Let's talk about PPR. If you don't know what PPR stands for, get out! I'm an advocate of PPR because it gives receivers a bump in value. Why bump WRs in value you say? Aren't they already 8 of the top 20 players on the combined RB/WR/TE charts? And a very nicely distributed 14 out of the top 30 if you go even further? All of these thing are true.
However, out of the top fifteen slots, only three are WRs. This isn't a huge problem because RBs have traditionally been more important than WRs but the traditional fantasy scoring system severely undervalues the contributions of the modern day wideout. Below are some reasons to go PPR.
1) Separation between average and franchise caliber receivers
My argument pro-PPR is that the difference between an average wide receiver and a franchise level one is not very large. There are currently seventeen WRs who average over ten points per game. At the bottom are names like Kevin Ogletree and Nate Washington, who both average exactly 10.0 points per game. At the top of the charts is AJ Green and Calvin Johnson, who both average 14.0+ points per game. That is not a very wide gap. Four points is a fumble and an interception.
Let's take a closer look:The main difference between a top receiver and a flash in the pan receiver is usage. Green and Johnson will consistently be targeted 12+ times a game and catch about 8 of those. Ogletree had one eight reception game in WK1 and then only six receptions in the two games following. Nate Washington is a deep threat so he catches about two balls a game -- with greater yardage averages -- but his point total is also buoyed by two TDs this season.
- #1 AJ Green (14.3 pts) - 21 receptions
- #2 Calvin Johnson (14.0 pts) - 24 receptions
- #16 Kevin Ogletree (10.0 pts) - 14 receptions
- #17 Nate Washington (10.0 pts) - 7 receptions
Low to middling receivers won't have the ball thrown to them as often as the better ones, why ignore that fact?
2) Make WR/TE better than Ks
Currently, there are eleven kickers that average over ten points a game. That means, most weeks, my kicker will have more impact on my team's success than my number one wide -- assuming each of our sixteen teams had an even distribution of double digit receivers. I love Shayne Graham (#11, 10.0 pts) but I don't want him to be more valued than Victor Cruz (10.7 per game).
Sure, kickers are by nature much more consistent with their scoring and there's less of a spread between them, but currently my kicker, Justin Tucker (39 total), has contributed almost as many points to my bottom line as Mike Wallace (40 total). If we add in Wallace's 17 receptions, that would help elevate him above Tucker quite a bit. Wallace didn't hold out this pre-season because he was worth a kicker!
Average double digits per game by position:Using PPR would push RB/WR/TE to more points, while lessening the impact of K and DEF. Which is why we play the game right? Unless you think just love rooting for your Bears or Cardinals defenses.
- 20 RBs: #1 Arian Foster (18.3 pts), #10 Trent Richardson (12.7), #20 Doug Martin (10.0)
- 17 WRs: #1 AJ Green (14.3 pts), #8 Reggy Wayne (11.3), #17 Nate Washington (10.0)
- 7 TEs: Vernon Davis (13.3 pts), Tony Gonzalez, Martellus Bennett, Heath Miller, Jimmy Graham, Kyle Rudolph, Dennis Pitta.
- 11 Ks: With the tops being Jason Hanson at 15.0 per and four more at 13.0+ per.
- 4 DEFs: Bears (15.0 pts), Cardinals, Falcons, Seahawks
3) Added consistency for WR/TE
Even if your receiver gets only 40 yards per game, those six balls he caught will help level him out. Right now, receivers are boom and bust, based purely on yardage, since there is no other metric to judge them on. RBs tend to get both rushing and receiving yardage, while most WRs only get the latter. I want the hard work my player put into running a route to be reflected in his fantasy game!
Some have argued that carries then could be a metric, but let's be honest, receiving a carry requires no effort. At least a reception someone is throwing and catch a ball.
4) More Strategy
PPR would add another dimension to selecting receivers, as there are now different types. Do you take the possession receiver who catches a lot of balls for low yardage or the deep threat who catches a few balls but makes the most of each opportunity? At the end of the day you want whichever one scores more, of course, but would you prefer a Larry Fitzgerald versus Randy Moss? Of course, it's possible to have the best of both worlds, aka Jerry Rice.
5) RBs would also benefit
Running backs who catch are a valuable part of the game and nowadays, some of them are brought into the game solely to catch out of the backfield -- shout out to Ronnie Harmon. PPR would not only float the WR/TE boats but also RBs as well, bringing them closer in line to QBs and raising everyone above the dreaded Ks and DEFs.
Notes:
You could argue that it's only WK3, and these numbers are skewed. Sure, but I wanted to point this out now so we can take a look at the potential impact of PPR over the course of this season. I'm confident that the spreads won't change much, even if the names do.
My personal preference is actually half point PPR, which is what we have been doing in my other keeper league for 10+ years.
Yes, using PPR -- or even half a point PPR -- breaks with tradition, but since the current fantasy rules were created twenty plus years ago, the game has evolved and I think receptions is one of those things that should be added to any scoring system.
Posts
2 comments:
Dunno. It seems like giving artificial points to me. If we give points for receptions, why not hand-offs or any other exchange of the ball? Does the QB get an extra point for a completed pass since he had to put the ball in the right place? To me, this falls into the "you want a prize for doing your job?" category. If the receiver makes the catch, they get the points for the yardage already.
One thing that would help the K imbalance would be to ratchet down the bonus scoring. There's no K in the NFL who misses under 50 yards and keeps his job, so 4 points for a kick over 40 seems excessive. And 5 points for a kick over 50 yards give the K more scoring potential than a QB has with a TD pass.
Now that you mention it, +1 for a 40 yard FG is way too high! I say only +1 for 50+ yarders. Also, it is an artificial point, totally, but one that gives weight to a key aspect of a WR/TE's value. It is their job to catch the ball, just like the QB to throw and the RB to run, but completed passes and carries are something even the most mundane of QBs and RBs will get simply by getting in the game, while WRs have to work much harder to grab a ball. My argument isn't really based on mirroring NFL reality as much as fantasy balance.
Post a Comment