The Rules
fantasy football rules, the way i think they should be done. i've played fantasy for some years and after some refinement, i've settled on some basic rules that i think make for the best league.
rosters. i think a starting roster of eight guys is best. 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR/TE, 1 WR/TE/RB, 1 K, 1 DEF. i don't believe in making TE a mandatory position. it sucks to have to mine for some guy who will get you three catches and fifty yards just so you can start him. there aren't enough quality TEs out there, why bother? i prefer making WR/TE one position. also, the so called "flex" position (WR/TE/RB) is important i think. i love having the option of a run and shoot offense: 1 RB, 4 WR/TE.
in our keeper league, the first season, roger won using the run and shoot; with a stable of WRs and marshall faulk as his lone back. i love this idea, but it's impossible to pull off since you need virtually the best RB in the game and three great WRs. the old "red gun" offense of the early nineties falcons made me feel like the run and shoot is just the best thing in the world.
as for reserves, i feel like the lowest number of bench players the better. i hate having guys sit on the bench while they could be on the waiver wire. i prefer 4 bench spots in a 10 team league, with no bye weeks. this allows for some depth but you need to also play who you own. i don't see the point of having six guys on the bench who aren't available to the general public. this does cut down on prospecting but i would rather have short rosters than deep ones that allow owners to hoard players.
scoring. the scoring system we use is linked on the right. basically it's the same as most systems you might see. a few additions over the years. adding "receptions" for points. this is mainly to help WRs. WRs as a group have gotten less dependable over the years and it sucks to have a star WR not get any points for a huge game with 10 receptions but only fifty or seventy yards. awarding one point per two receptions (rounded down, always rounded down) gives WRs some consistency. of course, RBs benefit from this too but in general, most RBs won't be getting more than 3-4 receptions a game.
i also believe that throwing touchdowns should only be four points. this has been a bone of contention in my keeper league (we award six points per TD) and if i ran things, i would set the points awarded for a throwing TD at four. why? i feel like most QBs in this league throw about two TDs on average a game. a RB or WR who gets 17-20 TDs a year is having a record setting year. a QB who throws 17-20 is only doing average. why reward the QB for having a mediocre year? it has been argued that giving QBs 6pts per is fine since all QBs will be throwing around the same amount. but i think that given how hard it is to get 3 TDs a game for a WR/RB, and how much easier it is for QB, it's not fair to reward them the same. this is just a preference really. i could argue it both ways but i really don't like making QBs that much better than other players. a QB who throws a ridiculous number of TDs (30+) is going to be artificially much more valuable from a total points standpoint.
also, we have a +1 point bonus for rushing/receiving/passing TDs over 50 yards. this should probably be eliminated but it takes into account the mental devastation that a big scoring play can make. so when you see your RB break one off for 67 yards into the endzone you can scream out "score! six points plus one!" unless of course, you're not a fantasy geek and you just say "that was nice..."
as much as i'd like to play individual defensive players, it's just not worth it. i don't think the defensive statistics accurately portray a players impact on the real game. a team with a crap d line and linebackers will have a safety rack up tackles, making him seem like a "star" when he really isn't. i do love the idea of having to balance offense and defensive players but that's something more hardcore for down the road. for now, i'd stick to team defenses. it's important to me that team D can't get more than single digit points on a normal basis. some Ds are so good that they can be near MVP-caliber players for a team. the buccaneers of a few years ago got so many sacks, INTs and TDs that they were practically a 20-pt per game player. i also like the idea of rewarding a few points for yards and points against, just something to give Ds some consistency.
rosters. i think a starting roster of eight guys is best. 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR/TE, 1 WR/TE/RB, 1 K, 1 DEF. i don't believe in making TE a mandatory position. it sucks to have to mine for some guy who will get you three catches and fifty yards just so you can start him. there aren't enough quality TEs out there, why bother? i prefer making WR/TE one position. also, the so called "flex" position (WR/TE/RB) is important i think. i love having the option of a run and shoot offense: 1 RB, 4 WR/TE.
in our keeper league, the first season, roger won using the run and shoot; with a stable of WRs and marshall faulk as his lone back. i love this idea, but it's impossible to pull off since you need virtually the best RB in the game and three great WRs. the old "red gun" offense of the early nineties falcons made me feel like the run and shoot is just the best thing in the world.
as for reserves, i feel like the lowest number of bench players the better. i hate having guys sit on the bench while they could be on the waiver wire. i prefer 4 bench spots in a 10 team league, with no bye weeks. this allows for some depth but you need to also play who you own. i don't see the point of having six guys on the bench who aren't available to the general public. this does cut down on prospecting but i would rather have short rosters than deep ones that allow owners to hoard players.
scoring. the scoring system we use is linked on the right. basically it's the same as most systems you might see. a few additions over the years. adding "receptions" for points. this is mainly to help WRs. WRs as a group have gotten less dependable over the years and it sucks to have a star WR not get any points for a huge game with 10 receptions but only fifty or seventy yards. awarding one point per two receptions (rounded down, always rounded down) gives WRs some consistency. of course, RBs benefit from this too but in general, most RBs won't be getting more than 3-4 receptions a game.
i also believe that throwing touchdowns should only be four points. this has been a bone of contention in my keeper league (we award six points per TD) and if i ran things, i would set the points awarded for a throwing TD at four. why? i feel like most QBs in this league throw about two TDs on average a game. a RB or WR who gets 17-20 TDs a year is having a record setting year. a QB who throws 17-20 is only doing average. why reward the QB for having a mediocre year? it has been argued that giving QBs 6pts per is fine since all QBs will be throwing around the same amount. but i think that given how hard it is to get 3 TDs a game for a WR/RB, and how much easier it is for QB, it's not fair to reward them the same. this is just a preference really. i could argue it both ways but i really don't like making QBs that much better than other players. a QB who throws a ridiculous number of TDs (30+) is going to be artificially much more valuable from a total points standpoint.
also, we have a +1 point bonus for rushing/receiving/passing TDs over 50 yards. this should probably be eliminated but it takes into account the mental devastation that a big scoring play can make. so when you see your RB break one off for 67 yards into the endzone you can scream out "score! six points plus one!" unless of course, you're not a fantasy geek and you just say "that was nice..."
as much as i'd like to play individual defensive players, it's just not worth it. i don't think the defensive statistics accurately portray a players impact on the real game. a team with a crap d line and linebackers will have a safety rack up tackles, making him seem like a "star" when he really isn't. i do love the idea of having to balance offense and defensive players but that's something more hardcore for down the road. for now, i'd stick to team defenses. it's important to me that team D can't get more than single digit points on a normal basis. some Ds are so good that they can be near MVP-caliber players for a team. the buccaneers of a few years ago got so many sacks, INTs and TDs that they were practically a 20-pt per game player. i also like the idea of rewarding a few points for yards and points against, just something to give Ds some consistency.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home