Flex Players: How they screw up your draft desicisons! (1 Viewer)

[Gatorman]

Okay,

We talked About Taking a TE early: Here

We talked about Quarterbacks early:Here

We Talked About Running Backs and RBBC:Here

We Talked About Wide Receivers and the myth of the "deep pool":Here

Now we trun our attention to the flex...

The Flex position has always been a pet peeve of mine, because it shouldn't matter as much as it does. It seems to trip me up in deciding every year how "important" my flex player should be..

When we really talk flex, we are usually talking about RB/WR/TE, and for purposes of this discussion we will keep it there.

So, how do we approach the flex?

FBG has a formula in the VBD that makes an adjustment, and it leaves a lot to be desired.

There are many different flex systems, so let me get them out of the way, even though I do not want to focus on the system but rather the position of "flex"

In my league we do what we call a "pro system flex" meaning any pro offensive set can be used in a flex: 2RB/3WR (pro set), 1RB/4WR (Run and Shoot), or 0 RB/ 5 WR (the spread)... This system has one major issue: It really affects trading in our league (in a bad way). I actually got rid of the spread as a commish in the hope it would facilitate trades (it didn't), so now I put the spread back and just make sure I get guys who are active traders into my league when the non traders leave. We have no wishbone, b/c that is a college set (even though some teams use it)

Other Systems: The usual: a 1QB 2 RB 2 WR 1 TE 1 FLex system

The Wishbone 1QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 Flex, 1 TE

The WCOFF system: 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE 1 Flex

Now that We are done with that:How do you look at flex:

1) It is just a backup position; ie, I will just plug one of my backups into the flex spot and be done with it

2) It is adding another RB. They score the most consistantly, so if I can put a RB there, cool

3) It is a WR position: As the draft goes on, WRs catch up to RBs in terms of points scored, so I look to hit on a later WR and he gets my flex spot

4) I will grab 2 stud TEs. This takes away from the overall position, and the flex lets me start them both

I have drafted or seen all of the above ideas done in league I have been in. I was in the camp of #3 RB forever, but I have leaned to the idea in deep leagues (14+ or WCOFF style start 6 rather than 5) that having the WR position there is better b/c running back scarcity really screws the flex pooch. Still I have also hit on late round backs (Bettis 2 years ago, travis henry last year) who became solid #3 Backs for me.

I would like flex opinions. None of these approaches are correct or wrong. However, I think having a handle on flex as a position vs. from the tweak to the FBG formula is the key to successful drafting.

I think the best thing to do here is to look at the guy you take to back up your top 2 RBs and Top 3 WRs as a 1/2 a flex person each. I don't think this is the perfect approach, but lets hear everyone elses...

Have at it.

Gator

 

[fsufan]

2) It is adding another RB. They score the most consistantly, so if I can put a RB there, cool

I would rather start a RB that is in a RBBC situation in the flex over a #2 or #3 WR all the time

 

[Uruk-Hai]

2) It is adding another RB. They score the most consistantly, so if I can put a RB there, cool

I would rather start a RB that is in a RBBC situation in the flex over a #2 or #3 WR all the time

Depends on your scoring. If it's a ppr league for WRs, the 40th WR may be a better play than a part time RB.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I've always felt that WHEN I draft my flex player is much more important than the position. Speaking strictly from personal experience, I've noticed a tendency in my opponents to draft a full roster of skill positions (ex: 1QB, 2RB, 3WR) before looking at taking the flex.

I thinks that's a huge mistake. People make the mistake by viewing flex as "my additional player" or "my fill-in player". This guy will be in your lineup just as much as the rest of your team - and he's no less important than every other starter on your squad. My goal in re-draft is to capitalize on that by addressing my flex a full 2-3 selections BEFORE rounding out the rest of my starters.

For example:

I may go RB, WR, QB, RB, RB or...

RB, RB, WR, RB, WR, WR

While everyone else is getting the likes of Doug Gabriel or Cleo Lemon as a flex I addressed it LONG ago (typically with a 4th/5th round RB). I've then gained some very nice expected value at flex over my opponents. With this method my re-draft fantasy seasons generally hinge upon my ability to peg 7th-10th round WR's that will hold their own for me as #2 and #3 WR's (which is just how I want it).

I'd highly encourage you to try this method this season if you haven't done so. Getting a flex player that could be most teams #2 RB (and some teams #1 if things pan out) make the playoffs almost a given.

 

[Driver]

Consider 3 different types of leagues (all 12 teams, 4 pts for passing TDs, 6 pts others, other scoring regular):

League 1 (RB-heavy) - non-ppr, starters = QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, TE, flex (RB/WR/TE), D, K

League 2 (WR-heavy) - ppr, starters = QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, TE, flex (RB/WR/TE), D, K

League 3 (TE-heavy) - 0 ppr for RB, 1 ppr for WR, 2 ppr for TE, starters = QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, TE, flex (RB/WR/TE), D, K

In Leagues 1, 2 and 3, treat the flex as RB, WR, TE, respectively. In League 1, your need 3 good RB starters plus a decnt back-up. In League 2, draft like you need a very strong WR corps to cover 4 starting WR positions. In League 3, consider drafting 2 very good TEs early and use the 2nd TE to cover the flex. Of course, in all leagues, the objective is to draft a team with good balance and depth at all positions.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

1 pt/rec for WR/TE in my league. Makes the flex WR/RB a no brainer.

 

[Driver]

I've always felt that WHEN I draft my flex player is much more important than the position. Speaking strictly from personal experience, I've noticed a tendency in my opponents to draft a full roster of skill positions (ex: 1QB, 2RB, 3WR) before looking at taking the flex.

I thinks that's a huge mistake. People make the mistake by viewing flex as "my additional player" or "my fill-in player". This guy will be in your lineup just as much as the rest of your team - and he's no less important than every other starter on your squad. My goal in re-draft is to capitalize on that by addressing my flex a full 2-3 selections BEFORE rounding out the rest of my starters.

For example:

I may go RB, WR, QB, RB, RB or...

RB, RB, WR, RB, WR, WR

While everyone else is getting the likes of Doug Gabriel or Cleo Lemon as a flex I addressed it LONG ago (typically with a 4th/5th round RB). I've then gained some very nice expected value at flex over my opponents. With this method my re-draft fantasy seasons generally hinge upon my ability to peg 7th-10th round WR's that will hold their own for me as #2 and #3 WR's (which is just how I want it).

I'd highly encourage you to try this method this season if you haven't done so. Getting a flex player that could be most teams #2 RB (and some teams #1 if things pan out) make the playoffs almost a given.

I agree with the bolded part above 100%. Basically, the way you should draft depends on the type of league. If it's a RB-heavy league, you need to draft to develop a strong RB corps, and then cover the flex position with a RB. If it's a WR-heavy league, then go RB-WR_RB-WR-WR_RB (or QB)-WR and then fill-in the other starting positions.

 

[David Yudkin]

I generally plan on taking the highest scoring player from the highest scoring position and using that as a regular fixed starting player rather than a true flex. For example, if I'm in a 2 PPR league for TE with a flex, I can all but gurantee that I will draft two TEs early and start both of them. Similar philospohy for other leagues, but that may mean drafting another RB early. If during the season I don't see a clear guy to start regularly, then I'd open it up to including a WR, but for the most part on draft day it's hard to plan on drafting more top WRs as in most of my leagues we start a minimum of 3 so the "extra guy" would have to be pretty far down the food chain. If I did hit on a top producing late in the draft then he'd be a flex option, but in terms of changing a draft strategy adding more WRs would not normally come into play in my case.

 

[crnerblitz]

I've actually looked at the flex player’s position as a metric for success as defined by making the playoffs and more importantly winning the championship. I looked at 10 random leagues, yes it is a small sample size but I think my conclusion was correct.

I looked at the standard 2rb, 2wr, 1 te and 1 flex. Then looking to see what positional player was the highest scoring 6th player. If he was a RB then I designated the RB as the flex for that team. If he was a wr then so on and so forth for each team that made the playoffs and that won the championship.

My rough data showed that more playoff teams had a flex Wr, but the more successful teams had a flex RB though this was a small margin. I then looked at each teams makeup to formulate my own opinion of the data.

My conclusion is that what position your flex player is at is not nearly as significant as Who your flex player is. Having a successful flex RB could mean you go further into the playoff but I don’t think so. I think it works in tandem with Stud RB theory to become just a permutation of said theory.

 

[Gatorman]

For the sake of argument, let's take the WCOFF as a starting point for the discussion. I do this because it also takes into account larger leagues (14+ teams).

In WCOFF, you are dealing with a ppr for all positions, so the RBs do well here as well. The intersting thing, however, is once you are about 30 players deep in the draft the WR and RB total point projections are about equal, so while at first glance you could say "RBs are better" the truth is that the right WR will score with him and in some cases outscore him over the long term of a season.

Also, while some people play matchups at RB, most of us do not have that luxury because you always "start your studs" WRs in the flex sometimes may be better b/c it "normalizes" the variance in WR scoring.

Usually one WR will be "held down" in a game, even if he is a stud. Having 3 starters helps lower the variance. 4 lowers it even more.

While I haven't analized the WCOFF winners, I know that one of the "best players in FF" (Z man) is a big proponent of 4 WRs.

 

[Gatorman]

shameless bump for the monday crowd.

 

[corpcow]

As a VBD disciple, I love flex because it gives you a better chance to draft the BPA and actually PLAY him. I mean, I always am going to draft what I think is the best value (bucking trends with their other picks, and ignoring for the most ppart my current roster), but it's nice when you can actually score those points instead of just sitting him on your bench.

 

[corpcow]

I've actually looked at the flex player’s position as a metric for success as defined by making the playoffs and more importantly winning the championship. I looked at 10 random leagues, yes it is a small sample size but I think my conclusion was correct.I looked at the standard 2rb, 2wr, 1 te and 1 flex. Then looking to see what positional player was the highest scoring 6th player. If he was a RB then I designated the RB as the flex for that team. If he was a wr then so on and so forth for each team that made the playoffs and that won the championship.My rough data showed that more playoff teams had a flex Wr, but the more successful teams had a flex RB though this was a small margin. I then looked at each teams makeup to formulate my own opinion of the data.My conclusion is that what position your flex player is at is not nearly as significant as Who your flex player is. Having a successful flex RB could mean you go further into the playoff but I don’t think so. I think it works in tandem with Stud RB theory to become just a permutation of said theory.

Right... I think this is in line with the idea that RBs are (relatively) more consistent in their scoring than WRs. I don't have time to actually crunch numbers right now, but I just have the feeling that there is typically more variance week-to-week with WRs than RBS, particularly outside of the top x at each position. I mean, think of it this way. Even the "2nd" RB in most RBBCs is likely to have 10-12 carries per game, whereas many *WR1s* are lucky to have 10 targets. Obviously, yards per catch for a WR are typically going to be a lot higher than yards per carry for a RB... but with less targets and the potential for dropped passes, it's just more likely to be volatile.I think this same logic applies to the low end vs. high end at flex. If you have two guys who scored 160 pts for the season, you're better off having the RB there who put up more consistent numbers on a game-to-game basis as opposed to the WR who might have gotten you nothing - especially if that happened to be a playoff week.Obviously, the analysis changes slightly when you're talking about a possession receiver, or a RB who gets relatively few carries but lots of TDS (and is thus scoring less when he doesn't score a TD).Just my unscientific thoughts on it.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I've actually looked at the flex player’s position as a metric for success as defined by making the playoffs and more importantly winning the championship. I looked at 10 random leagues, yes it is a small sample size but I think my conclusion was correct.

I looked at the standard 2rb, 2wr, 1 te and 1 flex. Then looking to see what positional player was the highest scoring 6th player. If he was a RB then I designated the RB as the flex for that team. If he was a wr then so on and so forth for each team that made the playoffs and that won the championship.

My rough data showed that more playoff teams had a flex Wr, but the more successful teams had a flex RB though this was a small margin. I then looked at each teams makeup to formulate my own opinion of the data.

My conclusion is that what position your flex player is at is not nearly as significant as Who your flex player is. Having a successful flex RB could mean you go further into the playoff but I don’t think so. I think it works in tandem with Stud RB theory to become just a permutation of said theory.

Right... I think this is in line with the idea that RBs are (relatively) more consistent in their scoring than WRs. I don't have time to actually crunch numbers right now, but I just have the feeling that there is typically more variance week-to-week with WRs than RBS, particularly outside of the top x at each position. I mean, think of it this way. Even the "2nd" RB in most RBBCs is likely to have 10-12 carries per game, whereas many *WR1s* are lucky to have 10 targets. Obviously, yards per catch for a WR are typically going to be a lot higher than yards per carry for a RB... but with less targets and the potential for dropped passes, it's just more likely to be volatile.

I think this same logic applies to the low end vs. high end at flex. If you have two guys who scored 160 pts for the season, you're better off having the RB there who put up more consistent numbers on a game-to-game basis as opposed to the WR who might have gotten you nothing - especially if that happened to be a playoff week.

Obviously, the analysis changes slightly when you're talking about a possession receiver, or a RB who gets relatively few carries but lots of TDS (and is thus scoring less when he doesn't score a TD).

Just my unscientific thoughts on it.

Why do we talk about volatility like it's a 4 letter word? Volatility is your friend.If you were to tell me that 2 players would score exactly 150 pts each over the coarse of a season but:

Player A was more consistent: His high weekly score for the year will be 16 pts and his low weekly score will be 7 pts.

Player B is all over the place: three 25+ pt. week as well as a few gooseggs.

Give me player B any day of the week. You're more likely to take home high weekly-score $ with that guy and he might be solely responsible for a bye week win or two on his own. Yes, the downfall if that he could cost you a week here and there as well - but all else being equal - volatility is not something to avoid.

 

[radballs]

For the sake of argument, let's take the WCOFF as a starting point for the discussion. I do this because it also takes into account larger leagues (14+ teams).In WCOFF, you are dealing with a ppr for all positions, so the RBs do well here as well. The intersting thing, however, is once you are about 30 players deep in the draft the WR and RB total point projections are about equal, so while at first glance you could say "RBs are better" the truth is that the right WR will score with him and in some cases outscore him over the long term of a season.Also, while some people play matchups at RB, most of us do not have that luxury because you always "start your studs" WRs in the flex sometimes may be better b/c it "normalizes" the variance in WR scoring.Usually one WR will be "held down" in a game, even if he is a stud. Having 3 starters helps lower the variance. 4 lowers it even more.While I haven't analized the WCOFF winners, I know that one of the "best players in FF" (Z man) is a big proponent of 4 WRs.

Keeping it to the WCOFF format, I'm a big proponent of planning on starting 2 RBs and 4 WRs on a weekly basis. My first year in the event four years ago, I thought the best strategy was to focus on trying to start 3 RBs every week. But, to do that you need to take RBs with 3 of your first 4 picks or at least 3 of your first 5. And when you do that, your WRs are very likely to be extremely weak. Now, I feel that you should have 2 WRs after four rounds and 3 WRs after five unless incredible RB value falls to you. Just looking at worst starter VBD baselines, if there was no flex (start 2 RBs and 3 WRs) then the RB baseline would be RB24 and the WR baseline would be WR36. With the flex, you need to spread those additional 12 spots across both the RB and WR positions. If you split them evenly, then your baseline is RB30 and WR42. The problem here is WR42 is generally more valuable than RB30 in this scoring format. I generally just tweak these baselines and only assign 4 of those 12 spots to RB and the rest to WR. My baselines usually end up around RB28 and WR44. WCOFF is very heavily favored toward WR after the first 20 RBs are off the board. Imo, most mistakes are made in that league when people aim to draft according to a desire to start 3 RBs regularly throughout the season. You'll end up being too far behind the WR curve.One thing I will say though is that, if your goal is to just win your 12 man league in the event, a slightly RB favored strategy can be successful in hedging yourself against injuries and bye weeks in H2H weekly matchups. So, if you're trying to get into your league's championship game via H2H wins, then a RB heavy strategy can work. But, if your goal is to put together the best team possible that will have a shot at the big money and the path you take is to outscore everyone else in your league to get to the championship game, then you need to take WRs early and often to do it.

 

[GregR_2]

...

Right... I think this is in line with the idea that RBs are (relatively) more consistent in their scoring than WRs. I don't have time to actually crunch numbers right now, but I just have the feeling that there is typically more variance week-to-week with WRs than RBS, particularly outside of the top x at each position.

I don't think that is a stance that we should take unless we do a study with real numbers to confirm it. Shick! took a look at whether RBs or WRs were more consistent in his Standard Deviation article from a few years ago. He found that the top RBs weren't more consistent than WRs, they both had the same spread of expected values, but the RBs just scored more.Now he was dealing with the top 10 in each position, and in this topic we're dealing largely with players who are backups in a non-flex league. I'd be hesitant to apply Shick's results to this topic to definitively say that RBs and WRs in the flex part of the positional curve are equally consistent. But what we should apply is skepticism that the conventional wisdom on consistency is correct for players in the flex area since it's already been shown the similar conventional wisdom was wrong for the top guys.

 

[GregR_2]

So, how do we approach the flex?

I don't think the flex position changes anything about the way that people should make their draft decisions. It has the effect of giving more flexibility which may also add more complexity, but the overall procedure should be the same.At every pick you should be envisioning the different ways that the rest of your draft can unfold based on a given decision right now. By that I mean you should have an idea "if I pick a RB now, my most likely final lineup will be something like this", and preferably also having an idea for a worst and best case for that same decision. Part of that is where you work in the risk that certain guys you are targetting might not be there.

You should already have gone through enough mock drafts on your own to realize things like "If I take a QB now then it has the following affect on the other positions in later rounds, such as having to scramble earlier for backup RBs before the guys I'm sure will get carries are gone."

So to me the steps are exactly the same with a flex. I still need to map out the team I'll get based on the decisions facing me now, and decide which team overall is better when you take into account scoring, risk, upside, etc. The only difference is there are more ways that things could go in that I could draft a 3rd RB early and start him.

I don't really advocate any particular system year after year. I think people should prepare for a draft by putting themselves through the type of tough decisions they're likely to face given their draft position and the current crop of players. It is going to change from one year to the next what strategy is right for that particular team.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

From your 4 approaches, I go with number 2. However, I don't look at it as though I HAVE to start an RB there (as though its 0 flex and start 3 RB rather than 1 flex and start 2 RB). I guess I look at it as a combination of 1 and 2. I'd prefer to start an RB there, so I try to grab a 3rd RB. If I can't, or if the value at WR or QB grossly outweighs the value of RBs left (ie Steve Smith and Cadillac are both left) then I don't have a problem taking other needs first.

 

[corpcow]

Why do we talk about volatility like it's a 4 letter word? Volatility is your friend.

If you were to tell me that 2 players would score exactly 150 pts each over the coarse of a season but:

Player A was more consistent: His high weekly score for the year will be 16 pts and his low weekly score will be 7 pts.

Player B is all over the place: three 25+ pt. week as well as a few gooseggs.

Give me player B any day of the week. You're more likely to take home high weekly-score $ with that guy and he might be solely responsible for a bye week win or two on his own. Yes, the downfall if that he could cost you a week here and there as well - but all else being equal - volatility is not something to avoid.

I'm not saying you should "avoid" volatility, but rather that volatility is everywhere and thus there's value to be found in consistency, which is typically the reason RBs are preferred over WRs in flex. If he wins you a game or two single-handedly but costs you a few games for putting up nothing or next to nothing, isn't that a zero sum game? If you don't play in a league with weekly high-score payouts, that doesn't help you.

Volatility may not be the enemy, but it's not your friend either.

 

[corpcow]

I don't think that is a stance that we should take unless we do a study with real numbers to confirm it. Shick! took a look at whether RBs or WRs were more consistent in his Standard Deviation article from a few years ago. He found that the top RBs weren't more consistent than WRs, they both had the same spread of expected values, but the RBs just scored more.

Now he was dealing with the top 10 in each position, and in this topic we're dealing largely with players who are backups in a non-flex league. I'd be hesitant to apply Shick's results to this topic to definitively say that RBs and WRs in the flex part of the positional curve are equally consistent. But what we should apply is skepticism that the conventional wisdom on consistency is correct for players in the flex area since it's already been shown the similar conventional wisdom was wrong for the top guys.

Fair enough, as I said I didn't crunch the numbers but I do think the opportunities factor in. Also, a lot has changed since 2000, particularly the rise of RBBC, so I'd be interested to see how that plays out with last yr's stats. That said, I do expect WR1s to be more consistent because, again, they're going to be more central to the offense. I think we'll find the standard deviation is greater as we move out of the top 10-20.

 

[greggorymac]

If you're not taking advantage of the Flex position by starting a 3rd RB, then you're silly. I usually draft RB-RB, and if Gates or one of the top6 Wrs are not there in the 3rd round, then I go RB with my third pick and then draft a WR by default in the 4th round.

Ofcourse this isn't a set in stone rule (and I may draft differently based on whom falls to me), but that's my general trend.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Why do we talk about volatility like it's a 4 letter word? Volatility is your friend.

If you were to tell me that 2 players would score exactly 150 pts each over the coarse of a season but:

Player A was more consistent: His high weekly score for the year will be 16 pts and his low weekly score will be 7 pts.

Player B is all over the place: three 25+ pt. week as well as a few gooseggs.

Give me player B any day of the week. You're more likely to take home high weekly-score $ with that guy and he might be solely responsible for a bye week win or two on his own. Yes, the downfall if that he could cost you a week here and there as well - but all else being equal - volatility is not something to avoid.

I'm not saying you should "avoid" volatility, but rather that volatility is everywhere and thus there's value to be found in consistency, which is typically the reason RBs are preferred over WRs in flex. If he wins you a game or two single-handedly but costs you a few games for putting up nothing or next to nothing, isn't that a zero sum game? If you don't play in a league with weekly high-score payouts, that doesn't help you.

Volatility may not be the enemy, but it's not your friend either.

Absolutely right. If you're not playing in a league with weekly high scores, then volatility is not your friend. But I've never played in a league that doesn't have weekly high score $ and I doubt many people ever have. It's prety standard, so taking weekly high score money out of the equation isn't really applicable.

 

[GroveDiesel]

IMO, the flex position makes a utility like the Draft Dominator incredibly valuable. When you can recalculate values on the fly it can make a huge difference. By the time you hit the 4th or 5th round a static VBD sheet starts to lose value IMO. A utility like Draft Dominator lets you recalculate your sheets, find your dropoffs, project picks, etc. and really help you make that decision between WR and RB for flex.

 

[corpcow]

If you're not taking advantage of the Flex position by starting a 3rd RB, then you're silly. I usually draft RB-RB, and if Gates or one of the top6 Wrs are not there in the 3rd round, then I go RB with my third pick and then draft a WR by default in the 4th round.

Ofcourse this isn't a set in stone rule (and I may draft differently based on whom falls to me), but that's my general trend.

That's key in all of these discussions. It's about value. All things being equal, I obviously agree - RB should be preferred. But you're probably better off starting 3 of the top 20 WRs over reaching for a questionable RB3.

 

[corpcow]

Absolutely right. If you're not playing in a league with weekly high scores, then volatility is not your friend. But I've never played in a league that doesn't have weekly high score $ and I doubt many people ever have. It's prety standard, so taking weekly high score money out of the equation isn't really applicable.

Really?Only 1 of my 4 dynasty leagues have weekly payouts. In the many other leagues I've done over the years, only a handful of head-to-head leagues had weekly payouts, and only one of them was for a buyin less than $250. More often, it was either 1) the highest overall points leader (in which case volatility wouldn't factor in) or 2) the highest overall weekly score (i.e., not paid weekly, but the team that had the highest point total in any given week).I don't want to get too much off topic here, but from my experience weekly payouts are the exception rather than the norm, especially in leagues that aren't big money.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

Absolutely right. If you're not playing in a league with weekly high scores, then volatility is not your friend. But I've never played in a league that doesn't have weekly high score $ and I doubt many people ever have. It's prety standard, so taking weekly high score money out of the equation isn't really applicable.

Really?Only 1 of my 4 dynasty leagues have weekly payouts. In the many other leagues I've done over the years, only a handful of head-to-head leagues had weekly payouts, and only one of them was for a buyin less than $250. More often, it was either 1) the highest overall points leader (in which case volatility wouldn't factor in) or 2) the highest overall weekly score (i.e., not paid weekly, but the team that had the highest point total in any given week).I don't want to get too much off topic here, but from my experience weekly payouts are the exception rather than the norm, especially in leagues that aren't big money.

I've never played in a weekly payout fantasy league. Only a pool, but never in fantasy.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Absolutely right. If you're not playing in a league with weekly high scores, then volatility is not your friend. But I've never played in a league that doesn't have weekly high score $ and I doubt many people ever have. It's prety standard, so taking weekly high score money out of the equation isn't really applicable.

Really?Only 1 of my 4 dynasty leagues have weekly payouts. In the many other leagues I've done over the years, only a handful of head-to-head leagues had weekly payouts, and only one of them was for a buyin less than $250. More often, it was either 1) the highest overall points leader (in which case volatility wouldn't factor in) or 2) the highest overall weekly score (i.e., not paid weekly, but the team that had the highest point total in any given week).I don't want to get too much off topic here, but from my experience weekly payouts are the exception rather than the norm, especially in leagues that aren't big money.

I've never played in a weekly payout fantasy league. Only a pool, but never in fantasy.

I'm betting that's an enormous exception to the rule. But I have only played in $100+ leagues. Maybe no weekly payout is more common than I thought for <$100 leagues.

 

[stevegamer]

I don't draft "a guy" to be my flex. I figure I'm going to take the players I like to produce, and one or more of them will generally be good plays if I've drafted correctly.

To me, it's like saying "This guy is my WR3, or my RB2". Generally I have 2 guys who I feel can be competent RB2's, and maybe 3 guys who will fight for WR3. The losers amongst those weekly will populate the Flex.

One thing it does do, is allow interesting bye week solutions if you end up drafting more guys at a spot with the same bye week than you be normally comfortable with.

 

[Tiger Fan]

If you're not taking advantage of the Flex position by starting a 3rd RB, then you're silly. I usually draft RB-RB, and if Gates or one of the top6 Wrs are not there in the 3rd round, then I go RB with my third pick and then draft a WR by default in the 4th round.Ofcourse this isn't a set in stone rule (and I may draft differently based on whom falls to me), but that's my general trend.

assume you don't play PPR?

 

[-OZ-]

2) It is adding another RB. They score the most consistantly, so if I can put a RB there, cool

I would rather start a RB that is in a RBBC situation in the flex over a #2 or #3 WR all the time

I somewhat agree with this, but more so in a PPR league when the RB in the RBBC is a receiving threat. I had Reggie Bush as my flex in a PPR redraft least year - pure money.This year, I may look to Lorenzo Booker, Chris Henry, and a few other rookies who should go late in redrafts.

 

[JayMan]

I generally plan on taking the highest scoring player from the highest scoring position and using that as a regular fixed starting player rather than a true flex.

Use VBD to figure out who you should pick regardless of the starting requirements (i.e. if you need 2RBs + 2WRs + 1Flex... grab a 3rd RB before a 2nd WR for example) as long as you can have him in your starting lineup week-in week-out... and later on in the draft, look at your team, grab some depth (and starting possiblities) by looking at the best VBD guy from the position you need to fill (i.e. if you only have 3WRs and need to start 2 and can use 1 as Flex - grab a 4th WR there - injuries/byes/poor play will make that pick valuable)...