 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 1/21/2012 11:07:04 AM |
 |
 |
Hilarious
|
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZoVdjkY8xE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rush
head of scouting
529 posts
 |
Fu: 99.57 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 1/22/2012 10:24:23 PM |
|
|
About Rule Changes
|
|
|
|
I'm all for new and innovative rules to add excitement to the league, but haven't we as owners discussed the implications of the rule changes and after reasonable discussions both pro and con then we vote on the changes. And this quick vote before all sides are heard seems a little like George Bush Sneaking through a midnight vote of the $7 billion "bailout"
Now Back on my Soap Box about rule changes that I would like to see implemented.
The Defense wins championships rule!
The defensive scoring chart is bunk and needs review.
Teams have to get 3 sacks to get 1 point. Three sacks is a pretty good day by most defenses. According to teamrankings .com in 2010 the average sacks per game is 2.2 in the same year Pittsburgh had the highest average 3.1 this season long dominates would be rewarded with a 1 point average.
With todays pass happy league to hold teams under 10 points on a consistent basis is unrealistic. On average this year 1 game in 16 has a team score under 10 the exact number is 33 times out a potential 512. Of those times most had a score of 6,7 or 9 points. Most NFL coaches would be gloating of a dominant performance like that. In Ragnarok we award 7,6 and 5 points respectively.
As far as the most dynamic play in the game today, the defensive turn over. A single turnover grants you no points.
As a solution I suggest a simpler scoring system
1 sack = 2 points
1 turnover =2 points
an updated chart that might look like this ( this is just thought )
held to rewards
0 14
3 12
6 10
7-8 9
9-13 7
14-15 2
16-17 1
*I leave out safeties as a defense should not be punished for an Offensive miscue.
And I don't know how Keith would do it but a defense holding a team to just a field goal after getting into the red zone may be worth granting a point to also.
Holding down the QB insane numbers
I'm sure we have all seen it, year after year QB numbers have been climbing higher and higher. This year in Ragnanok the Individual scoring stats are as follows.
1. A Rodgers 294
2. D. Brees 241
3. C. Newton 240
4. T. Brady 232
5. M. Stafford 209
6. E. Manning 193
7. T. Romo 182
8. P. Rivers 173
9. L. McCoy 165
10. B. Roethlisberger 164
One non-quarterback in the top 10? And it would be another 9 spots until the top WR Calvin Johnson shows up on the board. Man I can't count the times that someone would post that M Hasslebeck is a Stud! I can't count them because it never happened. Well, it should have because he was higher on the scoring chart than Megatron.
Again I have to say the NFL has changed and we too need to change. When the yardage chart was made teams were not throwing for 400 and yes 500 yards in a game these were rarities not something that happened weekly.
Even if we cut the point totals for QB by 1/3 Rodgers would still be 31 points ahead of L Mccoy. If we don't curb the QB point scale I'm afraid that that eventually the only franchise worthy players will be QB's, and owners will be taking their second QB before running backs. And drafting rookie QB's and using the rookie rule is a no brainer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rush
head of scouting
529 posts
|
Fu: 99.57 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 1/23/2012 12:02:30 AM |
|
|
Now my thoughts on the new rule proposal
|
|
|
|
As the scoring and the rookie rules stand now I cannot support the new rule. Don't get me wrong when an owner wins it all he deserves the benefits, it goes with the turf. This rule however skews the curve too much.
First it's implications on the rookie rule. If an owner that wins the league championship has a rookie that is dominate it is a no brainer he has the ability to completely protect the rookie with the rules maximum effect 23 places. If the same rookie is kept by a team who was not the champ he may now have to use his first round pick to protect his pick because an owner with that rookies position need moves in front of him. Effectively negating the plan that a struggling franchise is implementing to improve their team.
Secondly, as long as the QB scoring system remains skewed franchises with top tier QB's can slide down in the draft, pick their spot just before the talent drop off points and get their player at position 6 instead of position 1. Which means they are picking at 18 instead of 24.
These are my major concerns, I invite your criticism and input. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 1/24/2012 8:31:27 PM |
|
|
hmm. wow.
|
|
|
|
| All valid points, and extremely crucial concerning the "new" rookie rule. Thanks for messing it all up. Seriously though, I agree about the defense scoring and would be open to looking at that over the summer as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 1/24/2012 11:59:11 PM |
|
|
I don't quite follow what you're saying.
|
|
|
|
| the way i understand the rookie rule - no matter where you are in the draft if you dclare your rookie as your second round pick, then no one has a chance to take him away from you. so there should never be a situation where anyone needs to use a first round pick to protect a rookie. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 1/26/2012 11:42:17 PM |
|
|
My thoughts
|
|
|
|
nothing like using george bush as a comparison to get people's attention, rush!
i would also be open to tweaking defensive scoring, though not significantly so. while defense may win championships may be true in the nfl (although perhaps not to the extent they used to for the same reasons you mentioned), i don't think most fantasy football fans want to see a situation where fantasy defenses are scoring a huge number of points. i'd be in favor of a minor tweak but nothing major (and i don't understand your logic in not wanting to count safeties--if that's a crazy minnesota thing you'll have to explain it to me).
i think the tweaks made to the scoring system for qb, rb, wr, and te over recent seasons have been great and i don't see a reason to change it again. i wouldn't have a hissy fit if others did--that's just my opinion.
lastly, i think the new rule of selecting your draft slot may actually make for more parity rather than less even if it doesn't feel that way. i would hazard a guess that most seasons the top teams will take the top slots (which doesn't change anything from the current system), but teams toward the bottom may end up picking earlier than they otherwise do. and i think stu is right about the rookie rule--while it's not exactly the same for each team, each team will have ample opportunity to dclare a rookie after the first round in a manner that makes him (or her) untradeable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coach Knoll Cowher
Ninjachef
997 posts
 |
Fu: 100.96 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 1/27/2012 6:43:12 AM |
|
|
Df's, WR's and Te's.
|
|
|
|
I have been saying for some time now that in Ragnarok, the DF slot is more or less useless. For the reasons already laid out by others, DF's have been effectively neutered into irrelevancy. The same is true of TE's. Very few TE's get enough yards to make any difference, except for the two or three each year that are their teams' primary receiver.
WR's are a crap shoot each week, again because most only get a few targets per game. This is mitigated by our ability to start three at that position, so chances are good that an owner will have one or two that produce. Sadly, that's not the case with DF's and TE's, where we only start one.
After playing in Midgard for two seasons now under standard, PPR scoring rules I feel that Ragnarok's scoring system is antiquated, needlessly complicated and does not accurately reflect the impact that DF's and other positions have on their teams' performance. I know there is no hope of ever seeing anything that resembles that type of system in Ragnarok when our Commish firmly beleives in the motto "If it's simple and works let's screw with it." Thus the new rookie rules and draft position changes.
So we are doomed to a system that rewards QB's and elite WR's well above anything else, and has a narrow pool of valuable players. This is great for the owners lucky enough to have those players and suxxorz for everyone else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 1/27/2012 4:40:35 PM |
|
|
Did I mention...
|
|
|
|
Sierra Nevada is building their Eastern plant in my back yard. 2 million barrels a year, a restaurant, concert venue, tours, tasting room, and 80+ full-time jobs averaging 41,000+ K a year (not including part-time). Initial investment in Henderson County: 107 Million dollars.
Woo-Hoo!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rush
head of scouting
529 posts
|
Fu: 99.57 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 1/28/2012 12:29:20 PM |
|
|
I retract my statement of the rookie rule and its impact with the choose your slot
|
|
|
|
After readdressing the impact of rookie rule and choosing your draft slot. I concede to the fact that the an owner with a rookie can only be enhanced by its 23 slot protection not detracted.
As for not counting Safeties on a new defensive scoring system I have no problem with parts of the current D/ST scoring I also didn't include TD's, onside kicks, and others. It was mainly just the impact of those plays I mentioned, although there may certainly be others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rush
head of scouting
529 posts
|
Fu: 99.57 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 1/28/2012 12:42:40 PM |
|
|
Koo
|
|
|
|
| I just reread my older post and understand what you meant by not counting safeties. Yes the defense who scores the safety should be awarded points but the team who had the safety scored against them is currently being punished by having those points being added to total points which reduces the defensive points. (defensive TD's should be add to the list also) Sorry for not being clearer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 2/1/2012 7:14:54 PM |
|
|
Safeties, DF/ST, and QB
|
|
|
|
currently, safeties are accounted for when determining DF/ST Points Held. same goes for defensive touchdowns (not special teams TD's, though). for example, if the Vikings got both an interception return for a TD, a punt return for a TD, and as a safety against the Cowboys and the final score was Vikings 72, Cowboys 0, then the Cowboys DF/ST would have a Points Held value of 63 for the purposes of calculating a fantasy score.
note that for DF TD's, we consider it to be a 7 point adjustment instead of a strict 6 point adjustment, because 99.9% of the time 7 points is the real world actual effect on the Points Held.
regarding overall power and balance for DF/ST's, a few years back we nerfed them pretty well, but we may always be faced with some volatility from year to year (to some extent, this is true for all positions). while we did have a handful of "elite" DF/ST's, the majority of the DF/ST's were under 70 points for the entire year.
for QB scoring, though, we may have something that needs attention and that may need to be tweaked to better reflect the modern game. a simple comparison of the yardage charts reveals some pretty crazy stuff, but that can be a discussion for another day.
in the meantime, Go Giants. ugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coach Knoll Cowher
Ninjachef
997 posts
|
Fu: 100.96 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 2/1/2012 10:29:03 PM |
|
|
Why the huge nerf on DF's?
|
|
|
|
I still don't understand why a DF has to nearly set records to have a decent fantasy performance, compared to a mediocre RB having an average day. Sacks should score a point each, and F's and INT's should be worth 2 points each. That is what DF's do. Points held in the modern game are useless, as scoring is so inflated now. The NFL doesn't let secondaries play real football, and god help you if ya so much as touch any QB other than Big Ben or Mike Vick.
If we are going to waste a slot on DF's , let's make it meaningful. The only other option is to go the IDP route, which is more work than I care for. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 2/25/2012 10:14:54 AM |
|
|
2012 Yardage Proposals are posted
|
|
|
|
check out the .pdf's at the bottom of the 2012 Ragnarok homepage. these contain grid and chart comparisons between 2011 and the proposed 2012 yardages at every position.
basically, for Passing the idea is to mildly increase the low end (sub 200) of the passing yardage and moderately reduce the midrange (300+ area) and high range. this acknowledges the modern passing game and the fact that 300 yard passing games are no longer exceptional. it also allows average to low end QB's to at least be servicable.
for Rushing, the low and mid range were mildly increased.
for Receiving, the low and mid range were moderately increased. it also now starts at 20 instead of 30 (the "21" is a typo).
these three proposals are just that: proposals. they are a bit on the conservative side, and it may be true that we would want to slightly boost the Rushing and Receiving just a tad more in the low/mid range.
One thing that comes up on occasion is the notion of "Why don't we just use a standard scoring system?" In order to preempt an unnecessary tangent, let me say that while i am a big fan of the standard scoring systems in other leagues that i participate in, one of the great things about Ragnarok imho is that it is NOT cookie cutter. You can NOT just enter a standard system into any of the gazillion fantasy websites and get everything spelled out for you. Our system is calculator proof, and that kicks ass. And it should remain calculator proof.
all this being said, we need to make WR's more relevant, RB's a little more muscular, and knock down those primadonna QB's a little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rush
head of scouting
529 posts
|
Fu: 99.57 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 2/27/2012 10:25:39 PM |
|
|
My first thoughts on the proposed yardage changes
|
|
|
|
Overall, I think it is the right move, considering the way the NFL is changing something had to be done. Increasing RB and WR yardage is the right move. I'm not as sure about dropping the yardage scale for the QB at least on the bottom end. I use for example Big Ben who averaged 241 passing yard per game. Good but not great, dropping him from 8 points per game to 7 points isn't really the issue. Even dropping Drew Brees from 13 to 11 points averaged per game passing isn't the big issue. I think maybe instead of dropping the yardage, reducing the points per passing TD from four to three. This will do to things It will still keep the incentive to draft a top QB early, and it will increase the value of QB like Cam Newton who are great athletes and run for many of their scores, but may have shorter careers. Just my thoughts.
I still think the D/ST issue needs to be addressed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 3/3/2012 11:24:04 AM |
|
|
Revised Passing Yardage and new Points Held proposals
|
|
|
|
... are now posted in the documents section on the Ragnarok homepage.
Points Held was also revised, as this is one of the few DF/ST stats that has some predictability and it is also perhaps THE most important stat as well. With scoring in the NFL being on the upswing, this is an even more important characteristic of a Defense.
The new Points Held chart now extends out to 17 points held (currently is 14) for earning the first fantasy point, and it also now has a logarithmic characteristic to it ala the other charts used for Ragnarok. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 3/4/2012 10:08:46 AM |
|
|
Big fan of the new DST curve
|
|
|
|
| I think this new scoring system will help create some distance between average defenses and the handful of truly elite ones. I particularly like that this should benefit the Eagles, the prohibitive Super Bowl favorite in 2012-13. Go Iggles! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rush
head of scouting
529 posts
|
Fu: 99.57 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 3/4/2012 10:28:18 PM |
|
|
D/ST
|
|
|
|
| Yeah! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 3/7/2012 10:18:40 PM |
|
|
Yea, sure, but...
|
|
|
|
| totally up front, i don't like change. I do however understand most of the points made in the recent weeks about the scoring system. But here is the thing... we ALL agree that our ragnarok is the best around. There are ways to take advantige of our system as it stands. I tryed last year in the draft to make some moves that would set things to my favor. Now, it did not work out ( with the exception of pissing Keith off) for me but hey, I did it. I just don't buy the excuse that you have no chance in ragnarok if you don't have an "elite" QB. Part of what is at our core is the way we grade the performance of the positions in the game. Everybody knows what they are and it is up to each owner to draft accordingly. Just because you think that your particular draft looks great and then your team goes on to a 4-9 season doesn't mean that the system is broke. In today's game, the QB is the most important player on a team. Does anybody think that if Payton Manning was healthy last year the Colts would have still won 2 games? It is not that hard. Most of the "elite" Qb's are franchised. it is your job as an owner to find a way to draft a team that can win, I think this is more about off-season time and less about the scoring system. Just my thoughts, no offense... I did come in last this past year by the way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 3/8/2012 7:54:18 AM |
|
|
i agree with the Blast, too
|
|
|
|
i also think the truth is somewhere inbetween. ultimately, as the Blast stated it does come down to analyzing the system and then formulating a strategy for maximizing your team accordingly. that being said, our scoring charts are a little bit out of kilter especially in the light of how the game seems to have evolved. and i don't say that pointedly in regards to nerfing QB's, but more towards empowering the other skill positions.
in particular, most teams have a RBBC approach and this also now extends to receivers. the ball is being spread around to so many players each game, compared to 10 years ago when teams threw most of their balls to their well defined #1, #2, and #3 WR's. in the current NFL, it's fairly common to see a QB throw to 9-10 different players in one game. and since our Ragnarok system doesn't even count the first 29 yards receiving, in one game we're looking at 290 yards of receiving output that doesn't earn a single fantasy point. it's kind of silly how in our current system a WR could get 6 catches for 85 yards and earn a whopping 4 fantasy points. is that a fair representation of their impact on their real life game?
all this being said, the proposed changes to the yardage system are very conservative. QB's were slightly improved at the lower level (~ +5%) and slightly reduced at the very top (~ -10%). WR's and RB's were modestly improved in the lower part of the curve (~ +5%). WR's now earn a point starting at 20 yards instead of 30 (just like RB's do). all in all, it's not too much of a shift, but it seems to me to be a balancing shift.
if we move forward with these changes, they will probably be the last scoring changes for a long time. looking at the past five years, we do see a wide variance in QB output so we should not be overreacting after the 2011 campaign. it's hard to know if this was a result of the evolution of the game itself, or because defenses didn't get a full offseason due to the lockout, or because of the new rules limiting hitting in practice each week. only time will tell. but in any case, even if things average out for the 2012 season, i still think these minor scoring tweaks will make the league better, faster, stronger than before. |
|
|
|
|
|
