I'm not upset. Mack should be a linebacker. That's his position. Glad you got it right. Just before his 5th year option would cost the Raiders $2-3M extra as a DE.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
I'm not upset. Mack should be a linebacker. That's his position. Glad you got it right. Just before his 5th year option would cost the Raiders $2-3M extra as a DE.
Completely agree, and even better outlined than I could have hoped. My initial reaction was just to ignore the thread given it is always the same tune, but glad I checked in to support this.breeze wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 11:43 am 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!"
This is the better explanation. Making an EDGE position would only affect DE values in certain formats. Fix IDP formats, then worry about player positions.FiremanEd wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 3:44 pm As for 3-4 OLB value, why don't you change your scoring to make it work? QB Hits, TFL, and Sack scoring relative to Tackles can make a world of difference and your Pass Rushers valuable. Sounds like just a commissioner / league issue, not the system itself.
I've seen some IDP writers speak out against EDGE on twitter lately and I find it frustrating. You're looking at this the wrong way and it is negative for the future of IDP...let me explain.breeze wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 1:23 pmI think it would work but all you are doing is adding 3-4 OLB spots to everyone's lineup. The reason some people want EDGE is so they can play Mack/Beasley/Clowney/etc at DL eventhough they are technically LBs. They want personal benefit, not more lineup slots.The Red Rooster wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 12:24 pm Why not just have LB, DE, DT and EDGE designations with multiple spots for each in starting lineup? I don't see that as devaluing it to the extent you are mentioning...but, I have not given it the thought that you have. Most OLB's would likely be listed as LB/EDGE where as most DE's would probably be listed as DE/EDGE.
Or would this not work?
I also have to say that you're greatly simplifying the EDGE argument. It's not just selfish a-holes who want personal benefit... To most of us it is about trying to reflect real life value better and some of these players we're currently devaluing are some of the most exciting players to follow on the defensive side...I'd rather sit and cheer for Chandler Jones to make a sack instead of cheering for Paul Worrilow to jump on a pile 12 yards down the field.breeze wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 1:23 pmI think it would work but all you are doing is adding 3-4 OLB spots to everyone's lineup. The reason some people want EDGE is so they can play Mack/Beasley/Clowney/etc at DL eventhough they are technically LBs. They want personal benefit, not more lineup slots.The Red Rooster wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 12:24 pm Why not just have LB, DE, DT and EDGE designations with multiple spots for each in starting lineup? I don't see that as devaluing it to the extent you are mentioning...but, I have not given it the thought that you have. Most OLB's would likely be listed as LB/EDGE where as most DE's would probably be listed as DE/EDGE.
Or would this not work?
Nope. It's not.
(Hey Chris!)Howat wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 8:56 pm In 2015, Khalil Mack was voted all pro as DE and an OLB
Von Miller got in as an OLB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_All-Pro_Team
Last year they scrapped DE and OLB and Mack got in as an Edge Rusher
Von Miller got in as a LB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_All-Pro_Team
Just use Nickel as the base and they both go in as DEs. Maybe thats the best solution?
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/heres ... n-the-nfl/
The internet has been won, ladies & dudes. Oslo, you are now King. Accept this crown, and my respect.Oslo Oildrillers wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 12:37 amI don't understand why anyone would be against more options and freedom. *insert american flag*
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests