So as we all know, every few days for the last 15 years (at least) Jon or Dave attempt to shoot my blood pressure through the roof with gripes about scoring or drafting or trades or whatever. The current target has been the IDP scoring, with a special focus on QB Sacks. I recently did a breakdown of how the sack scoring has changed over the years. (That can be found HERE) What it basically told us is that sacks, while worth a little more than the historically average, weren’t as far out of whack as some people assumed. They were with 2 points of the 2002 scoring, and actually lower than what we used from 2022-2023.
The longest running IDP scoring system we used was version 7.0 – which was almost identical to 6.0, except Yahoo added the TFL option. During this time sacks were worth 80 points total (compared to the current 92). That was a formula of 20/10/50 (solo/TFL/sack). The current formula is 17/15/60.
Now as the years progressed, we’ve used 9 versions of IDP scoring, most of the changes with just tweaks here and there (aside from the complete overhaul from 2001 to 2002). Below is a chart showing the value chart for each of those 9 systems, as well as new scoring proposals put forth this week by each Jon and Dave. The total number in the last column is simply a representation of what out happen if you got a 1 in each stat line – which has never happened. I only included it as away to weigh the stat totals in comparison to each other.
| TAK | AT | TFL | SACK | INT | FF | FR | PD | DTD | SAFE | BK | XPR | TOTAL | |
| 2001 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 7 | 5 | 12 | 2 | 20 | 20 | 40 | 0 | 121 |
| 2002 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 50 | 25 | 100 | 200 | 200 | 0 | 815 |
| 2003 | 15 | 10 | 0 | 40 | 60 | 50 | 60 | 15 | 70 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 520 |
| 2004 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 50 | 60 | 40 | 60 | 10 | 100 | 150 | 100 | 0 | 585 |
| 2005 | 15 | 10 | 0 | 50 | 60 | 50 | 60 | 5 | 100 | 125 | 125 | 0 | 600 |
| 2010 | 20 | 10 | 0 | 50 | 60 | 50 | 60 | 25 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 575 |
| 2011 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 50 | 60 | 50 | 60 | 25 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 585 |
| 2022 | 15 | 5 | 15 | 70 | 70 | 50 | 50 | 30 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 40 | 645 |
| 2024 | 17 | 7 | 15 | 60 | 60 | 50 | 40 | 30 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 40 | 619 |
| Jones | 18 | 8 | 15 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 40 | 25 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 656 |
| Dave | 15 | 10 | 10 | 25 | 60 | 50 | 40 | 30 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 40 | 580 |
So as we see here, Jon’s proposal doesn’t actually lessen the impact of the IDP scoring, it simply moves some numbers around. The tackles creep back up a point, and both INTs and sack drops from 60 to 50. He drops the PD from 30 to 25. So in this system we would see the total sack score drop from 92 to 83. Additionally, the new total from an interception would go from 90 to 75. The other change sees an Extra Point Return go from 40 to 100, putting it in line with other Defensive Scores.
Dave’s change goes a little more drastically the other way. While Jon’s Total number was 656 (up from the current 619), Dave’s total would go to 580, closer to the pre-TFL days. Dave’s premised is centered around Turnovers needing to be more valuable than sacks, which seems like a common sense approach, but let’s dig into it.
Dave suggested that sacks should be be worth a total of 50 points, which would be the lowest since the original 2oo1 system, but closest to 2003 (55). This would be achieved by a breakdown that might look like this; 15/10/25. This would leave an emphasis on turnovers, while lessens tackle based scoring. While the current system, and most of the previous versions have been about trying to balance a team – making the Kicker and Safety just as important as the RB and WR, that way its truly a test of best team build rather than just a race for Barkley and Jefferson – Dave’s suggestion takes a more real world approach based on importance of plays on NFL games.
With both Jon and Dave’s systems, there also come some additional changes;
JONES – Fumbles by the offensive player should move from -5 to -15
DAVE – Convert the DL roster spot into a third IDP Flex. With the lessening of focus on sacks, let’s not make people started a DE if they don’t want to.
This third IDP Flex would immediately make LBs and DBs more valuable, though how much remains to be seen. When we traded out the third WR spot for a Flex, it theoretically made RBs more valuable, but I don’t have exact metrics behind that. If we nerf sacks the way Dave suggests, I think his IDP Flex is a great idea. It’s the same reason I’ve argued to years that the TE spot should be a FLEX. There aren’t 12 good TEs and there is no way for us to reward them in a way that is different from WRs.
So far this is all theoretical, so let’s run some numbers. Below I am going to take 5 distinctly different players, and using their season stats from 2024, apply how there scoring looks under the 7.0, the current scoring, and both Jon and Dave’s props. I’ve taken two defenders from Jon’s championship 2024 squad, as well as two from Dave’s 11th place team. I also grabbed Trey Hendrickson off of Kyle’s 10th place squad, as he lead the league in sacks.
| Z.Franklin | TAK | AT | TFL | SACK | INT | FF | FR | PD | TD | TOTAL |
| Stats | 93 | 80 | 11 | 3.5 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 6 | 0 | |
| v7.0 | 1860 | 800 | 110 | 175 | 120 | 250 | 0 | 150 | 0 | 3465 |
| Current | 1581 | 560 | 165 | 210 | 120 | 250 | 0 | 180 | 0 | 3066 |
| Jones | 1674 | 640 | 165 | 175 | 100 | 250 | 0 | 150 | 0 | 3154 |
| Dave | 1395 | 800 | 110 | 87.5 | 120 | 250 | 0 | 180 | 0 | 2942.5 |
| K. Joseph | TAK | AT | TFL | SACK | INT | FF | FR | PD | TD | TOTAL |
| Stats | 58 | 25 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 1 | |
| v7.0 | 1160 | 250 | 10 | 0 | 540 | 0 | 0 | 300 | 100 | 2360 |
| Current | 986 | 175 | 15 | 0 | 540 | 0 | 0 | 360 | 100 | 2176 |
| Jones | 1044 | 200 | 15 | 0 | 450 | 0 | 0 | 300 | 100 | 2109 |
| Dave | 870 | 250 | 10 | 0 | 540 | 0 | 0 | 360 | 100 | 2130 |
| N. Bosa | TAK | AT | TFL | SACK | INT | FF | FR | PD | TD | TOTAL |
| Stats | 33 | 19 | 15 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| v7.0 | 660 | 190 | 150 | 450 | 60 | 50 | 60 | 25 | 0 | 1645 |
| Current | 561 | 133 | 225 | 540 | 60 | 50 | 40 | 30 | 0 | 1639 |
| Jones | 594 | 152 | 225 | 450 | 50 | 50 | 40 | 25 | 0 | 1586 |
| Dave | 495 | 190 | 150 | 225 | 60 | 50 | 40 | 30 | 0 | 1240 |
| TJ Watt | TAK | AT | TFL | SACK | INT | FF | FR | PD | TD | TOTAL |
| Stats | 40 | 21 | 19 | 11.5 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0 | |
| v7.0 | 800 | 210 | 190 | 575 | 0 | 300 | 120 | 100 | 0 | 2295 |
| Current | 680 | 147 | 285 | 690 | 0 | 300 | 80 | 120 | 0 | 2302 |
| Jones | 720 | 168 | 285 | 575 | 0 | 300 | 120 | 100 | 0 | 2268 |
| Dave | 600 | 210 | 190 | 287.5 | 0 | 300 | 120 | 120 | 0 | 1828 |
| Trey H. | TAK | AT | TFL | SACK | INT | FF | FR | PD | TD | TOTAL |
| Stats | 33 | 13 | 19 | 17.5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 0 | |
| v7.0 | 660 | 130 | 190 | 875 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 150 | 0 | 2105 |
| Current | 561 | 91 | 285 | 1050 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 180 | 0 | 2267 |
| Jones | 594 | 104 | 285 | 875 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 150 | 0 | 2108 |
| Dave | 495 | 130 | 190 | 437.5 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 180 | 0 | 1532.5 |
SO what we learn here is that first and foremost, for all the complaints about scoring being too high, almost all of these guys scored less not only under the current system, but also under Jones and Dave’s proposals compared to the classic system we used for over 10 years.
With both Franklin and Joseph the old 7.0 system saw significantly more points on the strength of tackles, while its mixed bag with the sack heavy dudes. Bosa is +6 with the old scoring vs current. Dave’s go-to defender for the last decade or so, TJ Watt scores 7 more points in the current system as opposed to the old. Meanwhile, Hendrickson, who gets almost all of his points from sacks, sees a +162 with the current system, which is about 11 ppg. In other words, not significant.
Jon’s proposal is actually pretty comparable with both the current scoring and the 7.0 – Dave takes us another way, which would need further tweaks to avoid totally nerfing IDP. While his score for Kerby is right in line with everyone else, his scores come in much lower for the other four guys.
SC League Forever 