Whatever happened to coffee-flavored-coffee? Beer-flavored beer? Football-flavored fantasy football?

Comedian Denis Leary, in a 1997 stand-up special “Lock n Load,” made the genius observation of how some of our daily niceties have devolved into things that only vaguely resembled the essence of their origins. Regular-flavored coffee has become, if not harder to find, at least harder to order. When you mention coffee, that which used to be understood now has to be specified — cue Leary's rant: “Mochachino? Cappuchino? Frappachino? Al Pacino?”

You want those things you love to remain lovable. A market flooded with "Maple Nut Crunch" and "Cranberry Ale" diverts attention from perfecting coffee-flavored coffee and beer-flavored beer. It is farther from the truth of coffee and beer. It has ignited a market overrun with such mutations, giving the original product a smaller share of the market.

Such a movement has become robust in fantasy football. It is called PPR. Leagues that score for points per reception do so at the expense of reflecting the reality of football. But, you say, “fantasy” football isn’t reality, it is “fantasy”! Well, I still like some real football in my fantasy football. I want football-flavored fantasy football.

Many would argue the merits of PPR. There are reasons that made sense years ago, but are now outdated. There are others that never made sense. And there are others that are self-serving for an industry that sells advice, and wants a more predictable scoring environment that helps them make more accurate forecasts.

But PPR is a step away from the “football” part of fantasy football. In that scoring format, real-life gains on a football field are measured differently. Player values are distorted — wide receivers, along with specialized RBs who were featured heavily in the passing game, are handed an unfair advantage. Their yardage is scored differently, despite having identical real-life results. The reality scoreboard doesn’t care if you gained three yards by ground or air, why should fantasy scoring?

And it created such hypocrisy as a 1-yard reception on first-and-10 being worth as much as a 11-yard run on first-and-10, though the running play was substantially more impactful in real life.

It was an ill-conceived elixir and overreaction to the early-round RB-dependent epidemic. Things have changed a lot since then. As imperfect as the PPR solution was then, it is just as counterproductive now as the perceived RB-dominance problem was at PPR’s inception.

But that doesn’t stop the hordes from trumpeting the PPR system. To fight against a growing tide, you ned to be armed with rebuttals to their arguments.

Here is the Madman’s anti-PPR playbook.

Pro-PPR argument: It address overreliance on fantasy running backs.

Anti-PPR response: This reason made more sense in the early 2000s — when RBs dominated the first few rounds of drafts. Fantasy players and league commissioners sought a method to provide more positional diversity. But the NFL game has become much more pass-oriented. There are more shared backfields. Even in standard leagues, WRs now often checker the top of the overall leaderboard. The real-life game of football has evolved to eliminate the former RB-heavy problem with fantasy football. WR Antonio Brown was the leading non-QB fantasy producer in 2015 in [ital] standard formats [end ital], showing there is no significant statistical reason to artificially boost numbers.

Pro-PPR argument: Players who receive a high volume of targets, thus normally have more receptions, are essential components to the offense and should be rewarded accordingly.

Anti-PPR response: If that contribution is of worthy significance, it will be reflected in yardage totals. Someone with six catches for 60 yards made the same statistical contribution as an RB who gained 60 yards on, say, 12 carries. The difference in average is countered by the difference in volume.

Pro-PPR argument: Go-to WRs are more essential to the offense because they make key catches, often on third down, to lengthen drives.

Anti-PPR response: Is a third-and-9 reception more crucial than a fourth-and-1 rushing conversion? Or a third-and-12 draw play for 15 yards? Subjective cherry-picking of “important” plays is subjective. 

Pro-PPR argument: PPR makes projections more accurate, thus decreasing amount of randomness in fantasy scoring.

Anti-PPR response: Randomness is part of the game. It makes it harder to forecast results, but hard can be more rewarding and provide more opportunities fantasy owners who do more elaborate research to separate themselves from others.

Pro-PPR argument: Players score more points, and more points are fun.

Anti-PPR response: This is a fundamentally weak argument. It ignores artificial inflation for pure “fun.” Besides, there are other ways to enhance point totals — scoring for first downs converted, unshackle restrictive QB scoring (fantasy QBs in most formats are substantially less value than real-life QBs), adjust roster requirements (add more positions at WR or Flex).

If there ever was justification for PPR, that justification no longer exists. It is time to move away from a flawed formula, instead of the fantasy community strengthening its embrace. It is time to start putting more football back in our fantasy football.