Qb td pass scoring poll.

[XclickX]

The other thread about progressing FF scoring made me think of this. How many of you still use 4 points for passing tds? It’s been a long time since I’ve been in a league with 4.

[FantasyFreak]

I am in one two with 4, one with 5, and two with 6. I prefer 6.

[honcho55]

like 6 for 1QB for sure. I dont mind 4 for SF/2QB, though I think Its still vote for 6

[Cult of Dionysus]

Six points is insane to me. In most leagues, QBs are already the dominant scorers. Even in my leagues where TDs are only 4, INTs are -3 and QBs only get about 2.5 pts per 100 yards, QBs make up nearly half of the top 20. I can't imagine the positional breakdown with 6 pt TDs and standard INT and YARDAGE scoring. Would anyone not named CMC be within 150 points of the top QBs?

[IBall2]

I'm in a 1QB league that scores 4 points for passing TDs but also give .25 points for completions and -.25 for incompletions. This adds a little extra value to the QBs in a single QB league but doesn't go to the extent of 6points per passing TD. It also evens out the scoring differences between pocket passers vs running QBs.

[Lotto4Life]

My dynasty league is 4pt for passing TD with 1pt for every 20 yards passing.

The redraft leagues that have 6pt for passing TD have 1pt for every 25 yards passing.

[moishetreats]

Six points is insane to me. In most leagues, QBs are already the dominant scorers. Even in my leagues where TDs are only 4, INTs are -3 and QBs only get about 2.5 pts per 100 yards, QBs make up nearly half of the top 20. I can't imagine the positional breakdown with 6 pt TDs and standard INT and YARDAGE scoring. Would anyone not named CMC be within 150 points of the top QBs?

This is the wrong metric. It's not about how many points QBs score compared to other positions. It's about how many points QBs score compared to other QBs.

By increasing the passing TDs to six points each, you make the better QBs more valuable relative to the lesser ones. The thinking is that QBs are deflated in value compared to other positions because they bunch up in points scored relative to each other. The goal here is to increase the gap in points among QBs, thus making better QBs more valuable and perhaps more on par with top players at other positions.

Put another way: Who cares if QBs average 100 points or 1,000 points compared to, say, 350 by CMC if there is only a one-point differential between every QB?

[djeternal2]

Six points is insane to me. In most leagues, QBs are already the dominant scorers. Even in my leagues where TDs are only 4, INTs are -3 and QBs only get about 2.5 pts per 100 yards, QBs make up nearly half of the top 20. I can't imagine the positional breakdown with 6 pt TDs and standard INT and YARDAGE scoring. Would anyone not named CMC be within 150 points of the top QBs?

Who really cares other than you CoD that QBs score that many more pts than other positions?

But why shouldn't they? They touch the ball on every play so why should a RB that only touches it maybe half of the plays score as much as a QB? Or a WR that touches it maybe 10% of the time but still scores as much as a QB? Why not have kickers score as much as the rest then too? Heck some kickers touch the ball more than some WRs.

[M-Dub]

All three of my dynasty leagues award 6 points for passing TDs. CMC was still the second-highest scoring player in all three of them by a wide margin. Michael Thomas finished 5th, 6th and 7th. Zeke, Ekeler, Henry and Cook all finished within the top 25 in all three leagues.

As moishetreats correctly points out, a player’s value has way more to do with how he scores relative to other players at his position, rather than just the raw number of points he puts up. It’s the same reason why guys like Kelce, Kittle and Ertz are worth more than a lot of the WRs who outscore them.

[jgoodie24]

All three of my dynasty leagues award 6 points for passing TDs. CMC was still the second-highest scoring player in all three of them by a wide margin. Michael Thomas finished 5th, 6th and 7th. Zeke, Ekeler, Henry and Cook all finished within the top 25 in all three leagues.

As moishetreats correctly points out, a player’s value has way more to do with how he scores relative to other players at his position, rather than just the raw number of points he puts up. It’s the same reason why guys like Kelce, Kittle and Ertz are worth more than a lot of the WRs who outscore them.

This is definitely true. However, you cannot completely ignore scoring value between positions. The obvious counterpoint to what you as saying is to take a look at a superflex league. Under typical scoring systems, anyone forced to play a different position player instead of a decent QB2 or QB3 is often at a distinct disadvantage. Or put it another way, it's easier to overcome losing your RB2 to injury early in a game than it is to overcome losing your QB - more so if QB scoring is higher.

[killer_of_giants]

6 points.
we also have relatively low scoring for yardage, -3 for int, -3 for fumbles and -1 for every sack. rushing scores as rushing, we hate tiered stuff. oh and it's NON-ppr. we hate that too.

i think this is a nice balance, great QB play can win you a game, poor QB play can lose you one (negative points are not that much of a rarity). bit like in real football.
few non-QBs break into the top 25, but given QB is the most important position in football, again no problem with that.
difference in scoring isn't great, but that's kind of normal for the position, although the QB3, wilson, has 334 points, while QB12, ryan, has 260, so not that similar.