Jump to content

League Advice - RB / WR Flex or No?


smfink
 Share

Recommended Posts

So my league hasn't drafted yet, but we're set to draft in a few days. We're discussing adding a RB / WR flex position. The league setup is below - rationale is adding the flex position will make the league more competitive. I wanted to hear some thoughts on whether or not this would be the case. Personally I think it is a good idea, mainly b/c of the league size. The league has never had only 8 teams before, so I'm a little concerned the teams will all be pretty stacked.

 

Current setup - 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1TE, 1 K, 1 Def. Non PPR league with 8 teams. QB weighted scoring (6 pt /TD pass).

 

Appreciate any thoughts.

 

 

SMF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my league hasn't drafted yet, but we're set to draft in a few days. We're discussing adding a RB / WR flex position. The league setup is below - rationale is adding the flex position will make the league more competitive. I wanted to hear some thoughts on whether or not this would be the case. Personally I think it is a good idea, mainly b/c of the league size. The league has never had only 8 teams before, so I'm a little concerned the teams will all be pretty stacked.

 

Current setup - 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1TE, 1 K, 1 Def. Non PPR league with 8 teams. QB weighted scoring (6 pt /TD pass).

 

Appreciate any thoughts.

 

 

SMF

 

I think if you're not going to offer a 3rd WR slot or a 3rd RB slot, then a flex spot is needed, IMHO.

 

I personally like the flex position because there are weeks I would like to start 2 QB's or add a 3rd RB. I generally never add a 3rd receiver.

Edited by BearBroncos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like a flex that gives one the option of starting 3RBs. It makes RBs even more valuable, which ain't a good thing IMO.

 

Not to mention that no one has run the wishbone since the Sooners/Huskers in the 80s.

 

I think the best starting lineup requirement is 1 or 2 RBs and 3-4 WR/TE. In other words, a TE is not mandatory, and you must start 1 RB, 3 WR/TEs and you have a "flex" of an RB/WR/TE.

 

Just my $.02

Edited by Furd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TO me, "more competitive" is a misnomer in cases like this. In what regard would this change affect the competitiveness of he league? Are you talking about making the fielded player pool deeper, which thins out the scoring average by putting lesser scoring players in the line-up? Is the best way to have tighter standings and races for playoff spots happen more easily to send people into a crapshoot pool of lesser players? I don't believe that to be the case.

 

Thing that IMO do make a league more competitive: Have an even number of starters if you are running a serpentine draft. That small thing slightly neutralizes the effects of drafting in the earlier part of the round because the earlier teams do not have access to an extra starter before the teams picking later.

 

Change TE scoring. In my local we do PPR for TE only. This tosses the TEs in the mix and adds to the pool of useful players. It also makes TEs much less of an after thought, because a stud TE can help your team almost as well as a top RB. You could even consider giving WRs .5 PPR. Or you could grauate the RBs in to at .5 PPR, WRs at .75 PPR, and TEs at 1 PPR. That levels out the playing pool in order to create more opportunities for teams to strategically choose beneficial players.

 

Be wary of overdone defense scoring. Defenses that have access to too many point sources can skew results on a regular basis, IMO much more than blow-up weeks from skill position players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow-up to Caveman_Nick - I agree "More Competitive" was a bad phrase to use. Your interpretation was correct - I think it would make the fielded player pool deeper. Thus rewarding the owner who chooses the best RB3 / WR3 with a potentially not so insignificant increase in scoring. The goal isn't to have tighter standings - the goal is to reward the owner(s) who make the best personnel decisions. If it results in tighter standings thats great - but not the intention.

 

The competitiveness would be from owners wanting an edge and adding the position would give us one more roster spot to build a competitive advantage against our opponents.

 

Hope that helps? BTW - great point about an even number of roster spots. I def need to add another roster spot somewhere.

 

Thanks everyone for the thoughts.

 

 

SMF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this were a league with twelve or more teams then I think a flex is almost called for, especially if the benches are short. In an eight or ten team league, I think that there are too many good players available with not enough hard choices each week. I think a flex is overkill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love 3 WR AND a flex

This, especially in a smaller league like this one. Then again, I support this in 12 team leagues too.

 

I don't like a flex that gives one the option of starting 3RBs. It makes RBs even more valuable, which ain't a good thing IMO.

In an 8 team league, this is hardly noticeable. It's the same number of starters as in a 12-team league. Them again, I say this advocating a required 3 WRs plus the flex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information