if All TD's 6 points...

[TheRock]

Just wanted to get some different opinions. I'm playing in a couple of leagues where all TDs (rushing, rec'ing, passing) are 6 points. This bumps QBs up a bit as they are assured to be the top scorers, but how much? Where would you rank Culpepper, Manning, etc. in this system? One draft I ended up with Culpepper at 12 and felt great about that. Thoughts?

[34=Sweetness]

Umm they go in about the same place. In 6 point for every TD leagues, its 1 point for every 25 yards while in 4 points for passing they 1 point for every 20 yards. So the difference is negligble.

[Plindsey88]

Just wanted to get some different opinions. I'm playing in a couple of leagues where all TDs (rushing, rec'ing, passing) are 6 points. This bumps QBs up a bit as they are assured to be the top scorers, but how much? Where would you rank Culpepper, Manning, etc. in this system? One draft I ended up with Culpepper at 12 and felt great about that. Thoughts?

Here's the thing... The issue with draft position has nothing to do with what position scores the most points... The issue is the dropoff from player to player within that position and position scarcity...

The drop-off from a #4 QB to a #10 QB is minimal, and there are 32 starting QB's in the league... In any league, that means plenty to go around... so QB's should not be priority... The big 2, Manning and Culpepper, might be worthy of 2nd round picks, at best, but no one else should go before the third, and after Vick and McNabb, the rest can probably wait until late 5th/early 6th...

The drop off from the #1 TE to the #7 TE is HUGE... Therefore Gonzo is worthy of an early round draft pick... The third or the fourth round, probably... And some of the other top guys are worthy of 5th or 6th round... Every other TE should go very much later... This, despite the fact that there are plenty of TE's to go around... There are only a few teams that rely heavily on them in fantasy terms...

With RB's, they are both scarce and have a huge dropoff... The big issue is the fact that there are 32 starting backs, but of those, only about 20 are featured backs, and every team has to carry two starters and a reliable backup b/c RB's are injury risks... SO, if that means that in a ten-teamer there are 30 spots to be filled (minimum) and only 20 good backs to go around, you have to stock up EARLY.... Add to that the fact that they are some of the highest scoring players in the game, and the dropoff from the top guys to the lesser guys is MASSIVE, and you have yourself a position that is critical and must be addressed immediately, regardless of scoring... Unless you are in a league that awards MORE points for WR and QB yardage and TD's and rewards points for completions and receptions, but not carries, you have to go RB early and often....

At WR, there are TONS of them to go around... Now, only some of those guys are top flight, and only a couple are true STUDS when compared to other fantasy producers... So there is NO scarcity, but a good amount of dropoff... So those guys become pretty important to take early, but only after the RB situation is off to a good start... And once the top tier guys are all gone, you can wait on the rest of them, and try to snag sleepers...

[9er Fan]

Actually in your system, running QBs like CPepp have slightly less value than they would in leagues that award 4 points for a passing TD and 6 for a rushing/rec TD. You can see why in the following example:

Your scoring system:
QB1: 20 passing TDs, 2 rushing TDs = 132 points
QB2: 15 passing TDs, 7 rushing TDs = 132 points

4 points passing TD, 6 rushing/receiving:
QB1: 20 passing TDs, 2 rushing TDs = 92 points
QB2: 15 passing TDs, 7 rushing TDs = 102

In the 2nd scoring system, the rushing QB gives you an advantage over the pocket passer. The total number of points scored is pretty much irrelevant, what is important is the difference in points at each position between you and your opponent.

This is really the basis of value-based drafting (VBD). There are a ton of threads on the site that discuss this subject.