My new dynasty IDP league just drafted. I knew going in that Corner backs were under-valued because tackles were valued at 2 points but, didn't give it much thought until after the draft.
I proposed increasing the point value for pass defensed to 3 vs 2: making a complete and exhausting case centering on the fact that a pass defensed guaranteed loss of downs while tackles do not... not to mention giving equal value to a DB (i.e. Roy Williams) for allowing a catch of 30 yards and making a tackle as Antonio Cromartie gets for knocking down Tom Brady's pass in the Endzone to force a field goal....
Anyway, I shot down every arguement to contradict my logic but, the majority would not agree to change the rules because the draft had already taken place.... Everyone that objected had a top corner on their roster but, claimed that NO RULES could be changed after the draft -- on principle!?!
I countered with the arguement that everything changes for improvement over time and gave the example of the NFL pushout rule.... which is childish and illogical so, it was inevitably overturned... teams could argue they drafted talent that could knock down a pass rather than hitting receivers out-of-bounds but, it was changed for the sake of uninhibited competition! It is the DBs job to prevent a receiver from getting possession with two feet... all in good competition and integrity... much more exciting and satisfing!
Just like the rare pass breakups by DBs/LBs/DL that have a greater tendency than tackles to stall drives... much more fun and satisfing to score the play fairly.
I could use some feedback because this has really frustrated me.
I am in an IDP keeper where we get 1 point per tackle and 2 points per PD, and I love it - I think it evens things out much more and makes more coverage corners that lack a little bit in tackle numbers enticing as pickups for your squad. I am all for having PDs be worth more than tackles for the very reason that it evens things out and makes more draftable middle tier defensive players IMO...
You make some good arguments, but it is really important to not change settings after the draft, because people draft with those settings in mind. This may be on principle, but that is the reasoning and I agree with not changing anything.
I would only change a setting after draft if everyone in the league agreed to it and there was a need for the change.
Unfair is not the same thing as unbalanced. The point is that it is not "fair" to change the rules that were in place prior to the draft.
As long as people know that it is 3 points for a layup and 2 points for beyond the arc ahead of time, they can plan around it. What wouldn't be fair is if you thought it was 3 points per layup and got a team of big men together and then the rules changed after the game started.
I understand why you want it to reflect the true value of a player's contribution, but you need to get everyone in the league to agree with the change or else it isn't fair to those who took the settings into account and constructed their team accordingly. Otherwise just make you best effort to get the changes implemented next season.
Good luck with the league, sounds like you have a clear idea of what you want it to look like.
I agree, at this point changing the rules is something to be done for next season, I am in no way in favor of changing rules after a draft even if very minor, you have to check the small details of the rules before hand and bring it up before the draft...I agree that the rules seem off, but if nobody brought it to the commish' attention before hand then they would have to stick for this year...It would cause a bigger problem to lots of managers if they changed.
Current Cafe Dynasties: 4th and Goal Fourth & Inches Double D Any Given Dynasty Eat Cheese Dynasty NFL's Finest Cafe Very Special Forces
It seems to me completely closed-minded to dismiss a rule change simply because the draft has already taken place. Who cares about the drafting strategies other than projected impact on the field. If a player you drafted isn't productive relative to NFL rules then they won't be playing long anyway... (i.e Roy Williams).
The concept of fantasy is to enable the masses to participate in the great NFL... Ideally, when managing your team, you are charged with the task of projecting impact on the field, not delusional fluctuations of value. That's not to say that there aren't many plausible, if not valid, varieties of fantasy... because there are many interpretations of production. But, if everyone agrees that a rule change would better reflect the TRUE impact on the field (which they had in this case), then the rule should be changed as soon as possible! Roy Williams was drafted very late in my league; it is evident that future impact on the field is taken into account because he scored very high last year.
I just can't see anyone protesting that they should have won a game because they had more tackles and less pass defensed than their opponent... It sounds silly because it is! On the other hand, an unjust loss due to having more pass defensed and less tackles... just ain't right.
Nobody is going to lose a championship unJustly with a justified rule change but, one might lose a championship unjustly with unjustified rules.
So basically you're saying that you disagree because you refuse to think about it!
I have met every part of my burden of articulatiion... I don't think it's my burden to think for you and everyone else.
When drafting, one must consider the odds of a rule change to reflect impact just as they consider the odds of Tom Brady getting a season ending injury. As the owner of a team, you must adjust your strategies constantly...
If you just think about it, the rule change makes perfect sense to properly reflect the impact of NFL players. And that that's all that matters!
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Secular E » Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:41 pm 
