This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Every season, there are 32 starting NFL QBs. Thanks to RBBC, there are about 42-48 starting RBs. There are 64 starting WRs.In a 12 team league that starts 1 QB, that means that 12/32, or 37.5% of starting QBs are used.In a 12 team league that starts 2 RBs, that means that 24/48, or 50% of the starting RBs are used.In a 12 team league that starts 2 WRs, that means that 24/64, or 37.5% of starting WRs are used.There's the reason, in a nutshell, why starting RBs are worth so much more than starters at other positions. Increase WRs to 3 per team and suddenly you're starting 56.25% of starting WRs, which should go a long way towards bringing their value more back in line with reality.Actually, the best starting setup for a 12-team league that I've ever heard of is as follows:1 QB2 RBs1 QB/RB Flex3 WRs1 TE1 DefenseThe beauty of that is that most QBs outscore 3rd-tier RBs, which means that you'll be starting around 20 QBs a week (62.5%), but unlike a true start-2-QB league, teams that only end up with 2 QBs aren't totally screwed on bye weeks (since they can start an RB, instead). If you want, you can also feel free to add a WR/TE flex to the mix, too.
In my opinion the more starting players the better. When you have more starters it weeds out the "casual" FF owners from the "hard core" owners. Everybody can draft from a website's list and get a decent team, especially when you only have a few starting players and a small overall roster. However, when you have to dig really deep to find the diamond in the rough that's when the hard core FF owner shines. I'm in a 12 team 3 keeper leagues with a 21 man roster and a 10 team Dynasty league with a 40 man roster.In the 12 team league we start 2 QB, 2 RBs, 4 WRs, a K and a D.In the 10 team league we start 2 QB, 2 RBs, 4 WRs, K, Team D, 2 LB, 2 DL and 2 DB (I'm trying to up these to 3 each)I LOVE both of these leagues, you really need to do some research to find quality starters. I am obviously recommending you to expand your WR starters, and while you are at it you should do the same for your RBs and QBs.
In my 12 man league where we must start 2 QBs and yes some teams get screwed on by weeks. But that's part of the strategy on draft day. Make sure you cover your collective QB ### and get 3 of them early.Side note, We had a similar idea about flexing the 2nd QB but it was with a TE not RB. That way you don't get a 0 from that position when your 2nd QB is on a bye but you also don't get to sub Fred Tayor or A. Green (who are typical #3 RBs this year, and could put up huge numbers on any given week). I really like this idea but it got voted down....now those teams with only 2 QBs still get zero's on their bye weeks.
You are right, it would be too RB heavy. That's why you need to add a 2nd RB AND a 2nd QB. That way the QB and RB value are still very close to equal.Having the option to start just 1 RB seems lame to me. When everybody has to start only 1 RB then everybody has a superstar and that's doesn't sound like fun.
Totally disagree. When you have to choose between HOU'S 4th WR or TEN's 4th WR, you're counting more on luck because nobody has a freakin clue what they will do. (exaggerated example obviously, but you see my point) PS and oh btw smaller rosters are harder, not easier, because you have less of a luxury of stockpiling players and have to make some tough choices on who to draft/keep.That all said, I don't think starting 3 WRs is "dumb," just not a fan.Dumb is starting 2 QBs, IMO.
I don't disagree that you can't throw darts in a 12 team and get a great team; however, with 32 real life teams w/2 starting WR per team, I think there are plenty of good, starting WRs to go around in a 3WR 12 team league.I just feel that adding that 3rd WR provides some depth and additional challenge, whereas with a 2 WR setup everybody pretty much fields a couple of top 20 WRs
Totally disagree. When you have to choose between HOU'S 4th WR or TEN's 4th WR, you're counting more on luck because nobody has a freakin clue what they will do. (exaggerated example obviously, but you see my point) PS and oh btw smaller rosters are harder, not easier, because you have less of a luxury of stockpiling players and have to make some tough choices on who to draft/keep.That all said, I don't think starting 3 WRs is "dumb," just not a fan.Dumb is starting 2 QBs, IMO.
OUr league added QB's to the flex position last year (1 qb, 2 rb, 2 wr, 1 te, 1 flex). While some teams were slow to realize a qb in the flex was better than most #3 rb's, by this year's draft it was clear almost everyone was on board. QB's actually went as fast as RB's for the first time ever. Made things a lot more interesting and less predictable.
I think starting more players benefits the better owners. We start 3 WRs in a 12 teamer. Last year I took TO and Harrison early. Because I follow these boards and do research, I took Colston late in our draft. This allowed me to play TO, Harrison, and Colston every week while the casual owners were struggling to find a decent option and starting guys like Matt Jones or Amani Toomer.
Totally disagree. When you have to choose between HOU'S 4th WR or TEN's 4th WR, you're counting more on luck because nobody has a freakin clue what they will do. (exaggerated example obviously, but you see my point) PS and oh btw smaller rosters are harder, not easier, because you have less of a luxury of stockpiling players and have to make some tough choices on who to draft/keep.
I agree with this. The best way of creating some value equity for the Wr position is requiring teams to start 3 of them imho. This deepens the baseline as well as causes more position scarcity at WR. This is still realistic when one considers that NFL teams often use multiple WR sets.
I like the QB flex option and I would like to see that incorporated in leagues I play in to balance the position scarcity for QBs to be in line with the other positions without forcing teams to start 2 QB. I think the flex should still be open to WR and TE even though in most cases that would not be an ideal lineup with QB and Rb options as well. The 3 WR requirement will still carry WR value pretty well just not as much from the flex position in this case.
That's what I'm thinking.I'm starting a 10 team league (a few open spots left btw) using the following starting lineup because I was tired of everyone having stacked rosters and I wanted to see how it would shake out using a higher percentage of the nfl weekly starters.
Mine has 32 (each player available 2x) and usually start 4 although flex allows 3-5. I also love it. It makes it so that after the elite RBs, WRs are king.I started a 14 team redraft this year with 2 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 2 RB/WR, 2 WR/TE, 1 K and 1 DEF. So almost everyone will start at least 4 WRs. I think I'll enjoy it.
this is jst wrong imo...forcing a zero on teams is just not right no matter the situation.. starting two QBs is way away for the real game..if anythign a flex QB/RB/WR should be sued
We start 1 QB, 2 RB, 1 QB/RB flex which is normally a QB. 4 WR, 2 TE, and a flex WR/TE that is a WR more often than not, though we do some some 3rd TE used especially on bye weeks.Moving from 2 to 3 is like, not even hardly a change, don't see why anyone would be against it.
My experience tells me this isn't even close to the case. First you have the case where even in good leagues you see owners who don't wisely use their roster spots. Can't count the number of times I see teams using a roster spot on a backup IDP or a decent TE they just can't bring themselves to drop when there are sleepers with some realistic chance of seeing playing time at a skill position out there. Knowing what available players at what positions will bring you the most value is a big part of skill, and I think you underestimate just how often people blow it.Second, in my leagues which have large rosters, I find that a small group of owners frequently get a large percentage of the true sleepers. I don't mean Drew Brees who everyone knew could be good but had injury questions, and I don't mean Boldin who is sitting on waivers until he has his monster first game, or Michael Turner who is an obvious possible stud in waiting. I mean guys who showed something in camp or even in college, that astute people noticed. Guys like Samkon Gado, Chris Taylor, Mike Bell, Cedric Houston, who were in positions where they had a better chance to at least get a crack at a starting job than others. There's a wealth of 3rd and 4th RBs out there that anyone can pick up if they have the roster space, yet I find when you have enough space to target those guys, the same owners always seem to come out ahead more than the others.
