Gore fumble recovery TD

[stevegrab]

See you

Fortunately I tend to not place random things in my ass.

 

 

At the very least this has been the most active and interesting thread in the past 3-4 weeks, so it has that going for it.

 

 

I can only take credit for starting the thread, the academy awards for silliest pissing match goes to

- detlef who wants a "legitimate reason for people to exluce scoring of fumble recovery TD" but will refute every legitimate reason offered because he's already made up his mind that there aren't any.

- runner up is DOG who tried to offer some reasons, but can't seem to break the detlef barrier of proof, and almost escaped the debate but got drawn back in

 

So in end, we're back to the original topic

- should rules be changed mid season to credit this score when it wasn't done all year - ABSOLUTELY NOT

And the secnodary topic

- is it ok to not score offensive fumble recovery TDs in your league - most people say sure its your league do what you want, detlef says NO way, its indefensible, no valid reason not to score it

 

Of course if you're scoring fumble recovery TDs, and doing negative points for turnovers by these players, you must then also be scoring the fumble recoveries themselves. To not do so would be indefensible, no possible valid reason not to do that.

 

We could all go on all day, in the end I (and most others) still feel, score your league however the hell you want, it is your chivesing league.

[stevegrab]

I am under the impression that sites like MFL that have "all TDs" do include all non-passing TDs. The exclusion of passing TDs being for the obvious reason that so many leagues discount those. I'm not certain about that, but I'm sure you could ask them.

 

As for others, I don't really think there's any other way you can score a TD that wouldn't be covered by rushing, receiving, return, or OFRTD.

 

You could also say in your bylaws that it is your intent to reward all players for any TDs they may have scored, regardless of how they do so and, to the best of your knowledge, have programmed the site accordingly. If, however, you find that one of your started players has been credited in the box score with a TD but not in league scoring, please bring it to the league's attention and it will be scored a TD.

 

 

I'm not talking about fantasy football, I'm talking about NFL stats, TDs scored. I've never once seen a player's total TDs scored in their career, and have that include fumble recovery TDs. (Even somebody like Jerry Rice who played for years and so many kinds of TD scores.) I recognize they are rare, but I'm just wondering when people site NFL stats, do people count these like other offensive or kicking game return TDs.

 

If we decide to score all TDs we may put that in our bylaws, and just check every TD category in the scoring setup that we can find. I suppose they could define more TD categories at some point and those wouldn't be turned on, but I doubt that happens often.

[detlef]

If your "valid" argument describes a scenario that rewards, on a given and routine example of this sort of play, a player who fumbles in the red zone more than a player who recovers said fumble and earns his team 6 pts as essentially why this rule should be in place, then I don't exactly see why that's a valid argument.

[detlef]

I'm not talking about fantasy football, I'm talking about NFL stats, TDs scored. I've never once seen a player's total TDs scored in their career, and have that include fumble recovery TDs. (Even somebody like Jerry Rice who played for years and so many kinds of TD scores.) I recognize they are rare, but I'm just wondering when people site NFL stats, do people count these like other offensive or kicking game return TDs.

 

If we decide to score all TDs we may put that in our bylaws, and just check every TD category in the scoring setup that we can find. I suppose they could define more TD categories at some point and those wouldn't be turned on, but I doubt that happens often.

To your first question, Frank Gore's TD does not count among his rushing TDs in the record books. They specifically said so during the game.

 

To be honest, I don't know where it is listed in the record books, actually. However, it is in the box score and is a specific option that you can check in, at least yahoo, and quite likely others. Along with return TD.

 

To be honest, the only one that I think may not get counted is defensive fumble returns or INT returns if you don't have IDP, which is why you have the caveat in your bylaws. Again, I absolutely think that those should get scored for you if you happen to have a WR playing DB for a few plays and he does this.

 

Keep in mind, that any of us here would know about this play. The message boards, ESPN top 10, everywhere would be showing this if Julian Edelman got put in at DB and pulled a pick 6. In fact, I can't imagine a TD so outlandish that it would not get included in the categories listed above that would fly entirely under the radar.

 

If it happened that the owner of said player missed it, I would guess someone would bring it to his attention out of good sportsmanship. Then, of course, someone would bitch about that "costing him the game" because he'd rather get a cheap victory than have someone help a guy out.

[stevegrab]

To your first question, Frank Gore's TD does not count among his rushing TDs in the record books. They specifically said so during the game.

 

To be honest, I don't know where it is listed in the record books, actually. However, it is in the box score and is a specific option that you can check in, at least yahoo, and quite likely others. Along with return TD.

 

To be honest, the only one that I think may not get counted is defensive fumble returns or INT returns if you don't have IDP, which is why you have the caveat in your bylaws. Again, I absolutely think that those should get scored for you if you happen to have a WR playing DB for a few plays and he does this.

 

Keep in mind, that any of us here would know about this play. The message boards, ESPN top 10, everywhere would be showing this if Julian Edelman got put in at DB and pulled a pick 6. In fact, I can't imagine a TD so outlandish that it would not get included in the categories listed above that would fly entirely under the radar.

 

If it happened that the owner of said player missed it, I would guess someone would bring it to his attention out of good sportsmanship. Then, of course, someone would bitch about that "costing him the game" because he'd rather get a cheap victory than have someone help a guy out.

 

DUH, of course I know that this didn't count as a rushing TD, do you think I am stupid? (And I wouldn't need some announcer to tell me this since I know it is a fumble recovery TD not a rushing TD, the whole reason this thread was started.)

 

I'm talking about career stats in the NFL, when they count up total TDs scored by Frank Gore, will this be count? Just as rushing TDs count, or punt/kick return TDs.

[detlef]

No, I don't think you're stupid and, frankly, given that it would have been a rushing TD had he gotten the hand-off and then fumbled it, it's not such a stupid question anyway.

 

Regardless, I thought I'd do a little digging and find each and every OFRTD this year. Just to find the ones that are so unworthy of pts for the guy who got them to warrant hosing a player like Gore out his 6.

 

So, it happened 5x this year:

 

We all know about Gore's. That is certainly not a gift for him. So, how 'bout the others?

 

Pierre Garcon just barely beat Ronde Barber to RGIII's fumble to secure his team 6 pts rather than give up the touchback

Josh Morgan actually had to run the ball in from outside the 10 and break a tackle to get his performance-less gift

Louis Murphy dove into a scrum of players and wrestle the ball away from an opponent to secure his team a TD. Note the announcers giving Newton grief for not making a point of thanking the player who bailed him out.

That leaves B Lloyd who had the easiest time but even he had to chase the ball down and there were two Texans right there to recover it if he somehow misplayed it.

 

So, in light of the fact that, in all of these plays with the exception of the Gore play where there's no question that what he did was harder than simply executing the play as designed, the player who put his team in danger of losing the ball is credited with more FF pts than the hero on the play, how is this scoring not an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Edited December 20, 2012 by detlef

[stevegrab]

detlef,

You seem to have me confused with somebody else, I'm not trying to argue that OFRTDs should not be counted. Our league currently doesn't and that's all that really needs to be said. I don't nned to justify it, nor am I trying to give you a plausible reason to not count it. Anymore than I'll explain or justify why we use team D but not ST as well.

 

You didn't respond to the point I raised about scoring the actual fumble recovery act. If you take away points for fumbling, and reward the act of the fumble recovery TD, why not give points for the actual fumble recovery. If you're going to penalize the player who fumbled, why not reward the player who recovered it all the time. Why just reward them when its a TD, fumble recoveries are important as well, the TD score is usually a matter of proximity to the EZ and many random factors.

 

PS Another issue I have with OFRTD category at least as handled by CBS, the scores are NOT reflected in the live scoring. So when these do happen, there will be a scoring correction at some point after the game reflecting the 6 points for TD. That's a big point swing when it happens, and will shock owners who previously thought they won. Maybe MFL or other sites don't do that, not sure why CBS does.

[detlef]

I realize you're not arguing against them, but you are insisting upon the existence of a viable argument in favor of them.

 

That last post was just there to shoot down DoG's final attempt at making one, that he didn't want to award guys with pts they really didn't earn. Thus, I showed every single time it happened and wondered which of those (I'm assuming the majority would have to be in order to justify also taking away from those who unquestionably "earned" the points fit his description. I'd honestly have a hard time making an argument for any, but a really hard time making one for 3 or more.

 

Especially considering that not rewarding these TDs would set up a situation in the majority of leagues where the guy who actually screwed up would get positive FF points but the hero on the play would not.

 

Since I'd already clearly refuted every other potential argument, I just wanted to put that to bed.

 

As to your question, that does seem like a matter of preference. Since, in the majority of leagues, there is already a precedent in place for rewarding a tackle for loss that happens in the endzone, but not at midfield, I don't see why you'd have to make that uniform here. That said, just like it would be a fine idea to reward team Ds with tackles for loss, not just sacks, why not?

 

The only reason why I would argue against it would be because of the following: When I propose to all my leagues that we start treating fumbles as -1 for the fumble and -1 for the other team getting it is because it is never a good thing to fumble. Apparently a few times per year, you luck into them being a net good thing, but still. It's safe to say that fumbling is bad. So, if a QB fumbles the ball in the pocket and then jumps on it, killing the play, that is still a bad play and I would prefer that it result in a net loss for him FF-wise. Giving him credit for jumping on it undoes that negative when, perhaps it shouldn't any more than him jumping on it at least saves him FF-wise from losing the other point that would have happened had the other team gotten it.

 

Does that make sense?

Edited December 20, 2012 by detlef

[detlef]

As for the live scoring thing, that against seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Everyone should know that live scoring is not official. They're all big boys and should be able to deal with learning, hours later that a Gore actually got 6 pts they didn't realize he'd gotten at first.

 

It did come up recently in this forum when one guy was pissed because, going by live scoring, he'd thought he was barely ahead and chose not to start a player, thinking he didn't need the points and could only lose if the guy committed a fumble. To that I say, tough luck on not realizing live scoring is not official (even though it says so) and using inaccurate info to do a cheesy move.

Edited December 20, 2012 by detlef

[stevegrab]

I realize you're not arguing against them, but you are insisting upon the existence of a viable argument in favor of them.

 

That last post was just there to shoot down DoG's final attempt at making one, that he didn't want to award guys with pts they really didn't earn. Thus, I showed every single time it happened and wondered which of those (I'm assuming the majority would have to be in order to justify also taking away from those who unquestionably "earned" the points fit his description. I'd honestly have a hard time making an argument for any, but a really hard time making one for 3 or more.

 

Since I'd already clearly refuted every other potential argument, I just wanted to put that to bed.

 

As to your question, that does seem like a matter of preference. Since, in the majority of leagues, there is already a precedent in place for rewarding a tackle for loss that happens in the endzone, but not at midfield, I don't see why you'd have to make that uniform here. That said, just like it would be a fine idea to reward team Ds with tackles for loss, not just sacks, why not?

 

The only reason why I would argue against it would be because of the following: When I propose to all my leagues that we start treating fumbles as -1 for the fumble and -1 for the other team getting it is because it is never a good thing to fumble. Apparently a few times per year, you luck into them being a net good thing, but still. It's safe to say that fumbling is bad. So, if a QB fumbles the ball in the pocket and then jumps on it, killing the play, that is still a bad play and I would prefer that it result in a net loss for him FF-wise. Giving him credit for jumping on it undoes that negative when, perhaps it shouldn't any more than him jumping on it at least saves him FF-wise from losing the other point that would have happened had the other team gotten it.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Nothing makes sense anymore, I'm torn between scoring every single possible category and none. I think the right answer lies in the middle somewhere.

 

If I penalize an offense player for fumbling, and reward the defense for recovering the fumble, and reward the offense for recovering a fumble and scoring a TD (on or after recovery), why not reward the recovery itself, since it is a good thing for the offense. If you don't want a fumble then recovery to be a wash, make fumbles -2 and fumble recovery +1, so you still lose points even if your players fumbles and recovers. Cannot think of any valid reason you wouldn't score it that way.

 

I'll let you carry on your debate with somebody else. I think you're either fishing, trolling, or just arguing for fun. As pretty much everybody else recognizes that leagues can score how they want, even if they cannot convince the almighty detlef that there is a valid reason to not score things the way he thinks they should be scored. And trying to prove to you that somebody has a valid reason seems to be impossible since you alone will decide what is valid.

[stevegrab]

As for the live scoring thing, that against seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Everyone should know that live scoring is not official. They're all big boys and should be able to deal with learning, hours later that a Gore actually got 6 pts they didn't realize he'd gotten at first.

 

It did come up recently in this forum when one guy was pissed because, going by live scoring, he'd thought he was barely ahead and chose not to start a player, thinking he didn't need the points and could only lose if the guy committed a fumble. To that I say, tough luck on not realizing live scoring is not official (even though it says so) and using inaccurate info to do a cheesy move.

 

 

Yeah, but most live scoring corrections later are much smaller, a 6 point swing can be huge.

 

Anyway, have an awesome holiday.

[detlef]

Nothing makes sense anymore, I'm torn between scoring every single possible category and none. I think the right answer lies in the middle somewhere.

 

If I penalize an offense player for fumbling, and reward the defense for recovering the fumble, and reward the offense for recovering a fumble and scoring a TD (on or after recovery), why not reward the recovery itself, since it is a good thing for the offense. If you don't want a fumble then recovery to be a wash, make fumbles -2 and fumble recovery +1, so you still lose points even if your players fumbles and recovers. Cannot think of any valid reason you wouldn't score it that way.

 

I'll let you carry on your debate with somebody else. I think you're either fishing, trolling, or just arguing for fun. As pretty much everybody else recognizes that leagues can score how they want, even if they cannot convince the almighty detlef that there is a valid reason to not score things the way he thinks they should be scored. And trying to prove to you that somebody has a valid reason seems to be impossible since you alone will decide what is valid.

 

First off,

 

Every argument presented has been basically, "because that's how it is" thinly veiled as an actual, credible argument. Show me the one that isn't and I'll remind you why it is.

 

Secondly, your -2, +1 deal sounds like a fine idea. Again, I was just trying work out something that, actually this thread, made me realize was a problem with how my leagues handled fumbles. However, there may be an issue with viability. I'm not sure leagues that aren't IDP are set up to award individual players with recovering fumbles unless they're for TDs. I know that Yahoo isn't. So I'm not sure you could do it that way.

 

ETA: I suppose you could get around that by setting up your league with IDP scoring but just not have a roster spot for defensive players. Then you could award players for any or all of those things: fumble recoveries, INTs (for your Edelman deal), even tackles they make after the other team forces a turnover. Whatever your hearts desired.

Edited December 20, 2012 by detlef

[stevegrab]

One more interesting tidbit looking at CBS scoring categories,didn't see this one before, IFRTD Individual Fumble Recovery TD

OFRTD + DFRTD + SFRTD

 

DFRTD - shows as a defensive stat category, for defensive fumble recovery TD

SFRTD - shows as a defensive scoring category, for special teams fumble recovery TD

 

Counting these more leagues (but still below 20%) do score the OFRTD category than I thought, but still far from a majority.

 

PS Detlef we get it you're right and if we try to tell you otherwise you'll show us we're wrong.

[electricrelish]

detlef,

You seem to have me confused with somebody else, I'm not trying to argue that OFRTDs should not be counted. Our league currently doesn't and that's all that really needs to be said. I don't nned to justify it, nor am I trying to give you a plausible reason to not count it. Anymore than I'll explain or justify why we use team D but not ST as well.

 

You didn't respond to the point I raised about scoring the actual fumble recovery act. If you take away points for fumbling, and reward the act of the fumble recovery TD, why not give points for the actual fumble recovery. If you're going to penalize the player who fumbled, why not reward the player who recovered it all the time. Why just reward them when its a TD, fumble recoveries are important as well, the TD score is usually a matter of proximity to the EZ and many random factors.

 

PS Another issue I have with OFRTD category at least as handled by CBS, the scores are NOT reflected in the live scoring. So when these do happen, there will be a scoring correction at some point after the game reflecting the 6 points for TD. That's a big point swing when it happens, and will shock owners who previously thought they won. Maybe MFL or other sites don't do that, not sure why CBS does.

 

You should write CBS Sportsline and request that they include this in the live scoring for 2013.

[electricrelish]

First off,

 

Every argument presented has been basically, "because that's how it is" thinly veiled as an actual, credible argument. Show me the one that isn't and I'll remind you why it is.

 

Secondly, your -2, +1 deal sounds like a fine idea. Again, I was just trying work out something that, actually this thread, made me realize was a problem with how my leagues handled fumbles. However, there may be an issue with viability. I'm not sure leagues that aren't IDP are set up to award individual players with recovering fumbles unless they're for TDs. I know that Yahoo isn't. So I'm not sure you could do it that way.

 

ETA: I suppose you could get around that by setting up your league with IDP scoring but just not have a roster spot for defensive players. Then you could award players for any or all of those things: fumble recoveries, INTs (for your Edelman deal), even tackles they make after the other team forces a turnover. Whatever your hearts desired.

 

I have found this thread to be worth a read as it has brought to my attention some matters I had not considered before such as the following:

 

• Fumble recoveries should be scored, say like 1 pt.

• Fumble recovery yardage should be scored unless it is recovered by the same player because usually that yardage is credited for rushing or receiving.

• Fumble penalty scoring should be changed to what detlef suggested, which is -1 point for a fumble, -2 points for a fumble lost rather than what my dynasty leagues have in place now, which is -2 points for every fumble whether lost or not. I think it makes a big difference.

 

[delusions of grandeur]

No, I don't think you're stupid and, frankly, given that it would have been a rushing TD had he gotten the hand-off and then fumbled it, it's not such a stupid question anyway.

 

Regardless, I thought I'd do a little digging and find each and every OFRTD this year. Just to find the ones that are so unworthy of pts for the guy who got them to warrant hosing a player like Gore out his 6.

 

So, it happened 5x this year:

 

We all know about Gore's. That is certainly not a gift for him. So, how 'bout the others?

 

Pierre Garcon just barely beat Ronde Barber to RGIII's fumble to secure his team 6 pts rather than give up the touchback

Josh Morgan actually had to run the ball in from outside the 10 and break a tackle to get his performance-less gift

Louis Murphy dove into a scrum of players and wrestle the ball away from an opponent to secure his team a TD. Note the announcers giving Newton grief for not making a point of thanking the player who bailed him out.

That leaves B Lloyd who had the easiest time but even he had to chase the ball down and there were two Texans right there to recover it if he somehow misplayed it.

 

So, in light of the fact that, in all of these plays with the exception of the Gore play where there's no question that what he did was harder than simply executing the play as designed, the player who put his team in danger of losing the ball is credited with more FF pts than the hero on the play, how is this scoring not an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

 

 

"No question" that falling/fighting on a ball or scoring after a fumble breaks a play down is tougher than executing a play in the NFL? Umm okay, and in in you're whopping sample size of 5, I even still disagree:

 

Garcon - Griffin's fumble happens to squirt forward into the endzone, and Garcon happened to see it first and jumped on it. Wow, what tremendous skill that took. Forget acrobatic catches and getting 2 feet in, that was the play of the year to fall on that ball that happened to squirt forward right to him!

 

Morgan - yes, a little more heads-up, but the play as designed was read and tackled before it broke down. Yes he did a fine job to see the fumble and grab it, but from there the play had broken down and was at mercy of a bounc from a random fumble to give Morgan a lane. So pretty much you're saying that his play took more skill than the good run Griffin made which got defended and stopped. Completely disagree. The play had broken down, giving him a perfect lane due to the fumble that wasn't there otherwise.

 

Murphy - again, the ball randomly squirts forward into the endzone rather than backward, at a spot where he happens to be the closest. You're really going to make the claim that this took more skill or even close to the same as Newton's 10-yard scamper to get it there?

 

Lloyd - we both agree this one was a gift, and it's clear that if Woodhead hadn't fumbled, there's NO QUESTION his run took far more skill as designed to break off big yardage.

 

I think all those examples do is prove my point that it's not a very sound of a indicator of performance and completely random in most cases. Is there any problem with still rewarding them, nope, but I'm not going to put them on a pedestal like there's even small indication that they took even equal skill as the designed plays, nope.

 

When a fumble happens, it's not something that the offensive team has practiced to execute and they're completely at the mercy of the bounce it takes. The play then has ceased to be both executed and defended the way it was intended to be, completely broken down, so I'll reserve my right to not demand that "right" leagues credit scores for complete randomness due to another unrelated player for fantasy purposes.

 

And before you say something about defensive fumble recoveries, I'll remind you that those are different, being clear perfromance factors for the defense. I have trouble saying the same for the offense that there's "no question" these took as much if not more skill than planned executed plays. There is plenty of question that they're completely random and at the mercy of an oddly-shaped ball bouncing.

[detlef]

One more interesting tidbit looking at CBS scoring categories,didn't see this one before, IFRTD Individual Fumble Recovery TD

OFRTD + DFRTD + SFRTD

 

DFRTD - shows as a defensive stat category, for defensive fumble recovery TD

SFRTD - shows as a defensive scoring category, for special teams fumble recovery TD

 

Counting these more leagues (but still below 20%) do score the OFRTD category than I thought, but still far from a majority.

 

PS Detlef we get it you're right and if we try to tell you otherwise you'll show us we're wrong.

 

uou know the irony is, apparently I'm the one who just has to be right. Yet you're the one that insists that any alleged "argument", regardless of how flimsy or irrelevant, be considered valid to prove your point.

 

And again, I'd be happy to go back and refute in very clear terms any argument that you feel I've unfairly labeled as such.

[delusions of grandeur]

MORNING!!! Diddja miss me?!

 

OK, so where were we. That's right, you being wrong.

 

OK then, first let's dispense with this bit about "fluky" plays or whatever we're calling them now. Above you mentioned, "just because some are allowed, doesn't mean they all have to be." Which, of course, is fair, but only if there's actually a difference between them. Otherwise, you're just making an arbitrary distinction.

 

Take the forward/backward pass thing brought up earlier. You're not just arbitrarily scoring it as a passing play sometimes and not others. No, there's a clear distinction. If the ball travels forwards, it's a pass, otherwise it's not. Which, btw, is a distinction that has actual ramifications on the playing field that are far more important than whether or not a QB gets credit for a TD in the box score.

 

So, what is the difference here? The fumble? Well, not really, since the play still scores as a normal TD if the player who fumbles picks up his own fumble and advances it. So now it's just that we will reward you for cleaning up your own mess but not someone else's? That's the actual distinction?

 

OK, so now let's talk about "performance". Let's look at how two players were "rewarded" FF-wise for their roles in Brandon Lloyd's "fluky" TD. Danny Woodhead caught the ball and advanced it 16 yards before putting the ball on the carpet at the Houston 11. The ball traveled 13 yards into the end zone before Brandon Lloyd jumped on it, earning his team a TD. Now, if you asked football coaches to list their cardinal sins, how many don't list fumbling the ball very high on the list? They freaking hate it and it's likely why Ridley earned a seat on the bench for about 2.5 quarters in that game, even though one of his teammates bailed him out. So, Danny Woodard failed on that play, especially considering that when you fumble the ball down field on a passing play, the odds are very much against your team recovering it.

 

OK, so, fumbling is one of the worst things you can do. Have you ever played football? Have you ever recovered a fumble? What happens. Each and every player and coach comes up to you, slams you on the shoulder pads and screams "Atta boy!". They don't care if you wrestled the ball from the other team or if it just fell into your lap. Especially in the end zone? Can you imagine a guy recovering a fumble in the end zone, running to the side lines and everyone saying "What? You're acting like it didn't just bounce right to you."

 

Now, back to FF. I've never played in a league that penalized for fumbles not lost (though I think that makes a ton of sense and actually thought about suggesting it. Something like, instead of 2 pts for lost fumbles, it's 1 pt for the fumble, another pt it it's lost, I digress). So, let's assume that your league is more conventional and just penalizes lost fumbles. Assuming also that, like most leagues, you pay .1 per yard gained. Danny Woodhead earned 1.6 pts on that play. More if you have PPR. So, in your rush to make FF reward "performance", you are rewarding a player with a net gain in pts on a play where he does one of the single worst things you can do in football. Meanwhile, a player who actually recovered said football, even if he just happened to be in the right place at the right time, gets nothing. Even though doing so earned his team 6 (actually 7) pts.

 

And that's your scoring system working as it is intended to! To basically reward one player for screwing up and not another for bailing him out. That's not even the Frank Gore deal where he actually, not only picks up someone else's trash, but has the where with all to execute a more difficult play than was designed to earn his team a TD.

 

Like I said, I can do this all day.

 

 

1) yes, fantasy football has lenty of arbitrariness by nature.

 

2) his team is patting him on the back becasue their points come from getting into or keeping it ou of the endzone, no matter how it happens. I'm not patting him on the back because in fantasy football we get points from performance, not what's feel-good for your team.

 

Unfortunately I have to go into work in couple hours, so I can't do this all day, but you're not gonig to get me to agree any more than I am you.

Edited December 20, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[electricrelish]

See you

 

 

I can only take credit for starting the thread, the academy awards for silliest pissing match goes to

- detlef who wants a "legitimate reason for people to exluce scoring of fumble recovery TD" but will refute every legitimate reason offered because he's already made up his mind that there aren't any.

- runner up is DOG who tried to offer some reasons, but can't seem to break the detlef barrier of proof, and almost escaped the debate but got drawn back in

 

I will say that the argument about not scoring fumble recoveries could possibly be considered a legitimate argument, but here's the problem that I have with it. The explanation is one that was brainstormed from the mind of DoG as a possible reason. It's not a reason that anyone actually uses in any FF leagues that we know of for their justification to not score fumble recovery TD's. If we had a real-life reason used in a FF league today, then I'd like to hear it. The reality of the situation is that most leagues accept the default scoring or never even thought about it, which is why this discussion is a good one, so folks will think about it.

So in end, we're back to the original topic

- should rules be changed mid season to credit this score when it wasn't done all year - ABSOLUTELY NOT

 

I believe almost everyone agreed with this assessment early on in the thread.

And the secnodary topic

- is it ok to not score offensive fumble recovery TDs in your league - most people say sure its your league do what you want, detlef says NO way, its indefensible, no valid reason not to score it

 

It is your league and you should do what you want, but it's not a true justification for the rule, instead it's a substitution for not having a real reason because you don't like how the discussion is going so you're trying to end it and take your ball and go home. This thread evolved into more than what you intended, which happens all the time in this forum. It became an examination of whether OFRTD's should be scored and whether there was any worthy reason to not score them, beyond we'll do whatever we damn well please.

Of course if you're scoring fumble recovery TDs, and doing negative points for turnovers by these players, you must then also be scoring the fumble recoveries themselves. To not do so would be indefensible, no possible valid reason not to do that.

 

I agree that fumble recoveries should be scored if negative points are assigned for fumbles. This subject would mean the discussion would need to expand if there are reasons why this category should not be scored.

We could all go on all day, in the end I (and most others) still feel, score your league however the hell you want, it is your chivesing league.

 

I agree that you can score your league any way you want, but it doesn't mean someone can't suggest a better way with reasoning. And yes, when people are trying to show you the way, it's always best if they do it without belittling you, etc. because then their message may get lost.

[nelsosi]

This thread is hilarious. It's Fantasy Football everyone, relax.

[stevegrab]

uou know the irony is, apparently I'm the one who just has to be right. Yet you're the one that insists that any alleged "argument", regardless of how flimsy or irrelevant, be considered valid to prove your point.

 

And again, I'd be happy to go back and refute in very clear terms any argument that you feel I've unfairly labeled as such.

 

 

I have no point to prove, that's you my friend. You took a strong stand "there's no plausible reason not to include these" then deny any reason put forth, because to you it isn't plausible since it is made up and no league actually does it.

 

Whatever, I already gave up, you're right, I'm wrong. We have no good reason, nor does anybody else. All leagues should score these, even if they don't score fumble recoveries which are also important (and they deduct points for fumbles).

 

Go have a 32oz soda and call it a day.

[detlef]

I have no point to prove,

 

So you've spent how many posts not proving a point?

[detlef]

"No question" that falling/fighting on a ball or scoring after a fumble breaks a play down is tougher than executing a play in the NFL? Umm okay, and in in you're whopping sample size of 5, I even still disagree:

 

Garcon - Griffin's fumble happens to squirt forward into the endzone, and Garcon happened to see it first and jumped on it. Wow, what tremendous skill that took. Forget acrobatic catches and getting 2 feet in, that was the play of the year to fall on that ball that happened to squirt forward right to him!

 

Morgan - yes, a little more heads-up, but the play as designed was read and tackled before it broke down. Yes he did a fine job to see the fumble and grab it, but from there the play had broken down and was at mercy of a bounc from a random fumble to give Morgan a lane. So pretty much you're saying that his play took more skill than the good run Griffin made which got defended and stopped. Completely disagree. The play had broken down, giving him a perfect lane due to the fumble that wasn't there otherwise.

 

Murphy - again, the ball randomly squirts forward into the endzone rather than backward, at a spot where he happens to be the closest. You're really going to make the claim that this took more skill or even close to the same as Newton's 10-yard scamper to get it there?

 

Lloyd - we both agree this one was a gift, and it's clear that if Woodhead hadn't fumbled, there's NO QUESTION his run took far more skill as designed to break off big yardage.

 

I think all those examples do is prove my point that it's not a very sound of a indicator of performance and completely random in most cases. Is there any problem with still rewarding them, nope, but I'm not going to put them on a pedestal like there's even small indication that they took even equal skill as the designed plays, nope.

 

When a fumble happens, it's not something that the offensive team has practiced to execute and they're completely at the mercy of the bounce it takes. The play then has ceased to be both executed and defended the way it was intended to be, completely broken down, so I'll reserve my right to not demand that "right" leagues credit scores for complete randomness due to another unrelated player for fantasy purposes.

 

And before you say something about defensive fumble recoveries, I'll remind you that those are different, being clear perfromance factors for the defense. I have trouble saying the same for the offense that there's "no question" these took as much if not more skill than planned executed plays. There is plenty of question that they're completely random and at the mercy of an oddly-shaped ball bouncing.

 

Interesting that you hold the guys who recovered these fumbles to such high standards and yet haven't commented on the reality that, in most leagues, the guy who screwed up and actually put the ball on the ground will end up getting more FF-love out of the play than the guy who recovered the ball if you don't reward the TD recovery. So much for your "performance-based scoring".

 

And I find it extremely laughable the degree to which you're intentionally downplaying the skill and/or alertness in doing what these guys did in scoring these TDs. Josh Morgan pauses for even an instant when the ball inexplicably bounces towards him instead of alertly charging for the goal and he gets tackled by that first guy if not the second two.

 

Louis Murphy doesn't aggressively and alertly dive in among a number of defenders and fight for that ball, that's a turnover.

 

And so on...

 

Essentially, you're inviting an arbitrary and subjective distinction based on what you feel is a hard or easy play and,seemingly adopting a very imaginative take on reality to substantiate it.

[delusions of grandeur]

Interesting that you hold the guys who recovered these fumbles to such high standards and yet haven't commented on the reality that, in most leagues, the guy who screwed up and actually put the ball on the ground will end up getting more FF-love out of the play than the guy who recovered the ball if you don't reward the TD recovery. So much for your "performance-based scoring".

 

And I find it extremely laughable the degree to which you're intentionally downplaying the skill and/or alertness in doing what these guys did in scoring these TDs. Josh Morgan pauses for even an instant when the ball inexplicably bounces towards him instead of alertly charging for the goal and he gets tackled by that first guy if not the second two.

 

Louis Murphy doesn't aggressively and alertly dive in among a number of defenders and fight for that ball, that's a turnover.

 

And so on...

 

Essentially, you're inviting an arbitrary and subjective distinction based on what you feel is a hard or easy play and,seemingly adopting a very imaginative take on reality to substantiate it.

 

 

Are you not doing the opposite, of overplaying the skill involved in their random recoveries? I'm not trying to say the actions are completely lucky with no skill, but from a fantasy standpoint I think a good argument could be made that it's worthy of closer to 0 points than 6 points. It is completely random, and no I don't consider a heads up falling or scooping of the ball to be the same as a planned and executed pass,rush, reception which are anything but random 99.9% of the time.

 

And of course the entire thing is arbitrary and subjective. Any scoring decision you make (or scoring category you exclude) is always going to subjective and arbitrary, hence why there are virtually endless ways to play this game that are still sound.

 

As for the person who fumbled getting more FF love, well yes, they owe their teammate a debt of gratitude for randomly being there to not cost them 2 points. I just don't feel I necessarily owe them 6 points for an action that I refuse to beleive is on par with a planned, executed play that hasn't broken down, and one that is often caused by the ball happening to be hit out forward rather than backwards and someone falling on it.... And to go back to post #6, the action isn't scored anywhere else on the field besides the endzone, so anywhere else on the field the fumbler is still going to get more points than the recoverer. Is that laughable to you as well? Oh right, your outrage is only for those that happened to randomly be in the endzone ,but you have no outrage anywhere else where it's not scored whatsoever.

 

I mean, it isn't like at the combine we say, "bla, bla, bla, I don't care about his measurables or ability to play offense, can he recover a fumble?".

 

Anyways, I'm really done this time, if you're going sit here and suggest not only that it's "indefensible" to not score these plays, but that they actually take more skill than lining up against a defense and running the plays the way they were intended to be run... Can it be a more skilled play, sure, but more often than not it's just a random bounce to a guy who happened to be closest,. and it's only being scored because it happened to be in the endzone.. Surely you can see why, even if you disagree, that I don't feel this is as sound of an indicator as are passing, rushing, receiving categories, so I'll let you have the last word.

Edited December 20, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[detlef]

Are you not doing the opposite, of overplaying the skill involved in their random recoveries? I'm not trying to say the actions are completely lucky with no skill, but from a fantasy standpoint I think a good argument could be made that it's worthy of closer to 0 points than 6 points. It is completely random, and no I don't consider a heads up falling or scooping of the ball to be the same as a planned and executed pass,rush, reception which are anything but random 99.9% of the time.

 

And of course the entire thing is arbitrary and subjective. Any scoring decision you make (or scoring category you exclude) is always going to subjective and arbitrary, hence why there are virtually endless ways to play this game that are still sound.

 

As for the person who fumbled getting more FF love, well yes, they owe their teammate a debt of gratitude for randomly being there to not cost them 2 points. I just don't feel I necessarily owe them 6 points for an action that I refuse to beleive is on par with a planned, executed play that hasn't broken down, and one that is often caused by the ball happening to be hit out forward rather than backwards and someone falling on it.... And to go back to post #6, the action isn't scored anywhere else on the field besides the endzone, so anywhere else on the field the fumbler is still going to get more points than the recoverer. Is that laughable to you as well? Oh right, your outrage is only for those that happened to randomly be in the endzone ,but you have no outrage anywhere else where it's not scored whatsoever.

 

I mean, it isn't like at the combine we say, "bla, bla, bla, I don't care about his measurables or ability to play offense, can he recover a fumble?".

 

Anyways, I'm really done this time, if you're going sit here and suggest not only that it's "indefensible" to not score these plays, but that they actually take more skill than lining up against a defense and running the plays the way they were intended to be run... Can it be a more skilled play, sure, but more often than not it's just a random bounce to a guy who happened to be closest,. and it's only being scored because it happened to be in the endzone.. Surely you can see why, even if you disagree, that I don't feel this is as sound of an indicator as are passing, rushing, receiving categories, so I'll let you have the last word.

 

 

I'm actually not doing the opposite. I'm not trying to make these plays out to be amazing feats. In fact, I'm not trying to differentiate them in any way from any other manner in which a team scores at TD. Sometimes you score from an amazing play, sometimes from an average play, sometimes the D breaks down and it's way easier than it should be, and sometimes the ball bounces just the right way and you get extremely lucky.

 

See, the beauty of being on the correct side of the argument is that I don't have to pretend these plays are anything they're not. I don't have to pretend they're amazing, but, more importantly, I don't have to pretend that they're way easier than a normal play and, thus, not worthy of reward.

 

And you really need to stop with the "scoring it differently than elsewhere on the field", because that's a non-argument. We already do that, with safeties. Done. Tackle in the backfield at midfield gets you nothing in most leagues unless it's a sack. Tackle in the backfield that happens to be the endzone, gets you whatever your league pays out for safeties.