Somebody explain to me why non-PPR still exists?

[murphysxm]

I am in multiple leagues and have one that is still non-PPR. I hate it and decided to drop it this year. I just don't get why that format is still out there. PPR allows for so much more strategy and skill. I am just looking for people's opinions on the other side of the fence.

[Matthias]

I don't think "strategy and skill" mean what you think they mean.

Adding PPR changes projected player values. It doesn't really make it a deeper or more difficult or more fulfilling game. It's still the same game. Project player points. Get as many of them as you can. None of my leagues are PPR but they have their own individual scoring which make them more interesting.

[murphysxm]

i guess my biggest gripe is how it makes RB's so important. In PPR you draft different positions because you can get equal points acrross positions. In standard scoring you have to be strong at rb or you are in a hole.

[mattb47]

And then many would argue that 1 PPR would tend to overvalue the WRs. There isn't really going to be a scoring system in which a certain positions (or positions) aren't going to be more valuable than others. I do like PPR but I understand when people don't want it and I don't think it's a huge deal. I think the biggest difference it makes is just in there being more reasonable options at flex positions...personally, I think RBs are still just as important in PPR leagues because there is a greater divide between the elite PPR backs and everyone else.

[Azrael]

Somebody explain to me why we still have drafts and everyone hasn't moved onto an auction already. They're so much more fun.

[u_fig_eater]

To me, awarding PPR seems artificial. You get the same amount of points whether the receiver made a 40-yard catch or a -2 yard catch. Why should a receiver get PPR when a running back doesn't get points per carry? And a QB doesn't get points per completion. It just seems like a "free stat" that doesn't vibe with me.

[moochman]

To me, awarding PPR seems artificial. You get the same amount of points whether the receiver made a 40-yard catch or a -2 yard catch. Why should a receiver get PPR when a running back doesn't get points per carry? And a QB doesn't get points per completion. It just seems like a "free stat" that doesn't vibe with me.

Catching a pass requires more skill than taking a handoff. I am a PPR supporter. I feel it adds more realism to the game, in addition to adding different options for building a successful team. In the real game, players who catch dump-off passes and possesion receivers are very valuable to a team as the studs who score the bulk of the TDs. I also like the way it changes a draft. No longer is the first round a RB suasage fest, after the first 4-6 RBs there are WRs who scores as well as RBs left. Gives it a different look and makes it possible to compete using different strategies.

That said, I have no beef with those who favor traditional scoring. Different strokes folks.

[Matthias]

To me, awarding PPR seems artificial. You get the same amount of points whether the receiver made a 40-yard catch or a -2 yard catch. Why should a receiver get PPR when a running back doesn't get points per carry? And a QB doesn't get points per completion. It just seems like a "free stat" that doesn't vibe with me.

Catching a pass requires more skill than taking a handoff. I am a PPR supporter. I feel it adds more realism to the game, in addition to adding different options for building a successful team. In the real game, players who catch dump-off passes and possesion receivers are very valuable to a team as the studs who score the bulk of the TDs. I also like the way it changes a draft. No longer is the first round a RB suasage fest, after the first 4-6 RBs there are WRs who scores as well as RBs left. Gives it a different look and makes it possible to compete using different strategies.

That said, I have no beef with those who favor traditional scoring. Different strokes folks.

I don't understand this justification.

In the threads where the guy is doing consensus picks for the first round, assuming non-PPR, Andre Johnson was picked #7.

We reward possession receivers by giving RBs and WRs 0.25 pts (so worth 2.5 yards) for every first down they make.

[moochman]

To me, awarding PPR seems artificial. You get the same amount of points whether the receiver made a 40-yard catch or a -2 yard catch. Why should a receiver get PPR when a running back doesn't get points per carry? And a QB doesn't get points per completion. It just seems like a "free stat" that doesn't vibe with me.

Catching a pass requires more skill than taking a handoff. I am a PPR supporter. I feel it adds more realism to the game, in addition to adding different options for building a successful team. In the real game, players who catch dump-off passes and possesion receivers are very valuable to a team as the studs who score the bulk of the TDs. I also like the way it changes a draft. No longer is the first round a RB suasage fest, after the first 4-6 RBs there are WRs who scores as well as RBs left. Gives it a different look and makes it possible to compete using different strategies.

That said, I have no beef with those who favor traditional scoring. Different strokes folks.

I don't understand this justification.

In the threads where the guy is doing consensus picks for the first round, assuming non-PPR, Andre Johnson was picked #7.

We reward possession receivers by giving RBs and WRs 0.25 pts (so worth 2.5 yards) for every first down they make.

Pretty slanted toward RBs, no? Third and one and my RB gets the first down. And an 8 yard pass on second and 10 is pretty valuable to a team, scarcely would mention in that set up. Like I said, different strokes.

[Matthias]

Catching a pass requires more skill than taking a handoff. I am a PPR supporter. I feel it adds more realism to the game, in addition to adding different options for building a successful team. In the real game, players who catch dump-off passes and possesion receivers are very valuable to a team as the studs who score the bulk of the TDs. I also like the way it changes a draft. No longer is the first round a RB suasage fest, after the first 4-6 RBs there are WRs who scores as well as RBs left. Gives it a different look and makes it possible to compete using different strategies.

That said, I have no beef with those who favor traditional scoring. Different strokes folks.

I don't understand this justification.

In the threads where the guy is doing consensus picks for the first round, assuming non-PPR, Andre Johnson was picked #7.

We reward possession receivers by giving RBs and WRs 0.25 pts (so worth 2.5 yards) for every first down they make.

Pretty slanted toward RBs, no? Third and one and my RB gets the first down. And an 8 yard pass on second and 10 is pretty valuable to a team, scarcely would mention in that set up. Like I said, different strokes.

Well, a) the 3rd down back is normally not the same as the 1st down back; and b) we're rewarding the event, not trying to equalize some sort of value. Running backs are worth more than WRs. But a WR who catches 7 passes for 40 yards and 5 of those are for first downs has brought more value to his team than a receiver who caught 7 passes for 40 yards and none of them were for first downs. At the end of the day, it doesn't shift the scoring that much. But it at least recognizes the contribution.