Petition Rotoworld/MFL For an EDGE Position IDP

[Oslo Oildrillers]

If it's so simple then it can be done league by league by the commish. Make people set correct lineups with rush backers and regular backers. Simple things when implementing site wide aren't so simple. The complexity that goes into getting things done as is as accurate as possible is immense. A lot of hard work goes into MFL. If you want something custom, doing a little work yourself isn't too much to ask for.

Not that you're the spokesperson for MFL, but what you've written here is a rather non-customer centric way of looking at it.

I only play on MFL so I haven't quite followed the changes ESPN have done. Have they bunched edge lbs together with DE? If so, I think that's a bad solution.

And furthermore I don't think that ESPN will be the only site that introduce some version of the EDGE position, I mean you see it everywhere... The term EDGE is being used more and more in the draft process, in NFL commentary and reporting, PFF etc. So while I understand that you are totally against it and you're slamming the brakes, you might want to get ahead of this one in order to impact which version of the EDGE position will become the industry standard. Because if that means that most sites will introduce EDGE by bunching them together with DE, I think that would have a negative impact on IDP, but right now I think that's probably where this is all going.

[adamwest]

I think what you have outlined is going to form a large part of the evolution of IDP fantasy football. It is critical that there has to be an adaption to catch up with the way NFL defenses have evolved over the past 10 years.

The bottom line here however is MFL. They would need to create these positions otherwise this must require manual management by the commissioner. If I was running one league, I'd love to do the work to make it happen. Unfortunately that is not the reality. When MFL get on board, so will @Paragon_ff.

[adamwest]

(Hey Chris!)

Yeah, the Rotoworld-MFL system of determining positions is antiquated. Last year there was another jump towards nickel, PFF charted it as only 27% base, 55% nickel, 8% dime and 10% in other formations. Does it really matter if a player lines up with his hand down or standing up if he aligns in the exact same position? Should a hand in the ground be the difference between comparing his stats up against Luke Kuechly instead of Ziggy Ansah? Should a 3-tech 4-3 DT like Aaron Donald 2016 be compared against a 0 or 1 tech whereas a 3-4 DE like Calais Campbell who plays mostly 3-tech should be compared against 6, 7 and 9-techs? It doesn't make sense.

Breeze, let me ask you this; what would you feel would be the perfect way of designating positions? You can't seriously mean that the current system is a good one in terms of accurately reflecting the roles of the different positions/players? How these players line up in base is pretty irrelevant nowadays with the way practically all defenses are turning into hybrids and spend 70%+ in sub-packages, and it hurts IDP by sudden player value drops or boosts in the offseason since player values are so linked to base position designations.

As far as I can see the solution has to be to to start making more specific position designations. We should have nose tackles, we should probably start using technique designations rather than just DT or DE, and we need a way to handle pass-rushing OLBs. But let me be clear; I'm totally against forcing changes that would affect existing leagues. If MFL decided to simply move all pass-rushing OLBs to a new EDGE position that also included DEs I would revolt. But creating new more specific designations would only provide more freedom and would not affect existing leagues or conservative leagues that prefer old school IDP.

Not that this would be without complications, it can be difficult with players that play hybrid roles on their teams, and it might take some time for league creators to find a position and scoring system that is properly balanced - but the current system where pass-rushing OLBs are grouped together with ILBs, MLBs and run-and-chase WLBs is clearly a very, very poor system as these players play COMPLETELY different positions and roles. It makes a lot more sense to move them to DE, if we're just going to pretend like those are the only two options; to either keep them at LB or move them to DE. There are many ways creative leagues could find ways to utilise more specific position designations - but right now we're being held back by an antiquated way of assigning player positions according to base formations.

All we're asking for is options. And dumbing down the EDGE discussion to a discussion about simply whether or not we should move pass-rushing OLBs to DE, as if that's the only option, and rant about it on twitter, is arguing against a movement towards creating more options for how to set up our IDP leagues. I don't understand why anyone would be against more options and freedom. *insert american flag*

Oslo, you have nailed it!!! Glad to have a guy of your experience and knowledge playing in our leagues!

[WONDERBALLS]

Absolutely not. Scoring, ranking, and valuing is not close to being consistent between leagues and league providers, rankers and writers. Walter Football and Scott Wright's web pages separate them each draft season and its nothing short of a cluster bleep to organize a reasonable draft approach because a guy like Tim Williams is ranked as a DE, an OLB and an ILB...and when the draft is over, the site providers have no means to segregate or rank these guys.

I purposely play in a DT, DE and LB league for the skill of optimizing players in positions and doing homework for position changes (IE drafting a guy as a lower tier DE, who is reclassified as a DT after the draft and is a top tier DT if playing 5 technique or LEO on 3rd Downs IE Chris Wormley in BAL).

[chopping mall]

Everyone is upset with Mack being a LB and not giving any thought on how something like this effects IDP.

Making an EDGE position not only is a blurry designation but it essentially doubles the DL pool therefore taking away value of all true DL. Double the supply mean way less demand. Not to mention 3-4 OLB play in coverage much more than 4-3 DEs so they get more tackles and rack up more tackles.

In PPG, only JPP and Wake scored more than Nick Perry and Markus Golden in 2016. In PPG, only 11 DL scored more than Shane Ray last year.

You are increasing the value of 3-4 OL but the damage you are doing is much greater. Making an EDGE decreases all elite DL values significantly and makes DL2/3 practically useless. Bud Dupree, Whitney Mercilus and Dee Ford are now superior assets to guys like Fletcher Cox, Cam Jordan and Leonard Williams.

All the EDGE position is going to do is kill the DL (pass rusher) position as a whole. Doubling the player pool of any position is a disastrous idea.

This is scary similar to changing RB to "Guy that sometimes carries the ball" and it will include all QBs that run over 150 per year as well. You essentially give massive value to guys that didn't have it before while significantly decreasing players that did and increasing supply without changing demand.

I cannot stress how much this is a bad idea for IDP. We need to look at all the factors, not just "I have Khalil Mack and his value went down. I want whatever is best for me!"

X a million

X another million. Why are we devaluing IDP more than it already is in a lot of cases? If you do your homework you will be fine. I can say I will not be adding EDGE position in any of the leagues I commission.

X yet another million here. Same with me, as long as it's in my power the league I commish will never have this added. I just hope the rest of the league would be wise enough and not petition for a vote and implement this position if MFL ever introduced it.

[The Red Rooster]

Why not have DE's and OLB be listed as dual eligibility (i.e., DE/EDGE and LB/EDGE)? Then, have multiple starting spots for each...something like starting line up of 2-3 DT's, 2-3 DE's, 2-3 LB's and 2-3 EDGE spots. I admit many of you have far more detailed information on this than I do, so, what am I missing with this?

Thanks.

[Space Cowboy]

Sure would solve a lot of problems.

[Oslo Oildrillers]

Why not have DE's and OLB be listed as dual eligibility (i.e., DE/EDGE and LB/EDGE)? Then, have multiple starting spots for each...something like starting line up of 2-3 DT's, 2-3 DE's, 2-3 LB's and 2-3 EDGE spots. I admit many of you have far more detailed information on this than I do, so, what am I missing with this?

Thanks.

That might not be a bad idea. DEs would maintain their value and even gain value since you would be able to start more of them if you have built good DE depth. LBs would gain a little value since the position would be thinner by edge LBs moving to a new position, and edge LBs would gain more value.

You would solve the value changes caused by DE to LB without causing any value loss to DE. DTs would still lose a bit of value though, like Aaron Donald when he moves from DT to DE, but the much bigger problems for many leagues is the dreaded DE to OLB change.

I was thinking that the simplest solution would just be to add an EDGE LB position, but going with a dual eligibility solution and start 2 DE, 2 EDGE and 3 LB plus a flex or two would give more flexibility in the way team's build their rosters.

[Defender]

In my opinion, the clear solution is to create a new position: OLB. (Before everyone get up in arms, consider how many naysayers there likely were when someone first proposed splitting DL into DE and DT, or DB into S and CB.)

But first, why I disagree with the other proposals posted on this thread (and yes, much of this has already been said):
-Simply adjusting your scoring formats only gets you so far. Many of us try to create leagues that places added value on certain positions (via scoring bonuses) in order to more closely mimic the way the NFL values different positions. If you leave OLBs under the umbrella of 'LB', you make it impossible to give OLBs specific bonuses over others LBs. Because of this, the top tier of (non-OLB) LBs will score the same as elite OLBs, even though the the NFL does not value the two positions equally.
-Lumping together DE and OLB into an EDGE position devalues DEs by expanding the player pool. It also glosses over the fact that a lot of 3-4 DEs apply more interior pressure than edge pressure.
-Giving all EDGE-rushers a second position classification (i.e. DEs are DE/EDGE, and OLB are LB/EDGE) does solve many of the problems, but it would be unwanted by commissioners who want line-ups to match actual popular NFL defensive schemes because it allows for too much flexibility.

If FFB sites separated OLBs from LBs, it would allow the following starting line up:

1 DT
2 DE
2 LB
2 S
2 CB
1 DT/OLB
1 LB/OLB

And you could take it a step further by having the commish verify each week that every team is starting 2 OLBs or none. This is my dream scenario for IDP.

[lukkynumber13]

In my opinion, the clear solution is to create a new position: OLB. (Before everyone get up in arms, consider how many naysayers there likely were when someone first proposed splitting DL into DE and DT, or DB into S and CB.)

But first, why I disagree with the other proposals posted on this thread (and yes, much of this has already been said):
-Simply adjusting your scoring formats only gets you so far. Many of us try to create leagues that places added value on certain positions (via scoring bonuses) in order to more closely mimic the way the NFL values different positions. If you leave OLBs under the umbrella of 'LB', you make it impossible to give OLBs specific bonuses over others LBs. Because of this, the top tier of (non-OLB) LBs will score the same as elite OLBs, even though the the NFL does not value the two positions equally.
-Lumping together DE and OLB into an EDGE position devalues DEs by expanding the player pool. It also glosses over the fact that a lot of 3-4 DEs apply more interior pressure than edge pressure.
-Giving all EDGE-rushers a second position classification (i.e. DEs are DE/EDGE, and OLB are LB/EDGE) does solve many of the problems, but it would be unwanted by commissioners who want line-ups to match actual popular NFL defensive schemes because it allows for too much flexibility.

If FFB sites separated OLBs from LBs, it would allow the following starting line up:

1 DT
2 DE
2 LB
2 S
2 CB
1 DT/OLB
1 LB/OLB

And you could take it a step further by having the commish verify each week that every team is starting 2 OLBs or none. This is my dream scenario for IDP.

I really don't have a big problem with what you're proposing, and it's clear you put a lot of thought into your post. I appreciate that!

What about OLBs in 4-3 systems tho? Vic Beasley would be left out in the cold, correct?

[Defender]

I really don't have a big problem with what you're proposing, and it's clear you put a lot of thought into your post. I appreciate that!

What about OLBs in 4-3 systems tho? Vic Beasley would be left out in the cold, correct?

It would depend on what source the FFB site uses for player designations. Maybe some say Beasley is a LB and some say he is an OLB. We have been in the same year-to-year limbo with Mack's designation: some sites say he is OLB, some say DE.

[lukkynumber13]

I really don't have a big problem with what you're proposing, and it's clear you put a lot of thought into your post. I appreciate that!

What about OLBs in 4-3 systems tho? Vic Beasley would be left out in the cold, correct?

It would depend on what source the FFB site uses for player designations. Maybe some say Beasley is a LB and some say he is an OLB. We have been in the same year-to-year limbo with Mack's designation: some sites say he is OLB, some say DE.

But Mack is definitely a DE in a 4-3, and definitely an OLB in a 3-4.

Beasley is a rare pass rushing specialist who plays in a 4-3, yet is still a LB.

[Defender]

I really don't have a big problem with what you're proposing, and it's clear you put a lot of thought into your post. I appreciate that!

What about OLBs in 4-3 systems tho? Vic Beasley would be left out in the cold, correct?

It would depend on what source the FFB site uses for player designations. Maybe some say Beasley is a LB and some say he is an OLB. We have been in the same year-to-year limbo with Mack's designation: some sites say he is OLB, some say DE.

But Mack is definitely a DE in a 4-3, and definitely an OLB in a 3-4.

Beasley is a rare pass rushing specialist who plays in a 4-3, yet is still a LB.

My hope would be that he has the designation of OLB if he spends >50% of snaps rushing passer, and LB designation otherwise.

[Oslo Oildrillers]

It would depend on what source the FFB site uses for player designations. Maybe some say Beasley is a LB and some say he is an OLB. We have been in the same year-to-year limbo with Mack's designation: some sites say he is OLB, some say DE.

But Mack is definitely a DE in a 4-3, and definitely an OLB in a 3-4.

Beasley is a rare pass rushing specialist who plays in a 4-3, yet is still a LB.

My hope would be that he has the designation of OLB if he spends >50% of snaps rushing passer, and LB designation otherwise.

Yes! It is the number of rushing snaps vs coverage snaps that should matter in how LBs are classified as rush-OLB or as LB.

A 3-4 outside linebacker will typically either become a base DE or an SLB in a 4-3. If the team does not demand size at DE they might end up using the player at base DE, if deemed to small for DE the player becomes a situational rush 4-3 DE or a base 4-3 SLB who plays on the line in sub-packages - either as a 3-4 rush LB, nickel DE, or LEO depending on the different fronts used in sub-packages.

Khalil Mack was a base 4-3 SLB, the same position Vic Beasley plays. But it's not even a hard rule that these type of players end up at SLB in base, Von Miller was a 4-3 WLB in the early part of his career even if the larger majority of his snaps was spent on the line of scrimmage.

We all know what these players are, they're pass rushers, but since we're using the 25-30% of time defenses are in base defense to determine positions, rather than looking at which position they play 70-75% of the time, we're stuck with this erratic system. It might make sense if there was a huge difference between 4-3 and 3-4 defenses, but with the way pretty much all defenses are turning into hybrid defenses it makes very little sense to be clinging on to these old ways of determining player positions. Look at any interview with a defensive coordinator or head coach over the last couple of years when asked about their defensive scheme, and they'll all talk about how defining their defense as 3-4 or 4-3 and finding players to fit that scheme doesn't really matter any longer since it's a sub-package league where defenses implement both 3-4 and 4-3 concepts, and there are very few 3-4 defenses that run a traditional two gap scheme.

[bruiser]

Oslo, I'm going to agree with you here, again. The league is sub-package>base set. I've been pounding the table as recently as last offseason for this.

I've really softened on the whole point, tho, as I've seen MFL really struggle to cater to all of its customers. They have a very good product that is flexible enough to get creative, but they are still struggling to keep the most important parts perfected. I just have a hard time believing that they could make their product even more intricate without sacrificing functionality. Because of this, I'm inclined to just work on the scoring settings to give big-play bonuses. There's no reason that Justin Houston's 2014 or Von Miller's 2013 shouldn't be at the top of the LB scoring heap.

In the end, the custom player designation may have to be commissioner-driven and maintained if that's the route you'd rather go for a class of EDGE.