[National Champion Chris Cole]

I was actually unaware that we added receptions, completions, and attempts. That is on me for not researching that prior to the draft. I'm not usually in favor of adding points for those.

[Lucky]

sg said:

Well, the thought process goes that if there is one position that scores much more then any others, it basically makes a league one dimensional. You really only have one option to win on a regular basis and that's to have a top QB.

Thing is that's not really holding true through 8 weeks. Here's the top 10 QBs and where their teams are.

Brady - 3rd
Romo - 5th
Anderson - 11th
P. Manning - 2nd
Palmer - 10th
Rothlisberger - 4th
Favre - 8th
E. Manning - 7th
Garcia - 12th
Hasselback - 6th

2 of the top 5 QBs' teams are at the bottom of the league. The 1st place team has the 14th best QB (in a 12 team league no less). And Brady, for all his crazy play, has only brought his team to 3rd. As long as we ignore Brady there's 10 pts between the 2 and 4 QBs. The difference between Peyton Manning and Chad Pennington is 50 pts. Is 6.25 pts a week really something that can't be made up if you had opted to draft an elite RB or WR and settle with a midlevel QB?

Clearly QBs are inherrently more valuable based on our scoring but as long as we all play only 1 of them that doesn't seem to be a big deal. We all have a QB with elevated stats. We all had the option to grab one of the elite ones and get the best stats or wait and get acceptable stats. If this were a roto league I think it would be a bigger deal but its a head to head one. So its still a matter of the best score in the week, and a top QB doesn't seem to guarantee you that.

Now if we have a 2nd QB or a flex option that allows for a 2nd QB? Then it would seem to be an issue. Because drafting 2 top 5 QBs and playing them every week is pretty much gonna give you 50-70 pts every week from 2 positions. That's why I'm still on the fence about whether I like a QB inclusive flex position. Because handicapping a position because its important seems odd to me.

[Grover]

luckylopez said:

sg said:

Well, the thought process goes that if there is one position that scores much more then any others, it basically makes a league one dimensional. You really only have one option to win on a regular basis and that's to have a top QB.

Thing is that's not really holding true through 8 weeks. Here's the top 10 QBs and where their teams are.

Brady - 3rd
Romo - 5th
Anderson - 11th
P. Manning - 2nd
Palmer - 10th
Rothlisberger - 4th
Favre - 8th
E. Manning - 7th
Garcia - 12th
Hasselback - 6th

Wait, though, it kinda IS true. I would think it's fair to remove Anderson from the mix because, while he is a top scoring QB, he was a waiver wire pickup and looking at the team that has him, he has only been started 2 times all year, so his team really hasn't had his production working for them.

So, really, Palmer is the only top QB that isn't pushing his team to a top 5 standing. The others are all in the top 5.

All I'm really saying is that, when scoring is balanced between QB, RB and WR, a team has a lot of options as far as how they can GIT ER DUN! You certainly CAN win without a top QB, but it's a much tougher challenge. When you have pretty balanced scoring among the big positions, you give teams lots of options to be competative and have a good time. Which I think is the point in a friends/low dollar league.

It's not a huge deal either way, really. You could make FGs worth 50 points a piece and as long as everyone is playing by the same rules, that's totally fine. But I do think that getting scoring as balanced as possible only makes a league better and more enjoyable for everyone.

[Lucky]

Yeah, I don't know. Like I said, I'm inexperienced. I've played baseball and basketball and scoring is scoring. Some positions are better at some things than others but head to head battles are direct. Saves vs Saves. HRs vs HRs. Rebounds vs Rebounds. Haven't done much of the football format of point scoring, or Roto in general. I always just kinda accepted that QBs score more and TEs and Ks are kinda meaningless.

And yeah, I guess its fair to say that Anderson is a wild card. But it still seems like you can have a guy like Palmer and Favre and blow and a mediocre guy and be fine. There's an edge but I bet the guys who own Tomlinson, Peterson, and Westbrook are on average in better shape than the guy who has Reggie Bush. I'm too lazy to try and see if there's a substantial difference in the talent gap. And it would probably be too tough to figure anyway since you play 2 RB and 3 WR.

[DevSop]

And Roethlisberger has only played 1 game for the 4th place team. I just traded for him. I had been starting Chad Pennington and Jay Cutler, proving you can compete without an elite QB.

[Lucky]

There you go. So discounting Anderson its still 2 of the top 5 QBs on bad teams and 2 of the top 5 teams (including #1) having mediocre QBs.

[National Champion Chris Cole]

And my team is headed south in a hurry and I have Tony Romo. Injuries to RB and WR are killing me.

[Attitude Adjuster]

Very late getting to this thread. I'm cool with whatever is decided. As long as everyone is playing by the same rules, it doesn't matter to me.

That said, I'd vote against two QBs for the reasons everyone has noted. I'd also suggest not changing the scoring radically just because of one incredible year by one player. I've been in Fant Football leagues for about 15 years now, and seen scoring ebb and flow through the seasons. There are years where QBs dominate and years RBs dominate. It's just the nature of the game. If we keep changing the scoring stats to catch up with the game, we'll be changing stats every year.