ExtremeSkins FF Dynasty League

[MattFancy]

Conn, I agree about the IDPs. Either we scrap them or tweak the scoring system with them a bit.

[GOSKN5]

hmmm... not sure how I feel about IDPs... dont want to scrap them for sure.... they can make or break you believe it or not....

The difference between the team with the best LB, DB, DL was around 100 points for each position.... divided over 14 games that is a pretty good number IMO....

another way to look at is, is that the team with the top DB (28) got 256 points from that position, the team with top LB (B&G) got 275 which is comparable to the team with the top TE production (TDR) with 298 points.... not sure what that means just something to think about.... do we really want LB and DBs outscoring TEs?? maybe so... I know these numbers are a little scewed due to how many were on the respective rosters....

again, not sure how I feel.. not for or against a change at this point.. (wouldnt be against an increase)... just thinking out loud with some of the numbers.... and would like to hear some discussion...

[twenty-eight]

I think IDP's are huge....difference between winning and losing those close games. Some folks don't put much stock in them.


What if we added to the number of IDP's we start? Maybe like 1 DL and a LB/DB flex. I'd be open to scoring changes as well...

[Forehead]

For my part, I love the IDP aspect. If you get a good linebacker and safety, you're likely going to get at least 10 points just because they're in on tackles, and they do make a difference. I do think the scoring needs to be tweaked. I'm fine with the point per tackle, but bigger plays like sacks, fumbles, interception I think need to double, to four points, to help differentiate who the big playmakers are.

[GOSKN5]

For my part, I love the IDP aspect. If you get a good linebacker and safety, you're likely going to get at least 10 points just because they're in on tackles, and they do make a difference. I do think the scoring needs to be tweaked. I'm fine with the point per tackle, but bigger plays like sacks, fumbles, interception I think need to double, to four points, to help differentiate who the big playmakers are.

I think that is the correct solution right there.... that could really help boost their value..

[Forehead]

I think that is the correct solution right there.... that could really help boost their value..

Better yet, if we could standardize value, it might help equalize thing. One of our more OCD members could go back the last ten years and figure out what the average was for league lead in Int's, sacks, fumble recoveries, etc. so that we can determine their appropriate values relative to tackles, or something.

[ConnSKINS26]

Forehead, I kind of like that. Although I think tackles could stand for an upgrade as well.

My point wasn't that our IDP's can't make or break a matchup (of course they can). My point was just that it feels like with our scoring the way it is, the big scoring games for IDP players really only come when they score a defensive or return TD. Otherwise, there isn't enough of a gap between the special guys, and the Rob Ninkovich's of the world, who I picked up off the wiaver to fill a hole and he ended up being a top-5ish DL/LB.

Picking an IDP lineup just feels too much like picking a K. All you can do is try to play matchups--dome here, high-scoring offense there, Denver's long-range-kicking field here...and if you're lucky, your K will have one of those crazy 25+ point nights if everything lines up.

Rather than having to draft, trade for, and stash the elite young passrushers and playmakers, you can slot in anyone based on matchup, because you're just hoping for tackles. The playmakers need to be awarded. If there was a way to count pass deflections, that would be awesome too.

[Touchdown Redskins]

Little late to the party, but man it would be awesome to have Stosh back. Obviously, it's not practical (or is it?), so I like the suggestions put forth.

As for IDP, I do think they are an important part. I've lost close games this year because my IDPs **** the bed. I do agree that maybe we can make big defensive plays worth more, and that might be able to really make a tiered system whereby playmakers (Ed Reed, for instance) becomes tangibly more valuable than a tackle-heavy strong safety who racks up points because he's simply asked to be a 4th linebacker.

[ChrisCooleyFunkFactory]

Forehead, I kind of like that. Although I think tackles could stand for an upgrade as well.

My point wasn't that our IDP's can't make or break a matchup (of course they can). My point was just that it feels like with our scoring the way it is, the big scoring games for IDP players really only come when they score a defensive or return TD. Otherwise, there isn't enough of a gap between the special guys, and the Rob Ninkovich's of the world, who I picked up off the wiaver to fill a hole and he ended up being a top-5ish DL/LB.

Picking an IDP lineup just feels too much like picking a K. All you can do is try to play matchups--dome here, high-scoring offense there, Denver's long-range-kicking field here...and if you're lucky, your K will have one of those crazy 25+ point nights if everything lines up.

Rather than having to draft, trade for, and stash the elite young passrushers and playmakers, you can slot in anyone based on matchup, because you're just hoping for tackles. The playmakers need to be awarded. If there was a way to count pass deflections, that would be awesome too.

I dont think what youre asking for really exists.

I think there's three types of IDP scoring systems.
1- Ours. 1pt/tackle, same pts for big plays as in TM DEF scoring
2- less emphasis on tackles, more emphasis on big plays. (.7 pts for tackles, 3 pts for sacks, bonus pts for DL sacks, pass deflections, etc.)
3-emphasize big plays and tackles.

I really like option 2, because it values good DEF players like Ed Reed and Darrelle Revis as opposed to bums. Also, it allows for the DL position to become more pertinent which is more fun I think cause its SO important in the NFL. The problem is average scores per week can be all over the place due to the high volatility rewarding a few plays.

The only way to soften that volatility is to balane it with increasing the value of the tackles as well and that leads to option 3. This results in IDPs becoming too valuable in my opinion.

This is the rules section like option 2 from my other dynasty league with 28:
3 points for every 10 Assisted Tackles (0.3 per) ALL
7 points for every 10 Solo Tackles (0.7 per) ALL
4 points for every Interception DB, DL, LB
3 points for every Sack DB, LB
5 points for every Sack DL
3 points for every Fumble Forced ALL
2 points for every Fumble Recovered DB, DL, LB
6 points for every Safety ALL
7 points for every Defensive TD DB, DL, LB
2 extra points for every Defensive TD of 80 or more yards ALL
2 extra points for every Defensive TD between 40 and 79 yards (inclusive) ALL
2 points for every Pass Defended DB, LB
3 points for every Pass Defended DE


edit: I dont mean to shoot your idea down Conn, but I went through alot of this two years ago designing that other dynasty league. if you want we can create a test league and play with the rules to see how it affects the player distribution because my memory could be wrong. i think it takes 3-4 people to create one.

also liking int return yards more and more. maybe 1pt/10 yds like punt return yards.

[ConnSKINS26]

No, not insulted at all CCFF, you have way more experience with IDP than I do. This is actually my only IDP league, I'm more of an offense-only kind of guy...but probably because I've never played in a league where the point system actually emphasized NFL defenders that are...well, good. In our system, Reed Doughty is a viable option because he racks up tackles (or used to). In a system like you laid out, the players like Ed Reed become MUCH more valuable...hell, maybe even worth trading for. I love adding the pass defensed, length bonus for defensive TD's, and I think I like your INT return idea as well. Is FF capable of handling that?

I like your scoring system right there, but like you said, it might need to be tested out just to see who the top players would be, how consistent the good players perform under those scoring rules, etc.

I think its worth exploring.

[MattFancy]

That's not a bad idea CCFF

[Drop]

Ok wait, i like everything i'm reading here...but what are we going to do first? Are we going to dive into rule changes and have everything sorted out before we get the new owners in here, or are we going to solve the replacement issue, then bring them in here and allow them to inject their two cents into these discussions?

We're kinda all over the board here at the moment. Let's narrow things down to one objective at a time.

[MattFancy]

Ok wait, i like everything i'm reading here...but what are we going to do first? Are we going to dive into rule changes and have everything sorted out before we get the new owners in here, or are we going to solve the replacement issue, then bring them in here and allow them to inject their two cents into these discussions?

We're kinda all over the board here at the moment. Let's narrow things down to one objective at a time.

I think we should focus on the new people first that way they can vote on the new things.

But it doesn't hurt to bring up stuff now.

[Drop]

No it doesn't hurt to bring things up now, I agree. But at the same time, we don't want four votes, and two issues of owner replacement all going on at the same time. THe more we bring these issues up, the more people say, "well I vote for this or that", then we're keeping tallies on votes, that really we shouldn't be taking until we get the new owners in place if we're going to allow them to have a say in all this.

[MattFancy]

Today is the last day for people that are interested to let Conn know right?