What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

14-team Superflex -- how to do it? (1 Viewer)

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
I have a 14-team full re-draft league that has been 1QB league for the history of our league with a 1 R/W/T Flex.   I need zero convincing on how much more enjoyable a superflex would be compared to 1QB.   It would be refreshing to actually see the QB position valued the same way in fantasy as it is in the NFL.

The nuts and bolts of actually implementing the superflex in a 14-team league is another story.   Even if we made a rule to prevent hoarding more than two starting QBs, we would still have bye weeks where teams would not be able to start a second QB.   

I know that this is the whole point of superflex (vs 2QB), but I'm simply unwilling to yield that much of an advantage to the team that can start a second QB compared to the team sending out a second R/W/T Flex.   We have fairly conventional 1/2 PPR scoring.   I would estimate that a mid-tier QB2 averages 15-16 points in our league, whereas the second FLEX option at R/W/T is probably in the 8.5-9.5 point range.   I find that disadvantage unacceptable for a team that simply has a QB on bye, or worse, loses one for the duration of the season.   It's true that the advantage of a bottom of the barrel QB2 would be less, but that goes the same way for a team that has one of the top QB2 options.   As a whole, the disparity gap is far too wide for my liking. 

Solutions?   

  • go from .5 PPR to full PPR to narrow the gap between FLEX2 and QB2.   FWIW, I'm definitely not a fan of full PPR.
  • add .5 points per first down to narrow the gap.   I don't like that this makes running QBs that much more of a cheat code.   However, I like it a lot more than going full PPR.   My leaguemates don't seem to have any appetite for 1st down scoring yet.
  • Increase the deduction for interceptions thrown.   Reduce TD pass scoring from 4 to 3, drastically reducing QB scoring to narrow the gap.   I like it better than a full PPR, but there's still going to be a gap.   Too big of an overhaul to scoring for my liking.   Most QB2s should be scoring more than FLEX2s.   Trying to artificially make them near equals in points per game just isn't the right approach in my opinion.
  • PREFERRED SOLUTION:    I think this one creates some mess and administrative tasks for me, but I think it's the best solution that won't require a major overhaul of our scoring system:

    K position becomes optional.   However, you can only start a K if you're using the FLEX2 instead of the QB2.
  • In other words, the superflex option is:   QB2  -or-  R/W/T FLEX2 plus K

I might need to tweak our K scoring a little bit.    However, this should put the scoring of a mid-level QB2 pretty close to the same score as the FLEX2 plus K making up most or all of the difference.    It should take away any incentive to hoard QBs or legislate against that.   Teams that don't get one of the top 22 to 25 QB options in the draft for their QB2 would probably choose to go the FLEX2 plus K route as their best alternative for most weeks.   I think this is the right balance.

Thoughts or alternatives for a 14-team SF?   The biggest drawback I can think of in the yahoo platform is that the 2QB teams would receive notices saying that they don't have a starting K in their lineup, when they actually shouldn't according to our adopted rules.    As the commish, I would also need to manually adjust scores to deduct K points for any team that submits a lineup with a QB2 and K.   Kind of a pain, but I honestly feel that it would be worth it for what the SuperFlex would add.   I'm guessing premium options like MFL might allow us to customize the lineup settings for what I'm proposing?   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I won 2 SF leagues last year running only 1QB in the playoffs and for one of those teams all season long. It all depends on how the scoring for the QB works. We do 4pts per TD and 1pt per 25yards passing. No bonuses and the running is just typical .1pt per yard and 6 per TD. 
 

I think if your QB’s dominate with too many points, it becomes a slight headache. IMO. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
I won 2 SF leagues last year running only 1QB in the playoffs and for one of those teams all season long. It all depends on how the scoring for the QB works. We do 4pts per TD and 1pt per 25yards passing. No bonuses and the running is just typical 1pt per yard and 6 per TD. 
 

I think if your QB’s dominate with too many points, it becomes a slight headache. IMO. 


We use the exact same scoring settings for our QBs.   I have researched this more thoroughly in the past, but I think our QB21-QB22  (mid-tier QB2 in a 14-team league), averages about 16-16.5 points most years.

We require 2RBs, 2 WRs, 1 TE.   Consequently, the 1 R/W/T FLEX position is typically occupied by a 3rd WR in our .5 PPR.    A few teams might throw out a 3rd RB as their best option.    A second WR/RB/TE FLEX is probably either going to be occupied by a 4th WR, or a 3rd RB (if not already the FLEX1).   In a 14 team league, that's probably in the 8.5-9.5 expected point range.

I'm guessing you won SF playing 1QB in a 12-team?   Regardless, it's not that much of a difference from 14-team.   Your non-QB2 superflex options are going to be better in 12-team, but they're also going up against higher quality QB2s.    I would imagine that you had a really good collection of RB and WR to pull that off.   It's quite an accomplishment.

However, for the average team drafting perfectly average, it's going to be at least a  6 point advantage in our league to play the average QB2 over the average FLEX2.   I would guess that's close to the difference of a mid-level RB1 and Faulk or Tomlinson in their career year.    Perhaps that's a slight exaggeration, but I'm still not comfortable with that disparity as a commish.   Suffering even a QB2 injury would absolutely wreck you unless you're having a truly magical season at RB and/or WR.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gally

Footballguy
The nuts and bolts of actually implementing the superflex in a 14-team league is another story.   Even if we made a rule to prevent hoarding more than two starting QBs, we would still have bye weeks where teams would not be able to start a second QB.   
You don't have to start a second QB in a SF.  I know you know this but I found the bold statement to be irrelevant.  If teams are worried about that then they need to draft accordingly.  As long as everyone knows the rules then it's fair game.  

We do not have restrictions on QB's in my SF leagues (I am in both 12 and 14 team versions).  There has never been an issue.  Everyone knows the situation and drafts how they see fit.  Sometimes people don't get a 3rd starting QB because it wasn't critical in their eyes........and that is just fine.  It's the reason why you move to the SF type league.  To make QB's more valuable and to make teams figure out what matters to them. 

My only caution is to make scoring of QB's low enough that other positions score similar for the same tier of player.  By that I mean Tier 1 QB = Tier 1 RB = Tier 1 WR, etc.  On down the line for other tiers.  It can never be exact because scoring within the NFL changes all the time but taking it into consideration is what matters.  If you do that you should be fine.  

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
My only caution is to make scoring of QB's low enough that other positions score similar for the same tier of player.  By that I mean Tier 1 QB = Tier 1 RB = Tier 1 WR, etc.  On down the line for other tiers.  It can never be exact because scoring within the NFL changes all the time but taking it into consideration is what matters.  If you do that you should be fine.  


Have to ask, what scoring system are you using in your 14-team league to make this happen?

It seems like any somewhat conventional scoring system using a 0.5 PPR is going to greatly favor a typical mid-tier QB2  (21st or 22nd best NFL QB) over an upper tier WR4 (WR #43 to #49) or lower end RB3 (RB #36 to #42).    This level of RB or WR is most likely going to be the alternative to a 2nd QB in my superflex.

So, it seems to me that with conventional scoring settings, if you don't have a 2nd QB due to bye or injury, the distinction between a 2QB vs Superflex  is that Superflex at least allows you to match a "chunk" of the points that the average QB2 is scoring, whereas you're most likely SOL if it's a strict 2QB.   Lacking a drastic overhaul of the scoring system to make the QB21-22 average somewhat equal to the WR43-49, then using anything other than a second QB as your SF is going to be a bad option.

Is it fair?  Yes.   Everyone should be able to understand how valuable a reliable QB2 will be, and prioritize a QB2 or even QB3 in the draft accordingly.   However, the numbers simply won't allow most teams to obtain a 3rd QB safety net.   Consequently, if one of your QBs gets injured, maybe there's a decent, clear backup, and maybe you have enough FAAB to get them.   Otherwise, you're probably giving up a really nice flex player just to pry Drew Lock away from one of the teams that got their 3rd QB.   Basically,  if you land on Tannehill or Matt Ryan as your QB2 and they get hurt, you're very much up a creek unless you managed to stack your team with a very startable 4th WR or 3rd RB.    But in practice,  they're just not going to come close to measuring up without a drastic overhaul in scoring settings.

Ideally, I would like to make the superflex decision between QB2 and WR4 or RB3 a fairly neutral one.    Probably one where 50%+ of the teams are utilizing the second QB, but still making another R/W/T FLEX a viable option for those teams that don't get one.    Instead of a drastic overhaul to the scoring format, I'm thinking that making K an optional add-on to the R/W/T FLEX might be the least invasive way to accomplish that.   But I get that most leagues are going the tough nuggets route.   You picked the wrong QB2, you should've spent up to be one of the few teams with a QB3, or dedicated two bench spots for each of your starter's backups, etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gally

Footballguy
Have to ask, what scoring system are you using in your 14-team league to make this happen?

It seems like any somewhat conventional scoring system using a 0.5 PPR is going to greatly favor a typical mid-tier QB2  (21st or 22nd best NFL QB) over an upper tier WR4 (WR #43 to #49) or lower end RB3 (RB #36 to #42).    This level of RB or WR is most likely going to be the alternative to a 2nd QB in a superflex.

So, it seems to me that with conventional scoring settings, if you don't have a 2nd QB due to bye or injury, the distinction between a 2QB vs Superflex  is that Superflex at least allows you to match a "chunk" of the points that the average QB2 is scoring, whereas you're most likely SOL if it's a strict 2QB.   Lacking a drastic overhaul of the scoring system to make the QB21-22 average somewhat equal to the WR43-49, then using anything other than a second QB as your SF is going to be a really bad option.

Is it fair?  Yes.   Everyone should be able to understand how valuable a reliable QB2 will be, and prioritize a QB2 or even QB3 in the draft accordingly.   However, the numbers simply won't allow most teams to obtain a 3rd QB safety net.   Consequently, if one of your QBs gets injured, maybe there's a decent, clear backup, and maybe you have enough FAAB to get them.   Otherwise, you're probably giving up a really nice flex player just to pry Drew Lock away from one of the teams that got their 3rd QB.   Basically,  if you land on Tannehill or Matt Ryan as your QB2 and they get hurt, you're very much up a creek unless you managed to stack your team with a very startable 4th WR or 3rd RB.    But in practice,  they're just not going to come close to measuring up without a drastic overhaul in scoring settings.
We use a plateau scoring system so you don't get points for every yard unless you cross a plateau.  For example:

QB Passing yards (TD Passes are worth 3 pts, INT are -2 pts)

  • 3 pts for 150 yds
  • 4 for 175
  • 5 for 200
  • 6 for 250
  • Then 1 pt for every 25 yds after that
NOTE:  The points listed are not additive.  Meaning if you throw for 180 yds you get 4 pts.  Not 3 for 150 and 4 for 175 for a total of 7 pts. 

QB/RB/WR/TE Rushing (6 pts TD, -1 Fumble Lost):

  • 2 pts for 40 yds
  • 4 pts for 60 yds
  • 5 pts for 80
  • 6 for 100
  • 7 for 120
  • 8 for 140
  • then 1 pt for each additional 10 yards. 
QB/RB/WR receiving (6 pts TD, -1 Fumble Lost):

  • 2 pts for 40 yds
  • 4 pts for 60 yds
  • 5 pts for 80
  • 6 for 100
  • 7 for 120
  • 8 for 140
  • then 1 pt for each additional 10 yards. 
TE receiving (6 pts TD, -1 Fumble Lost):

  • 2 pts for 20 yds
  • 1 pt for each additional 10 yds
 

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
I have a 14-team full re-draft league that has been 1QB league for the history of our league with a 1 R/W/T Flex.   I need zero convincing on how much more enjoyable a superflex would be compared to 1QB.   It would be refreshing to actually see the QB position valued the same way in fantasy as it is in the NFL.

The nuts and bolts of actually implementing the superflex in a 14-team league is another story.   Even if we made a rule to prevent hoarding more than two starting QBs, we would still have bye weeks where teams would not be able to start a second QB.   

I know that this is the whole point of superflex (vs 2QB), but I'm simply unwilling to yield that much of an advantage to the team that can start a second QB compared to the team sending out a second R/W/T Flex.   We have fairly conventional 1/2 PPR scoring.   I would estimate that a mid-tier QB2 averages 15-16 points in our league, whereas the second FLEX option at R/W/T is probably in the 8.5-9.5 point range.   I find that disadvantage unacceptable for a team that simply has a QB on bye, or worse, loses one for the duration of the season.   It's true that the advantage of a bottom of the barrel QB2 would be less, but that goes the same way for a team that has one of the top QB2 options.   As a whole, the disparity gap is far too wide for my liking. 

Solutions?   

  • go from .5 PPR to full PPR to narrow the gap between FLEX2 and QB2.   FWIW, I'm definitely not a fan of full PPR.
  • add .5 points per first down to narrow the gap.   I don't like that this makes running QBs that much more of a cheat code.   However, I like it a lot more than going full PPR.   My leaguemates don't seem to have any appetite for 1st down scoring yet.
  • Increase the deduction for interceptions thrown.   Reduce TD pass scoring from 4 to 3, drastically reducing QB scoring to narrow the gap.   I like it better than a full PPR, but there's still going to be a gap.   Too big of an overhaul to scoring for my liking.   Most QB2s should be scoring more than FLEX2s.   Trying to artificially make them near equals in points per game just isn't the right approach in my opinion.
  • PREFERRED SOLUTION:    I think this one creates some mess and administrative tasks for me, but I think it's the best solution that won't require a major overhaul of our scoring system:

    K position becomes optional.   However, you can only start a K if you're using the FLEX2 instead of the QB2.
  • In other words, the superflex option is:   QB2  -or-  R/W/T FLEX2 plus K

I might need to tweak our K scoring a little bit.    However, this should put the scoring of a mid-level QB2 pretty close to the same score as the FLEX2 plus K making up most or all of the difference.    It should take away any incentive to hoard QBs or legislate against that.   Teams that don't get one of the top 22 to 25 QB options in the draft for their QB2 would probably choose to go the FLEX2 plus K route as their best alternative for most weeks.   I think this is the right balance.

Thoughts or alternatives for a 14-team SF?   The biggest drawback I can think of in the yahoo platform is that the 2QB teams would receive notices saying that they don't have a starting K in their lineup, when they actually shouldn't according to our adopted rules.    As the commish, I would also need to manually adjust scores to deduct K points for any team that submits a lineup with a QB2 and K.   Kind of a pain, but I honestly feel that it would be worth it for what the SuperFlex would add.   I'm guessing premium options like MFL might allow us to customize the lineup settings for what I'm proposing?   


Those are thoughtful questions on managing the format and leageue.

As far as valuing players, you may already be doing this but I don't know of a better tool to properly value unique leagues like this than our Draft Dominator App on Footballguys.com. Value Based Drafting https://www.footballguys.com/article/2021-value-based-drafting was literally meant for situations like this. With 28 starting QBs each week, there's massive more "demand" for QBs with the same "supply" as a person playing in a 10 team league starting 1 QB. You'll want to dive in hard to understanding how the different "supply" and "demands" affect values in your leagues compared to a standard league.

The great news is that for someone like you who understands the underlying economics, you'll have a huge advantage in a non standard league like this. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
@Gally Yep, I suppose that would do it.    

Getting away from .1 points per yard rushing/receiving would give my league conniptions.   Some of them aren't even interested in SF because it would make them reassess QB value.    I want to scream at them that's the flipping point.   QB values are completely broken in 1QB, relative to the NFL. 

I think I could stomach changing passing TDs from 4 to 3.   Interceptions from -2 to -4.   Add a .5 per receiving/rushing first down.   I don't think that would completely close the gap, but it would at least make a good WR4 closer to a mid-QB2.   Again, my league is hopeless when it comes to change.

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
@Joe Bryant Thanks, for the Draft Dominator reminder.

Long-time commish and fantasy football fiend, who was also an Econ major and stats guy.   It drives me crazy when leaguemates can't see cause and effect or bother to do the math to see how positional values change by doing something like going from 1QB to SF.   Good reminder for me to plug the Draft Dominator to help them, instead of getting frustrated and calling them a bunch of mindless idiots, which is my usual play  :)

 

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
@Joe Bryant Thanks, for the Draft Dominator reminder.

Long-time commish and fantasy football fiend, who was also an Econ major and stats guy.   It drives me crazy when leaguemates can't see cause and effect or bother to do the math to see how positional values change by doing something like going from 1QB to SF.   Good reminder for me to plug the Draft Dominator to help them, instead of getting frustrated and calling them a bunch of mindless idiots, which is my usual play  :)


You know it's not really fair for you to play with this format, right? You may have to switch a standard 10 Team ESPN league to give the other GMs a chance. ;)  

 
We use the exact same scoring settings for our QBs.   I have researched this more thoroughly in the past, but I think our QB21-QB22  (mid-tier QB2 in a 14-team league), averages about 16-16.5 points most years.

We require 2RBs, 2 WRs, 1 TE.   Consequently, the 1 R/W/T FLEX position is typically occupied by a 3rd WR in our .5 PPR.    A few teams might throw out a 3rd RB as their best option.    A second WR/RB/TE FLEX is probably either going to be occupied by a 4th WR, or a 3rd RB (if not already the FLEX1).   In a 14 team league, that's probably in the 8.5-9.5 expected point range.

I'm guessing you won SF playing 1QB in a 12-team?   Regardless, it's not that much of a difference from 14-team.   Your non-QB2 superflex options are going to be better in 12-team, but they're also going up against higher quality QB2s.    I would imagine that you had a really good collection of RB and WR to pull that off.   It's quite an accomplishment.

However, for the average team drafting perfectly average, it's going to be at least a  6 point advantage in our league to play the average QB2 over the average FLEX2.   I would guess that's close to the difference of a mid-level RB1 and Faulk or Tomlinson in their career year.    Perhaps that's a slight exaggeration, but I'm still not comfortable with that disparity as a commish.   Suffering even a QB2 injury would absolutely wreck you unless you're having a truly magical season at RB and/or WR.
Yes, both 12 team leagues. I may have gotten a little lucky as I was rolling Amon St Brown over my 2nd QB late in the season, in both. Kelce in both too and he was a beast late in the season. Most weeks the QB at SF is an advantage, especially if you have 2 really good ones. 

One of those leagues is an auction keeper league of which I commish. We are going into year 4 with SuperFlex spot and not the entire league agrees on QB value. Some tried to hoard but we have a cap of 4 and some try to get value at other positions while trying to be cheap at QB. That particular strategy worked well in our inaugural season as many owners just weren't willing to pay for QB and some not sold on the SF spot. 3 years later, it has been an enjoyable addition to our league. 

Good luck convincing the league for a switch, I lost an owner over it. He just didn't want to, I guess.  

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
^^^^ A cap of four QBs.   Was that the original rule, or did someone actually try to hoard five?   If a team goes for QB5 before you get your QB2, and you can't figure out a mutually beneficial trade, it kind of seems like that's on you at that point.

Good luck convincing the league for a switch, I lost an owner over it. He just didn't want to, I guess.  


What a sad statement.   If that's not the epitome of life as a commissioner, I don't know what is.   You try a new format gaining popularity, one that makes the most important position in football much more balanced, interesting, and strategic than what it is in a 1QB league... and the guy leaves the league instead of adapting.   I'm sure the other owners would never want to go back.

*******************

If I'm able to convince everyone to make the switch, regardless of how we handle scoring adjustments or any other proposals, I'm kind of torn between no restrictions vs limiting all 14 teams to 2QBs.   That would at least ensure that there are bottom of the barrel options available in non-bye weeks.   Maybe a variation on Team QB where you own the rights to the backups of the two starters on roster.   However, I usually shy away from creating rules to police if not absolutely necessary.

 
Finding the balance as a commissioner is always difficult. We have limits on all positions. QB,/DL/LB/DB = 4 RB/WR = 7 and TE/K = 3. 
 

These limits don’t really come into play that much as we have 25 player rosters and starting 16. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top