, then it devalues the idea of picking a defense in the draft and changes strategy (Harvin incresaes Minnesota defense value in the draft because the defense/special teams gets value for the TD). Also, if the WR gets value for the TD, then starting lineups get all kinds of confusing. Often, guys who run TDs back on special teams tend to be lesser receivers. Do you start a dude that will get less than 30 yards receiving a game because he MIGHT get 1 of his 3 return TDs in the season on THAT game/day? That’s taking a huge risk and filling an important starting spot in the lineup (WR1 or WR2) with a guy slated to get 3 TD returns in a year and minimal production elsewhere.
It just confuses the lineup decisions too much. That’s why I think the only way we could do it is to add a flex position to the starting lineups we already turn in. But even then, the double-count issue is still there.
It’s a totally different issue than just saying a yard is a yard regardless of position.
Posted by Kevin | September 12, 2011, 11:32 amKevin,
Maybe you’re right.
I offer the ONLY possible solution:
Since “we” don’t think a WR is eligible for a returned TD, then, he only gets WR points. ONLY.
If the rules are going to be soooooo convoluted, then, a position player should only get points for
ANYTHING he does; but, only in that capacity.
If Percy Harvin is drafted as a WR, he only gets those points. Not for passing or rushing. Sorry Harvin.
If a QB rushes for a TD, he gets no points. Maybe he should have passed it!
GOD FORBID a player has more than one talent that his team can use And we CERTAINLY CAN’T reward him for being a multi-use player.
In summation, Kevin is right to a degree. Let’s make it REAL simple.
Points for the players position only.
Posted by Ninja | September 12, 2011, 8:28 pmDon’t need a flex.
My suggestion solves both issues.
If you want to punish excellent WRs, then punish the multi-use players totally.
Posted by Ninja | September 12, 2011, 8:30 pmI have to say, I find the argument of return TDs for the defense a bit muddled based what I have read here.
If…
“In return TDs, it’s one dude running it back. That TD only gets represented once..” and “Often, guys who run TDs back on special teams tend to be lesser receivers. Do you start a dude that will get less than 30 yards receiving a game because he MIGHT get 1 of his 3 return TDs in the season on THAT game/day?”
Then..
Let’s give the return points to the WR because it is after all “only one dude running it back” and it happens too infrequently to be a big deal. That way, the owner who gambles on a WR who runs one back in any particular week gets a few extra points. If that same owner gambles and loses on a lesser WR returning a kick for a TD, his opponent wins because the lesser receiver gets 30 yards and no receiving TDs. Additionally, I don’t know how you can devalue a defense considering that the best defenses are drafted in the 6th round at the earliest.
As far as confused line up decisions, making the right pick, even if it is a lucky pick is part of being a successful fantasy owner. Agonizing over a pick and having pay off is rewarding.
Posted by Krang | September 12, 2011, 8:42 pmKevin They are being rewarded for having that skill just not to the degree that a player paid to do the position does its an added bonus you get when drafting that player points that a Michael Vick owner or a Aaron Rodgers or even to a degree a Big Ben owner might get for drafting them that a Philip Rivers or Peyton Manning owner doesnt get. But the owner should always know that going into the draft because they know the format of their league. Many of you guys are in multiple leagues I would venture to guess that very few of them are scored the same unless you are just in like 10 different yahoo leagues. And Im sure you guys that are in multiple leagues all know your leagues scoring format and base the way you draft on that scoring format.
Posted by thejfflcommish | September 12, 2011, 10:46 pmAs for the defense and the kick off returns etc. When you draft a defense you are drafting a DEFENSE/Special Teams. That is why when a special teams unit fumbles, blocks a kick or SCORES A TD. you get the points on your Defense. If you give up the tds with the special teams for your defense then I guess if you want to be “consistent” to quote other owners then your defense should get no points from blocked field goals blocked punts muffed punts or short kicks that happen to get returned by the up man on a kick off return either. The scoring format is set up to get points from all aspects of the game if you do your homework and draft according to the scoring format. Just like all other leagues.
Posted by thejfflcommish | September 12, 2011, 11:07 pmOn the Kickoff Return/WR issue (which was SO not the issue…a bitter person just brought it up to screw with my issue):
1. Drew…dude…you just sound bitter ’cause the vote didn’t go your way last year (just like I’m bitter ’cause my QB don’ get no love ;). To be clear, I understand your reasoning…and it’s really not bad…I just don’t like the implications.
2. Krangs…I actually wouldn’t have a problem giving it to the wide receiver since he’s the only guy running it back and it could slightly expand the talent pool of receivers to choose from…except the concept of devaluing the Defense. Let me clarify…I don’t mean devaluing a specific defense (for example, Minnesota). I mean devaluing the concept of Defenses in the draft, starting lineups, etc. In other words, if you take away special teams from the Defensive scoring, then you make picking a Defense less interesting than picking a kicker in the draft. I hate that.
3. Also, agonizing over a pick for minimal payoff is YOUR idea of being a fantasy owner…not mine. I like to research picks, find unique picks/angles/gambles/etc., but further complicating the issue with WRs who might run back TDs is not my idea of a challenge to be a better owner…it’s just irritating. When the league started, we valued simplicity…which is one of the main reasons I support the “yard is a yard” proposal.
To be clear, it’s not the idea of giving the WRs the TDs that bothers me…I actually like that part of the idea. It’s the idea of taking it from the Defensive scoring side that I don’t like. Then you’re left with sacks, INTs, and fumbles. Bland.
On the “Yard is a Yard” Issue:
Look…all other arguments aside…just to focus on the new info from Cash…I hate the idea of saying things like “the skill they are paid for” (for example, a running back to run…a QB to pass…etc.). That severely limits the position to stats “you” think a position should be limited to. In football, when a QB runs for 30 yards, the ref doesn’t pick up the ball and march off a ten yard reduction, get on the microphone to the fans, and then say, “Quarterback rushing for unexpected yardage…33% reduction of gain…play results in a 20 yard gain.” I can assure you, the Eagles contract with Vick does NOT include a “skills you’re paid for” clause that identifies his rushing yards as an “unexpected but bearable side effect.”
The bottom line is this…football is about advancing the ball…occupying territory. No one gives a rat’s ass how that territory is gained or who is gaining it.
Cash, you keep saying to me, “Know the rules of the league.” First, I thought I did. I thought we fixed this because you and I discussed it a while back with the receiving yards inconsistency…so I didn’t review the rules because I didn’t question them. Second, you keep focusing on my pick of Vick as the justification for my proposal. It’s not. Is it the motivating factor? Right now? Hell yeah it is! Same as a rule change benefiting anyone else’s current situation would motivate them. But I mainly support the change because it’s the right thing to do (FYI – For next year. There is no way I would propose a change to this year once everyone drafted).
Think of it this way: When Kordel Stewart was in the league, how we classify him in the draft (QB or WR) would actually determine how his stats would be valued the entire year (except that he would change position throughout the season and even within the same game!). That’s ridiculous! We shouldn’t have to make a distinction. A player who passes for a yard should get credit for that yard as a passed yard…NOT as a “passed yard…oh…wait…lemme check your position….OH! you’re a WR…you only get 2/3′s credit for that.”
It’s just the right thing to do.
Posted by Kevin | September 13, 2011, 12:02 amWe never discussed it. We discussed changing the receiving yards back to every 15 yards for a receiving point. And everyone agreed that we should. Nobody else that has mobile qbs or rbs that catch passes has had an issue. You keep saying this is football, NO this is FANTASY FOOTBALL. Point values are set to give competition in different ways. PPR leagues individual defensive leagues etc. As for Kordell Stewart and even guys like your boy Colston in his first year if you do your fantasy research there is this little thing called duel eligibility. Meaning you could choose to start him as a WR or as QB or as RB and his points that week were based according to the leagues scoring format. Marques Colston was drafted as a TE and was given that duel eligibility for many leagues. We don’t give duel eligibility but if you want to start Vick as a running back Im sure the guys wont mind you losing the point every 50 yards he gets passing as a QB lol.
Posted by thejfflcommish | September 13, 2011, 12:13 amNot bitter Kevin. I just don’t get the how the argument is different.
If we are going to discuss extremes, then, we’ll discuss extremes.
Maybe we should just make the points for their position only.
It solves the D/ST argument and the QB that rushes for 1,000 yards. Like I said, maybe he should have thrown it.
Posted by Anonymous | September 13, 2011, 5:40 amAlright…uncle…not because I think I’m wrong or anyone on here has convinced me, but simply because I’m tired of arguing.
But I’ll leave you all with this…I think it just makes sense to simplify the scoring and make the receiving, rushing, passing, etc. yards for all positions equal…and I would like to have a civil conversation about it at the end of the season.
Also, I would like to have that conversation without the politicking that took place here that confused the issue. We should discuss the issue of “yard is a yard” without mixing in a discussion about kick returns. I’m not against revisiting the kick return issue…but “you vote this way and I’ll vote that way” should never enter into a discussion of what should and should not be done.
Let’s have the two discussions completely separate from each other and go from there. I understand the concepts may be linked in some of your minds…but the reality is that they are two different rule change proposals…not one. Even if the concept is similar, the rule changes suggested would have to be separate rule changes.
Let’s talk about one…clear our heads…and then talk about the other without considering how the vote went on the other. If a change is the right change to make…isn’t it just right? Regardless of what you feel was done wrong before?
Thanks, all!
Posted by Kevin | September 13, 2011, 4:00 pmI have a great idea, it’s a bit of a brain teaser so you might have to sit down for this one…let’s pretend that Kevin never drafted Michael Vick. It sounds tricky but hear me out, by doing that we eliminate this whole debacle. The whole rule change has never been debated in this leagues entire existence and no one has ever been confused by it so why start now, it’s not that hard to comprehend. The D/ST thing is old news, I’ve slept since then. It is okay to move on now guys, i promise.
Posted by Casey | September 13, 2011, 6:50 pmOh for cryin’ out loud, Casey…forget it.
I’m done.
This has just gotten stupid.
FYI, Casey…Brannon said at one point that you were willing to learn to do the polldaddy.com polls so you could do those on the site. How ’bout you just learn the whole WordPress process and handle the site, too.
Posted by Kevin | September 14, 2011, 9:03 amWow…bunch o’ nancies wantin’ a ppr league outta a td based league…the rain outside due to all the whinin’? Hike up the skirts girls and deal…if not…bow out…shit…quitcher bitchin’ and man up…damn.
Posted by Thor | September 17, 2011, 1:57 pmOoh…got another idea….let’s have a live draft for the first 4 rounds..and then go to taco bell for the other 2 or 3 and then go home and write a letter to the commissioner and mail it to him for the remaining picks?? Quite possibly the gayest thing I’ve heard regarding fantasy football drafting..live for some and via web for the rest. Homosexual.
Posted by Thor | September 17, 2011, 2:12 pmHow about we all quit with all of the back and forth belly achin and go back to the game of fantasy football and talkin trash against each others teams like the board is designed for. Kevin voiced his opinion you all voiced yours back. No more piling on. Its done lets get back to the fun. For me that will be a win this week against you WARMONGERS
Posted by thejfflcommish | September 17, 2011, 4:56 pmIts Kevin. ..he likes the abuse. It was trash talk..and that’s how it should be taken. ..his ideas still gay. Its time for the machine to have an early breakdown.
Posted by Thor | September 17, 2011, 11:18 pmSpeaking of TRASH TALK, is Spanish turning into a full on puffer?
Starting Tony Homo and his butt buddy Dez?
Spanish, pull it together, and out of your ASS.
Posted by Ninja | September 18, 2011, 1:49 pmHey Drew reasons for not letting u change Ur backs… Tom Brady. Nuff said. I think he alone beat me. Don’t wanna hear any bitchin. My boys need to pick u
p the pace
Posted by Thor | September 26, 2011, 1:55 pmWe’ll see. I understand.
Posted by Anonymous | September 26, 2011, 8:54 pmHere’s to hoping el commisho gets a beating this week.
Posted by Ninja | October 2, 2011, 1:53 pmJust wanted to talk trash on myself. I hate my team. They really suck. If I had the option of playing any person from my team again or joining in on “Two Girls One Cup”…….. I would be eating shit.
Posted by Danny | October 3, 2011, 4:50 pmDidnt get the job done there NInjas
Posted by The Commish | October 4, 2011, 6:11 pmThe mongers suck….they really really suck…the monnnngers suck they really really suuuuuck…sing it to the tune of the waterboy…its funny. Man, can’t buy a win. Well…there’s always next year…
Posted by Anonymous | October 28, 2011, 10:50 pm