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 This theme may be out of date.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.]]

Antwaan Randle El


MrTed46
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not in terms of Fantasy game play. In both cases, one team could have two starters who both score on the same play. So while your distinction is understandable, it doesn't change the fact that a Fantasy player can already "double dip" on one play's events. Of course, like the WR/ST situation, he does need to commit two starting spots to do so. And the fact that QBs usually (and frankly should) get less points for throwing the TD is not really important to the argument.

 

But, you are not awarding two separate playing units for performing the exact same act. In a passing TD situation (or, really, any passing down) youhave one player that is throwing the ball and receiving credit to do so, and another player that is catching the ball and receiving credit to do so. Both are performing distinctly different, albeit equally important, acts to generate a succesful play.

 

There is obviously no right or wrong answer here, I am just stating that my preference is that the same act should be awarded to one playing unit (and throwing a pass and catching a pass are different acts within the confines of the same play)

 

Another example, less likely but not unheard of: Let's say you use a team defense. And let's say for whatever reason, a WR is put in in a prevent situation (in fact, I believe this actually happened earlier this year) and comes down with an interception. Now, clearly the team defense gets points for the INT, but would you argue that the WR should as well, even though this is a non-IDP league?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, you are not awarding two separate playing units for performing the exact same act. In a passing TD situation (or, really, any passing down) youhave one player that is throwing the ball and receiving credit to do so, and another player that is catching the ball and receiving credit to do so. Both are performing distinctly different, albeit equally important, acts to generate a succesful play.

 

There is obviously no right or wrong answer here, I am just stating that my preference is that the same act should be awarded to one playing unit (and throwing a pass and catching a pass are different acts within the confines of the same play)

 

Another example, less likely but not unheard of: Let's say you use a team defense. And let's say for whatever reason, a WR is put in in a prevent situation (in fact, I believe this actually happened earlier this year) and comes down with an interception. Now, clearly the team defense gets points for the INT, but would you argue that the WR should as well, even though this is a non-IDP league?

 

I think it was Randy Moss who caught an INT this year.

 

This is a messy situation, and the only problem I can see where "double dipping" is a problem. I think next year I am going to award the points to both DST and Individuals. Fairest way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, you are not awarding two separate playing units for performing the exact same act. In a passing TD situation (or, really, any passing down) youhave one player that is throwing the ball and receiving credit to do so, and another player that is catching the ball and receiving credit to do so. Both are performing distinctly different, albeit equally important, acts to generate a succesful play.

 

There is obviously no right or wrong answer here, I am just stating that my preference is that the same act should be awarded to one playing unit (and throwing a pass and catching a pass are different acts within the confines of the same play)

 

Another example, less likely but not unheard of: Let's say you use a team defense. And let's say for whatever reason, a WR is put in in a prevent situation (in fact, I believe this actually happened earlier this year) and comes down with an interception. Now, clearly the team defense gets points for the INT, but would you argue that the WR should as well, even though this is a non-IDP league?

I'm not arguing against your point that the QB/WR rewards two different parts of the scoring picture and the other rewards the same. I'm just talking from the stand point of game play and fairness. If there was some manner where you could gain an unfair advantage by virtue of two entities earning points for the same act, then I could certainly see an issue. However, from a practical standpoint, nobody is being unfairly rewarded. After all, it could (and often does) make more sense to start a strong WR who catches a ton of balls with a decent amount for TDs along side a dynamic D/ST who does what they're supposed to do than it would to put all your eggs in one basket. You're no more getting double points than someone who has a WR on one team who runs back a punt and a D/ST from another who also does.

 

As for the WR INT issue. If your league does not reward individual players for INTs, than this would not be an issue at all. End of story. If it does, than you're certainly using an IDP scoring system in which case you don't need to worry about the D/ST team scoring factor. This would not be an issue with my bit about starting a guy and not getting credit for him scoring because one would never expect a WR to get credit for an INT since, again, no individual player ever does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was Randy Moss who caught an INT this year.

 

This is a messy situation, and the only problem I can see where "double dipping" is a problem. I think next year I am going to award the points to both DST and Individuals. Fairest way.

 

I ask you this then - other than kick/punt returns, what individual special teams activities are you awarding to the team unit?

 

In most leagues, those are the only ones, so why keep it as part of the team deense scoring? Make it an individual stat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the WR INT issue. If your league does not reward individual players for INTs, than this would not be an issue at all. End of story. If it does, than you're certainly using an IDP scoring system in which case you don't need to worry about the D/ST team scoring factor. This would not be an issue with my bit about starting a guy and not getting credit for him scoring because one would never expect a WR to get credit for an INT since, again, no individual player ever does.

 

So then why the issue with kick/punt returns? If it is clear in the scoring rules that the act of returning a kick is a team event, then there should be no issue. If it is clear in the rules that the act is an individual event, then there is no issue. No need for both to be in the scoring rules. Again, a preference issue, and my preference is that kick/punt returns should go to individuals, and not to team positions, but I am probably in the minority with that feeling.

 

As for the point in the OP about the fumble, that is unfortunately just a risk that is taken as the stats do not differentiate about when a fumble happens. When scoring an individual, the stats either say the player did, or did not fumble, regardless of what he was performing at the time. If you were to add in a rule charging the Team Defense for fumbles lost, they would be charged for all fumbles, regardless of when they happened, as it is a team position and it looks at the total team stats when being scored (unless, as noted, you want to go through each game log manually to determine which acts should and should not be charged to a team position)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then why the issue with kick/punt returns? If it is clear in the scoring rules that the act of returning a kick is a team event, then there should be no issue. If it is clear in the rules that the act is an individual event, then there is no issue. No need for both to be in the scoring rules. Again, a preference issue, and my preference is that kick/punt returns should go to individuals, and not to team positions, but I am probably in the minority with that feeling.

 

As for the point in the OP about the fumble, that is unfortunately just a risk that is taken as the stats do not differentiate about when a fumble happens. When scoring an individual, the stats either say the player did, or did not fumble, regardless of what he was performing at the time. If you were to add in a rule charging the Team Defense for fumbles lost, they would be charged for all fumbles, regardless of when they happened, as it is a team position and it looks at the total team stats when being scored (unless, as noted, you want to go through each game log manually to determine which acts should and should not be charged to a team position)

But the act of scoring a TD is established as both an individual event and a D/ST event, unlike an INT which is only established as a D/ST event (unless you use IDP). "Double dipping" just removes the unfortunate notion that a guy you started scored a TD, but because it was the wrong kind of TD, you don't get the points. And, again, the major problem with removing punt and kickoff return TDs from D/ST scoring is that you're essentially just removing them for all intents and purposes because there's a very small percentage of players worth starting that return kicks.

 

If your solution is to simplify things by just giving the points to the player, then it is likely best that you just go IDP where there's no gray area at all. If you start a player and he does anything, be it good or bad, he either gains or loses points. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

very interesting debate.

 

Another scenario boerdering on the same assumptions:

 

Eagles playing Cowboys:

 

Suppsose Romo throws an INT, and in the course of the return, Assante Samuel fumbles it, and it is recovered by Miles Austin.

 

In this scenario, does the Dallas D/ST get credit for a fumble recovery, since in essense, the minute Romo threw the INT, the offense became the defense?

 

Does Austin (who recovered the fumble) get +2 for a fumble recovery?

 

if the answer to both is "no", then who does get credit for the fumble recovery?

 

Converesely, does the Eagles DST get tagged with a -2 for a lost fumble since Samuel fumbled?

Edited by i_am_the_swammi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

very interesting debate.

 

Another scenario boerdering on the same assumptions:

 

Eagles playing Cowboys:

 

Suppsose Romo throws an INT, and in the course of the return, Assante Samuel fumbles it, and it is recovered by Miles Austin.

 

In this scenario, does the Dallas D/ST get credit for a fumble recovery, since in essense, the minute Romo threw the INT, the offense became the defense?

 

Does Austin (who recovered the fumble) get +2 for a fumble recovery?

 

if the answer to both is "no", then who does get credit for the fumble recovery?

 

Converesely, does the Eagles DST get tagged with a -2 for a lost fumble since Samuel fumbled?

We don't even need to get theoretical about this because the very thing happened not long ago.

 

How I would rule: Assuming that you're not using IDP, there is likely no precedent for individual players getting points for INTs or recovering fumbles, so the Miles Austin part is easy. He gets no love. Hell, it's easy if you do use IDP because, slam dunk, he does.

 

Similarly, if there is no precedent for D/ST's losing pts for fumbles lost, same story. No effect.

 

The only gray area here would be whether or not Dallas D/ST gets any love for the fumble recovery. In every league I've been in, we defaulted to the official score book. If Philly is charged with a lost fumble then the Dallas D/ST earns the points for recovering a lost fumble.

 

Then there's the obvious parts, Romo gets docked for the pick and Philly gets love for the pick.

 

I understand the less-than-palatable notion that Philly D/ST gets love for a net zero play but the only alternative requires having to pay attention and notify the commish about some crazy play to get your due and that should not be required. If you want to go camping or something and make sure your line-up is set, you shouldn't be denied points because you weren't around to actually watch the games and witness any screwy plays like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, many of you try to come up with the rule you think is best FOR ALL SCENARIOS. I think you need to take into account all aspects of a League, its lineup requirements, scoring rules etc., and then pick your players accordingly. For example, in 32 Homers, 32 teams are starting 64 WRs each week. And most teams have one or two more on the bench. So in this league, it makes sense to allow WRs to get points for their return yardage and TDs just to widen the pool of available 'starters'. Whether or not you think it's a bad rule for everybody is irrelevant.

 

BTW, I'm into this subject because this past week with 1 WR out with injury, 1 on Bye and 1 who hasn't played yet this year, I needed a second starter. On waivers I found a guy who runs back punts and KOs for Atlanta, Eric Weems, and who seemed to score 2 or 3 points every week, so figuring 2 or 3 better than 0, I picked him up and started him. Not only did he get his 2 points, in the closing minutes of the game, he appeared on the field, caught 2 passes for 33 yards, and SCORED a TD! 11 points for this amazing GM!

 

Anyway, I say, put up a set of rules any way you like, then draft a team to best match the rules. Oh yeah, and make sure there are written rules!

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