1 RB (1 Viewer)

[ddarroch4]

Even with ppr being the main stream rule now most leagues are going to 2RB's 3 WR's with 1 flex. Instead of adding WR's has anyone tied to decrease RB's with a 1 RB 2WR's 1 flex format? With 32 starting Half Backs compared to about 80 starting WR's it makes more since to me but I have never really heard of a league trying this. Has anyone tried this format for a starting line up?

 

[King of the Wolfies]

my 1st league was this way. i wouldnt do it again. i prefer bigger lineups so that the league is more than just who has the best studs. a real league should require taking some chances.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

i did a 1-3 2 flex and enjoyed it

 

[Crippler]

Both of my dynasty leagues have lots of options and I love it.

One is must start 1 but can start up to 4 RB's with 11 O Man lineups. It is max of 2 QB, 4 RB, 6 WR, 4 TE, 2 PK so lots of variety with 16 team league. I like going 2-1-5-2-1 as my lineup there with the scoring

The other league is 24 team and you can go no RB. I got a 0-5-1 for my lineup there. My best RB is Larry Johnson with Cedric Peerman and Chris Jennings as my 3 guys.

 

[HenryMuto]

My leagues have the option of going run and shoot

So you can go 2 RB, 3 WR/TE or 1 RB 4 WR/TE your choice.

 

[Invictus~Bronte]

Just drafted 3 Dynasty with this format this year. Looks like it's gonna be fun

 

[TheWick]

Just drafted 3 Dynasty with this format this year. Looks like it's gonna be fun

 

[Ministry of Pain]

1 RB-2WR-Flex in one league I was in. I actually enjoyed the scoring format but the commish was a #####.

 

[Zoomanji]

yes, a couple leagues

Its nice on bye weeks

Also in a 32 team league with no RB requirement (0-3 flex)

 

[gheemony]

1 RB, 1 RB/WR, 2 WR, 1 WR/TE, 1 TE

Works great & without the cons of PPR. The two different types of flex limit the reward of hoarding RBs, which is nice.

 

[cr8f]

I'm in a no RB required league. Not sure I like starting punters.

I like the flexibility.

Total Starters: 20

Number of Starting QBs: 1

Number of Starting RBs: 0-3

Number of Starting WRs: 0-5

Number of Starting TEs: 1-3

Number of Starting PKs: 1

Number of Starting PNs: 1

Number of Starting DTs: 1-3

Number of Starting DEs: 2

Number of Starting LBs: 1-4

Number of Starting CBs: 2-3

Number of Starting Ss: 1-3

 

[bostonfred]

With few exceptions, I'd rather start a running back than a receiver, and a receiver than a tight end. I think we can all agree that there are exceptions, but that this is true for the most part. Which is why I don't like the idea of being able to swap a back for a receiver - it doesn't change the value of running backs, it just allows teams that don't have them to survive. If you only have to start one back, but can start two, of course you're still going to want to start two backs if you can. So what happens is, people with good running backs horde them and won't trade them unless they get superstars or another running back in return. Which means that the draft is still a game of "get the best running backs" first and foremost, and then everything else. People were drafting backup running backs ahead of quality WRs in hopes of hitting the lottery when the starter went down. It changes the game from trying to figure out who the best players are, to guessing who will get hurt.

Artificially changing the scoring requirements doesn't work well, either. Giving QBs 6 pts per TD makes sense, but what a lot of people don't remember is that the big reason the rule was changed from 6 points to 4 in many leagues in the first place was because Brett Favre was thowing 39 TDs while there were only a few others in the league throwing more than 20. Making those rare disparities even larger is ony a band-aid on a broken structure - you can reset the numbers so that they work better last year, but next year's numbers will throw everything off again, and when you make one position much stronger than the others, like by using 2pt TE receptions, you make it a game of "whose tight end blew up this week".

We don't need to find a way to make people want start more receivers, or to draft QBs earlier. We don't need to make their scoring even out just to fit some strange sense of fairness. What we really want to do is give people a difficult decision during the draft and afterwards, and to reward people who make the right decisions. We wanted to make it so people had a viable reason to trade a running back for a receiver, or even for a tight end, without arbitrarily changing the rules to favor the other positions.

The rule change that we made was based on a simple thought: While I'd rather start a back than a receiver, and a receiver than a tight end, if I had to choose between starting a back and a tight end, or two receivers, it becomes much more difficult to decide.

So we implemented the following lineups:

1 RB

1 WR

0 TE

4 FLEX *

* For each running back you use in a FLEX spot, you must also use another FLEX spot on a tight end.

Which allows the following formations:

3 RB

1 WR

2 TE

or

2 RB

3 WR

1 TE

or

1 RB

5 WR

You can also go with 2-2-2, or 1-4-1, or 1-3-2, or any other formation that follows the basic rule that you have to start a tight end if you start another running back.

Guess which formation most people use? 2 RBs, 3 WRs, and 1 TE. Some people try to draft for the 3-1-2, but it's never won, because it's just too hard to get three good backs and two tight ends on the same team. And while you'd think people would try to draft 1-5-0, it's so difficult to get three good receivers when everyone wants good ones that you can't rely on that, either.

Even the top teams have interesting lineup decisions every week - the league winner last year changed lineups every week, and used four different formations en route to his championship, because he had drafted enough depth that he was always able to play the hot hand and the good matchups. And injuries almost never knock a good completely out of contention, because if you've drafted quality depth, you can usually find a different formation to hold the fort.

Another rule adjustment that goes along with it: We keep four players. So while you can build a quality team, you can never keep a perfect team together from year to year. We've had people break up a group of stud backs to keep one back and three top receivers because they figured they could get a back in the draft. We've had people draft a stud tight end in the first round over a quality running back because they'd kept two backs and a receiver. Last year, we had a guy take five running backs before he'd filled out his lineup, and then trade them throughout the season because he was struggling to stay in contention. The draft is unpredictable, because while some people draft to fill out their lineup, others draft breadth so they could play different formations, or depth so they can be as strong as possible in their preferred formation. The end results is that people, for the most part, take the best player available at each pick, regardless of position.

And adding one last layer of complexity, players can only be kept three times before you have to release them back into the draft. At first, we were worried that this might encourage people to mortgage their future for next year or that the top contenders would be able to make a trade at the deadline that put them over the top. But that hasn't happened. Instead, it's increased trading because I might trade you one year of Manning for two years of Gates, or one year of Peterson for three years of Wayne. People will trade for a player who fits their formational needs, or their keeper eligibility, or the best player this year.

I've tried a lot of leagues with a lot of rules over the years. This is easily my favorite.

 

[Avery]

Even with ppr being the main stream rule now most leagues are going to 2RB's 3 WR's with 1 flex.

I disagree with this basic supposition.

Instead of adding WR's has anyone tied to decrease RB's with a 1 RB 2WR's 1 flex format? With 32 starting Half Backs compared to about 80 starting WR's it makes more since to me but I have never really heard of a league trying this. Has anyone tried this format for a starting line up?

One of my dynasty leagues starts 1-2 RBs, 2-3 WRs and 1 TE.I like this setup for it doesn't put so much onus on collecting RBs and a mandatory 2 RB league does and I'm surprised that you've never really heard of a league trying this for I've seen a number of leagues going in this direction.

 

[ddarroch4]

With few exceptions, I'd rather start a running back than a receiver, and a receiver than a tight end. I think we can all agree that there are exceptions, but that this is true for the most part. Which is why I don't like the idea of being able to swap a back for a receiver - it doesn't change the value of running backs, it just allows teams that don't have them to survive. If you only have to start one back, but can start two, of course you're still going to want to start two backs if you can. So what happens is, people with good running backs horde them and won't trade them unless they get superstars or another running back in return. Which means that the draft is still a game of "get the best running backs" first and foremost, and then everything else. People were drafting backup running backs ahead of quality WRs in hopes of hitting the lottery when the starter went down. It changes the game from trying to figure out who the best players are, to guessing who will get hurt. Artificially changing the scoring requirements doesn't work well, either. Giving QBs 6 pts per TD makes sense, but what a lot of people don't remember is that the big reason the rule was changed from 6 points to 4 in many leagues in the first place was because Brett Favre was thowing 39 TDs while there were only a few others in the league throwing more than 20. Making those rare disparities even larger is ony a band-aid on a broken structure - you can reset the numbers so that they work better last year, but next year's numbers will throw everything off again, and when you make one position much stronger than the others, like by using 2pt TE receptions, you make it a game of "whose tight end blew up this week". We don't need to find a way to make people want start more receivers, or to draft QBs earlier. We don't need to make their scoring even out just to fit some strange sense of fairness. What we really want to do is give people a difficult decision during the draft and afterwards, and to reward people who make the right decisions. We wanted to make it so people had a viable reason to trade a running back for a receiver, or even for a tight end, without arbitrarily changing the rules to favor the other positions. The rule change that we made was based on a simple thought: While I'd rather start a back than a receiver, and a receiver than a tight end, if I had to choose between starting a back and a tight end, or two receivers, it becomes much more difficult to decide. So we implemented the following lineups: 1 RB 1 WR0 TE4 FLEX ** For each running back you use in a FLEX spot, you must also use another FLEX spot on a tight end. Which allows the following formations:3 RB1 WR2 TEor 2 RB3 WR1 TEor1 RB5 WRYou can also go with 2-2-2, or 1-4-1, or 1-3-2, or any other formation that follows the basic rule that you have to start a tight end if you start another running back. Guess which formation most people use? 2 RBs, 3 WRs, and 1 TE. Some people try to draft for the 3-1-2, but it's never won, because it's just too hard to get three good backs and two tight ends on the same team. And while you'd think people would try to draft 1-5-0, it's so difficult to get three good receivers when everyone wants good ones that you can't rely on that, either. Even the top teams have interesting lineup decisions every week - the league winner last year changed lineups every week, and used four different formations en route to his championship, because he had drafted enough depth that he was always able to play the hot hand and the good matchups. And injuries almost never knock a good completely out of contention, because if you've drafted quality depth, you can usually find a different formation to hold the fort. Another rule adjustment that goes along with it: We keep four players. So while you can build a quality team, you can never keep a perfect team together from year to year. We've had people break up a group of stud backs to keep one back and three top receivers because they figured they could get a back in the draft. We've had people draft a stud tight end in the first round over a quality running back because they'd kept two backs and a receiver. Last year, we had a guy take five running backs before he'd filled out his lineup, and then trade them throughout the season because he was struggling to stay in contention. The draft is unpredictable, because while some people draft to fill out their lineup, others draft breadth so they could play different formations, or depth so they can be as strong as possible in their preferred formation. The end results is that people, for the most part, take the best player available at each pick, regardless of position. And adding one last layer of complexity, players can only be kept three times before you have to release them back into the draft. At first, we were worried that this might encourage people to mortgage their future for next year or that the top contenders would be able to make a trade at the deadline that put them over the top. But that hasn't happened. Instead, it's increased trading because I might trade you one year of Manning for two years of Gates, or one year of Peterson for three years of Wayne. People will trade for a player who fits their formational needs, or their keeper eligibility, or the best player this year. I've tried a lot of leagues with a lot of rules over the years. This is easily my favorite.

I think this league might be even better if you had 1 QB with 5 flex (any legal starting line up). You could start a wishbone (3RB's and 2 TE's) or a 5 wide (5 WR's) and anything in between. My fantasy league has an option for that format. Do you think that would be even better?

 

[ddarroch4]

Even with ppr being the main stream rule now most leagues are going to 2RB's 3 WR's with 1 flex.

I disagree with this basic supposition.

Instead of adding WR's has anyone tied to decrease RB's with a 1 RB 2WR's 1 flex format? With 32 starting Half Backs compared to about 80 starting WR's it makes more since to me but I have never really heard of a league trying this. Has anyone tried this format for a starting line up?

One of my dynasty leagues starts 1-2 RBs, 2-3 WRs and 1 TE.I like this setup for it doesn't put so much onus on collecting RBs and a mandatory 2 RB league does and I'm surprised that you've never really heard of a league trying this for I've seen a number of leagues going in this direction.

That's just the answer I was looking for. In my 12 team league Maurice Morris was the starting RB in the championship game for the #1 seed. I doubt that owner picked up Morris with championship glory on his mind. That's great to hear that leagues are moving in that direction. It makes the most sense to me.

 

[J Giles Band]

One of my dynasty leagues starts 1-2 RBs, 2-3 WRs and 1 TE.

I like this setup for it doesn't put so much onus on collecting RBs and a mandatory 2 RB league does and I'm surprised that you've never really heard of a league trying this for I've seen a number of leagues going in this direction.

That's just the answer I was looking for. In my 12 team league Maurice Morris was the starting RB in the championship game for the #1 seed. I doubt that owner picked up Morris with championship glory on his mind. That's great to hear that leagues are moving in that direction. It makes the most sense to me.

We've used this format in my 12-team keeper league for the past three years. I highly recommend it.I took it from a re-draft league I was in the three years prior. I've been in leagues that have larger starting lineups with 2 RB minimums and I'd never go back. We use 0.5 ppr and 6 points per TD pass and for me, this lineup format is the closest approximation to actual player values.

The previous formats I played in always seemed to overvalue RBs. WRs and QBs were a dime a dozen (with the exception of the truly elites).

 

[Invictus~Bronte]

Any format that allows the most creativity is an improvement. The more flex the better, the drafts are more interesting and the creative strategy to build a contending team regardless of how the draft unfolds is key. I love the additions of 1.5 TE, 2-4 Flex and a 1 RB option. Great that the better High Stakes are adapting as well

 

[JPeso]

Any format that allows the most creativity is an improvement. The more flex the better, the drafts are more interesting and the creative strategy to build a contending team regardless of how the draft unfolds is key. I love the additions of 1.5 TE, 2-4 Flex and a 1 RB option. Great that the better High Stakes are adapting as well

I'm with IB. I love the flexibility. I'm in several dynasty leagues that offer a flex at QB, making things even more interesting.

 

[Coin Flip]

I also agree with the idea that the flexibility provided in any league gives many angles to build your team from and opens up strategy that wouldnt normally be there. These types of leagues are much more competitive IMO.......and I prefer them. So 1 RB leagues are new to me this year, but I will continue to join them over the years.

 

[FUBAR]

yes, a couple leaguesIts nice on bye weeksAlso in a 32 team league with no RB requirement (0-3 flex)

From what I can tell, the 0-2 or 0-3 RB requirement balances things out better than most systems. Most teams will start RBs as they tend to score well, at least the elite do, but you're not forced to start guys like Mike Tolbert while WRs like Devery Henderson sit on your bench.

 

[•TheRealMcCoy]

i did a 1-3 2 flex and enjoyed it

This is how all of my leagues are and I like them the best. They are RB:1-3 / WR:2-4 / TE:1-2.......... Basically two flex, but you have the option of starting only 1 RB.

 

[Cybergeek]

Just joined two leagues this year with this format. It adds some team building strategy for sure. I also play in leagues that incorporate the quarterback position into the flex options. They are the most fun for me.

 

[Instinctive]

The league that I joined this year and looks to be most interesting was auction with this:

1 RB

1 WR

1 TE

1 RB/WR/TE

4 RB/WR

So if you really went for it in the auction, you could conceivably have started 6/1/1 or 1/6/1 or anything.

Personally, I went all out on WRs and am starting 2/4/1. But the flex make sit more fun because there's so many different ways to try to win.

 

[bostonfred]

With few exceptions, I'd rather start a running back than a receiver, and a receiver than a tight end. I think we can all agree that there are exceptions, but that this is true for the most part. Which is why I don't like the idea of being able to swap a back for a receiver - it doesn't change the value of running backs, it just allows teams that don't have them to survive. If you only have to start one back, but can start two, of course you're still going to want to start two backs if you can. So what happens is, people with good running backs horde them and won't trade them unless they get superstars or another running back in return. Which means that the draft is still a game of "get the best running backs" first and foremost, and then everything else. People were drafting backup running backs ahead of quality WRs in hopes of hitting the lottery when the starter went down. It changes the game from trying to figure out who the best players are, to guessing who will get hurt. Artificially changing the scoring requirements doesn't work well, either. Giving QBs 6 pts per TD makes sense, but what a lot of people don't remember is that the big reason the rule was changed from 6 points to 4 in many leagues in the first place was because Brett Favre was thowing 39 TDs while there were only a few others in the league throwing more than 20. Making those rare disparities even larger is ony a band-aid on a broken structure - you can reset the numbers so that they work better last year, but next year's numbers will throw everything off again, and when you make one position much stronger than the others, like by using 2pt TE receptions, you make it a game of "whose tight end blew up this week". We don't need to find a way to make people want start more receivers, or to draft QBs earlier. We don't need to make their scoring even out just to fit some strange sense of fairness. What we really want to do is give people a difficult decision during the draft and afterwards, and to reward people who make the right decisions. We wanted to make it so people had a viable reason to trade a running back for a receiver, or even for a tight end, without arbitrarily changing the rules to favor the other positions. The rule change that we made was based on a simple thought: While I'd rather start a back than a receiver, and a receiver than a tight end, if I had to choose between starting a back and a tight end, or two receivers, it becomes much more difficult to decide. So we implemented the following lineups: 1 RB 1 WR0 TE4 FLEX ** For each running back you use in a FLEX spot, you must also use another FLEX spot on a tight end. Which allows the following formations:3 RB1 WR2 TEor 2 RB3 WR1 TEor1 RB5 WRYou can also go with 2-2-2, or 1-4-1, or 1-3-2, or any other formation that follows the basic rule that you have to start a tight end if you start another running back. Guess which formation most people use? 2 RBs, 3 WRs, and 1 TE. Some people try to draft for the 3-1-2, but it's never won, because it's just too hard to get three good backs and two tight ends on the same team. And while you'd think people would try to draft 1-5-0, it's so difficult to get three good receivers when everyone wants good ones that you can't rely on that, either. Even the top teams have interesting lineup decisions every week - the league winner last year changed lineups every week, and used four different formations en route to his championship, because he had drafted enough depth that he was always able to play the hot hand and the good matchups. And injuries almost never knock a good completely out of contention, because if you've drafted quality depth, you can usually find a different formation to hold the fort. Another rule adjustment that goes along with it: We keep four players. So while you can build a quality team, you can never keep a perfect team together from year to year. We've had people break up a group of stud backs to keep one back and three top receivers because they figured they could get a back in the draft. We've had people draft a stud tight end in the first round over a quality running back because they'd kept two backs and a receiver. Last year, we had a guy take five running backs before he'd filled out his lineup, and then trade them throughout the season because he was struggling to stay in contention. The draft is unpredictable, because while some people draft to fill out their lineup, others draft breadth so they could play different formations, or depth so they can be as strong as possible in their preferred formation. The end results is that people, for the most part, take the best player available at each pick, regardless of position. And adding one last layer of complexity, players can only be kept three times before you have to release them back into the draft. At first, we were worried that this might encourage people to mortgage their future for next year or that the top contenders would be able to make a trade at the deadline that put them over the top. But that hasn't happened. Instead, it's increased trading because I might trade you one year of Manning for two years of Gates, or one year of Peterson for three years of Wayne. People will trade for a player who fits their formational needs, or their keeper eligibility, or the best player this year. I've tried a lot of leagues with a lot of rules over the years. This is easily my favorite.

I think this league might be even better if you had 1 QB with 5 flex (any legal starting line up). You could start a wishbone (3RB's and 2 TE's) or a 5 wide (5 WR's) and anything in between. My fantasy league has an option for that format. Do you think that would be even better?

I undersand what's nice about that option, but if you could choose between starting five good running backs or five good receivers, which would you choose? I think most people would choose five good running backs. So what happens in the draft? People still draft backs early and often, and the season hinges on whose backs stay healthy or have the guy in front of them get injured, vs. which ones get injured and bust. What our league accomplishes is to make all of the options viable. Which would you rather start, two good backs and two good tight ends? Or four good receivers? Or maybe a good back, two good receivers and a good tight end? I don't think there's a clear answer without knowing who is falling where in the draft. That makes the draft much more interesting than the running back, running back, running back leagues we used to see, or the more receiver-heavy drafts we see earlier in the offseason. Every position is valuable in this league.

 

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

I'm in a 14-team league that's 1/2 FBG staffers and 1/2 "regular guys."

Starting lineups are:

0-2 RB

3-5 WR

1-3 TE

Scoring significantly bolsters TE's with the following PPR & yardage rules:

PPR by position: 0.5 RB / 1.0 WR / 1.5 TE

Receiving Yds: 0.1/yd for RB/WR & 0.15/yd for TE

Not only does it make the weekly lineups interesting, but the rookie draft is really out of the box.

2010 1st RD:

1.11 Gresham

1.13 Hernandez

2.02 (16th overall) Gronkowski

2009:

1.08 Pettigrew

2008:

1.05 Dustin Keller

1.06-1.08: Ray Rice, Matt Forte, Chris Johnson

2006:

1.01 Reggie Bush

1.02 Vernon Davis

1.03 DeAngelo Williams

 

[ddarroch4]

With few exceptions, I'd rather start a running back than a receiver, and a receiver than a tight end. I think we can all agree that there are exceptions, but that this is true for the most part. Which is why I don't like the idea of being able to swap a back for a receiver - it doesn't change the value of running backs, it just allows teams that don't have them to survive. If you only have to start one back, but can start two, of course you're still going to want to start two backs if you can. So what happens is, people with good running backs horde them and won't trade them unless they get superstars or another running back in return. Which means that the draft is still a game of "get the best running backs" first and foremost, and then everything else. People were drafting backup running backs ahead of quality WRs in hopes of hitting the lottery when the starter went down. It changes the game from trying to figure out who the best players are, to guessing who will get hurt. Artificially changing the scoring requirements doesn't work well, either. Giving QBs 6 pts per TD makes sense, but what a lot of people don't remember is that the big reason the rule was changed from 6 points to 4 in many leagues in the first place was because Brett Favre was thowing 39 TDs while there were only a few others in the league throwing more than 20. Making those rare disparities even larger is ony a band-aid on a broken structure - you can reset the numbers so that they work better last year, but next year's numbers will throw everything off again, and when you make one position much stronger than the others, like by using 2pt TE receptions, you make it a game of "whose tight end blew up this week". We don't need to find a way to make people want start more receivers, or to draft QBs earlier. We don't need to make their scoring even out just to fit some strange sense of fairness. What we really want to do is give people a difficult decision during the draft and afterwards, and to reward people who make the right decisions. We wanted to make it so people had a viable reason to trade a running back for a receiver, or even for a tight end, without arbitrarily changing the rules to favor the other positions. The rule change that we made was based on a simple thought: While I'd rather start a back than a receiver, and a receiver than a tight end, if I had to choose between starting a back and a tight end, or two receivers, it becomes much more difficult to decide. So we implemented the following lineups: 1 RB 1 WR0 TE4 FLEX ** For each running back you use in a FLEX spot, you must also use another FLEX spot on a tight end. Which allows the following formations:3 RB1 WR2 TEor 2 RB3 WR1 TEor1 RB5 WRYou can also go with 2-2-2, or 1-4-1, or 1-3-2, or any other formation that follows the basic rule that you have to start a tight end if you start another running back. Guess which formation most people use? 2 RBs, 3 WRs, and 1 TE. Some people try to draft for the 3-1-2, but it's never won, because it's just too hard to get three good backs and two tight ends on the same team. And while you'd think people would try to draft 1-5-0, it's so difficult to get three good receivers when everyone wants good ones that you can't rely on that, either. Even the top teams have interesting lineup decisions every week - the league winner last year changed lineups every week, and used four different formations en route to his championship, because he had drafted enough depth that he was always able to play the hot hand and the good matchups. And injuries almost never knock a good completely out of contention, because if you've drafted quality depth, you can usually find a different formation to hold the fort. Another rule adjustment that goes along with it: We keep four players. So while you can build a quality team, you can never keep a perfect team together from year to year. We've had people break up a group of stud backs to keep one back and three top receivers because they figured they could get a back in the draft. We've had people draft a stud tight end in the first round over a quality running back because they'd kept two backs and a receiver. Last year, we had a guy take five running backs before he'd filled out his lineup, and then trade them throughout the season because he was struggling to stay in contention. The draft is unpredictable, because while some people draft to fill out their lineup, others draft breadth so they could play different formations, or depth so they can be as strong as possible in their preferred formation. The end results is that people, for the most part, take the best player available at each pick, regardless of position. And adding one last layer of complexity, players can only be kept three times before you have to release them back into the draft. At first, we were worried that this might encourage people to mortgage their future for next year or that the top contenders would be able to make a trade at the deadline that put them over the top. But that hasn't happened. Instead, it's increased trading because I might trade you one year of Manning for two years of Gates, or one year of Peterson for three years of Wayne. People will trade for a player who fits their formational needs, or their keeper eligibility, or the best player this year. I've tried a lot of leagues with a lot of rules over the years. This is easily my favorite.

I think this league might be even better if you had 1 QB with 5 flex (any legal starting line up). You could start a wishbone (3RB's and 2 TE's) or a 5 wide (5 WR's) and anything in between. My fantasy league has an option for that format. Do you think that would be even better?

I undersand what's nice about that option, but if you could choose between starting five good running backs or five good receivers, which would you choose? I think most people would choose five good running backs. So what happens in the draft? People still draft backs early and often, and the season hinges on whose backs stay healthy or have the guy in front of them get injured, vs. which ones get injured and bust. What our league accomplishes is to make all of the options viable. Which would you rather start, two good backs and two good tight ends? Or four good receivers? Or maybe a good back, two good receivers and a good tight end? I don't think there's a clear answer without knowing who is falling where in the draft. That makes the draft much more interesting than the running back, running back, running back leagues we used to see, or the more receiver-heavy drafts we see earlier in the offseason. Every position is valuable in this league.

Sorry I should have been more clear. Any legal NFL starting line-up. 3 RB's max. So you could go 1 WR 1 TE 3RB's / 2 Wr's 2 Te's 2RB's / 5 WR's etc.

 

[Dave Larkin]

I'm in a league currently which only requires you to start one RB. I'm actually a fan of it.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I'm in what might be termed a casual Dynasty league which has the 1RB/2WR/1TE 1 FLEX option and one redraft which does as well, though rules might be changing in the future for one or both.

i enjoy it. Different feel than any of the more intense league I am in. But fun anyway!