Dedicated Positional Bench Spots (1 Viewer)

[Ryan99]

I think having a certain number of bench spots dedicated to certain positions would help fix some problems in current common league formats. By "dedicated positional bench spots" I mean, for instance, that you have 2 spots that can only be QBs, 2 for TEs, etc. and then possibly some number of any position spots in addition.

This is motivated by my thoughts on QBs and TEs in standard leagues. Assuming 1 QB starting, 12 teams, and a "normal" sized bench there's usually way too much talent on the waiver wire. In my leagues there are usually pretty solid starting (irl) QBs sitting on the waiver because nobody needs them. Most teams carry 2 QBs but some carry only 1 (once he's past his bye you're never going to bench Brees, Rodgers, etc. so there's really no reason to use a bench spot on a backup). Almost none carry 3. That means that the 16-20th best starting QBs might not even be rostered, while the top 60 RBs will routinely be rostered.

One solution to this is to play 2 QBs. This leads to the opposite problem then, not enough meat on the wire. In this situation every team will carry at least 2, many 3 and some 4 (or more). That means there is basically no waiver options at all at that position. Even if there's an injury the backup is likely already owned (for top flight starters at least). This is just a different problem, it's no better.

Now, what would happen if you had 1 starting QB but also one bench spot that would only be used for QBs? Most teams will carry 2 QBs, which means there will almost always be some starters available on the waiver. In addition most backup QBs will remain on the waiver which gives you a shot at one in case of injury. Seems like a good solution.

Everything here can be said for TEs as well.

Thoughts? Are positional bench spots a thing that exists in leagues? I have never heard of it before, but it seems like an easy solution to this problem.

 

[Warrior]

The current system is not broken. No need to 'fix' anything. There is nothing wrong with a few crappy QB's being available on waivers. Draft accordingly.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Thoughts? Are positional bench spots a thing that exists in leagues? I have never heard of it before, but it seems like an easy solution to this problem.

What problem?I don't see a huge problem with a few QBs being available on the wire at the end of the season. It's not like those guys are studs that were left on the wire. If a playoff team loses Aaron Rodgers and has to pick up and start Ryan Tannehill, Sam Bradford or Joe Flacco he's still at a tremendous disadvantage. What you're saying is that if he's not choosing between Mark Sanchez or Brady Quinn there's some kind of problem with the format?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Thoughts? Are positional bench spots a thing that exists in leagues? I have never heard of it before, but it seems like an easy solution to this problem.

This used to be very common. Standard, even. Fantasy football has moved away from it because it sucks. I'm with the others here, you're trying to fix a "problem" that doesn't exist.

 

[Ryan99]

Thoughts? Are positional bench spots a thing that exists in leagues? I have never heard of it before, but it seems like an easy solution to this problem.

This used to be very common. Standard, even. Fantasy football has moved away from it because it sucks. I'm with the others here, you're trying to fix a "problem" that doesn't exist.

So what about it sucks?Sam Bradford, the 20th ranked QB, has 171 points in my league's scoring system, 120 behind league leader Tom Brady and is only owned in only 21% of Yahoo leagues. Meanwhile DeAngelo Williams, the 47th ranked RB, has 58 points, 163 behind league leader Arian Foster and is owned in 56% of leagues.

So you can say this isn't a problem, but simply stating that is meaningless. Why isn't a problem? It sure seems like a problem to me because it introduces an enormous positional disparity into the game.

Saying there isn't a problem simply because that's how fantasy football works is dumb. By that same reasoning if it just happened to be the case that a field goal was worth 100 fantasy points, and I suggested changing that, you would respond that there's no problem, that's just how the game works and I should draft accordingly. Ridiculous.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Thoughts? Are positional bench spots a thing that exists in leagues? I have never heard of it before, but it seems like an easy solution to this problem.

This used to be very common. Standard, even. Fantasy football has moved away from it because it sucks. I'm with the others here, you're trying to fix a "problem" that doesn't exist.

So what about it sucks?Sam Bradford, the 20th ranked QB, has 171 points in my league's scoring system, 120 behind league leader Tom Brady and is only owned in only 21% of Yahoo leagues. Meanwhile DeAngelo Williams, the 47th ranked RB, has 58 points, 163 behind league leader Arian Foster and is owned in 56% of leagues.

So you can say this isn't a problem, but simply stating that is meaningless. Why isn't a problem? It sure seems like a problem to me because it introduces an enormous positional disparity into the game.

Saying there isn't a problem simply because that's how fantasy football works is dumb. By that same reasoning if it just happened to be the case that a field goal was worth 100 fantasy points, and I suggested changing that, you would respond that there's no problem, that's just how the game works and I should draft accordingly. Ridiculous.

Not having defined bench spots isn't what introduces positional disparity into the game. That's primarily caused by starting lineup requirements and positional scarcity. RBs are generally more valuable than QBs, that's why people prefer to carry extra RBs than extra QBs. Forcing someone to carry more QBs doesn't make QBs more valuable, it just forces people to carry players they'd rather not keep on their roster, at the expense of more useful players. I didn't say there's not a problem because that's the way fantasy football works. Quite the opposite, actually. I've been playing a long time, and back in the day it was pretty standard in all leagues to have forced positional bench spots like you suggest. The industry as a whole has obviously moved away from that model because it wasn't that great. I'm still in one league that's been around forever, and still uses them because the guys in this league are extremely reluctant to make any substantial changes, and it blows. Trust me. It just creates an inefficient market.

Besides, it's absurd to demand that I have to prove that there isn't a problem to be solved. On the contrary, if you want to make changes you need to demonstrate that there's actually a problem and that your method solves it, and you haven't done that.

I mean, you don't have to take my word for it. It's not a novel idea, you can certainly find leagues that use them and try it for yourself.

 

[nightmare]

Limiting one's options on how to run THEIR team is usually a bad idea.

Crappy RB's are owned because they take up two starting spots(sometimes three).

You need the flexibility at the RB-WR spot for injuries and match ups.

Why would I need to carry more than two QB's? Why force me to carry more then one

after his bye week? If my starting QB goes done, my team is probably toast anyway.

This idea has come and gone, hopefully the "can't cut" rule follows.

 

[Ryan99]

Not having defined bench spots isn't what introduces positional disparity into the game.

Of course not, but that doesn't mean that having them can't help fix it.

That's primarily caused by starting lineup requirements and positional scarcity. RBs are generally more valuable than QBs, that's why people prefer to carry extra RBs than extra QBs. Forcing someone to carry more QBs doesn't make QBs more valuable, it just forces people to carry players they'd rather not keep on their roster, at the expense of more useful players.

Actually it doesn't do this at all. You're certainly not forced to use it, you can keep it empty if you want. And it is not "at the expense" of anything. It's simply a bench spot that you can only use for a QB (for instance). Essentially your argument is that if it was a general bench spot it would be more useful to you. Well yeah, and if you had 5 more bench spots that would also be more useful, so the utility of it is irrelevant.Now if you're talking about taking an existing league and transforming existing general bench spots into positional spots, then you could make the argument that something is being taken away from you. But I never suggested this, and would be against this if it was suggested for my leagues. What I would do is add an additional bench spot (or spots) that are positional. If you're in a league with a ton of bench spots you might not want to add, but in that case there's probably no problem with good producers sitting on the waiver wire so it's moot.

I didn't say there's not a problem because that's the way fantasy football works. Quite the opposite, actually. I've been playing a long time, and back in the day it was pretty standard in all leagues to have forced positional bench spots like you suggest. The industry as a whole has obviously moved away from that model because it wasn't that great. I'm still in one league that's been around forever, and still uses them because the guys in this league are extremely reluctant to make any substantial changes, and it blows. Trust me. It just creates an inefficient market.

Was the league you played in all positional spots? I wouldn't like that and never suggested it. If this was not the case, I'm still not sure what was so bad about it. I'll trust you that it was bad, but you haven't made any sort of argument about why it was bad other than to say it was inefficient, whatever that means.

Besides, it's absurd to demand that I have to prove that there isn't a problem to be solved. On the contrary, if you want to make changes you need to demonstrate that there's actually a problem and that your method solves it, and you haven't done that.

I mean, you don't have to take my word for it. It's not a novel idea, you can certainly find leagues that use them and try it for yourself.

I demonstrated quite clearly that there's a problem and I posited a reasonable solution, giving reasons why I thought it would help balance out the waiver market for positions. If you don't think that positional disparity is an issue than you're right that there's no reason for a solution. The game is much more interesting and the strategy more complex when the positions are roughly equivalent, however. I suppose you could make a league where rushing TDs were the only thing that scored any points, but it would be much less interesting because only RBs would get drafted. Similarly any gross disparity between positions will simplify the strategy and make the game less interesting.There is currently such a disparity between QB/TE and RB/WR. The exact same disparity existed between RB and WR and caused 3 WR leagues to become much more popular. It was evident that a lot of solid WR options were sitting on the wire or sitting on peoples benches and it made the game less interesting, since you could always go to the wire or your bench and plug in a solid WR. The reason why 3 WR makes sense as a solution to this is due to the typical league size and how many significant WR contributors there are in the league.

Starting 2 QBs or 2 TEs has not caught on nearly as much, however, because doing so means the waiver is bone dry. Positional bench spots, say 1 each of QB and TE, seem like an elegant and easily instituted solution to this problem. It would also encourage more trading in these positions, which is generally viewed as a positive.

Limiting one's options on how to run THEIR team is usually a bad idea.

Crappy RB's are owned because they take up two starting spots(sometimes three).

You need the flexibility at the RB-WR spot for injuries and match ups.

Why would I need to carry more than two QB's? Why force me to carry more then one

after his bye week? If my starting QB goes done, my team is probably toast anyway.

This idea has come and gone, hopefully the "can't cut" rule follows.

How you run your team is already limited by the bench size, the positional starting requirements, the league rules on waiver pickups, etc.So you can flex RBs in most leagues, what's you point?

No flexibility need be taken away. Positional spots could be added to the already existing general spots.

You certainly don't have to carry more than 2 QBs. As I made clear this only makes sense for 1 QB leagues, so the 2nd QB would sit in the QB bench spot. But you're certainly free to pick up more than 2 if you'd like.

You don't have to carry more than one after a bye. The spot can sit open, no one's forcing you to use it.

The can't cut rule is in the same vein as owner voting to approve trades. In a perfect world we wouldn't need it, and if you play in a good league you probably don't have it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist as an option.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

#### that.

You cant start dictating other peoples rosters.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Nice try Hitler.

 

[Quibbler]

This is motivated by my thoughts on QBs and TEs in standard leagues. Assuming 1 QB starting, 12 teams, and a "normal" sized bench there's usually way too much talent on the waiver wire. In my leagues there are usually pretty solid starting (irl) QBs sitting on the waiver because nobody needs them.

See, I don't see this as necessarily a problem. If anything, I'd say it improves the balance between the positions. With RB and WR there are always waiver wire gems to be found during the season (Cecil Shorts, Bryce Brown, etc.). That's not the case with QB. But there are always decent-enough QBs on waivers to see you through a bye or an injury. IMO, that ready supply of ok replacements helps "balance out" the lack of real waiver wire gems at the position.

 

[hal9000]

dumb

 

[Johnny Blood]

You certainly haven't convinced me that there is a problem. But for the sake of argument let's grant that there is a problem.

Now if you're talking about taking an existing league and transforming existing general bench spots into positional spots, then you could make the argument that something is being taken away from you. But I never suggested this, and would be against this if it was suggested for my leagues. What I would do is add an additional bench spot (or spots) that are positional.

The problem will be either unaffected or exacerbated because you've guaranteed that even more non-QB players will be held than would be without this rule.Let X = the # of non-starting QBs that would be owned without your policy. Let Y = the # of non-starting QBs that will be on fantasy rosters with your policy. You say Y>X. Let Z = Y-X.

Since the increase in the number of owned QBs is allocated to "extra" bench spots, Z will be represented on the "regular" bench spots by a bunch of running backs (and a few WRs) that would otherwise be on waivers. So QB got thinner, but so did RB. So now we need another bench spot rule to fix this fresh disparity "problem."

 

[Saint]

Why would i tell you what players you have to keep on your bench? Dumb. The key as an owner is to manage your team. Personally, if you draft well, then you are only picking up guys that are breaking out because you managed your depth by having a good draft.

 

[Quibbler]

The only position I'd consider this sort of rule for is kicker. Nobody in their right mind carries a backup except (maybe) for bye weeks, so you wouldn't screw with balance in the manner Johnny Blood outlined (an analysis I agree with completely). Also requiring every team to have 2 kickers would stop the sort of shenanigans where I drop my kicker at the beginning of a week, then use that spot to pick up a speculative FA, then drop someone for a kicker on gameday.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

I think having a certain number of bench spots dedicated to certain positions would help fix some problems in current common league formats.

Let owners run their team the way they see fit. No need for Communism leagues.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I think having a certain number of bench spots dedicated to certain positions would help fix some problems in current common league formats.

Let owners run their team the way they see fit. No need for Communism Fascist leagues.

Fixed.

 

[Chachi]

The Chachinator is not a fan of Fascism or Communism.

 

[PACKER 7]

I don't quite get the OP's point, but in our league we have a rule similar to dedicated bench spots.

Our rule is you cannot have more than 2 bench spots for any starting position.

12 team, auction, contract keeper league:

Starting Roster:

QB, 2 WR, 2 RB, 1 TE, 1 Flex (W/R/T), K, D

So you can only have 3 total QBs, 4 total WRs, 4 total RBs, 3 total TEs, Ks, & Ds

The reason we made this rule was so that teams could keep balance more and keep teams from hoarding certain positions.

It's worked well so far.

You really have to manage your bench spots and can't keep injured players hanging around in most cases.

I'm not saying this is the best way, but we've used it for the last 16 years.

 

[ratbast]

I play in a league that still uses this type of format. We are changing it.

If you open up the bench, you can trade from strength with better compatibility.

Roster management has more strategy... if you have 4 great RBs you dont need many more, but if you dont have 4 good ones you can go 8 deep or so.

Hopefully you strike gold with a p/u, a p/u that wouldn't happen for your squad of you were restricted to 4 or so.

 

[PACKER 7]

I play in a league that still uses this type of format. We are changing it.If you open up the bench, you can trade from strength with better compatibility.Roster management has more strategy... if you have 4 great RBs you dont need many more, but if you dont have 4 good ones you can go 8 deep or so.Hopefully you strike gold with a p/u, a p/u that wouldn't happen for your squad of you were restricted to 4 or so.

Ah yes.... trading is a real pain in the backside sometimes because you are limited in how you trade due to the roster requirements.I should also have said I'm looking to ask our league to change the bench requirements to be more flexible next year to promote more trading.