Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

OK, I've got to ask


detlef
 Share

Recommended Posts

I understand the intention behind PPR. RBs are so overvalued in FF so it was an attempt to get WRs in the mix.

 

However, a reception is only as good as the yards it gains, right? So if the intention is to reward receptions, why not simply give more points for receiving yards?

 

That way WRs and RBs who catch passes will be justly rewarded but dude's will not get credit for catching a pass for basically no gain.

 

Am I missing something here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I understand the intention behind PPR. RBs are so overvalued in FF so it was an attempt to get WRs in the mix.

 

However, a reception is only as good as the yards it gains, right? So if the intention is to reward receptions, why not simply give more points for receiving yards?

 

That way WRs and RBs who catch passes will be justly rewarded but dude's will not get credit for catching a pass for basically no gain.

 

Am I missing something here?

 

I like the fact that it provides a different type of value to a variety of players. It certainly isn't a equitable means of evaluating a player's contribution to the offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest effect, genrally speaking, for a generic 1 point per reception addition to a scoring system is that is boosts the value of RBs that are more involved in the passing game (thus, in theory, more important valuewise to a team), boosts the value of possession receivers within the WR category, and provides a boost to the top level WRs that were alread the elite of their position in comparison to the other positions (basically, RBs). But, the largest effect I notice is that it gives a hugh boost in value to the mid-level WRs compared to mid/lower level RBs when considering the flex spot, as when looking to fill that position you can look at raw points to determine the best option, so an RB with 600 yards and 5 TDs is far less valuable than a WR with 600 yards and 5 Tds as that WR may well have 40+ catches.

 

With no PPR, in most generic performace scoring systems, the top WRs barely sniff the top 10 in terms of value and the top 30 spots are heavily dominated by RBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logic.

 

It's a game. There is an effort to try to equate scoring to performance on the field, but in the end it comes down to the fact that FF is a game. WRs have a distinct disadvantage in that they rely on the QB to get them the ball downfield and that their opportunties will be much more limited than a #1 RB. So creating a scoring system that creates opportunity for WRs that most RBs won't have in nearly as much abundance aims directly at ppr. Using the logic that yards gained by a WR in catching a football have similar value to that of a RB running a football, the only ways to add value to WRs is to increase the starting requirements and/or to find a different way to increase the way better WRs score - hence, ppr.

 

The more differential of players that have a capability of scoring in top 30 players, give or take, the more diverse the game is, which in turn makes the game more fun and allows for different strategies.

 

I could get into it in a lot more depth, but that's the essence of it.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the responses but don't see how PPR is better than simply giving out more points for receiving yards. Well besides the fact that possession WRs will get more love relative to those that catch the long ball. However, I would imagine that if you wanted to do that, you would do a combo of the two. Perhaps give 1/2 pt per reception and inflate the points for receiving yards.

 

As it stands catching 6 balls for 60 yds is worth twice as much as catching 1 ball for 60 and that seems a bit odd. 1 60 yd catch nearly insures that your team is going to come away with some points from the drive. On the other hand, 6 10 yd receptions can be sprinkled around a number of fruitless drives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the responses but don't see how PPR is better than simply giving out more points for receiving yards. Well besides the fact that possession WRs will get more love relative to those that catch the long ball. However, I would imagine that if you wanted to do that, you would do a combo of the two. Perhaps give 1/2 pt per reception and inflate the points for receiving yards.

 

As it stands catching 6 balls for 60 yds is worth twice as much as catching 1 ball for 60 and that seems a bit odd. 1 60 yd catch nearly insures that your team is going to come away with some points from the drive. On the other hand, 6 10 yd receptions can be sprinkled around a number of fruitless drives.

there is definitely as many scoring systems with PPR as without. We don't give a full point for a reception, that's crazy talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the responses but don't see how PPR is better than simply giving out more points for receiving yards. Well besides the fact that possession WRs will get more love relative to those that catch the long ball. However, I would imagine that if you wanted to do that, you would do a combo of the two. Perhaps give 1/2 pt per reception and inflate the points for receiving yards.

 

As it stands catching 6 balls for 60 yds is worth twice as much as catching 1 ball for 60 and that seems a bit odd. 1 60 yd catch nearly insures that your team is going to come away with some points from the drive. On the other hand, 6 10 yd receptions can be sprinkled around a number of fruitless drives.

 

It's not better. It's just different scoring rules that people seem to like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good question and it's pointed out how preposterious the PPR is when Brandon Marshall catches 18 in a game makes him as valuable as when R.Brown scored 5 TDs. that's silly but there is is. 18 receptions is as good as 3 TDs all by itself.

 

Last year I had Welker and Housh who killd in receptions but I was not in a PPR league so they were just slightly above average. I think .5 ppr would be best.

 

Also, main reason (I think) is to balance a player like Welker who could catch 8-10 passes a game but not too many TDs to a RB that can get quick 6 like LT did last week when they put him in just for TD.

Edited by rai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most cases it takes a lot more skill to get 60 yards on six caches than it does on one. I don't see any problem with awarding people for that skill. Fantasy leagues started by only giving points for touchdowns. Over the years, people got bored and added a variety of scoring alternatives to make fantasy football more fun. Personally, I think PPR is kind of fun. 18 catches in a game is HUGE!! It has only been done one other time, right? I probably lose the argument where a catch is as important as big yards but it doesn't make it any less fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the responses but don't see how PPR is better than simply giving out more points for receiving yards. Well besides the fact that possession WRs will get more love relative to those that catch the long ball. However, I would imagine that if you wanted to do that, you would do a combo of the two. Perhaps give 1/2 pt per reception and inflate the points for receiving yards.

 

As it stands catching 6 balls for 60 yds is worth twice as much as catching 1 ball for 60 and that seems a bit odd. 1 60 yd catch nearly insures that your team is going to come away with some points from the drive. On the other hand, 6 10 yd receptions can be sprinkled around a number of fruitless drives.

 

 

Once again, everyone should adjust their scoring systems to detlef's liking. Pompous tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, everyone should adjust their scoring systems to detlef's liking. Pompous tool.

Once again, Big Ernie Crackhead needs to stick to cutting and pasting and not wade into discussions where people debate the merits of anything. In other words, shoo.

 

Oh, and thanks to the more mentally equipped of you, basically everyone else, for your well-thought out responses.

 

I suppose the thing I get stuck on is rewarding a catch for little or no yards and, I'm sure in the big picture, that doesn't happen nearly enough to worry about. So it's back to hooking a guy up with some scoring love for doing something much more difficult than simply taking a hand-off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like a graduated PPR - 1 pt for TEs, 0.5 for WRs, either 0.5 or nothing for RBs.

 

I agree. Except for the RB's.

 

I like that RB's get a full point. It opens up the guys, like Faulk, that are pass catching backs to be flex players. In these times of RBBC, PPR can really add value to a back who's sharing time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it stands catching 6 balls for 60 yds is worth twice as much as catching 1 ball for 60 and that seems a bit odd. 1 60 yd catch nearly insures that your team is going to come away with some points from the drive. On the other hand, 6 10 yd receptions can be sprinkled around a number of fruitless drives.

 

I disagree completely with that argument.

 

First, a player that catches 6 passes for 60 in a ppr league scores 12 pts, while the player who catches 1 pass for 60 yds in a ppr league scores 7 pts, so the first player doesn't double the scoring of the second player.

 

Secondly, the player who catches 6 passes for 60 yds is a guy who sustains drives and keeps the chains moving. He's a very valuable asset to the team in regard to field position, time of possession, and control of the tempo of the game. Those intangibles are all extremely important to the success of the team. He's likely a go-to guy on a 3rd and 6 play, which can be critical in the overall flow of the game. On the other hand, the player who made the 1 catch for 60 yds provided a big play - but only for one drive. He didn't impact the team in regard to moving and controlling the ball for the rest of the game, and thus his impact is much more limited than the first player. I'd absolutely make the argument that the first guy is much more vaulable to his team.

 

It's the same argument with RBs. Would you rather have the guy who gains 110 yds in 5 carries, or the one who gains 110 yds in 24 carries? I'll take the second guy every time. He's a go-to drive sustainer who sets up all the other downs for the team. He allows my D to rest, forces the other team's D to stay on the field longer, moves the chains, sustains drives, and allows my team to control the entire pace of the game. He also keeps my QB in safer down & distance situations and makes my passing game a lot more effective, especially in regard to play action and keeping LBs from deeper drops. The homerun threat is nice, but the workhorse allows my team to dominate the game, not just make a couple of lightning strikes. In fact, the homerun hitter can actually have his impact marginalized because he can significantly increase the workload on the D. It doesn't make his contribution bad by any means, but it can reduce the impact of those one or two big plays in the overall scheme and flow of the game.

 

One only likes the homerun hitters over the workhorses if one doesn't understand that the game is about field position and time of possession at least as much as it is about scoring. With the exception of a team like the Greatest-Show-on-Turf Rams or the 2007 Patriots who move the ball through the air with incredible pace & ease and overwhelmed teams with early game scoring blitzkriegs, if you look at teams that are successful year in and year out, they will have significant advantages in time of possession and number of plays, whereas the weaker teams always are lagging in these categories.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

good question and it's pointed out how preposterious the PPR is when Brandon Marshall catches 18 in a game makes him as valuable as when R.Brown scored 5 TDs. that's silly but there is is. 18 receptions is as good as 3 TDs all by itself.

 

Last year I had Welker and Housh who killd in receptions but I was not in a PPR league so they were just slightly above average. I think .5 ppr would be best.

 

Also, main reason (I think) is to balance a player like Welker who could catch 8-10 passes a game but not too many TDs to a RB that can get quick 6 like LT did last week when they put him in just for TD.

Marshall's game was the second best in the history of the NFL for receptions. It was a pretty valuable performance for the Broncos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree completely with that argument.

 

First, a player that catches 6 passes for 60 in a ppr league scores 12 pts, while the player who catches 1 pass for 60 yds in a ppr league scores 7 pts, so the first player doesn't double the scoring of the second player.

 

Secondly, the player who catches 6 passes for 60 yds is a guy who sustains drives and keeps the chains moving. He's a very valuable asset to the team in regard to field position, time of possession, and control of the tempo of the game. Those intangibles are all extremely important to the success of the team. He's likely a go-to guy on a 3rd and 6 play, which can be critical in the overall flow of the game. On the other hand, the player who made the 1 catch for 60 yds provided a big play - but only for one drive. He didn't impact the team in regard to moving and controlling the ball for the rest of the game, and thus his impact is much more limited than the first player. I'd absolutely make the argument that the first guy is much more vaulable to his team.

 

 

Just to play the devil's advocate and take it to an extreme, how would you compare the above to a person who makes 6 catches for 40 yards or even 20 yards? In PPR he just got 10 or 8 points to the 1 catch for 60 yards player's 7. In this hypothetical, at what yardage point do you switch the "more valuable asset" to the 1 for 60 player? Or don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, Big Ernie Crackhead needs to stick to cutting and pasting and not wade into discussions where people debate the merits of anything. In other words, shoo.

 

Oh, and thanks to the more mentally equipped of you, basically everyone else, for your well-thought out responses.

 

I suppose the thing I get stuck on is rewarding a catch for little or no yards and, I'm sure in the big picture, that doesn't happen nearly enough to worry about. So it's back to hooking a guy up with some scoring love for doing something much more difficult than simply taking a hand-off.

 

 

I just find it funny that a guy who isn't in a league that uses IDP's, could really criticize any scoring system. And FYI women and fairies use the term SHOO, so which one are you? :wacko: Oh wait, I've answered my own question http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...p;#entry2525315

Edited by Big Ernie McCracken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marshall's game was the second best in the history of the NFL for receptions. It was a pretty valuable performance for the Broncos.

 

I must agree on this one.....Plus Equating 5 tds to 18 recpt does not equal :wacko: . In my league 5 tds = 30 points and in a PPR 18 recpt = 18 pts.....hmmmmmmm thats a 12 point difference....i think we busted this guys theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information