Survey
Bench points tie-breaker (Keep it the same) No tie-breaker. Just have the game end in a tie Another idea (Send me an email with details) Don't care
Last year you had to play 1 RB, 3 WRs, 1 TE or 2 RBs, 2 WRs, 1 TE. If we eliminate the TE position this year, you could play 1 RB, 4 Receivers or 2 RBs, 3 Receivers. And in the Receiver position you could play a WR or a TE. In other words, TEs would be treated just like WRs.
Yes, eliminate the TE requirement and replace it with another Receiver No, keep the TE requirement. I want to have to play a TE every week (Just like last year) Don't care
An owner's argument for eliminating negative points: "Is the glass half full or half empty? The true penalty for a fumble or interception or missed FG is that you are limited in the additional yardage or TD that you could have scored by these actions. Is it not enough that you just missed an opportunity to get a FG and 3 (or more points)? Why compound it by taking away additional points? Same thing goes for a QB. Now, instead of throwing for a possible touchdown and additional yards, he goes to the sideline and your point accumulation is stopped until he takes the field again. Why penalize him again? The positive side to this????? Players of somewhat questionable value because they fumble are now at least worth a possibility of taking a chance on. In addition, that interception due to a receiver who lets a ball bounce out of their hands (through NO fault of the QB) is eliminated. That alone is a huge improvement. Bottom line, points should not be taken away....the possibility of scoring should be."
An argument for keeping negative points: It adds interest. Instead of being able to play Ahman Green no questions ask, you have to ask yourself if his propensity for fumbling makes him less valuable.
Yes, eliminate negative points No, we should continue to subtract points for lost fumbles, missed field goals, and interceptions (Just like last year) Don't care
You receive 1 point for every 10 yards rushing and 1 point for every 10 yards receiving. Instead of awarding points for rushing and receiving separately, let's combine them. For example, if Marshall Faulk had 95 yards rushing and 25 yards passing last year, he would've scored 11 points -- 9 for rushing, 2 for receiving. This year, let's combine them. Faulk would have 120 combined yards and would be awarded 12 points.
Yes, let's combine rushing and receiving (Faulk would get 12 points) No, let's leave rushing and receiving separate (Faulk would get 11 points, just like last year) Don't care
There has been a lot of discussion regarding the way defense is scored. When you draft a defense, you're actually drafting a defense and that team's special teams.
There is a proposal to eliminate special teams from the equation so you can concentrate on drafting the best defensive unit possible without having to take on the burden of that team's good or bad special teams.
Last Year Proposed Category Points Category Points Blocked FG 2 Blocked Punt 2 Fumble Recovered 2 Fumble Recovered 2 Defensive TD 3 Defensive TD 3 Special Teams TD 3 Interception 2 Interception 2 Sack 1 Sack 1 Safety 2 Safety 2
Last Year
Proposed
Yes, eliminate special teams. Let's use the Proposed scoring, eliminating blocked FGs, blocked punts, and special teams TDs Kind of. Let's eliminate special teams TDs, but keep blocked FGs and blocked punts No, keep special teams. Let's use Last Year's scoring Don't care
Another proposal is to eliminate points against scoring. The argument is that your defense is penalized even if they are not on the field when the TD is scored. For example, if Brett Favre throws an interception that is returned for a TD, the Green Bay defense is penalized for allowing the TD.
We could just eliminate points against scoring, or we could replace it with yards allowed scoring. At least with yards allowed, the defense is always on the field when those yards are given up.
Yes, eliminate points against scoring and do not replace it Yes, eliminate points against scoring and replace it with yards allowed scoring No, keep points against scoring (Just like last year) Don't care
