General advice for a flex (start 1-3 WR and 1-3 RB) league

[rai]

this is 1-PPR (plus yards) league and you start 1-3 RB and 1-3 WR every week (total of 4)

 

To me this makes the scarcity or RBs less important meaning that you don't necessarly have to grab a RB super early if you can get two BIG PPR WRs such as Roddy and Nicks. Of course you will get stuck with a sub-par RB in the Addi/ FelixJones/ Benson / Hightower range if you do happen to wait for the third round).

 

How does this effect the need to grab RBs early?

 

I did a draft last night 8 RBs in first round 6 in second round 14 in first two rounds (Vick first round and Rodgers 2nd round other 8 were WRs)

 

So in theory you can get two top-5 WRs in first two rounds but miss out on the top RBs.

Edited September 3, 2011 by rai

[Big Country]

The key is to look at how much RBs score compared to WRs, as you only have one required of each, you simply need to see who tends to score higher to determine the appropriate strategy for the flex. If RBs tend to outscore the WRs by a decent margin until you are in the 20th or so ranked range, you'll likely derive a greater benefit by getting that 2nd and possibly even a 3rd RB relatively early for the flex before you worry about WR. Conversely, if you see that the WRs tend to be a higher scoring position in your scoring system, you may be better off going with WRs early and taking flyers at RB to rotate in.

 

The greater the number of flexes, the more important raw scoring is compared to leagues where there are a greater number of fixed starters and positional scarcity/scoring drops are a much more important factor.

[michaelman]

Yup it just cones down to who scores more at that draft spot. That format allows u to build a team ib many different ways

[panhead55]

If you knew that RB A will score 200 points this season, and that WR B will score 200 points this season, who do you play week to week?

 

RBs tend to be more consistent, while WR point totals tend to flucuate more.

 

If I view myself as the favorite for the upcoming match, I'll play the more consistent RB.

If I view myself as the underdog, I'll try to hit a home run and play the WR hoping for an upside week.

[rai]

If you knew that RB A will score 200 points this season, and that WR B will score 200 points this season, who do you play week to week?

 

RBs tend to be more consistent, while WR point totals tend to flucuate more.

 

If I view myself as the favorite for the upcoming match, I'll play the more consistent RB.

If I view myself as the underdog, I'll try to hit a home run and play the WR hoping for an upside week.

that's a good way to look at it.

[michaelman]

If you knew that RB A will score 200 points this season, and that WR B will score 200 points this season, who do you play week to week?

 

RBs tend to be more consistent, while WR point totals tend to flucuate more.

 

If I view myself as the favorite for the upcoming match, I'll play the more consistent RB.

If I view myself as the underdog, I'll try to hit a home run and play the WR hoping for an upside week.

 

In PPR, I believe the opposite is true

[Big Country]

In PPR, I believe the opposite is true

Once you get beyond the top tier this tends to be true. PPRs main beneficiaries are top RBs that are heavily involved in the passing game (think Sproles and Bush in his Saints days, neither has much value in non-ppr, both are/were legit weekly flex or even RB2 options in ppr) and top WRs that get a lot of catches, even if they don't score a ton, ala Welker. Possession WRs that are usually good for 5 catches for 50 yards on a consistent basis become strong flex and WR3 contributors, while they are little more than bye week fodder in non-ppr.

[detlef]

Hey BC, I think I missed that the 4th time. Could you explain that again?

 

In general, I agree with the sentiments above. I drafted in a league with scoring and line-ups like that, only it was even more tilted towards WRs and TEs as the PPR was .5, 1, 1.5 for RBs, WRs, and TEs respectively. Between that tilt and the fact that you only had start 1 RB (but up to 3), really made it all about taking the best available player, regardless of position and pushed TEs well up the board. I think I took the 4th or 5th TE at pick 4.03.

 

That's the most effective way I've seen anyone manage to do away with the RB feeding frenzy that dominates the first 3 rounds of so many drafts. It was still important to get a stud, but once you got that, you didn't have to keep going back for more.

[ChampSampson]

In the front end of drafts I try going RB-WR-RB this year. There are some great values at RB like Turner, Forte etc in the 3rd round to be had. All that evaporates quickly. Meanwhile there is a lot of WR talent in rounds 4 and 5 dangling. Like B.Marshall, Stevie Johnson, Santanio Holmes, Harvin etc. I have even gone WR-WR in the 4th and 5th round and still had QBs like Big Ben, Stafford, Flaco still available. (Orton )

[detlef]

In the front end of drafts I try going RB-WR-RB this year. There are some great values at RB like Turner, Forte etc in the 3rd round to be had. All that evaporates quickly. Meanwhile there is a lot of WR talent in rounds 4 and 5 dangling. Like B.Marshall, Stevie Johnson, Santanio Holmes, Harvin etc. I have even gone WR-WR in the 4th and 5th round and still had QBs like Big Ben, Stafford, Flaco still available. (Orton )

Fine enough plan for a more standard set up, but the whole point of this discussion assumes a situation where you may not actually need 2 RBs. That, sure you can get some good RBs in round 3. However, if the scoring favors WRs and you only need to start 1 RB, it might make more sense to start accumulating WRs once you've got 1 good RB in the fold.

 

The whole point of loading up on RBs is predicated on the fact that you usually need two of them and that, among non-QBs, they often dominate the top scorers in FF leagues. If you change both of those factors, all bets are off.