I’d argue that scoring doesn’t matter at all (cross-positionally). Format is about the only thing that changes positional value, but even then, the masses over-react to it, or miss what actually changes. For current example: TEP doesn’t change the value of a TE vs any other position. It slightly changes the rankings of TE to favor or boost TEs that catch a lot of passes, but few money catches. The reasoning is, since everyone starts a TE, and all TEs gain that advantage, the scoring is a wash except TE v TE (there is a slight disclaimer I will put after my next example). Meanwhile, SF: SF is a difference maker and increases the value of QBs overall. This is because QBs are the highest consistent scorers in FF, and the flex position is the one place where you cross-compare. Where people miss the point is that, largely, QBs perform roughly the same (this is why QBs have so much less value in 1-qb leagues). There are slight difference makers at the top, but the point differential in QB ranks has the lowest rate of change of all the positions. The key takeaway and where people get to wrapped up in the “fever” is this: since QBs aren’t particularly different in output, the value is in quantity, not quality (again…a few slight difference makers aside). It’s more important that you have 3 serviceable QBs, than 1 or 2 great ones. The reason is the flex position. Even if you’re fielding a low end QB in the flex, who gets you 13-16 points per game…they get that every game. Whereas a RB/WR/TE may get you 25 some weeks, they’ll largely average out far less in output with many single-digit weeks to balance the big ones. That gives a week in and week out advantage by starting a QB. If you’re opponent is also starting a QB, it’s roughly a wash. Flex: this is where the disclaimer comes in. At flex, you start comparing cross-positionally. This is one spot where scoring format changes matter. For the example of TEP, this doesn’t mean TEs are more valuable cross-positionally, it means that TEs are a viable flex (and in the rare circumstance that you have 2 top TEs, could even compete with a QB for SF (I’m thinking of Engram last year). However…the important part to remember when planning your team is, you’re comparing your WR3-4 to an RB3 to a TE2. You’re not comparing the top tiers where the difference makers are. Granted, in dynasty, teams can get lopsided pretty quick, but that doesn’t change the idea. With all that out of the way, it’s incredibly important to stop looking at your head to head games as my total vs your total. Start lining up direct positions for comparison. It’s the point differential when comparing apples to apples that matters. And when you start doing that, you start to see the positional tiers and what it actually means to have a difference maker. It means that each and every week, you start with an advantage at that matchup (you may have a disadvantage at other positions). That’s why where you spend your resources on your team is important (THIS PART IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT WHEN YOU CONSIDER ALL TEAMS HAVE LIMITED RESOURCES). No position is worthless, and I’d argue that if the masses are saying “RBs are too unpredictable, they’re worthless, or who cares about RBs” then it’s very likely that RBs are the position where you can gain the most advantage. This year, I would say that’s true. In the past, I thought it was TE until last year (now there are 7-9 difference makers, which means they make less difference). Everyone loves the WR position now (which is the polar opposite of 20 years ago). However…look at the break points. Look back at year end finishes and look at ppg. There are 8ish difference makers, and the rate of change all the way through WR40 is very smooth and even. That means…while you can get wrapped up in the talent or the offense, they’re producing roughly the same as 30+ other players. That’s a lot to digest, I promise, because that’s only the starting place of the implications. I don’t care to argue if you disagree. There’s more than one way to skin it, so I’ll just agree to disagree. But if you’re interested in more, let me know.