RokoMotion Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 How does adding a flex player change draft strategy/the reality of my league? Last year we had 2RB, 3WR, 1QB, 1K, 1Def as starters. Our league is not a TD only league, but it is heavily weighted toward TDs, where yardage bonuses begin at 75 yards. Our league is probably going to add a flex player instead of a 3rd WR this year...this player could be either a RB or a WR to fill the flex slot. Our RBs and WRs score roughly evenly due to a balanced system... My question is how does the addition of a flex player in place of a 3rd WR change how I should draft? Does it change how the season will progress? And who does this rule change benefit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 How does adding a flex player change draft strategy/the reality of my league? Last year we had 2RB, 3WR, 1QB, 1K, 1Def as starters. Our league is not a TD only league, but it is heavily weighted toward TDs, where yardage bonuses begin at 75 yards. Our league is probably going to add a flex player instead of a 3rd WR this year...this player could be either a RB or a WR to fill the flex slot. Our RBs and WRs score roughly evenly due to a balanced system... My question is how does the addition of a flex player in place of a 3rd WR change how I should draft? Does it change how the season will progress? And who does this rule change benefit? Using a flex RB/WR that gives you an opportunity to start 3 RBs changes the dynamics of your league completely. Even though the RBs & WRs may be balanced due to thoughtful scoring, the number of starting RBs is much more limited than starting WRs in the NFL and RBs tend to be more consistent scorers in FF than WRs, especially in TD heavy leagues. That puts a huge premium on the RBs in your league. IT would not surprise me to see some teams in your league now drafting their 4th RB before they draft a QB or a 2nd WR. That premium on RBs becomes even more significant because you don't have a mandatory TE. I hope all the owners realize this and how it is going to impact the league, because you've made a very significant change - and it sounds by your comments & questions that there are at least some owners that don't understand the impact of this change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetterOff Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 I'm in the same position. My local keeper league used to be 1-qb, 2-rb, 3-wr, 1-te, 1-k, 1-def. This year the commish decided he wants to change to 1-qb, 2-rb, 2-wr, 1-wr/rb, 1-te, 1-k, 1-def. Luckily I have 2 backs to keep but I am still thinking I will go with another RB or two as my first picks where I would normally have gone for the best WR available. Just thinking what players are going to be kept I think the available RB's are going to go even quicker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 I'm in the same position. My local keeper league used to be 1-qb, 2-rb, 3-wr, 1-te, 1-k, 1-def. This year the commish decided he wants to change to 1-qb, 2-rb, 2-wr, 1-wr/rb, 1-te, 1-k, 1-def. Is this a $$$ league? If so, what gives the commish the perrogative to change the rules unilaterally, and to change rules that affect rosters & have the change take place within the same season as the rule change as opposed to a 1 year lag in the rule taking affect? As much as I hate making a commish's job rougher, I'd feel a strong obligation to call them out on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Agree with wha Billy has said. The flex in place of the 3rd WR will reduce the value of WRs and will boost thevalues of RBs, and will make any team that can get 3 legitmate starting RBs on their team a real force to be reckoned with, as it makes it possible for a team to take 3 RBs with their first 3 picks and actually use all 3 of those RBs each week. Remember, just because RBs and WRs score roughly the same number of points definitely does not mean they are worth the same. THere have been several threads in the last couple of months that have gone into detail on the importance of understanding the difference between the number of points scored and the value of said points.. do a search for the threads on reception points and 6 point passing TDs to see some of these discussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetterOff Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Is this a $$$ league? If so, what gives the commish the perrogative to change the rules unilaterally, and to change rules that affect rosters & have the change take place within the same season as the rule change as opposed to a 1 year lag in the rule taking affect? As much as I hate making a commish's job rougher, I'd feel a strong obligation to call them out on this. Yep, $50 per person 10 players. We only keep 2 players. I have had LT since his rookie year and picked LJ in the 12th rd last year so LT & LJ are my keepers. So with those 2 as my starting RB's I don;t really have a problem with the change. I do know that based on the previous years keepers the following non-RB players will be kept (P. Manning, Owens, C Johnson, Palmer, T Holt). I do know that at least one player has been pushing for the flex position but it has never been put to a vote. The same sort of issue happened last year though, the commish changed the scoring to add points for kick returners. I haved pretty much dominated this league so none of the changes so far really bug me that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 (edited) Yep, $50 per person 10 players. We only keep 2 players. I have had LT since his rookie year and picked LJ in the 12th rd last year so LT & LJ are my keepers. So with those 2 as my starting RB's I don;t really have a problem with the change. I do know that based on the previous years keepers the following non-RB players will be kept (P. Manning, Owens, C Johnson, Palmer, T Holt). I do know that at least one player has been pushing for the flex position but it has never been put to a vote. The same sort of issue happened last year though, the commish changed the scoring to add points for kick returners. I haved pretty much dominated this league so none of the changes so far really bug me that much. Wow. How in the Seven Hells did you get LJ in the 12th last season? His ADP was around the 5th/6th round in almost every league that I saw drafting. In fact, how did you let him slip past the 6th/7th round in a keeper league with the way he performed in the 2nd half of 2004? Must be a very, very inexperienced league or one that doesn't have much acumen. Also, just a thought - just because a rule is created that you benefit from but that the predominance of the rest of the league suffers from doesn't make it a good rule, or one that you should support - unless of course you don't like a healthy, balanced league that challenges your skills. Edited July 10, 2006 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetterOff Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Wow. How in the Seven Hells did you get LJ in the 12th last season? His ADP was around the 5th/6th round in almost every league that I saw drafting. In fact, how did you let him slip past the 6th/7th round in a keeper league with the way he performed in the 2nd half of 2004? Must be a very, very inexperienced league or one that doesn't have much acumen. Also, just a thought - just because a rule is created that you benefit from but that the predominance of the rest of the league suffers from doesn't make it a good rule, or one that you should support - unless of course you don't like a healthy, balanced league that challenges your skills. As for LJ, I think the other owners were more concerned on filling their key positions. They have a tendancy to follow runs, so when someone starts on QB's they all jump on. We do have one newb but the Priest Holmes owner simply was not thinking. Once I said the name in the draft as my pick he was swearing up and down about forgetting him. You wouldn't believe the number of trade offers I got prior tot he season starting. Even if the rule didn't explicitly help me, it was something that had been brought up in previous drafts by a few owners. The new position requirements were sent out in an email and I am sure they will be discussed once we get everyone in a room for the actual draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trrhyne Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Does it make it more even to do 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 flex? Anyone have experience with that lineup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcd480 Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 I personally hate the flex position. The league's scoring system may be balanced, but the talent pool at the RB and WR positions is not. There are very few WR who can consisitantly put up numbers on a par to a 2nd tier RB. RBs are simply worth more than WRs especially when you get down to the 3rd and 4th tiers of each position, which is what you typically are working with in the flex spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoBeast Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 It puts even more premium on RBs. especially since your league favors the TDs. Whoever musters 3 double-digit TD RBs in this league is playoff bound Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Does it make it more even to do 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 flex? Anyone have experience with that lineup. That's a better system than the one descibed in the topic post. Your system still places a high emphasis on RB, since you can start as many RBs as you can WRs - and again RBs having much higher value even if they score equally with WRs (tricky, but can be done with a good, well thought out scoring system) because there simply are fewer of them starting in the NFL as compared to WRs. The simple scarcity in comparison to WRs, as well as the RBs being generally more consistent scorers, enhances the RBs' value significantly. The more players at a position that are made mandatory, the more value they carry. If the scoring system is well balanced, I've found that a 1 RB/3 WR/ 1 TE with one flex player that can be any of a RB/WR/TE tends to be a good ratio for balance of value - that brings enough WRs to bear as mandatory starters to enhance their value susbtantially enough to compete with RBs. That tends to make 1 RB/4 WR/1 TE sets comparable to 2 RB/3 WR/1 TE sets in overall scoring, and occassionally you'll see a 1 RB/3 WR/2 TE set if the TEs also are well balanced (usually through weighted ppr) and an owner has 2 very good to stud TEs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RokoMotion Posted July 10, 2006 Author Share Posted July 10, 2006 Do any of these opinions change if it is not a head to head league, but rather just an accumulation of points through the playoffs and until the end of the superbowl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Do any of these opinions change if it is not a head to head league, but rather just an accumulation of points through the playoffs and until the end of the superbowl? It should change somewhat. Points leagues negate the inconsistency factor for WRs. RBs still hold more value because of their relative scarcity, but the worry of greater week-to-week fluxuations for WRs is non-existent. It brings the value of the RBs down somewhat - especially for a #3 starting RB, but the fact is that if you can create a demand for RBs by accumulating more of them (and reducing the pool of required starting RBs for other teams) - and being able to start them instead of having them take up bench space with the addition of the flex spot - you have a distinct advantage in the way your league is going to play out in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigrocks Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 In the local league I run, we have been using the Flex (RB/WR/TE) for a few years. As has been discussed, most folks tend to start a RB in this spot to give them 3 RBs. But honestly, I can't say coaches who do start an RB in the flex have an advantage. Generally, if you have 3 quality RBs to start week to week, your roster is probably thin somewhere else - like WR or QB. Just my $.02. On a related note, I have been kicking around the idea of opening the flex to QB as well as RB, WR, and TE. Has anyone played in this format?? Pros/Cons?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 In the local league I run, we have been using the Flex (RB/WR/TE) for a few years. As has been discussed, most folks tend to start a RB in this spot to give them 3 RBs. But honestly, I can't say coaches who do start an RB in the flex have an advantage. Generally, if you have 3 quality RBs to start week to week, your roster is probably thin somewhere else - like WR or QB. Just my $.02. On a related note, I have been kicking around the idea of opening the flex to QB as well as RB, WR, and TE. Has anyone played in this format?? Pros/Cons?? Been playing this format for 5 years now 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1FLEX (QB/RB/WR/TE). This places a premium on QBs because an 11-20 ranked QB will score more points that a 21-30 ranked RB. Therefore most owners have at least 1 QB by the 4th round and about 50% of the owners have there 2nd QB by round 7. There are a couple trains of thought about drafting in this format the most common being that you square away your required positions in the first 5 rounds and then draft the best available player as your FLEX spot in the 6th round...which happens to be a QB because only 10 QBs are off the board and 20 RBs and WRs, each, are off the board. I have seen owners draft 2 QBs very early though and it has worked out for them about 50% of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.