Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
TS Garp

Why don't more fantasy leagues start 2 QB's?

98 posts in this topic

I've been in the same league for 20 years and it features some pretty antiquated rules, but one that I've always liked is that we start 2 QB's. I've joined other leagues over the years that feature the much more typical 1 qb/2 rb/3 wr set-up and they leave a lot to be desired for me. It just doesn't make sense that QB is the most important position on the field, yet they're significantly less valuable than RB's and WR's in fantasy football. Not only does starting 2 qb's add a lot more strategy to drafts and make them far less predictable, but it insures that almost every NFL starting QB has some value, as it should be.

Is the 1 QB rule something people believe in because there's only 1 QB in a real NFL game? I just don't buy that line of reasoning. We're playing fantasy football, after all. I think we're all capable of making the necessary leaps.

Would love to hear the arguments here. It's just never made sense to me and after trying both, I find a 2 QB much more challenging and interesting.

I started a thread on this a long time ago but it never got off the ground. Hoping to hear more responses given that it's the off-season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about a start 2 QB league being a challenge. A real challenge in 12 team leagues. I like it personally.

My start 2 QB league is also a dynasty which makes the rookie drafts much more challenging and interesting. Luck and RG3 will go in the top 3 for sure and Tannehill will definitely go in the first round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an open mind, but I think that leagues that start 2 QBs and leagues where you play more than one opponent in a week should be illegal and commissioners should be arrested without bail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tired it once in a redraft league with 12 teams. Bye weeks become way too big of an issue for my tastes. QB hording screws teams over. I'd consider playing again in a 10 team league, but 12 doesn't do anything for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run a 10 team - 2 QB league and everyone in the league loves it. I think it only works with 10 or less teams though.

The reason we started going 2 QB's is due to the fact that there are 22 other potential point scorers that can help your team just rotting on the ww or on someones bench.

Our league basically just added a QB and took away the Kicker position (kickers suck anyways and hey... its FANTASY).

Would love to hear other arguments for or against as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about rather than start 2 QB's, you do a FLEX that has the option of being a QB?

I still don't think the bye weeks totally screw you in a 12 team league. It's never been an issue in my league. In my experience, no one really hoards that many qb's on their bench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite two leagues both have 2QBs, though in one it is a flex option.

I love them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are probably two main reasons more leagues don't go to 2 QB.

First is the bye week issue. As you just mentioned, that issue is pretty much completely negated by making the 2nd QB position a flex position where starting a second QB is the right move the overwhelming majority of time.

The other reason then is that it just lacks symmetry with how the NFL does it. There's no right answer when it comes to that, it's just personal preference. I think the strategy and necessary skill of FF goes way up with a 2nd QB... and that makes the game far more enjoyable for me than not matching the NFL detracts. But that's a personal opinion and nothing wrong with others feeling differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A flex would sound like it would work and be the best option. That way people aren't FORCED to play a 2nd QB. However, I would say that 90% of the league would play a QB there anyways since they generally score more than the other position players (regardless of scoring).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played in one but it's seems like your fortune completely rises and falls with your QB's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played in one but it's seems like your fortune completely rises and falls with your QB's.

It hasn't really been that way in the past. QBs do score more overall, and so yes their variation will have a bigger impact than the variation at other positions. But I haven't found it to dominate results. The difference between the top and bottom QBs was still the same range as the difference between the top RBs and bottom RBs for example, and that helps keep them of similar value and keeps your weekly results from mirroring just the QBs.Now that said, last year was very different with the through-the-roof passing numbers. QB value skyrocketed, with the top QBs being worth about 50% more in a VBD sense than the top QBs have normally been worth. It might be an issue going forward, but I'll wait to see how much of a trend it becomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luck and RG3 will go in the top 3 for sure and Tannehill will definitely go in the first round.

yep, i expect to be looking at Tannehill with my 1.07 pick if everything goes as i expect... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played in one but it's seems like your fortune completely rises and falls with your QB's.

It hasn't really been that way in the past. QBs do score more overall, and so yes their variation will have a bigger impact than the variation at other positions. But I haven't found it to dominate results. The difference between the top and bottom QBs was still the same range as the difference between the top RBs and bottom RBs for example, and that helps keep them of similar value and keeps your weekly results from mirroring just the QBs.Now that said, last year was very different with the through-the-roof passing numbers. QB value skyrocketed, with the top QBs being worth about 50% more in a VBD sense than the top QBs have normally been worth. It might be an issue going forward, but I'll wait to see how much of a trend it becomes.
I see what you are saying, but unless you hamper overall QB points (every league I am in, 12 of the top 20 scorers are QBs (and that is an "at least")), people can run wild with 2-3 good QBs. If one of my leagues went 2QB start, I would go QB in rounds 1-3 w/o fail...and I have never in 16 years of FF taken a QB earlier than round 5. That is fine, but the guy at the turn has a massive advantage, unless you alter scoring, and my guess is that most leagues do not do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luck and RG3 will go in the top 3 for sure and Tannehill will definitely go in the first round.

yep, i expect to be looking at Tannehill with my 1.07 pick if everything goes as i expect... :unsure:
To clarify, the start 2 QB league that I am in does have the second QB spot as a flex. It is beneficial to start 2 QBs every week but allows the flexibility for bye weeks. I am holding the 1.09 and 3 QBs will likely be gone at that point but allows me to go best RB/WR and still get a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually you just have to adjust scoring to make it even out. Adding in aggressive bonus scoring that decent players at other positions will hit with regularity works, but doesn't reward mediocre performances either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A flex would sound like it would work and be the best option. That way people aren't FORCED to play a 2nd QB. However, I would say that 90% of the league would play a QB there anyways since they generally score more than the other position players (regardless of scoring).

we have done this for a few years now and by far is my favotite lineup with a "Super Flex".we start 1,2,3,1,1,1, with the super flex of any position.adds a fun dimension to the draft to see all of the gameplans play out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every season, I try and convince my seasonal 10 team re-draft league to go to a 2QB format as opposed to 1QB, but never with any luck.

I find that in 10 team redrafts, the QB position is so incredibly de-valued, it's ridiculous. On any given week, there will be 10+ QBs sitting on the waiver wire, and startable QBs sitting on the bench collecting dust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think in a 10 team or less league you should have a mandatory 2nd QB position. In a league thatt small QBs are basically worthless since you can grab guys off the WW with ease. In a 12 team league they are doable if you make it a super flex position. Any thing bigger then a 12 team league and it basically turns into if you don't have a top 4 or 5 QB you are are a whole boat load of trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played in one but it's seems like your fortune completely rises and falls with your QB's.

I find that in 10 team redrafts, the QB position is so incredibly de-valued, it's ridiculous.

About sums up the pro's and con's for me. Even in a 10 teamer the QB hoarding gets crazy and the reverse of de-valued happens....they are completely overvalued. I can see the argument for, but prefer the sanity of without. Edited by djmich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot.

Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's.

Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :)

(Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Edited by SelenaCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tired it once in a redraft league with 12 teams. Bye weeks become way too big of an issue for my tastes. QB hording screws teams over. I'd consider playing again in a 10 team league, but 12 doesn't do anything for me.

I think you need to limit # of QB's per roster in this format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot.Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's.Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :)(Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Done the flex option for 16 team league for almost 20 years now. No issue. Guys win with all sorts of permutations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot.

Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's.

Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :)

(Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Honest question...why do you prefer a league where a below average QB can score better than a top 5 running back at flex? It is personal preference obviously, but I'm just curious...

To me, it just really doesn't seem like "fantasy" football if quarterbacks that are awful are the preferred flex options over top running backs. I couldn't imagine debating whether or not to play Gabbert over MJD this year, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot.

Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's.

Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :)

(Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Honest question...why do you prefer a league where a below average QB can score better than a top 5 running back at flex? It is personal preference obviously, but I'm just curious...

To me, it just really doesn't seem like "fantasy" football if quarterbacks that are awful are the preferred flex options over top running backs. I couldn't imagine debating whether or not to play Gabbert over MJD this year, for instance.

This would never be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a few years back playing in a 2 qb league....drafted Payton and Culpepper in round 1/2...lucked out with LT and Mcallister at my 3/4 picks...won the league by a landslide. I would play in a 2 QB league again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of these reactions are based purely on habit and "the way things have always been." If 2 qb's (or a flex that allows QB) had always been the norm, you may have people complaining that very good starting NFL qb's have less value than the WR3 or RB3 of certain teams. It all depends on how you look at it. Personally, I think it's odd that for all the hype they're getting, there's a good chance that guys like Luck and RG3 will not have a ton of value in redraft leagues this coming season (debatable, but certainly possible).

As someone who has been playing in these sorts of leagues for a long time, I've never seen people hoarding qb's or qb's having disproportionate value to other players. And, even so, isn't that something that makes the draft more fun? I actually tend to wait on qb's, and I was able to end up with Calvin Johnson/Fitzgerald/Marshall at WR this past season as a result, and I generally do very well in the league. You'll get to see a lot more strategies unfold and I just think it's generally makes things a lot more interesting and becomes much more a game of skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot.

Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's.

Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :)

(Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Honest question...why do you prefer a league where a below average QB can score better than a top 5 running back at flex? It is personal preference obviously, but I'm just curious...

To me, it just really doesn't seem like "fantasy" football if quarterbacks that are awful are the preferred flex options over top running backs. I couldn't imagine debating whether or not to play Gabbert over MJD this year, for instance.

It's essentially a 2QB league, but it gives you the option of starting another position if you get hurt by byes or injuries (and it's not like you're going to get killed if you're not starting a 2nd QB. After looking at last year's numbers, our QB24 only scored 2 more points per game more than WR36 -- it's a 2WR league -- and 4 more points than RB36, so you can see the point differential isn't *that* great if you're not starting a QB). And there was one year that a player had the 1st, 2nd and 4th best RB's of the year, so other options are certainly possible.

Also, you wouldn't really be considering starting Gabbert over MJD because it's pretty unlikely that MJD is your third best RB. Yes, that one player had that happen, but unless you specifically draft for it (or auction, in our case), you're probably going to plan on playing 2 QB's. Instead, think of it as choosing Gabbert over, say, C.J. Spiller, Shonn Greene, or Pierre Garcon.

Edited by SelenaCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot.

Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's.

Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :)

(Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Honest question...why do you prefer a league where a below average QB can score better than a top 5 running back at flex? It is personal preference obviously, but I'm just curious...

To me, it just really doesn't seem like "fantasy" football if quarterbacks that are awful are the preferred flex options over top running backs. I couldn't imagine debating whether or not to play Gabbert over MJD this year, for instance.

It's essentially a 2QB league, but it gives you the option of starting another position if you get killed by byes or injuries (and it's not like you're going to get killed if you're not starting a 2nd QB. After looking at last year's numbers, our QB24 averaged 11 PPG, which is the same as the RB15 or WR22, so you can see the point differential isn't *that* great). And there was one year that a player had the 1st, 2nd and 4th best RB's of the year, so other options are certainly possible.

Also, you wouldn't really be considering starting Gabbert over MJD because it's pretty unlikely that MJD is your third best RB. Yes, that one player had that happen, but unless you specifically draft for it, you're probably going to plan on playing 2 QB's. Instead, think of it as choosing Gabbert over, say, C.J. Spiller, Shonn Greene, or Pierre Garcon.

Good post, I understand better where you're coming from...thanks for your opinion on it. I was genuinely curious rather than trying to be argumentative. MJD and Gabbert probably wasn't a good example but it just came to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot.

Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's.

Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :)

(Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Honest question...why do you prefer a league where a below average QB can score better than a top 5 running back at flex? It is personal preference obviously, but I'm just curious...

To me, it just really doesn't seem like "fantasy" football if quarterbacks that are awful are the preferred flex options over top running backs. I couldn't imagine debating whether or not to play Gabbert over MJD this year, for instance.

Why prefer a league where an average RB can score better than the #1 TE, which happens many years in normal setups.

One can argue that normal setups are hideously out of touch with NFL reality when it comes to the value of the RB position. A 2nd QB via flex brings fantasy football closer in line with the NFL in that respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following QBs were in the top 30 overall in points from week 11-17:

Palmer

Tebow

Sanchez

Grossman

Fitzpatrick

Moore

Freeman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know to go along with the super flex of any position we also have the 1 qb, 2 rb, 3 wr, 1 te, 1 d, 1 k and have 1 PPR for rb, 1.5 PPR for wr and 2 PPR for te.

again, having the above really creates an interesting draft and levels all positions out pretty even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot.

Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's.

Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :)

(Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Honest question...why do you prefer a league where a below average QB can score better than a top 5 running back at flex? It is personal preference obviously, but I'm just curious...

To me, it just really doesn't seem like "fantasy" football if quarterbacks that are awful are the preferred flex options over top running backs. I couldn't imagine debating whether or not to play Gabbert over MJD this year, for instance.

Why prefer a league where an average RB can score better than the #1 TE, which happens many years in normal setups.

One can argue that normal setups are hideously out of touch with NFL reality when it comes to the value of the RB position. A 2nd QB via flex brings fantasy football closer in line with the NFL in that respect.

I don't prefer normal setups. You could argue that they're out of touch and I'd agree with you. I prefer a league format that fairly evaluates a player's impact to a game based on what is expected from the position. For me, that's a .5 PPR format with some scoring nuances, but again, it is personal preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Position scarcity is just a little too tight for a 12 team league for my tastes. HOWEVER...I love the super-flex option, which allows a QB to be used as a flex. Since an average QB will outscore the average RB3/WR4/TE2...it ends up being a 2 QB league where you can sub in a RB or WR on a bye week.

See the MOX leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know to go along with the super flex of any position we also have the 1 qb, 2 rb, 3 wr, 1 te, 1 d, 1 k and have 1 PPR for rb, 1.5 PPR for wr and 2 PPR for te.again, having the above really creates an interesting draft and levels all positions out pretty even.

Ah, yes, I suppose I should add that we have 1 point per receiving first down (on average, this works out to about 1/3 PPR for RB's, 1/2 PPR for TE's and 2/3 PPR for WR's, based on historical data). That does help the positions achieve a bit more parity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me 2 QBs seems unnatural. I play in a12 team league. That would mean 24 starting QBs. That means guess wrong with you QB2 or incur an injury and you are dead. You won't be able to find a backup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 teamer... every position is a priority already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been in the same league for 20 years and it features some pretty antiquated rules, but one that I've always liked is that we start 2 QB's. I've joined other leagues over the years that feature the much more typical 1 qb/2 rb/3 wr set-up and they leave a lot to be desired for me. It just doesn't make sense that QB is the most important position on the field, yet they're significantly less valuable than RB's and WR's in fantasy football. Not only does starting 2 qb's add a lot more strategy to drafts and make them far less predictable, but it insures that almost every NFL starting QB has some value, as it should be. Is the 1 QB rule something people believe in because there's only 1 QB in a real NFL game? I just don't buy that line of reasoning. We're playing fantasy football, after all. I think we're all capable of making the necessary leaps.Would love to hear the arguments here. It's just never made sense to me and after trying both, I find a 2 QB much more challenging and interesting.I started a thread on this a long time ago but it never got off the ground. Hoping to hear more responses given that it's the off-season.

I like your logic - never looked at it that way.However, have you thought about 16-team league, 1 starting QB? That's what I've done for years. You'll find that if you don't own a strong QB (and a reliable backup) in 16-team league, you're dead meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our league went to a lot of trouble to have all the positions equal in the sense of scoring potential. We then have a ton of flexibility when it comes to rosters and lineups. For the QB position, it is 1-2 starting per week.

In many leagues though, the QBs either far outweigh other positions or the opposite and that ruins this flex concept since if you understand math you would either have to start 2 or never start 2 depending which version we are talking.

Oh, and IDP is the only way to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.