Can we talk about SuperFlex? Why isn't this the default now...? (1 Viewer)

[TheDirtyWord]

FF is now close to 4 decades old. It's become a significant part of the discourse come fall related to most NFL discussion. I'd argue that it is the most under appreciated growth driver related to NFL becoming the unquestioned #1 sport in the US, not to mention college football and the draft.

During those 4 decades, the NFL has changed dramatically. Back in the 90's...the highest paid RB's and QB's were generally in the same economic ball park. Today...the highest paid QB's are 4-5x of the highest paid RB's.

Despite the change in the NFL landscape during that time...FF lineups save for tweaks here and there regarding FLEX/PPR/HPPR have largely not evolved with the league. Particularly at the QB position. If I hear one more supposed FF expert squawk 'wait for QB' come July/August...well, even the most unread of FF players are aware of this 'advice'.

Which kind of brings up the question - why isn't SFLEX the standard now?

I'm looking at FantasyPros early rankings for 2025...and at the moment, a player who has yet to play an NFL down (Ashton Jeanty) is ranked overall in front of Josh Allen, the reigning league MVP. As an RB10.

It's not tough to surmise that when the original rules of FF were proposed, there was an element of trying to map the gameplay to what you would see on the field positionally. Which made sense as you introduced this statistically based game whose engagement was spread on a word of mouth basis in a pre-internet era where the USA Today 'boxscore' Monday edition served as an information bible of sorts.

But for as big and as widely played as FF has become...this simple lineup structure seems to be an archaic link to preserving a game format that is no longer a reflection of the modern day NFL.

It seems odd to me that a player like Justin Herbert was likely not in many 1QB league active line-ups last year. I know that in the 1QB league I play in, I picked up Geno Smith on waivers in Week 2 or 3, available because you can find plausible 'back-up' options on the WW like I did - if I remember correctly, I chose Smith to roster over Stafford. Meanwhile, Jonathan Brooks was likely rostered in most leagues until he re-tore his ACL. And to trade a QB in a 1QB league...unless it's a Lamar/Allen/Burrow type where there is a step change in terms of their production...then good luck.

My experience with SFLEX is that the game is significantly more engaging and strategic with the increased emphasis on the most important position (maybe) in pro sports. But I know I am simply but one person, but to the question above...as this game and as the NFL has evolved, why is 1QB format still the pre-dominant flavor of how we play this game?

I'd love to get different perspectives.

 

[Lehigh98]

There are still people that don't play superflex?

 

[BigTex]

To answer the question, the correct answer is tradition. Just because everyone is doing does that mean that everyone has to do it? Some simply do it out of tradition, the game is fun in any format.

There real question…. How can you be a grown man and not play fantasy football.



Tex

 

[JohnnyU]

This has been discussed at a lot on this board already. I think SF puts too much value on QBs and 1QB may or may not put too little, depending on scoring. I also see many taking crappy QBs over better players at other positions, which blows my mind, but it is so important to hit one one that people throw caution to the wind. I’m not opposed to SF, but I prefer 1QB leagues with at least 6 pts per TD and preferably just -1 for INTs and 1 point per 20 yards passing. People who still only give 4 points per TD in 1QB leagues is idiotic IMO.. That’s me. You do you however.

 

[King of the Jungle]

Right or wrong, seeing the Marcus Mariota’s of the world getting traded for highly valued picks or players has always been my turn-off.

 

[BigTex]

Right or wrong, seeing the Marcus Mariota’s of the world getting traded for highly valued picks or players has always been my turn-off.

The reason we play this game and why it’s addictive.

It’s the grind, the unknown, the surprises, the risks and the dummification of it all.


Tex

 

[efactor]

I think SF puts too much value on QBs

Yep.

People who still only give 4 points per TD in 1QB leagues is idiotic IMO..

Yep.

 

[-OZ-]

Right or wrong, seeing the Marcus Mariota’s of the world getting traded for highly valued picks or players has always been my turn-off.

Understood, although even the valuation is more reflective of the real NFL.

I’d prefer SF with more equalized scoring. For example, in my SF, Brock purdy and Mike Evans scored about the same per game last year. That seems fair to me.

 

[Proteus]

A lot of guys think 1QB is "more like the real thing," which is a deeply fallacious way of thinking about it, but that doesn't mean they don't do it.

 

[BassNBrew]

I personally don't care for Superflex. In one league I played the top 14 players were QBs, Bowers pops in at 15 with 2 ppr, then two more QBs until Gibbs appears. Matt freaking Stafford outscored all but 3 WRs. Last Superflex league I played in all the starters went in the first 3 rounds. Basically just draft QBs until they are gone then start your 'FF draft.

 

[BassNBrew]

In 6 pt TD leagues everyone is starting a QB at super flex. Last year the QB2 were averaging 22 ppg. Defaulting to a typical flex WR/RB you are looking at 10 ppg. With everyone starting 2QBs, the weekly matchup comes down to who blows up for 40 pts and who has a 10 point game between between Stafford and Caleb.

I will admit the Superflex is kind of cool in dynasty if you're more interested in the offseason part of the game than actually playing the weekly games.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I personally don't care for Superflex. In one league I played the top 14 players were QBs, Bowers pops in at 15 with 2 ppr, then two more QBs until Gibbs appears. Matt freaking Stafford outscored all but 3 WRs. Last Superflex league I played in all the starters went in the first 3 rounds. Basically just draft QBs until they are gone then start your 'FF draft.

Boy, what’s not to like?

Personally, does not appeal to me. No one in our league is clamoring for it, hasn’t come up, et al.

We have evolved, revised & revisited a ton of stuff the last 20+ years. Always open to trying something new, but it hasn’t come up. I won’t push for it but would be fine with making the adjustment if my league mates became SF adjacent/SF curious.

 

[Lansdowne]

Of all the skill positions on offense, the only one where you won't typically see more than one on the field at the same time is QB. You can get 2 RB's, or have them share (like Gibbs and Montgomery in Detroit). Typically have 2 or more WR's. Usually have 1 TE but sometimes may have 2 TE formations. You almost never see 2 QB's take the field at the same time, and NFL teams don't do QBBC. So you have 32 NFL teams and thus 32 QB's that start a given week. If you're in a 12-team league and everybody wants to start a QB in their flex, you're now looking at 24 QB's off the board before you factor in injuries and bye weeks. Suddenly NFL backup QB's have so much value that you're afraid of dropping Mac Jones or Kyle Trask. It's the RB handcuff conundrum but worse. I don't care if others may think 1QB is antiquated, I prefer more even value across the positions. Teams that have Konami code QB's still have the advantage in 1QB over those who don't.

 

[BassNBrew]

At least in regular leagues if your players get hurt you can get someone off the wire as a replacement. If you lose your two starters in SF there's nothing on the wire, you're eating donuts the rest of the way OR loading up on backups and hoping for an injury.

 

[eighsse2]

I don't think either is inherently superior to the other. Just like, I like dynasty much better than redraft. But people still play redraft.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

I personally don't care for Superflex. In one league I played the top 14 players were QBs, Bowers pops in at 15 with 2 ppr, then two more QBs until Gibbs appears. Matt freaking Stafford outscored all but 3 WRs. Last Superflex league I played in all the starters went in the first 3 rounds. Basically just draft QBs until they are gone then start your 'FF draft.

One way I've combatted this is to only award .03 points/passing yard versus .04.

 

[JohnnyU]

I know a lot of podcasters that thumb their nose at 1qb. I would say over 90% base their mocks on SF, with the occasional 1qb mock. Most swear by it. I've spent the last couple of years becoming more familiar with superflex and what it's all about, so it's not as if I'm in the dark on the subject. At the end of the day I swear by my first post in this thread.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

At least in regular leagues if your players get hurt you can get someone off the wire as a replacement. If you lose your two starters in SF there's nothing on the wire, you're eating donuts the rest of the way OR loading up on backups and hoping for an injury.

Couple of things here.

1. Isn't that the way the NFL is? If Mahomes goes down, you go to Carson Wentz...chances for winning should decrease. If you lose two starting RB's...isn't asking Ameer Abduallh to take you to the ship just false hope. But in 1 QB leagues, the hardship can be minimal.
2. You can also have more than 3 QB's rostered.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

This has been discussed at a lot on this board already. I think SF puts too much value on QBs and 1QB may or may not put too little, depending on scoring. I also see many taking crappy QBs over better players at other positions, which blows my mind, but it is so important to hit one one that people throw caution to the wind. I’m not opposed to SF, but I prefer 1QB leagues with at least 6 pts per TD and preferably just -1 for INTs and 1 point per 20 yards passing. People who still only give 4 points per TD in 1QB leagues is idiotic IMO.. That’s me. You do you however.

Ultimately, you can construct a scoring system that evens out the production risk/reward at all the positions; be it .03/passing yard in SFLEX or like you did with 6 points/TD in the 1 QB format.

The value of the QB isn't necessarily in the scoring so much as it's in the scarcity of supply/demand.

 

[eighsse2]

At least in regular leagues if your players get hurt you can get someone off the wire as a replacement. If you lose your two starters in SF there's nothing on the wire, you're eating donuts the rest of the way OR loading up on backups and hoping for an injury.

Couple of things here.

1. Isn't that the way the NFL is? If Mahomes goes down, you go to Carson Wentz...chances for winning should decrease. If you lose two starting RB's...isn't asking Ameer Abduallh to take you to the ship just false hope. But in 1 QB leagues, the hardship can be minimal.
2. You can also have more than 3 QB's rostered.

It's a little bit different. Yes, in fantasy you can have four QB's, or five, or six, or whatever, but only the 32 who are the current active starters in the NFL score any points at all. These are the only options. In the NFL, if all of a team's QB's get injured, there are warm bodies in free agency at any time. In 2QB, if yours all (or even all but one) get injured, you're going to have to be able to get their specific backups in free agency, or make a trade (where other teams may play hardball).

 

[JohnnyU]

At least in regular leagues if your players get hurt you can get someone off the wire as a replacement. If you lose your two starters in SF there's nothing on the wire, you're eating donuts the rest of the way OR loading up on backups and hoping for an injury.

Couple of things here.

1. Isn't that the way the NFL is? If Mahomes goes down, you go to Carson Wentz...chances for winning should decrease. If you lose two starting RB's...isn't asking Ameer Abduallh to take you to the ship just false hope. But in 1 QB leagues, the hardship can be minimal.
2. You can also have more than 3 QB's rostered.

It's a little bit different. Yes, in fantasy you can have four QB's, or five, or six, or whatever, but only the 32 who are the current active starters in the NFL score any points at all. These are the only options. In the NFL, if all of a team's QB's get injured, there are warm bodies in free agency at any time. In 2QB, if yours all (or even all but one) get injured, you're going to have to be able to get their specific backups in free agency, or make a trade (where other teams may play hardball).

What about team QB. Meaning, if you have one, you have all for that team.

 

[eighsse2]

At least in regular leagues if your players get hurt you can get someone off the wire as a replacement. If you lose your two starters in SF there's nothing on the wire, you're eating donuts the rest of the way OR loading up on backups and hoping for an injury.

Couple of things here.

1. Isn't that the way the NFL is? If Mahomes goes down, you go to Carson Wentz...chances for winning should decrease. If you lose two starting RB's...isn't asking Ameer Abduallh to take you to the ship just false hope. But in 1 QB leagues, the hardship can be minimal.
2. You can also have more than 3 QB's rostered.

It's a little bit different. Yes, in fantasy you can have four QB's, or five, or six, or whatever, but only the 32 who are the current active starters in the NFL score any points at all. These are the only options. In the NFL, if all of a team's QB's get injured, there are warm bodies in free agency at any time. In 2QB, if yours all (or even all but one) get injured, you're going to have to be able to get their specific backups in free agency, or make a trade (where other teams may play hardball).

What about team QB. Meaning, if you have one, you have all for that team.

That's a good way to avoid the problem. In a dynasty scenario it's a bit unusual situation, given that TQB's are eternal. Not that that's a bad thing, just unique.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

At least in regular leagues if your players get hurt you can get someone off the wire as a replacement. If you lose your two starters in SF there's nothing on the wire, you're eating donuts the rest of the way OR loading up on backups and hoping for an injury.

Couple of things here.

1. Isn't that the way the NFL is? If Mahomes goes down, you go to Carson Wentz...chances for winning should decrease. If you lose two starting RB's...isn't asking Ameer Abduallh to take you to the ship just false hope. But in 1 QB leagues, the hardship can be minimal.
2. You can also have more than 3 QB's rostered.

It's a little bit different. Yes, in fantasy you can have four QB's, or five, or six, or whatever, but only the 32 who are the current active starters in the NFL score any points at all. These are the only options. In the NFL, if all of a team's QB's get injured, there are warm bodies in free agency at any time. In 2QB, if yours all (or even all but one) get injured, you're going to have to be able to get their specific backups in free agency, or make a trade (where other teams may play hardball).

How is that different than the other positions? The owner that lost McCaffrey either handcuffed Mason or had to spend a great deal of FAAB to get him. To your point about 32 active starters, that the case even if Mahomes goes down...now it's just Wentz in that slot.

As mentioned in another reply, the value of the QB position isn't determined as much by the scoring system as the supply/demand economics. But if we also consider the level of protection now afforded QB's in this day and age...injuries aren't as prevalent a concern although certainly not a non-zero one. And finally with SFLEX...you can still start a WR/RB in that slot.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

At least in regular leagues if your players get hurt you can get someone off the wire as a replacement. If you lose your two starters in SF there's nothing on the wire, you're eating donuts the rest of the way OR loading up on backups and hoping for an injury.

Couple of things here.

1. Isn't that the way the NFL is? If Mahomes goes down, you go to Carson Wentz...chances for winning should decrease. If you lose two starting RB's...isn't asking Ameer Abduallh to take you to the ship just false hope. But in 1 QB leagues, the hardship can be minimal.
2. You can also have more than 3 QB's rostered.

It's a little bit different. Yes, in fantasy you can have four QB's, or five, or six, or whatever, but only the 32 who are the current active starters in the NFL score any points at all. These are the only options. In the NFL, if all of a team's QB's get injured, there are warm bodies in free agency at any time. In 2QB, if yours all (or even all but one) get injured, you're going to have to be able to get their specific backups in free agency, or make a trade (where other teams may play hardball).

What about team QB. Meaning, if you have one, you have all for that team.

That's certainly another way to get close to the same effect.

 

[BassNBrew]

At least in regular leagues if your players get hurt you can get someone off the wire as a replacement. If you lose your two starters in SF there's nothing on the wire, you're eating donuts the rest of the way OR loading up on backups and hoping for an injury.

Couple of things here.

1. Isn't that the way the NFL is? If Mahomes goes down, you go to Carson Wentz...chances for winning should decrease. If you lose two starting RB's...isn't asking Ameer Abduallh to take you to the ship just false hope. But in 1 QB leagues, the hardship can be minimal.
2. You can also have more than 3 QB's rostered.

If your waiver wire priority is high enough and there aren’t six NFL teams on a buy that week. And yes, you can drive more than two quarterbacks, you can have the first four rounds of your fantasy draft be all quarterbacks it’s not that I hate you reflex. It’s just not the way I enjoy playing.

 

[eighsse2]

At least in regular leagues if your players get hurt you can get someone off the wire as a replacement. If you lose your two starters in SF there's nothing on the wire, you're eating donuts the rest of the way OR loading up on backups and hoping for an injury.

Couple of things here.

1. Isn't that the way the NFL is? If Mahomes goes down, you go to Carson Wentz...chances for winning should decrease. If you lose two starting RB's...isn't asking Ameer Abduallh to take you to the ship just false hope. But in 1 QB leagues, the hardship can be minimal.
2. You can also have more than 3 QB's rostered.

It's a little bit different. Yes, in fantasy you can have four QB's, or five, or six, or whatever, but only the 32 who are the current active starters in the NFL score any points at all. These are the only options. In the NFL, if all of a team's QB's get injured, there are warm bodies in free agency at any time. In 2QB, if yours all (or even all but one) get injured, you're going to have to be able to get their specific backups in free agency, or make a trade (where other teams may play hardball).

How is that different than the other positions? The owner that lost McCaffrey either handcuffed Mason or had to spend a great deal of FAAB to get him. To your point about 32 active starters, that the case even if Mahomes goes down...now it's just Wentz in that slot.

As mentioned in another reply, the value of the QB position isn't determined as much by the scoring system as the supply/demand economics. But if we also consider the level of protection now afforded QB's in this day and age...injuries aren't as prevalent a concern although certainly not a non-zero one. And finally with SFLEX...you can still start a WR/RB in that slot.

That's true, the other positions are not distinctly different, but the scarcity is more extreme with 2QB. Even if all the starting RB's are taken, there are guys that you can at least start that average 3 or 4 points. Backup QB's scoring even a point is extremely rare at the QB position. If you have to start a backup QB you're getting 0 unless there is an injury in-game, or you get a lucky mop-up duty situation.

 

[Buckna]

You know how hard it was to get my redraft leagues to finally go to PPR? Or to drop team defenses?!? And now you want to add this?!?!?

 

[JohnnyU]

At least in regular leagues if your players get hurt you can get someone off the wire as a replacement. If you lose your two starters in SF there's nothing on the wire, you're eating donuts the rest of the way OR loading up on backups and hoping for an injury.

Couple of things here.

1. Isn't that the way the NFL is? If Mahomes goes down, you go to Carson Wentz...chances for winning should decrease. If you lose two starting RB's...isn't asking Ameer Abduallh to take you to the ship just false hope. But in 1 QB leagues, the hardship can be minimal.
2. You can also have more than 3 QB's rostered.

It's a little bit different. Yes, in fantasy you can have four QB's, or five, or six, or whatever, but only the 32 who are the current active starters in the NFL score any points at all. These are the only options. In the NFL, if all of a team's QB's get injured, there are warm bodies in free agency at any time. In 2QB, if yours all (or even all but one) get injured, you're going to have to be able to get their specific backups in free agency, or make a trade (where other teams may play hardball).

How is that different than the other positions? The owner that lost McCaffrey either handcuffed Mason or had to spend a great deal of FAAB to get him. To your point about 32 active starters, that the case even if Mahomes goes down...now it's just Wentz in that slot.

As mentioned in another reply, the value of the QB position isn't determined as much by the scoring system as the supply/demand economics. But if we also consider the level of protection now afforded QB's in this day and age...injuries aren't as prevalent a concern although certainly not a non-zero one. And finally with SFLEX...you can still start a WR/RB in that slot.

That's true, the other positions are not distinctly different, but the scarcity is more extreme with 2QB. Even if all the starting RB's are taken, there are guys that you can at least start that average 3 or 4 points. Backup QB's scoring even a point is extremely rare at the QB position. If you have to start a backup QB you're getting 0 unless there is an injury in-game, or you get a lucky mop-up duty situation.

Yeah, that's the sucky part of 2QB leagues, which I stay away from.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

At least in regular leagues if your players get hurt you can get someone off the wire as a replacement. If you lose your two starters in SF there's nothing on the wire, you're eating donuts the rest of the way OR loading up on backups and hoping for an injury.

Couple of things here.

1. Isn't that the way the NFL is? If Mahomes goes down, you go to Carson Wentz...chances for winning should decrease. If you lose two starting RB's...isn't asking Ameer Abduallh to take you to the ship just false hope. But in 1 QB leagues, the hardship can be minimal.
2. You can also have more than 3 QB's rostered.

It's a little bit different. Yes, in fantasy you can have four QB's, or five, or six, or whatever, but only the 32 who are the current active starters in the NFL score any points at all. These are the only options. In the NFL, if all of a team's QB's get injured, there are warm bodies in free agency at any time. In 2QB, if yours all (or even all but one) get injured, you're going to have to be able to get their specific backups in free agency, or make a trade (where other teams may play hardball).

How is that different than the other positions? The owner that lost McCaffrey either handcuffed Mason or had to spend a great deal of FAAB to get him. To your point about 32 active starters, that the case even if Mahomes goes down...now it's just Wentz in that slot.

As mentioned in another reply, the value of the QB position isn't determined as much by the scoring system as the supply/demand economics. But if we also consider the level of protection now afforded QB's in this day and age...injuries aren't as prevalent a concern although certainly not a non-zero one. And finally with SFLEX...you can still start a WR/RB in that slot.

That's true, the other positions are not distinctly different, but the scarcity is more extreme with 2QB. Even if all the starting RB's are taken, there are guys that you can at least start that average 3 or 4 points. Backup QB's scoring even a point is extremely rare at the QB position. If you have to start a backup QB you're getting 0 unless there is an injury in-game, or you get a lucky mop-up duty situation.

One thing to point out - 2QB is NOT the same thing as SFLEX. Yes, 95-98% of time you're going to be starting a QB in that SFLEX spot. But SFLEX doesn't lock you into QB.

But in the situation you mentioned, you can still start that 3-4 point RB in the SFLEX spot if you don't have a QB. What I'd also say is that your selection of RB/WR's on the WW are much improved since instead of 18-20 QB's being rostered league wide, generally the 32 starting QB's will be leaving a much better pool of FA's at those positions.

 

[JohnnyU]

At least in regular leagues if your players get hurt you can get someone off the wire as a replacement. If you lose your two starters in SF there's nothing on the wire, you're eating donuts the rest of the way OR loading up on backups and hoping for an injury.

Couple of things here.

1. Isn't that the way the NFL is? If Mahomes goes down, you go to Carson Wentz...chances for winning should decrease. If you lose two starting RB's...isn't asking Ameer Abduallh to take you to the ship just false hope. But in 1 QB leagues, the hardship can be minimal.
2. You can also have more than 3 QB's rostered.

It's a little bit different. Yes, in fantasy you can have four QB's, or five, or six, or whatever, but only the 32 who are the current active starters in the NFL score any points at all. These are the only options. In the NFL, if all of a team's QB's get injured, there are warm bodies in free agency at any time. In 2QB, if yours all (or even all but one) get injured, you're going to have to be able to get their specific backups in free agency, or make a trade (where other teams may play hardball).

How is that different than the other positions? The owner that lost McCaffrey either handcuffed Mason or had to spend a great deal of FAAB to get him. To your point about 32 active starters, that the case even if Mahomes goes down...now it's just Wentz in that slot.

As mentioned in another reply, the value of the QB position isn't determined as much by the scoring system as the supply/demand economics. But if we also consider the level of protection now afforded QB's in this day and age...injuries aren't as prevalent a concern although certainly not a non-zero one. And finally with SFLEX...you can still start a WR/RB in that slot.

That's true, the other positions are not distinctly different, but the scarcity is more extreme with 2QB. Even if all the starting RB's are taken, there are guys that you can at least start that average 3 or 4 points. Backup QB's scoring even a point is extremely rare at the QB position. If you have to start a backup QB you're getting 0 unless there is an injury in-game, or you get a lucky mop-up duty situation.

One thing to point out - 2QB is NOT the same thing as SFLEX. Yes, 95-98% of time you're going to be starting a QB in that SFLEX spot. But SFLEX doesn't lock you into QB.

But in the situation you mentioned, you can still start that 3-4 point RB in the SFLEX spot if you don't have a QB. What I'd also say is that your selection of RB/WR's on the WW are much improved since instead of 18-20 QB's being rostered league wide, generally the 32 starting QB's will be leaving a much better pool of FA's at those positions.

Yes, 2QB isn't same as SFLEX. You can pivot to another position.

 

[eighsse2]

At least in regular leagues if your players get hurt you can get someone off the wire as a replacement. If you lose your two starters in SF there's nothing on the wire, you're eating donuts the rest of the way OR loading up on backups and hoping for an injury.

Couple of things here.

1. Isn't that the way the NFL is? If Mahomes goes down, you go to Carson Wentz...chances for winning should decrease. If you lose two starting RB's...isn't asking Ameer Abduallh to take you to the ship just false hope. But in 1 QB leagues, the hardship can be minimal.
2. You can also have more than 3 QB's rostered.

It's a little bit different. Yes, in fantasy you can have four QB's, or five, or six, or whatever, but only the 32 who are the current active starters in the NFL score any points at all. These are the only options. In the NFL, if all of a team's QB's get injured, there are warm bodies in free agency at any time. In 2QB, if yours all (or even all but one) get injured, you're going to have to be able to get their specific backups in free agency, or make a trade (where other teams may play hardball).

How is that different than the other positions? The owner that lost McCaffrey either handcuffed Mason or had to spend a great deal of FAAB to get him. To your point about 32 active starters, that the case even if Mahomes goes down...now it's just Wentz in that slot.

As mentioned in another reply, the value of the QB position isn't determined as much by the scoring system as the supply/demand economics. But if we also consider the level of protection now afforded QB's in this day and age...injuries aren't as prevalent a concern although certainly not a non-zero one. And finally with SFLEX...you can still start a WR/RB in that slot.

That's true, the other positions are not distinctly different, but the scarcity is more extreme with 2QB. Even if all the starting RB's are taken, there are guys that you can at least start that average 3 or 4 points. Backup QB's scoring even a point is extremely rare at the QB position. If you have to start a backup QB you're getting 0 unless there is an injury in-game, or you get a lucky mop-up duty situation.

One thing to point out - 2QB is NOT the same thing as SFLEX. Yes, 95-98% of time you're going to be starting a QB in that SFLEX spot. But SFLEX doesn't lock you into QB.

But in the situation you mentioned, you can still start that 3-4 point RB in the SFLEX spot if you don't have a QB. What I'd also say is that your selection of RB/WR's on the WW are much improved since instead of 18-20 QB's being rostered league wide, generally the 32 starting QB's will be leaving a much better pool of FA's at those positions.

That's right. I forgot about that distinction.

 

[Chaka]

I think SF puts too much value on QBs

Okay, but QBs are unquestionably the most important players in the NFL. Why doesn't it work in reverse? Why doesn't it bother you that 1 QB leagues put so much value on RBs and WRs?

1QB may or may not put too little, depending on scoring.

They all put too little. Making pass TDs worth 6 pts barely moves the needle. How many 1 QB leagues do you play in where a QB is drafted in the first two rounds?

I also see many taking crappy QBs over better players at other positions, which blows my mind,

Two points: 1) Again, what about the reverse? @TheDirtyWord defined the issue perfectly. Justin Herbert was a seldom starter and Jonathan Brooks was a season long roster clogger. That seems far more egregious.

2) Those "crappy QBs" have a lot more potential trade value as attrition plays out over a 17 game season. In 1 QB leagues they have none.

You and I have danced this number before, and neither of our positions will change, but if you're going to error on overvaluing one position over another, SF makes far more sense.

I like leagues where QB, RB and WR (and the occasional TE) are viable first round picks (and second, third, etc.)

One QB leagues limit strategy.

 

[Chaka]

REQUEST: In one QB leagues, if we assume twelve teams as a standard what rules would you implement to see an average* of 4 QBs, 4 RBs & 4 WRs drafted in each of the first three rounds of a typical draft?

*I said average so, please, let's avoid the whole "What about TEs?" thing. It's a general question.

 

[Chaka]

And if you have to bring up TEs: In the NFL, TEs have been mostly an afterthought since Ditka. It's hilarious, and sad, that fantasy TEs have significantly more more value than QBs.

Yeah, let's make the second least important real world skill position far more important than the, by far, most important position.

Might as well add the FB to fantasy rosters if you want to create artificial scarcity.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

Change doesn't always make things better. Hell, I'm not even a big fan of PPR and EVERY league is PPR now. The biggest issue with SF is that in a larger leagues QB is going to be scarce and I think that presents an unfair advantage. Its all relative though since one mans unfair advantage is another mans "strategy"

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

you can start an fb in the rb position.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

A lot of guys think 1QB is "more like the real thing," which is a deeply fallacious way of thinking about it, but that doesn't mean they don't do it.

this is me. I know that there have been games where 2 QBs get used but most games still use only 1 QB.

 

[Chaka]

Change doesn't always make things better. Hell, I'm not even a big fan of PPR and EVERY league is PPR now. The biggest issue with SF is that in a larger leagues QB is going to be scarce and I think that presents an unfair advantage. Its all relative though since one mans unfair advantage is another mans "strategy"

Scarcity is the reason RBs have so much value in 1 QB leagues. SF is an equalizer. It provides another strategic opportunity to remain competitive if your #1 RB gets injured. In 1 QB leagues if your #1 RB gets injured, you're pretty much done.

PPR was mainstreamed for exactly that reason. Until that point, RBs were the only position of true value (due to scarcity). Before PPR the first round of most drafts welas 10-12 RBs. With PPR WRs became far more viable in the first round of fantasy drafts.

 

[Chaka]

you can start an fb in the rb position.

I know. In what round was Kyle Jusczcyk drafted in your league last season?

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

15

 

[Chaka]

A lot of guys think 1QB is "more like the real thing," which is a deeply fallacious way of thinking about it, but that doesn't mean they don't do it.

this is me. I know that there have been games where 2 QBs get used but most games still use only 1 QB.

This i understand. But it's because of tradition, not because it offers any sort of reflection of reality. Unless, of course, you're playing in 32 team leagues with 53 player rosters.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

Don't really have any evidence to back this up but I think the true intent of PPR was for big leagues where you'd be starting a 3rd down back or a 5th/6th WR. Might be an argument that PPR limits swing a little but it seems like it's just there so people can score 200 points a week.

 

[jumper]

This has been discussed at a lot on this board already. I think SF puts too much value on QBs and 1QB may or may not put too little, depending on scoring. I also see many taking crappy QBs over better players at other positions, which blows my mind, but it is so important to hit one one that people throw caution to the wind. I’m not opposed to SF, but I prefer 1QB leagues with at least 6 pts per TD and preferably just -1 for INTs and 1 point per 20 yards passing. People who still only give 4 points per TD in 1QB leagues is idiotic IMO.. That’s me. You do you however.

Assuming 12 team Superflex - I’d suggest any team that drafts or rosters a 3rd QB, that player takes up 2 roster spots or one IR slot (even if the player is healthy). That helps limit the hoarding of QBs as carrying another QB beyond the one you start in the QB or SFlex spot creates a trade off which lowers the amount of lottery ticket RBs and other players you can hold.

 

[JohnnyU]

These kind of threads don’t really convince people to jump to your side. People like what they like and that’s the beauty of choice. Respectfully.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Right or wrong, seeing the Marcus Mariota’s of the world getting traded for highly valued picks or players has always been my turn-off.

I haven't seen anything like that in any of my SF leagues, and I have been playing SF format for 5 years.

 

[Gatorade]

I don't play in any SF leagues, but it seems to me that any league larger than 12 makes SF unrealistic. Who wants to start Will Levis, Russell Wilson or Daniel Jones every week. And if one of your QBs did get hurt, you better hope you can get his backup off of the WW.

 

[Chaka]

These kind of threads don’t really convince people to jump to your side. People like what they like and that’s the beauty of choice. Respectfully.

You and I have danced this number before, and neither of our positions will change...

 

[joey]

I play in 4 dynasty leagues. 1 is SF.
I play in 3 redraft leagues. 1 is SF.

Love the different challenges of each.
And, yeah, 1 of those redraft leagues is going on 29 years, so it was a big deal to go 1/2 ppr a few years back

Variety is the spice of life.

 

[pinkstapler]

IMO SF is much, much easier to tank your team for the whole season with a bad trade or draft, even more so in dynasty. I think in competitive leagues with knowledgeable owners this can be more fun/interesting. I think in casual leagues with owners who go more by gut and play just to have fun, it's boring and winds up cutting the competition down to maybe half of the owners. Even in competitive leagues I'll watch owners take huge risks on drafting seemingly mediocre rookie QBs with bad profiles in the early and mid first round because of scarcity and a desperate need for the position ahead of pretty much sure fire WRs and RBs. I think this year will be a prime example of that again. I guess in a way I like getting that free advantage, but when half the league is doing it... to me it becomes kind of boring. I like competing against 11 other owners, not just the 3-4 savvy enough to understand the real intricacies of a SF league.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Let me take some of these comments/replies in bunches...which I do appreciate and recognize that each of us has a different and unique lens which informs our position or POV.

I don't play in any SF leagues, but it seems to me that any league larger than 12 makes SF unrealistic. Who wants to start Will Levis, Russell Wilson or Daniel Jones every week. And if one of your QBs did get hurt, you better hope you can get his backup off of the WW.

Change doesn't always make things better. Hell, I'm not even a big fan of PPR and EVERY league is PPR now. The biggest issue with SF is that in a larger leagues QB is going to be scarce and I think that presents an unfair advantage. Its all relative though since one mans unfair advantage is another mans "strategy"

What I would agree with regarding SFLEX leagues is that larger than 12 format and it is a no-go. Having 8 starting QB's not in active line-ups means that a majority of teams could still have a 'benched' QB. But if that number slips to 4 and now it's a minority of teams that can bench once...as much as I now prefer SFLEX, that's probably a bridge too far. As to the starting of lesser QB's though...we do that at the other positions.

IMO SF is much, much easier to tank your team for the whole season with a bad trade or draft, even more so in dynasty. I think in competitive leagues with knowledgeable owners this can be more fun/interesting. I think in casual leagues with owners who go more by gut and play just to have fun, it's boring and winds up cutting the competition down to maybe half of the owners. Even in competitive leagues I'll watch owners take huge risks on drafting seemingly mediocre rookie QBs with bad profiles in the early and mid first round because of scarcity and a desperate need for the position ahead of pretty much sure fire WRs and RBs. I think this year will be a prime example of that again. I guess in a way I like getting that free advantage, but when half the league is doing it to me it becomes kind of boring. I like competing against 11 other owners, not just the 3-4 savvy enough to understand the real intricacies of a SF league.

I'm assuming you're talking dynasty on early/mid 1st rounders on '(perceived) mid' rookies. If so...let's equate this to the NFL. Right now the debate for teams at the top of the draft is should they blow a Top 5 pick on Cam Ward/Shedeur. Both are acknowledged to not be in the same class as last years 1-3 options. But it's on the table and teams are having to weigh that position differently because of the reasons you just mentioned. TEN/NYG/CLE have a desperate need at that position and as such, lesser QB's are being considered with prime draft capital. If we think of ourselves as 'GM's', from my POV mirroring and creating conditions that reflect the types of decisions NFL GM's make was actually an original reason I got into FF in the first place.

To your point about casual owners...that's a different conversation and I know leagues have them because it's about the tradition of playing as a group - and people/priorities change through the years. And sometimes, you just need a 12th. Knowing the scoring dynamics is as important in knowing the players. I guess a question I would have is are there casual dynasty players? I've always thought of that group as 'very' engaged.

Right or wrong, seeing the Marcus Mariota’s of the world getting traded for highly valued picks or players has always been my turn-off.

I haven't seen anything like that in any of my SF leagues, and I have been playing SF format for 5 years.

I quoted this because there was a profile of response of those who did not like SFLEX, where I felt like the reasons offered had a bit of 'boogeyman' to them. Meaning - a concern that an outcome that doesn't occur and is not in the realm of reality to occur, would occur - and that's a turnoff.

Assuming 12 team Superflex - I’d suggest any team that drafts or rosters a 3rd QB, that player takes up 2 roster spots or one IR slot (even if the player is healthy). That helps limit the hoarding of QBs as carrying another QB beyond the one you start in the QB or SFlex spot creates a trade off which lowers the amount of lottery ticket RBs and other players you can hold.

In my experience, it doesn't need to be that complicated. QB hoarding does occur, but the downside and a counterweight is a thinner roster at other positions. That's assuming a standard 9/7 roster structure. If you are going to QB hoard, you need to have a plan...and the market can work against you as injuries/byes enter into the equation.

OVERALL: I appreciate the feedback. A very real factor that was brought up that I don't discount after reading some of responses is spending a season playing/trying on a format that owners don't like. I like many on this board am playing the back 9 in life. So one season represents a much larger percentage of the seasons I have left to play than 20 years ago. And for many owners casual or engaged (or at least a decent percentage), ...the commitment and desire to play FF may be year-to-year at this point. A season you don't enjoy could be the final nail so to speak.