Fantasy Football Discussion Thread

[Al B. Sure!]

13.75 of Brees' points (48.3% of his points) came from completions alone!
compare to only 7.5 of Big Ben's points (26.7%) came from completions.

Brees' was specifically rewarded for dumping off short passes to rack up his yardage total and being completely ineffective.

Big Ben had the same yardage on half the attempts yet would have been outscored by a wide margin had Brees not thrown 4 Interceptions. Brees' 4 Interceptions made them equal.

Flat out, this is broken. There's no way you can say it isn't.

Now, you might say that it's a rare situation but see I stumbled on it when I saw Brees had a respectable point total despite his terrible game. I then searched to see which QB that week had the same fantasy point total to see how they did... Big Ben had the same total and waaaay outperformed Brees. I didn't expand my research to see how common this is but it's telling that the two QB's I looked at that week in depth that had the same fantasy totals had such wildly different days. It also helps that their TD numbers were identical and their yardage was within 52 yards of each other so it makes the case even more compelling.

[Berzerker]

This is about totals, not efficiency, guys.

efficiency should matter more, maybe -1 for inc and -3 for ints and a graduated scale for rating

[Al B. Sure!]

Or a graduated scale for yards per attempt to help the Brees-Big Ben situation I described which I think is a much bigger and glaring problem than your Brady-Manning comparison.

[SlowwHand]

Reinventing the wheel.

[Al B. Sure!]

See what I mean, Berzerker, these are all old men who are stuck in their ways and are blind to see an obvious deficiency

It is beyond me how two QB's could throw for the same yardage, same TD's, but the guy who does it by throwing 60 passes in checkdown charlie performance will significantly outscore in fantasy a QB who does it in 25 passes by slinging it down field. There is just no way this is appropriate.

[SlowwHand]

Then do away with completions. You're making it more difficult than it needs to be. Young punks, that can't figure out the simplest things.

[Al B. Sure!]

I am all for removing fantasy points for completions for next year's league Let's make it about yards, TD's, and INT's. No efficiency rating stuff.

[-Jrabbit]

I think it's absolutely hilarious that you continue to ignore "30 extra touches" and "20 more completions" but can't stop harping on "more turnovers deserves to lose." You're trying to have it both ways.

I'm not saying there aren't anomalies in the system. An INT in the end zone is heart-rending. A pick-6 is far worse than a hail mary that gets picked off. A bounce off a WR's stone hands is the functional equivalent of a stupid throw into triple coverage.

But they all look the same in the score book. Which is a big reason why turnovers can't be penalized too severely. In the same way, the QB gets full marks for a swing pass that goes for an 80-yd TD. It's wrong, but I don't hear people crying out to subtract YAC from QB yardage totals. And it's why fantasy football is based on raw numbers, not yards per attempt, not by percentages and not by QB rating.

There's a reason they don't apply sabermetric statistical rankings to FF. It would create even more anomalies than a raw-numbers approach. Or, to put it bluntly, it would be stupid.

[Al B. Sure!]

I think it's absolutely retarded that you continue to ignore that a QB who throws it 60 times but never more than 4 yard dump-offs is more valuable in fantasy than a QB who throws the SAME YARDAGE but by slinging deep passes.

Like I said, I vote for just yardage, TD's, and INT's for next year. This completion nonsense is nonsense.

Oh and points for completions and deductions for incompletions are already a sort of 'percentages' that you don't want fantasy to take into account. It's already in the format. It's just a broken way of dealing with completion %.

[-Jrabbit]

See what I mean, Berzerker, these are all old men who are stuck in their ways and are blind to see an obvious deficiency

Rewarding completions was a progressive attempt to overcome the problem with game balance in traditional scoring, where the reality of the dominance of the passing game and the ultimate importance of the QB, was consistently taking a back seat to RBs.

We are, in fact, experienced players who have been through a variety of scoring systems. We have strived to find a way, within available scoring systems, to create better balance between positions.

Eliminating completions would put us right back where we started.

It is beyond me how two QB's could throw for the same yardage, same TD's, but the guy who does it by throwing 60 passes in checkdown charlie performance will significantly outscore in fantasy a QB who does it in 25 passes by slinging it down field. There is just no way this is appropriate.

The crux of the problem is your first for words.

Any NFL coach will tell you that he values a QB who can calmly take his team down the field, eating up over 6 minutes with a series of low-risk plays. It requires concentration and execution, and keeps your opponent off the field. This results in more attempts and more completions. I maintain that this is smart football, and is rewarded appropriately. You, on the other hand, prefer the "sling it down the field" approach.

It's like Joe Montana/Bill Walsh vs. Jim Plunkett/Al Davis.

Totally appropriate.

[Jaguar]

We've been over this before. Fantasy rewards attempts. For everyone. A kicker who is 3/5 is "better" than a kicker who is 2/2. A running back with 30 rushes for 100 yards is "better" than one with 13 rushes for 80. A receiver who catches 7 of the 10 passes thrown to him is "better" than a receiver who catches 3/3. A cornerback who gets targeted a lot and often tackles the receiver he was supposed to be covering is "better" than Nnamdi Asomugha.

So why oh why on earth are we so fixated on the QB position?

[Al B. Sure!]

Jaguar, the issue is that the throw it 50 times a QB is being DOUBLY rewarded in a way that the runningback, kicker, etc. isn't.

You see, the 30 carries for 100 yard RB is more valuable than the 13 for 80 RB because he has 20 more yards.

Yet two QB's could throw for 300 yards but the one that does it with 40 completions is more valuable than the one that does it with 20.

The QB's that throw more attempts is already rewarded with a greater liklihood of big yardage and therefore fantasy value. WHY DOUBLE REWARD him for sheer completions?

Do you see that your RB example is irrelevant when 40 completions for 300 yards gets more fantasy points than 20 completions for 320 yards?

Hell, what do we play with? .5 points per completion and what? 1 point per 20 yards passing? ****.

QB with 40 completions for 300 yards will get as many fantasy points as the QB with 20 completions for 500 yards! HOLY **** THAT'S BROKEN. (obviously, incompletions would bring the numbers down a bit but holy ****... what is it? 300 yards gets you the same fantasy points as 400 yards when incompletions are factored in? That isn't broken to you?)

[SlowwHand]

Do I misremember, or is West Coast Offense, and Joe Montana, mostly short passing? Isn't Joe Montana in the HOF? I guess that I'm getting lost.

[-Jrabbit]

Oh and points for completions and deductions for incompletions are already a sort of 'percentages' that you don't want fantasy to take into account. It's already in the format. It's just a broken way of dealing with completion %.

It's "in the format" because we put it there. It's a method of rewarding accuracy that we added (after several years of just having completions), because we are, in fact, flexible in our approach.

You claim to be a progressive thinker, but are actually asking for traditional FF scoring that others abandoned as ridiculously unbalanced and unrealistic around 2004. All based around a couple extreme examples.

[Al B. Sure!]

So a QB that throws for 300 yards on 40 completions is more valuable in fantasy than a QB that throws for 490 yards on 20 completions.

Makes a lot of sense.