Hey guys, I am a commish in a league that has been going on for about 6 years now. We use 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 DEF, 1 PK and 1 Flex (RB, WR, TE). We have always been Standard Scoring but this year we are going to .5 PPR. I was thinking about adding 1 more Flex so that we would then have 2 flex positions (RB, WR, TE). My question is, can any of you guys give me imput about how adding an additional flex is going to effect the league? Will RB's lose value? Will the more skill full owners do better or will it be dumbed down? My goal is to reward skill and take out some luck. Please I don't want any discussion on the merits of PPR vs. Non-PPR as that is already set in stone and there are other threads that already discuss that. I just want imput on how adding a flex or two changes the make-up of the league. Scoring is like I said .5 for all positions and 4 points per TD Pass, 6 pts for all other TD's and 1 point for 10 yards rushing and receiving and 1 point per 20 yards passing. Thanks. Scott
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Adding a Flex or Two to Line-up Requirement (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter ScottyDog
- Start date
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
kind of depends on how many people are in there, but I'd take a real close look at how this could affect scarcity of positions.
you'll be ok at wr, but allowing 4 starting rb might be a bit much, and you might even have a similar problem at te.
think we had 2 flex a couple years ago, but one was rb/wr, and the other te/wr, or something like that, which I think works better.
edit: also, add idp.
you'll be ok at wr, but allowing 4 starting rb might be a bit much, and you might even have a similar problem at te.
think we had 2 flex a couple years ago, but one was rb/wr, and the other te/wr, or something like that, which I think works better.
edit: also, add idp.
Last edited by a moderator:
chiefs2929
Footballguy
I would think adding another position will mean you need a deeper roster which will reward the more talented owners. However PPR is socialism 
Lavachebeadsman
Footballguy
The deeper the starting line up, the more knowledgeable you have to be.
Well, if you make the flex another RB/WR/TE then you could feasibly start only 2 WRs and 4 RBs so you'll be increasing the demand for top tier RBs. I'd suggest going 3WR, 2RB, 1flex.
But to answer your main question, increasing the starting lineup will always benefit the better players, so go for it. You might want to increase your bench a bit, too.
But to answer your main question, increasing the starting lineup will always benefit the better players, so go for it. You might want to increase your bench a bit, too.
freshly_shorn
Footballguy
We've always used 1 each QB/RB/WR/TE plus 3 O-Flex (RB/WR/TE), and we use IDP, 1 each DL/LB/DB with one D-Flex. It's a lot of fun tailoring the team to your likes, and it makes drafting easier since you can be flexible in which way to go depending on how the draft flows. I've had the same 12 guys for 8+ years, so obviously it works for everyone!I would think adding another position will mean you need a deeper roster which will reward the more talented owners. However PPR is socialism
i would say you WANT scarcity at positions, or at least the threat of it. it will force every owner to think out the permutations of how the draft might play out. some owners might think they can wait on TE or upside RBs, but if you have 2 flex spots those value plays might be gone. those that are best able to assess value will be rewarded, and you want the better owners to be rewarded.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
well, there is always scarcity at every position -- it's just a question of degree.if his league has 6 guys in it, maybe starting 4 rb is playable, but allowing 4 rb in a 12 player league is just starving the position out.obviously, not everyone will be able to start 4 rb, but add in the rb on the benches, plus all the frequent rb injuries, and it just ends up rewarding the rb hoarder, or whichever guy is lucky enough to dodge the rb injuries.it's just too much.allowing 3 starting rb, plus the rb on your bench, already soaks up every scrap rb in the league -- there's no added value in starting more.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
We are considering going with only 1 RB in one of my leagues, taking the RB2 spot and turning it into a flex...we start 3 WRs already so some owners could have a run n shoot type attack.
packseasontix
Footballguy
Allowing to many starting RBs or QBs can hurt a league and if I suggest anything WR/TE with TE getting double yardage points is my fav it really balances the pool of players. I would suggest maxing out at 3 RB starters total even with flex unless you have 8 or less teams. Seeing that you would be changing your rules if any owner isn't in other leagues as well I would make sure they are really aware of e new starting requirements.
sspunisher
Footballguy
I agreed with this for a while, so I introduced huge starting lineups in one of my dynasty leagues and wow what a mistake that was. What I realized is that it takes away from one very important skill in fantasy football, lineup decisions. While some of the better teams (because their benches are deeper) still have to show their skill by making proper lineup decisions, the bad teams don't even have any decisions to make. Plug everyone in who is starting and call it a day. This really introduced a whole lot of luck back into the weekly matchups. With 11 starting lineup spots for skill positions (this was also a 2 QB league), we were simply at the mercy of how the NFL games went. Anyone was capable of winning any given week.I really thought the bigger we went the more skill it would take, but it surprisingly wasn't the case. I think 7-9 skill position slots is the magic number. 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE and 2-3 FLEX is probably what I'd consider to be perfect starting lineups.
Last edited by a moderator:
this is kind of a spinoff question of the OP:
our league was 2 RB, 2 WR, 2 FLEX. people were getting killed at the RB position due to being forced to start 2 RBs every week. someone proposed changing our lineup to reflect the scarcity of RB. he proposed a line up of RB, WR, 3 FLEX. how much would this affect our league?
our league was 2 RB, 2 WR, 2 FLEX. people were getting killed at the RB position due to being forced to start 2 RBs every week. someone proposed changing our lineup to reflect the scarcity of RB. he proposed a line up of RB, WR, 3 FLEX. how much would this affect our league?
Hey Guys, I appreciate all the feed back. It is really helping me make a decision. I for sure want to keep the 2 RB requirement as I think RB's are at a premium. I forgot to say in the OP that we are a 12 team league with 20 man rosters. Please keep the suggestions coming as I would like to hear more pros and cons of adding flex positions. Scotty
It allows for different strategies I love itthis is kind of a spinoff question of the OPur league was 2 RB, 2 WR, 2 FLEX. people were getting killed at the RB position due to being forced to start 2 RBs every week. someone proposed changing our lineup to reflect the scarcity of RB. he proposed a line up of RB, WR, 3 FLEX. how much would this affect our league?
JPeso
Footballguy
I prefer the largest lineups possible. I am of the camp that believes the more players you have to start, the more difficult it is, especially in a dynasty format where some owners (I'm guilty of it as well) like youth. I'm not a big fan of leagues that only start 6 total RB/WR/TE. I prefer 7 at a minimum but would be happy with 10 if it were my choice. I like my chances of finding more 12-15 point guys than others.
As for flex vs. position minimums, my favorite leagues have more flex options than most. There are so many different ways to skin the cat. For instance, in a league Unsportsmanlike Conduct, I got to the finals starting 1 RB, whereas my title game opponent rolled out 4 RB per week.
If you are actually adding a lineup spot to a league, it needs to be a flex position and not simply a WR or RB starter. It wouldn't be fair to the owners who are weaker at WR and stronger at RB, to make the added starter a WR, for instance.
As for flex vs. position minimums, my favorite leagues have more flex options than most. There are so many different ways to skin the cat. For instance, in a league Unsportsmanlike Conduct, I got to the finals starting 1 RB, whereas my title game opponent rolled out 4 RB per week.
If you are actually adding a lineup spot to a league, it needs to be a flex position and not simply a WR or RB starter. It wouldn't be fair to the owners who are weaker at WR and stronger at RB, to make the added starter a WR, for instance.
We actually converted our flex into a 3rd WR this year (1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE). Last year we had 2 teams completely dominate because they drafted RB heavy and a majority of the teams struggled at that position. We're expanding to 12 teams this year, so I figured that would exacerbate the problem, as well.
There is nothing wrong with that, those 2 team read the rules and drafted accordingly. I hope this league is a redraft, other wise you just penalized those 2 teams for understanding the lineups and rules and drafting correctly.
Saint
Footballguy
Flex adds such great variations. I'm in a 16-team league with PPR and we wanted Flex to make the draft and the formations more interesting. Our base roster starts 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE. Then we have two flex spots, one at (RB/WR) and one at (WR/TE). Main rationale was to make the formations close to what you see in the NFL now.
Some formations:
[*]1 RB / 4 WR / 1 TE
[*]1 RB / 3 WR / 2 TE
[*]2 RB / 2 WR / 2 TE
[*]2 RB / 3 WR / 1 TE
Anyway, we have found flexing adds a ton of variation and by having more than one flex, you really create a whole new strategy for the draft based on your draft position. We didn't allow a 3rd RB to be flexed as we found it hard to see a 3 RB set in the NFL today, whereas the shoot and gun with 5 WR/TE sets seem to be more apparent., and double TE really starting to find traction.
Some formations:
[*]1 RB / 4 WR / 1 TE
[*]1 RB / 3 WR / 2 TE
[*]2 RB / 2 WR / 2 TE
[*]2 RB / 3 WR / 1 TE
Anyway, we have found flexing adds a ton of variation and by having more than one flex, you really create a whole new strategy for the draft based on your draft position. We didn't allow a 3rd RB to be flexed as we found it hard to see a 3 RB set in the NFL today, whereas the shoot and gun with 5 WR/TE sets seem to be more apparent., and double TE really starting to find traction.
Agree completely, and I've had great success in the league by snagging a top RB for my flex. This is a redraft league and we're going into our 11th year with pretty much the same set up guys. We've all just decided that removing the flex will create a more balanced league that everyone has a chance in each year. We expect it to be less about who has the best RB in the his flex and more about who has the most complete team and manages it well during the season.
mjr
Footballguy
RBs will lose a little value if you install 0.5 PPR across the board, so I would suggest giving RBs and maybe TEs 1 PPR and keep the WRs at 0.5. The biggest effect with more flex options will be in how owners build their teams from that point on, but that has been the biggest attraction in my league. Some guys go RB heavy, some WR heavy, even going TE heavy was effective for one team in my league. More flexibility in starting lineups really takes the pressure off of everyone vying to stack up at the same position. It does tend to make the less effective owners more competitive (if a guy doesn't draft well at one position his odds are better in making up for it by having more starting options in another). But, it also rewards the more skillful owners in the same way, and it can really promote more trading throughout the league. Don't worry about things like 4 starting RBs or TEs. In my league we put the limit of starting RBs at 3 even though technically our flex options allows us to start 4, and although we can still start 4 TEs, nobody ever does. Starting 4 WRs isn't unusual in my league, but it's often done during bye weeks and it hasn't really shown to be an advantage or disadvantage as far as I can tell. So long as the scoring is balanced, adding more flex options will benefit everyone. It really makes it easier to deal with injuries too. Losing your top RB or WR won't hurt as much as it would in leagues with more limited starting options. Everyone in my league loves the flexibility and none of us ever want to go back to the way it was before we made those changes. I highly recommend it.
