Flex postion/Roster sizes

[monster2333]

There's an ongoing discussion in my league about changing some rules for next year - roster sizes, fees, etc. The big talk right now is about the flex postion. One owner brought this up on draft day - he wanted to eliminate 1 required RB and add the flex. Now, 5 minutes before the draft, it was immediately voted down as nobody was prepared for that.

 

Now that there are real discussions about adding it for next year, I'd like to get some opinions from all you Huddlers. We start 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1K & 1Def. We have an 8-player bench and can carry up to 7 RB's per team. In a 12-team league, RB's are hard to come by.

 

The discussion started with talk of reducing the roster size from 16 to either 15 or 14 and/or reducing the number of RB's a team can carry to 6 or even 5, to create more free agents. I don't think that reducing to 6 would do much good, as there are only 3 teams with 6 RBs and just 1 with 7. But limiting to 5 is just giving the owners that didn't plan for bye weeks/possible injuires too much of a free pass - basically guaranteeing that there will be players available that will get some points. Part of your draft stragegy should be to plan for this! We actually do an auction, so anyone can go after any player that's available.

 

Then the flex position came up, as a way to make more RB's available. Now, I have no problem adding a flex postion, but not at the expense of another position on the roster. You devalue the RB position too much - RB is the core of fantasy football. I say you add the flex - RB, WR or TE - and keep roster size the same. So you're killing 2 birds with one stone by reducing the bench by one.

 

But does adding the flex position make the RB position even more valuable and take even more RBs out of the pool? Anyone out there use this setup? How's it work out for you?

 

Sorry this got a little long. Thanks for any opinions.

[Aiea Sparks]

We have used a flex position for a few years now and to be honest it has only depleted the RB pool more as 90 percent of teams use the flex position on a RB.

 

IMO I believe there is little to be done aside from limiting RB roster positions to alleviate RB woes. We are also a 12 team league with similar roster requirements and we only have 4 RB positions plus the flex for a maximum of 5 RBs on a team.

[Hunter]

We have been running our league for many years and have the following starting lineups: 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1RB/WR, 1TE, 1K, 1Def. It is also a 12 team league. What we found in the past is that the flex position was generally a RB and that position was very depleted.

 

Three years ago, based on info from the Huddle, we changed to allow reception points for our WR and TE's only. This evened up the 3rd RB or 3rd WR on teams and made it a more even mix. Now, the past two years, the NFL appears to be moving more toward a RBBC approach across the board. This does two things, bring overall RB production down, but adds more choices for a 3rd or 4th RB on your roster. What it did in our league is make the flex position change to a mostly WR focused position. We even drop the receptions to a half point this year with the same result. But...the fact is that having that flex position gives us more guys to cheer for and the flexibility to make it a RB if we happened to be deep there or a WR AND help with bye weeks.

 

I personally like this setup. The key is making the scoring system well enough balanced that the 25th-36th RB's and WR's in the league are fairly equal.

 

As for roster size, we have two roster spots per starting spot. That gives us 18 roster spots. We find that most starting and backup RB's are on rosters somewhere. There are still gems to be found at times though.

 

Hope this helps...

[billay]

We have a setup in my local league that is very interesting. It adds to tyhe strategy of both the draft and weekly lineups:

 

1 QB

2-3 RB's

2-4 WR's

0-2 TE's

K

D

 

For a total of 9 starting players and 7 reserves.

 

Standard performance scoring with PPR and TD length bonuses.

 

I have lobbied for expanding the roster to 18 (9 reserves instead of 7) but so far the league hasn't gone for it.

[Bier Meister]

my preferrence is:

1 qb

1 pk

1 d/st

 

and:

1-2 rb

2-4 wr

1-2 te

 

max of 6 combined

 

can't stand leagues that allow a wishbone, but no 4 wr set. makes very little sense to me

 

edit: and i prefer 17-18 man rosters

Edited October 10, 2006 by Bier Meister

[flemingd]

3 of the 4 leagues I'm in use a flex WR instead of a 2nd RB. 2 also give 1/2 point per reception to WR and TE only. Let me tell you it makes a HUGH difference. You're no longer hamstrung on loading up with RB/RB/RB on draft day and teams with injuries can now get a WR that can still contribute. Many WR3 are competitive with RB2 now and it's much more about how you manage rosters. I have won 3 of the last 4 years in one league by heavily emphasizing WR when everyone else is still whoring up crappy RB - last year I had Moss Javon Wayne and Fitzgerald - if Javon has any kind of season that's a powerful as hell team even with crap at RB. As it was (I made some beauties in the mid rounds with Jordan and LJ) it was enough to carry me to 9-4 and have a good playoff run.

 

I'm also a fan of limiting roster size - nothing worse than having a bare-naked waiver wire when trying to recover from key injuries. Teams with no injuries have enough advantage, no reason to give them an outlet to go stash all the vialble alternatives. My 8 man league requires 2 QB 3 RB 3 WR 2 TE 2 K 2 DEF and only has 2 "flex" roster spots. Requiring the extras at K TE DEF reduces the number of necessary transactions to manage byes and only having the 2 flexes really puts an emphasis on decision making. We also only have 9 pickups per season but this works out well since there is so much talent still available. Currently on my league's waiver wire include:

 

Kitna Leftwich Favre Brees Carr

Rhodes Drew Betts Barber

Keyshawn Jennings Cotchery Bruce Reggie Brown

 

So plenty of opportunity for injury covers and to get bad teams a shot to get back into it. I love this format and would recommend it to any league.

[Furd]

As mentioned, adding a flex position that allows someone to start 3 RBs makes RBs even more valuable, and they get drafted earlier. I dislike that scenario, as RBs are already overvalued IMO.

 

I suppose that if you want to have a flex position you could start 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE and 1 "flex" (RB or WR or TE). Most of the time, you're going to start 2 RBs, but in certain situations (bye weeks, injuries included) you might want to start 3 WRs.

 

I also dislike roster limitations e.g., you can only have 5 RBs on your roster. This eliminates a great deal of drafting and ww strategy.

 

A roster size of 16 or 17 is about right.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Furd

[monster2333]

Thanks for the replies.

 

I like the idea of reception points for receivers, but not RB's - that would definitely balance that out more. It's something that I'll bring up.

 

I'm sure our bench size will decrease, which will help. I doubt it will drop to only 2, but I'm sure it will go down.

[billay]

As mentioned, adding a flex position that allows someone to start 3 RBs makes RBs even more valuable, and they get drafted earlier. I dislike that scenario, as RBs are already overvalued IMO.

 

 

In my league this has not been the case as there is often a WR or TE who could rival the production of a #3 RB.

 

And this is where drafting strategy comes in. The prevalence of RBBC's this year has rewardrd those teams which did more deep analysis going into their drafts.

[monster2333]

I also dislike roster limitations e.g., you can only have 5 RBs on your roster. This eleiminates a great deal of drafting and ww strategy.

 

 

That's the part I worry about - I don't like having a huge talent pool on the WW. I don't want to make it harder to pick up a player if you need one, but at the same time I don't think teams that don't have contigency plans should have their hands held by making it too easy for them to pick up a player that will score points. I came out of my auction deep at RB and worked trades because some people didn't have enough depth. If I had 2 less RBs on my roster, I don't get to make those trades and the other owners wouldn't need to - they just grab another guy off the WW.

 

You need to put a little effort in. I like to be able to grab a guy like Leon Washington when nobody knows who he is and a few weeks later, he could be starting for you. Guys are still out there. You just need to find them and you can't just wait until he has a big week - Leon would probably be a hot commodity this week. We don't use a bidding system or anything for free agents, so then it's just a race to get him when free agency opens up at 7:00 Tuesdays.

[Furd]

In my league this has not been the case as there is often a WR or TE who could rival the production of a #3 RB.

 

And this is where drafting strategy comes in. The prevalence of RBBC's this year has rewardrd those teams which did more deep analysis going into their drafts.

 

 

Are you saying that WRs and TEs got drafted earlier in that league because you can start a flex player?

[billay]

Are you saying that WRs and TEs got drafted earlier in that league because you can start a flex player?

 

 

Certainly not in the first few rounds, but as the draft goes on, there are far more possibilities to score points. The tendency to draft too many RB's may hurt you in this scenario as a TE or WR may be a better play.

[RussMan]

1QB

2RB

3WR

1TE

1K

1DEF

1 Flex RB/WR/TE

1 Flex Any position