 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ricky
Headbanger
3322 posts
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 5/19/2018 7:17:22 PM |
 |
 |
Rules Proposal 22.6: No 3rd QB requirement and going to 19 roster slots
|
|
|
|
Here ye, here ye! It is hereby proposed that we drop the drafting requirement for having three (3) quarterbacks. In addition, it is proposed that we lower the total roster slots from 20 to 19.
The motivations behind this are a) three QB's is plain silly, b) adding 12 more players to the Free Agency pool will be a positive thing, and c) it helps intensify some of the positional management during the regular season. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 5/19/2018 7:44:27 PM |
|
|
Yes.
|
|
|
|
| And yes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head of Scouting
Gjallarhorn player
529 posts
 |
Fu: 99.57 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 5/20/2018 5:15:22 PM |
|
|
Harumph!
|
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt3GBlVjUd0
That makes two. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/24/2018 12:11:26 PM |
|
|
I've gone full circle on this
|
|
|
|
I'm glad that these ideas are put forth early in the offseason, because it gives time to reflect on any proposed changes. And now I've come to the conclusion that this rule proposal is not that great of an idea. It kind of chips away at one characteristic of our league which separates itself from other leagues: Our large roster size. Twenty players is just plain awesome.
I think one of the motivations behind this is to address the ancient drafting requirement of 3 QB's. Nearly everyone ends up dropping their #3 QB in order to pick up other positions in free agency. But when first talking about it, we did not want to nix that requirement and have 2 Owners Choice slots, either. And so chopping off a roster slot was one way to go about that. It just feels like we're chopping off our nose.
Speaking just for myself, I'd rather A) keep it as-is, or B) have 2 Owners Choice slots.
Please chime in with any feedback or other ideas - this is a doozy of a rules proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/27/2018 12:10:39 PM |
|
|
Just to put this out there for everyone
|
|
|
|
Keith and I have spent a good amount of time discussing the QB/roster spot issue.
My suggestion was to eliminate the 3rd QB and leave that roster spot undrafted. The roster spot would have to be filled in free agency. We would still have 20 roster spots, but only 19 would get filled through keepers and the draft. This option isn't a whole lot different from what already happens when people drop their 3rd QB immediately in free agency.
Personally, I would prefer this over eliminating the roster spot and also over having 2 coaches choices. But I think it would probably be easier to just keep things the way they are than to switch to this type of system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/27/2018 7:47:59 PM |
|
|
22.5 doesn't do much for me
|
|
|
|
| I don't have a strong case against this idea; I just don't see it solving a major problem. If there are ideas out there to make QBs relevant enough to want to roster 3 of them, I'd rather that idea be implemented than further erode QB relevance, which I think 22.5 may do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/28/2018 10:03:24 AM |
|
|
Seconded. QBs are an issue, but b/c they're already criminally UNDERvalued.
|
|
|
|
Love all the discussion, as usual. I've made so secret that I think the one major area where we're behind the curve is in terms of QB value. At last year's draft weekend (or it may have been the one before), I advocated for looking at a 2 QB format. While the reasons for this are still as sound as ever, in thinking about this more and discussing with some of you further, I think the right answer is more in the Superflex direction--that way the pendulum doesn't swing too far in the other direction, where teams are left without any QBs due to injuries or bye weeks.
It makes no sense to me that the most important position in football (and one that's only becoming even more important with every change the NFL makes) is so undervalued in fantasy that we typically see the elite QBs being drafted in the company of significantly less valuable players at other positions.
Consider that Aaron Rodgers, preseason QB1, is currently being drafted between Kenyan Drake (RB18) and Amari Cooper (WR14). Or that Deshaun Watson, preseason QB2, is being drafted between Mark Ingram (RB23 who's fucking suspended for 4 games!) and Ronald Jones (RB24, e.g. "WHO?"). That seems criminally unbalanced to me.
There are two reasons for this:
(1) QB AVAILABILITY: When only 12 of 32 NFL starting QBs are played in fantasy in any given week, their relative value becomes extremely diluted. Why draft one early if so many are available later in the draft or in free agency? Their trade value is also minimized--how important is it really to trade for a backup QB?
(2) QB SCORING: it's such that the difference between the first and last starting QB (e.g. QB1 vs QB12) is only 76 pts, whereas the difference between the first and last starting RB (RB1 vs RB24) is 165 pts, and the first and last starting WR (WR1 vs WR36) is 102 pts. With that little relative difference, of course it makes sense to wait on a QB.
Addressing QB scoring would be the easiest thing to do logistically, but I don't think it's the solution, given that QBs are already scoring more than the other positions (so it isn't that they aren't scoring enough, but that there's not much separation), and any changes made to QB scoring still wouldn't solve the issue that only 12 of them hold any real value.
So we're back to the first problem from above. We should (rightly) be proud that Ragnarok has been ahead of the curve--proactive and progressive--in virtually everything it does. But you have your head in the sand if you haven't noticed the fantasy landscape shifting toward 2 QB/Superflex formats, and with good reason.
One can even make the argument that making more QBs important would be a good thing for league parity/competitiveness, as it would increase the # of quality/important players available to draft.
I'd love to hear an argument AGAINST some sort of Superflex format. The only two I can think of are (1) we've decided to be 1 QB "traditionalists" when we aren't that way for anything else, or (2) it would be complicated to make this transition based on franchise/rookie rules, etc.
If you're against it because of the first reason, you're stubbornly holding onto antiquated policies and backward ideologies. In other words, you're basically a Trump supporter.
And if you're against it because of the second reason, you're not looking at this from a macro perspective. Ragnarok--the league in general and our group of owners--is as strong as it's ever been. We just celebrated year #25, for fuck's sake. So even if it takes one season where things are a little different to make this transition, that's merely a blip on the radar.
I don't claim to have the answer as to exactly what this change would be. My purpose in rambling at length here is to generate support for the general idea--if more of us are in favor of such a change and willing to think about cool ways we could implement a Superflex in a truly Ragnarokian way, the better our chances of arriving at a solution.
Word to your mother. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coach Cowher Tomlin
Football Freak
997 posts
 |
Fu: 100.96 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/28/2018 6:02:34 PM |
|
|
Question
|
|
|
|
| What is a Superflex position. Not sure I understand that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/28/2018 6:05:18 PM |
|
|
Superflex
|
|
|
|
| I think it would involve converting one of our bench slots to be a starter slot which could be QB, RB, WR, or TE. So our starting lineup would be 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 QB/RB/RW/TE, 1 K, 1 DFST, 1 HC. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/28/2018 6:19:12 PM |
|
|
I would agree with the superflex format
|
|
|
|
| As long as Franchise players are not eliminated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head of Scouting
Gjallarhorn player
529 posts
|
Fu: 99.57 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/28/2018 11:09:04 PM |
|
|
Why call it a Superflex Lets just call it what it would be a 2nd Starting QB
|
|
|
|
| And that's fine but it a fundamental overhaul of the Ragnarok scoring system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head of Scouting
Gjallarhorn player
529 posts
|
Fu: 99.57 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/29/2018 12:10:41 AM |
|
|
Just as Sean is rallying for the relevance of QBs
|
|
|
|
It reminds me of my battle for making defenses relevant. Even though there has been a modest increase in the defensive scoring system, I feel it is still under valued. Sean is correct in his statements that the Quarterback position has long been called the most important position in all sports. Also in his statistics of QB rankings vs other positions. Data often points out glaring flaws that go on being ignored for...well sometimes lifetimes.
This is going to be a tricky balance as generally QB's receive so many more points than their colleagues in other positions.
I'm going to spitball this idea. Two year ago Keith proposed an augmented defensive scoring system to make the good defenses have real value and poor defenses costly. Maybe we could take the same approach to the QB position. First cutting their score in half then multiplying their score by .66 thereby making the best stand out from the rest, but not making the position so over powered. The value of elite QB's could be augmented further by increasing the multiplier.
Have no fear, in just 7 short years of annually bringing up your point something small could happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/29/2018 9:39:11 AM |
|
|
Good stuff. Some random thoughts:
|
|
|
|
*Definitely wouldn't want franchise players to be affected in any way by a transition to a Superflex spot. I think the best way to do this would be to institute the Superflex at least 1--and maybe 2--seasons in advance. That way every team has adequate opportunity to shift their roster/franchise player if they want.
*We would want to distinguish between a Superflex and 2nd QB slot, as it would allow owners to start a RB/WR/TE in the event they didn't have a 2nd QB to play that week (whether due to injuries, bye week scarcity, or just general incompetence).
*If we're worried that the Superflex would tip the scales too far the other way in terms of QB importance, we could look at a diluted scoring system specifically for the Superflex QB. Because I'm Asian and can do math, I looked at the last Ragnarok season statistics to see what the difference in scoring would be for a Superflex QB (the average scoring of QB13-QB24) versus if someone were to start an extra RB (RB25-36), WR (WR37-48), or TE (TE13-24). Here's what I found:
Avg. QB13-QB24: 174 pts
Avg. RB25-RB36: 67.5 pts
Avg. WR37-WR48: 52 pts
Avg. TE13-TE24: 31 pts
So that would tell us that, in a vacuum, there would be a HUGE advantage to starting a 2nd QB over another RB/WR/TE, whereas ideally we probably wouldn't want it to be quite this big. In terms of scoring, perhaps that would mean something as simple as making Superflex QBs scoring a certain % of regular QB scoring--somewhere in the 50-75% range? Or someone could come up with a creative, outside-the-box system that would accomplish something similar but add more fun? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coach Cowher Tomlin
Football Freak
997 posts
|
Fu: 100.96 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/29/2018 5:43:34 PM |
|
|
Too much math
|
|
|
|
| I'm a food service worker and this all makes my head hurt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/29/2018 7:58:02 PM |
|
|
Less math but more QB relevance
|
|
|
|
I find superflex to be intriguing. But I also think it's worthwhile to try and improve QB relevance without making major changes to our league structure or requiring complicated math. Ideally, we could just make a bigger spread between the top QBs and the mediocre ones, thus improving the position's draft stock, trade value, and FA worth and moving us away from the late round QB era that goes against NFL realities. Here are some ideas:
+3 points for QB winning their NFL game, -3 points for losing - To me, QBs are more associated with their team's chance of winning NFL games than any other position. So how about we include their outcome in our scoring. That would boost the Brady's and Rodgers' value while tamping down the points given to QBs on bad teams getting garbage points.
Increasing points for each TD - I expect that TD passes are well correlated with winning, and the best QBs are generally more associated with big TD totals than big yardage totals. So how about a sliding scale for TD passes, like 4 points for TD 1, 5 points for TD2, etc. Again, this should help the QBs with truly great performances.
Total point threshold - if your QB doesn't get, say, 10 points, they go back to zero. So there is added risk in playing rotating mediocre QBs with supposedly good matchups, and increased benefit in drafting and rostering consistent QB1s that are more likely to reach that threshold.
None of these ideas would change scores by more than a few points per week. And there are more aggressive concepts as well if these are too tame (like only giving points to the top half scoring QBs that week, having different scoring charts for winning QBs and losing QBs, etc). But I expect they could encourage teams to prioritize QBs a bit more, without Kent-harming math or major structural overhauls.
Jeremy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/29/2018 8:33:45 PM |
|
|
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
| Less math is better. Fundamentally changing our league is not something I am interested in. I like this type of compromise put forth by Jeremy. I will vote against any type of super flex. I would be in favor of appropriate changes to QB scoring system and for that matter, DEF scoring system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coach Cowher Tomlin
Football Freak
997 posts
|
Fu: 100.96 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/30/2018 6:10:40 AM |
|
|
Maybe too simple and obvious
|
|
|
|
| How about making QB TDs worth 6 points like all other positions? I agree that we should not reward yardage, as that is often racked up in garbage time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/1/2018 7:08:02 AM |
|
|
Super flex and the quarterback duo idea?
|
|
|
|
One thing I like about fantasy football is that the starting rosters simulate real football. Adding a second qb would drastically change this. In addition, a second qb would be a huge change to a finely tuned machine. I agree that the point spread should be greater from 1-12. This could be done with an increase in points for td’s and more penalties for turnovers. The third qb is a waste of time drafting, as everyone drops them to load up on rbs and wrs. This depletes the free agency pool for teams that need it.
As for “super flex”, this supports the idea of starting a second qb. It is pure math that qbs have the most points so it is not a decision for any team to start a second qb . Even the rb, wr, & te flex is a thinly disguised ruse. It is just another reason to overload rosters with wrs and rbs. I have liked the idea of the starting lineup being the same with one exception, a second te can be started in place of a wr or rb. This gives extra power to te’s, the lowest scoring position. A second te becomes a real deal. Even in the draft, a team with gronk is a threat to take Kelsey! In addition, 2 te plays are a real football strategy! Unlike three rbs or two qbs.
Fantasy football will never be a perfect game. I agree that the unused qbs are an untapped resource but adding a second one at full strength is not solving the problem with the points. Solve the points problem first. When this is closer, maybe, then add a second qb. Doubling the problem is like voting Trump in again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/1/2018 10:24:18 AM |
|
|
I think I've just gone double full circle
|
|
|
|
| i think going to 19 slots would be fine, too. that's still a boatload of a roster and it does enrich free agency just a tad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/2/2018 4:37:50 PM |
|
|
Love the debate
|
|
|
|
I get that no one obviously starts 2 QBs in real football. Even in China, football isn't played that way. However, in real football, no one would draft an elite QB after 20 RBs either. Purely on the surface--with the caveat of if we can find the right balance scoring-wise--I still think a Superflex brings a lot of fun to the table:
*More players are valuable at the top of the draft, which should increase parity in the first few rounds
*More players are valuable in free agency, which increases strategy and fun
*More players are valuable as trade assets, which increases strategy and fun
*Another starting slot becomes available, which is also one more slot where Zach can have a player suffer a catastrophic injury.
I really like the creativity represented by some of the ideas thrown out here, particularly in how to make the "best" QBs more valuable. I don't know what this solution would be, other than that I don't think it's as simple as increasing pts for TDs and making turnovers costlier--at least, not as the entire solution. I would definitely support this concept though.
But no matter what, this would still result in only 12ish QBs being important (albeit more important) out of 32. Given the state of the game, this doesn't seem appropriate (to me). And while I'm advocating (perhaps annoyingly so) for the Superflex, I wholeheartedly agree that we would want to do so with a "restrictor plate" on QB scoring. QBs should score more points in this slot compared to a RB3, WR4, or TE3, but not disgustingly so. We could cap scoring at a certain #, only have Superflex QBs score a certain % of regular QB pts, penalize if a Superflex QB doesn't reach a threshold or is outscored head-to-head at the Superflex by a non-QB player, etc. All sorts of cool possibilities. No?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/2/2018 6:10:03 PM |
|
|
If we are trying to make our league
|
|
|
|
| Represent the NFL as far as value of positions (QB) it should be stated that there are really only a couple of “Elite” ( hate that word) QB’s in the NFL as it is. It is up to each owner (in Ragnarok) to make a decision on how to value those players vs other positions. To me the solution is not adding more players ( flex, superflex, whatthe hell else you want to call it) but making the scoring system more representative of the positions. Whether that is taking a 10 year average or .... I don’t know. I don’t do math. A Flex position in our league just seems wrong. I like that it is what it is. Small tweaks over time, and tradition. God I sound old and white. But, it’s how I feel about it. So it’s real. My 2 cents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/2/2018 6:30:22 PM |
|
|
Summer Reading
|
|
|
|
I've been keeping up with the ideas with the SuperFlex. Not because of the math, though there are lots of imaginary numbers and percentages flying around, I'm having a little trouble actualizing the 12 "elite" QB's with a 2nd QB in a real scenario on a Sunday morning (for me). I'm not against a flex position. My big question would be who are these 12ish QB's that would be digified as more elite?
I get it. I know the big five or six QB's that are unquestionably rock stars. But take, Jaemis Winston. He's out the first three games. With his cadre of players, he may come back and be 5th or 6th best Fantasy QB, or better. Or if a Tom Brady dies? Does Luck return? So these 12... are these players filtered up into this cone of power by predictions/historical data, or are these QB's simply the "first" QB drafted be each team? Then other QB's are "2nd QB's" ...unless the Alpha QB has a bye?
Maybe I'm overthinking that, or missed the explaination. Or maybe I suffered a catastrophic inability to read.
Either way, I'm open to making it stronger. I'll vote when a proposal is made.
So...here's a completely different thought rolling in my head. If we went to a two QB/Flex roster, wouldn't that player's production be a more exciting tie breaker? Meaning, if we are looking at having stronger overall rosters, why not REMOVE the HC from the roster. Come on. Coaches are kitschy. It's cute and all, but if we want deeper rosters, this is THE no brainer. I would think we could do a Sunday Morning Coffee 'n Coach it up round, seperate of the draft. Shit, we each pick one HC. They go into a bowl. We draw one. One could always change throughout the season. Meh. The HC can have a little box for their picture in our details box above our roster. Our Coach Mascot. He can protect and dole out our FU.
Joking aside, that seems more legit for a tie breaker anyway, and gives additional incentive (if you needed more) to have the strongest roster that you believe can compete week in and week out. Right now, it's a round that has no meaning. I mean we've been letting Joe put the Bills coach on the board in, like, round 7. Most folks either pick their homer coach, or one they can pronounce. Numberwise, the active roster could ultimately remain the same without the HC. It just becomes Flex/2nd QB. Just brainstorming to make things muddier.
Some of you have put WAY more thought into this than I have. As long as we are all doing the same system, and we're having fun, I'll play however the league decides.
Party on Wayne.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head of Scouting
Gjallarhorn player
529 posts
|
Fu: 99.57 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/2/2018 10:12:33 PM |
|
|
Ok, I'm a numbers guy
|
|
|
|
Well maybe not when it comes to cumulative wins each season, but when it comes to reasoning out a decision I love me some data.
First I want to say, when Sean first brought up this topic I was spit in my thinking of...A) I don't want anything to do with a superflex, though I could live with a second QB position. B) I fully agree with Sean that QB's even though they are normally by far the highest scoring player on our teams, they are being totally undervalued.
So I looked at last years roster and some of the things that we are saying in our arguments are erred.
* The best twelve QB are not evenly dispersed through the ownership. We have to go down to #15 before each franchise is represented.
* The reason QB's are undervalued is not because they are not scoring enough. The highest scoring QB, Russel Wilson scored one third of his teams total points last year.
* The difference in points between #1 and #15 is 98 points in a 13 game season that's 7.5 points per game. Believe it or not that 7.5 points is 11.7% of an average teams score each week. More than enough to change the outcome of many games each season.
So the question remains how do we make QB's more valuable so they are drafted in a realistic spot without over scoring the position. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/6/2018 11:03:56 AM |
|
|
roster details 'n' stuff
|
|
|
|
It seems that our choices at this time come down to drafting requirements and roster size. We can break out the QB Relevance discussion to its own thread which will have the Dynasty's power point presentation attached to it.
Unless someone wants to amend this, I think our choices can be distilled to the following two options:
OPTION 1: DON'T CHANGE
I think this is why we have had confusion during the past few years' drafts: We have the rules set up with 19 players (see Ragnarok's scoring system) but we have been drafting 20 and rostering 20.
If we don't change, this essentially is the rule:
QB 2/3
RB 4/5
WR 5/6
TE 2/3
K 2/3
DF 2/3
HC 1/2
===============
18 Total plus 2 Owners Choices
Roster Size = 20
OPTION 2: TRIM TO ROSTER SIZE OF 19
QB 2/3
RB 4/5
WR 5/6
TE 2/3
K 2/3
DF 2/3
HC 1/2
===============
18 Total plus 1 Owners Choice
Roster Size = 19
Unless I'm missing something, or someone else wants to add to this, I'll be putting up a ballot box in order to bring this to an official resolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/23/2018 10:42:52 AM |
|
|
This discussion seems to have died out
|
|
|
|
Keith and I had a discussion about this topic last night and felt it was important to make sure everyone is on the same page. The Scoring page for the league shows that the league configuration is 2 QB draft minimum and 19 roster spots - which is not how we've been running the league. I don't know how many people have noticed that the website contradicts how we've actually been doing things, but apparently this isn't the first year we've had this situation. It definitely caused some confusion for me and is something that we should get cleared up as a league. The last thing we need is to be in the middle of the draft and realize that people have different understandings of the league configuration.
For that reason, Keith and I decided that this year's draft should keep the settings the way that we've been doing them - 3 QB minimum and 20 roster spots. We can address the situation and make any necessary decisions/changes in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/23/2018 4:43:10 PM |
|
|
Thanks Stu
|
|
|
|
That all makes sense.
2 weeks, fellas! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/23/2018 8:47:45 PM |
|
|
Woo!
|
|
|
|
| Gonna be epic! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/20/2019 6:38:05 PM |
|
|
vote is split
|
|
|
|
As of now we have a dead split on the rosters vote. I have recently gone back and looked at the thread. It's a good argument for both sides. At the end of the day, this is the comment that sticks out:
The Scoring page for the league shows that the league configuration is 2 QB draft minimum and 19 roster spots - which is not how we've been running the league. I don't know how many people have noticed that the website contradicts how we've actually been doing things, but apparently this isn't the first year we've had this situation. - Stu
Not sure where the vote would be headed, but looking at the other rules ammendments, this is the one that needs a revote, or review, or whatevs.
I almost scoped out the house today, but got sidetracked... I so excited! Got a new Cheifs hat and bought grief from the asshole who was working there. Fuckin Raiders fan... I'm the only fucking Chiefs fan in town! I'm giving YOU my money and not Amazon you asshole! Eesh. #BooneMall.
FOOTBALL! |
|
|
|
|
|
